Running Head: FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 1
Faculty Opinions About Working With Ex-Offender Students
Samantha James
LIU Post
Author Note
Samantha James, Ed.D Program in Educational Leadership, LIU Post.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 2
Abstract
The literature related to ex-offenders and the college admissions process was examined,
specifically, how colleges handle ex-offender applicants, the “Ban the Box” movement,
recidivism, and how education relates to recidivism. The reviewed literature supported this
study’s efforts to determine how faculty members would feel if they knew they were working
with ex-offenders in their classes. Overall, faculty members were in favor of ex-offenders
pursuing college degrees and several participants detailed the positive experiences they had with
this population. There was also support for the collaboration between prisons and colleges to
help ensure that education that begins in prison can continue for inmates upon release. This
information is important for practitioners and policymakers with regard to screening applicants
for felony convictions.
Keywords: admissions policies, ex-offenders, faculty bias, post-incarceration education
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 3
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM............................................................8
Ex-offender Students in the Classroom...................................................................8
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................8
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................9
Definitions....................................................................................................9
Legislative Action......................................................................................10
Limitations in Current Research................................................................10
Scope of This Study...................................................................................11
Limitations of This Research.....................................................................11
Expected Contribution of This Study....................................................................11
Plan of This (Mini) Dissertation............................................................................12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...........................................................13
Overview................................................................................................................13
Ex-Offenders and the College Admissions Process...................................13
The State University of New York................................................14
Criminal history records and admissions applications...................16
Maryland and barring admission...................................................18
Safety on campus...........................................................................19
The Ban the Box Movement..................................................................................20
Recidivism.............................................................................................................20
Education and Recidivism.........................................................................22
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 4
Discussion..............................................................................................................24
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...................................................................................26
Research Design.....................................................................................................26
Hypothesis..............................................................................................................26
Primary Research Question....................................................................................26
Secondary Research Questions..............................................................................26
Methodology..........................................................................................................26
Sample Size................................................................................................26
Participants.................................................................................................26
Setting of the Study....................................................................................27
Instrument..................................................................................................27
Reliability...................................................................................................27
Validity......................................................................................................27
Data Collection..........................................................................................28
Analysis......................................................................................................28
Coding........................................................................................................28
Limitations to Available Data....................................................................28
Care of Human Subjects............................................................................28
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS...............................................................................................29
Demographic Information......................................................................................29
Likert Findings.......................................................................................................29
Figures........................................................................................................30
Dimensions............................................................................................................31
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 5
Coding for Analysis...................................................................................31
Table..........................................................................................................31
Qualitative Data.....................................................................................................33
Analysis of Total Sample Results..........................................................................35
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION............................................................................................36
Overview of the Findings.......................................................................................36
Summary of the Results.........................................................................................36
Summary of Sub-Groups Analysis........................................................................36
The Unexpected.....................................................................................................37
Implications of the Study for Practice and Legislation..........................................38
For the Practitioner....................................................................................38
For the Policymaker...................................................................................39
Problems and Limitations......................................................................................39
Suggestions for Future Research...........................................................................41
Conclusion.............................................................................................................42
Appendix............................................................................................................................44
References..........................................................................................................................46
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 6
List of Tables
Table 1...............................................................................................................................31
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 7
List of Figures
Figure 1..............................................................................................................................30
Figure 2..............................................................................................................................30
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 8
CHAPTER I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Ex-offender Students in the Classroom
Criminal Justice practitioners and scholars have long grappled with the problem of
preventing released prisoners from reoffending. As “93 percent of all prison inmates are
eventually released” (Petersilia, 2003, p. 3) and “nearly 30 percent of all released inmates are
rearrested for a serious crime in the first six months” (p. 18), this is a timely, urgent, and
complex issue.
Correctional education has shown to reduce recidivism (Gehring, 1997; Chappell, 2004;
Batiuk, Lahn, McKeever, Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005), but since there are fewer in-prison college
programs, the focus has shifted to post-release education. However, since many colleges screen
applicants for criminal histories, those with felony convictions may not have the opportunity to
earn a college degree.
Statement of the Problem
Little is known about how college faculty members feel about working with ex-offender
students in the classroom. This information is crucial, however, as many colleges screen
applicants for criminal histories asking “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” on their
admissions application, and they cite “safety reasons” in defense of this practice.
However, research has shown that the colleges that screen applicants are no safer than the
colleges that do not (Weissman, Rosenthal, Warth, Wolf, & Messina, 2011). If, based on the
research, safety is not a valid reason for screening applicants, then colleges should reevaluate
their current policies and factor in the opinions of those working directly with ex-offender
students: the faculty.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 9
Screening applicants can result in the denial of admission or the applicants dropping out
before they can complete the process, which is known as attrition (Rosenthal, 2015). Once
applicants indicate that they have been convicted of a felony, they are required to take additional
steps in the admissions process including submitting supplemental documents, including official
criminal justice documents, and sitting through interviews with college administrators
(Weissman et al., 2011).
Education is one of the categories of “barriers to reentry” that formerly incarcerated
individuals face when trying to reintegrate into society. If this population is denied the
opportunity to earn a college degree-one factor that has been proven to lower the recidivism rate
(as will be discussed in the literature review)-then their opportunities for legal and gainful
employment will be limited. This, in turn, may lead them to return to illegal activity. Denying
formerly incarcerated individuals the opportunity to earn a college degree is actually
“counterproductive from a public safety perspective” (EIO, n.d., c).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to gain an understanding of the feelings of faculty
members towards students with criminal histories. The information that was collected in this
study is important: if safety is a concern and the major reason for screening applicants, but the
research has shown that the colleges that screen are not any safer than the colleges that do not
screen, then college administrators need to reconsider their reasons for continuing this practice.
Their first step in doing so should be to hear from the people working directly with this
population-the faculty-about their opinions and experiences.
Definitions
Criminal History: Whether or not an applicant has at least one felony conviction
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 10
Faculty Members: College professors teaching undergraduate courses at the sample college
Screening Applicants: The process of asking applicants on the college admissions application if
they have ever been convicted of a felony as well as the subsequent interviews and submission of
additional documents in order to be considered for admission
Legislative Action
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Right Priorities” initiative seeks to reform
the criminal justice system and prisoner reentry, specifically dealing with juveniles, employment,
and education (New York State, 2016). One of the goals of the program is to increase the
number of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS)
inmates who are taking college courses while incarcerated. The $7.5 million investment in this
program (from criminal forfeiture funds) will allow approximately 1,000 inmates, over five
years, to take college courses and possibly earn a degree. The City University of New York
(CUNY) and the State University of New York (SUNY) have not only been tasked with setting
the standards for these programs, but also for ensuring a smooth transition to college upon the
prisoner’s release.
