Prison Education in North Carolina:

An overview of perspectives and policies

Sarah Cline, Katie Craig, Madison Hurst,
Audrey Sapirstein, Henry Schoenhoff, and Keeshawn Sloan

 

 

December 2018

 

 

           

Table of Contents

Introduction 4
Policy Review  4
Context of Prison Education and Recidivism  5
Department of Public Safety Policies and Procedures 5
DPS Prison Policies 6
DPS Provided Educational Programs 7
Program Services 8
State Prison Education Legislation 9
Justice Reinvestment Act 9
Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act 9
Federal Prison Education Policy 10
Pell Grants 10
Title I, Part D: Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk Youth in Prison
Education
11
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 11
Policy Review Takeaways 12
Stakeholder Analysis 12
Takeaways from Interviews with Legislators 13
Takeaways from Interviews with DPS Personnel 14
Trends Across Interviews 15
Prison Reform Organizations 15
Missions & Programs 16
The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education 16
North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 17
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Carolina 17
Durham Literacy Center 17
North Carolina Citizens United for Restorative Effectiveness (NC-CURE) 18
Successes and Barriers 18
Trends in Successes and Obstacles 20
Conclusions  21
Bibliography 29

 

             

 

 

Introduction

Introduction

To assist WiderNet as they begin working in North Carolina state prisons, our team compiled an analysis of political and structural factors that could inhibit or facilitate the reception and implementation of the Corrections Off-Line Education Platform (COEP). The COEP is an off-line digital library that provides a secure internet-like experience for users in detention, treatment and other institutions lacking adequate internet access.[1]

Our team had three primary goals in mind as we structured the scope of this project. The first was to understand which policies have shaped and continue to influence North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) educational programs. To gather this information our team conducted a review of state and federal policies, legislation, and programs, to assess their relevance to correctional education programs in North Carolina, and identify barriers and opportunities presented by these policies, legislation, and programs. One key finding is that multiple policies offer potential funding opportunities for the COEP.

The second goal was to understand what key stakeholders are discussing and prioritizing in regard to prison education. Through interviews with legislators and DPS staff, our team identified common trends in stakeholders’ values, concerns, and considerations. These trends included: the consistent recognition of education as a tool for reducing recidivism, and the prioritization of safety for DPS staff and incarcerated individuals in the face of staffing shortages, which compete with education initiatives for funding.

Finally, our team sought to understand what other organizational actors have been involved with the NC prison system and what insights they have gathered through their work. To achieve this goal our team interviewed individuals involved with five local nonprofit organizations about both the work they are involved in and the setbacks and successes they have faced. Multiple interviewees discussed funding concerns and logistical considerations for installing the COEP.

The paper begins with the policy review, continues with a stakeholder analysis, and concludes with an overview of prison reform organizations.

Policy Review

Research supports the conclusion that education reduces recidivism, however, a number of policies and legislation impact the availability and accessibility of prison education in North Carolina prisons. This includes: North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) policies and state legislation, as well as federal programs and legislation. Some policies such as library services and case manager procedures create barriers to WiderNet’s installation of the COEP in North Carolina prisons, while other policies such as the Second Chance Pell Grant Program, Title I, Part D; the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act
create opportunities for installation.  

Context of Prison Education and Recidivism

In 2018, the RAND Corporation reported that offering educational services to incarcerated individuals reduces recidivism rates.[2] There is potential for realizing the positive effects of education presented in the RAND report within North Carolina state prisons. The philosophy of Education Services in North Carolina prisons aligns well with the findings of the RAND report, stating “correctional education is an integral part of the total correctional process […] capable of changing inmate behaviors so those offenders become productive members of the community.”3 Although not a policy or legislation, the findings from the RAND report, specifically that for every dollar spent on prison education, four dollars are saved on prison costs,4 offer a positive way to frame prison education as both a way to reduce recidivism and reduce costs.

Department of Public Safety Policies and Procedures

 

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) consists of the Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ) and Division of Professional Standards (DSPP). Any changes to correctional facilities in North Carolina go through DPS. The DACJJ oversees the care, custody, and supervision of incarcerated individuals.[3]DPS creates policies and guidelines that shape the daily lives of incarcerated people and the programs provided to them, and the DACJJ is responsible for executing these policies.

