In 2024, the restoration of Pell Grant eligibility for students who are incarcerated ushered in a new chapter for higher education in prison. With an estimated 800,000 individuals now eligible to receive federal aid while incarcerated, the stakes have never been higher—and neither has the opportunity to ensure that college in prison is broadly accessible and high-quality. But while programs are growing, the data systems needed to understand their reach and impact are lagging behind.

In our new report, Why Data and Why Now? The Importance and Challenges of Data for Higher Education in Prison, we explore the fractured data landscape that underpins this critical sector. Drawing on interviews with nearly 50 stakeholders—including program leaders, institutional researchers, department of corrections staff, and technical assistance providers—we outline the key barriers and opportunities facing the field as it works to build a more comprehensive and sustainable data infrastructure.

Data is not just a technical challenge—it’s a moral imperative

Despite growing momentum, basic questions about higher education in prison remain surprisingly difficult to answer. How many students are enrolled? Are they completing credentials? Do they have access to advising and student services? The answers to these questions are often inaccessible or incomplete, largely because most programs operate in data silos, rely on manual workarounds, or are disconnected from the information systems of their host institutions or corrections partners. The key barriers we uncovered include:

  • Fragmented data systems: Higher education programs, their host institutions, and departments of corrections (DOCs) often maintain separate and incompatible data systems. Many programs rely on manual or informal processes to collect data, limiting their ability to track outcomes, support students, or meet new federal reporting requirements tied to Pell eligibility. Even when host institutions collect these data and integrate them into their student information systems, these data are often underutilized and inaccessible to key stakeholders.
  • Lack of coordination: Technology and communication disconnections between educational programs in prison and institutional offices—such as institutional research or student affairs—results in limited data sharing and hampers analysis. Programs also face challenges collaborating with DOCs, which control eligibility and transfer data but often face capacity, policy, and technical constraints for facilitating data-sharing.
  • Capacity constraints: Many higher education programs operate with minimal resources and staff, leaving little room for dedicated data collection or analysis. This is further compounded by limited support from host institutions or corrections partners and a lack of training
  • Privacy concerns: Protecting the dignity and safety of students who are incarcerated or formerly incarcerated is paramount. However, inconsistent documenting of incarcerated students in campus systems, limited control over how data are shared, and misaligned policies between educational institutions and corrections agencies heighten the risk of data misuse or student stigma.
  • Uneven progress across states: While some states—such as New York through SUNY’s Office of Higher Education in Prison—have developed robust, linked data systems, many others struggle with data standardization, limited access to statewide longitudinal systems, and weak inter-institutional coordination.

Without reliable data, we cannot assess whether programs are serving students effectively. We can’t track disparities in access or outcomes by student characteristics, design targeted and effective interventions, or make the case for sustained public investment. At a moment when federal policy is expanding educational access for people in prison, the field must meet that commitment with the infrastructure to match.

What’s next: toward a stronger data future

Our report explores actionable steps for institutions, systems, and consortia looking to strengthen data infrastructure. These include developing shared definitions, integrating data across stakeholders, building capacity for analysis, and advancing policy change to make incarcerated students more visible in national systems like IPEDS and state longitudinal data systems.

Our work on strengthening higher education in prison data infrastructure is continuing in two distinct but connected initiatives. In Mississippi, we are collaborating with the Mississippi Consortium for Higher Education in Prison (MCHEP) to assess the state’s current data pipeline and pilot targeted solutions—such as defining shared metrics, streamlining reporting processes, and designing evaluation tools—that can serve as a model for other states.

In New England, we are collaborating with the New England Education Collaborative (NEPEC), an initiative of the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) on its new Accelerator Grant initiative. Working with a cohort of five higher education institution grantees, we are facilitating the co-development of meaningful and measurable success metrics, offering tailored technical assistance, and helping grantees align evaluation practices with evolving federal requirements and local priorities.

These regional efforts are mutually reinforcing. Lessons learned in one context inform strategies in the other, and together they will contribute to a broader set of tools, templates, and playbooks for strengthening data capacity nationwide. At the end of these engagements, we will release a playbook synthesizing our work to help others adapt these strategies in their own contexts.