Limitations in Current Research
The literature on post-incarceration education focuses on admissions policies, ex-offender
applicant experiences, and education as a way to reduce recidivism. The literature does not
focus on the faculty or any other group working with this population in college-and this includes
college staff and the student body. This study focused on the faculty only instead of focusing on
all three groups as a way to study faculty members in-depth. However, all three groups should
be studied because they work with the ex-offender student population, whether they realize it or
not, and it is important to understand their thoughts and feelings about the topic.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 11
Scope of This Study
This study employed a convenience sample of ten faculty members (colleagues of the
researcher) at a public college on Long Island, NY (part of the State University of New York
system). All of the faculty members in the sample taught undergraduate courses in a variety of
disciplines (some may also teach graduate courses) at two of the college’s three Long Island
locations. At the time of this survey, this college screened applications for criminal histories but
was to cease this practice beginning with the 2018 admissions cycle.
Limitations of This Research
There were several limitations to this study, the first of which was the sample size. The
survey was sent to ten participants, so this is a very small sample. In addition, the sample was
handpicked (convenience sample) and all ten participants were colleagues of the researcher;
some were picked specifically because the researcher knew these faculty members had
experience working with ex-offender students.
Expected Contribution of This Study
There is no research/information about the opinions of faculty members with regard to
their respective school’s admissions policy/procedures for ex-offenders and there is no
information on their opinions about working with this population in the classroom. If the results
show that faculty members have no problem working with ex-offenders, having them in the
classroom, and advising them, then this supports the argument for “banning the box” from
college admissions applications and not asking about an applicant’s ex-offender status.
However, if the faculty members do have problems working with ex-offenders, and those
problems are identified (as well as possible solutions or compromises), then administrators can
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 12
use the results of this study as a starting point for discussion and possible future changes. Either
way, the faculty perspective is missing from the literature and the discussion about ex-offenders
pursuing higher education.
Plan of This (Mini) Dissertation
The subsequent chapters include a literature review which examines the admissions
process for those who have been convicted of a felony; the State University of New York
system; criminal history records and admissions applications (including an examination of how
the state of Maryland handles this process); and the concern about safety on campus. Other
topics covered in the literature review include the “Ban the Box” movements; recidivism; and
education and as it relates to recidivism.
The methodology chapter examines the research design, research questions, information
about the sample, and the instrument (including reliability, validity, and data collection
methods). The fourth chapter includes the results and figures that support the reader’s
understanding of the findings. The final chapter discussed the themes that emerged and what the
results may indicate. It also addressed the implications of this research on practitioners, college
professors, and policymakers and its suggested impact on future research.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 13
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Overview
The goal of attending college is not always an attainable one, especially for those who are
ex-offenders. Checking “Yes” to “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” on a college
admissions application often means additional steps in the admissions process, not to mention
stress and unforeseen costs for the applicant, just in the hope of not being summarily rejected.
Not all colleges ask this question on their applications, but for those that do, safety is an often-
cited reason (Weissman, Rosenthal, Warth, Wolf, and Messina-Yauchzy, 2011).
However, researchers, and even college administrators, have neglected to take into
account the opinions of the faculty-those who work the closest with this student population. It is
important to know how they feel about having ex-offenders as students because if they have no
problem with it, that could help influence future policy, or at the very least, help create a
welcoming environment for these students. Conversely, if the faculty does have a problem with
it, what are their concerns? The goal of this study is to determine how faculty members felt
about working with ex-offender students in the classroom.
In order to fully understand the issue of ex-offenders applying to and attending college, it
is important to examine the related literature including the college admissions process for ex-
offenders, the “Ban the Box” movement, recidivism, and education as it relates to recidivism.
Ex-Offenders and the College Admissions Process
While the literature does consist of several case studies of ex-offenders and their
experiences when applying to college, there are only a few comprehensive studies that examine
the policies and procedures for ex-offender applicants at a number of colleges and universities
across the United States. However, while there are only a few, the studies cited below provide a
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 14
great deal of information with regard to how many schools ask “the question,” the additional
documentation the applicant must submit, any additional steps he/she must take, how a decision
is made, and the privacy issues involved in this process.
Not all colleges and universities ask applicants if they have ever been convicted of a
felony, however. In their 2009 survey of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers’ (AACRAO) 3,248 member institutions, of which 273 responded,
researchers from the Center for Community Alternatives (Weissman et al., 2011) found that 29%
of the schools do not collect criminal justice information about any applicants and approximately
22% do not collect and do not use criminal justice information. The 7% difference is those
schools that would use the information if it came to them “through a source other than self-
disclosure.” The report also found that private four-year colleges were more likely to “collect
and use” criminal history information.
In New York State, the two major public university systems currently treat this issue very
differently, although changes are forthcoming. The City University of New York (CUNY),
which serves over 500,000 students at its 24 institutions (About CUNY, n.d.) does not ask
applicants if they have ever been convicted of a felony (D. Alvarez, personal communication,
October 22, 2014) and they have no data on students who are ex-offenders (D. Crook, personal
communication, November 4, 2014 [James, 2016]).
The State University of New York. The State University of New York (SUNY), which
serves approximately 450,000 students at its 64 institutions (SUNY Fast Facts, n.d.), does ask
applicants about felony convictions and students are then required to submit a supplemental
application. All 64 SUNY schools ask the question, but “they do not set clear guidelines for the
review of the information once gathered. This lack of guidance gives schools space to determine
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 15
their own process for individuals who check the box” (EIO, n.d. d), which allows each school to
handle this process differently.
However, starting with the 2018 admissions cycle, SUNY will no longer ask the question
on their general admissions application. Rather, “students will be asked to declare a prior felony
conviction post-admission and only when they seek campus housing or participation in clinical
or field experiences, internships, or study abroad programs” (SUNY, 2016). While this is
welcome and positive news for those who fought to “Ban the Box,” it is important to understand
SUNY’s current application process for ex-offenders, as so many applicants have had to go
through this process.
Currently, “some SUNY colleges specifically require applicants to provide a copy of
their personally-obtained Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Criminal History
Record” (CCA, 2013); this is at their own expense, which is “an abuse of current SUNY policy
and the DCJS records process. Failure to submit these records, which SUNY has no statutory
right to access, leads to denial of admission” (EIO, n.d. a). The Education from the Inside Out
Coalition ([EIO] n.d. a) also noted that “in November 2012, SUNY issued a draft policy that
encourages all campuses to obtain and submit DCJS records. This is a huge step backwards,
since it encourages schools that were not asking for criminal history records, to do so” (Fact
Sheet).
The SUNY practice of asking for an applicant’s “personally obtained” criminal history
record means the applicant is submitting the criminal history record meant for his/her eyes only;
it contains “information that has been sealed, charges that have been dismissed, and information
that has otherwise been deemed legally confidential, such as Youthful Offender adjudications”
(EIO, n.d. c); this is the “unsuppressed” version. Up until November 26, 2014, this was the only
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 16
option people had when requesting their personal criminal history records; now they can choose
between an unsuppressed and suppressed version. The unsuppressed version includes:
criminal history record information sealed under Criminal Procedure Law Sections
160.50 (dismissed cases), 160.55 (eligible violation convictions), 160.58 (eligible
substance abuse and related convictions) and 720.35 (Youthful Offender adjudications).
