Authors:
Michael Scott Brick & Julie Ajinkya, PhD
September 2020

SUPPORTING
SUCCESS:
THE HIGHER EDUCATION IN
PRISON KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and organizations provided indispensable contributions to the evolution and production of this framework.
First, the authors would like to thank our Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) colleagues: Michelle Asha Cooper,
Ph.D., president; Mamie Voight, vice president of policy research; Piper Hendricks, director of communications and external
affairs; Jihad D. Dixon, communications associate; Andrés Quintanilla, research analyst; and Kathryn Gimborys, government
affairs associate. Thank you also to Tia Clinton, Shakia Asamoah, Cody Meixner, and Haruna Suzuki, IHEP’s applied
research interns. We are also grateful to Nathan Arnold and Kristin Herrmann at Education Counsel for their thoughtful
feedback on this paper.
We would like to thank Erin Corbett, Ed.D., former assistant director of applied research at IHEP and current founder and
CEO of Second Chance Educational Alliance, for playing a critical role in getting this project off the ground and contributing
invaluable insights.
We are also deeply grateful to the currently and formerly incarcerated scholars in Iowa, Indiana, and New Jersey whose
participation and perspectives informed this framework. Their insights regarding potential limitations of the framework and
approaches to its application were critical to constructing a robust assessment tool.
We are also extremely grateful for the guidance and expertise of the members of the Advisory Council throughout the
development of this framework:

Samuel Arroyo, Ed.D.

Former Director of Programs,
Hudson Link for Higher
Education in Prison

Hilton Bennett

Manuel González Canché,
Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Higher
Education, University of
Pennsylvania

Matthew Jones

Assistant Director of Reentry,
Bard Prison Initiative

James McKinney

Former Warden, Iowa Medical
and Classification Center

David Rembert, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Justice
Studies, Prairie View A&M
University

Amy Roza

Vice President & Chief of
Engineering, Research and
Industrialization, DuraSafe

Mary Gould, Ph.D.

Jennifer Burke Lefever,
Ph.D.

Associate Professor,
Communication, Saint Louis
University

Director, Returning &
Incarcerated Student
Education, Raritan Valley
Community College

Scott Semple

Howard Henderson, Ph.D.

Lindsay Paturalski

Alesha Seroczynski,
Ph.D.

Managing Director, William J.
Shaw Center for Children and
Families, University of Notre
Dame

Erin Castro, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor,
Educational Leadership &
Policy, University of Utah
Founder, University of Utah
Prison Education Project

Heather Erwin, J.D.

Director, University of Iowa
Liberal Arts Beyond Bars

Director, Alliance for Higher
Education in Prison

Professor, Administration
of Justice, Texas Southern
University

Amanda Janice Roberson
Director of Policy Research,
IHEP

Tiffany Jones, Ph.D.

Senior Director of Higher
Education Policy, The
Education Trust

Sheila Meiman

Research Assistant, William
J. Shaw Center for Children
and Families, University of
Notre Dame

Michael Pierce

Counselor Supervisor,
MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution

Director, Goucher Prison
Education Partnership
Former Commissioner,
Connecticut Department of
Correction

Director, Moreau College
Initiative

Stephanie Spann

Former Principal Security
Analyst, Invesco

Jed Tucker

Director of Reentry and
Alumni Affairs, Bard Prison
Initiative

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Ascendium Education Group for supporting this project. Ascendium
Education Group is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to helping people reach the education and career goals that
matter to them. Ascendium invests in initiatives designed to increase the number of students from low-income backgrounds
who complete postsecondary degrees, certificates and workforce training programs, with an emphasis on first-generation
students, incarcerated adults, rural community members, students of color and veterans. Ascendium's work identifies,
validates and expands best practices to promote large-scale change at the institutional, system and state levels, with the
intention of elevating opportunity for all. For more information, visit https://www.ascendiumphilanthropy.org.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework
Cover Photo — The graduating class of 2019 from the Moreau College Initiative in Westville, Indiana celebrates
earning their degrees while at the Westville Correctional Facility. Credit: Peter Ringenberg

[2]

INTRODUCTION
H

igher education in prison not only changes
students’ lives but also holds the unique
potential to fundamentally transform society
and help neutralize key facets of inequity
in our national postsecondary education
system. Our nation’s correctional facilities
disproportionately incarcerate Black,
Indigenous, and people of color and people
from low socioeconomic backgrounds,
meaning the justice system imprisons
individuals from the same populations that
have been historically discriminated against by
our nation’s postsecondary institutions.
Even as the country reels from a global
pandemic and the correctional system goes
on lockdown, Higher Education in Prison
(HEP) programs have been deemed essential
in many states, with correctional facilities
themselves recognizing the importance
of continuing educational programming.
Prior to the current public health crisis, the
correctional sector valued HEP for a number
of reasons, including longer-term objectives
like easing the reentry process for HEP alumni
upon release by improving the chances of
successful employment, housing, and other

economic security measures that lead to lower
rates of reincarceration. In justifying why HEP
should continue even during efforts to prevent
the spread of COVID-19, correctional facilities
have highlighted the immediate-term benefits
of these programs, including how they improve
facility conditions for staff and non-enrolled
residents and help students look to the future.
At present, however, an accurate
understanding of the scope of these benefits—
to individuals, facilities, and communities—is
limited because little research has been
conducted to properly identify and benchmark
quality postsecondary opportunities in
prisons. As ongoing federal and state policy
debates try to determine whether to lift
current legislative and statutory barriers to
postsecondary access for justice-involved
individuals (e.g., restoring Pell Grant eligibility
for incarcerated students), better data about
HEP programs would enable the responsible
stewardship of public and private dollars
towards high-quality programs that lead to
successful outcomes for students.

