We wanted to disseminate an executive summary from a research luncheon held at this year’s National Conference on Higher Education in Prison (NCHEP). Several current and former EJP members participated in the discussion including Ashton Klekamp, Rob Scott, Paméla Cappas-Toro, and Mollie Hosmer-Dillard. Erin Castro (pictured here), former EJP instructor who co-founded the University of Utah Prison Education Project, was a presenter. NCHEP took place in New Orleans on April 10-11, 2025.

“I was excited to participate in this conversation with colleagues from across the nation,” says Ashton Klekamp, EJP’s Policy & Research Director, “about building a research agenda for higher education in prison. It was a pleasure to share out about current EJP research projects, brainstorm ways for a research network to emerge in our field, and reconnect with former EJP members.”

Thanks to Ascendium for hosting this important discussion during NCHEP and to The Research Collaborative on Higher Education in Prison for providing this executive summary.

Participants were asked to engage in a discussion around three central questions about current research priorities, pressing knowledge gaps, and the role of a collaborative research community in advancing the field of higher education in prison.

Below is the full executive summary:  

Question 1: From where you sit, what is one thing that you want to empirically know about HEP?

Participants responded to the first question by identifying a wide range of empirical questions. A core area of interest is understanding the impact of HEP post-release, especially in terms of employment and career outcomes, both compared to incarcerated individuals who did not participate in HEP and to non-incarcerated populations. Participants emphasized the importance of tracking educational trajectories and the role of HEP in building social capital, strengthening family ties, and contributing to community impact. Participants also raised questions about how HEP access and outcomes differ by geography. There was also strong interest in defining and measuring success in HEP. Participants discussed the need for comparative metrics and questioned whether standard higher education benchmarks apply or if a distinct framework is needed for HEP. Questions also arose around the utility of specific degrees and what return on investment (ROI) looks like for students and funders. The need for sustainable funding models and data on the scope, access, and equity of programs was also stressed.

Additional questions focused on the student experience and learning environments. Participants raised the importance of understanding the effects of instructional modality, curricular practices, and support services. The role of faculty involvement and institutional and programmatic dynamics were also named as critical areas of inquiry. There was also a call for population-specific and identity-based research, including how demographics factors like age, gender, and race shape learning experiences. Broader systems and policy intersections were also discussed, including jurisdictional differences, policy impacts, program tensions with corrections, and how HEP programs influence systems beyond the incarcerated.

Question 2: Zooming out, what do you see as the most pressing research right now in HEP?

Participants identified several pressing areas of research that are critical to advancing the field of HEP, particularly in a time of political uncertainty and heightened scrutiny. A central theme was the urgent need to demonstrate the societal value and ROI of HEP programs. As federal funding faces potential cuts, participants noted that policymakers and funders increasingly demand data rather than moral arguments. Participants emphasized the need for research that captures both quantitative and qualitative impacts. Moving beyond recidivism as the dominant outcome measure was a recurring theme, including to HEP’s influence on correctional staff, institutional culture, and intergenerational benefits. Participants pointed to the human elements of HEP (e.g, relationship-building, empathy, and mentorship) as essential student support strategies and worthy areas of research. Studying them requires stronger data infrastructure.

Participants pointed out that the field continues to struggle with inaccessible or fragmented data systems, which limits the ability to track student progression, measure program effectiveness, and identify areas for improvement. A centralized system with standardized metrics and shared definitions was named as important for scaling programs and establishing their credibility. Furthermore, participants stressed the need for institutional coordination, including improved communication between prisons, colleges, and reentry services to avoid service gaps and duplication.

Finally, structural and political challenges were identified as areas that require anticipatory and adaptive research. With frequent policy shifts, HEP programs need models that can endure changing political climates. Participants also called for comparative studies to determine what works, for whom, and under what conditions, especially in light of equity concerns and the expansion of distance learning.

Question 3: What would you like from a HEP research community?

Participants expressed a strong desire for more collaboration and community building, including national and regional coordination, rotating state representation, and regular convenings. A centralized online hub was proposed to support research sharing across the country. The idea that funders could incentivize collaboration and support evaluation capacity within programs was also put forth.

Another major theme was the need for robust data infrastructure and more context-sensitive evaluation models. Participants advocated for a national dashboard or repository with clear data standards and reciprocal data-sharing practices that give programs access to and ownership over their own data. There was also a shared call to move beyond recidivism as the default metric, suggesting instead longitudinal tracking that captures education progress, reentry outcomes, and the experiences of students serving long or life sentences. Participants also called for evaluation tools that reflect the realities of prison based education and center educational goals.

Finally, participants emphasized the importance of equity, sustainability, and practice-informed research. This includes hiring and empowering researchers with lived experience, incorporating peer review by impacted communities, and decentering structural privilege in who leads and participates in the space. Participants argued that research should produce timely, actionable insights, directly informed by the experiences of incarcerated students, and designed to support program sustainability, cultural change with carceral settings, and the long-term viability of HEP.