Systemic Barriers to Higher Education:

1. Systemic Barriers to Higher Education: How Colleges Respond to Applicants with a Criminal Record in Maryland Natalie J. Sokoloff, PhD – John Jay College of Criminal Justice Contact: nsokoloff@jjay.cuny.edu Anika Fontaine, MA – Duke University 2013

2. Today’s Presentation • Context • Review of Literature • National Study • Maryland Study • Implications and Recommendations • Questions

3. Context: Increase in Incarceration Growth of Felons + Ex-Felons, 1948-2010  Felons Ex-Felons Source: Shannon, Massoglia,, Schnittker, Thompson, and Uggen. http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111687

4. Race and Ethnicity in National and Maryland Legal Systems, in Percent Sources: Guerino, P., Harrison, P.M., & Sabol, W.J. 2011. Prisoners in 2010.; Maryland Division of Correction. 2010. Annual Report.

5. Racial Disparities: School-to-prison pipeline • 2012 report shows significantly lower graduation rates(2009-2010) for minority students: (52% Black, 58% Latino/a; 78% White) • Teens of color are disproportionately "pushed out” of education + “pushed into” criminal legal system with young Black men most impacted. • E.g., students suspended at least once in 2009-2010: 3.5 times as many Black as White students. (**Baltimore: 5.6 times more) • E.g., Marijuana use in 2010: SAME; but Blacks ARRESTED: 3.7 times more than whites in U.S.; 5.6 times more in Baltimore, MD.

6. Literature: Collateral Consequences • Collateral consequences include: socially structured barriers to living-wage employment, occupational licensing, health insurance coverage, added fines, potential loss of and difficulty regaining parental rights, ineligibility for residence at some shelters for battered women, etc. • Collateral consequences are wide-reaching: • Disenfranchisement • Social welfare programs • Public housing • Family reunification • Employment • Education(esp. higher education) • (Exceptions: College & Community Fellowship; College Initiative)

7. Literature: Collateral Consequences • Use of criminal records and self-reporting complicate concerns about collateral consequences • Criminal records can be inaccurate + incomplete (e.g., were expunged) and are difficult to interpret (by untrained): “the single most serious deficiency affecting the Nation’s criminal history record information systems” (USDOJ,BJS) • Self-reporting is problematic when individuals report youthful offenses (should be sealed; no reason to disclose; part of unnecessary “stop and frisk”) • Misdemeanors have strong/severe impact (like felonies), because people often plead just to get out of court that day (e.g., childcare)

8. Literature: Higher Education • Benefits of higher education: • Increases life opportunities • Decreases recidivism rates • Higher education in prison is cost-effective and supports safety • Research vacuum on people with criminal backgrounds seeking higher education in the community. • Research suggest that benefits of higher education for women with criminal backgrounds and their families are even greater than for men • **IRONY: As support for higher education in prison grows, educational opportunities for individuals with criminal backgrounds decrease in the community

9. Center for Community Alternatives: National Study • Landmark study and only one of its kind: Use of Criminal History Records in College Admissions Reconsidered (= CCA National Study) • Surveyed 3,248 higher education institutions nationally • Received 273 responses to electronic survey (8% response rate) • Thanks to Alan Rosenthal

10. Maryland Study • Application review • Findings for all 50 higher education institutions • Common Application • Electronic survey • 7 institutions responded to survey (14% response rate) • 5 additional institutions without policies provided additional information through interviews • Combined 24% response rate =================================================== MD vs NATIONAL studies: Different Distribution: Explain later differences? MD (N= 50/50): more PUBLIC colleges respond (58%) NATIONAL (N= 273/3,248): more PRIVATE colleges respond (56%)

11. Percentage of Colleges with Criminal/Disciplinary Background Question on Application *MD sample: All MD colleges (applications); National sample: Survey respondents only

12. Percentage of Colleges with Criminal/Disciplinary Background Question on Application, by Type *MD sample: All MD colleges (applications); National sample: Survey respondents only

13. Comparison: National and Maryland Survey Findings • Private and 4-year colleges are most likely to ask questions on criminal background in both MD and National studies • Almost all colleges in both studies include additional steps in the admissions process for applicants with criminal backgrounds (100% MD; 94% National) • Two-thirds of colleges in both studies inform applicants of the reason of rejection and offer an appeals process (67% in both studies) • More of MD colleges place special restrictions on admitted students with criminal backgrounds, such as student housing restrictions (80% MD; 55% National) • Some schools bar admission based on type of crime (some/all felonies, sexual offense, crimes against children) • No schools collect data on admitted students with criminal records and related campus crimes

14. Additional Research Needed • Roles of systemic biases of race, gender, class, sexuality and more recently immigrant status on applicants with criminal records • Unique experiences/needs of female applicants • Role of primary and secondary school disciplinary practices and records—by race/gender/class/sexuality/immigrant status • Prison-community and prison-college partnerships • Transitions from prison educational programming to community-based colleges • Gifts + challenges of college experience for people with prison records • Impact of students with and without criminal records on campus safety • Application of research to individuals incarcerated in jails

15. Overarching Implications • We must pay attention to barriers to obtaining a college education as one of many collateral consequences of incarceration • Colleges must be more mindful of unintended consequences of admissions policies related to applicants with criminal backgrounds • Remember: Criminal backgrounds represent a wide variety of lived experiences. Stereotyping harms everyone. • People with prison experiences add diversity to college classrooms, just like other marginalized groups; many gifts • Impact of policy and practice reforms is LIMITED if do not simultaneously look to PREVENT social structural inequalities—of race, class, gender, sexuality, immigrant status

16. I. Policy and Practice Reforms • We support National Study Recommendations: Colleges should NOT collect and use criminal background information in admission decisions. IF DO so, ONLY AFTER ADMISSIONS and with clear guidelines on use. • Clearly Warn on self-reporting youthful offenses: is NOT required. • Supportive services in general are needed; and these should include gender-specific supports for women (E.g., College and Community Fellowship) • REINSTATE PELL Grants for ALL People – In and Out of Prison • Encourage 4-year +private collsto accept/support people with criminal records • DIVERSITY of LEARNING APPROACHES/PROGRAMS should be available in prison and back in community: (e.g., Inside-Out;VERA Pathways from Prison Project– NJ, Michigan, NC (2 + 2) ; NYS-Prison to College Pipeline —JJC Initiative (2 + 2); Bard Prison Initiative—5 colleges in NYS—and OSI grant: 10 states incl: Goucherin MD, Wesleyan in CT, Grinnell in IOWA, 2 colleges in IND; in10 states in 2 years.)

17. System Barriers to Higher Education How Colleges Respond to Applicants with Criminal Records in Maryland QUESTIONS + COMMENTS Natalie J. Sokoloff, PhD – John Jay College of Criminal Justice Anika Fontaine, MA – Duke University