Terrain Leveling

Introduction

On September 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, commonly known as the 1994 crime bill. The most far-reaching piece of criminal justice legislation Congress ever passed, the bill incentivized states to pass harsher sentencing laws and build more prisons.^[1] Among a slate of punitive and “tough on crime” measures, the bill also eliminated access to federal Pell Grant funding for incarcerated students. The effect on higher education in prison was swift. In the early 1990s, there were an estimated 772 college programs operating in 1,287 correctional facilities, but by 1997 only eight such programs remained.^[2]

Despite overwhelming evidence about the benefits of attending college in prison for incarcerated people, their communities, and society as a whole, it took Congress almost thirty years to fully reverse the policy.^[3] After extending federal financial aid to approximately 40,000 incarcerated students under the Second Chance Pell Experiment starting in 2015, on July 1, 2023, Pell Grant funding was reinstated for all incarcerated people. According to Department of Education’s estimates, 800,000 people could now be eligible to receive federal financial aid and tuition assistance to attend college in prison,^[4] and the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison estimates that there are currently 406 programs offering college courses to people behind bars across the US and its territories.^[5]

The reinstatement of Pell Grant funding has also initiated a sector-wide reexamination of how higher education in prison is provided and how its impact and success are measured. Revised regulations, moreover, note that “oversight entities are required to consider whether a prison education programs’ academic services are comparable to similar services that the institution offers to its on-campus students.”^[6] While it is an important development that regulations require services for students inside be comparable to those for students outside, it is left up to oversight entities (primarily departments of correction) to decide what exactly comparable might mean.

A growing body of research documents the barriers faced by incarcerated students—such as limited access to technology and conflicts with correctional staff—but far less attention has been paid to the role of the built environment in shaping educational experiences. This project, led by Ennead Lab and Ithaka S+R, examines how spatial, architecture, and design features impact learning inside prisons. It draws on qualitative interviews with formerly incarcerated students and prison education program staff, and site visits to five correctional facilities, to advance both research findings and a portfolio of design interventions aimed at improving these educational environments.

When it comes to the built environment, some of the challenges incarcerated students experience are not different in nature from the ones faced by their peers in the most dilapidated corners of the American public education system.^[7] Prison education program students and instructors told us about malfunctioning HVAC units, rusty water leaking from a ceiling, and poor ventilation inside their classrooms. Aging infrastructure and outdated equipment aside, however, carceral settings have little in common with even the most underfunded and neglected higher education facilities on the outside.^[8]

The design and aesthetics of the prison, criminologist Yvonne Jewkes notes, are deeply infused by an “architecture of harm.”^[9] “Hard architecture”—from thick bars and bare concrete walls to hard-surface floors and metal furniture—Jewkes explains, is meant to enhance security but also to dehumanize the incarcerated, destroying their self-esteem and influencing the ways in which staff think of, and behave towards, people in their custody.

This built environment poses unique challenges to both students and instructors. First, these spaces feature a laundry list of design and environmental elements that are proven to negatively impact learning, including overcrowded classrooms, persistent and loud noise, poor lighting and temperature control, and issues with air quality and circulation. Put simply: the environmental conditions prevalent in correctional settings often do not align with, and at times directly contradict, learning and educational best practices.^[10] As importantly, the punitive and dehumanizing nature of the carceral built environment clashes with the primary purpose of higher education: not only providing knowledge and building skills, but nurturing independent and critical thinkers, able to question established assumptions and dogmas.^[11]

Building on our research on the challenges faced by students and instructors in correctional spaces, this report advances a series of actionable strategies to integrate educational best practices in the redesign of these spaces. Ultimately, we propose that architects and designers working in correctional education should not just foster better learning experiences for incarcerated students, but shift the balance from punishment toward rehabilitation in carceral settings.

Key Takeaways

• College Is More Than Just a Classroom
  Providing classrooms is only the first step—facilities must also support study spaces, resource access, and social environments that allow a college education to thrive.
• Responsibility Leads to Care
  When students are trusted to steward their educational spaces and resources, they take greater pride in maintaining and improving them.
• Learning Is A Courageous Act
  Education in prison fosters growth, but only when students feel respected. Dismissive or hostile attitudes from staff can undermine their progress, while a supportive environment fosters confidence, camaraderie, and academic success.
• The Right Space Creates the Right Mindset
  Students are more likely to engage fully in their education when learning environments feel like true college spaces, distinct from the rest of the prison.
• Education Is a Lifeline
  HEP programs offer students the tools for a better future after release, but they also provide purpose, structure, and connection while incarcerated. Expanding degree options and engaging alumni strengthens this impact.
• Collaboration Drives Progress
  Across the country, HEIs and DOCs are solving similar challenges in isolation. Sharing ideas, strategies, and successes between programs will inspire greater improvements system-wide.

Read the report

Endnotes

^[1] Udi Ofer, “How the 1994 Crime Bill Fed the Mass Incarceration Crisis,” ACLU: News & Commentary, June 4, 2019, https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/how-1994-crime-bill-fed-mass-incarceration-crisis.

^[2] Nathaniel J. Pallone, “Abolition of Pell Grants for Higher Education of Prisoners: Examining Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 39: no. 2 (2004).

^[3] See Alexandra Gibbons and Rashawn Ray, “The Societal Benefits of Postsecondary Prison Education,” The Brookings Institute, August 20, 2021.

^[4] Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education to Launch Application Process to Expand Federal Pell Grant Access for Individuals Who Are Confined or Incarcerated,” Press Release, June 30, 2023, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-to-launch-application-process-to-expand-federal-pell-grant-access-for-individuals-who-are-confined-or-incarcerated.

^[5] The Alliance defines higher education in prison programs as programs that provide postsecondary education, are formally affiliated with a college or university, and require students to have obtained a high school diploma or equivalent to be eligible for admission. See:  https://www.nationaldirectoryhep.org/national-directory/stats-view.

^[6] “Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs; Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10); Change in Ownership and Change in Control,” 34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 690, Federal Register 87, no. 208 (October 28, 2022): 65435.

^[7] Victoria Jackson and Nicholas Johnson, “America’s School Infrastructure Needs a Major Investment of Federal Funds to Advance an Equitable Recovery,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 17, 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/americas-school-infrastructure-needs-a-major-investment-of-federal.

^[8] That is not to say carceral logics play no role in the design of our educational infrastructure, especially K-12 grades. See: J. Schept, T. Wall, and A. Brisman, “Building, Staffing, and Insulating: An Architecture of Criminological Complicity in the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” Social Justice 41, no. 4 (2014): 138.

^[9] Yvonne Jewkes, “Just Design: Healthy Prisons and the Architecture of Hope,” Journal of Criminology 51, no. 3 (2018).

^[10] A large literature has documented the impact of spatial and environmental factors on both K-12 and postsecondary education outside of prison. See: Mary C. Hill and Kathryn K. Epps, “The Impact of Physical Classroom Environment on Student Satisfaction and Student Evaluation of Teaching in the University Environment,” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 14, no. 4 (2010): 65; Nurul Jannah Amirul, C. N. Ahmad, A. F. Yahya, M. F. N. L. Abdullah, N. M. Noh, and M. Adnan, “The Physical Classroom Learning Environment,” Proceedings of the International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Conference 2, no. 1 (2013): 1-9.

^[11] Basile Baudez and Victoria Bergbauer, Carceral Architecture: From Within and Beyond the Prison Walls (Berlin: JOVIS, 2025).