samijames.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewThe literature related to ex-offenders and the college...

Running Head: FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 1

Faculty Opinions About Working With Ex-Offender Students

Samantha James

LIU Post

Author Note

Samantha James, Ed.D Program in Educational Leadership, LIU Post.

FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 2

Abstract

The literature related to ex-offenders and the college admissions process was examined,

specifically, how colleges handle ex-offender applicants, the “Ban the Box” movement,

recidivism, and how education relates to recidivism. The reviewed literature supported this

study’s efforts to determine how faculty members would feel if they knew they were working

with ex-offenders in their classes. Overall, faculty members were in favor of ex-offenders

pursuing college degrees and several participants detailed the positive experiences they had with

this population. There was also support for the collaboration between prisons and colleges to

help ensure that education that begins in prison can continue for inmates upon release. This

information is important for practitioners and policymakers with regard to screening applicants

for felony convictions.

Keywords: admissions policies, ex-offenders, faculty bias, post-incarceration education


Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM............................................................8

Ex-offender Students in the Classroom...................................................................8

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................8

Purpose of the Study....................................................................................9

Definitions....................................................................................................9

Legislative Action......................................................................................10

Limitations in Current Research................................................................10

Scope of This Study...................................................................................11

Limitations of This Research.....................................................................11

Expected Contribution of This Study....................................................................11

Plan of This (Mini) Dissertation............................................................................12

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...........................................................13

Overview................................................................................................................13

Ex-Offenders and the College Admissions Process...................................13

The State University of New York................................................14

Criminal history records and admissions applications...................16

Maryland and barring admission...................................................18

Safety on campus...........................................................................19

The Ban the Box Movement..................................................................................20

Recidivism.............................................................................................................20

Education and Recidivism.........................................................................22


Discussion..............................................................................................................24

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...................................................................................26

Research Design.....................................................................................................26

Hypothesis..............................................................................................................26

Primary Research Question....................................................................................26

Secondary Research Questions..............................................................................26

Methodology..........................................................................................................26

Sample Size................................................................................................26

Participants.................................................................................................26

Setting of the Study....................................................................................27

Instrument..................................................................................................27

Reliability...................................................................................................27

Validity......................................................................................................27

Data Collection..........................................................................................28

Analysis......................................................................................................28

Coding........................................................................................................28

Limitations to Available Data....................................................................28

Care of Human Subjects............................................................................28

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS...............................................................................................29

Demographic Information......................................................................................29

Likert Findings.......................................................................................................29

Figures........................................................................................................30

Dimensions............................................................................................................31


Coding for Analysis...................................................................................31

Table..........................................................................................................31

Qualitative Data.....................................................................................................33

Analysis of Total Sample Results..........................................................................35

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION............................................................................................36

Overview of the Findings.......................................................................................36

Summary of the Results.........................................................................................36

Summary of Sub-Groups Analysis........................................................................36

The Unexpected.....................................................................................................37

Implications of the Study for Practice and Legislation..........................................38

For the Practitioner....................................................................................38

For the Policymaker...................................................................................39

Problems and Limitations......................................................................................39

Suggestions for Future Research...........................................................................41

Conclusion.............................................................................................................42

Appendix............................................................................................................................44

References..........................................................................................................................46


List of Tables

Table 1...............................................................................................................................31


List of Figures

Figure 1..............................................................................................................................30

Figure 2..............................................................................................................................30


CHAPTER I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Ex-offender Students in the Classroom

Criminal Justice practitioners and scholars have long grappled with the problem of

preventing released prisoners from reoffending. As “93 percent of all prison inmates are

eventually released” (Petersilia, 2003, p. 3) and “nearly 30 percent of all released inmates are

rearrested for a serious crime in the first six months” (p. 18), this is a timely, urgent, and

complex issue.

Correctional education has shown to reduce recidivism (Gehring, 1997; Chappell, 2004;

Batiuk, Lahn, McKeever, Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005), but since there are fewer in-prison college

programs, the focus has shifted to post-release education. However, since many colleges screen

applicants for criminal histories, those with felony convictions may not have the opportunity to

earn a college degree.

Statement of the Problem

Little is known about how college faculty members feel about working with ex-offender

students in the classroom. This information is crucial, however, as many colleges screen

applicants for criminal histories asking “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” on their

admissions application, and they cite “safety reasons” in defense of this practice.

However, research has shown that the colleges that screen applicants are no safer than the

colleges that do not (Weissman, Rosenthal, Warth, Wolf, & Messina, 2011). If, based on the

research, safety is not a valid reason for screening applicants, then colleges should reevaluate

their current policies and factor in the opinions of those working directly with ex-offender

students: the faculty.


Screening applicants can result in the denial of admission or the applicants dropping out

before they can complete the process, which is known as attrition (Rosenthal, 2015). Once

applicants indicate that they have been convicted of a felony, they are required to take additional

steps in the admissions process including submitting supplemental documents, including official

criminal justice documents, and sitting through interviews with college administrators

(Weissman et al., 2011).

Education is one of the categories of “barriers to reentry” that formerly incarcerated

individuals face when trying to reintegrate into society. If this population is denied the

opportunity to earn a college degree-one factor that has been proven to lower the recidivism rate

(as will be discussed in the literature review)-then their opportunities for legal and gainful

employment will be limited. This, in turn, may lead them to return to illegal activity. Denying

formerly incarcerated individuals the opportunity to earn a college degree is actually

“counterproductive from a public safety perspective” (EIO, n.d., c).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this case study was to gain an understanding of the feelings of faculty

members towards students with criminal histories. The information that was collected in this

study is important: if safety is a concern and the major reason for screening applicants, but the

research has shown that the colleges that screen are not any safer than the colleges that do not

screen, then college administrators need to reconsider their reasons for continuing this practice.

Their first step in doing so should be to hear from the people working directly with this

population-the faculty-about their opinions and experiences.

Definitions

Criminal History: Whether or not an applicant has at least one felony conviction


Faculty Members: College professors teaching undergraduate courses at the sample college

Screening Applicants: The process of asking applicants on the college admissions application if

they have ever been convicted of a felony as well as the subsequent interviews and submission of

additional documents in order to be considered for admission

Legislative Action

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Right Priorities” initiative seeks to reform

the criminal justice system and prisoner reentry, specifically dealing with juveniles, employment,

and education (New York State, 2016). One of the goals of the program is to increase the

number of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS)

inmates who are taking college courses while incarcerated. The $7.5 million investment in this

program (from criminal forfeiture funds) will allow approximately 1,000 inmates, over five

years, to take college courses and possibly earn a degree. The City University of New York

(CUNY) and the State University of New York (SUNY) have not only been tasked with setting

the standards for these programs, but also for ensuring a smooth transition to college upon the

prisoner’s release.