“JUSTICE-INVOLVED INDIVIDUAL/STUDENT/PERSON”
is the human-centered language that refers to a person who has interacted with the
justice system. For HEP programming within a correctional facility, the term usually refers
to anyone currently incarcerated, though it may also be used to describe alumni who have
been released from prison, those who are under local, state, or federal supervision, or
those who experienced alternative sentencing.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[3]

The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework
is designed to help HEP programs measure the impact they have on
students, institutions, facilities, and communities by including indicators
that help measure student success outcomes, academic quality, civic
engagement, and soft skill development. This framework applies to
programs of all types and structures, from in-person degree programs
to distance-learning credit programs, and enables HEP practitioners
across different institutional sectors to take stock of their role in the
rehabilitation and restoration of students’ educational opportunities in
correctional facilities across the United States. This report concludes
with a set of policy and practice recommendations for HEP practitioners,
correctional administrators, and state and federal policymakers to
improve access to quality HEP for incarcerated populations.

The Impact of Higher Education in Prison
Higher education in American prisons began well over two centuries
ago, ranging from religious instruction to academic and vocational
programming. Over the course of that long history, little research has
been conducted to assess the impact of these educational opportunities
on students, facilities, or communities.

-----------------------------

X

The limited research on this impact has focused primarily
on recidivism reduction as a success indicator for HEP,
partially due to the political salience of topics like public
safety and security and partially due to corrections data
availability. A 2018 meta-analysis of correctional education
programs is consistently cited by HEP advocates as rationale
for supporting these programs with public dollars, specifically
the finding that students who participated in educational opportunities
while incarcerated were 28 percent less likely to recidivate after reentering their community.i

RECIDIVISM REDUCTION,
WHILE AN IMPORTANT
METRIC, FAILS TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE
COMPLEXITY OF
Yet recidivism reduction, while an important metric for disrupting
the cycle of reincarceration, fails to account for the complexity of
HIGHER EDUCATION’S
higher education’s transformative potential. This comprehensive
value is identified more accurately through important intermediate
TRANSFORMATIVE
outcomes such as the continued education, employment, and civic
engagement of students, which may improve their experience during
POTENTIAL.
incarceration and re-entry upon release.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[4]

WE CAN NOW MAKE MORE
CRITICALLY INFORMED
DECISIONS THAT WILL DICTATE
THE TRAJECTORY OF THE

REST OF OUR LIVES.
JASON
A student in the Moreau College Initiative

A student peers through a microscope in his Botany
course at the Moreau College Initiative. Over 50
students have enrolled in this class since the
Moreau College Initiative began to offer it in 2015.

The Need for Better Data

CREDIT: PETER RINGENBERG

Previous meta-analyses of recidivism
reduction research have shown a
variety of findings regarding the impact
of postsecondary education. These
discrepancies point to the greater need
for more holistic and disaggregated
data with standardized metrics.
Researchers have used different
definitions and data for understanding
recidivism, which further complicates
these findings. The often-cited metaanalyses from the RAND Corporation
regarding educational programming
inside correctional facilities and
recidivism did find a 32 percent
reduction in recidivism but readjusted
their conclusion to 28 percent after
narrowing the pool of usable studies
based on meta-analysis research
standards.

L

I

_J

Increased bipartisan interest in expanding postsecondary access
to incarcerated students creates a prime environment for more
accurate measurement and communication of HEP program success
to better inform both federal and state policy debates. In 2015, the
Obama administration introduced the Second Chance Pell (SCP) Pilot
program, using the authority of the U.S. Department of Education
Experimental Sites Initiative (ESI) to allow higher education
institutions (selected by application) to enroll incarcerated students
using Pell funds. The SCP pilot aimed to assess whether waiving
the Pell Grant-eligibility ban for incarcerated students—which has
been in effect since its inclusion in the Violent Crimes Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994—would create more postsecondary
opportunities and degrees for this population.
Since the creation of the SCP pilot, HEP programs in 28 states
have awarded 2,071 college certificates, 2,017 associate degrees,
and 365 bachelor’s degrees.ii In 2019, 16,898 justice-involved
students received Federal Pell Grant funds from 64 institutions
of higher education. Unfortunately, the SCP program did not
allocate additional resources for evaluation or assessment, limiting
researchers’ ability to assess the broader impact of the experiment
beyond insights from students and administrators. Nonetheless,
narrativesiii from students and administrators speak not only to the
value and impact that they have had overall but also to the challenges
of capacity and technical assistance that are still needed.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[5]

Better data on these programs could not be more
urgent. For the first time in 25 years, there is
significant bipartisan support for Pell restoration
for incarcerated individuals. The recent 2020
expansion of this program to include an additional 67
postsecondary institutions demonstrates continued
interest in improving postsecondary access for
incarcerated students, though the expansion has not
yet required any additional evaluative responsibilities.
In addition, numerous legislative proposals have been
introduced in Congress to restore Pell Grant eligibility
permanently, lifting the ban for incarcerated students
outside of the pilot program as well. Similarly, states
are continuing to re-examine their financial aid
barriers for justice-involved students, with New
Jersey and California recently passing legislation to
remove barriers to their state-based aid programs for
this population.
As these policy debates over access continue, both
practitioners and policymakers could utilize more
comprehensive data to measure impact, as well as
to amplify the HEP program and support models that
lead to positive student outcomes beyond recidivism.
In 2019, the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison
and the Prison University Projectiv published a report
highlighting quality guidelines for HEP programs and
practitioners, including program design and rigor,
partnerships and collaborations across stakeholder
groups, faculty recruitment and training, curriculum
development, pedagogical theory and practice,
instructional resources, and student advising and
support. Key performance indicators in each of these
areas would enable practitioners to assess baselines,
measure continuous improvement in the interest of
better student outcomes, and use data to advocate
for more financial resources and support from
institutional, state, and federal policymakers.