The Division of Professional Standards, Policy and Planning (DPSPP) oversees education programming and services within DPS and offers recommendations for administrative and policy changes.[4] This division is also responsible for conducting internal audits of DPS and presides over administrative hearings about the rules and regulations of DPS.7 Since DPSPP is responsible for recommending improvements within the prison system,[5]they could be a key partner in installing the COEP, especially if WiderNet could help DPSPP see that the COEP represents an opportunity to improve library services in prisons.

DPS Prison Policies

The Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ) governs day-to-day operations across all North Carolina state prisons. This division developed a series of policies and procedures, more specifically, recreation and library services that could be used as an opportunity for WiderNet to leverage the COEP.

The first policy, regarding recreational services, states: “recreation is [beneficial to the] mental and
physical well-being [of incarcerated individuals],” and describes procedures for the implementation of recreation programs, such as arts and crafts.[6]Since the COEP offers more than 35 million educational resources, such as books, and periodicals,[7] the COEP could use its educational platform to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of incarcerated individuals, as stated in the recreational services policy.

Another relevant policy for WiderNet outlines library services in prisons. The policy states: the “department provides staff and inmates in correctional facilities access to library services necessary for education, cultural, and leisure activity.”[8] In addition, the policy describes procedures for the coordination and supervision of libraries.12 The policy also defines a hierarchy of library staff within prisons. At the top of the hierarchy is the Division of Prisons Library Coordinator who oversees a facility program specialist, library assistants, inmate library clerks, and school principals; all of whom facilitate the operation of the libraries.[9] Additionally, the policy states that each facility must have a qualified library technician or volunteer to operate the library.[10]

While in theory this policy would help serve incarcerated individuals’ educational interests, the current implementation of this policy may present a barrier; as of 2018, there was one librarian dedicated to the entire prison education system, suggesting that the policy may not be ensuring that all inmate have adequate access to library services.[11] The COEP might improve library services in state prisons for recreational and educational uses, regardless of DPS’ ability to fully staff all of the libraries, by allowing the incarcerated to access library materials through an intraweb. The library materials are for the most part self-sufficient and would not require extensive oversight in the same way that a library technician would need to maintain extensive records of when books were checked out and returned.

DPS Provided Educational Programs

The Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice implements a range of educational and library services across 55 correctional facilities, including some that have more advanced library and educational services and others that have more limited resources.[12]

The inconsistency in availability and accessibility to library services across the 55 prisons, as seen by the map below and further detailed in Appendix A, represents an opportunity for WiderNet. Since many prison library services rely on donations of books and learning materials,[13] COEP could serve as a tool to ensure a
uniform statewide collection of library materials across all facilities. For the entities that provide education services in the prisons, the availability of a uniform library collection could make lesson planning easier, as instructors would know what materials their students have available to them. Also, the COEP would ensure the materials available to incarcerated individuals include more current materials and that incarcerated individuals have the opportunity to use the educational and skills software installed on the COEP, resources not necessarily available in traditional prison libraries.

Map Showing Educational Services by Prison (County is used to Illustrate)

*Based on Prison Education Services 2015 Annual Report

Eight correctional facilities either upgraded or implemented library software, primarily using Auto-Librarian or ResourceMate, both of which help librarians or staff in managing their materials. Although almost all North Carolina prisons would benefit from such systems, only eight out of 55 prisons were able to install them, exemplifying the uneven distribution of resources.[14] While some facilities have made upgrades there is still limited availability of existing materials provided to incarcerated individuals. Interviewees pointed to a lack or misallocation of funds and gaps in personnel, such as library consultants, to explain incarcerated people’s lack of access to library materials.19  

Program Services

The Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ) controls the case management of incarcerated individuals. According to the DACJJ case manager policy, last updated in 2017, case managers may recommend inmates for educational services based on interest, ability, need, and the amount of time left in their sentence.[15] Incarcerated individuals are given a risk and needs assessment upon entry into the correctional system. From there, case managers determine educational programs to promote the best outcomes. However, the policy states that if an assessment is not conducted, case managers can decide which educational programs the incarcerated individual can enroll in.21 Under this system, case managers act as gatekeepers for educational programs in prisons because they ultimately have the final decision regarding access to educational services, potentially limiting access for incarcerated individuals. The DACJJ case manager policy has led to differing levels of educational attainment among individuals within prisons because incarcerated individuals are responsible for seeking out the programs and are admitted on a case-by-case basis.[16] Due to the staffing and funding shortages at DPS, it is unlikely that resources would be devoted to advertising educational programs to inmates not referred to a program by a case manager. This means that those not referred to an educational program by a case manager are not likely to be aware of the existence of educational programs and even less likely to enroll in those programs.