Individual charges dismissed in court and the equivalent arrest charges normally
suppressed would also be included. (New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services)
The suppressed version will not include the above with the exception of individual
charges dismissed in court and the equivalent arrest charges for events disposed prior to
November 1, 1991 (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services [James, 2016]).
Criminal history records and admissions applications. A major concern with people
having to submit their personal criminal history records is that the admissions personnel can see
confidential information that the applicant is not legally obligated to disclose (information
“deemed legally confidential” [EIO, n.d. a]). This practice raises several questions: first, are
admissions counselors basing their decisions on information to which they should not have
access? Second, are the people responsible for reviewing these applicants and their criminal
histories trained in how to read and interpret these documents? Who is ultimately responsible for
these admissions decisions?
One could also see a potential problem with this practice if an applicant does not disclose
something that has been sealed or is considered confidential, such as a youthful offender (YO)
adjudication, but then it shows up on the unsuppressed criminal record-will the admissions office
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 17
hold it against the applicant and/or will they treat it as though the applicant were hiding it or
lying?
In their study, Weissman et al. (2011) noted some confusion surrounding the issue. Over
half of the respondents “reported that youthful offender adjudications for underlying violent or
sex offenses were a negative factor and almost half reported that they considered any felony
youthful offender adjudication negatively.” The authors further noted that “treatment of a YO
adjudication as a negative factor underscores the broad misunderstanding about the criminal
justice process. In most states it is not considered a criminal conviction and a person is legally
entitled not to disclose it.” It was noted, however, that some SUNY applications correctly “warn
students” that they should not list such YO adjudications as convictions.
In addition to the concern about the criminal background information that makes it to the
admissions offices, the question becomes: who makes the final admissions decisions? According
to the CCA’s survey (Weissman et al., 2011), out of those respondents that ask applicants about
their criminal histories, only 6 percent said that “their process is identical for applicants with and
without a criminal record.” As for the schools that had special procedures for applicants with
criminal backgrounds:
Seventy-five percent of colleges with special procedures bring in decision makers who
are not generally involved in admissions decisions:
o Fifty-three percent of schools bring in deans
o Forty percent of schools bring in campus security personnel (fifteen of those
schools indicated that a campus security officer’s negative recommendation
results in an automatic denial of admission)
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 18
Special admissions committees are used by 43 percent of schools; less common is the
involvement of legal counsel (26%), counseling or mental health staff (20%) or risk
assessment personnel (12%)
Extra requirements for applicants with criminal backgrounds include: a letter of
explanation (91%) and/or letter from corrections officials (probation, parole, corrections)
(63%). Fifty-four require a personal interview; almost forty percent require that
prospective students have completed any term of community supervision before they can
be admitted; and sixteen percent require the applicant to produce official criminal justice
documents, such as a rap sheet.
One of the major concerns for ex-offenders during this process is whether or not they will
be automatically denied admission to school. In the CCA’s survey, a quarter of the respondents
noted that they had automatic bars to admission with “convictions for a violent or sex offense” as
the crimes most likely to “trigger an automatic denial.” The results also showed that almost 40
percent of the respondents deny admission to applicants who have not yet completed their term
of community supervision. In addition, 32 percent of schools that consider criminal histories
will deny admission to applicants for failing to disclose their criminal records (Weissman et al.,
2011 [James, 2016]).
Maryland and barring admission. In their 2013 survey of the 50 colleges and
universities in Maryland, of which 12 schools responded to their communication and only seven
schools completed the questionnaire, Sokoloff and Fontaine set out to determine how the schools
handle the screening of applicants with criminal histories. Of the seven respondents, only two
schools answered the question about automatic bars to admission: both schools automatically bar
any applicants who have committed crimes against children. The public four-year school also
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 19
automatically bars applicants with a history of sex offenses and applicants with any felonies on
their records, while the private four-year school automatically bars applicants with specific
felonies on their records and applicants with a history of other types of crimes.
The authors made special note of the fact that five of the seven respondents did not
answer the questions about automatic bars to admission. They said it was the most controversial
item on the questionnaire because it would “require institutions to reveal a keystone of their
policies toward the admission of students with criminal records, policies which are currently not
readily available to the public.” The schools may not want to reveal their policies so they can
decide on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps they automatically deny applicants who committed
certain crimes and they do not want to make that public (Sokoloff & Fontaine, 2013 [James,
2016]).
Safety on campus. The argument for asking about prior convictions on college
admissions applications is that it is a safety issue and there is also a concern about liability
(Peterkin, 2012). Sokoloff and Fontaine (2013) noted that the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and
the 2010 University of Texas shooting spurred this trend. However, it must be noted that the
student who committed the Virginia Tech shooting did not have a criminal record (Weissman et
al., 2011). The University of Texas shooter, Colton Tooley, was not on the college’s “radar” and
“there was no record of Tooley…being flagged for behavioral concerns” (Shannon, 2011).
Weissman et al. (2011) noted that there is “no empirical evidence showing that students
with criminal records pose a safety risk on campus.” They argued that “depriving people of
access to higher education based on a criminal record does not make campuses safer; instead it
undermines public safety by foreclosing an opportunity that has proven to be one of the most
effective deterrents to recidivism.” The Education from the Inside Out Coalition (n.d. c) agreed
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 20
that there is a risk to public safety when ex-offenders are denied admission to college. They
noted that “criminal justice screening in college admissions is counterproductive from a public
safety perspective.”
The Ban the Box Movement
The “Ban the Box” movement originally started in 2004 as a way to end job and housing
discrimination-two areas where ex-offenders face barriers upon release from prison.
Spearheaded by All or None of Us, a “national civil rights movement of formerly incarcerated
people and their families,” the campaign focused on public and government agencies-asking
them to remove the question regarding conviction history from their applications (Ban the Box,
n.d.). As the campaign found success, it has branched out into other areas including the non-for-
profit sector, private employment, and higher education; the Education from the Inside Out
Coalition is a major force behind the education branch of this movement.
The Education from the Inside Out Coalition (EIO) is a “nonpartisan collaborative of
advocates” led by the College and Community Fellowship, JustLeadershipUSA and the Center
for Community Alternatives (CCA). The EIO “opposes the use of criminal history screenings of
applicants during the admission’s [sic] process at colleges and universities.” Their mission is “to
remove barriers to higher education funding facing students in prisons, both in New York State
and nationwide” (n.d. a [James, 2016]).