Limitations in Current Research

The literature on post-incarceration education focuses on admissions policies, ex-offender

applicant experiences, and education as a way to reduce recidivism. The literature does not

focus on the faculty or any other group working with this population in college-and this includes

college staff and the student body. This study focused on the faculty only instead of focusing on

all three groups as a way to study faculty members in-depth. However, all three groups should

be studied because they work with the ex-offender student population, whether they realize it or

not, and it is important to understand their thoughts and feelings about the topic.


Scope of This Study

This study employed a convenience sample of ten faculty members (colleagues of the

researcher) at a public college on Long Island, NY (part of the State University of New York

system). All of the faculty members in the sample taught undergraduate courses in a variety of

disciplines (some may also teach graduate courses) at two of the college’s three Long Island

locations. At the time of this survey, this college screened applications for criminal histories but

was to cease this practice beginning with the 2018 admissions cycle.

Limitations of This Research

There were several limitations to this study, the first of which was the sample size. The

survey was sent to ten participants, so this is a very small sample. In addition, the sample was

handpicked (convenience sample) and all ten participants were colleagues of the researcher;

some were picked specifically because the researcher knew these faculty members had

experience working with ex-offender students.

Expected Contribution of This Study

There is no research/information about the opinions of faculty members with regard to

their respective school’s admissions policy/procedures for ex-offenders and there is no

information on their opinions about working with this population in the classroom. If the results

show that faculty members have no problem working with ex-offenders, having them in the

classroom, and advising them, then this supports the argument for “banning the box” from

college admissions applications and not asking about an applicant’s ex-offender status.

However, if the faculty members do have problems working with ex-offenders, and those

problems are identified (as well as possible solutions or compromises), then administrators can


use the results of this study as a starting point for discussion and possible future changes. Either

way, the faculty perspective is missing from the literature and the discussion about ex-offenders

pursuing higher education.

Plan of This (Mini) Dissertation

The subsequent chapters include a literature review which examines the admissions

process for those who have been convicted of a felony; the State University of New York

system; criminal history records and admissions applications (including an examination of how

the state of Maryland handles this process); and the concern about safety on campus. Other

topics covered in the literature review include the “Ban the Box” movements; recidivism; and

education and as it relates to recidivism.

The methodology chapter examines the research design, research questions, information

about the sample, and the instrument (including reliability, validity, and data collection

methods). The fourth chapter includes the results and figures that support the reader’s

understanding of the findings. The final chapter discussed the themes that emerged and what the

results may indicate. It also addressed the implications of this research on practitioners, college

professors, and policymakers and its suggested impact on future research.


CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

The goal of attending college is not always an attainable one, especially for those who are

ex-offenders. Checking “Yes” to “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” on a college

admissions application often means additional steps in the admissions process, not to mention

stress and unforeseen costs for the applicant, just in the hope of not being summarily rejected.

Not all colleges ask this question on their applications, but for those that do, safety is an often-

cited reason (Weissman, Rosenthal, Warth, Wolf, and Messina-Yauchzy, 2011).

However, researchers, and even college administrators, have neglected to take into

account the opinions of the faculty-those who work the closest with this student population. It is

important to know how they feel about having ex-offenders as students because if they have no

problem with it, that could help influence future policy, or at the very least, help create a

welcoming environment for these students. Conversely, if the faculty does have a problem with

it, what are their concerns? The goal of this study is to determine how faculty members felt

about working with ex-offender students in the classroom.

In order to fully understand the issue of ex-offenders applying to and attending college, it

is important to examine the related literature including the college admissions process for ex-

offenders, the “Ban the Box” movement, recidivism, and education as it relates to recidivism.

Ex-Offenders and the College Admissions Process

While the literature does consist of several case studies of ex-offenders and their

experiences when applying to college, there are only a few comprehensive studies that examine

the policies and procedures for ex-offender applicants at a number of colleges and universities

across the United States. However, while there are only a few, the studies cited below provide a


great deal of information with regard to how many schools ask “the question,” the additional

documentation the applicant must submit, any additional steps he/she must take, how a decision

is made, and the privacy issues involved in this process.

Not all colleges and universities ask applicants if they have ever been convicted of a

felony, however. In their 2009 survey of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and

Admissions Officers’ (AACRAO) 3,248 member institutions, of which 273 responded,

researchers from the Center for Community Alternatives (Weissman et al., 2011) found that 29%

of the schools do not collect criminal justice information about any applicants and approximately

22% do not collect and do not use criminal justice information. The 7% difference is those

schools that would use the information if it came to them “through a source other than self-

disclosure.” The report also found that private four-year colleges were more likely to “collect

and use” criminal history information.

In New York State, the two major public university systems currently treat this issue very

differently, although changes are forthcoming. The City University of New York (CUNY),

which serves over 500,000 students at its 24 institutions (About CUNY, n.d.) does not ask

applicants if they have ever been convicted of a felony (D. Alvarez, personal communication,

October 22, 2014) and they have no data on students who are ex-offenders (D. Crook, personal

communication, November 4, 2014 [James, 2016]).

The State University of New York. The State University of New York (SUNY), which

serves approximately 450,000 students at its 64 institutions (SUNY Fast Facts, n.d.), does ask

applicants about felony convictions and students are then required to submit a supplemental

application. All 64 SUNY schools ask the question, but “they do not set clear guidelines for the

review of the information once gathered. This lack of guidance gives schools space to determine


their own process for individuals who check the box” (EIO, n.d. d), which allows each school to

handle this process differently.

However, starting with the 2018 admissions cycle, SUNY will no longer ask the question

on their general admissions application. Rather, “students will be asked to declare a prior felony

conviction post-admission and only when they seek campus housing or participation in clinical

or field experiences, internships, or study abroad programs” (SUNY, 2016). While this is

welcome and positive news for those who fought to “Ban the Box,” it is important to understand

SUNY’s current application process for ex-offenders, as so many applicants have had to go

through this process.

Currently, “some SUNY colleges specifically require applicants to provide a copy of

their personally-obtained Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Criminal History

Record” (CCA, 2013); this is at their own expense, which is “an abuse of current SUNY policy

and the DCJS records process. Failure to submit these records, which SUNY has no statutory

right to access, leads to denial of admission” (EIO, n.d. a). The Education from the Inside Out

Coalition ([EIO] n.d. a) also noted that “in November 2012, SUNY issued a draft policy that

encourages all campuses to obtain and submit DCJS records. This is a huge step backwards,

since it encourages schools that were not asking for criminal history records, to do so” (Fact

Sheet).

