Inequalities of Race, Class, and Place and Their Impact on Postincarceration Higher Education

• DOI: 10.1177/2153368714532952
• Author: Jody Miller,Lindsey Livingston
• Published date: 01 July 2014
• Date: 01 July 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Inequalities of Race, Class,

and Place and

Their Impact on

Postincarceration Higher

Education

Lindsey Livingston

1

and Jody Miller

1

Abstract

Postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) is witnessing a revitalization, offering

the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated an important source of human and social

capital. Yet, opportunities for higher education among this population are patterned

by larger structural exclusions based on race, class, and place. In this article, we

investigate the impact of race and class inequalities among students in a program for

formerly incarcerated individuals at a large state university. Specifically, we draw from

34 in-depth interviews with past and present program participants to examine how

pre- and postcarceral financial, familial, community, and social network contexts shape

postsecondary experiences after incarceration. Research participants came from

community contexts with vastly different resources, with consequences for social

identities, educational preparedness, and embeddedness in crime preincarceration.

These circumstances differentially prepared students for university studies postre-

lease. In addition, during the postcarceral period, study participants had disparate

access to familial supports, were unequally burdened by financial difficulties and familial

responsibilities, and differentially exposed to risks for reoffending. These patterns

were closely tied to race, social class, and neighborhood characteristics. Our work

highlights the import of attention to such disparities for PSCE, to facilitate its equitable

access among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated populations.

Keywords

postsecondary correctional education, social inequality, reintegration

1

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lindsey Livingston, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ

07102, USA.

Email: lindsey.livingston@rutgers.edu

Race and Justice

2014, Vol. 4(3) 212-245

ªThe Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/2153368714532952

raj.sagepub.com

In the wake of the federal Second Chance Act of 2007, and in response to decades of

harms resulting from mass incarceration in the United States (see Clear & Frost, 2013;

Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013; Western, 2007), postsecondary education for current

and former prisoners has witnessed a revitalization (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Ander-

son, 2013; Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2013; Gorgol & Sponsler, 2011;

Mercer, 2009; Vera Institute, n.d.; Wheeldon, 2011). This represents a significant turn

of events, after ‘‘changing attitudesand policies toward crime led to the elimination of

Pell Grant eligibility for prisoners through a provision in the Violent Crime Control

Act of 1994’’ (Gorgol & Sponsler, 2011, p. 6)—resulting in declines in both educa-

tional investments within prisons and the proportion of inmates able to participate in

college programming in carceral settings (Coley & Barton, 2006; Ubah, 2004).

Postsecondary correctional education (PSCE), and especially the conferment of a

college degree, offers the formerly incarcerated an important source of both human

and social capital (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Coley & Barton, 2006). This is particularly

salient, given a contemporary labor market characterized by ‘‘limitedopportunities for

long-term employment, human capital accumulation, career advancement, and bene-

fits’’ for those individuals who are less educated and bear the stigma of a criminal

record (Bushway, Stoll, & Weiman, 2007b, p. 4; Pager, 2003). Moreover, there is

fairly consistent evidence that higher educational attainment decreases recidivism

(Chappell, 2004; Davis et al., 2013). While most research on the benefits of carceral

postsecondary education has focused on college courses and/or degree offerings

within prisons (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Gorgol & Sponsler, 2011; Mercer, 2009;

Meyer, 2011), recent efforts to rebuild correctional higher education emphasize a

‘‘continuum that begins in prison and continues in the community after release’’ (Vera

Institute, n.d., p. 1).

Yet, opportunities for higher education are available to but a small proportion of

prisoners and former prisoners, and—given dramatic educational disparities by race

among the incarcerated population (Pettit, 2012)—such opportunities are patterned by

larger structural exclusions based on race, class, and place. As a consequence, carceral

postsecondary education disproportionately provides advantages to those individuals

whose postincarceration prospects are already likely to be better than most (see Fader,

2013; King, 2012), presenting a significant obstacle for overcoming the inequalities

intensified by mass incarceration. Moreover, while the inclusion of a postrelease

component is believed to increase the impact of postsecondary educational access

(Davis et al., 2013, p. 36), thus far, very limited research has focused on the experi-

ences of former prisoners in higher education venues within the community.

