Doing Time Wisely: The Social and Personal Benefits of Higher Education in Prison

Gender Differences and Higher Education in Prisons

K. Rose and Rose (2014) studied the participation of incarcerated men and women in postsecondary correctional education programs. They sought to determine what factors, if any, predicted gender differences in levels of enrollment. They found that gender alone is not a significant predictor for participation. Yet, when they controlled for other factors such as educational history, pre-incarceration income, visits from children, time served on current sentence, race/ethnicity, and participation in parenting, life skills, and reintegration programming, gender became a significant indicator of participation in postsecondary education programs.

Data were drawn from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities—14,499 state incarcerated individuals, with 20.2% female and 3,686 federal incarcerated individuals, with 26% female. The most significant predictors of incarcerated women’s participation in college-level educational programming were whether they received visits from their children (those who did were 65.3% more likely to participate in the educational programming) and whether they also were enrolled in life skills/community adjustment programs (those who did were 50.4% more likely to participate). The authors suggest that these findings can be understood through the lens of social bond theory (Hirschi, 1969). Hirschi’s work advanced the notion that attachment to family and commitment to prosocial norms and institutions play an important role in reducing risk for deviance and criminality.

K. Rose and Rose’s (2014) study fills a knowledge gap in that it examined higher education from the perspective of participation, not recidivism. For example, the RAND meta-analysis (2013) on correctional education examined 58 high-quality studies, 50 of which used recidivism as an outcome variable. RAND concluded that higher education in prison is highly correlated with reduction in rates of recidivism. They recommended that researchers refocus on strengthening research designs, measuring program dosage, identifying program characteristics, and examining proximal indicators of program effectiveness (Davis et al., 2013). Rose and Rose’s work is an important addition to the literature in that a greater appreciation of the factors related to higher education participation could be utilized to increase the motivation of incarcerated individuals to enroll and remain in such programs.

Structural Conditions and Individual Motivations

Rose (2014) explored the structural conditions and personal motivations that influence women’s participation in prison education programs. The structural conditions that Rose references relate to facility policies, program availability, and program quality. In the area of individual motivations, Rose (2004) discusses “cultural capital” to explain why some incarcerated women are able to break through the many structural barriers that inhibit participation in correctional postsecondary education. Rose defines cultural capital as exposure to the value of education by family members and teachers. As one of the pains of imprisonment is the deprivation of intimate relationships and social bonds, women are known to create “pseudo families.” These pseudo families provide social supports that translate into the cultural capital to pursue opportunities for self-improvement, such as participation in educational programming. While not providing empirical support for this argument, Rose lays out a theoretical framework to test the idea that pseudo families are a source of cultural capital that expresses itself in greater motivation to pursue educational advancement.

Spark and Harris (2005) interviewed 31 incarcerated women in two prisons in Australia to explore motivations and barriers to enrolling in prison education programs. They found that women’s participation in such programs serves as a way to cope with present circumstances, to provide a sense of hope for the future, and as a strategy to connect with or please family members.

The interviews also revealed a disconnect between what the incarcerated women wanted to learn and what prison authorities believed the women needed to learn to be successful after release. The women’s educational interests fell along gender lines. Typically, they wanted to learn socially constructed “feminine” skills like sewing, cooking, knitting, and parenting. Yet the programs offered them were woodworking and computer skills. When the incarcerated women enrolled in these educational classes, they did not do it with the intention of improving their employment prospects. Rather, their motivation looped back to their roles as mothers. They felt that learning woodworking skills would enable them to make gifts for family members, and that an increase in their computer knowledge would help them connect with their children who were far more computer-literate. The authors proposed that for education to be truly effective, it must acknowledge that incarcerated mothers seek to reestablish healthy, loving relationships with their children first and, second, pursue learning to reach their vocational aspirations.

