Reentry Education Model Implementation Study: Promoting Reentry Success through Continuity of…
Author(s): Erisman, Wendy.
Organizational Author(s): Strix Research, LLC and RTI International
U.S. Department of Education
Resource Availability: Publicly available
Evaluates the implementation of the Reentry Education Model through the Promoting Reentry Success Through Continuity of Educational Opportunities (PRSCEO) project – launched by the US Department of Education’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education – and provides recommendations that may improve career pathways for formerly incarcerated individuals.
“In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) released its Reentry Education Model, an evidence based effort “to bridge the gap between prison and community-based education and training programs.” (Tolbert 2012). The model focuses on establishing a strong program infrastructure, strengthening and aligning correctional and reentry education services, and integrating education into the correctional system. Three demonstration projects — two education providers working with county jails and another working with state prisons — were selected through a competitive process and received grant funding to help implement the model beginning in March 2013. This report uses observations from the first full year of the Promoting Reentry Success Through Continuity of Educational Opportunities (PRSCEO) demonstration projects to tell the story of each site’s implementation of the Reentry Education Model and to look across the three sites to identify the model’s strengths and limitations” (p.xi).
The implementation study, published in June 2015, was conducted to identify the strengths and weakness of the PRSCEO project and to improve the model. It relied mostly on qualitative data and “…included two visits to each site; interviews and focus groups with project leaders, staff, students, and partners; and a review of relevant documents for each project” (p.1).
“Following brief descriptions of the three demonstration projects, the report examines target audiences for the model, identifying key differences noted at the demonstration site working with state prisons versus the two working with county jails…Using the structure of the original model, the report then addresses the experiences of the demonstration sites under the broad categories of program infrastructure, education services, and intake and prerelease processes. Within each section, a discussion ensues about the ways in which the model can be revised to reflect the lessons learned at each of the PRSCEO demonstration sites during implementation of their projects” (p.2).”
(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)
Full publication title: Reentry Education Model Implementation Study: Promoting Reentry Success through Continuity of Educational Opportunities
Major Findings & Recommendations
The report found that, “Project staffs at all three PRSCEO demonstration sites indicated that implementing the Reentry Education Model gave them a valuable opportunity to expand and improve their correctional and reentry education programs. Each site was able to identify a number of places in which the model improved its policies and practices, particularly those related to communication among partner agencies. On the other hand, the three sites indicated that the Reentry Education Model could also be strengthened by incorporating insights gleaned during the implementation study” (p.xi).
Based on lessons learned from the implementation study, the report makes recommendations to strengthen the Reentry Education Model, including the following:
“Clarify key differences between local jails and state prisons in discussing ways to implement the Reentry Education Model most effectively. This clarity can be achieved either by creating two versions of the model or by acknowledging the differences in more detailed discussions of model elements” (p.xi);
“Highlight the significance of strong partnerships in the Reentry Education Model by giving the topic equal weight as is given to program infrastructure, and discuss practices that help partnerships function effectively” (p.xii);
“Include a section on program capacity in the Reentry Education Model (under program infrastructure), and describe capacity issues that are essential to effectively implementing the model” (p.xii);
“Expand the Reentry Education Model’s definition of policy. Include local and institutional policy as areas for potential review during implementation of the model, while still noting the important role that state policy plays in correctional and reentry education programs” (p.xii);
“Retain the Reentry Education Model’s emphasis on evidence-based curricula and instructional practices. However, note that prison- and jail-based correctional education programs have different capacities for offering formal peer mentoring” (p.xii); and to
“Revise the Reentry Education Model to highlight transitions across different correctional and reentry education programs and settings. In particular, the model should acknowledge that some individuals are released without going through prerelease counseling and/or are not subject to supervision after their release” (p.xiii).
(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)
Workforce System Strategies Content Information
You Might Also Like
- Engaging Disconnected Young People in Education and Work: Fi...
- Partnerships Between Community Colleges and Prisons Providin...
- Framing the Opportunity: Eight State Policy Recommendations ...
- High Skills, High Wages 2008-2018: Washington's Strategic Pl...
- Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...