The SUNY practice of asking for an applicant’s “personally obtained” criminal history

record means the applicant is submitting the criminal history record meant for his/her eyes only;

it contains “information that has been sealed, charges that have been dismissed, and information

that has otherwise been deemed legally confidential, such as Youthful Offender adjudications”

(EIO, n.d. c); this is the “unsuppressed” version. Up until November 26, 2014, this was the only


option people had when requesting their personal criminal history records; now they can choose

between an unsuppressed and suppressed version. The unsuppressed version includes:

criminal history record information sealed under Criminal Procedure Law Sections

160.50 (dismissed cases), 160.55 (eligible violation convictions), 160.58 (eligible

substance abuse and related convictions) and 720.35 (Youthful Offender adjudications).

Individual charges dismissed in court and the equivalent arrest charges normally

suppressed would also be included. (New York State Division of Criminal Justice

Services)

The suppressed version will not include the above with the exception of individual

charges dismissed in court and the equivalent arrest charges for events disposed prior to

November 1, 1991 (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services [James, 2016]).

Criminal history records and admissions applications. A major concern with people

having to submit their personal criminal history records is that the admissions personnel can see

confidential information that the applicant is not legally obligated to disclose (information

“deemed legally confidential” [EIO, n.d. a]). This practice raises several questions: first, are

admissions counselors basing their decisions on information to which they should not have

access? Second, are the people responsible for reviewing these applicants and their criminal

histories trained in how to read and interpret these documents? Who is ultimately responsible for

these admissions decisions?

One could also see a potential problem with this practice if an applicant does not disclose

something that has been sealed or is considered confidential, such as a youthful offender (YO)

adjudication, but then it shows up on the unsuppressed criminal record-will the admissions office


hold it against the applicant and/or will they treat it as though the applicant were hiding it or

lying?

In their study, Weissman et al. (2011) noted some confusion surrounding the issue. Over

half of the respondents “reported that youthful offender adjudications for underlying violent or

sex offenses were a negative factor and almost half reported that they considered any felony

youthful offender adjudication negatively.” The authors further noted that “treatment of a YO

adjudication as a negative factor underscores the broad misunderstanding about the criminal

justice process. In most states it is not considered a criminal conviction and a person is legally

entitled not to disclose it.” It was noted, however, that some SUNY applications correctly “warn

students” that they should not list such YO adjudications as convictions.

In addition to the concern about the criminal background information that makes it to the

admissions offices, the question becomes: who makes the final admissions decisions? According

to the CCA’s survey (Weissman et al., 2011), out of those respondents that ask applicants about

their criminal histories, only 6 percent said that “their process is identical for applicants with and

without a criminal record.” As for the schools that had special procedures for applicants with

criminal backgrounds:

Seventy-five percent of colleges with special procedures bring in decision makers who

are not generally involved in admissions decisions:

o Fifty-three percent of schools bring in deans

o Forty percent of schools bring in campus security personnel (fifteen of those

schools indicated that a campus security officer’s negative recommendation

results in an automatic denial of admission)


Special admissions committees are used by 43 percent of schools; less common is the

involvement of legal counsel (26%), counseling or mental health staff (20%) or risk

assessment personnel (12%)

Extra requirements for applicants with criminal backgrounds include: a letter of

explanation (91%) and/or letter from corrections officials (probation, parole, corrections)

(63%). Fifty-four require a personal interview; almost forty percent require that

prospective students have completed any term of community supervision before they can

be admitted; and sixteen percent require the applicant to produce official criminal justice

documents, such as a rap sheet.

One of the major concerns for ex-offenders during this process is whether or not they will

be automatically denied admission to school. In the CCA’s survey, a quarter of the respondents

noted that they had automatic bars to admission with “convictions for a violent or sex offense” as

the crimes most likely to “trigger an automatic denial.” The results also showed that almost 40

percent of the respondents deny admission to applicants who have not yet completed their term

of community supervision. In addition, 32 percent of schools that consider criminal histories

will deny admission to applicants for failing to disclose their criminal records (Weissman et al.,

2011 [James, 2016]).

Maryland and barring admission. In their 2013 survey of the 50 colleges and

universities in Maryland, of which 12 schools responded to their communication and only seven

schools completed the questionnaire, Sokoloff and Fontaine set out to determine how the schools

handle the screening of applicants with criminal histories. Of the seven respondents, only two

schools answered the question about automatic bars to admission: both schools automatically bar

any applicants who have committed crimes against children. The public four-year school also


automatically bars applicants with a history of sex offenses and applicants with any felonies on

their records, while the private four-year school automatically bars applicants with specific

felonies on their records and applicants with a history of other types of crimes.

The authors made special note of the fact that five of the seven respondents did not

answer the questions about automatic bars to admission. They said it was the most controversial

item on the questionnaire because it would “require institutions to reveal a keystone of their

policies toward the admission of students with criminal records, policies which are currently not

readily available to the public.” The schools may not want to reveal their policies so they can

decide on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps they automatically deny applicants who committed

certain crimes and they do not want to make that public (Sokoloff & Fontaine, 2013 [James,

2016]).

Safety on campus. The argument for asking about prior convictions on college

admissions applications is that it is a safety issue and there is also a concern about liability

(Peterkin, 2012). Sokoloff and Fontaine (2013) noted that the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and

the 2010 University of Texas shooting spurred this trend. However, it must be noted that the

student who committed the Virginia Tech shooting did not have a criminal record (Weissman et

al., 2011). The University of Texas shooter, Colton Tooley, was not on the college’s “radar” and

“there was no record of Tooley…being flagged for behavioral concerns” (Shannon, 2011).

Weissman et al. (2011) noted that there is “no empirical evidence showing that students

with criminal records pose a safety risk on campus.” They argued that “depriving people of

access to higher education based on a criminal record does not make campuses safer; instead it

undermines public safety by foreclosing an opportunity that has proven to be one of the most

effective deterrents to recidivism.” The Education from the Inside Out Coalition (n.d. c) agreed


that there is a risk to public safety when ex-offenders are denied admission to college. They

noted that “criminal justice screening in college admissions is counterproductive from a public

safety perspective.”

The Ban the Box Movement

The “Ban the Box” movement originally started in 2004 as a way to end job and housing

discrimination-two areas where ex-offenders face barriers upon release from prison.

Spearheaded by All or None of Us, a “national civil rights movement of formerly incarcerated

people and their families,” the campaign focused on public and government agencies-asking

them to remove the question regarding conviction history from their applications (Ban the Box,

n.d.). As the campaign found success, it has branched out into other areas including the non-for-

profit sector, private employment, and higher education; the Education from the Inside Out

Coalition is a major force behind the education branch of this movement.

The Education from the Inside Out Coalition (EIO) is a “nonpartisan collaborative of

advocates” led by the College and Community Fellowship, JustLeadershipUSA and the Center

for Community Alternatives (CCA). The EIO “opposes the use of criminal history screenings of

applicants during the admission’s [sic] process at colleges and universities.” Their mission is “to

remove barriers to higher education funding facing students in prisons, both in New York State

and nationwide” (n.d. a [James, 2016]).

