2021 Masters of Public Administration Capstone Research

Higher Education in Oregon’s Prisons: Measures of Access, Equity andExcellence in Practice

Research Team: Maya Lazaro, Jove Rousseau, Fatima Mehdi, James Conway

School of Planning, Public Policy and Management. University of Oregon: Eugene, Oregon

1

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5

CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................ 7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 16

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 19

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 26

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX I: KEY WORDS .......................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX III: CODES AND THEMES ............................................................................................................ 38

APPENDIX IV THE APPLIED RESEARCH SURVEY ............................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX V SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 43

2

Acknowledgments ABOUT THE HECC The State of Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) is the primary state entity responsible for ensuring pathways to post-secondary education success for Oregonians statewide and serves as a convener of the groups and institutions working across the public and private higher education arena.

ABOUT THE ALLIANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON The mission of the Alliance is to support the expansion of quality higher education in prison, empower students while in prison and after release, and shape public discussion about education and incarceration.

ABOUT THE REPORT AUTHORS The authors of this report are graduate students at the University of Oregon School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management’s Public Administration Master’s Program: Maya Lazaro, Jove Rousseau, Fatima Mehdi, and James Conway. The team completed this research project and report for the program’s 2021 Capstone course, taught by Associate Professor Dr. Ben Clark. Megan Banks, Program Director of the Sustainable Cities Initiative, served as the team’s faculty advisor. The team thanks them for their guidance and support.

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The University of Oregon is located in Eugene, Oregon on Kalapuya Ilihi, the traditional homelands of the Kalapuya people. Kalapuya people were dispossessed of their land and forcefully removed following the treaties of 1851 and 1855. Descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon and continue to make important contributions in their communities, at the University of Oregon, and across the land we now refer to as Oregon. Although not related to this research, this historical context provides the current sociopolitical backdrop for this project.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prisons have traditionally been a place for punishment and rehabilitation for individuals who commit crimes. In the United States, emphasis is placed on punishment and less so on rehabilitation and successful re-entry, often resulting in a cycle of recidivism. Education plays a vital role in breaking that cycle. Prison education programs have been found to lower recidivism rates and increase employment opportunities while being cost-effective. It can exert intergenerational benefits that reach past the confines of prisons and empower formerly incarcerated adults to positively impact their communities.

This report evaluates post-secondary educational programming in Oregon prisons using guidance issued in 2019 by the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP) in partnership with the Prison University Project. The report was developed for the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) using a client-consultant format. We address the research question: What recommendations can stakeholders implement to ensure post-secondary education programming in Oregon state prisons meets expert-issued equity, access, and excellence standards?

Our research included primary data from the interviews conducted between the months of March and April of 2021, as well as an online survey administered in April of 2021. The three strongest barriers to equitable, accessible, and excellent programming identified in the interviews were policies, support services, and funding, and the three greatest strengths as classroom resources, curriculum, and support from leadership. One hundred percent of participants surveyed agreed that prisons should offer more college degree and certificate programs, and sixty-four percent of participants disagreed that post-secondary education programs are well-integrated into re-entry services. Additionally, ninety-three percent of participants disagreed that students have sufficient access to technology, and seventy-nine percent of participants disagreed that education programs are inclusive and equitable.

Based on findings from case studies, interviews, and survey results, our team identified seven priority areas and recommendations for the HECC and other stakeholders to pursue. Recommendations were developed and categorized using guidelines and definitions from the AHEP and PUP report.

This report provides a preliminary evaluation of equity, access, and excellence in Oregon prison postsecondary education programs. The importance of this research comes at a critical time as tensions over prison funding, facility closures, and discussions over the role of prisons in society become front and center. We hope the findings of our report inform future prison education research, evaluation, and policy.

4

INTRODUCTION The Higher Education Coordinating Commission seeks to enhance higher education and training for Adults in Custody (AICs) through college and career training programs that are accessible, affordable, equitable, and well-coordinated. The HECC, Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC), postsecondary education providers, non-profits, coalition groups, and policymakers are involved in the design and delivery of post-secondary education programs in state-managed adult prisons. Oregon’s prisons currently offer three-degree programs, five vocational programs, five work-based (certification) education programs, and six apprenticeship programs through its staff and partnerships with community colleges and universities. According to the DOC of the roughly 12,000 incarcerated adults in its 13 prisons who are eligible to participate in work and/or programs, 69 percent do so full time. The University of Oregon administers the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program, which has reached a 820 incarcerated students since its inception in 2007; and Corban University has admitted two cohorts of 25 students since its 2019 launch. This program offers post-secondary courses and an environment that allows for AICs and university students to interact and learn from one other while participating in a wide variety of academic disciplines. Chemeketa’s College Inside program has served 706 students and awarded 137 associate degrees since its inception in 2007, serving Mill Creek Correctional Facility, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Oregon State Penitentiary, and Santiam Correctional Institution. When Chemeketa Community College was selected to join the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative grant program in 2016-2017, the Pell grant funding for specific students supplemented, then replaced, the private donations that funded the program. Corban University started a four-year bachelor degree program at Oregon State Correctional Institution in 2019. The goals of these many programs include increasing prison safety, lowering recidivism rates, and giving incarcerated adults the opportunity to succeed both "inside” and on the outside, post-release.

Some AICs enter prisons ineligible for college programs because they lack a high school diploma or GED equivalent. Through a contract with HECC, who in turn contracts with six community colleges throughout the state, DOC provides high school diploma equivalency education and testing to AICs through its Adult Basic Skills Development (ABSD) program, which also encompasses English as a Second Language (ESL), functional literacy, and special education courses. While ABSD does not fall under the scope of post-secondary education, it does provide AICs with foundational skills that can prepare them for vocational training and other more-rigorous or college-level work.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC restricted visiting hours and halted in-person post-secondary education programming, leading some education providers to pivot to providing correspondence-based courses, while others remain on pause until in-person programs resume. In 2020 DOC also considered moving its ABSD programming in-house to increase services, expand ABSD to all institutions; standardize ABSD programs between facilities so AICs can transfer between institutions without education program interruptions due to a different (or

5

no) community college contractor/provider, streamline its processes, and reduce spending in the wake of budget shortfalls. However, DOC agreed to renegotiate a contract for 2021-2023 to continue using contracted services from community colleges to provide ABSD development and associated services. DOC was hopeful that Senate Bill 235 would pass during the 2021 legislative session, which would have provided the funding needed for developing and piloting online AIC education programs at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility and Snake River Correctional Institution. Until the funding is provided, DOC will remain unable to provide post-secondary online education opportunities.

However, as the pandemic eases with the administration of vaccinations, DOC is expected to reopen to visitors and allow in-person instruction to recommence beginning in 2021. It will also be working with Treasure Valley Community College to offer Second Chance Pell Grants to students at two additional correctional facilities. Furthermore, in late 2020 Congress reissued Pell Grant eligibility to juveniles and adults in custody (to be available by July 2023), which is expected to create a nation-wide increase in enrollments in post-secondary prison education programs. It is within this landscape that we produced this report.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW The provision of education and job training to AICs has historical precedence dating back to 18th century Norway, where it was offered under the premise that prison education should be transformative. The principle driving this effort was that inmates should be made useful, independent, and better equipped to reenter society (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2005). The first U.S. prison education program was implemented in New York at Elmira Reformatory in 1876. By the 1930s, high school equivalency programs like the “Elmira System” were pervasive in prisons across the United States. In the 1960s, colleges and universities began offering correspondence programs in a handful of prisons; two decades later, such programs have been established in most states (Linden and Perry, 1983). Established research shows that AICs who participate in educational and vocational training programs are less likely to return to prison following release (Vacca, 2004; Stevens, 1997).

The notion that inmates were undeserving of public resources reached its peak in the 1990s. “Tough on crime” policies gained popularity, being part of the backlash against decades of rising crime. The landmark Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was sweeping legislation with resounding effects on the criminal justice system. One of its impactful policies was the elimination of Pell Grant eligibility among incarcerated students. The bill led to critical funding challenges and shifted the burden for financing education away from federal coffers to corrections departments, private philanthropy, and individual donors (Castro et al., 2018). In response to these laws, incarceration rates for nonviolent crimes soared, and by 2018 the U.S. prison population swelled to 2.2 million (Sentencing Project, 2021). Between 1980 and 2008, the incarceration rate more than tripled, jumping from 221 to 762 per 100,000 people (Western et al., 2010). America’s criminal justice system has created “a new social group, a group of social outcasts who are joined by the shared experience of incarceration, crime, poverty, racial

6

minority, and low education” (Wester and Pettit, 2010).

More recently, public opinion has moved in the direction of prison reform. The recent success of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative shows that prison reform has garnered bipartisan support. In late 2019, the federal House of Education and Labor Committee passed the College Affordability Act, which reinstated access to Pell grants for all eligible incarcerated students (Hegji and Collins, 2020). To date, more than 16,000 incarcerated students have enrolled in a college program with the help of a Pell Grant, and those numbers could grow to more than 450,000 (Vera Institute of Justice, 2020). Yet, few colleges and universities have tapped into this growing market. Just four percent of U.S postsecondary institutions provide credit-bearing education within prisons. The availability of credit-bearing courses is strongly linked to federal funding of Pell Grants (Castro et al, 2018). While 64 percent of incarcerated adults in federal and state prisons have received a high school diploma or GED, making them eligible to enroll in postsecondary education programs, only 42 percent ever complete an education program in prison (Oakford and Patrick et al., 2019). Barriers such as restricted access to internet-based technology, scheduling conflicts, learning disabilities, poor study skills, and lack of information about application procedures may keep inmates from accessing prison education (Manger, Eikeland, and Asbjørnsen, 2019).