IHEP’s History of Higher Education
in Prison Research:
IHEP has a strong foundation in research on, and
advocacy for, expanded access to higher education
in prison and postsecondary data strategies to
inform smart policymaking. In 1994, when Congress
banned incarcerated students from receiving Pell
Grants, IHEP published research documenting that
Pell funding for justice-involved students was less
than 1 percent of overall Pell funding. In 2005, IHEP
published Learning to Reduce Recidivism, a 50-state
analysis on the status of postsecondary education
in prison with recommendations for how to improve
funding mechanisms and overall access as part of
a series of underserved students slipping through
the cracks of postsecondary opportunities. In
2011, IHEP published Unlocking Potential, another
national survey of programs, that made additional
policy recommendations to improve postsecondary
correctional education, including the expansion of
secure internet-based methods. In more recent years,
IHEP has led several initiatives to restore the Pell grant
to currently incarcerated students by drafting letters
of support and meeting with policymakers, legislators,
and advocacy groups to rally around this issue, while
also providing technical assistance and support for
countless HEP programs around the nation.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[6]

The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance
Indicators (KPI) Framework
In response to the expressed need from both practitioners and
policymakers for better data on current HEP programming, IHEP
partnered with three programs—the University of Iowa’s Liberal Arts
Beyond Bars program, Holy Cross College and the University of Notre
Dame’s Moreau College Initiative, and Raritan Valley Community
College—to examine existing data collection practices and develop a new
framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that would help HEP
programs collect and report better data on their impact. These sites were
selected as partners in developing the KPI framework because of their
long history of programmatic success, diversity of institutional type and
structure, and strong partnerships with correctional administrators in
their respective states. These three institutions were already collecting
substantial data on their HEP experiences and had been working with
institutional offices to craft, analyze, and disseminate their findings. Each
site was collecting many of the student success outcomes already, with
some gathering informal stories around civic engagement and soft skills,
and will be expanding their assessment to include the other categories in
more formalized ways. These three programs will serve as future pilots
for the framework, with existing IRB approval and have
already begun data collection amongst faculty, staff,
and both current and former students. Administrators
from all three programs served on the Advisory Council
for this project and have been extensively involved
with the creation of the overall framework, individual
metrics, and methods of analysis. The William J. Shaw
Center for Children and Families at the University of
Notre Dame has also been essential in the creation
of data metrics and connecting HEP assessment to
communities within and outside correctional contexts.
(See Figure 1.)

------------------------------

X

THESE SITES WERE
SELECTED AS PARTNERS
IN DEVELOPING THE KPI
FRAMEWORK BECAUSE
OF THEIR LONG
HISTORY OF SUCCESS,
DIVERSITY AND STRONG
PARTNERSHIPS WITH
CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS IN
THEIR STATES

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[7]

FIGURE 1

IHEP Partnerships with HEP Programs
t

••'

r

p

I

I

;

The three programs,
below, represent different programI
I
matic structures,
curricula,
and regions, all while serving
(
l
as important
examples of high-quality and equitable
,,
postsecondary
prison education and strong working
relationships
across
higher education and corrections.
)

l

'\

Iowa: 76 students, 1 facility, Second Chance Pell
J<

'<)

University of Iowa’s Liberal Arts Beyond Bars (UILABB) is a
project of the University College at the University of Iowa in
Iowa City. In addition to in-person courses taught by university
faculty, UILABB also provides online associate degree
pathways in partnership
with Iowa Central Community College
\._
(ICCC), a SCP site, in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Building on the success of the UILABB-ICCC partnership, the
program now offers additional college credit for enrollment
in extracurricular programs like physical education and the
decade-old Oakdale Community Choir, which includes both
incarcerated individuals and outside community members,
highlighting an important example of civic engagement \
among justice-involved students. As an extension of the
University of Iowa, UILABB is a strong representation of
the type of program created in partnership with Research-1
institutions in conjunction with the Board of Regents for the
State of Iowa and the Iowa Department of Corrections.
Indiana: 90 students, 1 facility, Second Chance Pell
As an academic collaboration between Holy Cross College and
the University of Notre Dame, the Moreau College Initiative
housed at the Westville Correctional Facility is a unique
example of strategic partnerships between a baccalaureate
college, a Research-1 university, and the Indiana Department of
Corrections.
Enrolled students can earn college credits toward a Holy
Cross College Associate of Arts (AA) degree and can then
transition into a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree program. Holy
Cross and University of Notre Dame faculty teach classes in the
facility, with credit being awarded by Holy Cross College. This
partnership not only engages multiple state offices but also
multiple institutions, faculty across disciplines, and educators
and policymakers across the state of Indiana. The metrics shared
across both institutions and the Department of Corrections
highlight the need for a strong partnership and shared mission to
ensure valuable success outcomes are achieved.