The Bedford Hills College Program

Fine et al. (2001) reviewed two previously unpublished quantitative analyses conducted by New York state correctional officials, combined with participatory research that examined the effects of college education behind bars at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women. They reported that a reincarceration analysis conducted by the New York Department of Correction Research Unit found a significant difference in recidivism rates between those who attended college behind bars compared with those who did not—7% compared with 29% respectively.

To determine the impact of in-prison college on the safety and management of the facility, the researchers surveyed 33 faculty members and interviewed six correctional staff. Staff interviews revealed support of the program, documenting that incarcerated students were more likely to be respectful, rule-compliant, and show positive changes in their self-esteem. Faculty believed that college in prison helps to create a more peaceful and manageable environment, that is, violating institutional rules could bar an incarcerated student from participation in the education program.

To analyze the personal and social effects of college program participation on students and their children, a total of 65 one-on-one interviews and several focus groups were conducted by inmate interviewers. Faculty interviews expressed a myriad of opinions about college behind bars. On the negative side were expressions of frustration when a student was transferred to another facility mid-semester as well as the prohibition of some needed classroom items due to security regulations. More positively, faculty were energized by student transformations, both in knowledge and civic awareness. Furthermore, the focus groups of incarcerated students elicited a key theme—seeing a college education as a strategy to transition successfully back into society. Importantly, they believed that learning how to become critical thinkers gave them confidence to take a more active role in their lives to overcome poverty, discrimination, and violence.

Fine et al. (2001) also explored the impact of the prison college experience on community reintegration. Twenty formerly incarcerated individuals consented to intensive interviews about their experience. Eighteen were employed, and 13 were pursuing graduate degrees at the time of the interviews. Although the report lacked important details regarding the analytical techniques used to support its findings, there was a substantial degree of triangulation that advances several premises. Correctional postsecondary education is a tool that is cost effective over time as it relates to recidivism. It contributes to an uplifting, hopeful, and, therefore, safer prison environment. It fosters positive bonds between mothers and their children. Given these promising findings, a practical next step would be to determine how to implement and administer higher education programs for incarcerated women.

Administration of Higher Education in Women’s Prison Facilities

Ellis et al. (2008) presented a case study analysis conducted with college administrators, college instructors, and prison officials in North Carolina, examining the dynamics of correctional education delivered to incarcerated women. Through semistructured interviews and content analysis, the researchers advanced a series of recommendations, including increasing research on correctional education for women, addressing challenges in organizational structure (the differing missions and values between colleges and correctional institutions), and creating greater collaboration between the leaders of both institutions to produce cooperative agreements and foster improved communication. In addition to these recommendations, Ellis et al. (2008) also noted the lack of adequate programming space and equipment to carry out the courses—a common theme among correctional educators. Finally, the authors called for formal, comprehensive assessments of correctional educational programs that not only establish data benchmarks but also test theory and measure effectiveness rigorously.

In sum, the research literature on incarcerated women and higher education offers three major areas for further study. First, there is a need for more program replication to determine the validity and reliability of recidivism and self-esteem measures. Second, how can prison postsecondary education programs be effectively designed and implemented? Most notably, how can technology serve to support varying student learning styles and instructor pedagogical approaches? Finally, how can prison-based college education programs attract more faculty? A better understanding of the role of faculty members not only as de facto mentors, but also as effective educators, can lead to the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers willing to teach in a unique classroom setting.

Program Description

In the current work, we use interviews and questionnaires from a small sample of former participants and faculty associated with Boston University’s (BU) Prison Education Program to pilot a qualitative exploration of the program. The BU Prison Education Program has operated continually since 1972 when founder Elisabeth Barker, a BU professor, established a degree-granting program at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk (MCI Norfolk). During the early 1990s, with support from BU President, John Silber, the program eventually expanded to include four institutions. Massachusetts’ only women’s prison and the women’s prerelease facility on the same complex were two of these institutions.