            Each prison is distinct in regards to the resources and programs that are offered, which presents a barrier to incarcerated individuals’ access to educational services. Depending on the prison security level there could be restrictions placed on an incarcerated individual’s educational opportunities.23 This could be a
contributing factor to the relatively small number of incarcerated individuals enrolled in educational programs systemwide. According to the Annual Report, in FY 2014-2015, 1,859 incarcerated individuals earned their high school equivalency diploma while incarcerated, 923 earned post-secondary degrees/diplomas, and 1,217 earned vocational certificates in various programs, resulting in 3,999 individuals gaining tangible education outcomes.[17] Comparatively, there were 37,000 incarcerated individuals in total during the same year.25 The lack of statistics on inmate demand for education services makes it difficult to determine the shortcomings in program offerings, but these statistics suggest there may be a significant gap.  

State Prison Education Legislation

Prison education is affected by state laws. North Carolina passed a series of prison policy reforms in the past several years. These reforms include the 2017 Justice Reinvestment Act as well as the 2017 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which are designed not only to reduce incarceration rates, but also to improve the quality of adult and juvenile correctional education.[18] These laws and reforms show legislative interest in improving the state prison system and the educational programs provided within those prisons.

Justice Reinvestment Act

The passage of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) happened in the midst of a reduction in the prison population, which has declined by more than 3,000 inmates since 2011.[19]The goal of the JRA is to reduce state spending on state correctional facilities and to reinvest the projected savings into community-based
educational programs.31 Under the provisions of the JRA, offenders are eligible to participate in a variety of vocational and academic programs offered by the DACJJ. The array of education services provided is intended to meet the wide variety of needs of inmates, including teaching skills required to be contributing members of their communities upon release.[20] The passage of the JRA represents an opportunity for WiderNet to publicize how the content available on COEP could complement the vocational and academic programs being offered under this legislation.

Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act

The Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (JJRA) was included in the 2017 state budget, raising the age
of criminal responsibility to 18 years old, and ending the controversial practice of prosecuting teen offenders as adults beginning at 16 years old.[21]

In September 2015, the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice (NCCALJ) was convened to study North Carolina’s court system and make recommendations on improvements.[22] The NCCALJ Committee on Criminal Investigation and Adjudication identified “juvenile reinvestment” as a top priority and developed a proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility with input from a diverse group of stakeholders, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, juvenile justice representatives, and judges.[23] These findings have been compiled into a Juvenile Reinvestment Report, which found that rehabilitating youthful offenders in juvenile court will reduce crime and save money.32 The NCCALJ concluded that the Juvenile Justice System could improve existing policies by implementing better
educational and community-based programs.[24] Based on this recommendation lawmakers raised the age of criminal responsibility for nonviolent crime to age 18, effective December 1, 2019.[25]

Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction is projected to significantly increase the number of youth in the
juvenile justice system by adding a new population of 16 and 17-year old inmates, who were previously tried in the adult system, to the juvenile system, and by extending the number of years available for youth to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile system.35 Due to the likelihood of repeated detentions for youth, once detained, it is estimated that juvenile offenders will spend nearly one-third of their adolescence incarcerated.[26]To mitigate the effects of repeated detentions, the JJRA includes provisions intended to integrate community-based programs, which are educational programs targeting youth at risk of committing crimes.37 Due to WiderNet’s ability to change the content loaded onto the libraries, materials could be specialized for the juvenile offender population.

Federal Prison Education Policy

            Although most prison reform policies are occurring at the state level, some federal education and prison policies – such as Pell Grants, Title I, Part D; as well as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act – present opportunities for funding WiderNet efforts.

Pell Grants

One of the largest barriers to facilitating prison education is the scarcity of financial resources at both
the state and local levels.[27] One recent development lends support for providing Pell Grants to incarcerated individuals. The Department of Education’s Second Chance Pell Grant program, launched by the Obama administration in 2015, allows students who may be released within five years to receive Pell Grants and pursue postsecondary education with the goal of reducing recidivism.[28] The Second Chance Act of 2008 (distinct from the Second Chance Pell Grant program) was recently reauthorized and provides federal funds to states, local governments, and nonprofits to support education programs and employment opportunities. These provisions present an opportunity for WiderNet to request federal funds to support the installation of COEP in North Carolina prisons. Because Pell Grants are meant to cover the cost of student attendance, not resources for educational platforms like COEP, to circumvent this policy guideline, WiderNet could work with the DPS officials and educational service coordinators to identify ways to incorporate the operating costs of COEP into the cost of inmate’s attendance, which is covered by the Pell Grant.