The technology gap has widened, too. As the rest of the world has transitioned to email communication and virtual classrooms, corrections facilities remain stuck in the past (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016). Historically, correspondence courses offered via mail were more common, and few prisons have the infrastructure or policies in place to allow Internet usage. Access to the internet and social media is still largely viewed as a threat to security (Shirley, 2006).

It is probable that with the reinstatement of Pell Grants to incarcerated students, a greater number of educational institutions will turn their attention toward serving this unique population (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2021). For example, Portland State University announced it will begin offering the equivalent of three for-credit college courses to inmates at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility starting fall 2021 (Higher Education in Prison).

Today, Oregon runs 13 state prisons that house approximately 12,000 AICs who stay a median of 69.2 months (excluding AICs serving a life or death sentence or with no parole), which is almost 6 years - enough time for AICs with a high school diploma or GED to complete a degree or certificate program from a college or vocational school. Recidivism data collected by the Department of Corrections (DOC) shows that 60 percent of AICs are arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison or from a felony jail sentence, while only 18 percent are reincarcerated for a new felony crime (Department of Corrections “2020 Quick Facts” Issue Brief , March 2021, https://www.oregon.gov/doc/Documents/agency-quick-facts.pdf). If crime reduction is a desired outcome of rehabilitation efforts, then improving economic opportunities for AICs post-release through postsecondary education programs is a proven strategy.

7

• Program Design• Partnerships and Collaborations• Faculty Recruitment• Training and Supervision• Curriculum, Pedagogy

Research Question What recommendations can stakeholders implement to ensure post-secondary education programming in Oregon state prisons meets expert-issued equity, access, and excellence standards?

Project objectives This project accomplishes the following objectives:

• Evaluate DOC post-secondary education programs using guidance issued by the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP) that address equity, access, and excellence.

• Distill insights from published works, including case studies, regarding best practices in post-secondary prison education.

• Use quantitative and qualitative methodological research processes to gather and analyze data from key stakeholders.

• Make recommendations based on AHEP criteria and research findings to improve the number and quality of post-secondary education programs in Oregon prisons.

CASE STUDIES

The Alliance for Higher Education in Prisons maintains a database of post-secondary education programs offered in prisons around the country. Our team examined approximately 180 different database entries to identify exceptional programs that demonstrated excellence across numerous AHEP content areas and a commitment to equity and accessibility. Some of these programs are coalition groups or centers that work with prisons in multiple states, while others comprise partnerships between community colleges or universities and nearby prisons.

Program: Bard Prison Initiative at Bard College- Annandale-on-Hudson, New York Website: https://bpi.bard.edu/ Prison Served: Numerous Populations: Male and Female AIC, Youth Offenders Number of Students: 300+ per year

In 2019, the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP), in partnership with the Prison University Project (PUP), published a report titled “Equity and Excellence in Practice: A guide for Higher Education in Prison (Erzen, Gould, and Lewen, 2019). This publication marks the first comprehensive report prescribing recommendations for prison education programs (Castro et al., 2019). The report offers recommendations across seven content areas relating to program excellence, access, and equity, including:

8

Funding Source: Donations, Foundation Grants

Description: The Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) at Bard College is a national success story in post-secondary corrections education. BPI enrolls over 300 incarcerated students full-time in programs that culminate in degrees from Bard College; it offers extensive support for its alumni in and around New York City through its four fellowship programs; and, it has developed a nationwide network of leading universities and colleges to catalyze a transformation in the relationship between education and criminal justice in the United States. BPI’s newest initiative, the Bard Micro college, delivers high-quality liberal arts education to communities disproportionately affected by incarceration through partnerships with community-based institutions. Currently, fifteen colleges and universities are members of BPI. BPI boasts an 85 percent alumni employment rate within two months of release.

Takeaways:

• Offer transitional employment opportunities for alumni of prison postsecondaryeducation programs, such as fellowships.

• Consider collaborating with existing regional and national prison education initiatives toincrease the breadth of available programming and learn from experts.

Program: Prison + Neighborhood Arts/Education Project- Chicago, Illinois Website: https://p-nap.org/ Prison: Stateville Maximum Security Prison Populations: Male AIC Number of Students: 80-160 per year Funding Source: Donations and Foundation Grants Description: The Prison + Neighborhood Arts/Education Project (PNAP) connects teaching artists and scholars to incarcerated students through classes, workshops, a policy think tank, and guest lectures. Student work is shared with the public through exhibits, events, and publications. PNAP also offers a tuition-free degree-granting program at Stateville in partnership with the University Without Walls at Northeastern Illinois University, which allows college-level learning from prior experience and schooling to count toward a college degree.

Takeaways:

• Consider partnerships that allow college-level schooling completed before incarcerationand college-level non-credit-bearing schooling completed while incarcerated to applytoward a degree or certificate.

• Share student work between and beyond prisons to bring awareness to these programsand highlight student achievement.

Program: Mount Tamalpais College at San Quentin - San Rafael, CaliforniaWebsite: https://www.mttamcollege.org/ Prison: San Quentin State Prison Populations: Male AIC Number of Students: 3,731

9

Funding Source: Foundation Grants, State Funding, Donations

Description: Prior to September 2020, Mount Tamalpais College was known as the Prison University Project and operated as an extension site of Patten University. In 2020, it became a Candidate for Accreditation from the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges and changed its name to Mount Tamalpais College, making it the first independent liberal arts institution dedicated specifically to serving incarcerated students. In 2021, it reached a historic agreement with the administration at San Quentin State Prison that granted students access to laptops, charging carts, and printers. Students will be able to use the laptops outside of classrooms to conduct online research and complete coursework using word processing software and other programs. Students will also be able to access a Canvas Learning Management System managed by the California Department of Corrections to engage in remote coursework and research.

Takeaways: • The “college in prison” model can be a means of “bringing college to AIC” to improve

enrollment, engagement, and retention of students.• Make laptop computer technology available to eligible AIC and trust them to use it

appropriately.• Utilize learning management software that can be customized to the needs of the prison

and incarcerated students.

Program: Tennessee Higher Education in Prison Initiative- Nashville, TennesseeWebsite: https://www.thei.org/ Correctional Institutions Served: Morgan County Correctional Complex, Northwest Correctional Complex, Turney Center Industrial Complex Populations: Male AIC Number of Students: 75 new students per year Funding Source: Foundation Grants, Donations

Description: The Tennessee Higher Education in Prison Initiative (THEI) provides holistic support to incarcerated scholars through academic programs, re-entry services, and policy and advocacy. The coalition group coordinates services between community colleges and local prisons to provide accredited courses leading to Associate degrees. Students typically work full-time during the day and in the evenings take two courses per semester. THEIs Student Success and Re-entry Services team meet with incarcerated students at least a year before each student’s release to plan for re-entry and then continues to support students during and after their transition out of prison. Support provided includes housing searches and halfway house applications, conversations and coaching about family and stability, financial literacy development, support with student loan rehabilitation or deferment, support applying to and paying for college, training on financial aid, job readiness skills including resume building,

10

interviewing and job searching, parole preparation, entrepreneurship skill-building, and long-term career goal setting, and planning. Classes are low-cost ($25 per semester), and students can pay in installments. Takeaways:

• Consider scheduling courses during times when they are less likely to interfere with other programs or shift work.

• Offer flexible payment plans to increase program accessibility.

Program: Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP)- Texas State HYPERLINK https://www.thei.org/ Population: Male AIC Funding Source: Donations, Foundation Grants Description: Students enrolled in the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP) begin their education with a 3-month, in-prison character development experience called The Leadership Academy, which utilizes The Principles of Effective Leadership and Men’s Life. Staff work with each student to identify and remove the character traits and behaviors that stand in the way of a positive life transformation. The program is also designed to assimilate each participant into PEP’s diverse community of accountability and encouragement. The Leadership Academy is immediately followed by a 6-month in-prison “mini-MBA” program. The “mini-MBA” is taught by PEP staff, board members, and business executives lecturing on topics within their areas of expertise. During the program, students explore numerous case studies provided by the Harvard Business School and Stanford Business Schools. The centerpiece of this phase is the Business Plan Competition, modeled after other such competitions held at major universities across the nation. Each student is required to conceive a business that he would start upon release. The student researches the logistics of competing within his chosen industry, writes a complete business plan for launching his business, and then pitches his plan over 120 times in a “Shark Tank” like format. To receive their degree, participants must complete a financial literacy course, an employment workshop, a business etiquette course, and a Toastmasters class. Upon release, PEP supports its alumni with a comprehensive slate of re-entry services including case management, transition housing, assistance in finding employment, and connecting to social services. Takeaways:

• Consider developing staged educational experiences that incorporate leadership development and foundational life skills.

• Create culture norms around post-secondary education at DOC to foster identity and belonging.

Program: Operation Restoration- New Orleans, Louisiana Website: https://www.or-nola.org/

11

Correctional Institutions Served: Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women Population: Female AIC Number of Students: 40 per year Funding Source: Foundation Grants, Donations

Description: Operation Restoration is a coalition group created by formerly incarcerated women for incarcerated women, offering services and support ranging from advocacy to education to childcare to housing, transportation, and drug treatment connections. After it absorbed the Louisiana Prison Education Coalition, it began offering education programming in prison and in the community. Operation Restoration’s College in Prison program offers for-credit Bachelor of Arts degrees inside the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women in partnership with the School of Professional Advancement at Tulane University. Its Women First Clinic is a reentry education program to prepare formerly incarcerated women to obtain their high school equivalency and other educational goals. The clinic also provides transportation, childcare, and snacks. Its Lab Assistant Program prepares women to work in laboratory healthcare settings and obtain immediate employment upon release in partnership with the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, Delgado Community College, and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. The organization has received support from the National Science Foundation to identify solutions to barriers faced by incarcerated people to participate in STEM education and careers.