New Jersey: 600 students, 7 facilities, Second
Chance Pell
The New Jersey Scholarship and Transformative
Education in Prisons Consortium (NJ-STEP) is
an association of higher education institutions
in New Jersey that works in partnership with
the New Jersey Department of Corrections and
State Parole Board, to provide higher education
courses. NJ-STEP serves all students under the
custody of the State of New Jersey while they are
incarcerated and assists in the transition to college
life upon their release.
Raritan Valley Community College (RVCC) confers
the Associate of Arts degree in Liberal Arts while
Rutgers University – Newark confers the Bachelor
of Arts degree in Justice Studies. Under this
strategic statewide initiative, NJ-STEP counselors,
who are assigned to each facility and work onsite with the students, serve as liaisons between
correctional facilities and faculty across the
state. The counselors also assist with academic
advising, registration, financial aid, recruitment,
and pre-release. Researchers have raised up RVCC
and the NJ-STEP program as strong examples of
statewide partnerships highlighting the success
students can have when institutions work together
and combine forces with employers, correctional
administrators, and the community.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[8]

Developing the “Higher Education in Prison
Key Performance Indicator Framework”
IHEP has historically advocated for data-driven policy
and practice. Higher education institutions, systems, and
policymakers know that timely, high-quality, complete,
accessible, and disaggregated postsecondary data
is critical to promoting student success and closing
equity gaps in college access and success. In 2016,
IHEP produced Toward Convergence,v a nationwide core
set of postsecondary outcome metrics designed to
create a transparent and equitable data set to facilitate
effective policies and practices. Anchored in a decade
of research from experts in the field of higher education,
this National Metrics Framework organizes 31 indicators/
data points along categories of Performance, Efficiency,
and Equity, ultimately examining the extent to which
institutions use an equity lens to measure and analyze
student success and resource allocation. Building
upon the National Metrics Framework, IHEP set out to
develop the “Higher Education in Prison Key Performance
Indicator Framework” to apply this data-driven approach
to improving equitable student success to higher
education offered specifically in the correctional
context. In partnership with experts across various
sectors who constituted the project’s Advisory Council,
IHEP developed this framework as an adaptable way to
assess HEP programs, capture their value, highlight the
complexity of the student experience while incarcerated,
and ensure that HEP programs are measured equitably in
comparison to their main campus counterparts.

IHEP convened an Advisory Council of thirteen
recognized experts across higher education, state
agencies and corrections, in order to translate
metrics developed for traditional higher education to
education offered in correctional facilities. Advisors
included HEP program directors, higher education
policy experts, and correctional facility leadership
amongst other stakeholders. The practitioners helped
provide insights from a postsecondary perspective
on measures of student and institutional eligibility,
pedagogy, learning outcomes, career preparation,
and credential attainment, while also offering the
corrections perspective on measures of staff support,
resource allocation, and security. The Advisory
Council felt strongly that higher education in prison
programs should not only be measured by the more
traditional higher education success indicators like
post-completion outcomes, retention, and employment.
Instead, council members encouraged the analysis
of HEP program outcomes according to both civic
engagement and soft skill development as they are
critical benefits to correctional institutions while
students are incarcerated, as well as to the families and
communities to which students return upon release.
These lessons learned from correctional contexts could
also be applied to higher education overall.

The Advisory Council collaboration included extensive debate regarding which metrics best
measured “quality” of not only HEP but higher education writ large. Post-college outcomes, in
particular, failed to communicate the value that many placed on postsecondary education—leading
to the creation of civic engagement and soft skill development as two distinct categories where
partners felt it was important to highlight HEP impact.
In developing the framework, IHEP also consulted current students in correctional facilities to
ensure that student perspectives were represented in assessing program impact. During one
Advisory Council meeting, members went into one of the partner correctional facilities to meet
with over 50 students to discuss the overarching framework and collect information on what
students hope to gain from their educational experiences and overall satisfaction with the HEP
programs in which they participate. Due to a security situation, this meeting had to be conducted
as a general assembly with small roundtables, which made it difficult for the Advisory Council to
collect enough information to adequately include student perspectives. However, following this
visit, an Advisory Council member who serves as both the director of a HEP program and one of its
faculty members, entered the same facility and was able to more deeply interrogate the framework
with students to collect specific feedback on terminology, methodology, and accessibility.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[9]

WHETHER [EDUCATION] GETS
YOU A BETTER JOB, GETS
YOU MORE MONEY, OR DOES
ANYTHING ELSE FOR YOU, IT
WILL CHANGE WHO YOU ARE

FOR THE BETTER.
The expansion of the program at the Iowa Medical and Classification
Center from a speaker’s series into a credit-bearing, degree-granting
college program that incorporates the Iowa Central Community College
associate-degree program is in no small part the result of the students’
input; through their feedback, justice-involved students helped co-create
an institute’s impactful program. Building space for student feedback
and choice into a program’s DNA is one crucial element of success.

