Women’s Voices: An Appreciative Inquiry of Off-Site Postsecondary Correctional Education

Abstract

Using an appreciative inquiry method, this study explored the experiences of women who participated in off-site postsecondary correctional education (PSCE). Semistructured interviews were conducted with four women who participated in study release, a program in which women who are incarcerated are permitted to leave the prison facility on a daily basis in order to attend postsecondary education courses at a nearby university or community college. Findings indicate one unifying theme among study participants: the restoration of one’s humanity through participation in PSCE. Connected to this unifying theme are two subthemes: (1) restoration of self and (2) restoration of connection and community. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed, including involving women and women’s voices in advocacy efforts to shape correctional policy from a punitive to restorative approach, offering choice of study in PSCE, providing PSCE opportunities that are off-site, fostering connections among PSCE participants and those who support them, and considering measures beyond recidivism to measure PSCE success. Limitations and suggestions for future research are addressed.

Keywords

appreciative inquiry college incarceration prison postsecondary education women

From 1980 to 2015, the estimated number of women who were sentenced to prison under state or federal jurisdiction in the United States rose from 12,331 to 104,968, an increase of 751% (Carson, 2016; Gilliard & Beck, 1994). The myth that women have become more violent or more “criminal” in recent decades has been repudiated several times, with research showing the increase of women in the criminal justice system is due in large part to changes in sentencing policies related to “the war on drugs” and mandatory arrest policies related to interpersonal violence incidents (Fedock, Fries, & Kubiak, 2013; O’Brien & Ortega, 2015; Schwartz, Steffensmeier, & Feldmeyer, 2009). Including jail, prison, probation, and parole, there are over an estimated 1.2 million women in the United States who are under the supervision of the criminal justice system (Carson, 2016; Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017; Minton & Zeng, 2016). Women make up a small percentage, roughly 7%, of the total incarcerated population (Carson, 2016); however, women who are incarcerated are required to navigate and exist in a system that is designed for men, by men, and predominately run by men (van Wormer, 2010). This intersection of oppressive factors demands our consideration.

Feminist scholars have pointed to a “gendered pathway” related to women’s experience leading up to, during, and after incarceration—one that is entrenched in poverty, racism, and victimization (Daly, 1992; Gilfus, 1993; O’Brien & Ortega, 2015; Pollack, 2004; van Wormer, 2010; Willison & O’Brien, 2017). Visher and Travis (2003) conceptualize the pathway from a life-course perspective: “pre-prison circumstances, in-prison experiences, immediate post-prison experiences, and post-release integration experiences” (p. 94). Although it is anticipated that every individual who is imprisoned experiences these respective stages, women’s pathway is a gendered one, which may be influenced by preprison experiences such as trauma and intimate partner violence, poverty-level wages and workplace gender discrimination, and one’s identity and role as a mother and caregiver. The gendered pathway, and each of its respective factors, is further complicated by the intersection of race (O’Brien & Ortega, 2015). These same gendered considerations are also likely to be present during in-prison, immediate postprison, and postrelease integration experiences. O’Brien and Ortega (2015) further elaborate and provide a critical glimpse into the gendered experiences of the “criminalized woman”:

A cursory examination of women in prison identifies three facts about who they are, namely, they are largely incarcerated for nonviolent, drug-related crimes; they are mothers of minor children; and they are disproportionately women of color. These characteristics also relate to the enduring impact of their short- or long-term sentence in a state or federal prison cell: They experience enduring trauma often comorbid with mental and physical disorders, they lose connection with their children and family members, and they experience multiple forms of stigma related to having a conviction that prevents them from rebuilding their lives after release from prison. This stigma and the lack of access to financial support impede their ability to support themselves and their children if they are reunited after the separation. (p. 142)

Social workers have the skills, knowledge, and are bound by the ethical principles necessary to advocate for women involved in the criminal justice system. One way in which social workers can advocate for women who are currently incarcerated is to promote the inclusion of evidence-based and gender-sensitive programming. Research has demonstrated that postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) is one of the most effective means for reducing people’s chances of returning to prison postrelease (Chappell, 2004; Hall, 2015; Kim & Clark, 2013). There are also indications that participation in PSCE leads to higher employment rates postrelease (Jenkins, Steurer, & Pendry, 1995). Unfortunately, most studies have not explored PSCE as it specifically relates to gender. In addition, there remains a paucity of research exploring the perspectives of women involved in PSCE, rendering women’s voices nearly unheard.

Using an appreciative inquiry (AI) method (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005), this study aimed to address a critical gap in existing qualitative literature related to women’s experience with off-site PSCE. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study that exclusively explores the perceptions of women who participated in off-site PSCE.

Women and PSCE

Postsecondary education is defined as any type of education beyond the high school level and may include academic (i.e., associate, bachelor, graduate degree programs), vocational, and continuing professional education programs; however, it excludes avocational (leisure) and adult basic education programs (NCES National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). In the criminal justice system, postsecondary education is often referred to as “postsecondary correctional education” or PSCE (Chappell, 2004; Hall, 2015; Palmer, 2012). Although the vast majority of PSCE in the United States occurs on-site at prison facilities, there are some PSCE programs that occur off-site in the community (Gorgol & Sponsler, 2011). “Study release” allows individuals who are incarcerated to leave a correctional facility on a daily basis in order to participate in PSCE at a postsecondary education institution such as a community college or university (May, Minor, Ruddell, & Matthews, 2008).

Although most state correctional facilities in the United States provide access to some form of PSCE for people who are incarcerated, roughly only 7% of the prison population is enrolled in such programs (Palmer, 2012). Challenges to enrollment and degree completion that have been identified include but are not limited to financial aid restrictions for individuals who are incarcerated, limited partnerships with 4-year educational institutions, and facility system issues (e.g., involuntary transfer that interrupts student coursework, facility security protocols) (Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Palmer, 2012).