The BU Prison Education Program provides a bachelor in liberal arts degree and annual enrollment is approximately 120 students. Of these, the majority students are housed at MCI Norfolk, one of the state’s prisons for men. Each year, the BU Prison Education Program offers an admission period when new applicants are accepted. Depending on the year and applicant pool, approximately 20% to 50% of applicants are selected for admissions. The program selects applicants based on a two-part entrance examination and a subsequent interview. While enrolled in the program, BU Prison Education Program students receive a full scholarship including books and academic supplies. BU provides the primary funding for the Prison Education Program. Unlike many programs, BU never relied on Pell Grants for funding support. Consequently, it was able to continue to operate after the elimination of Pell Grants following the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. BU Prison Education Program students are entirely funded by scholarships provided by BU’s Metropolitan College. The University also offers ongoing scholarships for Department of Corrections employees to attend programming on BU’s campus.

The Prison Education Program currently offers a fall and spring term each academic year. Students take from one to three courses per term. Classes meet for approximately a 3-hr session each week, for a standard semester (13 to 14 weeks). Many of the faculty members also teach courses on-campus at BU; others instruct at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard, and other Boston area colleges and universities. All faculty have, at minimum, a master’s degree in their field, most possess a PhD. Courses cover the typical liberal arts subjects and include literature, philosophy, social sciences, mathematics, natural sciences, and computer sciences. There also are courses in the fine arts such as music, poetry, and art history. Programming is available to individuals who are serving both short-term sentences as well as to those serving life- or long-term sentences. More than 1,500 students have participated in the program since its inception. Of these, more than 400 have obtained degrees.

If we examine state facilities for women specifically, we note a smaller proportion of both participants and graduates. During academic years 1991 through 2017, 54 women graduated the program, 189 took courses but did not graduate, and four completed their degree at BU after release. Twenty-six students from women’s facilities have graduated during the period between 2012 and 2017. For these students, the average number of semesters active in the program was 12.44. The graduates during this period maintained an average GPA of 3.33. Twenty-three students are currently active in the Prison Education Program as of the Fall 2017. For these current students, the average number of semester’s participation is just over five. The current average GPA is 3.03.

The BU Prison Education Program is administered by the Prison Education Field Coordinator. The program is housed in BU’s Metropolitan College and the Department of Applied Social Sciences. The field coordinator who serves as a liaison between the Department of Corrections and BU works collaboratively with BU’s Office of Undergraduate Services and the Department of Corrections Education Department. It should be noted that the authors of this study are all affiliated with BU. Jillian Baranger was a student in the MCJ program completing her master’s thesis at the time of this project. Danielle Rousseau and Mary Ellen Mastrorilli are faculty members and researchers. James Matesanz is the current BU Prison Education Program field coordinator and helped facilitate access for the current project.

Despite the extensive history of BU’s Prison Education Program, little research has explored the lived experience of program participants. The goal of this article is to present a pilot qualitative study of the perceived and experienced impacts of the program. Although the initial number of participants in this study is small, we believe it is an important step in opening a dialogue about how prison education is experienced relative to psychological and behavioral impacts. The current investigation seeks to supplement previous research in higher education in prison, which has largely focused on participant recidivism rates post-release and cost-benefit analyses. We believe the qualitative approach initiates an important dialogue and provides a valuable addition to current scholarship on the impacts of higher education in prisons.

Sample Population

This research utilizes a qualitative analysis approach to explore the impacts of higher education for students incarcerated in a women’s prison. The study design included the distribution of a brief written questionnaire and the completion of semistructured interviews that were completed at a mutually convenient, predetermined location.

The sample consisted of students (n = 4) who participated in postsecondary education while incarcerated in a women’s prison facility and prison education faculty members (n = 3). All student participants were no longer incarcerated at the time of interviews. The former students and current faculty who were chosen provide a more complete profile and additional perspective. The interviews and questionnaires of formerly incarcerated students offer insights into their perceived experience of the impacts of higher education in prison programming. These students were able to discuss their incarceration experience both pre- and post-prison education participation, and relate the experience to their reentry into the community.