Recidivism
There is an extensive amount of literature on recidivism; it is an important (and broad)
research topic because discovering something that reduces recidivism even slightly can have a
major impact on the criminal justice system. While Chappell (2004) noted that there is no
“universally accepted operational definition” of recidivism, there are a number of definitions
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 21
with a similar theme. According to Esperian (2010), recidivism is “a return to criminal behavior
after release.” Gibbons and Rosecrance (2005) defined it as “the repetition of or return to
criminality by previously convicted offenders, including rearrest, reconviction, and
reincarceration” (p. 418). Mays and Winfree (2009) referred to it as “a relapse into criminal
behavior after a period of correctional treatment” (p. 431).
The difficulty with these definitions and subsequent measurement is that researchers can
use different factors such as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration, and they may also use
different time frames. Generally, recidivism measurements use the first three years after release
(May & Brown, 2011; Davis et al., 2014; Hall 2015).
Certain factors have proven to affect recidivism more than others, including the ex-
offender’s “socio-economic status, effectiveness of post release supervision (for parolees), length
of time incarcerated, severity and seriousness of crime committed…and educational level of
achievement of each individual” (Esperian, 2010). Other factors include race, gender, and age.
Pollock (2004) noted that “men were more likely to recidivate than women (68 percent compared
with 57 percent), African-Americans were more likely to recidivate than whites (73 percent
compared with 63 percent), and young people under 18 were more likely to recidivate than older
offenders 45 and over (80 percent compared with 45 percent)” (p. 256).
According to Davis et al. (2014), more than 700,000 people leave federal and state
prisons each year and “within three years, 40 percent will be reincarcerated.” They further noted
that this recidivism rate could be because “ex-offenders often lack the knowledge, training, and
skills to support a successful return to their communities.”
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 22
Education and Recidivism
There are two parts to this topic: education in prison (correctional education, which can
include GED, high school, adult basic education [ABE], and college) and education post-release.
Correctional education has shown to reduce recidivism (Gehring, 1997; Chappell, 2004; Batiuk,
Lahm, McKeever, Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005), but since there are fewer in-prison college programs
now, the focus has shifted to post-release education. Weissman et al. (2011) noted that “there is
less information about the impact of post-release college education on recidivism,” but that
“people with college educations generally have substantially less involvement in the criminal
justice system than do people without higher education.”
In their 2000 study of 3,000 records of men and women released from the Virginia
Department of Corrections from the period 1979-1994, Hull, Forrester, Brown, Jobe, and
McCullen found that “completing an educational program during a period of incarceration is
positively related to post-release adjustment.” They examined the reincarceration rates of those
who had no education programming while incarcerated (49.04%); those who enrolled in
educational programming but did not complete the program (37.9%); and those that completed
the program (20.17%).
They also discussed employability and their results suggested “that the employability rate
of those persons who complete educational programming while incarcerated is a much higher
figure than those that do not complete any educational programs” (Hull et al., 2000).
Employment is also a factor in recidivism in that earning a college degree will hopefully lead to
gainful employment for the ex-offender, and hopefully fewer reasons to reoffend. Nally,
Lockwood, Knutson, and Ho (2012) noted that post-release employment is an important
indicator of the success of correctional education.” While employment is not the focus of this
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 23
paper, it is related to education and should be considered as an extension, or next step, in this
discussion.
Batiuk et al. (2005) sampled over 900 Ohio inmates in an attempt to examine “the
differential effects of a variety of correctional education programs on post-release recidivism” in
one statistical model. The study looked at 972 inmates who were paroled or released from 1989-
1992 and the various educational programs available to them including GED, high school,
vocational training, and college (associate degree program).
The dependent variable was the ‘recidivism hazard’ which was defined as “the
instantaneous risk of having the event (recidivism) at time t, given the event did not occur before
time t” (Yamaguchi, 1991, p. 9, as cited in Batiuk et al. 2005). The college education group had
a “substantially lower hazard rate” than the other groups.
Specifically, they found that “participation in post-secondary education programs reduces
the recidivism hazard rate by some 62 percent in comparison to the non-education group.” In
addition, the college variable proved to be the only educational program variable to significantly
decrease recidivism hazard rates (or increase survival) when compared to the “no education
group” (Batiuk et al., 2005).
Nally et al. (2012) examined the effect of correctional education on recidivism,
correctional education on employment, and the “interrelationship of offenders’ education,
employment, and recidivism.” They examined 1,077 Indiana offenders who received federal
funding for educational programs while incarcerated (and who were released during the period of
2002-2009) and compared them to 1,078 Indiana offenders (released in 2005) who did not
receive federal funding for education.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 24
The recidivism rate for those who received educational funding was 29.7% and for those
who did not receive educational funding, the recidivism rate was 67.8%. They also found that
offenders with lower education levels, if employed, were “likely to be employed in a variety of
labor-intensive and minimum-wage jobs and job sustainability may be challenging.” While
recidivism rates were lower for those who participated in educational programs while
incarcerated, “employment bears no significant impact on post-release recidivism in the
recessionary period among those released offenders.” They added that “educated offenders are
likely to have earned a better wage if they are employed after release” (Nally et al., 2012).
Discussion
The literature supports the theory that ex-offenders who earn a college degree, or even
those who complete some college classes, have lower recidivism rates than ex-offenders with no
college background. Based on this information, the next logical step might be to encourage ex-
offenders who do not have a college degree to apply to college. While logical, for ex-offenders
it may not be practical or even feasible.
Barriers are still in place for this population-supplemental applications, interviews,
additional documents to submit-some of which they may not be able to provide. If the current
research is not enough to convince college administrators to remove “the question” from their
applications, then they should gather information from other sources-the people who will be
working closely with this population-the faculty.
There are missing pieces to this puzzle: faculty, staff, and students. Administrators know
that some ex-offenders want to attend college because the college receives their applications, but
administrators may not know about the research that shows that this population is generally not a
threat on campus and that their recidivism rates will decrease if they earn a college degree (and
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 25
this benefits society as a whole). If college administrators are not aware of this, then researchers
should continue to put the puzzle pieces together for them. For some institutions, the recidivism
data may have been enough for them to remove the question; for other schools it might take
more information and research.
The first step is to gauge the faculty’s feelings about working with ex-offenders in the
classroom because they will be playing a major role in a student’s academic career and the
faculty member’s attitude can make it a discouraging experience for the student or they can
create a welcoming and safe environment. Future research should definitely include the staff and
students as they will also work closely with this population, but the faculty should be the starting
point.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 26
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This research study took a mixed methods approach in the form of a case study; this is an
instrumental case study as the specific issue examined was ex-offender students and the faculty’s
opinion of them, which is not found in the literature. A survey was distributed to faculty
members that also included information about SUNY’s admission policy and procedures for ex-
offender applicants.
Hypothesis
Faculty members in the social sciences and humanities are more likely to be supportive of
ex-offenders pursuing a college degree than faculty members in other disciplines.
Primary Research Question:
1. What do faculty members think about working with ex-offender students?
Secondary Research Questions:
1. What are some of the experiences faculty members have had working with ex-offender
students?