ANONYMOUS
a justice-involved student in the University
of Iowa Liberal Arts Beyond Bars program

CREDIT: REBECCA SANABRIA

Through the evolution of the framework, it became apparent that HEP program impact falls into four
informative categories: student success outcomes, academic quality, civic engagement, and soft
skill development. The next section describes these impact categories in more detail, followed by
the KPI framework outlining the indicators that could be used to measure HEP impact.
Student Success Outcomes
Student success outcomes measure how well students achieve their educational, financial, and
social goals. These student success metrics (e.g., credit accumulation, credit completion, GPA,
employment, and income) enable institutions to enhance program delivery and institutional
accountability to lead to improved student outcomes. These metrics also provide a common
language for both educational and correctional administrators to accurately collect information
on the success of their students. Equitable access to and success in higher education relies on
information that reflects the higher education experience of all students within each institution,
yet most incarcerated students are missing or invisible in the current student data systems.
Accordingly, wherever possible, this framework includes student outcome metrics that the National
Metrics Framework recommends higher education institutions use to assess student outcomes for
their main campus students as well, in order to make sure that institutions can better understand
the success of their incarcerated students compared to their non-incarcerated counterparts in
similar programs of study.

Q

Academic Quality
Academic quality metrics (e.g., time spent on coursework, faculty credentials, critical thinking)
measure the rigor of higher education programming to ensure that programs inside facilities are
designed according to the standards that an institution has set for its main campus students. Unless
institutions can demonstrate that the standard of programming is equitable and comparable across
environments, expanded access to higher education becomes an empty promise. Institutions
offering programming inside correctional facilities cannot view HEP programs as “side projects”
or “community engagement initiatives” that are divorced from academic standards of quality. HEP
programs must create an equitable environment where students are challenged, held to high
expectations, and provided with substantial learning experiences to improve their present and future.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 10 ]

Civic Engagement
There exist a variety of definitions of civic engagement and a wide array of views of what type of civic
education is appropriate for colleges and universities to promote. Civic engagement is defined here as:
individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public
concern. Civic engagement can take many forms, from individual voluntarism to
organizational involvement to electoral participation. It can include efforts to directly
address an issue, work with others in a community to solve a problem or interact with the
institutions of representative democracy.vi
Civic engagement metrics measure how higher education impacts students’ sense of moral and civic
responsibility.vii While difficult to ensure a similar model of civic opportunities within correctional
education due to the restrictive nature of prison environments, incarcerated students still
civically engage the world around them, both inside and outside of prison walls. For example, many
incarcerated students mentor their peers, engage in conversations around politics and social issues,
and volunteer in religious and service organizations within the facility.
As individuals whose civic rights have often been removed, incarcerated populations are poised to
benefit from increased civic engagement. Further, civic engagement during incarceration will serve
individuals as they are reintegrated into society upon release.
Soft Skills
Soft skills metrics measure the non-cognitive,
non-technical, and interpersonal proficiencies—also
known as “people skills” —identified by employers
as essential for success in today’s workplace.
Technology and globalization are changing the
modern workplace. Needs for human capital are
shifting accordingly and today’s employers seek
more than just technical skills in their employees.
Employers and communities are showing a
growing demand for employees and citizens to
work in dynamic teams, adapt to rapidly changing
environments, develop strong communication
skills, analyze problems quickly, and show empathy
toward others. These types of skills are transferable
across industries and occupations and lead to better
employee outcomes. Recent research found that 75
percent of long-term job success depends on people
skills but only 25 percent on technical knowledge.viii

-----------------------

X

75%

OF LONG-TERM JOB
SUCCESS DEPENDS
ON PEOPLE SKILLS
BUT ONLY

25%

ON TECHNICAL
KNOWLEDGE

HEP programs can help students develop a variety
of hard and soft skills that employers and the
general public value. In addition, HEP programs can
also develop other soft skills like hope and trust, traits not always associated or emphasized inside
correctional facilities. The emphasis on positive individual development and motivation found in many
HEP programs is often what makes these programs essential examples of higher education overall.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 11 ]

FIGURE 2

HEP Key Performance Indicators & Definitions
I'

----,

All variables must be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, age, generation status, geographic region, military status, and any
other demographic identity markers available to ensure an equitable understanding of the information collected. Disaggregated
data illuminate inequities and allow informed interrogation of what systems have enabled such inequities to exist. Since many
under resourced communities are already overrepresented in the correctional system, data collection systems should be designed
to ensure that all underserved groups are identified and that intersectional identities are also identifiable. When federal, state, and
institutional policymakers have access to more detailed data, they can enact evidence-based policies that address such inequities.

_J

I

STUDENT
SUCCESS- Jgf:------------------

How can we measure the student success outcomes
(e.g., retention, grades, credits) for HEP students and
how they compare to their main campus counterparts?

-

1

I

ENROLLMENT

Twelve-month headcount that includes all undergraduate
students who enroll at any point during the calendar year

CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA)

The average value of the accumulated final grades earned in
courses throughout a student’s enrollment

COMPLETERS

The number of students who complete a credential in a
given academic year

CORRECTIONS TRANSFER RATE

The percentage of students who transfer from one
correctional institution to another

CREDITS ATTEMPTED

The number of credits attempted within a program by an
individual student, including all credits, even those that were
not completed

CREDIT COMPLETION

The number of credits completed within a program by an
individual student

ECONOMIC STATUS

Pell Grant receipt as proxy for low-income or economic
status; Only for SCP sites

GRADUATION RATE

The percentage of students in a cohort who earn the
credential sought at their initial institution

HEP EMPLOYMENT RATE

The annual earnings of former students one, five, and ten
years after exit from the prison program (excludes zeros);
can be compared to those incarcerated at the institution
who did not participate in HEP