Faculty interviews supplement the portrait of the prison students’ experiences in higher education with an additional firsthand lens. Unlike the incarcerated students, faculty members enter the facility for a limited time period and are able to leave at the end of the day. The addition of faculty interviews and questionnaires enhances the understanding of the role of higher education in a woman’s prison.

Participant Eligibility

Study participants were initially recruited through a local organization that supports women upon release from prison. Recruitment forms were emailed to the agency, and agency employees were ask to distribute the flyer to any women who may have been taken higher education courses while incarcerated. In addition, staff members working with the BU Prison Education Program were contacted to send a recruitment flyer to BU Prison Education Program alumni who had since been released from incarceration and remained in contact with the university.

Using snowball sampling, former students contacted other students for interest in the study. Volunteers were deemed eligible after meeting the criteria of at least one completed semester of the BU Prison Education Program. Four former students were found eligible; they did not receive reimbursement for their participation. Consent was obtained per institutional review board (IRB) approval.

Faculty Eligibility

Faculty included men or women who had taught at least one postsecondary course in the BU Prison Education Program at the women’s prison and were recruited through prison education program staff. Three former faculty members agreed to participate; they signed an IRB approved consent form, ensuring that any identifying information would be protected.

Data Collection

Data were collected through a brief, 12-question, written survey and in-depth audio-recorded interviews. Utilizing a Likert-type scale and collecting demographic information, the questionnaire elicited an initial, broad overview of opinions related to higher education in prison from both student and faculty perspectives. The audio interviews were semistructured to facilitate the free exchange of opinions and ideas, drawing out personal and perceived experiences with higher education in prison. At no point during the interview were questions about student convictions or crimes asked.

Data Analysis

Student audio-recorded interviews averaged approximately 25 min; faculty interviews lasted about 15 min each. The written questionnaires took an additional 10 min to complete. The presence of the initial written questionnaire allowed participants time to understand the interview process, easing the transition into the recorded interviews. Furthermore, some participants seemed at first timid and nervous to discuss their period of incarceration; the questionnaires and one-on-one environment allowed them to become comfortable with the interviewer.

Although the sample number was small, both former students and faculty members were eager to share their experiences. Interviewing a smaller sample also accommodated more personal contact.

All qualitative data were transcribed individually and subsequently analyzed for themes; each interview was reviewed thoroughly and coded using qualitative software, allowing for evaluation of common themes.

Participant Demographic Data

Student Questionnaire Results

All four students strongly agreed that participating in college courses had an overall positive effect on their life and benefited the prison community as a whole. Initial questionnaire responses also supported findings by Fine et al. (2001), as all of the students strongly agreed that participating in college courses while incarcerated had a positive impact on their behavior in prison. Furthermore, all students strongly agreed that their life, post-release, has benefited through prison participation in higher education. All students reported that the interaction with faculty played a role in improving their reentry into the community, and all participants noted to some level that they saw a positive change in other students who participated in the program. All four students found the courses academically challenging and strongly believed that the faculty wanted them to succeed.

Another finding—that the program helped to motivate the women to work toward other life goals—correlated with previous research by Fine et al. (2001). This suggests that prison higher education effects may have a long-term impact on other areas of life than education. In terms of employment, two students acknowledged that participating in higher education was a factor in securing employment post-release; one student strongly disagreed. The fourth participant rated this question neutrally.

Other questions sought to assess how students viewed themselves throughout the higher education in prison experience. Correspondingly, results showed that three of the four students thought that their confidence had increased as a result of participating in higher education. The fourth respondent rated this question neutrally (this is the same participant who stated that higher education in prison did not help her gain employment post-release).