Takeaways: • Create opportunities for students to participate in advocacy about issues relevant to

them, including criminal justice reform.• Consider the unique needs and circumstances of women and trans-identifying people

when developing education programs for those populations.

Program: New Jersey Scholarship and Transformative Education in Prisons Consortium (NJ-STEP)- Newark, New JerseyWebsite: https://njstep.newark.rutgers.edu Prison: New Jersey Department of Corrections Populations: Youth Offenders, Male and Female AIC Number of Students: Unknown Funding Source: Foundation Grants, University Funds

Description: The staff of NJ STEP, supported by Rutgers University – Newark, work with the partner colleges and New Jersey Department of Corrections to AA degrees in Liberal Arts and BA degrees in Justice Studies to incarcerated students. STEP Counselors are assigned to each prison facility and work on-site with the students, serving as liaisons with STEP teaching faculty. They maintain progress records for all students of the consortium and help students make appropriate choices regarding their degree work. Among their many duties, counselors are

12

responsible for academic advisement, registering students, FAFSA applications, recruiting prospective students, and preparing pre-release educational plans. NJ-Transfer guides its liberal arts curriculum and maximizes the transfer of courses for students upon release. Upon completion of an associate degree, the NJ Lampitt Law will facilitate students’ transfer to four-year state schools. As students transition back into the community, a STEP Completion Counselor helps those who have not yet completed their associate degree enroll in community colleges near their residence. Once a student is enrolled, the STEP team’s Completion Counselor works with the student to finish their associate degree work and become admitted to Rutgers University or other four-year state schools. Additional “Mountainview Communities” provide wrap-around admissions and transition services and support for STEP students to continue college degree work at Rutgers University’s New Brunswick, Newark, and Camden campuses. Mountainview Community Counselors are stationed on each campus to provide ongoing support through admissions counseling, campus networking, accountability, housing and legal assistance, financial management, peer support meetings, and facilitation of gainful employment opportunities on and off-campus.

Takeaways: • Train advisors working with incarcerated students to maximize the transferability of

courses based on the stated goals of students.• Create advising and counseling specialties that leverage multiple partners to ensure

each student receives the appropriate help and services.

Program: Georgetown Prisons and Justice Initiative- Washington, D.C.Website: https://prisonsandjustice.georgetown.edu/ Prison: D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility Populations: Male and Female AIC Number of Students: Unknown Funding Source: Foundation Grants, Donations

Description: Through the Georgetown Prisons and Justice Initiative’s Prison Scholars Program, students at the D.C. Jail’s Central Treatment Facility take courses with Georgetown professors and earn college credits while incarcerated. The Central Treatment Facility houses male and female D.C. residents awaiting trial, serving short sentences, or preparing to return to their communities after a longer period of incarceration with the Bureau of Prisons. The Prison Scholars Program at the D.C. Jail is the only prison education program in the country that offers courses for incarcerated men and women together, ensuring that all residents at the facility can pursue higher education. Post-Incarceration, the Prisons, and Justice Initiative’s Pivot Program offer non-credit-bearing certificates in business and entrepreneurship. Designed and delivered by Georgetown faculty, the Pivot Program is a one-year transition and re-entry program centered on a blend of academic work and supported employment.

13

Takeaways: • Consider developing educational experiences that serve men and women together to

encourage dialogue and expose students to diverse perspectives. • Short-term re-entry programs that bridge students to continuing education and

employment can offer stability and help students remain on track to complete a degree or find relevant employment post-release.

Program: Barton Community College- Great Bend, Kansas Website: https://bartonccc.edu/basics/programs Prisons: Ellsworth Correctional Facility, Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility Population: Male AIC Number of Students: 207 since its founding Funding Source: State Funding, Donations Description: Barton Community College provides adult basic education and Work READY! certificates in several fields including welding technology, manufacturing skills, craft skills, IC3 digital literacy, carpentry, and Microsoft Office. In addition to adult basic education and career technical training, Barton serves students with traditional academic coursework. Takeaways:

• Offer career technical education in sought-after fields or in-demand certificates that command high wages.

• Offer robust and integrated career advising that focuses on the students’ vocational interests, personal needs, and existing barriers.

Program: Campus Within Walls Southside Virginia C.C.- Alberta, Virginia Website: https://southside.edu/campus-within-walls Prison: Lunenburg Correctional Center Population: Male AIC Number of Students: 90 per cohort Funding Source: Donations, Unknown Description: In collaboration with the Virginia Department of Corrections and Lunenburg Correctional Center, the Campus Without Walls program creates a college learning community model embedded within Lunenburg prison. Students are housed together in a single unit “dorm” to allow for additional privileges not granted to the general population. Seven college teaching assistants are available in the dorms to tutor students at designated times. Under the supervision of the teaching assistants, students can check out laptop computers and work on assignments in the common room of the dorm. The dorm also offers quiet hours for studying. Takeaways:

14

• Embed tutors and advising staff into prisons that are responsive to student’s needs.• Offer quiet hours or study time to give students opportunities to learn without

distractions.

Program: Resilience Education- Charlottesville, VirginiaWebsite: https://resilience-education.org/ Prisons: Virginia Department of Corrections, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Population: Male AIC Number of Students: 700 Funding Source: Foundation Grants, Donations

Description: Through its relationship with the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, Resilience Education trains MBA volunteer instructors to teach university-quality coursework focused on entrepreneurship, financial literacy, and business foundations. It has trained over 200+ instructors from the Darden School of Business and Columbia Business School to teach in Virginia and New York prisons.

Takeaways: • Invite corporations to collaborate with DOC and education providers by creating

volunteer programs that fulfill corporate social responsibility needs.

Program: Norwegian Correctional ServiceWebsite: https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/informasjon-paa-engelsk.536003.no.html Prisons: 57 spread over five regions Population: Male and Female AIC Number of Students: Approximately 6,000 Funding Source: Norwegian Government

Description: The Norwegian government promotes a model of "normality" when it comes to corrections. The restriction of liberty is viewed as sufficient punishment for inmates. Those sentenced have the same rights as other Norwegian citizens. Inmates do not serve sentences under stricter circumstances than necessary for the security in the community. The Norwegian Correctional Service attempts to make life inside its prisons resemble life outside as much as possible. More than fifty percent of inmates participate in an education program. Eligible inmates are allowed to leave the prisons to attend college courses on campus, then return to the facility. A 2018 exhibit that explores the building layout, programs, and values of six Norwegian prisons has been published online.

Our interview with a Norwegian criminal defense attorney yielded valuable information about flaws within the Norwegian correctional system. Most significantly, foreign inmates may not

15

receive the same degree of services as Norwegian citizens. Norway's low recidivism rate can also be linked to the country's expansive social safety net. Despite this, Norway offers many lessons for U.S. prisons.

Takeaways: • Explore the adoption of normalization strategies to enhance educational outcomes.

Since 2017, DOC participated in two learning trips to Norway where it studiedNorwegian correctional practices. HECC, education providers, and other stakeholderscan support DOC as it makes policy changes that reflect its efforts to increasenormalization in its prisons.

Program: Oregon Youth AuthorityWebsite: https://www.oregon.gov/oya/Pages/default.aspx Prisons: Eastern Oregon Youth Correctional Facility, MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility, Rogue Valley Youth Correctional Facility, Tillamook Youth Correctional Facility, Oak Creek Youth Correctional Facility Population: Youth Offenders Number of Students: Approximately 1,000 Funding Source: State Legislature

Description: Orgon Youth Authority (OYA) operates five juvenile corrections facilities and four transitional and work study programs for male and female youth offenders in Oregon, housing over 1,000 students. OYA uses an evidence-based approach to corrections built on four values: positive human development; diversity, equity, and inclusion; youth reformation, and small and safe living units. In 2015 OYA receives funding from the legislature to build a state-of-the-art classroom at the site of Rogue Valley Youth Correctional facility. The 13,740-square-foot building incudes four digitally-connected classrooms, a career center, a manufacturing technology lab, a barber shop, a commons area, and an outdoor classroom. OYA offers dozens of vocational training programs and partners with colleges and universities to provide for-credit courses leading to associates, bachelors, and masters degrees. Each student receives individualized attention and a custom plan to accommodate their educational goals and interests.

Takeaways: • Classroom spaces built on prison property but not directly on site can produce an

educational experience that mimics that on the outside.• Develop infrastructure that supports diverse methods of learning so more students can

be accommodated.• Integrate computer labs and internet connectivity into prison learning spaces to support

remote education, productive internet use, and computer skills.

16

The case studies here provide an insightful background and substantive secondary data for the research team. Furthermore, this research helped the formulation of the interview and survey questions, which ultimately help in the formulation of the recommendations discussed later.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The collected data contained in this report offers insight into the effectiveness of these programs. This information will be used by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission and other key stakeholders involved in the administration of higher education in Oregon’s prisons to make informed, research-based decisions to improve existing and new programming. This report also clarifies the perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the Oregon Department of Corrections’ post-secondary education programs, including staff and instructors at community college and state universities, and other third-party partners.