2. Are faculty members in certain disciplines more supportive of ex-offenders pursuing a
college degree than those in other disciplines?
Methodology
Sample Size
This is a sample of convenience; the sample consisted of faculty members who were colleagues
of the researcher.
Participants:
The sample consisted of ten participants.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 27
Setting of the Study:
This study took place in a State University of New York college located on Long Island.
Instrument:
The study instrument was an electronic survey that consisted of 17 questions in total, including:
Six descriptive questions
Two Likert scale questions
Eight open-ended questions
One miscellaneous question
Reliability:
In order to ensure reliability, the researcher employed multiple coders to make sure that the
information was coded properly and consistently. Coding data can be subjective, so it is
important to have check points throughout the coding process and if there are any disagreements
or variations, they can be resolved before the process continues.
Validity:
In an effort to ensure validity, a three-step process was employed:
The researcher asked a colleague who is well-versed in survey research to review
the survey questions prior to distribution
The researcher conducted a pilot study and disseminated the survey to a small
group who then let the researcher know if the questions were clear, if the answer
choices were lacking in any way, and if they were appropriate, in addition to
finding any typos or other issues.
Once the data were collected, coded, and analyzed, the researcher asked a
colleague (who is not connected to the study) to examine the coding and analysis
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 28
(external audit) to determine if the “auditor” came to the same conclusions as the
researcher.
Data Collection:
The data were collected via a survey sent electronically to the faculty members (which allowed
them to remain anonymous). In addition, the admissions policy for ex-offender applicants was
copied from the college’s website.
Analysis:
The analysis was conducted via an Excel spreadsheet and Google forms.
Coding:
Themes included:
Positive/negative attitudes towards ex-offender students
Previous experience/no experience working with ex-offender students
Discipline taught
Limitations to Available Data:
There were only ten participants (small sample) and the researcher asked faculty members who
were guaranteed to respond. As such, the majority were in the social science/humanities fields,
which may have affected research question #3.
Care of Human Subjects:
While it was not necessary to go through the IRB process since this was a class project and will
not be published, it should be noted that the questions were crafted to be as general as possible as
to not identify the participants.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 29
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
Demographic Information
Ten SUNY faculty members completed the survey and out of the ten, six responded to
the question about gender: three women and three men. All ten participants identified their age
range: one was 31-40; one was 41-50; four were 51-60; three were 61-70; and one was older than
70 years of age.
The participants taught the following subjects: composition and literature; writing,
literature, and gender studies; human services and history; biology; community and human
services; social sciences and public affairs; writing, literature, and the arts; sociology and
criminal justice; and math. Eight of the participants taught undergraduate courses only and two
taught both undergraduate and graduate classes. Four of the participants taught in-person only
and six taught both in-person and online.
All ten participants provided the number of years they had been teaching: one fell into the
6-10 year category; one in the 11-15 year category; three in the 16-20 year category, and five had
been teaching longer than 20 years. When asked about their familiarity with SUNY’s
admissions policy/procedures for applicants with prior felony convictions, four faculty members
were familiar with the policy, three were not, and three said “maybe”; the participants who said
“no” or “maybe” were asked to read the policy which was provided.
Likert Findings
The participants were all in favor (to varying degrees) of both prisoners and ex-offenders
pursuing college degrees, in prison and after release, respectively. Participants were asked “To
what degree do you think that prisoners should be able to pursue a college degree while in
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 30
prison?” and the scale provided ranged from one (not at all in favor) to six (definitely in favor).
The distribution of the results can be seen in Figure 1 (below):
Figure 1. Participants’ levels of favor for incarcerated individuals pursuing college degrees.
Participants were asked “To what degree are you in favor of ex-offenders pursuing a
college degree?” and the scale provided ranged from one (not at all in favor) to six (definitely in
favor). The distribution of the results can be seen in Figure 2 (below):
Figure 2. Participants’ levels of favor for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 31
Dimensions
The survey consisted of 17 questions-a mix of multiple choice, Likert scales, and open-
ended questions. There were nine open-ended questions, eight of which required analysis and
coding. While it was an open-ended question, number three asked the participants which
subjects they taught, those responses can easily be grouped into discipline categories. Nine
participants listed the subjects they taught and the subjects were categorized into the following
disciplines: humanities/cultural studies (3), human services (2), social science (2), math (1), and
science (1). As one participant did not answer this question this will be referred to as “Unknown
discipline”.
Two of the questions relating to direct experience working this population-in a prison
education and/or re-entry program received mostly responses of “NA” (not applicable) so those
questions do not need to be analyzed; the few responses will be discussed in the “Qualitative
Data” section. The last question, which asks for “additional comments”, will be examined in the
“Qualitative Data” section as well.
Coding for Analysis
There were no pre-set codes other than the general ideas related to the research questions
(see page 28). While the hypothesis of this study focused on discipline as it relates to support for
ex-offender students, there were no specific predictions about how the participants would
respond to the open-ended questions. The themes that emerged are listed in Table 1 (below):
Table 1
Summary of Identified Themes
Survey Question Theme(s) Discipline of Participant(s)
What do you like best about the policy?
No flat-out rejection-the individual
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Human
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 32
student/situation is considered
This population has an opportunity to attend college
Safety for the campus community
Services, Science, Social Sciences
Human Services, Humanities/Cultural Studies
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Social Sciences
What do you like least about the policy?
It “retries” the applicant/Penalizes them again
Bias/Inability of committee to be objective
Profiling/Discrimination Prohibiting equal access
to education
Humanities/Cultural Studies
Human Services, Math
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Unknown Discipline
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Social Sciences
Do you think that colleges should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?
Prisons should align their college courses with the colleges (not the other way around as was asked)
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Human Services, Math, Social Sciences
To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-offender in an advisor capacity? What was your experience with that student?
Yes-students were motivated/successful
Yes-had positive experiences with these students
Human Services, Social Sciences
Social Sciences, Unknown Discipline
To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?
Yes-I never felt unsafe Yes-students brought a
different perspective to class
Yes-students knew their education was vital to re-entry
Humanities/Cultural Studies
Human Services, Social Sciences
Humanities/Cultural Studies, Unknown Discipline
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 33
Qualitative Data
While the qualitative data were analyzed to identify themes, the minority responses were
also worth noting. Responses to question number eight, “What do you like best about the
policy?” generally fell into one of the three themes. In addition to the themes that emerged from
question number nine, “What do you like least about the policy?” one participant stated, “I am
not sure that the fact someone is an ex-offender is relevant to the admissions process” and
another participant felt the process invaded the applicant’s privacy.
Question number twelve asked, “Do you think that colleges should try to align their
courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?” Several
participants noted that the prisons should align their courses with the college curriculum, not the
other way around, as was indicated in the question. The responses demonstrated that there is
overall support for collaboration between the two in order to offer courses in prison that would
fit into the college curriculum, but the responses also showed that the question should have been
worded differently. This will be discussed in chapter five.
