In response to Joshua B.’s recent post Inside higher education The Catholic Prison Higher Education Consortium, a collaborative alliance between Catholic universities and corrections departments in 15 states across the country, joins other leaders in the field and is alarmed by the article’s misleading framing: a framing that not only runs counter to decades of established literature on the topic, but also runs counter to the study itself (which has not yet been published and has not been reviewed).
Because misleading titles and leads can have very real effects on those unfamiliar with the field, it is necessary to identify exactly what misrepresentations are in the article and to invite a fuller discussion about the known and proven benefits of higher education in prisons and the important questions the study raises about supervisory policy and technical violations.
Thus, the data analysis provides important information about the challenges faced by work-release students in prison education programs but does not present an argument against prison education programs—if any, calling for the “free and clear” release of these alumni. This is an issue for the Department of Commerce’s reentry and work release programs, not education, and should be treated as such.
The national evidence remains clear: A RAND Corporation meta-analysis still shows a 43 percent reduction in recidivism among those who participate in prison education, still the most comprehensive study in the field. Facilities with educational programs report a 75% reduction in violence among participants, improving safety for staff, educators and incarcerated individuals. Campbell and Lee also demonstrated improved employment outcomes for program participants. Employment is one of the strongest predictors of long-term cessation, so this in itself is a key success indicator.
It appears that not only the study’s authors, Joshua B. and Ihe Editors know all this. This is also suggested by the revision of the headline below the article’s main photo that reads like an article urging greater freedom for formerly incarcerated students: “Incarcerated individuals taking college courses are less likely to receive free and clear release and more likely to be assigned work release.” These points suggest that Grinnell’s findings are not evidence of a flawed model but rather evidence of local anomalies caused by supervisory practices rather than educational interventions themselves.
Decades of research, Grinnell’s own admissions, and the life outcomes of our students and graduates across the country confirm that higher education work in prisons is effective, restorative, and socially transformative. So, as the field draws attention to the tension between the substantive content and misleading titles of articles, research findings, and how those results are framed, and as this working paper undergoes peer review and revision, we hope to spark a productive conversation around the barriers students face and the potential for transformative changes to supervision policies that set formerly incarcerated students toward failure rather than success.