Our research utilized a two-phased approach. Participation in this project was completely voluntary. Respondents were given the option to opt-out of questions in both Phase 1 and 2 of the study. For Phase 1 and 2, stakeholder contact information was obtained from the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, DOC, nonprofits, and journal articles. Participant information for the Norwegian interviews was provided by Dr. Benjamin Clark, associate professor in the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management and Hans Henrik Pettersen, who has extensive knowledge of the Norwegian correctional system as a private practicing criminal defense attorney.

Phase 1 The research team conducted qualitative interviews with project stakeholders. Interviews were held by phone, Zoom video conferencing, and Microsoft Teams according to the preferences and convenience of the stakeholders. The research team asked respondents to share their experiences and attitudes toward the DOC's post-secondary education programming. The full list of questions can be found in Appendix II. The target stakeholders for Phase 1 included key staff and administrators from the DOC, formerly incarcerated AICs, higher education partners and community college workforce training partners (termed education providers), prison education committees, and working groups operating at the institutional or state level. We also included an international dimension to our research and a private practicing criminal defense attorney in Norway. Our team sought to garner insight on more effective methods of societal integration for AICs; based on our literature reviews, the Norwegian correctional system was an important source of information on this topic.

Interviews Interview and survey response data were also de-identified to meet Institutional Review Board (IRB) standards. Identifiable information was not recorded. Broad categories were applied to denote information about the stakeholder. Consent for recording was obtained for interviews

17

conducted over Zoom or Microsoft Teams. The team distributed the survey to multiple stakeholders; at least five stakeholders from each institutional or classification category were included in our outreach. The survey did not ask for identifying information, allowing respondents to remain anonymous.

Coding Interview data were coded to identify common themes among responders. A table of codes is included in Appendix III. The team used a deductive coding process to develop ten barrier codes and seven strength codes based on themes the team expected to arise during the interviews. Interview responses were also used to compose comprehensive survey questions.

Phase 2 Information obtained during Phase 1 was used to inform the questions for Phase 2. In Phase 2, we distributed online surveys to stakeholders, which included those contacted for interviews and a pool of staff, instructors, and former students. Surveys were distributed to stakeholders by email. The survey asked respondents to indicate their perceptions and attitudes regarding the DOC’s post-secondary education programming. The survey also asked respondents to differentiate whether they were associated with a state correctional institution, vocational or work-based training program, four-year university, community college, or nonprofit partner. Only broad categories were used to signify information about the survey respondents and interviewees. Respondents were asked to choose between general classifications to describe their role.

Stakeholders were anonymously surveyed using stratified sampling to produce an even response rate from each stakeholder group. Questions were then structured to address what our Phase 1 data indicated to be areas of strengths or concern by our stakeholders. The survey asked respondents to answer four open-ended questions and twenty-six close-ended questions about education programs offered to incarcerated students in Oregon state prisons. The questions were developed using the AHEP/Prisons University Project (PUP) seven areas for evaluation. Some required questions prompted participants to type their answers into a text field; these questions asked participants to voice specific barriers and improvements they believed most important. Seventeen respondents who accessed the survey were recorded. However, one respondent opted out during the consent process, resulting in fifteen participants.

Data Sources Our research included a collection of primary and secondary data. As previously mentioned, primary data is from the interviews conducted between March and April of 2021 as well as a Qualtrics survey administered in April of 2021. Secondary data was gathered from the Oregon Department of Corrections, Oregon Consortium for Higher Education in Prisons (OCHEP), and

18

Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE). Secondary data sources included program data, white papers, issued guidelines, and research papers from reputable academic journals.

Interview and Survey Participation: Seventeen stakeholders participated in the interviews and fifteen completed the survey. Two interviews were excluded from coding because they were not direct stakeholders. The stakeholders who participated represented four-year universities, community colleges, the Department of Corrections, nonprofit education providers, and state government. Stakeholders were allowed to self-identify into more than one role or category, which is reflected in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Organizations Surveyed Participant Count State Correctional Institution, Community College 3 State Correctional Institution, Four-Year University 1 State Correctional Institution, Vocational or Work-Based Training Partner, Community College

1

State Correctional Institution 3 Community College 1 Four-Year University 4 Four-Year University, Community College 1 State Government 1 Nonprofit Partner 2

Figure 1: Data collected through Qualtrics, administered by MPA researchers (2021)

Role or Title Participant Count Administrator, Instructor 2 Administrator, Instructor, Counselor or Advisor 1 Administrator, Instructor, Counselor or Advisor, Advocate 1 Administrator 5 Instructor 2 Advocate or Activist 1 Formerly Incarcerated Student 1 Formerly Incarcerated Student, Advocate or Activist, Other 1 Other 3

Figure 2: Data collected through Qualtrics, administered by MPA researchers (2021)

Limitations Our research did not include a pilot study as we did not have a large enough sample size to effectively employ this method. However, we anticipated that we would need to adjust the interview questions after completing four interviews to refine our interview protocol and

19

obtain more accurate data. Youth offenders were also not included in this study because they did not fall under the jurisdiction of DOC but rather Oregon Youth Authority.

There were a number of limitations that affected our research. First, the survey had a low number of participants, though a high completion rate. The low number of attempts does reduce the overall statistical significance of our research. Lower rates of participation may have been due to a range of factors, including lack of time or interest, pandemic “burn out,” or concerns about the consequences of participating. Our section limitation is that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were unable to conduct in-person interviews with incarcerated students participating in post-secondary education programs. Although the team was able to interview AICs outside of Oregon and former Oregon AICs that did not participate in Oregon programs, the perspectives of current AIC represent a notable absence in this report. Incorporating incarcerated students' attitudes and experiences will be paramount to program evaluation and assessment. Finally, due to time constraints, the research team was unable to interview any incarcerated students of color. Given that Black and Latino communities face disproportionate policing and longer sentences relative to other groups, the lack of presentation of students of color in our research represents a significant blind spot. Future research regarding prison education should make substantial efforts to include incarcerated students of color. Highlighting these limitations is not to invalidate this research but to illuminate further areas of development.

FINDINGS

Interviews Our stakeholder interviews informed the survey development but also yielded insightful findings unto themselves. Interviews were coded deductively referencing a codebook developed by the research team. The codebook included common themes expected to appear more frequently in responses. Codes were classified as either Barrier Codes, which were used to tag critical statements and statements that described areas for improvement, and Strength Codes, which were used to tag positive statements and statements describing areas of success. More Barrier Codes were developed than Strength Codes because questions were more likely to solicit critical responses.

Responses to the interviews were recorded and separated into statements. A code was assigned to each unique idea expressed in a statement. A complete tabulation of code scores can be found in Appendix III. Although the research team used reoccurring strengths and barrier codes to develop the survey, this section will focus on the most frequently occurring codes. The descriptions of the most frequently occurring codes can be found in below in Figure 3. A complete list of the seventeen strength and barrier codes can be found in Appendix III. Several common themes emerged from the interviews. Barrier Codes were considered significant if they appeared at least 29 times, while Strength Codes were considered significant

20

if they appeared at least 18 times during the interviews. Significant barrier and strength codes are listed in descending order. Code definitions are provided.

It is important to note that code definitions were purposely designed to be broad in order to capture a diverse range of viewpoints expressed during the interviews. For example, the code use definition for B10: Curriculum and Instruction (listed in Appendix III) includes four use cases such as “quality of instruction poor” and “curricula not adapted to the constraints and realities or prison or prison policies.” While criticisms of the quality of instruction did not arise during the interviews, several stakeholders expressed that course expectations and prison policies were in conflict. Those statements were coded as B10: Curriculum and Instruction even though they did not comment on the quality of instruction. Likewise, although many interviewees indicated that instructors were using effective analog resources, most agreed that students had insufficient access to technology. Thus, the code description for strength code S3: Technology and Resources is more encompassing than what was described by the interview participants.

Code Description

B1: Policies Policies that limit or prohibit technology use or that limit AIC ability to participate in education programs.

B9: Support Services Poor coordination between transitional/release coordinators and education providers; insufficient academic career and advising staff and resources; insufficient post-release resources (housing, transportation, mental health services, job connections) for AIC; inadequate academic accommodations.

B6: Funding Insufficient funding for: technology devices, software, or infrastructure; tuition or course fees; administrative staff, instructors, counselors/advisors, security, and support staff; physical classroom or work and study spaces; and educational materials such as books or lab materials.

S3: Technology and Resources Adequate internet, word processing software, and computer access for AICs to complete coursework; study resources available to AIC; other classroom resources (writing implements, etc.) available to AIC; numerous channels of communication.

S4: Curriculum and Instruction Education is affordable; credit-bearing courses available; degree or certificate pathways offered; high-quality instruction; curricula adapted to the needs of vocational training available for in-demand, union-represented trades; educational programming aligned with workforce

21

needs and trends; extra-curricular activities that enhance learning are supported by the institution.

S1: Support from Leadership Legislative support; prioritization of postsecondary education by DOC and education providers.

Figure 3: Most frequently occurring codes, developed by MPA researchers (2021)

In general, respondents felt that leadership at educational institutions that partnered with DOC were supportive of existing post-secondary programs and recognized the value these programs bring to AIC and the communities they are released into. However, there was strong agreement among respondents that the number and availability of programs was lacking, limiting the number of student participants. Most education providers interviewed indicated that their institutions were supportive of making post-secondary education available to AIC. Barriers to offering additional programs were attributed to a lack of funding and staffing. The research team noted a high degree of optimism among the respondents. While they shared concerns about barriers they had observed or encountered, they also expressed confidence that post-secondary education offerings would only continue to improve.