Question number thirteen asked, “To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-
offender in an advisor capacity? What was your experience with that student?” Responses
included “Yes. Three in total. Two went really well. One did not. The one that did not began
using drugs again. The other two were totally moved away from criminal life” and “Yes. Worked
well whether student self identified or not. Brought different perspectives to the subject matter.”
Another participant wrote
I have worked with two ex-offenders both were my advisees took courses with me. I had
very positive experiences. The male student worked extremely hard to change his life. He
took responsibility for his actions and the harm he caused to his family and society. I
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 34
would happily have the male student in my home at any time. The female student was not
as far along in her journey but an education that made her more employable was a
positive step.
Question number fourteen asked, “To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender
as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?” to which participants
replied “Yes, several students. I have never felt unsafe with any of these students. Across the
board, they were eager to learn and considered higher education essential to their re-entry” and
“Yes. Excellent experience not only for me, but for his classmates as well who were able to talk
with him about his life, his prison experiences. He was a very good influence on them as he
helped them rethink who is a criminal, what is criminal behavior, and what is rehabilitation.”
Other responses included “A long time ago--student mentioned it at outset. Our
relationship/experience did not differ from other students,” “Yes. This student was very bright
and very motivated,” and “I have had two students in my courses and they were dedicated. They
understood the opportunity to be in college and how it could positively impact his/her life.”
When asked if the participants had ever worked in a prison education and/or re-entry
program, one participant wrote “I read poetry to a group of prisoners in the early 80s” and
another participant stated “I worked with ex-offenders in outpatient mental health and substance
abuse programs. Just like other populations, we cannot put them all into one category. Some may
be motivated, willing to change and appreciate the opportunity to advance their situation.”
The final question asked for additional comments and four participants responded.
Responses included “This is an important issue. We need to provide educational opportunities to
all, and with online flexible course delivery, it should be made much easier than it is” and
“Might be helpful to more clearly define what ‘your experience’ means here. In some ways, it's
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 35
no different than working with any other student. All students have academic strengths and
weaknesses related in part to their backgrounds.” Other participants wrote “I would remove the
box from the SUNY application. People of color are disproportionately incarcerated and
therefore, more impacted by this rule” and “I do believe the pursuit of a college degree will
enhance the individuals (sic) rehabilitation and make the transition back into society smoother.”
Analysis of Total Sample Results
Overall, the responses (both Likert and qualitative) supported the idea of ex-offenders
attending college and pursing degrees. There was slightly less support for education in prison as
evidenced by a comparison of Figures 1 and 2. Out of the two participants who chose number
four in the first figure-one taught Humanities/Cultural Studies and the other taught Math. Part of
the difference in the overall support for prisoner education may have been because of the poor
wording in number twelve, which implied that colleges should align their curriculum to the
prisoners, and that may have seemed like an unnecessary accommodation.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 36
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
Overview of the Findings
While the results were not exactly what the researcher expected, there is still a great deal
of useful information not only for practical purposes (changing admissions policies), but also for
future research. Faculty opinions are only part of the equation, but the faculty members who
participated in this survey were very supportive not only of ex-offenders pursuing a college
degree, but also supportive of prisoners taking college classes while in prison.
Summary of the Results
While the discipline the faculty taught did not seem to make a difference in their attitudes
towards ex-offender student, the faculty members were overwhelming supportive of ex-offenders
attending college and pursuing degrees. The issues or concerns the participants had surrounded
SUNY’s admissions policy and practice of screening applicants; their issue is not with the ex-
offenders, but rather with the policies that have the potential to limit this population’s access to
education.
The participants who described experiences they had with ex-offender students, either in
an advising or teaching capacity, all had positive comments. Of course, this needs further
investigation (survey more faculty), but there does not seem to be any concerns for personal
safety. Faculty members are concerned that the admissions policy discriminates against this
population and essentially “retries” them because applicants often have to go into detail about
their crimes.
Summary of Sub-groups Analysis
The lack of information for sub-group analysis is one of the problems with the survey
(and the fault of the researcher) because the survey questions were not required. Several
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 37
participants did not list their gender and one participant did not list the discipline he/she taught.
However, half of the participants had been teach for more than 20 years and 80% of the
participants were over 50 years of age. Experience, both in life (age) and teaching, may have a
bearing on attitudes towards ex-offender students.
Future research should attempt to survey younger faculty members and those who have
only been teaching for a few years-perhaps less than five. This could be achieved through
stratified sampling or through a large enough random sample that all age ranges and experience
levels would be adequately represented.
The responses that seemed to vary from the majority did not seem to fall into any sub-
group; the sample was so small and overall the participants had positive attitudes towards this
student population. For example, the two “outliers” who responded to the question about
whether they we in favor of prisoners attending classes while incarcerated, one taught
humanities/cultural studies and the other taught math-both of whom were in the same age range.
The Unexpected
While the hypothesis suggested that the faculty member’s discipline would predict their
support for ex-offender students, this was not the case. The belief was that the faculty members
who taught the “soft sciences” and humanities would be more supportive of ex-offenders
pursuing college degrees, but discipline had no bearing on their opinions. One theory is that the
faculty members surveyed taught in a public, liberal arts-based college, and maybe that was the
reason for their attitudes towards this population. Perhaps faculty in the same disciplines in a
private college would feel differently.
Another unexpected finding was that there were aspects of SUNY’s admissions policy
that several faculty members liked. Some of them noted that the applicant is considered on an
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 38
individual basis and that this process still gives the population the chance to attend college since
they are not rejected outright.
The researcher incorrectly assumed that the majority of faculty would have a problem
with it, but this may be researcher bias based on previous research into this topic as well as the
researcher having read first-hand accounts of applicants who went through this process and had
difficulty with it (for various reasons). Therefore, this may have just been unexpected for the
researcher. Future research may include first-hand accounts of applicants who went through this
process to determine if that makes a difference in the faculty members’ responses.
Implications of the Study for Practice and Legislation
The results of this study can be used by college administrators and policymakers, which
is discussed below, but the results can also be the springboard for future research, which is also
discussed below. While the hypothesis was not proven to be true, the results are still important:
there is overall support from the faculty for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.
For the Practitioner
College administrators should be interested in the results of this study-not only did the
faculty express support overall for ex-offenders pursuing college degrees, not one of them
expressed concerns for their safety. One participant mentioned the concern for the campus
community in the admissions policy as a positive aspect, but there were no concerns for personal
safety. One participant noted she would gladly welcome her ex-offender student into her home.