Qualitative research can provide us with more insight into the lived experiences of participants of PSCE, as seen through the work of Pollack (2016) who studied the experiences of “outside” university students and “inside” incarcerated students who participated together in an on-site Walls to Bridges (W2B) program—inspired by the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program developed in the United States and located inside a Canadian women’s prison (Pollack, 2016). The Canadian study involved both nonincarcerated and incarcerated W2B student participation across all levels of the study, from developing the methodology and interview guide, conducting interviews, and interview analysis. Guided by the research question, “What is the impact of the W2B pedagogy on student learning about power, diversity, privilege, and community engagement?” the study found that W2B “helped to dispel stereotypes, create a sense of connection and community across perceived differences, and cultivate a drive for social action, both within the criminal justice system and in the wider community” (Pollack, 2016, pp. 7 and 15). The study did not focus specifically on the gendered experience of female “inside” students; however, it did seek to capture the voices of participants. We also wish to note that at least two of the women who were incarcerated and participated as students in the W2B program have since had their own scholarly work published in academic research literature (Fayter, 2016; Pollack & Eldridge, 2015). Fayter (2016) noted,

my involvement with the W2B program has transformed my carceral experience from one that is oppressive to feeling empowered and valued as a person. Additionally, I have been able to maintain an ongoing and meaningful connection with the community through my involvement with the program. (p. 56)

Unfortunately, none of the quantitative studies we reviewed examined the delivery method of PSCE, so it remains unclear how off-site PSCE might differ from PSCE delivered on-site. In addition, most of the studies involving PSCE did not explore gender and focused predominately on the measure of recidivism—the proportion of persons released from prison who are rearrested, reconvicted, or returned to custody within a specific time period—as the sole indicator of whether or not PSCE programming was “successful.” This focus is problematic, as success is defined not by individuals who were formerly incarcerated, but by the systems and institutions that imprison them. For example, although their research did not focus on PSCE, Heidemann, Cederbaum, and Martinez (2016a) found that women who were formerly incarcerated defined success postrelease as “having their own place, helping family members and others, living free from criminal justice surveillance, persevering through challenges, and living a ‘normal life’” (p. 24). Overall, it is still noteworthy that quantitative studies have established PSCE as an effective means for reducing recidivism, even when controlling for selection bias (Chappell, 2004; Hall, 2015; Kim & Clark, 2013). Yet as stated before, results from these studies were not delineated by gender, so it is unclear how recidivism rates may have differed between male and female PSCE participants or to what extent women were included in these studies. In an attempt to look beyond recidivism, one self-described “modest and limited study” found that PSCE resulted in higher rates of employment postrelease; however, the researchers noted the need for more systematic research to explore PSCE and postrelease outcomes and they also described women in their study as “under-represented somewhat” (Jenkins et al., 1995, p. 23).

In our review of the literature, we found one quantitative study that specifically examined the intersection of gender and PSCE (Rose & Rose, 2014). In their quantitative analysis, Rose and Rose (2014) examined factors that may contribute to male and female participation in PSCE, as opposed to outcomes of PSCE. Although the researchers found “no difference in the likelihood of participation in college-level programming based on sex alone,” they did find a significant difference between male and female participation when analyzing for other factors in addition to gender, such as highest grade attended, income, inmate status, child visits, and time served (Rose & Rose, 2014, p. 32). For example, one finding showed,

women’s participation in a racial or ethnic group, employment counseling, parenting classes, and life skills or community adjustment programs were all significantly and positively related to participation in college-level programs whereas participation in religious groups, inmate assistance groups, and other prison programs did not have a significant effect. (Rose & Rose, 2014, p. 33)

It is our hope that our research study adds to the professional and academic knowledge of the qualitative experience of women who have participated in off-site PSCE programs. Many researchers have argued that there is inadequate research on the specific needs of women in general related to risk of incarceration, being actively incarcerated, or having been formerly incarcerated (Cobbina, 2010; Fedock et al., 2013; Heidemann et al., 2016a; Tripodi, Bledsoe, Kim, & Bender, 2011; Pollack, 2000b; Willison & O’Brien, 2017). In light of this knowledge, our qualitative study intentionally explored effective aspects of PSCE from the voices of women who participated in off-site PSCE.

Method

Purpose of Study

Utilizing an AI method (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005), the purpose of this study was to explore women’s perception about their off-site PSCE experience. The primary research questions were: (1) What was the experience of women who participated in PSCE? and (2) What did women who participated in PSCE identify as positive characteristics of a PSCE program? This project was approved by the Western Carolina University Institutional Review Board.

Research Design and Rationale

AI reflects a strengths-based research approach that is rooted in postmodern constructionist theory and involves the art and systematic practice “of asking unconditionally positive questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 8). AI has been used previously in studies related to incarceration, though not specifically related to PSCE (Liebling, Elliott, & Arnold, 2001; Liebling, Price, & Elliott, 1999). Due to its social constructionist framework, AI allowed us to infuse a feminist standpoint lens to explore the co-created incarceration and postsecondary education experience through the lens of the women participants (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007). As other researchers have noted, women’s voices and experiences have too often been marginalized and silenced (Allen, Flaherty, & Ely, 2010). We were intentional about providing an opportunity for women to move beyond their oppression and to share an empowered narrative about their PSCE experience.

From an emancipatory and empowerment perspective, selecting an affirmative topic choice is considered the heart of AI in that it focuses attention on what is considered important to the study participant. Identified topics were explored through an appreciative interview that consisted of strengths-based questions that aimed to discover what was beneficial for the study participants; from there, the AI framework asserts that positive change strategies may be built. We chose to focus this study on “what works” in PSCE programs from the women’s perspective in an effort to identify aspects of this educational experience that can be explored and built upon in the future. As PSCE continues to face federal and state funding cuts (Palmer, 2012), use of the AI methodology can help to provide a voice to women who have experienced incarceration and are directly affected by changes in PSCE policy and programs.

Participant Recruitment and Sampling

Purposive and convenience sampling strategies were used to identify a homogeneous sample of four research participants (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2016). There are three common ways a purposive sample is identified in qualitative studies: (1) referrals, (2) network contacts, and (3) snowballing (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). In an attempt to maximize opportunities to identify potential research participants, all three purposive sampling techniques were used. Our primary recruitment effort was through a collaborative relationship with a local not-for-profit organization that has a mission to engage with and support women who are incarcerated. In addition, after initial research participants were identified through our not-for-profit partner, snowball sampling was used. All four women participated in an off-site PSCE program while incarcerated at a minimum custody facility located in a rural region of the Southern United States. To protect confidentiality, all individuals are identified by a pseudonym, and some personal information like geographic location, profession, and area of study were modified. We tried to maintain the authenticity and integrity of the women’s experiences; therefore, deidentification modifications were only made when necessary. Further, considering the number of participants in this study, how few women participate in off-site PSCE programs such as the one studied, and the geographical location of this study, it was decided that no demographic data beyond gender would be collected in the attempt to fully protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality. This decision had implications that will be articulated in the Limitations section.