Below are a selection of comments that arose from our interviews. To protect the identity of participations, we have removed names and other identifying information.

▫ “The day-to-day challenges of working with prisons are real. Our institution’s capacity toplan and strategize for growth are limited because we are not involved in conversationsabout how DOC staff and resources are being allocated.”-Educational Provider

▫ “Officers need to want students to do well. Students want to learn, they wantopportunities. They have the time and interest to study hard. Yet there is no reason forcorrections officers to want inmates to receive education. The public doesn’t want iteither. Maybe if these people understood the trauma that inmates experience, theymight have more empathy. Inmates need instructors to care about them and pour intothem and raise them up to do well.”-Former AIC

▫ “The women’s prison is disadvantaged and forgotten about, which is standard foreverything in a women’s prison. Because women are a super minority in the prisonworld, there is no degree pathway at Coffee Creek; there are also a limited number ofvocational programs compared to the men’s prisons. Men in prison often get into union-represented trades, whereas women don’t.”-Former AIC

▫ “When the prison is short-staffed, education programs shouldn’t be the first things thatare pulled.”

22

-DOC Administrator

▫ “Sometimes materials are sent through activities staff. Other times materials are sentthrough the prison superintendent. The methods of delivery and collection are notconsistent across prisons. Without a dedicated education staffer, it’s more challenging tohave materials delivered and collected.”-Educational Provider

▫ “There is an idea of ‘What happens in the valley stays in the valley. What happens in thedesert stays in the desert.’ There is no consistency across prisons.”-Former AIC

▫ “Students need considerably greater access to computers to complete coursework.”-Educational Provider

▫ “Parole officers should know about educational pursuits & help them [AIC]. They shouldknow info about community college programs. It could be a community-basedorganization, university, community college [that could] do this transition . . . faith-based, maybe. Advising structures are needed. A partnership might be required toprovide the transitional piece. Create an advising center. [Include a] ‘warm handshake.’Make it personal.”-Education Administrator

▫ “Our biggest challenge is recruitment of professors. It requires more time,transportation, and perceived safety issues make it less appealing than teaching oncampus.”-Educational Provider

▫ “There should be an online electronic database of researchable materials because itallows students to learn research skills. . . . DOC should be more flexible [with allowing]instructors to bring in materials they feel are most applicable to their courses. I had ahard time finding old VHS tapes to use. Provide an online instructional resource forinstructors in the class.”-Education Administrator

▫ “Online learning is a different category—the biggest barrier is cost. The ability to addwireless capabilities is hard. The walls are cement. We need dedicated IT staff andsecurity staff. Some AIC may try to contact victims. Education coordinators are neededwhen AICs view online lectures. They need supervision. Online chat and discussionboards may be an issue. This is new to the Oregon Department of Corrections.”-DOC Administrator

23

Survey Several questions produced strong, semi-uniform responses. The first significant finding was related to access to post-secondary advising services. As seen in Figure 4 below, 81% of respondents indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: Students participating in post-secondary prison programs have sufficient access to academic advising services, indicating that students are perceived as being under-supported.

Figure 4: 2021 Survey - University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

The next significant finding was that related to degree to which prison post-secondary programs prepare AIC for successful re-entry. Eighty percent of respondents indicated they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (shown in Figure 5).

Figure 5: 2021 Survey - University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

24

In a similar vein, eighty percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that post-secondary education programs are effective at preparing AIC for college or career post-release.

Figure 6: 2021 Survey - University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

The majority of survey respondents (93%) indicated they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: Prison post-secondary education programs are effective at reducing recidivism.

Figure 7: 2021 Survey - University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

Question 10, which addressed the availability of education programs, received a notably strong response from survey participants. One-hundred percent of respondents agreed, somewhat agreed, or strongly agreed that prisons should offer more college degree or certificate programs.

25

Figure 8: HECC AIC 2021 Survey- University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

The next finding was that related to whether post-secondary prison programs provided sufficient technology access to complete coursework. As seen in Figure 10, 94% of respondents indicated they strongly disagreed, disagreed, or with this statement. This corroborated our interview findings.

Figure 10: HECC AIC 2021 Survey - University of Oregon Capstone Research Project

Another question from the survey was question 22, which elicited predominantly negative or neutral responses to a statement regarding re-entry counseling and academic advising. Over 90% of respondents either disagreed, strongly disagreed or were neutral to the following statement: Prison post-secondary programs are well-integrated into community re-entry counseling and services.

The survey’s four open-ended questions allowed participants to communicate with the research team in a less structured format. Below are a selection of answers offered in response

26

to the prompt: In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to access to postsecondary education in correctional facilities?:

• “Lack of technology access and support; lack of DOC prioritizing highereducation; lack of funding”

• “Funding for programs; DOC support/prioritization; college prep”

• “Financial resources to support online learning at all institutions”

Collectively, these surveys and interviews yielded a rich breadth of perspectives for our analysis and recommendations. Results indicate that there is not one single barrier, but rather multiple overlapping issues that restrict participation in post-secondary education programs. Our research also surfaced numerous strengths—administrative support, curriculum and instruction, and growing technology and resources—that are important to recognize and nurture. Though participants did not unanimously agree on solutions to the challenges AIC face, they displayed optimism regarding the future of these programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Criteria Our team used guidelines from the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP) and Prison University Project (PUP) for the following seven content areas—Program Design, Curriculum, Partnerships and Collaboration, Pedagogy, Instructional Resources, Advising and Support Services, and Faculty Recruitment—to assess interview data, survey findings, and insights from case studies for appropriate recommendations and organize them into the appropriate content area. Recommendations were further categorized into sections addressing equity, access, or general excellence.

Priorities The authors of this report propose that the Department of Corrections, partnering education providers, and bodies responsible for overseeing correctional education focus their collective efforts on the following seven priority areas. We expect that addressing these core areas will produce a significant positive effect on the quality, accessibility, and equitability of existing and new post-secondary educational programming. Additional recommendations are included in Appendix V.

I. Transform guidelines and best practices issued by governing bodies and area experts intostandards to be adopted by the Oregon Department of Corrections. Create procedures andmetrics for data collection and program evaluation to ensure programs meet state-issuedstandards. As much as possible, this work should be collaborative and guided by committeesstaffed by diverse participants representing affected stakeholders. While education programsare fundamentally the same on the “inside” as on the “outside,” incarcerated students face

27

many challenges that traditional students do not. Educational experiences must be well-integrated into prison infrastructure. It may be appropriate to seek legislative action that supports this work.

II. Increase student access to computer technology and high-speed internet. The barriers tolearning and student success cited most often during our interviews were computer andinternet access. Developing the infrastructure to support computer and internet accessibilitywill have wide-ranging, beneficial effects on educational program design, accessibility, andcommunication between students and instructors and advising staff. Computer skills alsoprepare students for the workforce post-release and make them more valuable to employers.Consider seeking consultation with Oregon Youth Authority to learn how its prisons utilizeclassroom technology.

III. Ensure that state prison facilities provide equivalent educational opportunities and usestandardized processes for administering such opportunities. Each prison should offerworkforce training in high-demand fields, pathways toward certificate and degree programs,and access to academic and career counseling. Efforts should be made to allow students toparticipate in online degree and certificate programs in cases where in-person instruction is notfeasible. These initiatives should be made in all corrections institutions, although it may bemore economically feasible to pilot these programs at individual sites before broadening themto include all facilities in Oregon.

IV. Provide academic and career advising continuity for students pre-and-post-release. Considerestablishing an academic and career advising center at each prison, staffed by DOC educationadministrators, volunteers, or education providers, as well as a post-release counseling andadvising center or service. If cost is an issue, then consider creating a de-centralized advisingand counseling center and allow students to meet with staff remotely via telephone, email, andvideo conferencing technology. Coordinate the work of pre-release case managers and paroleofficers to ensure students are adequately informed of post-secondary educational pathwaysavailable to them and that students feel well-supported.

V. Community colleges and four-year institutions should be encouraged to work cooperativelyto make general education credits transferrable between institutions. Education providersshould offer standardized general education courses, so student matriculation is not disruptedif they are moved to another prison facility or switch to another degree or certificate pathway.

VI. Collaborate with legislators and lobbyist groups to put forth ballot measures that allowenrollment in a post-secondary education program to count toward a student’s prison workrequirement. Under current regulations, work-eligible AICs are required to work or train fortyhours per week. Registered credit hours should count toward an equivalent number of workhours for work-eligible students enrolled in education programs.

VII. Educate corrections officers on their role and responsibilities in relation to supportingincarcerated students, and the benefits that education can have on prison safety and

28

recidivism. This may require a larger shift in organizational culture that ensures officers feel adequately supported in their jobs.

Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first formally commissioned report assessing post-secondary education programming in Oregon’s state prisons. This report offers significant implications for future research and policy creation that supports educational opportunities for AICs that are accessible, equitable, and high caliber. Looking ahead, the future of post-secondary education is promising. The reinstatement of Pell Grants to incarcerated students and the passage of laws like Oregon House Bill 2910, which made AICs who obtained high school diplomas or GED credentials while incarcerated eligible for Oregon Promise Grants, are giving students the financial means to pursue education and career pathways. Concurrently, DOC has been advancing its own internal initiatives, built upon principles of normalization and humanization, to expand and increase educational programs and services and to prioritize rehabilitation and successful reentry over punishment.