Recidivism

There is an extensive amount of literature on recidivism; it is an important (and broad)

research topic because discovering something that reduces recidivism even slightly can have a

major impact on the criminal justice system. While Chappell (2004) noted that there is no

“universally accepted operational definition” of recidivism, there are a number of definitions


with a similar theme. According to Esperian (2010), recidivism is “a return to criminal behavior

after release.” Gibbons and Rosecrance (2005) defined it as “the repetition of or return to

criminality by previously convicted offenders, including rearrest, reconviction, and

reincarceration” (p. 418). Mays and Winfree (2009) referred to it as “a relapse into criminal

behavior after a period of correctional treatment” (p. 431).

The difficulty with these definitions and subsequent measurement is that researchers can

use different factors such as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration, and they may also use

different time frames. Generally, recidivism measurements use the first three years after release

(May & Brown, 2011; Davis et al., 2014; Hall 2015).

Certain factors have proven to affect recidivism more than others, including the ex-

offender’s “socio-economic status, effectiveness of post release supervision (for parolees), length

of time incarcerated, severity and seriousness of crime committed…and educational level of

achievement of each individual” (Esperian, 2010). Other factors include race, gender, and age.

Pollock (2004) noted that “men were more likely to recidivate than women (68 percent compared

with 57 percent), African-Americans were more likely to recidivate than whites (73 percent

compared with 63 percent), and young people under 18 were more likely to recidivate than older

offenders 45 and over (80 percent compared with 45 percent)” (p. 256).

According to Davis et al. (2014), more than 700,000 people leave federal and state

prisons each year and “within three years, 40 percent will be reincarcerated.” They further noted

that this recidivism rate could be because “ex-offenders often lack the knowledge, training, and

skills to support a successful return to their communities.”


Education and Recidivism

There are two parts to this topic: education in prison (correctional education, which can

include GED, high school, adult basic education [ABE], and college) and education post-release.

Correctional education has shown to reduce recidivism (Gehring, 1997; Chappell, 2004; Batiuk,

Lahm, McKeever, Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005), but since there are fewer in-prison college programs

now, the focus has shifted to post-release education. Weissman et al. (2011) noted that “there is

less information about the impact of post-release college education on recidivism,” but that

“people with college educations generally have substantially less involvement in the criminal

justice system than do people without higher education.”

In their 2000 study of 3,000 records of men and women released from the Virginia

Department of Corrections from the period 1979-1994, Hull, Forrester, Brown, Jobe, and

McCullen found that “completing an educational program during a period of incarceration is

positively related to post-release adjustment.” They examined the reincarceration rates of those

who had no education programming while incarcerated (49.04%); those who enrolled in

educational programming but did not complete the program (37.9%); and those that completed

the program (20.17%).

They also discussed employability and their results suggested “that the employability rate

of those persons who complete educational programming while incarcerated is a much higher

figure than those that do not complete any educational programs” (Hull et al., 2000).

Employment is also a factor in recidivism in that earning a college degree will hopefully lead to

gainful employment for the ex-offender, and hopefully fewer reasons to reoffend. Nally,

Lockwood, Knutson, and Ho (2012) noted that post-release employment is an important

indicator of the success of correctional education.” While employment is not the focus of this


paper, it is related to education and should be considered as an extension, or next step, in this

discussion.

Batiuk et al. (2005) sampled over 900 Ohio inmates in an attempt to examine “the

differential effects of a variety of correctional education programs on post-release recidivism” in

one statistical model. The study looked at 972 inmates who were paroled or released from 1989-

1992 and the various educational programs available to them including GED, high school,

vocational training, and college (associate degree program).

The dependent variable was the ‘recidivism hazard’ which was defined as “the

instantaneous risk of having the event (recidivism) at time t, given the event did not occur before

time t” (Yamaguchi, 1991, p. 9, as cited in Batiuk et al. 2005). The college education group had

a “substantially lower hazard rate” than the other groups.

Specifically, they found that “participation in post-secondary education programs reduces

the recidivism hazard rate by some 62 percent in comparison to the non-education group.” In

addition, the college variable proved to be the only educational program variable to significantly

decrease recidivism hazard rates (or increase survival) when compared to the “no education

group” (Batiuk et al., 2005).

Nally et al. (2012) examined the effect of correctional education on recidivism,

correctional education on employment, and the “interrelationship of offenders’ education,

employment, and recidivism.” They examined 1,077 Indiana offenders who received federal

funding for educational programs while incarcerated (and who were released during the period of

2002-2009) and compared them to 1,078 Indiana offenders (released in 2005) who did not

receive federal funding for education.


The recidivism rate for those who received educational funding was 29.7% and for those

who did not receive educational funding, the recidivism rate was 67.8%. They also found that

offenders with lower education levels, if employed, were “likely to be employed in a variety of

labor-intensive and minimum-wage jobs and job sustainability may be challenging.” While

recidivism rates were lower for those who participated in educational programs while

incarcerated, “employment bears no significant impact on post-release recidivism in the

recessionary period among those released offenders.” They added that “educated offenders are

likely to have earned a better wage if they are employed after release” (Nally et al., 2012).

Discussion

The literature supports the theory that ex-offenders who earn a college degree, or even

those who complete some college classes, have lower recidivism rates than ex-offenders with no

college background. Based on this information, the next logical step might be to encourage ex-

offenders who do not have a college degree to apply to college. While logical, for ex-offenders

it may not be practical or even feasible.

Barriers are still in place for this population-supplemental applications, interviews,

additional documents to submit-some of which they may not be able to provide. If the current

research is not enough to convince college administrators to remove “the question” from their

applications, then they should gather information from other sources-the people who will be

working closely with this population-the faculty.

There are missing pieces to this puzzle: faculty, staff, and students. Administrators know

that some ex-offenders want to attend college because the college receives their applications, but

administrators may not know about the research that shows that this population is generally not a

threat on campus and that their recidivism rates will decrease if they earn a college degree (and


this benefits society as a whole). If college administrators are not aware of this, then researchers

should continue to put the puzzle pieces together for them. For some institutions, the recidivism

data may have been enough for them to remove the question; for other schools it might take

more information and research.

The first step is to gauge the faculty’s feelings about working with ex-offenders in the

classroom because they will be playing a major role in a student’s academic career and the

faculty member’s attitude can make it a discouraging experience for the student or they can

create a welcoming and safe environment. Future research should definitely include the staff and

students as they will also work closely with this population, but the faculty should be the starting

point.


CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This research study took a mixed methods approach in the form of a case study; this is an

instrumental case study as the specific issue examined was ex-offender students and the faculty’s

opinion of them, which is not found in the literature. A survey was distributed to faculty

members that also included information about SUNY’s admission policy and procedures for ex-

offender applicants.

Hypothesis

Faculty members in the social sciences and humanities are more likely to be supportive of

ex-offenders pursuing a college degree than faculty members in other disciplines.