A homogeneous sample was not intended for generalizability but for deep exploration of a shared life experience (Smith et al., 2009). Homogeneity of the sample was achieved by identifying research participants who shared the following characteristics: (1) Women who were aged 18 years or older at the time of the interview and had been formerly incarcerated, (2) participated in PSCE as demonstrated by completing at least one semester of PSCE, and (3) were no longer incarcerated and/or on parole. It is important to draw attention to the distinction that although this study concerned women who were incarcerated, the participants were not involved with the criminal justice system during the tenure of the study. Careful and critical consideration was given to human subject protections; however, future studies involving women who are currently incarcerated should be aware that additional protocols and protections may be needed (Institute of Medicine, 2007; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1976; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

A prescreen phone, video-enabled technology, or e-mail interview was conducted with each potential participant to ensure she reflected the inclusion criteria (Smith et al., 2009). During the prescreening interview, a consent form was also distributed. After thoroughly explaining the consent form, potential research participants were given an opportunity to read and sign the consent form. Prior to beginning the scheduled interview, the researcher again reviewed the consent form and answered any additional questions. The setting of the interview was chosen by each research participant and agreed upon by the researcher—with attention to maintaining confidentiality. A US$10 gift card was offered to each participant.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected from one-time, semistructured appreciative interviews, conducted either in-person or by use of video-enabled technology (e.g., GoTo Meeting), and lasted from 41 min to 1 hr and 45 min. Using appreciative interview techniques, participants were invited to discuss their experiences with PSCE by sharing information related to their high-point experiences, values, core life-giving factors, and wishes for/imagines for the future (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; see Appendix for interview guide). Prompts and probing questions were also used to further explore the participants’ experience (van Manen, 1990).

Data were analyzed, coded, and themed by using Smith, Flowers, and Larkin’s (2009) six-step interpretive model: (1) reading and rereading, (2) initial noting, (3) developing emergent themes, (4) searching for connections across emergent themes, (5) moving to the next transcript, and (6) looking for patterns across cases. The model focused on attempting to understand individuals’ relationship to the world using interpretation and focused on how individuals attempt to “make meanings out of their activities and to the things happening to them” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 21).

Findings and Discussion

All four of the women graduated from their respective degree programs either during their incarceration or shortly following their release. Participants are identified and discussed below through assigned pseudonyms: Jennifer, Mary, Rachel, and Sarah. Data passages from the interviews are excerpted below to allow readers the opportunity to critically evaluate the unifying theme and subthemes we uncovered and the meanings we associated with the PSCE experience.

By approaching this study and study participants through an appreciative, strengths-based lens, we were able to group our findings under one unifying theme: the restoration of one’s humanity through participation in PSCE. Under this unifying theme, we identified two subthemes: (1) restoration of self and (2) restoration of connection and community. Prison, by design, and often coupled with the gendered experiences women endure leading to incarceration, minimizes the wholeness of one’s humanity (Allen et al., 2010; O’Brien & Ortega, 2015). This dehumanizing process has confounding effects—loss of self-efficacy, self-worth, power, connection and overall biological, psychosocial, and spiritual well-being (Allen et al., 2010; Heidemann et al., 2016a). Heidemann, Cederbaum, and Martinez (2016a) contend that although there is a gendered, traumatic pathway into prison, there are also “pathways out of prison and back into the community” (p. 25). For the women participating in our study, PSCE not only provided one of these critical connections back into the community, but it also facilitated a more foundational pathway—a reconnection to their humanity.

Subtheme 1: Restoration of Self

Women’s sense of self, human agency, and self-efficacy are complicated by oppressive social systems, structures, and constructions. Women who have been incarcerated face additional obstacles in cultivating a holistic sense of self (Maruna, 2001; Pollack, 2000b). For the women in this study, PSCE provided a pathway back to one’s self through feeling fully human, experiencing increased agency, and self-efficacy. Jennifer, Mary, Rachel, and Sarah overcame a dehumanizing identity wrapped in the prison walls and found a way back to their holistic selves. Weir (2013) acknowledges this paradox of identity—that our sense of self has the potential to imprison or free us. She eloquently explains this paradox,

…identities have historically been constituted, at least in part, through relations of power and systems of oppression: through patriarchy, racism, colonialism, and compulsory heterosexuality. Yet social movements for change have historically been grounded in these identities. Feminist, antiracist, and gay and lesbian movements have relied for their existence and power on affirmations of solidarity among women, blacks, and gays: these identities are sources of resistance. (p. 2)

Weir (2013) contends that women may reshape their sense of self by disentangling from oppressive power structures and relationships that support exploitative systems. Although the women in this study were still imprisoned during their PSCE experience, the parameters of the study release provided a pathway to individual freedom and self-restoration. By having access to the outside community and allowing choice of study, the PSCE program cultivated more than just an education—it paved a restorative path to one’s self, agency, and efficacy. Further, by strengthening individual women, PSCE also laid the foundation for the women to be open to connecting with other women, which is reflected in supporting theme two. Weir explains, “My freedom, then, must be social freedom: must be situated in my social connections” (p. 37).

Self-identity: “[L]earning how to be human again”

Language used by women in this study showed a profound distinction between their experiences as prisoners versus their experiences as students in the PSCE program, close to that of being nonhuman versus human. Describing her study release experience, Rachel recalled that, “You kind of felt like…during the day we weren’t incarcerated, so it felt like you were a normal person. Even though we knew we weren’t.” Rachel’s use of the word “normal” is reminiscent of findings from Heidemann et al. (2016a) who found that formerly incarcerated women identified “a normal life” or doing “normal things” as one key definition of success postrelease, a concept that challenges traditional, often singular measures of success postrelease, that is, reduction in recidivism rates.

Jennifer’s description of the beginning of her study release experience was described as “…scary cause that school looked so huge to somebody that had seen such an enclosed area for years…but, um, I was really scared but it all worked out. Just with time, so.” Jennifer’s description of prison as “an enclosed area” speaks to the dehumanizing nature of incarceration, as there is literally a barrier separating women from the community. Jennifer’s statement also reminds us of another variation of the word enclose, “enclosure,” which is often used to describe the confinement of animals. Mary’s experience seems to echo that of Jennifer’s, with Mary describing her time in study release as “…interacting in the real world, um, learning how to be a human again.” Sarah described study release as something that:

….trains you that [prison] is not real life and it’s not going to be that way forever and so it kinda gives you this…it gets you used to being a person again. That was the biggest thing was I felt like I got humanity back, by being able to go out and go to school.

