Advancing Statewide Policymaking to Support Higher Education in Prison

Introduction

Sustaining and expanding high-quality higher education in prison (HEP) programs requires collaborative, statewide policymaking. Stakeholders in this field must work closely with state policymakers to advance legislative action plans that foster program success and support students. Illinois policy developments highlight the importance of cooperation across programs and strategic engagement with legislators and state officials. As the policy and research director for the Education Justice Project (EJP) and a campaign member of Freedom to Learn (FTL), I have seen firsthand the power of HEP and the need for stakeholder engagement in policy development to advance the field.

Clear and fair policies are essential for ensuring equitable access to postsecondary opportunities, improving incarcerated students’ learning outcomes, and promoting efficient resource use. While policy recommendations will vary by state, the following suggestions can help HEP leaders and advocates design a plan tailored to their state’s unique context. Note that these recommendations are not sequential but rather represent four elements that stakeholders can and should pursue simultaneously and iteratively.

Case study:

Illinois and the Freedom to Learn Campaign

In 2019, Illinois Department of Corrections staff members removed over 200 books from the EJP library at the Danville Correctional Center without advance notice or explanation. EJP saw this as a troubling sign of restricting access to reading materials for incarcerated people and a strong indication of a system failing to support higher education in prison. Conversations with other Illinois prison educators and advocates revealed that such challenges were widespread and required a statewide solution.

In response, the FTL campaign was launched to advocate for legislation that allows HEP programs to flourish. FTL members, many of whom are directly involved with these programs as educators or alumni, have led several of the Illinois policy efforts to ensure that the academic pursuits of incarcerated students are protected and promoted.

Case study:

Illinois Higher Education in Prison Program Directory and Illinois Higher Education in Prison Task Force

Two significant developments in Illinois played a key role in HEP advocates’ and leaders’ ability to assess obstacles and opportunities:

• Higher Education in Prison Programs in Illinois directory. EJP annually publishes a directory of programs supporting higher education in prison in Illinois. This publication serves as an important resource for highlighting existing programs and illustrating the need for more.
• Illinois Higher Education in Prison Task Force. In 2021, Illinois legislators passed a joint resolution to create the Illinois Higher Education in Prison Task Force. A primary charge of this bipartisan task force was to assess barriers to and opportunities for HEP in Illinois. To accomplish this goal, task force members heard testimony from subject matter experts, including people who were formerly incarcerated, and public comment from community members and currently incarcerated people. They also studied reports and other relevant documents and formed a working group to distill recommendations from these various sources.

When assessing obstacles and opportunities in your state, ask these questions: What programs are currently being offered? What opportunities are there to expand what’s working well and improve on what isn’t? What are some of the challenges to expanding access to high-quality higher education in prison to more students? What changes are necessary to address these challenges?

If you’re unsure of where to start, check out the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s Laying the Groundwork report or the Vera Institute of Justice’s The First Year of Pell Restoration report. Then start having conversations with others in your state about the appropriate mechanism for conducting a comprehensive evaluation. A task force is just one option for assessing the landscape of higher education in prison in your state. Other options include a commission or coalition, an independent consultant or external advisor, student researchers, or independent studies, among others. Consider what resources your university already has that you might be able to take full advantage of in support of this inquiry.

Case study:

Illinois Coalition for Higher Ed in Prison

Initial relationship-building in Illinois focused on connecting HEP educators, administrators, and students, who have valuable insights based on their firsthand experience with higher education in prison. To foster these relationships, several HEP programs in Illinois came together to create the Illinois Coalition for Higher Ed in Prison (IL-CHEP) in 2016. IL-CHEP initiated the development of a collective response to the book banning that came to light in 2019, and it continues to host quarterly meetings with HEP programs and the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Connecting with existing education and corrections partners is just the beginning. As you determine which stakeholders to engage, consider the following potential next steps:

• Identify or create new mechanisms for communication among stakeholders. Consider coalitions, consortia, campaigns, or other entities that reach multiple partners simultaneously, and provide additional opportunities for ongoing communication among partners. Consistent communication is key to building relationships and trust.
• Develop a plan for establishing collective credibility and creating relationships with legislators who may be interested in introducing HEP-supporting legislation. Even the best policy solutions require a dedicated champion in the legislature to be implemented.
• Familiarize yourself with the policy priorities of various stakeholder groups, and identify shared interests. Review their missions, visions, strategic plans, and budgets or contact members of your state’s legislative affairs staff for more information.
• Think broadly about entities and individuals in your state that share your group’s values, including those that support higher education reform, decarceration, and reentry efforts. Opportunities to build relationships are vast, and unexpected allies exist throughout every state.

Case study:

EJP Policy Discussion Group

Multiple HEP programs in Illinois include think tanks and policy discussion groups that equip students to conduct in-depth research and policy analysis related to HEP and allied topics. For example, EJP hosts a monthly policy discussion group at the Danville Correctional Center that engages students in ongoing policy efforts and informs them of recent developments. We invite legislators and other state officials to meet with the group, thus centering student perspectives and giving legislators the valuable opportunity to expand their understanding of criminal justice issues.

Consider how your group can equip and engage students. What resources can you provide to support their learning about policy as a discipline and the particular policy landscape of HEP in your state? What channels are in place for receiving input and providing timely updates? What opportunities are there to bring legislators and policymakers in to speak with students directly?

Photo: EJP Policy & Research Team Members on one of our regular trips to Springfield, Illinois’ capital

Conclusion

Collaborative and data-informed policymaking is critical to the long-term success of the HEP field because it has significant impacts on the entry of new programs, the ability to grow existing programs, and the creation of conditions for successful negotiation and collective problem-solving. As new resources are made available, we must stop, assess, and think about how best to invest them in ways that support a rich ecology of high-quality programs. It’s an exciting time for the field, and we must be intentional about adopting policy solutions that address statewide challenges and allow us to take advantage of statewide opportunities. While no two states are the same, these general recommendations can help prepare practitioners to engage in this important policy work.

To learn more about EJP’s Policy & Research Division, or to request additional assistance with crafting a legislative action plan in your state, email policy@educationjustice.net.