HEP INCOME

The annual earnings of former students one, five, and ten
years after exit from the prison program (excludes zeros);
can be compared to those incarcerated at the institution
who did not participate in HEP

INSTITUTIONAL EMPLOYMENT RATE

The percentage of former students with any reported
earnings at one, five, and ten years after exit from the
institution

INSTITUTIONAL INCOME

The annual earnings of former students one, five, and ten
years after exit from the institution (excludes zeros)

INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFER RATE

The percentage of students who transfer from one higher
education institution to another

PRIOR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE

The past postsecondary history of enrolled students (e.g.,
some college, no degree; associate degree; bachelor’s
degree)

PRISON SECURITY LEVEL

Federal designation of institutional level of security (e.g.,
minimum, low, medium, high, administrative)

RECIDIVISM RATE

The percentage of program participants who are found
guilty of a new crime or violation of parole within three years
of their release from custody

REMAINING SENTENCE

Amount of time remaining in months on a student’s sentence

RETENTION RATE

The percentage of students in a cohort who are enrolled in
the subsequent semester

SENTENCE LENGTH

Length of incarceration based on judicial sentencing

TICKETS/DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Number and description of disciplinary infractions on student
record

TIME SERVED

Amount of time in months that a student has already been
incarcerated for their current sentence

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 12 ]

ACADEMIC
QUALITY

Q

How can we measure the academic quality (e.g., student
sense of belonging, faculty workload, faculty credentials
and experience) of HEP programs and how that quality is
consistent with comparable programs of study in main
campus environments?

ACADEMIC MOTIVATION

A student’s desire regarding academic subjects and their
education incorporating their understanding of self-efficacy,
determination, and resilience to continue their learning

COURSE MATERIALS

GRADING METHODS

The method and rubrics used to assess students in their
assignments

HEP EMPLOYMENT RATE

The textbooks, media, or other instructional tools being
utilized for classroom instruction and used for or in
conjunction with a course

The annual earnings of former students one, five, and ten
years after exit from the prison program (excludes zeros); can
be compared to those incarcerated at the institution who did
not participate in HEP

CRITICAL THINKING

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students’ abilities to actively and skillfully conceptualize,
apply, analyze, synthesize, and/or evaluate information
gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience,
reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action

FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS

The qualifications held by faculty members teaching courses
including academic discipline, degree attainment, and
teaching experience

CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT

Statements that describe the knowledge or skills students
should acquire by the end of a particular assignment, class,
course, or program, and help students understand why that
knowledge and those skills will be useful to them

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

The degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and
passion that students show when they are learning

TIME SPENT ON COURSEWORK

The amount of time a student spends on their assignments
for class and the amount of time faculty spend on grading
assignments

How can we measure HEP students’ own understanding
of civic engagement (e.g., civic action, interpersonal
and problem-solving skills, diversity attitudes) formed
through their involvement in HEP programs?

e;-----------------------------------------------------------CIVIC ACTION

INTERPERSONAL & PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS

DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

POLITICAL AWARENESS

Students’ intentions to become involved in future community
service or civic engagement, focusing on participation and
memberships in communities and community organizations
Students’ attitudes toward diversity and interest in relating
to culturally different people

Students’ ability to listen, work cooperatively, communicate,
take the role of the other, think logically and analytically, and
solve problems
Students’ extent to which they pay attention to politics and
understand what they encounter

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 13 ]

SOFT
SKILLS

How can we measure soft skills (e.g., adaptability,
empathy, trust, creativity, open-mindedness) developed
among incarcerated students and HEP alumni?

--!fjr-----------------ADAPTABILITY

Students’ ability to embrace challenges, try new things,
and learn quickly in changing situations

CREATIVITY

Students’ ability to find new and inventive ways to solve
problems and explore the unexplored

EMPATHY

Students’ understanding of the feelings of others and the
utilization of multiple perspectives to make decisions

HOPE

Students’ understanding of the positive feeling that
something desired can be had or will happen

OPEN-MINDEDNESS

Students’ openness to other people’s ideas and
experiences, while also considering alternatives to
everyday problems

TIME MANAGEMENT

Students’ openness to other people’s ideas and
experiences, while also considering alternatives to
everyday problems

TRUST

Students’ willingness to believe in others and be
transparent about their actions and beliefs

I’M JUST SO GRATEFUL
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO FINISH MY DEGREE.
I WANT TO WORK WITH
PEOPLE WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED THE SAME
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
THAT I HAVE. I WANT TO

HELP OTHER PEOPLE

CREDIT: ALAMY

DO THAT TOO. AND SHOW
THEM THAT THEY’RE
NOT ALONE.
LAWSON
A justice-involved student

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 14 ]

[COLLEGE
EXPERIENCE]

SAVED MY
LIFE AND

Members of the graduating class of 2019 from the Moreau College Initiative in Westville, IN
celebrate with Program Director, Dr. Alesha Seroczynski, at the Westville Correctional Facility.

CREDIT: PETER RINGENBERG

PERSONALLY
HELPED ME TO
BECOME THE
PERSON THAT I
AM TODAY.

Program Readiness
In order for HEP programs to effectively use this suggested
framework to evaluate their impact on students, they would be
greatly assisted by 1) strong partnerships across sectors and 2)
comprehensive data availability.