Human agency: “A measure of control”

The off-site program in which the women participated was unique in that women were given the freedom to choose which postsecondary education degree program they would pursue through the local community college. For Sarah, having a sense of agency or “control” over her choices was important. She stated:

Oh that was wonderful. [laughs] Especially after having so much chosen for me for a few years. To be able to pick my classes um…that was really cool and to just have you know, being in the program gave you, even though you knew you weren’t really in control ultimately, because, the bottom could fall out at any time, you still had a measure of control and responsibility, um, that you were not able to have at the prison while you were in the program.

Rachel recalled:

…being able to just go [to study release] and being able to then pursue the degree that I wanted, my first choice, probably were the best, the best moments. (laughs)

Choice in course of study was particularly important to Jennifer, Rachel, and Sarah because it allowed them to strategically align their studies with their own personal interests and goals. For example, Rachel stated:

If you would of just said, “You can go to school, but it has to be this,” it would not have been—I would have still done it, just because, it was an opportunity, but it wouldn’t have meant as much as being able to pick something that I could long-term have as a profession. Um, because I was at a point in my life where…I wanted something that I could get out [of prison] and have a true profession.

For Sarah, having a choice in the degree she wished to pursue was important because she hoped to eventually transfer to a 4-year university. She stated that, had her choices been limited, “there wouldn’t have been as many transferable credits. That would have been a problem. A lot of the classes wouldn’t have carried over to a 4-year university.” She added that “the study release program was never the end result, but it was something that I wanted to be able to do to help get me to my next goal.”

For Jennifer and Rachel, sharing about the study release program and the freedom it gave them to choose their course of study gave way to further reflection about current challenges in prison programming. According to Jennifer:

…I know with, a lot of classes…there’s another program, and they kind of choose the classes for you that comes to the [prison] facility and um, that whole program’s a joke. It’s throwing a bunch of people in this, um, certificate program, and if, they don’t hold an interest, it’s wasting money in the long run. They’ll never use it. They’re not taking it seriously. And so that’s—I do think it’s important to have, you know, whatever you’re interested in…figure it out somehow, you know. So. You couldn’t tell a football player to be a baseball player, you know? It makes no sense.

In reflecting on how prison case managers might better assist incarcerated women in meeting their needs, Rachel used an analogy from her own work in a health-related field:

…I think in patient terms. It’s like, each patient I see doesn’t get the same treatment plan. Every person is different, so every person that walks through your door as a case manager should not have the same case management plan. You know, what are their goals?

For the women in this study, the opportunity to participate in an off-site program seemed to foster or renew their sense of human agency. Agency, Pollack (2000b) suggests, should be reconceptualized as a combination of both “subjective agency” and “political agency” (p. 83). Pollack argues that “relational autonomy presupposes the capacity for self-determination but requires that individuals be given the opportunity to exercise this capacity” (pp. 86–87). Based on this information, it could be argued that for the women in this study, the study release program provided the political agency to foster or restore the women’s sense of subjective agency.

Self-efficacy: “I wouldn’t know how to ride a bus”

Bandura (1997) posited that competency-building experiences are a primary source of self-efficacy. Essentially, when a person experiences successes, their belief in their own efficacy is strengthened. For Mary, who spent many years in incarceration, success in study release gave her confidence that she would be able “to adjust” after release from prison. She stated, “If I hadn’t of done the study release, I wouldn’t know how to ride a bus, would not have been comfortable enough to ride a bus.” To illustrate this point, she described one particular experience immediately following her release from prison:

Um…all I can think of is, when I was released…my best friend was playing chauffeur and all that and she got a little mad one day and I said, “What are you so mad about?” She said, “You don’t need me.” And I said, “What are you talking about?” She says, “I figured you would need me to do this and do that,” and she says, “You know how to do all that by yourself.” And I said, “Yeah.” And if I hadn’t of had study release, then that would not have been the case. I think it would have been a “Tell me what I need to do.” Whereas, I already knew what I needed to do. Already knew how to do things. And not looking like a deer, you know, headlights.

For Mary, she recalled, “Gratification comes in with finishing [my] degree, and having something that I could [use to] help me, on the outside. And just that gratification of doing that, completing the program, [receiving] straight A’s….” Asked to describe a time in the study release program when she felt “happy and excited,” Jennifer recalled having “…the feeling of accomplishment and, um, there was a lot of good times actually, um, getting scholarships from the president of the college himself [laughs].” Rachel described being one of 16 selected into her program of choice of 100 applicants.

Between Rachel, Jennifer, and Sarah, study release was described as a mechanism to “redeem myself to myself,” “start over,” achieve “a fresh start,” and to “[turn] it around.” As with mastery experiences, these statements regarding redemption are also consistent with Bandura’s (1997) work on self-efficacy, as he stated “a resilient sense of efficacy requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort” (p. 80).

Recalling being recognized on the community college website for her academic achievement, Sarah, who described her study release experience as “finally getting to start over,” stated:

…actually seeing my name on something on the website that says I was [being recognized for receiving all A’s]. That is especially- because…when you get arrested, you’re in the news, and it was just really cool to start seeing that I was being recognized for something that wasn’t bad. Like I had been able to get to a place where I could be, um, turning it around, I guess is the best way to put it.

Rachel, who stated she was able to “redeem myself to myself,” shared:

You know, I wanted to make sure that when I got out I was a productive member of society, just as I was before I was incarcerated. I still wanted to feel like I mattered. You know, that my kids knew that I could be successful and, and not just success, moneywise, but just- I’d done something. I bettered myself.

Resiliency despite challenges: “Yea, our tax dollars are paying for y’all to go to school”

Although identifying challenges of PSCE was not the focus of our research, through the interviews with participants we received valuable insight into the resiliency required in order to navigate several systemic challenges throughout the PSCE experience. Examples of challenges articulated by the women included a perceived (and we would argue actual) threat that the study release program could be dismantled by the prison administration at any time, negative attitudes regarding study release and about participants expressed by prison staff (particularly correctional officers, described by one participant who stated, “the mindset [of officers was]…‘They’re incarcerated. Why should they get to go to school?’…‘Nobody paid for me to go to school.’…‘Yea, our tax dollars are paying for y’all to go to school’…”), difficulty securing funding to pay for college tuition (as individuals who are incarcerated are generally prohibited from receiving financial aid), and difficulty studying on the prison unit (noise, disruptions from other women who were on the unit and from staff).