If future research continues to show that there are no safety concerns then college administrators
might want to reconsider using that reason as the basis for screening applicants.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 39
For the Policymaker
Aside from the issue of screening applicants during the admissions process, there was
support for aligning courses offered in prison with the college curriculum. Governor Cuomo’s
“Right Priorities” initiative was discussed in a previous chapter, and this is what his program
hopes to accomplish. While there is support for the overall concept of prison education
programs and colleges working together, hopefully there will be faculty members who are
willing to work in the prisons with the inmates.
While the issue of screening applicants is important, this is less of an issue for
policymakers since colleges administrators are the ones to implement these polices, albeit
usually through some sort of internal governance process. Policymakers should be more
concerned about the collaboration between the prisons and colleges and ensuring a seamless
transition from in-prison college programs to college programs after release from prison.
Problems and Limitations
As this study progressed and responses were received, a number of problems/concerns
arose that led to the inability of the researcher to collect all of the data that were sought. One
issue was the poor wording of question twelve. The question was “Do you think that colleges
should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison?
Why or why not?” but this wording implies that colleges have to alter/change their curriculum to
meet the needs of the prisoners. This became apparent when the participants questioned the
meaning of the word “aligned,” answered “no” because the prison population was small, and that
it should be the other way around: prisons should work with the colleges to ensure the courses
they offer will allow for a smooth transition to college upon release.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 40
A pilot study likely would have caught that error so there would have been an
opportunity to reword the question for the real survey. If the main point of the question was to
determine their thoughts about the courses offered in prison, then an open-ended question such
as “How should prison officials decide which courses to offer in prison?” or “If you were
responsible for course selection in a prison education program, on what would you base your
decision?” Either one of these “rephrasings” puts the survey participant in charge of the
scenario, which could possibly lead to more thoughtful answers. Instead of asking “Do you
think…why or why not?” the reworded questions require a bit more thought.
Another concern was missing data and this takes on two forms. The first is that not one
of the questions on the survey was “required” so participants could skip any question they
wanted and then continue to the next question. The second is that there was not a question in the
“demographic section” that asked about the participant’s ethnicity and/or race. Several
responses noted “discrimination” and “profiling” so that information may have been important.
A future version of this survey should consider requiring answers to certain questions,
specifically the demographic questions. By requiring participants to answer all questions a
researcher runs the risk of the participants not wanting to answer a certain question and then not
completing the survey at all, but with a larger sample (larger than ten people), this may not be a
concern.
Since this was a sample of convenience and the researcher handpicked the faculty
members to complete the survey, a process of elimination revealed that the participant who did
respond to the “subjects taught” question was in the business department. Had she revealed this
information it would have been incorporated into the discussion about discipline and support for
the ex-offender population. Her responses were among the most supportive of the survey
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 41
participants, which would have helped disprove this study’s hypothesis, but this information
cannot be incorporated into the analysis and discussion because she did not answer the “subjects
taught” question and it was not required.
If a researcher were conducting this survey and using a version of random sampling, this
omission and the ability to figure out her discipline would not have been possible. However, this
situation is an example of why it might be better to require the answers to certain questions-
especially when the information in those questions relates to the study’s hypothesis!
In the future, the researcher might want to offer follow-up interviews; while the survey
questions were answered, there are several follow-up questions the researcher could have asked.
Several of the participants had experience advising and teaching ex-offenders and they were only
going to write so much in response to the questions. For example, a follow-up question would
have been helpful for those who thought the admissions policy was good because it considered
the safety of the college campus. In a follow-up interview, the researcher could have provided
data showing that college campuses that screen are no safer than those that do not, and then ask
the participants if that information would make them reconsider their responses.
Suggestions for Future Research
Several points were raised that would benefit from future research. The first is online-
only schools or programs. If safety is a concern (according to colleges that screen applicants)
when ex-offenders attend classes on campus, then what are the admissions policies of
(accredited) online colleges? What are the opinions of their faculty members?
Another area for future research is to survey the faculty (and staff and students) of
colleges that not only do not screen applicants, but that have partnerships or relationships with
prisoner re-entry programs. These colleges will likely have a larger percentage of ex-offender
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 42
students and since their status may be out in the open (by their own choice?) it might be a good
opportunity to survey students about how they feel having classmates who are ex-offenders.
As suggested above, faculty members in a private college may have different opinions
about working with ex-offender students. It might be worth surveying faculty in public and
private colleges-colleges that screen applicants and those that do not. Another version of that
research would include faculty in a college that screens applicants, faculty in a college that used
to screen but changed its policy (SUNY), and then in a college that does not screen applicants at
all (CUNY). That would cover the various screening situations and it would be interesting to see
how SUNY faculty feel after their institution stops screening applicants.
Conclusion
A student’s ex-offender status is not an issue for faculty members, at least the faculty
members who responded to this survey. Generalizability is difficult but these findings are still
relevant, both in terms of policy and as the basis for future research. There are several groups
who interact with ex-offender students, whether they realize it or not, and their opinions,
thoughts, and feelings are missing from the literature. Once researchers, practitioners, and other
stakeholders (faculty, staff, and students) have the complete picture (information about all related
groups), then they can work together to allay the concerns of involved parties, change admissions
policies, and colleges and prisons can collaborate-faculty members may even want to teach
courses to incarcerated individuals.
The fact that the faculty members are concerned about this population facing
discrimination during the admissions process and possibly not gaining access to higher education
is important because it demonstrates understanding, compassion, and their willingness to work
with them. College administrators (and other stakeholders) would be wise to use this and
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 43
forthcoming research to not only change their policies, but to work with criminal justice
practitioners to help set up incarcerated individuals to be successful once they have been
released. They may even want to conduct their own research-they can survey their own college
communities to determine how people feel about ex-offenders pursuing college degrees.
It is clear that more research is needed and there needs to be more discussion about the
benefits of a higher education for this population. As was noted in chapter one, most inmates
will be released from prison at some point and to ignore that fact is irresponsible. Those who
work in higher education, particularly those in public institutions, should pay particular attention
to this issue.
People released from prison need access to affordable higher education if they are going
to have any chance at not recidivating. If the research that is available now is not enough to
convince college administrators and boards of directors to open their doors to ex-offenders
(without additional steps in the application process), then let this study be the springboard for
further research that will help ensure ex-offenders will no longer face barriers when applying to
and attending college.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 44
Appendix
Survey for Faculty Members1. What is your gender:
2. What is your age:Under 3031-4041-5051-6061-70Above 70
3. What subject(s) do you teach? ________________________________________________
4. What level do you teach?-undergraduate classes-graduate classes-both
5. Do you teach:-in-person classes-online classes-both
6. How long have you been teaching?1-5 years6-10 years11-15 years16-20 yearsMore than 20 years
7. Are you familiar with SUNY’s admissions policy/procedures for applicants with prior felony convictions?-yes-no (please take a moment to read it below)-maybe (please take a moment to read it below)
8. What do you like best about the policy?
9. What do you like least about the policy?
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 45
10. On a scale of 1-6, to what degree are you in favor of ex-offenders pursuing a college degree?
11. On a scale of 1-6, to what degree do you think that prisoners should be able to pursue a college degree while in prison?