It is important to discuss the relevance of this research within the context of broader conversations and legislative activity relating to prison reform occurring in Oregon and nationally. Currently, we are seeing an emerging bipartisan interest in corrections and criminal justice as the public recognizes that mass incarceration is expensive and ineffective at reducing crime. The growing incarceration of nonviolent offenders has meant that many more people now know someone who has served time in a prison, further increasing awareness of this crisis. Those who work in criminal justice reform often argue that the system has contributed to institutional forms of oppression and inequality through the mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders and over-policing of BIPOC communities. Adults in custody also experience higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, dependency, and trauma than other groups—yet often receive inadequate support.

This project to our knowledge represents the first formally commissioned report on post-secondary prison education in Oregon, offering avenues for further research and policy reform around corrections. The recent reinstitution of Pell Grants marks a new era of prison reform that reflects a larger shift in society toward creating real equity. In Oregon, new legislation has been introduced or passed to modernize prisons, strengthen rehabilitative programming, reform sentencing and parole laws, and protect the privacy of those in custody.

Many incarcerated people will be released from prison at some point, many within two years of their conviction. Prisons can help inmates better themselves, support their families, and serve their communities by creating an education pipeline and offer support services like counseling, drug treatment, financial advising, and job and housing connections. The findings and recommendations in this report represent a significant step toward the development of an

29

equitable, accessible, and high caliber education landscape for adults in custody, creating transformative opportunities for Oregon’s incarcerated population and changing lives.

30

REFERENCES

America is Ready to Reinstate Pell Grants for Students in Prison. (2020). Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved February 7, 2021, from https://www.vera.org/blog/america-is-ready-to-reinstate-pell-grants-for-students-in-prison

Aos, S.& Drake, E. (2013). Prison, police, and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce

crime and save money (Doc. No. 13-11-1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.ojp.gov/library/abstracts/prison-police-and-programs-evidence-based-options-reduce-crime-and-save-money

Bonds, A. (2013). Economic Development, Racialization, and Privilege: “Yes in My Backyard”

Prison Politics and the Reinvention of Madras, Oregon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(6), 1389–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.779549

Castro, E. L., Hunter, R. K., Hardison, T., & Johnson-Ojeda, V. (2018). The Landscape of

Postsecondary Education in Prison and the Influence of Second Chance Pell: An Analysis of Transferability, Credit-Bearing Status, and Accreditation. The Prison Journal, 98(4), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518776376

Castro, E. L., & Gould, M. R. (2019). Higher Education in Prison: Thoughts on Building a

Community of Scholarship and Practice. Critical Education, 10(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v10i13.186525

The Expanding Role of Colleges in Prison Education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2021.

Retrieved February 7, 2021, from https://connect.chronicle.com/PrisonPopulation.html Department of Corrections: Our History: About Us: State of Oregon. (n.d.). Retrieved February 7,

2021, from https://www.oregon.gov/doc/about/pages/history.aspx Department of Corrections: Quick Facts: State of Oregon (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021,

from https://www.oregon.gov/doc/Documents/agency-quick-facts.pdf Erisman, W., & Contardo, J. B. (2005). Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of

Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy. In Institute for Higher Education Policy. Institute for Higher Education Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558210

Erzen, T., Gould, M.R., & Lewen, J. (2019). Equity and Excellence in Practice: A Guide for

Higher Education in Prison. St. Louis, MO: Alliance for Higher Education in Prison and San Quentin, CA: Prison University Project. Retrieved from the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison website: www.higheredinprison.org

31

Higher Education in Prison | Portland State University Studies: Senior Capstone. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/courses/higher-education-in-prison

Hegji, A., & Collins, B. (2020). H.R. 4674, the College Affordability Act: Proposed Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Summary of Major Provisions. 27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED603154.pdf

Inside and Beyond America’s Prisons (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019). https://dataspace.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/dsp01vx021j022/1/investing-in-futures.pdf

Jewkes, Y., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2016). A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816654953

Linden, Rick; Perry, Linda (1983). "The effectiveness of prison education programs". Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation. 6 (4): 43–57.

Manger, T., Eikeland, O. J., & Asbjørnsen, A. (2019). Why do not more prisoners participate in adult education? An analysis of barriers to education in Norwegian prisons. International Review of Education, 65(5), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9724-z

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, Short Version of Report no. 27 to the Storting [the Norwegian Storting] (2004-2005) Education and Training in the Correctional Services “Another Spring. Web: https://www.epea.org/wp-content/uploads/AnotherSpring_Norway_.pdf

Oakford, Patrick et al. (n.d). Investing in Futures: Economic and Fiscal Benefits of Postsecondary Education in Prison, Vera Institute of Justice, 2019, 17. See also Gerard Robinson & Elizabeth English Smith, eds., Education for Liberation: The Politics of Promise and Reform

Page, J. (2004). Eliminating the enemy: The import of denying prisoners access to higher education in Clinton’s America. Punishment & Society, 6(4), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504046118

Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing Inmate Misconduct and Prison Returns with Facility Education Programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12290

Ross, J. I. (2019). Getting a Second Chance with a University Education: Barriers & Opportunities. Interchange, 50(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-019-09354-4

32

Shirley, G. (2006). Library Services to Disadvantaged User Groups. Library services to adult prisoners in the United States. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 6. https://libreas.eu/ausgabe6/003shir.htm

Stevens, D. J., & Ward, C. S. (1997). College Education and Recidivism: Educating Criminals Is Meritorious. Journal of Correctional Education, 48(3), 106–111.

The Sentencing Project. (n.d.). The Sentencing Project. Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/

Vacca, J. S. (2004). Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 297–305.

Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00019

33

APPENDIX I: KEY WORDS 2-year degree program - is commonly as result of an associate degree, and these degrees may be earned at community, technical, and vocational colleges.4-year degree - is commonly as result of being awarded as a bachelor's degree at a college or university.AIC or Adult in custody – This refers to person incarcerated or detained in a prison who is accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for a violation of criminal law or for the violation of the terms and conditions of pretrial release, probation, parole, post-prison supervision or a diversion program. Plural, AICs. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=262560Correctional facility - a place where people are kept when they have been arrested and are being punished for a crime also referred to as a prison. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correctional%20facilityVocational training - Refers to instructional programs or courses that focus on the skills, versustraditional academic learning, required for a particular job function or trade. This training prepares students for specific careers. DOC’s vocational training programs are provided by qualified DOC staff and result in a BOLI-issued journeyman card or industry-recognized certificate. https://www.indeed.com/careeradvice/career-development/what-is-vocationaltrainingWork Based Programs - DOC’s work-based education programs have both a work and education component and result in either a community college certificate or an industry-based certificate and/or state license. DOC’s current work-based education programs are welding, paraoptometrics, cosmetology, building construction trades, and automotive technology. https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/work_programs.jsp

34

APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Content Area: Program Design DOC: 1. What role does DOC play, if any, in developing prison education programs delivered byinstitutional partners?2. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected prison postsecondary programming? Do youforesee these changes being temporary or permanent?Partners:1. How is your program designed for incarcerated students, as opposed to traditionalstudents?2. Are re-entry services considered in the program design? How so?3. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected your program? Do you foresee these changesbeing temporary or permanent?Policymakers: 1. What role do policymakers play, if any, in developing or evaluating prison educationprograms delivered by DOC institutional partners? What guidelines do you use to evaluate theeffectiveness of prison education programs?2. What outcomes are expected from these postsecondary partnerships?Students:1. How well did the education program you participated in prepare you for a job or career post-release?

Content Area: Partnerships and Collaboration DOC: 1. Do prison administrators view the prison education program as a vital service for AIC?2. Do partnerships provide or enhance re-entry services, and if so, how? Are re-entry servicesconsidered an integral aspect of the program?3. Are partners familiar with the social, psychological, and logistical challenges of conductingresearch in a prison setting?Partners:1. Do college administrators view the program as an integral part of the college or university?2.Does your program provide or enhance re-entry services, and if so, how? Are re-entry servicesconsidered an integral aspect of the program?3. Are your instructors and staff familiar with the social, psychological, and logistical challengesof conducting research in a prison setting?Policymakers:1. What role do policymakers play in arranging or supporting partnerships between Oregonprisons and educational institutions?Students:1. From your perspective, how in-sync are the expectations of educational partners with DOCpolicies? What could be changed?

35

Content Area: Curriculum Students: 1. What extracurricular learning opportunities were available to you outside of formal collegeand college preparatory programs?2. Did the program you participated in inadequately support students (by providing study time,access to electronics, instructor support)?Policymakers:1.What prerequisites are required for incarcerated students to participate in collegeprograms? How involved are policymakers in establishing that criteria? Do you consider the2.pre-requisites equitable?What disqualifies AIC from participating in higher ed programs? Why are those disqualificationsin place?DOC:1. What role do corrections officers play in supporting incarcerated students, if at all?Partners:

1. What extracurricular learning opportunities are available for AIC outside of formalcollege and college preparatory programs?

2. Content Area: Pedagogy Students: 1. In your experience, how well was communication between instructors and studentsfacilitated outside of the classroom? What would you have changed?2. Did the academic standards of the program(s) you participated in well-adapted tosupport your circumstances as an incarcerated student?3. How have course expectations been adapted to support the circumstances of incarceratedstudents?4. What does your program need to better support incarcerated students as they participate inthese programs?Policymakers:1. Are there any incentives for instructors to participate in these programs? What are they?DOC:1. What can, or should DOC do to better support incarceratedstudents participating in postsecondary education programs?Partners:1. How is communication between instructors and students facilitated outside of theclassroom?2. How have academic standards been adapted to support the circumstances of incarceratedstudents?3. How have course expectations been adapted to support the circumstances of incarceratedstudents?

