CT prisons offer college courses. Lack of space, resources is limiting enrollment – CT Mirror

Advancing Sustainable Development Goals Through Higher Education in Connecticut’s Correctional Facilities

A significant gap exists between the demand for higher education among incarcerated individuals in Connecticut and the system’s capacity to provide it. This report analyzes the barriers preventing the expansion of these crucial programs, framing the issue within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Addressing these challenges is essential for achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Current Educational Access for Incarcerated Individuals

Enrollment Disparity and Unmet Demand

The current state of post-secondary education within Connecticut’s prison system reveals a substantial unmet need, directly impacting the state’s progress toward providing inclusive and equitable lifelong learning opportunities as outlined in SDG 4.

• Approximately 3,000 incarcerated individuals are eligible for higher education programs.
• As of October 2024, only about 320 individuals were enrolled.
• Educational providers like the Yale Prison Education Initiative can only admit 12 to 15 students annually from hundreds of applicants due to resource constraints.

Assessment from State and Program Leaders

Daniel Karpowitz, Undersecretary at the Office of Policy and Management, described the situation as an “astounding” level of unmet need and a “staggering” failure to utilize available federal funding. This highlights a missed opportunity to invest in human capital and reduce systemic inequalities.

Systemic Barriers to Achieving SDG 4 and SDG 10

Primary Obstacles Identified

A March report from the Office of Policy and Management identified key barriers that hinder educational access. These obstacles create a digital and opportunity divide, working against the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Lack of designated classroom space.
2. Limited availability of technology and internet access.
3. Insufficient administrative and academic support for students.
4. Unclear pathways to graduation for individuals released before degree completion.

Technological and Logistical Deficiencies

The lack of modern educational tools severely limits the quality of education and fails to prepare students with skills necessary for re-entry, a key component of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Students and professors in the Yale program lack internet access, making research an “extremely onerous and lengthy process.”
• Many students do not have access to laptops to learn essential software like Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, widening the digital divide upon their release.
• All teaching materials require pre-approval by the Department of Correction, stifling spontaneous and dynamic instruction.

Opportunities for Expansion and Alignment with Global Goals

Financial Mechanisms: The Pell Grant Opportunity

The restoration of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals in 2023 represents a major federal intervention that can be leveraged to advance SDG 4. This funding provides tuition stipends of approximately $7,400 per student for the 2025-26 academic year, but its potential is unrealized without corresponding infrastructure improvements.

State-Level Investments and Partnerships (SDG 17)

Collaborative efforts are underway, reflecting the importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) in achieving sustainable development.

• The Department of Correction received $3 million in relief funds to expand high-speed broadband at five correctional institutions.
• The state has identified 1 million square feet across correctional campuses for broadband installation.
• Partnerships between state agencies and higher education institutions, including Yale University, Wesleyan University, Trinity College, Quinnipiac University, and CT State Community College, are foundational to the programs.

Socio-Economic Impact and Contribution to SDGs

Reducing Recidivism and Strengthening Institutions (SDG 16)

Education during incarceration is a proven strategy for promoting safer communities and more effective institutions, directly contributing to SDG 16.

• Studies confirm that educational programs reduce the likelihood of an individual returning to prison.
• These opportunities foster self-worth and prosocial behavior, creating a safer prison environment for both staff and the incarcerated population.

Fostering Economic Growth and Reducing Inequality (SDG 8 & SDG 10)

The programs provide a pathway to economic self-sufficiency and have a multi-generational impact on reducing inequality.

• Graduates have successfully started businesses and secured employment at organizations that support incarcerated people.
• When an incarcerated person pursues a college degree, the high school graduation rates within their family also increase, addressing intergenerational inequality.

Persistent Operational Challenges

Resource and Infrastructure Limitations

Despite available funding, physical and technological limitations remain the primary bottleneck.

• Wesleyan’s program operates in a “one-room schoolhouse” environment, sharing limited space with other programs.
• The lack of internet prevents the use of modern teaching aids and access to virtual student services like tutoring and office hours.
• Pell Grants do not fully cover program costs, requiring colleges to supplement with private grants and donations.

Institutional Hurdles

Operational protocols within the correctional system can disrupt educational progress.