NICHOLAS
A justice-involved student in the
University of Iowa Liberal Arts Beyond Bars

To this first point, institutions of higher learning and correctional
facilities are two systems that have not historically coordinated at
the same level within states, but consistent coordination is vital
to the success of any HEP program. Leaders from both sectors
must set shared, mutually determined goals; maintain consistent
communication; and realize their vision with shared resources.
Further, they must create a system of accountability and assign
responsibility for executing HEP program plans. The three HEP
programs highlighted in this research reside in states with the
capacity to invest time and energy into working across these siloes
that exist among postsecondary and correctional institutions.
To the second point, challenges in collecting comprehensive,
equity-focused data on HEP may include a lack of capacity
for program administrators to devote a substantial amount of
time to collecting information beyond what their institutions
already require. For SCP sites, data required by the Department
of Education are mostly aggregate and focus on financial aid,
enrollment, and enrollment intensity indicators. In both cases,
state and federal compliance does not often include success and
completion indicators, and certainly not indicators that examine or
measure post-release experiences beyond continued enrollment.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 15 ]

The collection of the metrics included in this framework, especially the student success outcomes, would be easier
if HEP programs were included in national postsecondary data repositories, like the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), and institutional research and/or accrediting agencies, in addition to state-level
departments of corrections and departments of labor, and the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. In its
current form, the data must be sourced individually by program administrators, without the aid of institutional
research offices or data-sharing systems. With limited capacity, this can be a time-consuming process, but the
framework was developed with these considerations in mind and therefore can be adapted to utilize more readily
available information.

Policy and Practice
Recommendations
L------------------------------------------------------------•
IHEP will utilize this framework to collect data from the three partner HEP sites in 2020-2021
to assess the impact of their programs on their justice-involved students. The research design
was developed in collaboration with researchers at each partner site and has been approved by
the institutional review boards at each partner site, which importantly requires additional layers
of approval for research that involves individuals who are incarcerated. The design will require a
combination of survey instruments and focus groups in order to collect data on each indicator and
capture the complexity of measuring impact according to the framework’s four categories.
In the meantime, as legislative debates continue in real-time over the impact of HEP on students and
their communities, IHEP offers the following recommendations to HEP practitioners, correctional
administrators, and state and federal policymakers interested in expanding access to quality
postsecondary opportunities for justice-involved populations.
Practitioners
HEP practitioners can make assessment and data collection a priority by utilizing this more holistic
framework to ensure that all students are succeeding in equitable ways. To do so practitioners can:
• Regularly assess their program outcomes. Practitioners can utilize this framework
throughout the administration of their program, including pre- and post-semester or quarter
completion.
• Partner with institutional research (IR) offices on campus. In order to capture the data
needed, practitioners can partner with IR offices on campus to establish protocols in
compliance with main campus practices. This will ensure that data is captured in an
equitable way for all students enrolled at the institution.
• Adapt the framework for the ever-changing landscape of HEP. The KPI framework,
categories, and methodologies are all adaptable for different program offerings, delivery
methods, and student populations. Consistently adapting and molding the framework and
assessment methods will ensure that the data remains timely, appropriate, and useable.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 16 ]

Correctional Administrators
As more colleges and universities consider offering higher education
in prison, correctional administrators may struggle to determine which
programs best suit their needs and students. The KPI framework
encourages correctional administrators to:
• Reexamine the institutional mission of corrections. Most
departments of corrections are tasked with the safety
and rehabilitation of the incarcerated individuals. The KPI
framework showcases how justice-involved students are
changing and developing, while also strengthening the
community and engaging with the correctional facility in a
positive way.
Students at the Moreau College Initiative
conduct experiments in their Botany course.

CREDIT: PETER RINGENBERG

I LOVED SCHOOL BUT DIDN’T
GET TO FINISH. AND THEN
I HATED SCHOOL BECAUSE
I DIDN’T GET TO FINISH.
TALKING ABOUT HOW TAKING
COLLEGE CLASSES WHILE I’M
IN PRISON CHANGES WHAT I
WANT TO DO WHEN I GET OUT
IS AMAZING. COLLEGE

HAS CHANGED WHAT
I THINK IS POSSIBLE
FOR ME TO DO. THAT’S
THE MOST IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION.
ANDREW
A justice-involved student
in the University of Iowa
Liberal Arts Beyond Bars

• Identify opportunities for change. Given the holistic design
of this framework, correctional administrators can clearly
identify where students are not developing as quickly as
others and can design interventions to create even more
change.
• Develop or strengthen partnerships with community
organizations. Institutions of higher education serve
as valuable resources for correctional administrators.
This framework and the creation or expansion of HEP
programs will assist in deeper understanding and advanced
collaboration between state agencies, individual institutions,
and community members, which will ultimately impact
justice-involved individuals in a positive way.
State Policymakers
State policymakers and systems are critical stakeholders to the
successful scaling of HEP programs. This framework demonstrates
the importance of having integrated state data systems, incorporating
both state higher education and corrections perspectives, adapting
assessment strategies already in place, and highlighting the learning
that is happening within state-run correctional environments every
day. In order to encourage states to invest in HEP programs and help
facilitate successful scaling statewide, state policymakers must:
• Share data systems across institutions. The framework
works best when data is readily available from corrections,
the college or university, and the state workforce. A statewide
data system will better highlight both the successes of
justice-involved students and areas for improvement. State
data experts can also work with state legislators, encouraging
them to allocate necessary funds for development and the
use of data systems, while at the same time promoting strong
data governance, data use, and data privacy.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 17 ]

Students in the University of Iowa Liberal Arts
Beyond Bars program at the Iowa Medical and
Classification Center met in late 2019 with
members of the KPI Advisory Council to share how
the opportunity to pursue a postsecondary degree
has impacted their outlook, their families, and the
facility as a whole.