Title I, Part D: Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk Youth in Prison Education

Title I, Part D provides federal financial assistance to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to help correctional facilities improve educational services in local and state institutions.[29] The ability of incarcerated individuals to participate in educational services is determined by their satisfaction of certain criteria. In particular, to be eligible for education support under Title I, Part D; an incarcerated individual must be:

●       under the age of 21,

●       the recipient of a public education, and,

●    enrolled in a regular program of instruction supported by non-federal funds for at least 20 hours per week (15 hours per week for students in adult correctional facilities).[30]

While qualification for educational services under Title I, Part D; can be difficult, those who enroll in these programs would benefit from the breadth of materials available in the COEP, presenting an opportunity for WiderNet to explore funding the installation of COEP using Title I, Part D, Subpart 1, State Agency Neglected and Delinquent Program. The program provides formula grants to SEAs for supplementary education services to help provide education programs for juvenile and adult correctional institutions.[31] Funds are allocated by formula to SEAs, which make subgrants to state agencies, such as DPS, that are responsible for educating neglected or delinquent children and youths.[32]

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) is a federal law that led to massive reforms of the juvenile system and continues to mandate the care and custody of children involved in the penal system.[33] The JJDPA was passed by Congress in 1974,45 and was reauthorized in 2017.[34] The recent reauthorization of the JJDPA includes several modifications to juvenile justice programs under the formula grant program, a subsection of the act. The JJDPA allows the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to make formula grants to states which can be used to fund projects that decrease
the risk of juvenile recidivism.[35] States receive funding based on the percentage of incarcerated people who are under 18 years old.[36] In order to receive funds outlined by the JJDPA, states have to abide by four
requirements:[37]

●       “States must deinstitutionalize their status offenders (such as truants);

●       States cannot detain or confine juveniles in facilities in which they would have
contact with adult inmates;

●       States cannot detain or confine juveniles in any jail or lockup for adults; and,

●       States must show that they are working to address the issue of disproportionate
minority contact within their juvenile justice system.”50

JJDPA represents another opportunity for WiderNet to leverage federal funds for COEP by using funds from the Juvenile Justice and Education Collaborate Assistance program. WiderNet could work with state juvenile detention centers to highlight their use of education and skill development programs as effective means of reducing delinquency among offenders and demonstrate how COEP could be an asset to these
programs.

Policy Review Takeaways 

            Many state and federal policies and programs are involved in providing education to incarcerated people in state prisons. Federal programs, such as the Pell Grant, and Title I, present opportunities to access federal funding to install COEP in state prisons. As the RAND Corporation report demonstrates, receiving education while in prison decreases recidivism rates and lowers future costs, which could be useful information to cite when discussing with state legislators the need for increased funding for educational programs in prisons.

Stakeholder Analysis

North Carolina Prison education is largely governed by the North Carolina General Assembly and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS). While the NC General Assembly governs overarching laws and funding, DPS enforces these laws and creates its own internal policies.[38] In order to understand the attitudes and influence of decision makers within each of these bodies, we conducted a series of interviews with North Carolina State Legislators and North Carolina Department of Public Safety personnel. The interviewees understood the importance of prison education and its role in reducing recidivism; however, many of the stakeholders interviewed said that before attention could be paid to improving educational opportunities within prisons, staffing vacancies needed to be filled in order to ensure safety and security. Interviewees also discussed challenges to implementing further educational resources and programs caused by logistical shortcomings, such as spacing and funding.

Takeaways from Interviews with Legislators

            The North Carolina General Assembly is responsible for making laws regarding prisons and prison education as well as appropriating funds for DPS.[39] We specifically reached out to legislators on education or prison-related committees such as the Committee of Appropriations on Justice and Public Safety and the Committee of Education/Higher Education. Members of these committees should have the most familiarity with prison education and bills related to its advancement because these committees would be the first point of entry for any such legislation.[40] We interviewed NC Senator Valerie Foushee (D-Chatham & Orange Counties)[41] as well as Dylan Arant, the legislative assistant to NC Senator Jeff Jackson (D-Mecklenburg County).[42] We reached out to several other legislators including Senator Michael Lee, Senator Shirley Randleman, and Representative James Boles, but found that they were unable to speak with us due to time constraints posed by the election season.[43]