• The common practice of transferring individuals between facilities can halt their academic journey.
• Facility lockdowns reduce instructional time and impede students’ ability to complete coursework.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the central theme of the article. The entire text focuses on the challenges and importance of providing higher education (tertiary education) to incarcerated individuals in Connecticut. It discusses the high demand for these programs versus the limited supply, the role of financial aid like Pell Grants, and the overall goal of ensuring educational opportunities for this marginalized group.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article explicitly identifies the lack of infrastructure as a primary barrier to expanding educational programs. This includes both physical infrastructure, such as a “shortage of classrooms,” and digital infrastructure, highlighted by the “lack of internet access” and the need for laptops. The state’s effort to use “$3 million in coronavirus relief funds to expand high-speed broadband access” directly relates to building resilient and inclusive infrastructure.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article addresses the inequality of opportunity faced by incarcerated people. They are a specific group excluded from the educational advancements available to the general population. The text notes the “great digital divide” they face upon release. The restoration of Pell Grant eligibility is a policy measure aimed at reducing this inequality, but the article shows that other systemic barriers prevent this policy from being fully effective.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The discussion is set within the context of the criminal justice system (correctional institutions). Providing education is presented as a key component of a more effective and rehabilitative justice system. The article states that “education during incarceration reduces the risk that someone will end up back in prison” and promotes “prosocial behavior, in turn, creating a safer prison environment for all.” This contributes to building more effective and accountable institutions that support peaceful and just societies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

     The article directly addresses this target by highlighting the gap between the “estimated 3,000 people who are eligible” for higher education in prison and the “320 incarcerated people” who were actually enrolled. The availability of Pell Grants is meant to make this education affordable, but lack of access remains the key issue.

   • Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

     The article mentions the need for students to learn “how to use word processing and presentation software like Microsoft Word and PowerPoint — skills that will be necessary once students have returned to their regular lives.” This directly relates to acquiring relevant skills for employment after release.

   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

     The article points to the failure to meet this target, citing a “shortage of classrooms” and describing the learning environment as a “‘one-room schoolhouse’ that is sometimes being used for other programs.” This lack of adequate facilities is a major barrier to creating an effective learning environment.

2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.

     The need for physical infrastructure (more classrooms) and digital infrastructure (broadband, laptops) within correctional facilities is a central point of the article. The state’s plan to install “high-speed broadband” across “1 million square feet” of prison campuses is a direct effort towards this target.

   • Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet.

     The article emphasizes that students and professors “don’t have internet access,” which creates an “extremely onerous and lengthy process” for research. The goal of providing laptops and internet for attending office hours via Zoom or Microsoft Teams directly aligns with increasing access to ICT.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… other status.

     Incarcerated individuals represent a group with “other status” facing significant barriers to social and economic inclusion. The article argues that providing education empowers them for “successful reentry” and helps them overcome the “great digital divide,” thereby promoting their inclusion in society post-release.

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome… by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

     The article details the history of Pell Grant eligibility, noting that Congress “barred incarcerated people from receiving Pell Grant funding” in 1994, a discriminatory policy. The restoration of eligibility in 2023 is a step towards ensuring equal opportunity, but the article shows that infrastructural barriers still create an inequality of outcome.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The article discusses the need for the Department of Correction (a state institution) to adapt and make changes to support educational programs. The challenges, such as facility lockdowns and student transfers that “halt their educational progress,” point to institutional practices that need to be improved for the institution to be more effective in its rehabilitative mission.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 (Quality Education)
   • Number of enrolled students: The article provides a baseline figure of “320 incarcerated people” enrolled in higher education programs. An increase in this number would indicate progress.
   • Enrollment rate: The ratio of enrolled students (320) to the eligible and interested population (3,000) is an indicator of access. Closing this gap would measure progress towards Target 4.3.
   • Program capacity: The article mentions the Yale program can “admit maybe 12 to 15 students per year.” Tracking the growth in admission capacity across all programs would be a key indicator.
   • Number of available classrooms: The description of having only “two classrooms at Cheshire” and “one classroom at York” for the Wesleyan program serves as a baseline indicator for educational facilities (Target 4.a).
2. For SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
   • Internet connectivity: The current status is that students “don’t have internet access.” An indicator of progress would be the percentage of incarcerated students with access to the internet for educational purposes.
   • Availability of technology: The article notes that “many students don’t have access to laptop computers.” The ratio of students to available computers would be a direct indicator of progress.
   • Infrastructure investment: The allocation of “$3 million in coronavirus relief funds” and the identification of “1 million square feet” for broadband installation are quantifiable indicators of investment in digital infrastructure.
3. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
   • Financial aid utilization: The article implies that millions of dollars in federal Pell Grant funding are not being used due to lack of capacity. The amount of Pell Grant funds successfully “drawn down” by incarcerated students would be an indicator of reduced financial barriers.
4. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)
   • Recidivism rates: The article implies a link between education and lower recidivism by stating that “education during incarceration reduces the risk that someone will end up back in prison.” Comparing the recidivism rates of program participants to the general prison population would be a key indicator of the institution’s effectiveness.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ctmirror.org