Subtheme 2: Restoration of Connection and Community

This subtheme and relevant findings reflect the theoretical framework of women’s identity and moral development as conceptualized by Gilligan (1982). Through these supporting themes and subthemes, we see the women move back and forth and among meeting the needs of one’s self, caring for the needs of one’s community of women, and having one’s opportunities cultivated by women working in the criminal justice system. Gilligan (1982) articulates this developmental milestone as, “Sensitivity to the needs of others and the assumption of responsibility for taking care lead women to attend to voices other than their own and to include in their judgment other points of view” (p. 16). In most circumstances, we regard women’s ability to care for one’s self, other women, and our communities as strengths to one’s identity and moral development. Yet there are some paradoxes to women’s caring and community orientation that should be considered, in general, and in the context of the prison industrial complex, in particular. In general, if women’s identity and moral development is intimately connected to caring for others, it may be challenging to only focus on one’s self when that need arises. Or, when a woman needs to focus on one’s self, she may be unfairly judged against arbitrary standards of what women’s caring orientation should look like. Specifically, in this context, the prison environment is not conducive and—in some circumstances—may be hostile to cultivating peer and mentoring relationships between and among women (Pollack, 2009).

Connection among peers: “We just cared”

A sense of camaraderie was apparent among the participants in this study. This connection was evident both in the participants’ description of their experience and even in their specific use of language in their interview responses. For example, although each interview question asked participants to reflect on their own personal experience, the participants’ responses often flowed between the singular (i.e., “I” or “me”) and the plural (i.e., “us” or “we”). For example, Rachel said of her experience:

We stuck together as a group, [those] of us that went, pretty closely, and tried to just like go in a group, “Okay, we’re going down to the study room, does anybody want to come?”

Jennifer referred to a fellow study release peer as her “best friend.” Reflecting on her study release peers, she stated:

We just cared, that really, that sums it up. So, um, we took it seriously, we overly studied. We were at that school many hours so we, you know, used the time. That made it valuable.

Mary stated that her fellow study release peers helped her by:

…making me take breaks. Um, [pause] just helping guide us, like the first couple days we were there and the first week or two. If things would be overloading, like not knowing how to use the computer-to-copier, and things like that, they were able to kind of help us with that. Um, if we were getting frustrated, lack of time or something like that…it was just moral support.

The benefits of peer support for women who are incarcerated have been established in the research literature, with findings showing that relationships among women in prison can often be supportive and that connections formed by women who are incarcerated can help women gain a sense of strength and cope with the isolation and powerlessness often associated with incarceration (Pollack, 2000a, 2004). Conversely, research has documented negative outcomes for women when they experience disconnection and isolation from their peers as a result of criminal justice policies and practices (Pollack, 2009). For the women in this study, PSCE created positive and beneficial connections to other women.

Other studies have documented the benefits of women who have been incarcerated and have come to be known as, “wounded healers” (Heidemann, Cederbaum, Martinez, & LeBel, 2016b). Similar to caring behavior demonstrated by the women in this study, wounded healers are described as women who were incarcerated and have resumed “caretaking responsibilities or supplant them with community involvement and mutual support groups” (Heidemann et al., 2016b, p. 4). Like the women in our study, some of the benefits experienced by the wounded healers include increased self-esteem, pro-social activity, and social connectedness (Heidemann et al., 2016b). This helping and connection experience may also be further explained through the concept of desistance, which describes how women may attempt to reform their criminal identity by rebuilding their lives through generative activities such as helping others and/or finding another path to fulfillment such as PSCE (Maruna, 2001). Although both of these concepts are typically discussed postrelease, they also appear to be relevant to women who are approaching a return to the community.

Connections with other supporters: “The one that really fought for us”

Another finding from this study was the significance of PSCE participants having specific supporters inside the prison and in the community—individuals who treated participants with acceptance and helped to provide the accessibility and resources necessary for women to actualize their sense of agency through PSCE. Rachel, Mary, and Jennifer described specific case managers at the prison as being particularly helpful to them through their study release experience, using such descriptive words as “amazing,” “awesome,” “instrumental,” and “cheerleader.” Jennifer described one case manager “who was there at the beginning of all of it,” as “awesome.” Rachel stated:

…we had an amazing case manager who’s no longer at the [prison], but she was the one that really fought for us, and helped us, and took us out to the school, and made arrangements for things to happen, and testing, and scheduling…[She] was very instrumental and I don’t think it would have succeeded without her guidance.

Sarah stated that the “support and…lack of judgment” from her college instructors “was great.” Two of her instructors “wrote amazing recommendation letters…that I was able to use for job opportunities and applying for university. So that was, that was a big deal.” She described one particular instructor who “took all of us in, all of us study release girls and was just supportive and always treated us like we were capable human beings….”

Recalling her experience, Jennifer said:

…so the English department, I really frustrated them, but um, we made it through and that was probably my favorite time there, my hardest classes. So,—but my statistics, I had hours and hours of extra tutoring for it, but you know, they were there to help. And they did. So, it was good. (laughs)

Pollack (2000b) posits that power imbalances between prison staff and women who are incarcerated are particularly challenging to women’s autonomy. The prison staff in this study, specifically case managers, seemed to work in a supportive and encouraging role, and this clearly had a positive impact on the study participants.

The sense of support from prison case managers was also seen by participants in the help provided by instructors and staff. For Rachel, her instructors were described as “…very supportive and helpful and [they] kind of rearranged things to allow me to meet all of my requirements for them, but also stay under the guidelines of the [prison].”

Mary described a librarian at the community college who was particularly helpful to her:

…when I was released [from prison], I still had about a month left before finals and everything were over, and I told [the librarian] that I didn’t have access to a computer, that I wanted to sign up for one of the laptops that you could check out. She bumped me to the top of the list so it would make sure that I had a laptop to use.

The actions of PSCE supporters, such as those described by the participants in our study, reflect Pollack’s (2000b) framing of relational autonomy that move women who are incarcerated toward political and subjective agency by rejecting the oppressive forces often experienced through incarceration and replacing them with “participatory democracy, critical self-reflection, and collective action” (p. 86). Relational autonomy, according to Pollack (2000b), is “understood as being either fostered or enhanced by one’s relationship to sources of political and social resources and power” (p. 85). In addition, broad and inclusive advocacy and policy actions have the potential to actualize characteristics of the “wounded healer” for not only the women in our study but also other women who have been incarcerated and who may find restoration from connection to and caretaking of others (Heidemann et al., 2016b; Maruna, 2001).