Primary Research Question:

1. What do faculty members think about working with ex-offender students?

Secondary Research Questions:

1. What are some of the experiences faculty members have had working with ex-offender

students?

2. Are faculty members in certain disciplines more supportive of ex-offenders pursuing a

college degree than those in other disciplines?

Methodology

Sample Size

This is a sample of convenience; the sample consisted of faculty members who were colleagues

of the researcher.

Participants:

The sample consisted of ten participants.


Setting of the Study:

This study took place in a State University of New York college located on Long Island.

Instrument:

The study instrument was an electronic survey that consisted of 17 questions in total, including:

Six descriptive questions

Two Likert scale questions

Eight open-ended questions

One miscellaneous question

Reliability:

In order to ensure reliability, the researcher employed multiple coders to make sure that the

information was coded properly and consistently. Coding data can be subjective, so it is

important to have check points throughout the coding process and if there are any disagreements

or variations, they can be resolved before the process continues.

Validity:

In an effort to ensure validity, a three-step process was employed:

The researcher asked a colleague who is well-versed in survey research to review

the survey questions prior to distribution

The researcher conducted a pilot study and disseminated the survey to a small

group who then let the researcher know if the questions were clear, if the answer

choices were lacking in any way, and if they were appropriate, in addition to

finding any typos or other issues.

Once the data were collected, coded, and analyzed, the researcher asked a

colleague (who is not connected to the study) to examine the coding and analysis


(external audit) to determine if the “auditor” came to the same conclusions as the

researcher.

Data Collection:

The data were collected via a survey sent electronically to the faculty members (which allowed

them to remain anonymous). In addition, the admissions policy for ex-offender applicants was

copied from the college’s website.

Analysis:

The analysis was conducted via an Excel spreadsheet and Google forms.

Coding:

Themes included:

Positive/negative attitudes towards ex-offender students

Previous experience/no experience working with ex-offender students

Discipline taught

Limitations to Available Data:

There were only ten participants (small sample) and the researcher asked faculty members who

were guaranteed to respond. As such, the majority were in the social science/humanities fields,

which may have affected research question #3.

Care of Human Subjects:

While it was not necessary to go through the IRB process since this was a class project and will

not be published, it should be noted that the questions were crafted to be as general as possible as

to not identify the participants.


CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS

Demographic Information

Ten SUNY faculty members completed the survey and out of the ten, six responded to

the question about gender: three women and three men. All ten participants identified their age

range: one was 31-40; one was 41-50; four were 51-60; three were 61-70; and one was older than

70 years of age.

The participants taught the following subjects: composition and literature; writing,

literature, and gender studies; human services and history; biology; community and human

services; social sciences and public affairs; writing, literature, and the arts; sociology and

criminal justice; and math. Eight of the participants taught undergraduate courses only and two

taught both undergraduate and graduate classes. Four of the participants taught in-person only

and six taught both in-person and online.

All ten participants provided the number of years they had been teaching: one fell into the

6-10 year category; one in the 11-15 year category; three in the 16-20 year category, and five had

been teaching longer than 20 years. When asked about their familiarity with SUNY’s

admissions policy/procedures for applicants with prior felony convictions, four faculty members

were familiar with the policy, three were not, and three said “maybe”; the participants who said

“no” or “maybe” were asked to read the policy which was provided.

Likert Findings

The participants were all in favor (to varying degrees) of both prisoners and ex-offenders

pursuing college degrees, in prison and after release, respectively. Participants were asked “To

what degree do you think that prisoners should be able to pursue a college degree while in


prison?” and the scale provided ranged from one (not at all in favor) to six (definitely in favor).

The distribution of the results can be seen in Figure 1 (below):

Figure 1. Participants’ levels of favor for incarcerated individuals pursuing college degrees.

Participants were asked “To what degree are you in favor of ex-offenders pursuing a

college degree?” and the scale provided ranged from one (not at all in favor) to six (definitely in

favor). The distribution of the results can be seen in Figure 2 (below):

Figure 2. Participants’ levels of favor for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.


Dimensions

The survey consisted of 17 questions-a mix of multiple choice, Likert scales, and open-

ended questions. There were nine open-ended questions, eight of which required analysis and

coding. While it was an open-ended question, number three asked the participants which

subjects they taught, those responses can easily be grouped into discipline categories. Nine

participants listed the subjects they taught and the subjects were categorized into the following

disciplines: humanities/cultural studies (3), human services (2), social science (2), math (1), and

science (1). As one participant did not answer this question this will be referred to as “Unknown

discipline”.

Two of the questions relating to direct experience working this population-in a prison

education and/or re-entry program received mostly responses of “NA” (not applicable) so those

questions do not need to be analyzed; the few responses will be discussed in the “Qualitative

Data” section. The last question, which asks for “additional comments”, will be examined in the

“Qualitative Data” section as well.

Coding for Analysis

There were no pre-set codes other than the general ideas related to the research questions

(see page 28). While the hypothesis of this study focused on discipline as it relates to support for

ex-offender students, there were no specific predictions about how the participants would

respond to the open-ended questions. The themes that emerged are listed in Table 1 (below):

Table 1

Summary of Identified Themes

Survey Question Theme(s) Discipline of Participant(s)

What do you like best about the policy?

No flat-out rejection-the individual

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Human


student/situation is considered

This population has an opportunity to attend college

Safety for the campus community

Services, Science, Social Sciences

Human Services, Humanities/Cultural Studies

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Social Sciences

What do you like least about the policy?

It “retries” the applicant/Penalizes them again

Bias/Inability of committee to be objective

Profiling/Discrimination Prohibiting equal access

to education

Humanities/Cultural Studies

Human Services, Math

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Unknown Discipline

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Social Sciences

Do you think that colleges should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?

Prisons should align their college courses with the colleges (not the other way around as was asked)

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Human Services, Math, Social Sciences

To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-offender in an advisor capacity? What was your experience with that student?

Yes-students were motivated/successful

Yes-had positive experiences with these students

Human Services, Social Sciences

Social Sciences, Unknown Discipline

To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?

Yes-I never felt unsafe Yes-students brought a

different perspective to class

Yes-students knew their education was vital to re-entry

Humanities/Cultural Studies

Human Services, Social Sciences

Humanities/Cultural Studies, Unknown Discipline


Qualitative Data

While the qualitative data were analyzed to identify themes, the minority responses were

also worth noting. Responses to question number eight, “What do you like best about the

policy?” generally fell into one of the three themes. In addition to the themes that emerged from

question number nine, “What do you like least about the policy?” one participant stated, “I am

not sure that the fact someone is an ex-offender is relevant to the admissions process” and

another participant felt the process invaded the applicant’s privacy.