Referencing the questionnaire’s comments section, Sarah wrote,

Prison education opened my eyes to a new empowering way of looking at life instead of pointing the finger or staying stuck in my circumstances. I empowered myself. There before the grace of God go I, we live in a society that is judgmental, but with the help of my mentors and positive influences and what I have learned in my sociology classes, the empowering meaning of empathy and compassion that we as individuals should practice in all our affairs dealing with others.

Faculty Questionnaire Results

All interviewed faculty members agreed to some level that they have seen higher education in prison participation lead to a positive change in student behavior, corresponding with the student responses. All faculty strongly agreed that they felt higher education in prison would lead to an increase in post-release employment. For Michael, who does not believe that academic education relates directly to finding employment, he noted that skills learned in college courses could help a participant keep or succeed in a job, even if the job itself is not related to particular college course content.

All faculty strongly agreed that higher education in prison would help students maintain stable and healthy relationships post-release. All of the faculty members also strongly agreed that, through prison higher education, the students were motivated to work toward other life goals. All three faculty also strongly agreed that their interaction with the students helped prepare them for reintegration into the community.

Notably, all faculty witnessed an increase in confidence in their student college participants as they progressed through the prison education program. In teaching a variety of courses, faculty often saw their students multiple times, so witnessed their progress over time. John wrote, “I have no contact with people outside of classes, so it’s hard to evaluate student’s lives out of the classroom. I do see a change in returning students however.” This is an important take away from the questionnaire, as the interaction between professors and their incarcerated students is limited. Unlike traditional on-campus college courses, students are unable to email, call, or regularly reach out to faculty until they are released.

Prison Environment and Institutional Safety

Data in this study supported Fine et al. (2001) regarding disciplinary actions. The women expressed that they witnessed a change in their behavior as well as that of other women program participants. Patricia stated that she was getting into trouble while incarcerated before she began higher education courses. She reported that while she did still have a few smaller disciplinary issues while taking college courses, she said it was “nothing like before” and that her “behavior improved dramatically.”

It also was observed that there were fewer fights reported for women who may have otherwise fought regularly. Kristen said “. . . it gave me something to do instead of rebel, other than just pure rebellion . . . it oriented me toward something more than just fight.” In this context, it appears that Kristen felt she avoided automatic stress reactions and disciplinary action by remaining busy with coursework; this was an outlet for her and a way of “being there constructively.”

Students suggested that participating in higher education in prison was meaningful. The change in schedule allowed them to surround themselves with others who had similar goals in a learning environment. Having a regular schedule also may mean that there is less time to become involved in negative activity and interaction. Patricia said, “You know, it gave like a structure to the days and I think a sense of accomplishment and everything was goal-oriented in a place where you’re like kind of just floating and you know there’s nothing . . .”

Elizabeth also discussed how she learned to change her behavior positively by becoming more proactive than reactive. She stated, “ . . . you think twice about what you say or do because you know it’s going to affect your studies . . . you don’t want to lose your schooling . . .” This suggests that students in higher education in prison may be changing thinking patterns and learning to avoid negative behaviors to gain positive benefits. This is a long-term skill that will potentially help the women avoid other negative outcomes.

Michael reiterated these ideas from his perspective as a teacher when he said,

there’s a change in general comportment within the prison . . . that women who take college classes have a stake in avoiding disciplinary programs. And they tend to hang out with a different group of people; they’re less likely to get into trouble while they’re incarcerated.

Over his 15 semesters of teaching, Michael had seen many students participate in higher education courses and was able to speak to observing this change over a longer period of time.

In sum, these findings illustrate that the students had a sense of pride and did not wish to lose the opportunity to participate in programming. Students were able to change behavior and experience the benefits of such changes in meaningful ways when provided with long-term goals. It appears that new networks and social/educational groups created through participation in a higher education program provided the cultural capital discussed by Rose (2014), bringing about the motivation for self-improvement and positive behavioral change. The new associations gained through participation in higher education programming gave women a route to transformation. Importantly, and as demonstrated in research by Fine (2001), there are frequently notable positive institutional impacts that accrue from higher educational programming as well as positive behavioral and self-esteem changes for student participants.