Limitations

Generalizability

A common critique of qualitative research is that one cannot generalize the findings. Yet, in general, the purpose of qualitative studies is to seek a thick, rich, and deep understanding of a particular topic. It is often exploratory in nature. The intention of this qualitative study was to elicit how women perceived their experience with PSCE, as studies providing voice to this population are currently lacking.

Study release as a unique form of PSCE

We note that the experience of women who participated in off-site PSCE is likely to be different from prison-based or “in-house” PSCE programming. Participants’ experience of interacting in “the real world” and having the ability to choose from the variety of degree programs typically offered at a postsecondary education institution appears particularly significant.

Demographic data

As mentioned earlier, a number of factors led us to decide that no demographic data (e.g., age, race, income, parenting status) beyond gender would be collected in our attempt to fully protect the participants’ privacy and confidentiality. Some of these factors include the number of participants in this study, the number of women who participate in off-site PSCE programs such as the one studied, and the geographical location of this study. Although this research study adds to our professional and academic knowledge of the qualitative, gendered experience of women who participated in off-site PSCE programs, we wish to acknowledge here the potential value that future studies could contribute to this knowledge by collecting additional demographic data. Such work could shed light on not only the gendered experience of PSCE but also the intersections of multiple factors, including gender, race, parenting status, age, education, income, and so on. Carson (2016), for example, found that in 2015, black women were incarcerated at almost twice the rate of white women, and Hispanic women were incarcerated at 1.2 times the rate of white women. It is important to note this disparity and to acknowledge the intersectionality of race, gender, class, the criminal justice system, and social control and how these converging dynamics have had particularly detrimental consequences for women of color (Crenshaw, 2012). We contend that it is critical for future studies, both quantitative and qualitative, to study the intersection of multiple demographic factors when exploring women’s experience with PSCE.

AI method

Although we think that the strengths-based methodology was appropriate for this population given its sensitivity to the marginalization and multiple traumas endured by women who are incarcerated, we also acknowledge that AI may be perceived as limiting in capturing the broader, sociopolitical challenges faced by participants engaged in off-site PSCE. In our attempt to use AI to make visible the frequently invisible experiences of women who incarcerated, we recognize that some scholars may think quite the opposite and contend that by limiting our focus on affirming aspects of PSCE, we may have masked oppressive experiences from being uncovered.

Implications

Four women discussed their experience of participating in a PSCE program and articulated a shared transformation of restoring their humanity. Participants identified programmatic elements of their particular PSCE experience that cultivated this transformation and restoration—including enrolling in a PSCE program that was off-site (outside prison walls and in the community), having a choice of program study, and being supported by fellow PSCE students as well as other supporters employed by either the correctional and/or academic institution. For the women in the study, these elements challenged the dehumanizing process that is often experienced by the “criminalized woman” (O’Brien & Ortega, 2015). These findings are consequential particularly for social workers, as we believe in the inherent dignity and worth or every individual and, through our practice, seek ways to promote social and economic justice. Willison and O’Brien (2017) note that many social workers are unaware of social injustices inherent in the criminal justice system, particularly for women, and have called feminist social workers to take action. Further, the findings from this study are relevant to the field of feminist research, where women’s knowledge and life experience are acknowledged and regarded as valuable. Although our findings are not intended for generalizability purposes, we believe our findings, which include insights into the PSCE experience directly from the voices of women who experienced it, can be applied in several areas of social work practice, including policy, practice, and research. These implications are explained below.

Implications for Policy

Despite an ever-growing body of research supporting positive outcomes from PSCE (Chappell, 2004; Fayter, 2016; Hall, 2015; Jenkins et al., 1995; Kim & Clark, 2013; Pollack, 2016; Pollack & Eldridge, 2015), in the United States, PSCE has historically faced threats of federal and state spending cuts due to policy changes fueled by a punitive or “tough on crime” political and social mind-set (Palmer, 2012). Currently in the United States, for example, individuals who are incarcerated are not eligible to receive federal student loans and those who are incarcerated in state and federal prisons are not eligible to receive Pell Grants (Palmer, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). One can only speculate what additional barriers may present for PSCE, as President Trump’s administration has signaled a return to the use and expansion of private prisons (Sessions, 2017a; Yates, 2016) and the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Sessions, has embraced a philosophy of enforcing law and order (Sessions, 2017b). Feminist social workers are encouraged to use the evidence presented in this study and other research to advocate for adequate funding and access to evidence-informed programming in prisons, such as PSCE, that provide avenues for successful transitions back into communities’ postincarceration. In their work, Willison and O’Brien (2017) call on feminist social workers to “advocate for the retooling of sentencing policies in response to women’s criminalized behaviors to incorporate treatment and supports for recovery and for the expansion of in-prison programs available to currently jailed and incarcerated women” (p. 46). We wish to note that the United States has seen some positive bipartisanship movement in policy areas such as addressing gender disparities, sentencing, record expungement, and the use of solitary confinement with juvenile populations (Booker, 2014; Paul, 2017; S.827, 2017). Issues that were only a short time ago considered partisan and intractable are suddenly appearing to move forward. These positive and constructive partnerships demonstrate that it may be an opportune moment for feminist social workers to bring light to PSCE in local, state, and national policy discourse, supported with insights from the voices of women who have directly experienced PSCE. Further, reflecting an authentic embrace of restorative and transformational practices, feminist social workers should empower women who have been incarcerated to speak for themselves and to advocate to legislators and other decision makers from a place of knowledge and experience. Actions such as these reflect Pollack’s (2000b) framing of relational autonomy that move women who are incarcerated toward political and subjective agency by rejecting the oppressive forces often experienced through incarceration and replacing them with “participatory democracy, critical self-reflection, and collective action” (p. 86).

Implications for Practice

Informed by findings from this study and other works, feminist social workers should advocate for correctional institutions who have existing PSCE programs or are planning to provide one to consider four components: (1) allowing PSCE participants to choose their area of study, (2) arranging for the program to occur in the community, outside of the correctional institution, (3) fostering connections among individual PSCE participants and those who can support them, and (4) considering measures beyond recidivism to measure PSCE success.

