Practice Profile: Postsecondary Correctional Education (PSCE)

Postsecondary correctional education is academic or vocational coursework taken beyond a high school diploma or equivalent that allows inmates to earn credit while they are incarcerated. The practice is rated Promising in reducing recidivism (including reoffending, rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, and technical parole violation) for inmates who participated compared to nonparticipants.

Practice Goals

Postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) is academic or vocational coursework taken beyond a high school diploma or equivalent that allows inmates to earn credit while they are incarcerated. The credits earned from participating in PSCE may be applied toward an associate’s, bachelor’s, or graduate degree, depending on the program and participating higher education institution (Gorgol and Sponsler 2011; Davis et al. 2013). The goal of providing PSCE is to advance inmates’ educational attainment levels to improve their opportunities for employment following release from prison and reduce their odds of recidivating.

The 2005 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities found that 85 percent of all reporting facilities offered formal educational programs to inmates. Of these reporting facilities, only 35 percent provided college courses; however, this differed by facility type. For example, almost all federal correctional facilities (100 out of 102) reported providing college courses, but fewer than one third of state facilities provided college-level classes (Stephan 2008). Unfortunately, participation in the programs is not always high and may be decreasing. In 2004, 7.3 percent of state prison inmates participated in college classes. This is down from 1997, when 9.9 percent reported taking college courses, and down even further from 1991 when 13.9 percent participated in college-level classes (Harlow 2003; Crayton and Neusteter 2008). Participation may be waning because of lack of awareness or interest in such programs and/or reduced funding.

Target Population

To participate in PSCE, inmates must have obtained a high school diploma or general equivalency degree (GED) credential. Beyond that minimum requirement, state and federal correctional facilities have a variety of eligibility requirements that attempt to determine who is mostly likely to benefit from PSCE classes and can, therefore, participate. Some of the eligibility requirements may include time to release, the inmate’s age, current offense, scores on standardized tests, and any in-prison infractions.

Practice Theory

There are several obstacles that incarcerated adults must face upon their release from prison. For example, low levels of educational attainment, lack of a steady job history, and the stigma of a felony conviction can be serious barriers to finding employment once one is back in the community. The idea behind PSCE programs is to improve inmates’ employability and help them meet the demands of fast-evolving, technology-based industries by offering a variety of certificate-based and skill-oriented courses (Nally et al. 2012).

Practice Components

There are a variety of methods used by correctional facilities to deliver PSCE classes to participating inmates, such as onsite instruction, correspondence courses, and video/satellite instruction. Gorgol and Sponsler (2011) conducted a survey of correctional education administrators from 43 states and found that the most common method of program delivery was onsite, in-class instruction. To overcome some of the difficulties with providing onsite instruction (such as limited space for classes and security concerns), some of the state facilities used distance learning or correspondence courses. States were less likely to report using online or video/satellite instructional methods (almost all states prohibit use of the Internet by inmates).

Instruction for the courses may also vary by facility. A 2005 survey by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that 68 percent of PSCE courses offered in prisons were provided by community colleges. Only 16 percent of PSCE instruction was provided by public 4-year institutions; 10 percent was provided by 4-year private, nonprofit institutions; and 6 percent was provided by other types (such as private for-profit institutions) (Erisman and Contardo 2005).

The focus of PSCE can range from general, liberal arts courses to more job-specific courses. For example, coursework may be available in business, social and behavioral sciences, humanities, and computer science (Winterfield et al. 2009). More job-specific postsecondary courses, including some vocational training programs in various fields such bookkeeping, carpentry, and even coal mining, allow for inmates to earn certificates in those industries (Nally et al. 2012).

Davis and colleagues (2013) conducted a straightforward cost analysis using estimates of the costs of correctional education and of reincarceration. They estimated that the average annual cost of correctional education programs per inmate participant was between $1,400 and $1,744. The authors used a hypothetical sample of 100 inmates and assumed that correctional education would reduce reincarceration rates by 12.9 percentage points (based on the results from the meta-analysis). It was estimated that 3-year incarceration costs for those who did not receive correctional education would be between $2.94 million and $3.25 million. In comparison, the 3-year incarceration costs for those who did receive correctional education would be between $2.07 million and $2.28 million. This would mean the reincarceration costs are between $870,000 and $970,000 less for those who receive correctional education.

The federal Pell Grant program awards student aid for postsecondary education based on financial need. The grants were a major source of funding to pay for inmates to participate in postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) programs and receive credit without being heavily reliant on state or personal financing (Gorgol and Sponsler 2011). However, access to postsecondary education was severely limited with the passage of the Violent Crime Control Act in 1994. Inmates were no longer eligible for Pell entitlement grants beginning in the 1995–96 academic year (Tewksbury, Erickson, and Taylor 2000). Later, the passage of the Workforce and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Program (IYO) began providing funding for postsecondary academic and vocational education for youths who have been convicted of an offense. The IYO statute limited participation to PSCE programs to persons 25 or younger who had earned a high school diploma or GED certificate and were within 5 years of release (the age limit was raised to 35 with the passage of the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008). The IYO grants and successor programs are the most commonly used source of funding to support PSCE programming (Gorgol and Sponsler 2011). The 2008 passage of the Second Chance Act, designed to improve reentry of incarcerated individuals, also provided funding toward a wide range of educational programming, including PSCE programs. But many inmates still rely on paying for postsecondary coursework using their own money.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Meta Analysis 1

Wilson, David B., Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris Layton MacKenzie. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(4):347–68.

Meta Analysis 2

Chappell, Cathryn A. 2004. “Postsecondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis of Research Conducted 1990–99.” Journal of Correctional Education 55(2):148–69.

Meta Analysis 3

Davis, Lois M., Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders, and Jeremy N.V. Miles. 2013. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Crayton, Anna, and Suzanne Rebecca Neusteter. 2008. “The Current State of Correctional Education.” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable on Education. New York, N.Y.: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Prisoner Reentry Institute.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/pri_crayton_state_of_correctional_education.pdf

Davis, Lois M., Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams, Susan Turner, Jeremy N.V. Miles, Jessica Saunders, and Paul S. Steinberg. 2014. How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go From Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Rand Institute.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html

Erisman, Wendy, and Jeanne Bayer Contardo. 2005. Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Educational Policy . Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558210

Gorgol, Laura E., and Brian A. Sponsler. 2011. Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Postsecondary Education in State Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521128

Harlow, Caroline Wolf. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf

Nally, John M., Susan Lockwood, Katie Knutson, and Taiping Ho. 2012. “An Evaluation of the Effect of Correctional Education Programs on Postrelease Recidivism and Employment: An Empirical Study in Indiana.” Journal of Correctional Education 63(1):69–88.

Stephan, James J. 2008. Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005. National Prisoner Statistics Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csfcf05.pdf

Tewksbury, Richard, David John Erickson, and Jon Marc Taylor. 2000. “Opportunities Lost: The Consequences of Eliminating Pell Grant Eligibility for Correctional Education Students.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 31(1/2):43–56.

Winterfield, Laura, Mark Coggeshall, Michelle Burke-Storer, Vanessa Correa, and Simon Tidd. 2009. The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/effects-postsecondary-correctional-education

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Postsecondary Correctional Education (New Mexico)

College Program at Maryland Correctional Training Center (MCTC)

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?