Communication and Study Skills

Another area of impact was improved communication and relational interaction. Participation in higher education can contribute to a student’s skill in conversation. When asked about any additional aspects of life impacted through higher education in prison participation, Elizabeth touched upon communication skills. “I was the worst communicator ever. I swear I’m still not that great. I know I have improved . . . you couldn’t even understand me before I mumbled so bad. Now I’m trying to learn.”

Students also stated that they viewed faculty as models for communication and positive interpersonal interaction. Elizabeth mentioned a specific professor who taught a communication course that she took while incarcerated.

A couple times people were bumping heads in the class for whatever reason. I really learned a lot from the way that she handled that. She handled things so graciously and with so much kindness . . . My first response would be to get angry and be like “Ah!” She never did that. I thought to myself, “Wow that’s how you do it.”

Faculty became models for students, and new ways of thinking about and relating to the world around them represented a secondary gain for women in educational programming. The students benefited from learning communication skills, including coping with difficult situations and managing frustration—benefits that may help in the challenges of reintegration.

Kristen said that the faculty treated students in the program like “real adult people.” She also expressed that the professors treated them as “serious students . . . especially in an environment that is infantilizing and filled with powerlessness and arbitrary authority. To be dealt with, not just like a grown up, but a serious person with development and something to contribute.” Because histories of multiple and complex traumas are common for individuals serving time in women’s prisons, the potential impact of shifts in how these women see others perceiving them could be quite transformative.

Educational programming gives students a break from the realities of daily prison life while engaging in intellectually stimulating conversation. Here we can envision the value and impact of the relational nature of interactions and critical thinking that frequently characterizes higher education. Students need to be able to communicate with individuals in the community post-release. Learning to communicate in a professional manner may not only help to locate employment and housing but also build self-confidence and maintain social relationships. Building a relationship with faculty members allows for these interactions to begin before release.

One area for potential growth in the program expansion is the expansion of educational supports, particularly around the establishment of study skills. Participants indicated that they did not possess study skills upon entering the higher education program. Patricia shared,

And if I had one criticism of the BU prison program, it would be that, you know they expect you, I think it’s expected that you know how to study once you get there. In most cases people do not. And you know, I don’t know, I was lucky I pulled it together but I have seen many, many people struggle with that. Like, oh you have a big test-how do you study for that? What does that mean: to study?

The difficulty of studying in a prison environment was also discussed, with the women noting the potential benefit of developing an environment more conducive to studying and learning. Patricia explained,

So one of the big challenges in prison for studying particularly was having a quiet safe space to do it and they tried a few things like having study halls and it didn’t work for various reasons and then-and I personally had a few roommates that were just-it was impossible to study.

Clearly context plays an important role in the educational experience, and the unique challenges of learning in a prison setting should be acknowledged.

Overall, opportunities for connection and communication as participants in prison education were perceived as transformative; prison education provided the potential for new, purposeful, and empowered ways of interacting and connecting through communication. Prison education programs should not only be aware of the power of the modeling of communication and positive connection but should also be cognizant of the importance of environment and context. Prison education programs should work to consciously create spaces that foster learning and effective studying.

Social Relationships Pre-Release

When asked how higher education in prison may affect relationships with friends and family, two different themes were cited in interview by both former students and faculty: descriptions of their social relationships while incarcerated—and after release. One area of social relationship clearly impacted was that of institutional cohesion. Interview data suggested that higher education in prison lead to a change in cohesion within the institution and in the manner in which students interacted with others within the facility.