36

4. What does your program need to better support incarcerated students participating yourprogram?

Content Area: Instructional Resources Students: 1. How could access to instructional resources (technology,equipment, dedicated classroom/study space, and materials) be improved?2. Please describe your study and classroom spaces. What was the environment like? Did itsupport your learning? How could it have been improved?3. Were you given adequate time to use instructional resources?Policymakers:1. How could access to instructional resources (technology,equipment, dedicated classroom/study space, and materials) be improved?DOC:1. What DOC or institutional technology, equipment, classroom/study spaces and materials dostudents have access to? What limitations exist?2. Please describe your institution’s study and classroom spaces. What was the environmentlike? Did it support student learning? How can it be improved?3. Are students given adequate time to use instructional resources?4. How accessible are in-person and virtual library services for program participants?Partners:1. What DOC/institutional technology, equipment, and materials do students have access to?What limitations exist?2. How could access to instructional resources (technology, equipment, and materials) beimproved?

Content Area: Advising and Support Services DOC: 1. What services or resources do you think are needed to support students with re-entryplanning, academic advising, and counseling?Policymakers:1. What services or resources do you think are needed to support students with re-entryplanning, academic advising, and counseling?Students:1. What services or resources do you think are needed to support students with re-entryplanning, academic advising, and counseling?Partners1. Does the program have a process in place for academic re-entry planning?2. Are advisors available to all program participants? How often can program participantsaccess instructors or counselors? How can students schedule and keep appointments with theirinstructor or counselor?3. Does the program offer other student support services? Please describe them.

37

4. What services are needed to support students with re-entry planning, academicadvising, and counseling?

38

APPENDIX III: CODES AND THEMES Code book was developed in collaboration between research team members. Purpose of the Code Book is to find common themes in the completed interviews to quantify data and to aid in the process of recommendation.

CODE BOOK

Code Use Case

Barrier – B1 Policies

-Policies that limit or prohibit technology use-Policies that limit AIC’s availability to participate in education programs (scheduling, jobsrequirement)

Barrier – B2

Collaboration

-Poor communication between parties, -Lack of shared goals between DOC and educationproviders or between education providers, -Poorly coordinated services and programs -Instructors are poorly prepared for teaching/working in a prison environment due toinadequate preparation and training (either from DOC or institution)

Barrier –B3 Recruitment

-Program pre-requisites that prevent AIC from enrolling in programs -Location-based recruitment barriers (ex: instructors do not want to commute to prison site;AICs do not want to transfer to a remote prison in Oregon)-Challenges recruiting instructors and support staff due to safety concerns-Challenges recruiting instructors and support staff due to concerns over time commitmentand resources

Barrier – B4 Stigma & Prison Organizational Culture

-Attitudes or perceptions of AIC by DOC staff or instructors that limit participation inprograms by AIC, -Intentional disruption of AIC education by DOC -Perception that AIC education is not valued by DOC, lawmakers, or the public

Barrier – B5 Individual Barriers

-Negative self-perceptions of AIC , -Lack of hope for or interest in the future among AIC -AIC not ready for college-level coursework, -interpersonal conflict between AIC andinstructors, and correctional staff

Barrier – B6 Funding

-Lack of prison funding for technology (computers, internet, IT infrastructure to supportonline learning, software licenses, etc.) -Lack of funding to pay for courses among AIC-Lack of funding for administrative staff, instructors, counselors/advisors, and security andsupport staff wages -Lack of funding for educational resources (classroom or study spaces,books, lab materials, etc.)

Barrier – B7 Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion

-Educational resources and programs not equitably distributed between men and women’sprisons - programs not equitably distributed between rural and urban prisons or bygeographic location-Educational resources and programs not equitably distributed between minimum andmedium/maximum security prisons -Poor accommodations for ESOL speakers -Perceived racism or discrimination based on age, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation,

39

race, ethnicity, appearance, crime, sentence or release date, religion, or political beliefs. -Perceived discrimination based on how well an AIC adheres to prison culture

Barrier – B8 Leadership

-Lack of policy and administrative leadership -Lack of program evaluation data not being collected

Barrier – B9 Support Services

-Poor coordination between transitional/release coordinators and education providers -Lack of academic career and advising resources, including staff -Lack of resources (housing, transportation, mental health services, job connections) for AICs -DO NOT offer academic accommodations -NO re-entry services

Barrier – B10 Curriculum & Instruction

-Poor quality of instruction, -Curriculum not adapted to the constraints of prison and/or prison policies, -Program has no or few applications for AIC after release -Curriculum and or program not specifically designed to adapt to meet the needs of AIC academic needs

Strength – S1 Support from Leadership

-Support for postsecondary education programs from lawmakers -Education is viewed as an important service or strategy for rehabilitation -Prioritization of postsecondary education by DOC -Decision makers willing to support programs with funding (but funding might not be available)

Strength – S2 Collaboration

-DOC and education providers share the same goals -DOC and education providers are willing to share resources, enact changes, and/or compromise to achieve shared goals -Education providers are willing to share resources, enact changes, and/or compromise with each other to achieve shared goals

Strength – S3 Technology & Resources

-Adequate internet, word processing software, and computer access for AICs to complete coursework, -Study resources (books, quiet space, tutoring) available to AIC -Other classroom resources (writing implements, etc.) available to AIC -Channels of communication (regular mail), -Tutors are available or program being developed -gives AIC confidence to continue education

Strength – S4 Curriculum & Instruction

-Non-credit class increasing access -Credit Classes establishing AIC as a student and increases access to Education -Extra-curricular activities available (Book Club, POC Clubs, Same clubs offered on campus, Guest lectures)- Entrepreneurial programs (business oriented) and vocational training

Strength – S5 Funding

-Adequate funding streams exist to support programs (instruction, tuition and fees for AIC, reimbursement for travel, course materials, classroom or study spaces, technology, tuition and fees for AIC, reimbursement for travel, course materials, classroom or study spaces, technology, etc.) New funding streams are in development to support programs

Strength – S6 Transitional & Re-Entry Services

-Sufficient and well-supported re-entry services for AIC participating in education programs -Adequate coordination between DOC and education providers to help AIC enroll or stay enrolled in programs after release

Strength – S7 Academic Advising & Counseling

-Programs provide quality academic and career counseling services to AICs enrolled in programs, -Advisors and counselors provide quality FAFSA application, college/program application, and scholarship application assistance to AICs - Advisors and Counselors are available by request

40

Interview Coding Totals: Top Barrier codes (B) recorded are (1) policy, (2) support services and (3) funding. Top Strength codes (S) are (1) classroom resources, (2) curriculum and (3) instruction and support from leadership.

CODES DOC

ADMIN INSTRUCTOR ADMININISTRATOR FORMER

AIC POLICY MAKER TOTAL

B1 8 4 9 6 12 39 B2 7 1 5 2 7 22 B3 0 0 7 1 1 9 B4 2 1 3 7 6 19 B5 1 0 2 0 0 3 B6 6 10 8 2 3 29 B7 5 0 3 6 4 18 B8 2 1 0 4 4 11 B9 4 4 8 3 11 30

B10 4 1 7 4 8 24 S1 3 2 11 0 2 18 S2 3 0 9 0 2 14 S3 3 5 16 1 1 26 S4 0 6 9 1 3 19 S5 1 0 4 0 0 5 S6 0 1 8 0 0 9 S7 2 0 5 0 0 7

41

APPENDIX IV THE APPLIED RESEARCH SURVEY HECC AIC Survey 2021

Content Area: Partnerships and Program Design This section is designed to understand the role stakeholders and partnerships play, and how equitable and inclusive the design of programs are for incarcerated students.

Q3-5 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about program development.

The DOC plays an important role in developing post-secondary educational programs for adults in custody. Community colleges are important partners in developing post-secondary educational programs for AIC. Four-year universities are important partners with the DOC in developing educational programs.

Q6-8 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about support mechanisms for incarcerated students.

Students participating in post-secondary prison programs have sufficient access to study resources (study space, quiet study time, tutoring). Students participating in post-secondary prison programs have sufficient access to computer technology and the internet. Students participating in post-secondary prison programs have sufficient access to academic advising services.

Q9-11 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about the availability of education programs.

Prisons should offer more work-based training and vocational programs. Prisons should offer more college degree or certificate programs. Work-based training/vocational programs and college degree and certificate programs receive the same level of support from correctional institutions.

Q12 In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to access to postsecondary education in prisons?

Q13 In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to equity to postsecondary education in prisons?

Content Area: Pedagogy and Instruction This section addresses teaching methods and practices in prison post-secondary education programs. This section also assesses how curricula supports the learning needs of incarcerated students and the degree of access incarcerated students have to instructors or academic advising staff.

42

Q14-16 How well do you agree with the following statements about curriculum?

Prison post-secondary education programs are inclusive and equitable. The curriculum of these programs is inclusive of non-English speaking students. Incarcerated students are adequately supported in the programs you oversee.

Q17-19 How well do you agree with the following statement about program instruction?

Teaching staff create a learning environment that is inclusive of all students. Having a diverse teaching and advising staff improves the quality of students' educational experience. The teaching and advising staff represent the diversity of the incarcerated population.

Content Area: Re-Entry Counseling and Academic Advising This section is designed to understand how prison post-secondary programs support incarcerated students with community re-entry counseling and academic advising.

Q20-22 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about re-entry counseling and academic advising.

Prison post-secondary programs are well-integrated into community re-entry counseling and services. Incarcerated students have consistent access to academic advising services while enrolled in classes. Incarcerated students receive adequate support from instructors when applying for financial aid.