Question number twelve asked, “Do you think that colleges should try to align their

courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?” Several

participants noted that the prisons should align their courses with the college curriculum, not the

other way around, as was indicated in the question. The responses demonstrated that there is

overall support for collaboration between the two in order to offer courses in prison that would

fit into the college curriculum, but the responses also showed that the question should have been

worded differently. This will be discussed in chapter five.

Question number thirteen asked, “To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-

offender in an advisor capacity? What was your experience with that student?” Responses

included “Yes. Three in total. Two went really well. One did not. The one that did not began

using drugs again. The other two were totally moved away from criminal life” and “Yes. Worked

well whether student self identified or not. Brought different perspectives to the subject matter.”

Another participant wrote

I have worked with two ex-offenders both were my advisees took courses with me. I had

very positive experiences. The male student worked extremely hard to change his life. He

took responsibility for his actions and the harm he caused to his family and society. I


would happily have the male student in my home at any time. The female student was not

as far along in her journey but an education that made her more employable was a

positive step.

Question number fourteen asked, “To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender

as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?” to which participants

replied “Yes, several students. I have never felt unsafe with any of these students. Across the

board, they were eager to learn and considered higher education essential to their re-entry” and

“Yes. Excellent experience not only for me, but for his classmates as well who were able to talk

with him about his life, his prison experiences. He was a very good influence on them as he

helped them rethink who is a criminal, what is criminal behavior, and what is rehabilitation.”

Other responses included “A long time ago--student mentioned it at outset. Our

relationship/experience did not differ from other students,” “Yes. This student was very bright

and very motivated,” and “I have had two students in my courses and they were dedicated. They

understood the opportunity to be in college and how it could positively impact his/her life.”

When asked if the participants had ever worked in a prison education and/or re-entry

program, one participant wrote “I read poetry to a group of prisoners in the early 80s” and

another participant stated “I worked with ex-offenders in outpatient mental health and substance

abuse programs. Just like other populations, we cannot put them all into one category. Some may

be motivated, willing to change and appreciate the opportunity to advance their situation.”

The final question asked for additional comments and four participants responded.

Responses included “This is an important issue. We need to provide educational opportunities to

all, and with online flexible course delivery, it should be made much easier than it is” and

“Might be helpful to more clearly define what ‘your experience’ means here. In some ways, it's


no different than working with any other student. All students have academic strengths and

weaknesses related in part to their backgrounds.” Other participants wrote “I would remove the

box from the SUNY application. People of color are disproportionately incarcerated and

therefore, more impacted by this rule” and “I do believe the pursuit of a college degree will

enhance the individuals (sic) rehabilitation and make the transition back into society smoother.”

Analysis of Total Sample Results

Overall, the responses (both Likert and qualitative) supported the idea of ex-offenders

attending college and pursing degrees. There was slightly less support for education in prison as

evidenced by a comparison of Figures 1 and 2. Out of the two participants who chose number

four in the first figure-one taught Humanities/Cultural Studies and the other taught Math. Part of

the difference in the overall support for prisoner education may have been because of the poor

wording in number twelve, which implied that colleges should align their curriculum to the

prisoners, and that may have seemed like an unnecessary accommodation.


CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

Overview of the Findings

While the results were not exactly what the researcher expected, there is still a great deal

of useful information not only for practical purposes (changing admissions policies), but also for

future research. Faculty opinions are only part of the equation, but the faculty members who

participated in this survey were very supportive not only of ex-offenders pursuing a college

degree, but also supportive of prisoners taking college classes while in prison.

Summary of the Results

While the discipline the faculty taught did not seem to make a difference in their attitudes

towards ex-offender student, the faculty members were overwhelming supportive of ex-offenders

attending college and pursuing degrees. The issues or concerns the participants had surrounded

SUNY’s admissions policy and practice of screening applicants; their issue is not with the ex-

offenders, but rather with the policies that have the potential to limit this population’s access to

education.

The participants who described experiences they had with ex-offender students, either in

an advising or teaching capacity, all had positive comments. Of course, this needs further

investigation (survey more faculty), but there does not seem to be any concerns for personal

safety. Faculty members are concerned that the admissions policy discriminates against this

population and essentially “retries” them because applicants often have to go into detail about

their crimes.

Summary of Sub-groups Analysis

The lack of information for sub-group analysis is one of the problems with the survey

(and the fault of the researcher) because the survey questions were not required. Several


participants did not list their gender and one participant did not list the discipline he/she taught.

However, half of the participants had been teach for more than 20 years and 80% of the

participants were over 50 years of age. Experience, both in life (age) and teaching, may have a

bearing on attitudes towards ex-offender students.

Future research should attempt to survey younger faculty members and those who have

only been teaching for a few years-perhaps less than five. This could be achieved through

stratified sampling or through a large enough random sample that all age ranges and experience

levels would be adequately represented.

The responses that seemed to vary from the majority did not seem to fall into any sub-

group; the sample was so small and overall the participants had positive attitudes towards this

student population. For example, the two “outliers” who responded to the question about

whether they we in favor of prisoners attending classes while incarcerated, one taught

humanities/cultural studies and the other taught math-both of whom were in the same age range.

The Unexpected

While the hypothesis suggested that the faculty member’s discipline would predict their

support for ex-offender students, this was not the case. The belief was that the faculty members

who taught the “soft sciences” and humanities would be more supportive of ex-offenders

pursuing college degrees, but discipline had no bearing on their opinions. One theory is that the

faculty members surveyed taught in a public, liberal arts-based college, and maybe that was the

reason for their attitudes towards this population. Perhaps faculty in the same disciplines in a

private college would feel differently.

Another unexpected finding was that there were aspects of SUNY’s admissions policy

that several faculty members liked. Some of them noted that the applicant is considered on an


individual basis and that this process still gives the population the chance to attend college since

they are not rejected outright.

The researcher incorrectly assumed that the majority of faculty would have a problem

with it, but this may be researcher bias based on previous research into this topic as well as the

researcher having read first-hand accounts of applicants who went through this process and had

difficulty with it (for various reasons). Therefore, this may have just been unexpected for the

researcher. Future research may include first-hand accounts of applicants who went through this

process to determine if that makes a difference in the faculty members’ responses.

Implications of the Study for Practice and Legislation

The results of this study can be used by college administrators and policymakers, which

is discussed below, but the results can also be the springboard for future research, which is also

discussed below. While the hypothesis was not proven to be true, the results are still important:

there is overall support from the faculty for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.

For the Practitioner

College administrators should be interested in the results of this study-not only did the

faculty express support overall for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees, not one of them

expressed concerns for their safety. One participant mentioned the concern for the campus

community in the admissions policy as a positive aspect, but there were no concerns for personal

safety. One participant noted she would gladly welcome her ex-offender student into her home.

If future research continues to show that there are no safety concerns then college administrators

might want to reconsider using that reason as the basis for screening applicants.