It became clear that students were able to foster meaningful connections among fellow program participants. As previously cited in research by C. Rose (2004), participation in higher education programming increased cultural capital. Newly established networks and connections may foster positive change and improve self-perception, self-esteem, and mutual support. Elizabeth affirmed this and said, “We did a lot of study groups because, like I said, a lot of us didn’t know half the topics that we were going over. So it was like, let’s brainstorm and figure this out!” Students found mutual understanding in working through the coursework and turned to each other for support and connection.

Some students were able to take on the role of tutor and help others when they felt confident about the academic material. Patricia noted that tutoring other students in the program “. . . really changed for sure the way I felt about myself.” The improvement in self-perception resulting from the experience in the program and the associated relational connections is consistent with the literature discussing reasons for participation in prison education programming.

An increase in cohesion was not only reported by the college student participants but also among students and nonstudents who may not have otherwise interacted. Elizabeth addressed this in discussing how participation in prison education impacted her interactions with other incarcerated individuals in the institution. “. . . it changes the whole vibe between everybody. So it was like something that benefited me, as well as people around me too who weren’t in college, because it was something they could actually put their mind to.”

Students also reported encouraging nonparticipants to join higher education programming. Sarah indicated that she would try to inspire other women to enroll in the program by asking, “You’re doing time . . . why don’t you do it wisely? . . . You have a high school diploma, take a chance.” This concept of incarcerated women supporting each other is not only empowering but also a way to spread positivity throughout the institution. This idea was also touched upon by faculty member Michael who noted that many women find satisfaction in being able to tutor and “help raise educational standards” within the prison.

It became apparent that aspects of programming including course materials and texts, as well as coursework, had a far-reaching effect on the way women related to each other within the institution. Elizabeth reported that the prison education program had an impact on the nature of conversations between women within the institution. She expressed that many students came to her and asked to borrow her school books just for reading material. She said they would return her books and be “amazed” at the content. Through Elizabeth’s observation, it is apparent that even women who were not enrolled in higher education in prison directly were affected by the presence of the program, indicating the potential value of educational programming beyond the immediate circle of participants.

Social Relationships Post-Release

Formerly incarcerated people return to prior social relationships, including friends and family, after release from prison. University faculty are able to provide a sense of connection to the outside, which may help students prepare to rebuild or create important relationships within their community upon reentry. Students benefit from the provision of confidence and hope, fostering the capacity to take an active part in their lives post-incarceration.

When asked about how higher education has played a role in her social relationships post-release, Patricia stated,

I got a positive parole vote and my education record was a big part of that . . . So, how did it affect my family and my friends? . . . I can be a family member and a friend today. And school—there’s no doubt in my mind that the program made that happen.

Elizabeth discussed how she felt that her “distant” family’s perspective of her had changed once they learned she had been participating in college courses. She explained that they saw her struggle on various levels when entering prison. However, due to enrolling in college classes, her family members were able to see her come out “high.” As the literature suggests, many women see prison education as a tool for reconnecting with family, particularly with children (Spark & Harris, 2005). This appears to be true for these women as well.

Self-Perception and Self-Confidence

Another interview theme was relationship with self. Here, we recognize the relationship of higher education to self-perception and personal development. “I always thought, well something must be wrong with me, you know? . . . today I know that . . . I am capable and I am qualified of doing anything that I put my mind to.” Sarah clearly reflected here on how her self-perception had changed before and after participating in higher education courses. She also stated that she was capable of doing “anything.” This feeling of confidence expanded outside of the classroom and into other areas of her life.

Elizabeth also reinforced the experience of an evolving self-perception:

When you go to jail and then you do school it like literally changes you as a person. I don’t really know how to explain it good but it like gives you like a spiritual uplifting as far as other aspects of your life, not just school.

An increase in self-confidence was also recognized in terms of academic capabilities. Kristen stated, “I have a strong sense of being a capable intellectual of writing and pursuing intellectual pursuits and I feel like my knowledge base is much broader than it might otherwise have been.” Many of the women participating in higher education in prison may have never had the opportunity to take college courses due to a variety of barriers. Access to courses may allow a woman to recognize her capabilities when given an opportunity.