Q23-25 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about recidivism.

Prison post-secondary education programs are effective at reducing recidivism. Prison post-secondary education programs are effective at preparing adults in custody for a college education or career post-release. Prison post-secondary education programs prepare adults in custody for successful re-entry post-release.

Q26-28 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements about attitudes toward incarcerated students.

Negative attitudes and stigma toward incarcerated students are a significant barrier to student success. Adults in custody receive encouragement from the Department of Corrections to participate in post-secondary education programs while incarcerated. Adults in custody receive encouragement from education providers to participate in post-secondary education programs while incarcerated.

Q29 What improvements would significantly increase the accessibility of prison post-secondary education?

Q30 What improvements would significantly increase the equity of prison post-secondary education?

43

APPENDIX V SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Content Area: Partnerships and Collaboration

Metric: Equity 1A. Standardize general education courses between educational institutions so students can transfer between institutions and prisons without program disruptions.

1B. Oregon Commission for Higher Education in Prisons (OCHEP) and other prison education working groups should cooperate with legislators to develop and propose policies that make it easier for AICs to gain employment post-release.

Metric: Access 1B. Expand educational partnerships to additional colleges and universities to increase the degree and certificate options available to AICs. Incentivize more community colleges and universities to participate in prison education through targeted outreach that advertises the revenue potential of Pell Grants.

1C. Facilitate collaboration between case managers, parole offices, education providers, and nonprofits that provide transitional services to develop release continuity plans for AICs who participate in education programs while incarcerated.

1D. Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) should develop a program catalog showing the vocational, work-based certificate programs, and degree programs offered by DOC and education providers and make it readily available to prospective and current students.

Metric: Excellence 1E. Prison education programs run by colleges and universities should be formalized and given appropriate office space and administrative resources on their respective campuses.

1F. Consider developing courses that incorporate or collaborate with existing DOC work programs, such as the Oregon State Penitentiary healing garden and the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility butterfly conservation lab when feasible to make use of existing resources.

1G. Consider partnering with AICs clubs to recruit students or distribute educational resources.

1H. Create a partnership and relational framework that mutually benefits stakeholders and includes shared goals. Benchmarks and metrics should be tied to prison education guidelines developed by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission.

1I. Establish an audit protocol to ensure prison sites receive equitable services from education providers.

1J. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission should consider appointing one or more leaders to the prison education committees and working groups it oversees, including OCHEP.

44

1K. Standardize prison orientation and training for instructors and educational support staff. Training provided should not solely focus on matters of security; it should also spend adequate time addressing the challenges and barriers AICs experience that may affect their learning outcomes, including substance abuse and withdrawal, peer pressure, mental illness and developmental disorders, and trauma.

1L. DOC should consider consulting with Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) to optimize its education-focused policies. DOC should consider attending site visits to OYA facilities to learn about other infrastructure and polices.

1M. DOC should consider hiring a prison education consultant to audit its education policies.

2. Content Area: Program Design

Metric: Equity 2A. DOC policies governing the administration of prison education should be evidence-based, and not constructed using legacy policy conventions.

2B. Education providers should provide accommodations to students with disabilities in partnership with the Department of Corrections. Documentation requirements should be eliminated or reduced so as not to pose a barrier to receiving needed accommodations.

2C. Expand higher-education and vocational programs at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, emphasizing high-demand, living wage fields and union-represented trades.

2D. Consider developing programs that leverage partnerships with business schools, BIPOC- and women-owned businesses, and community or civic leaders.

2E. Standardize GED achievement targets across prison sites so AICs are eligible to participate in post-secondary education programs at their local respective correctional institutions, thereby reducing the need for transfers.

Metric: Access 2F. Hold regular seminars with prospective students informing them of educational opportunities, the benefits of participating, and application and enrollment requirements.

2G. Allow AICs to study and learn alongside “outside” students via programs like the Inside Out program at the University of Oregon so AICs are exposed to diverse perspectives.

2H. Inform AICs prior to prison transfers of the effects that transfers may have on their educational opportunities.

2I. Seek funding for facility and technology upgrades and create policies that support remote learning options to reduce the need for prison transfers.

Metric: Excellence

45

2J. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission and other administrative bodies should prioritize transforming guidelines and best practices issued by prison education experts into standards to be adopted by DOC and the education providers it works with.

2K. Form processes for data collection and develop evaluation metrics and criteria to ensure education programs meet equity, access, and excellence standards.

2L. Increase institutional focus on for-credit offerings that lead to a degree or certificate pathways to give AICs the opportunity to continue their education after release.

2M. Educate corrections staff on their role and responsibilities in relation to prison education (“their success is your success”) through seminars and training. Inform corrections staff of the positive outcomes of educated AICs on prison safety and recidivism.

2N. Consider subsidizing education for corrections officers and allowing officers to attend credit-bearing courses with AICs to improve the working environment for officers and create pathways to empathy and understanding between officers and the AICs they supervise.

3. Content Area: Pedagogy

Metric: Equity 3A. Ensure methods of program delivery and assignment collection are consistent across prison sites, accounting for differences in program structures.

3B. Employ multiple modes of teaching to support auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners.

Metric: Access 3C. Make “universal” non-credit courses available for AICs who want to continue their education but may not be ready to enroll in a degree or certificate program.

Metric: Excellence 3D. Education providers should regularly provide their instructors professional development tailored toward teaching in a prison environment.

3E. Education providers should develop course catalogs that mimic a community college and or university.

3F. Allow AIC to interact with customers via prison phones to schedule and book appointments as a supplement to certificate programs in fields that require customer service competency.

3G. Courses should include a mixture of lecture, group discussion, in-class exercises, and lab work to fully engage students and prepare them to continue their education post-release.

4. Content Area: Instructional Resources

Metric: Equity 4A. Recruit and hire educators and support staff that reflect the diversity of students.

46

Metric: Access 4B. Education providers should consider donating computer and technology equipment it plans to retire to prisons.

4C. Allow students to attend community colleges via online (work with partners to provide video of lectures and classes so AICs can access course content and submit assignments like on Canvas type of program

4D. Seek funding to support the creation of computer labs or offer mobile computers to students to allow them to complete coursework and attend classes virtually. Computers should be internet-enabled and monitored to ensure they are used for educational purposes. Funding should cover building construction to make facilities internet-friendly and support staff to supervise and monitor labs and internet usage.

4E. Education providers should work with DOC to ensure that the computer software students have access to is sufficient to complete coursework.

Metric: Excellence 4F. Provide information technology training and certification to students. Allow students to gain valuable work experience by providing technology support to computer labs.

4G. DOC’s technology plan should incorporate feedback from educational providers.

Content Area: Advising and Support Services

5. Metric: Equity 5A. DOC should continue adopting policies that promote normalization and humanization among AICs. As part of this initiative, administrative staff, corrections officers, and education providers should be encouraged to use less stigmatizing language around AICs.

5B. Provide all students supervised access to quiet rooms or study areas to complete assignments and prepare for exams at designated times.

Metric: Access 5C. Track the educational attainment and employment post-release of students who participated in post-secondary educational programs while incarcerated.

5D. Create a system or workflow that allows AICs to communicate with former instructor’s post-release safely and legally. At a minimum, AICs should be able to ask former instructors to serve as professional references and request letters of recommendation or endorsements.

5E. Seek funding to develop a student academic and career advising center, staffed by one or more DOC education administrators. Allow students and prospective students to schedule time with counselors. Alternatively, create a system or workflow in partnership with education providers that allows current students to send messages to academic and career counselors at the respective colleges or institutions they are enrolled with.

47

Metric: Excellence 5F. Create a pathway to education for eligible AICs at least six months prior to enrollment in a program that addresses Pell Grants, testing, study skills, computer skills. Pathways should be adjusted based upon the AICs’ existing proficiencies.

5G. Parole officers and pre-release case managers should be comfortable discussing post-secondary education options, scholarships, and Pell Grants with AICs and incorporate this into knowledge case plans.

5H. AICs serving long sentences who develop proficiency in given areas can serve as tutors and support staff.

6. Content: Curriculum

Metric: Equity 6A. Incorporate diverse perspectives into lessons and assign readings authored by BIPOC, women, and other marginalized groups.

Metric: Access 6B. Trade programs should be modernized to reflect changes in technology, so AICs are prepared to enter the 21st-century workforce. Consider offering courses and programs in information technology, programming, and green jobs such as solar power installation.

6C. Consider waiving pre-requisite requirements when supplemental programming or tutoring would be an acceptable alternative.

6D. Allow AICs to communicate with educators via email in addition to the traditional paper mail request system.

Metric: Excellence 6E. Include a mixture of individual and group assignments (when appropriate) when developing curriculum.

7. Content: Faculty Recruitment

Metric: Equity 7A. Education providers should prioritize the recruitment of faculty and support staff who identify as BIPOC, women, or as coming from an under-represented group.

Metric: Access 7B. Educational institutions should provide course releases to instructors who teach at prison sites and fairly compensate instructors for travel and other expenses related to performing the work. If course releases are not provided, then instructors should be compensated fairly for their time.

Metric: Excellence

48

7C. Education providers should commit institutional resources toward recruiting faculty and advising staff. Faculty who teaches for programs that can be more readily adapted to a prison environment should be targeted for recruitment.

7D. Instructors and advising staff should have the opportunity to shadow other instructors and advising staff prior to commencing work.

7E. Educational institutions should offer institutional resources to instructors seeking grant funding in support of prison education initiatives.