Publications

As both the owner and operator of correctional facilities and the official oversight entity for higher education in prison programming, it is up to departments of correction to determine what technology to make available for education on the inside. However, there are very few resources designed to help correctional leaders determine what technologies are available, how they might benefit students in their facilities, and what drawbacks the new technology might pose. The tools and process outlined in this playbook are…

How can prison education programs fulfill their obligation to provide their students with an educational experience that is as close as possible to the one of students on main campuses? Thus far, our research into equitable access has focused largely on instructional delivery and practices, and technological access and use. This report broadens our interrogation of that central question by exploring the role of space, architecture, and design in the context of higher education in prison.

Now that federal Pell Grant funding has been reinstated for learners who are incarcerated, the field is in flux. Higher education in prison programs are adapting and developing their practices to meet new policy and regulation needs. Two major facets of the revised regulations for Pell funding are particularly critical for college in prison programs, namely the requirement to track and report student data, and the obligation to document how they or their partner organizations provide reentry services.

Since 2021, people across the political spectrum have become preoccupied with questions of free speech and censorship on college campuses, and state legislators have driven the proliferation of new policies that limit spending and programming related to DEI and alter academic autonomy or shared governance arrangements. Against this backdrop, we included a short block of questions centered on academic freedom in a national survey of US instructors at four-year colleges and universities.

Building on our previous research on the ways that media review directives and censorship policies may limit or protect student access to intellectual and education material, as well as on the technology students on the inside can access for educational purposes, this report explores how educators in higher education in prison programs navigate censorship and self-censorship and how the relationship between educational programs and departments of corrections may have an impact on the educational experience and learning outcomes of students.

Research libraries are expected to provide and preserve collections in support of their institutions’ research and teaching priorities and to support long-term access to cultural, historical, and scientific works. In today’s polarized political environment, both libraries and universities have been at the heart of controversy. In this project, we examine some of the impacts of this polarization at public research university libraries.

In an effort to make visible the national landscape of access to educational technology in prison education programs, Ithaka S+R launched a national survey in the fall of 2022. The survey asked respondents about student access to technology in their higher education in prison program, collecting demographic information before focusing on four thematic areas: technological devices, learning management systems and software, network connection and internet access, and future technology plans.

This report includes the key findings from the technology in higher education in prisons survey that Ithaka S+R fielded in 2022. The survey focused on four thematic areas: technological devices, learning management systems and software, network connectivity or internet access, and future information technology plans.

Despite resurgent public interest in censorship issues, research and reporting on prison censorship policies remain largely localized, with few wide-scale studies of the issue. The highly decentralized nature of the carceral system in the United States complicate such an undertaking. In an effort to make available policy information more accessible and to develop a sense of how censorship policies might impact higher education in prisons, Ithaka S+R examined media review directives across all 50 states and Washington DC.