What unique challenges might exist for formerly incarcerated students in these

settings? And, more importantly, how are these differentially distributed and

experienced as a result of race and class inequalities among such students? These are

the questions we investigate here. We draw from in-depth interviews with a diverse

group of students in a postincarceration higher education program at a large state uni-

versity to examine how pre- and postcarceral financial, familial, community, and

social network contexts shape postsecondary educational experiences after incarcera-

tion. Our work offers insights into the complex ways by which disparities of race,

Livingston and Miller 213

class, and place affect these students’ preparedness, opportunities for engagement,

cultural adjustment, and struggles in the program and within the university setting

more broadly. Attention to these challenges, we argue, is critical for facilitating more

equitable access to the benefits of community-based postsecondary education for

formerly incarcerated students.

The Value of Postsecondary Education for Postincarceration Success

Why might universities offer significant promise as anchoring institutions that can

meaningfully improve the lives of former prisoners? Scholars concerned with reentry,

desistance, and reintegration often point to two other social institutions as especially

significant for postincarceration success: labor market participation (Apel & Sweeten,

2010; Bushway et al., 2007b; Visher, Debus-Sherrill, & Yahner, 2011) and marriage

(Bersani & Doherty, 2013; Giordano, Cherkovich, & Rudolf, 2002; Laub, Nagin, &

Sampson, 1998). Eachis believed to contribute to desistance andcommunity reintegra-

tion by promoting multiple processes of change: facilitating identity transformation;

building attachments to prosocial community members and institutions; changing

routine activities and facilitating a ‘‘knifing off’’ with prior criminal ‘‘people, places,

and things’’; and restricting opportunities for involvement in crime (see Bersani &

Doherty, 2013, pp. 401–406 for a concise overview).

Yet, when considered in the context of the deep racial and class disparities in

contemporary America, both labor market participation and marriage hold much more

limited promise and greater challenges for socially and economically disadvantaged

former prisoners, particularly urban minority men: ‘‘A key result of race-based social

isolation is that racially segregated areas are marked by high levels of joble-

ssness ...and marital disruptions’’ (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008, p. 307; see

also Ford & Schroeder, 2011, p. 35). Indeed, as King (2012, p. 331) surmises, the

emphasis on marriage and work are ‘‘heavily rooted in middle-class experiences, and

do not incorporate a recognition of the structural reality that many would-be desisters

face in their everyday lives.’’ Moreover, the marriage effect is gendered, showing

stronger positive impact on male than female desistance (King, Massoglia, & MacMil-

lan, 2007).

Consider, first, the contemporary labor market faced by those released from prison.

Formerly incarcerated individuals, particularly those without educational credentials,

are typically ‘‘confined to the ‘spot’ secondary [labor] market,’’ where they ‘‘tend to

churn in and out of a series of dead-end jobs’’ (Bushway et al., 2007b, p. 4; see also

Visher et al., 2011). Indeed, research consistently shows that ‘‘incarceration has a

long-run, detrimental impact on one’s employment prospects by reducing the prob-

ability of employment, increasing the length of unemployment, eroding wages and

earnings, and exacerbating turnover’’ (Apel & Sweeten, 2010, p. 451). Such problems

are exacerbated when former prisoners return to disadvantaged communities. These

offer markedly poor job prospects (Bushway et al., 2007b) and may facilitate both

labor market detachment (Apel & Sweeten, 2010) and a turn to illicit income gener-

ation to meet pressing economic needs (Fader, 2013; Uggen & Thompson, 2003).

214 Race and Justice 4(3)