For the Policymaker

Aside from the issue of screening applicants during the admissions process, there was

support for aligning courses offered in prison with the college curriculum. Governor Cuomo’s

“Right Priorities” initiative was discussed in a previous chapter, and this is what his program

hopes to accomplish. While there is support for the overall concept of prison education

programs and colleges working together, hopefully there will be faculty members who are

willing to work in the prisons with the inmates.

While the issue of screening applicants is important, this is less of an issue for

policymakers since colleges administrators are the ones to implement these polices, albeit

usually through some sort of internal governance process. Policymakers should be more

concerned about the collaboration between the prisons and colleges and ensuring a seamless

transition from in-prison college programs to college programs after release from prison.

Problems and Limitations

As this study progressed and responses were received, a number of problems/concerns

arose that led to the inability of the researcher to collect all of the data that were sought. One

issue was the poor wording of question twelve. The question was “Do you think that colleges

should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison?

Why or why not?” but this wording implies that colleges have to alter/change their curriculum to

meet the needs of the prisoners. This became apparent when the participants questioned the

meaning of the word “aligned,” answered “no” because the prison population was small, and that

it should be the other way around: prisons should work with the colleges to ensure the courses

they offer will allow for a smooth transition to college upon release.


A pilot study likely would have caught that error so there would have been an

opportunity to reword the question for the real survey. If the main point of the question was to

determine their thoughts about the courses offered in prison, then an open-ended question such

as “How should prison officials decide which courses to offer in prison?” or “If you were

responsible for course selection in a prison education program, on what would you base your

decision?” Either one of these “rephrasings” puts the survey participant in charge of the

scenario, which could possibly lead to more thoughtful answers. Instead of asking “Do you

think…why or why not?” the reworded questions require a bit more thought.

Another concern was missing data and this takes on two forms. The first is that not one

of the questions on the survey was “required” so participants could skip any question they

wanted and then continue to the next question. The second is that there was not a question in the

“demographic section” that asked about the participant’s ethnicity and/or race. Several

responses noted “discrimination” and “profiling” so that information may have been important.

A future version of this survey should consider requiring answers to certain questions,

specifically the demographic questions. By requiring participants to answer all questions a

researcher runs the risk of the participants not wanting to answer a certain question and then not

completing the survey at all, but with a larger sample (larger than ten people), this may not be a

concern.

Since this was a sample of convenience and the researcher handpicked the faculty

members to complete the survey, a process of elimination revealed that the participant who did

respond to the “subjects taught” question was in the business department. Had she revealed this

information it would have been incorporated into the discussion about discipline and support for

the ex-offender population. Her responses were among the most supportive of the survey


participants, which would have helped disprove this study’s hypothesis, but this information

cannot be incorporated into the analysis and discussion because she did not answer the “subjects

taught” question and it was not required.

If a researcher were conducting this survey and using a version of random sampling, this

omission and the ability to figure out her discipline would not have been possible. However, this

situation is an example of why it might be better to require the answers to certain questions-

especially when the information in those questions relates to the study’s hypothesis!

In the future, the researcher might want to offer follow-up interviews; while the survey

questions were answered, there are several follow-up questions the researcher could have asked.

Several of the participants had experience advising and teaching ex-offenders and they were only

going to write so much in response to the questions. For example, a follow-up question would

have been helpful for those who thought the admissions policy was good because it considered

the safety of the college campus. In a follow-up interview, the researcher could have provided

data showing that college campuses that screen are no safer than those that do not, and then ask

the participants if that information would make them reconsider their responses.

Suggestions for Future Research

Several points were raised that would benefit from future research. The first is online-

only schools or programs. If safety is a concern (according to colleges that screen applicants)

when ex-offenders attend classes on campus, then what are the admissions policies of

(accredited) online colleges? What are the opinions of their faculty members?

Another area for future research is to survey the faculty (and staff and students) of

colleges that not only do not screen applicants, but that have partnerships or relationships with

prisoner re-entry programs. These colleges will likely have a larger percentage of ex-offender


students and since their status may be out in the open (by their own choice?) it might be a good

opportunity to survey students about how they feel having classmates who are ex-offenders.

As suggested above, faculty members in a private college may have different opinions

about working with ex-offender students. It might be worth surveying faculty in public and

private colleges-colleges that screen applicants and those that do not. Another version of that

research would include faculty in a college that screens applicants, faculty in a college that used

to screen but changed its policy (SUNY), and then in a college that does not screen applicants at

all (CUNY). That would cover the various screening situations and it would be interesting to see

how SUNY faculty feel after their institution stops screening applicants.

Conclusion

A student’s ex-offender status is not an issue for faculty members, at least the faculty

members who responded to this survey. Generalizability is difficult but these findings are still

relevant, both in terms of policy and as the basis for future research. There are several groups

who interact with ex-offender students, whether they realize it or not, and their opinions,

thoughts, and feelings are missing from the literature. Once researchers, practitioners, and other

stakeholders (faculty, staff, and students) have the complete picture (information about all related

groups), then they can work together to allay the concerns of involved parties, change admissions

policies, and colleges and prisons can collaborate-faculty members may even want to teach

courses to incarcerated individuals.

The fact that the faculty members are concerned about this population facing

discrimination during the admissions process and possibly not gaining access to higher education

is important because it demonstrates understanding, compassion, and their willingness to work

with them. College administrators (and other stakeholders) would be wise to use this and


forthcoming research to not only change their policies, but to work with criminal justice

practitioners to help set up incarcerated individuals to be successful once they have been

released. They may even want to conduct their own research-they can survey their own college

communities to determine how people feel about ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.

It is clear that more research is needed and there needs to be more discussion about the

benefits of a higher education for this population. As was noted in chapter one, most inmates

will be released from prison at some point and to ignore that fact is irresponsible. Those who

work in higher education, particularly those in public institutions, should pay particular attention

to this issue.

People released from prison need access to affordable higher education if they are going

to have any chance at not recidivating. If the research that is available now is not enough to

convince college administrators and boards of directors to open their doors to ex-offenders

(without additional steps in the application process), then let this study be the springboard for

further research that will help ensure ex-offenders will no longer face barriers when applying to

and attending college.


Appendix

Survey for Faculty Members1. What is your gender:

2. What is your age:Under 3031-4041-5051-6061-70Above 70

3. What subject(s) do you teach? ________________________________________________

4. What level do you teach?-undergraduate classes-graduate classes-both

5. Do you teach:-in-person classes-online classes-both

6. How long have you been teaching?1-5 years6-10 years11-15 years16-20 yearsMore than 20 years

7. Are you familiar with SUNY’s admissions policy/procedures for applicants with prior felony convictions?-yes-no (please take a moment to read it below)-maybe (please take a moment to read it below)

8. What do you like best about the policy?

9. What do you like least about the policy?


10. On a scale of 1-6, to what degree are you in favor of ex-offenders pursuing a college degree?

11. On a scale of 1-6, to what degree do you think that prisoners should be able to pursue a college degree while in prison?