One participant from this study noted that being able to pursue the degree of her choice was one of “…the best moments” of her PSCE experience. Findings from this study noted that having the ability to choose their area of study enhanced women’s sense of responsibility and allowed them to match their area of study with their interests and long-term goals. We wish to note that all four women in this study graduated from their respective degree programs. As one participant noted, if a program of study did not match an individual’s interest, it would be a waste of money. Fundamentally, choice resulted in psychological and emotional efficacy from the participants. Here, we are reminded of Pollack (2000b) who argues that for someone to exercise their capacity for self-determination, they must first be given the opportunity to do so. We encourage social workers to utilize the findings from this study to advocate for PSCE programs to help provide the political agency—choice in area of study—to help foster women’s sense of subjective agency.

Also key to our findings was how participants made meaning of the “outside” experience of PSCE. Participants described their experience of attending college-level programming outside prison walls and in the community as that of being “normal,” “human,” and “a person again.” Indeed, off-site PSCE restored women’s sense of humanity and normalcy, an outcome that feminist social workers should advocate to be considered in developing and evaluating PSCE programming. Additionally, off-site PSCE provided women with additional levels of life capacity and competency development that would be difficult to replicate with “inside” prison programming. As one participant noted, for example, without participating in PSCE that was specifically off-site, she would have been unfamiliar with navigating the bus system. This connection to community manifested itself as a critical resource for developing the women’s resiliencies and reserves (Saleeby, 2000) that helped them to more effectively transition back into the community and thus further indicates the value of PSCE programming being offered off-site.

The importance of fostering connections among individual PSCE participants and those who can support them is another key practice implication from this study. As reported in our findings, connections made with fellow PSCE participants contributed to participants’ sense of humanity being restored. Feminist research literature points to the importance of connection for women who are incarcerated—both during and following their incarceration experience (Fayter, 2016; Heidemann et al., 2016b; Maruna, 2001; Pollack, 2000a; Pollack, 2004). In addition to connection with their PSCE peers, the women in our study found connection with particular case managers at the prison, college instructors, and other college staff. While women who directly participated in PSCE were the focus of our study, we find it noteworthy that many of the supporters identified by the participants were also women, for example, prison case manager, college librarian. Words used by participants to describe these relationships—with peers and other supporters—were “moral support,” “amazing,” “awesome,” “instrumental,” “cheerleader,” “supportive,” “helpful,” “lack of judgment,” and “…treated us like we were capable human beings.” Participants noted that it would have been very difficult for them to navigate the PSCE experience without the help of these connections. The benefits of relationships, connection, and community are documented in feminist research literature related to women’s experience of incarceration but also in feminist literature in general (Fayter, 2016; Gilligan, 1982; Heidemann et al., 2016a; Heidemann et al., 2016b; Pollack, 2000a; Pollack, 2004; Pollack, 2009; Weir, 2013). Therefore, it is imperative that feminist social workers advocate for PSCE that allows for connection among participants and their community. This will not be an easy task considering the prison environment is not conducive and—in some circumstances—may be hostile to cultivating peer and mentoring relationships between and among women (Pollack, 2009).

Finally, social workers are encouraged to challenge the paradigm of how success is measured in PSCE and other prison programming, which traditionally has only be viewed through the singular lens of recidivism (Heidemann et al., 2016a). Previous feminist research has documented that a successful, gendered reentry pathway to the community includes securing employment, developing healthy and mutually caregiving relationships with others, being involved with the community; having self-confidence, doing “good” work as described in the desistance literature, and developing new lives on one’s own terms (Bui & Morash, 2010; Heidemann et al., 2016a; Maruna, 2001; O’Brien, 2001, Opsal, 2011). In this study, for example, participants described being able to feel “normal” through their PSCE experience, a finding that is consistent with the work of Heidemann et al. (2016a), who found that formerly incarcerated women identified “a normal life” or doing “normal things” as one key definition of success post-release.

Implications for Research

Previous researchers have noted the need for additional studies related to the specific needs of women who are at risk of incarceration, actively incarcerated, or formerly incarcerated (Cobbina, 2010; Fedock et al., 2013; Heidemann et al., 2016a; Pollack, 2000b; Tripodi et al., 2011; Willison & O’Brien, 2017). In light of this knowledge, this qualitative study intentionally explored effective aspects of PSCE through a feminist lens by prioritizing the voices of women who actually participated in PSCE programming. Tripoli, Bledsoe, Kim, and Bender (2011) acknowledge that social work and allied researchers should “rigorously evaluate the needs of women prisoners, implement and evaluate programs based on gender-specific needs, and adjust interventions based on program evaluations” (p. 28). We agree and specifically suggest that a next step in furthering this research agenda would be to conduct a comparative study as it relates to women from a demographic cross section (i.e., inclusive consideration given to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, educational background, parental status, age) who participated in PSCE on-site at prison compared to off-site, community-based PSCE, such as study release. A quantitatively focused, comparison study, rooted in an intersectional feminist perspective, would result in testing generalizable behavioral outcomes and further inform the development of a conceptual framework regarding the construct of restoring humanity.

Further, in considering broader research implications, we suggest that other researchers consider the efficacy of using an AI method when appropriate to their research question(s). By using AI in this study, we were able to uncover significant programmatic elements of PSCE programs the participants identified as positive and effective, which may be replicated and further evaluated. Most importantly, the AI approach privileges the knowledge and experience of the women who participated. In many circumstances, the voices and lives of women who are incarcerated are often rendered virtually invisible due to their criminal status. Yet, in this study, due to using an AI approach, the inherent worth and dignity of the participants and their experiences were not only acknowledged but also valued.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study wish to acknowledge the four women who graciously offered their time, experience, and willingness to this project. They also wish to recognize the community organization who offered support of this project and assisted with participant recruitment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michelle A. Frerich

References

Allen

Flaherty

Ely

(2010). Throwaway moms: Maternal incarceration and the criminalization of female poverty. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 25, 160–172. doi:10.1177/0886109910364345

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Booker

(2014). U.S. senators Booker and Paul introduce legislation calling for criminal justice reform. Retrieved from https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=100

Bui

H.N.

Morash

(2010). The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 1–22. doi:10.1080/10509670903435381

Carson

E. A.

(2016). Prisoners in 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf

Chappell

C. A.

(2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A meta-analysis of research conducted 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 148–169.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2010). Reintegration success and failure: Factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 210–232. doi:10.1080/10509671003666602

Cooperrider

D. L.

Whitney

(2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(2012). From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking intersectionally about women, race, and social control. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1418–1472.