Patricia supported this notion when she referred to higher education in prison as an “amazing gift.” She continued that higher education in prison “changed my life and going to school gave me a purpose I didn’t have before.” This also echoes Fine’s (2001) study results. Incarcerated students perceived that critical thinking skills garnered through education gave them confidence to engage more actively in their lived experience.

Elizabeth expressed that she felt her ability to persevere was enhanced through higher education in prison participation; “ . . . I think it boosted it as far as just me persevering. Being in that type of situation, having nothing, feeling like you lost everything, and then still striving to reach for something better.” Higher education in prison provided Elizabeth with something to look forward to and strive for even during times when she stated that she wanted to “give up.”

Throughout her interview, Sarah discussed how she had begun selling drugs in her 30s; she later struggled with addiction. Sarah had been through significant challenge in her life and found peace in her coursework. She continued to talk about specific professors with whom she enjoyed working, and her energy rose as she spoke about her time in the program. This display of passion and self-reflection about her coursework was truly inspiring and was a clear example of her pride in her work. Another student also expressed similar feelings when she said that she “went from an angry, self-imposed prison woman to . . . empowerment.” These words are not often used to describe incarceration.

Timothy, who at one point taught sequenced English courses, reflected on the positive transformation that he witnessed in many of his students, “You can just get the sense that this person . . . is willing to work hard and wants to do well and straighten it up and not come back into this place after being released.”Overall, these findings suggest that many of the women who participated in higher education in prison reflect back on their period of incarceration in positive terms. Not only were the women able to reflect this positivity directly but faculty also testified to these positive outcomes.

Impacts on Reentry and Recidivism

One final major theme emerged—the need for additional resources for higher education programming to ensure successful reentry. While education is a large part of correctional programming, participants felt that “it is only one piece to the puzzle.” Many other forms of support are needed for students to maintain positive social relationships post-release. In addition to education, people reentering the community need tools connecting them with stable housing, reliable employment, mental health services, and other social supports. Elizabeth stated that due to her criminal record, getting a job was “ridiculously hard.” Being rejected from a job due to criminal history can be extremely frustrating. However, students who completed higher education programming are able to assert that they spent their time in prison positively. This achievement is one that an employer may view favorably, and demonstration of the capacity to earn a college degree while incarcerated may constitute a mark against the negative impact of prior incarceration.

There is clearly the issue of incarcerated women who do not graduate and complete the full bachelor’s degree; they lack the full credential to list on a resume. There is no guarantee that these women will have the time or financial resources to continue their education in a traditional format upon release. While incarcerated, these women are in a structured environment with a level of accountability and support. On reentry, the challenges to completing a degree are many, and include financial considerations, transportation, physical and/or mental health issues, sobriety, employment, and child care.

Participants did note limitations in the capacity for prison education to improve employment opportunities. Kristen remarked that she did not feel that participating in higher education had much of an influence on the way the world views her. “I don’t think there’s any place in society for people reentering in general. I think that if you’re a welder you might have a better chance, you know?” She continued to discuss barriers that individuals in reentry will experience that will not be transcended through education, most particularly related to employment. She cited examples, such as having a criminal background, being on parole or probation, and not having the kind of network that others may access. Although having a degree could provide a competitive edge in the job market, it may not outweigh other obstacles.

While the benefits of obtaining an education while incarcerated should not be minimized, this study also found that there may be other factors in addition to higher education in prison participation that lead to positive outcomes. Michael noted, “The women who participate in higher education, probably tend to participate in other programs more regularly than do some of the other prisoners. So there’s probably a whole constellation of programming plus personal predisposition.” It makes sense that people who are incarcerated would benefit from the presence of multiple quality programs and that the intersection of multiple programs could provide the tools to address the complex pathways that lead to incarceration for women.