Supporting students leaving prison, integrating to college

In July 2023, Congress lifted a 26-year ban on Pell Grants for individuals in prison, which allowed new programs to provide education for incarcerated people—but the lifting of the ban also established federal regulations around delivery and quality of instruction in prison. Two new regulations include mandated data collection of student outcomes and documentation of how institutions or their partner organizations provide students with re-entry services

New research from Ithaka S+R investigates common and impactful practices in supporting students through re-entry. The report, “Exploring the Landscape of College and Community Reentry Partnerships,” offers six promising practices and considerations for institutions looking to start or scale work.

What’s the sitch: Re-entry is a critical time for individuals released from prisons, because more than two-thirds of prisoners are re-arrested within three years of their release and half are re-incarcerated, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  

Historically, state and local offices, nonprofit and charitable organizations, businesses and community members have knitted together a web of support for those re-entering society. While many colleges offer similar services—such as basic needs support—most are not designing services for current or recently incarcerated students in mind, but such efforts could serve as a blueprint to start this work.

Due to a fragmented and largely provincialized re-entry landscape, there is a dearth of national-level information about practices, the college transition and partnership models between colleges and community organizations. The report seeks to bridge this gap, consolidating findings from landscape research and providing an overview of the field to better serve students.

What works: One of the top findings authors emphasized is the need for individualized and case-by-case support for students because the field is large and disaggregated, so services cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution. Similarly, different state policies, agencies and partnerships provide re-entry services in different ways across the U.S.

“As a result, the experience of returning from prison differs widely across states, and even across municipalities within the same state,” according to the report.

Due to these challenges, each higher education–in–prison program must navigate a highly localized context.

The most urgent needs for individuals reintegrating are often housing, employment, family unification and medical and mental health care, according to the report.

Among colleges and universities that currently serve formerly incarcerated students with re-entry, best practices include:

1. Listening to the needs of students as a starting point. While basic needs are important for all individuals after they leave prison, many formerly incarcerated students are looking for professional development and internships, technology literacy, financial aid, and a sense of belonging as well.

2. Gathering student data and feedback to drive decision-making, including revising program services.
3. Using a social work model to identify and prioritize reintegration needs.
4. Using assessment tools and techniques, like one-to-one interviews with a mentor or staff member or a questionnaire, to determine needs and barriers to success.
5. Employing former students in peer leader or mentor roles to build community, inclusion and informal support structures.
6. Instituting a designated re-entry navigator or coordinator. Peers who had been through the re-entry experience are particularly well suited to serve in these roles, borrowing from social work methods and perspectives.

“The importance of roles like these cannot be overstated, because the information ecosystem on reentry resources is so disaggregated and difficult to navigate that localized, individualized knowledge is crucial,” the report says.

Over all, stakeholders must be proactive in understanding how the program, college and partnerships work together to offer specific and individualized supports for reintegration.

Advice from the experts: In interviews with prison program staff and leaders, Ithaka S+R researchers solicited insights for new programs looking to learn from existing programs.

• Realize there is no one housing solution. “If there are five students, you need five different solutions,” say Regina Diamond-Rodriguez, director of transitions, and Chris Agans, executive director of the New Jersey Scholarship and Transformative Education in Prisons. On-campus residences aren’t the answer and can’t be for each student, requiring programs to be creative and examine the needs of individuals being served.
• Don’t re-invent the wheel. Colleges should take stock of what services and programs are available in the area and if students are aware of and able to access them, says Mneesha Gellman, executive director of the Emerson Prison Initiative.
• Check your own assumptions. Identifying available solutions may seem simple, but there can be additional barriers to access that require staff to listen to learners. Many students face complex challenges that can make re-integration seem overwhelming. Therefore, practitioners need to understand students are grappling with a “host of intangible challenges,” explain Washington University in St. Louis Prison Education Project leaders.

How does your college or university support currently or formerly incarcerated students? Tell us more.