10.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11–52.

11.

Erisman

Contardo

(2005). Learning to reduce recidivism: A 50-state analysis of postsecondary correctional education policy. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/learningreducerecidivism.pdf

12.

Fayter

(2016). Social justice praxis within the walls to bridges program: Pedagogy of oppressed federally sentenced women. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 25, 56–71.

13.

Fedock

Fries

Kubiak

S. P.

(2013). Service needs for incarcerated adults: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 493–508. doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.759171

14.

Gilfus

(1993). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 63–89.

15.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Gilliard

Beck

(1994). Prisoners in 1993. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

17.

Gorgol

L. E.

Sponsler

B. A.

(2011). Unlocking potential: Results of a national survey of postsecondary education in state prisons. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/unlocking_potential-psce_final_report_may_2011.pdf

18.

Hall

L. L.

(2015). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction. Journal of Correctional Education, 66, 4–29.

19.

Heidemann

Cederbaum

J. A.

Martinez

(2016a). Beyond recidivism: How formerly incarcerated women define success. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 31, 24–40.

20.

Heidemann

Cederbaum

J. A.

Martinez

LeBel

T. P.

(2016b). Wounded healers: How formerly incarcerated women help themselves by helping others. Punishment & Society, 18, 3–26. doi:10.1177/14624745115623101

21.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

P. L.

(2007). Feminist research practice: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Institute of Medicine. (2007). Ethical considerations for research involving prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

23.

Jenkins

H. D.

Steurer

S. J.

Pendry

(1995). A post-release follow-up of correctional education program completers released in 1990–1991. Journal of Correctional Education, 46, 20–24.

24.

Kaeble

Bonczar

T.P.

(2017). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25.

Kim

R. H.

Clark

(2013). The effect of prison-based college education programs on recidivism: Propensity score matching approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 196–204. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.03.001

26.

Liebling

Elliott

Arnold

(2001). Transforming the prison: Romantic optimism or appreciative realism? Criminal Justice, 1, 161–180. doi:10.1177/1466802501001002002

27.

Liebling

Price

Elliott

(1999). Appreciative inquiry and relationships in prison. Punishment & Society, 1, 71.

28.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

29.

May

D. C.

Minor

K. I.

Ruddell

Matthews

B. A.

(2008). Corrections and the criminal justice system. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

30.

Minton

T. D.

Zeng

(2016). Jail inmates in 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

31.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1976). Report and recommendations: Research involving prisoners. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/567

32.

NCES National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). 2016–17 Survey materials: Glossary. Retrieved from https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Downloads/Forms/IPEDSGlossary.pdf

33.

O’Brien

(2001). Just like baking a cake: Women describe the necessary ingredients for successful reentry after incarceration. Families in Society, 82, 287–295.

34.

O’Brien

Ortega

D.M.

(2015) Feminist transformation deconstructing prisons and reconstructing justice with criminalized women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 30, 141–144.

35.

Opsal

(2011). Women disrupting a marginalized identity: Subverting the parolee identity through narrative. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40, 135–167. doi:10.1177/0891241610384995

36.

Palmer

S. M.

(2012). Postsecondary correctional education: Recognizing and overcoming barriers to success. Adult Learning, 23, 163–169. doi:10.1177/1045159512457918

37.

Paul

(2017). Paul, Booker, Cummings introduce bipartisan, bicameral bill to fix broken criminal justice system. Retrieved from https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/paul-booker-cummings-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-bill-to-fix-broken-criminal-justice-system

38.

Pollack

(2000a). Outsiders inside: The social context of women’s lawbreaking and imprisonment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto.

39.

Pollack

(2000b). Reconceptualizing women’s agency and empowerment: Challenges to self-esteem discourse and women’s lawbreaking. Women & Criminal Justice, 12, 75–89.

40.

Pollack

(2004). Anti-oppressive social work practice with women in prison: Discursive reconstructions and alternative practices. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 693–707.

41.

Pollack

(2009). Circuits of exclusion: Criminalized women’s negotiation of community. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 28, 83–95.

42.

Pollack

(2016): Building bridges: Experiential and integrative learning in a Canadian women’s prison. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36, 503–518.

43.

Pollack

Eldridge

(2015). Complicity and redemption: Beyond the insider/outsider research dichotomy. Social Justice, 42, 132–145.

44.

REDEEM Act, Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2017, S.827, 115th Congress (2017).

45.

Rose

(2014). Enrolling in college while in prison: Factors that promote male and female prisoners to participate. Journal of Correctional Education, 65, 20–39. doi:10.1177/1049731509352337

46.

Royse

Thyer

Padgett

(2016). Program evaluation. An introduction to an evidence-based approach (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

47.

Saleeby

(2000). Power in the people: Strengths and hope. Advances in Social Work, 1, 127–136.

48.

Schwartz

Steffensmeirer

D. J.

Feldmeyer

(2009). Assessing trends in women’s violence via data triangulation: Arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and victim reports. Social Problems, 56, 494–525.

49.

Sessions

J. B.

(2017a). Office of the attorney general, memorandum for the acting director federal bureau of prisons: Rescission of memorandum on use of private prisons. Retrieved from https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/20170224_doj_memo.pdf

50.

Sessions

J. B.

(2017b). Opening statement of Attorney General-Designate Jeff Sessions: U.S. Senate confirmation hearing. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/01-10-17%20Sessions%20Testimony.pdf

51.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, England: Sage.

52.

Tripodi

S. J.

Bledsoe

S. E.

Kim

J. S.

Bender

(2011). Effects of correctional-based programs for female inmates: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 15–31. doi:10.1177/1049731509352337

53.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Federal student aid eligibility for students confined in adults correctional or juvenile justice facilities. Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/aid-info-for-incarcerated-individuals.pdf

54.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

55.

van Manen

(1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

56.

van Wormer

(2010). Working with female offenders: A gender sensitive approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

57.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095931

58.

Weir

(2013). Identities and freedom: Feminist theory between power and connection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

59.

Willison

J. S.

O’Brien

P. O.

(2017). A feminist call for transforming the criminal justice system. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 32, 37–49.

60.

Yates

S. Q.

(2016). Office of the deputy attorney general, memorandum for the acting director federal bureau of prisons: Reducing our use of private prisons. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/file/886311/download