12. Do you think that colleges should try to align their courses/curriculum with courses that prisoners take while in prison? Why or why not?
13. To your knowledge, have you ever worked with an ex-offender in an advisor capacity?What was your experience with that student?
14. To your knowledge, have you ever had an ex-offender as a student in your class? What was your experience with that student?
15. Tell me about a time that you have worked with prisoners in a prison education program (if applicable).
16. Tell me about a time that you have worked successfully or unsuccessfully with ex-offenders in any type of re-entry program (if applicable).
17. Please use this space for any additional comments:
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 46
References
Ban the Box. (n.d.). About: The ban the box campaign. Retrieved from
http://bantheboxcampaign.org/about/#.WFSG25dWi9Y
Batiuk, M. E., Lahm, K. F., McKeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the
effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history
analysis. Criminal Justice, 5, 55-74. doi:10.1177/1466802505050979
Center for Community Alternatives. (2013). Criminal history screenings in college admissions:
A guide for attorneys representing college applicants and students during and after
criminal proceedings. Retrieved from Center for Community Alternatives website:
http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/Criminal-History-Screening-in-
College-Admissions-AttorneyGuide-CCA-1-2013.pdf
Chappell, C. A. (2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A meta-analysis
of research conducted 1990-1999. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 148-169.
Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=12&sid=b9e13197-1fe6-4883-aeca-3ea123cbdae3%40sessionmgr114&hid=112
Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J. N. V., Saunders, J,
& Steinberg, P. S. (2014). Correctional education in the United States: How effective is
it, and how can we move the field forward? (Research Brief). Retrieved from The Rand
Corporation website: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9763.html
Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. a). Fact sheet: Ban the box in higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.eiocoalition.org/files/EIO_College-Admissions_2013-Fact-
Sheet_V5.pdf
Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. b). Inconsistent and counterproductive: Criminal
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 47
history screening in college admissions. Retrieved from http://gallery.mailchimp.com/
6751308e3d172ca5babb9a346/files/EIO_Coalition_Criminal_History_Screening_in_Coll
ege_Admissions.pdf
Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. c). Policy brief: Ban the box in higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.eiocoalition.org/files/EIO_College-Admissions_2013-Policy-
Brief_V5.pdf
Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. d). SUNY unite to ban the box. Retrieved from
http://www.wordpress.eiocoalition.org/suny-unite-to-ban-the-box/
Education from the Inside Out Coalition. (n.d. e). The fair access to education act. Retrieved
from https://esced4all.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/fair-access-to-education-act-one-
pager.pdf
Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. The Journal of
Correctional Education, 61, 316-334. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com .library.esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=18&sid=42caed3f-53d8-434b-b3b5-85eab7e7e288%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4205
Gehring, T. (1997). Post-secondary education for inmates: An historical inquiry. Journal
of Correctional Education, 48, 46-55. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.
esc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=b9e13197-1fe6-4883-aeca-
3ea123cbdae3%40sessionmgr114&hid=112
Gibbons, S. G. & Rosecrance, J. D. (2005). Probation, parole, and community corrections.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hall, L. L. (2015, May). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 48
The Journal of Correctional Education, 66, 4-29. Retrieved from
http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=5640a18c-
949b-4e14-9956-99f2e80a918b
%40sessionmgr4007&hid=4112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaX
Rl#AN=109335749&db=a9h
Hull, K. A., Forrester, S., Brown, J., Jobe, D., and McCullen, C. (2000, June). Analysis of
recidivism rates for participants of the academic/vocational/transition education
programs offered by the Virginia Department of Correctional Education. Journal of
Correctional Education, 51, 256-261. Retrieved from
http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?sid=ff6962ba-fa4d-4148-
9ceb9748f1abfdc8%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4212&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q
tbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=11097027&db=a9h
James, S. (2016). Ex-offenders and the college admissions process. Admissions letter for Ed.D.
Program in Educational Leadership, LIU Post.
May, D. C. & Brown, T. (2011). Examining the effect of correctional programming on
perceptions of likelihood of recidivism among incarcerated prisoners. Journal of Social
Service Research, 37, 353-364. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.582021
Mays, G. L. & Winfree, L. T., Jr. (2009). Essentials of corrections (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Nally, J., Lockwood, S., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012, April). An evaluation of the effect of
correctional education programs on post-release recidivism and employment: An
empirical study in Indiana. The Journal of Correctional Education, 63, 69-89.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 49
Retrieved from http://discovery.lib.liu.edu:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail/detail?
sid=5640a18c-949b-4e14-9956-99f2e80a918b
%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZ
T1zaXRl#AN=87042257&db=a9h
New York State. (2016, January 10). 13th proposal of Governor Cuomo’s 2016 agenda: Launch
a “Right Priorities” initiative that leads the nation with comprehensive criminal justice
and re-entry reforms [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/13th-proposal-governor-cuomos-2016-agenda-
launch-right-priorities-initiative-leads-nation?mc_cid=eba278a458&mc_eid=be9400537f
New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (n.d.). Personal criminal history record
review program. Retrieved from
http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ojis/recordreview.htm
Peterkin, C. (2012). Colleges grapple with applicants’ juvenile records and criminal histories.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, 20. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.
library.esc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=25&sid=42caed3f-53d8-434b-b3b5-
85eab7e7e288%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4205&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=82316077
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pollock, J. M. (2004). Prisons and prison life: Costs and consequences. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Shannon, K. (2011, May 25). UT shooter Colton Tooley described as intelligent, unemotional.
FACULTY OPINIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH EX-OFFENDER 50
The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/ut-
shooter-colton-tooley-_0_n_744254.html
Sokoloff, N. J. & Fontaine, A. (2013). Systematic barriers to higher education: How colleges
respond to applicants with criminal records in Maryland. Retrieved from Prisoner
Reentry Institute website: http://johnjayresearch.org/pri/files/2013/11/Sokoff-and-
Fontaine-Systemic-Barriers-to-Higher-Education-2013.pdf
State University of New York (SUNY). (2016). SUNY board votes to “Ban the Box”
following student assembly recommendation, campus visits [Press Release]. Retrieved
from https://www.suny.edu/suny-news/press-releases/september-2016/9-14-16-ban-the-
box/suny-board-votes-to-ban-the-box-following-sa-recommendation-campus-visits.html
State University of New York (SUNY). (n.d.). What is SUNY? Retrieved from
http://www.suny.edu/about/
The City University of New York (CUNY). (n.d.). About. Retrieved from
http://www.cuny.edu/about.html
Weissman, M., Rosenthal, A., Warth, P., Wolf, E., & Messina-Yauchzy, M. (2011). The use of
criminal history records in college admissions reconsidered. Retrieved from Center for
Community Alternatives website: http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/
Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-college-admissions.pdf
Top Related