12. Do you think that colleges should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?

13. To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-offender in an advisor capacity?What was your experience with that student?

14. To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?

15. Tell me about a time that you have worked with prisoners in a prison education program (if applicable).

16. Tell me about a time that you have worked successfully or unsuccessfully with ex-offenders in any type of re-entry program (if applicable).

17. Please use this space for any additional comments:


References

Ban the Box. (n.d.). About: The ban the box campaign. Retrieved from

http://bantheboxcampaign.org/about/#.WFSG25dWi9Y

Batiuk, M. E., Lahm, K. F., McKeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the

effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history

analysis. Criminal Justice, 5, 55-74. doi:10.1177/1466802505050979

Center for Community Alternatives. (2013). Criminal history screenings in college admissions:

A guide for attorneys representing college applicants and students during and after

criminal proceedings. Retrieved from Center for Community Alternatives website:

http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/Criminal-History-Screening-in-

College-Admissions-AttorneyGuide-CCA-1-2013.pdf

Chappell, C. A. (2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A meta-analysis

of research conducted 1990-1999. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 148-169.

Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=12&sid=b9e13197-1fe6-4883-aeca-3ea123cbdae3%40sessionmgr114&hid=112

Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J. N. V., Saunders, J,

& Steinberg, P. S. (2014). Correctional education in the United States: How effective is

it, and how can we move the field forward? (Research Brief). Retrieved from The Rand

Corporation website: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9763.html

Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. a). Fact sheet: Ban the box in higher education.

Retrieved from http://www.eiocoalition.org/files/EIO_College-Admissions_2013-Fact-

Sheet_V5.pdf

Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. b). Inconsistent and counterproductive: Criminal


history screening in college admissions. Retrieved from http://gallery.mailchimp.com/

6751308e3d172ca5babb9a346/files/EIO_Coalition_Criminal_History_Screening_in_Coll

ege_Admissions.pdf

Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. c). Policy brief: Ban the box in higher education.

Retrieved from http://www.eiocoalition.org/files/EIO_College-Admissions_2013-Policy-

Brief_V5.pdf

Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. d). SUNY unite to ban the box. Retrieved from

http://www.wordpress.eiocoalition.org/suny-unite-to-ban-the-box/

Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. e). The fair access to education act. Retrieved

from https://esced4all.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/fair-access-to-education-act-one-

pager.pdf

Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. The Journal of

Correctional Education, 61, 316-334. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com .library.esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=18&sid=42caed3f-53d8-434b-b3b5-85eab7e7e288%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4205

Gehring, T. (1997). Post-secondary education for inmates: An historical inquiry. Journal

of Correctional Education, 48, 46-55. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.

esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=b9e13197-1fe6-4883-aeca-

3ea123cbdae3%40sessionmgr114&hid=112

Gibbons, S. G. & Rosecrance, J. D. (2005). Probation, parole, and community corrections.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hall, L. L. (2015, May). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction.


The Journal of Correctional Education, 66, 4-29. Retrieved from

http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=5640a18c-

949b-4e14-9956-99f2e80a918b

%40sessionmgr4007&hid=4112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaX

Rl#AN=109335749&db=a9h

Hull, K. A., Forrester, S., Brown, J., Jobe, D., and McCullen, C. (2000, June). Analysis of

recidivism rates for participants of the academic/vocational/transition education

programs offered by the Virginia Department of Correctional Education. Journal of

Correctional Education, 51, 256-261. Retrieved from

http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?sid=ff6962ba-fa4d-4148-

9ceb9748f1abfdc8%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4212&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q

tbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=11097027&db=a9h

James, S. (2016). Ex-offenders and the college admissions process. Admissions letter for Ed.D.

Program in Educational Leadership, LIU Post.

May, D. C. & Brown, T. (2011). Examining the effect of correctional programming on

perceptions of likelihood of recidivism among incarcerated prisoners. Journal of Social

Service Research, 37, 353-364. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.582021

Mays, G. L. & Winfree, L. T., Jr. (2009). Essentials of corrections (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Nally, J., Lockwood, S., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012, April). An evaluation of the effect of

correctional education programs on post-release recidivism and employment: An

empirical study in Indiana. The Journal of Correctional Education, 63, 69-89.


Retrieved from http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?

sid=5640a18c-949b-4e14-9956-99f2e80a918b

%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZ

T1zaXRl#AN=87042257&db=a9h

New York State. (2016, January 10). 13th proposal of Governor Cuomo’s 2016 agenda: Launch

a “Right Priorities” initiative that leads the nation with comprehensive criminal justice

and re-entry reforms [Press release]. Retrieved from

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/13th-proposal-governor-cuomos-2016-agenda-

launch-right-priorities-initiative-leads-nation?mc_cid=eba278a458&mc_eid=be9400537f

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (n.d.). Personal criminal history record

review program. Retrieved from

http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ojis/recordreview.htm

Peterkin, C. (2012). Colleges grapple with applicants’ juvenile records and criminal histories.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, 20. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.

library.esc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=25&sid=42caed3f-53d8-434b-b3b5-

85eab7e7e288%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4205&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ

%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=82316077

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Pollock, J. M. (2004). Prisons and prison life: Costs and consequences. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Shannon, K. (2011, May 25). UT shooter Colton Tooley described as intelligent, unemotional.


The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/ut-

shooter-colton-tooley-_0_n_744254.html

Sokoloff, N. J. & Fontaine, A. (2013). Systematic barriers to higher education: How colleges

respond to applicants with criminal records in Maryland. Retrieved from Prisoner

Reentry Institute website: http://johnjayresearch.org/pri/files/2013/11/Sokoff-and-

Fontaine-Systemic-Barriers-to-Higher-Education-2013.pdf

State University of New York (SUNY). (2016). SUNY board votes to “Ban the Box”

following student assembly recommendation, campus visits [Press Release]. Retrieved

from https://www.suny.edu/suny-news/press-releases/september-2016/9-14-16-ban-the-

box/suny-board-votes-to-ban-the-box-following-sa-recommendation-campus-visits.html

State University of New York (SUNY). (n.d.). What is SUNY? Retrieved from

http://www.suny.edu/about/

The City University of New York (CUNY). (n.d.). About. Retrieved from

http://www.cuny.edu/about.html

Weissman, M., Rosenthal, A., Warth, P., Wolf, E., & Messina-Yauchzy, M. (2011). The use of

criminal history records in college admissions reconsidered. Retrieved from Center for

Community Alternatives website: http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/

Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-college-admissions.pdf

samijames.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewThe literature related to ex-offenders and the college...

Documents

Transcript of samijames.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewThe literature related to ex-offenders and the college...