CREDIT: REBECCA SANABRIA

• Include HEP students in the existing Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS). Currently
incarcerated students must be included as enrolled college students in any statewide data
system. Flagging enrollment while incarcerated will allow for more accurate reporting and
policies, while also assisting in understanding the longitudinal impact of HEP.
• Fund HEP programs. It has been shown that higher education in prison is transformative
and greatly impacts state finances, crime, and recidivism. With reallocated correctional or
educational funding at the state-level, states are likely to see better use of spending, stronger
employment numbers, stronger degree attainment, and a more civically engaged community. The
outcomes are only possible if HEP programs have the continued resources to succeed and grow.
Federal Policymakers
Though most correctional facilities are state-run, incarceration and postsecondary education are both
national issues. Federal agencies and policymakers have an important role to play in the successful
execution of HEP programs across the nation. To best support institutional, system, and state-level HEP
work, federal policymakers must:
• Restore Pell funding for incarcerated students. Access to federal student aid must be expanded
to incarcerated students to enhance the quantity and quality of higher education in prison.
As policymakers assess the success and value of the SCP Pilot Program, this framework also
encourages a broader conversation around the importance of higher education in prison and
could illustrate the need for continued development of such programs through the experimental
initiative or once Pell eligibility is restored.
• Expand funding opportunities for HEP programs. Higher education in prison requires adequate
funding and opportunities for incarcerated students. Policymakers can dictate the resources that
programs receive in order to continue and expand, as outcomes are measured more effectively.
This framework also creates a common language for corrections, higher education, and social
communities to discuss and evaluate these types of programs, thus providing more accurate and
in-depth data to help enact targeted policies.
• Assess the impact of Second Chance Pell. The KPI framework provides a useful tool in examining
the overall value and importance of the SCP pilot program for justice-involved students,
correctional staff, colleges and universities, and the communities impacted by the justice
system. Utilizing this new method of evaluation will ensure that federal tax dollars in the form of
Pell Grants are having a positive impact on today’s students.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 18 ]

CREDIT: PETER RINGENBERG
A graduate of the class of 2019 from the Moreau College Initiative shakes
hands with the President of Holy Cross College, Reverend David Tyson.

CONCLUSION
Almost two centuries into providing postsecondary education in American prisonsix,
higher education must do better than relying on recidivism reduction as the sole
measure of programmatic success. Better understanding of student outcomes,
academic quality, civic engagement, and soft skill development associated with HEP
will help both practitioners and policymakers create the environments within which
incarcerated students can thrive.
HEP programs are consistent with the mission statements of colleges and universities;
serving marginalized communities, including those disenfranchised by poverty and
policing, is reason enough to establish strong partnerships with correctional facilities in
order to offer quality HEP programming. Data sharing across both types of institutions
can ensure that an equitable education is provided across traditional campuses and
prison settings. This framework also provides policymakers with guidance for ensuring
that public dollars are spent on high quality programming by explaining the impact of
these programs on individuals, families, localities, and the nation.
As conversations around racial injustice in America continue, the HEP Key Performance
Indicator Framework highlights the transformative impact that HEP can have on
populations that have been disproportionately imprisoned by the nation’s justice
system. Though it addresses just part of the problems that plague the nation’s justice
system, offering strong postsecondary opportunities in prisons can help disrupt the
cycle of re-incarceration. The HEP Key Performance Indicator framework helps support
HEP programs in rising to the highest standards and expectations of their students,
institutions, and communities to create a more equitable future for those currently
incarcerated and beyond.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 19 ]

ENDNOTES
i.

Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education improve
post-release outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389-428.

ii.

Delaney, R., & Montagnet, C. (2020). Second chance Pell: A snapshot of the first three years. Vera
Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/second-chance-pell-snapshot

iii.

Patrick, F., Delaney, R., & Boldin, A. (2019). Unlocking potential: Pathways from prison to
postsecondary education. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/unlockingpotential-prison-to-postsecondary-education

iv.

Erzen, T., Gould, M.R., & Lewen, J. (2019). Equity and excellence in practice: A guide for higher
education in prison. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. www.higheredinprison.org

v.

Janice, A., & Voight, M. (2016). Toward convergence: A technical guide for the postsecondary metrics
framework. Institute for Higher Education Policy. http://www.ihep.org/research/publications/
toward-convergence-technical-guide-postsecondary-metrics-framework

vi.

Adler, R., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative
Education, 3(3), 236–253.

vii. Pascarella, E. T., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (1988). The influence of college on humanitarian/
civic involvement values. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 412-437.
viii. Young, R. (2018, July 13). Soft skills: The primary predictor of success in academics, career and
life. Pairin. https://www.pairin.com/2018/07/13/soft-skills-primary-predictor-success-academicscareer-life/
ix.

Gehring, T. (1997). Post-secondary education for inmates: an historical inquiry. Journal of
Correctional Education, 48(2), 46–55.

Supporting Success: The Higher Education in Prison Key Performance Indicator Framework

[ 20 ]

~IHEP

INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY

IHEP.ORG

WITH SUPPORT FROM

:-.

Ascend aum·