Both Foushee and Arant believed prison education to be important and impactful, but they stated that the legislature has not made it a priority.57 Arant discussed that for many senators addressing vacancies in prison staffing is a competing priority with improving educational opportunities in prisons.58 Foushee and Arant both
stated that their offices’ interactions with DPS are fairly minimal,59 primarily dealing with operations or budgeting questions.[44]

Arant stated that he is unaware of any significant prison education-related legislation in progress however,
did discuss that Senator Floyd McKissick worked on bill to give inmates tablets to improve access to education and manage inmate behavior; this bill did not garner much support.[45] Future research could examine the
specific dynamics underlying why Senator Floyd McKissick’s bill was unable to gain enough support to move forward in the General Assembly.[46]

Takeaways from Interviews with DPS Personnel

NCDPS makes internal policies regarding prison operations and prison education. We reached out to several key
players within DPS and interviewed Kenneth Lassiter, the Director of Prisons,[47] and Nicole Sullivan, the Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services.[48] We also reached out to the Librarian Consultant, Community College Liaison, and Legislative Affairs Director, who all referred us back to Nicole Sullivan as
the best resource for information on the topic of educational opportunities and reform within prisons.[49]

Like those in the NC General Assembly, Lassiter and Sullivan emphasized the importance of prison education, stating that the purpose of prison education is both to reduce recidivism and prepare incarcerated individuals for reentry into society.[50] The interviewees stated that education was a high priority for NCDPS and that they have many partnerships with community colleges that provide incarcerated individuals with great resources.67 Lassiter did note, however, that safety of the public, his staff, and incarcerated individuals is the top priority for NCDPS, suggesting that necessary security measures would supersede improvements to educational resources, should the two compete for funding and staffing.[51] Local news stories have noted that understaffed prisons can be the scenes of increased violence; a DPS update revealed that in 2017 five prison employees were killed while working.[52] Lassiter also stated that acquiring funding for prison education is difficult because some members of the public and legislature still do not recognize the importance of spending on these programs due to their own prejudices towards incarcerated individuals.[53] Despite this difficulty, he characterized the relationship between DPS and the General Assembly as positive.[54] One additional barrier pointed out by Sullivan was logistical concerns, such as space to facilitate new programs, especially those requiring specific technology. Currently, many prisons are limited in the amount of space they have and how these spaces can safely be used for incarcerated individuals.72  

Trends Across Interviews

            The interviews highlighted several key takeaways for WiderNet. Among the DPS staff and legislators we spoke with, prison education was viewed as a valuable tool for reducing recidivism.73 Because COEP is a tool for increasing educational opportunities to incarcerated individuals, it would likely be viewed in a positive light by these interviewees. However, multiple interviewees discussed limitations to new programs due to resource constraints, such as space and funding.[55] These concerns might limit the appreciation of COEP as an educational tool; administrators may overlook the potential benefits due to the perceived burdens of finding space, the necessary security to prevent internal violence, and other technical details required with the installation of COEP. Logistical concerns are exacerbated by understaffing, which limits oversight for education programs; while recruiting to reduce vacancies competes for additional funding.[56] Due to the costs of installing COEP, these constraints may pose barriers for WiderNet. Lastly, these stakeholders maintain a positive working relationship with one another but do not interact extensively.[57] Since DPS deals more with the implementation of specific programs, while legislators focus on funding allocation and policy making,[58] DPS may be a more influential stakeholder for programs such as COEP in the immediate future, while further efforts to reframe the narrative about the explicit returns to education namely, the potential for more secure prisons, are made in the legislature.

Prison Reform Organizations

Non-profit organizations play a pivotal role in establishing an agenda surrounding prison reform. Their perspectives provide insight into how policy, administrators and organizations all work together to establish policies and practices supportive of prison education. We conducted interviews with five organizations involved in prison education in North Carolina to understand the nature of existing partnerships between these organizations and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) and to identify successes and barriers faced by these organizations.

In selecting the organizations to interview, we began by compiling a list of the 12 largest North Carolina-based non-profit organizations that focus on advocacy and programming for currently and formerly incarcerated persons. We did this by consulting an online database of non-profit organizations known as Idealist.[59] We then categorized these organizations based on their primary mission: to assist individuals currently in prisons, to help formerly incarcerated people transition back into their communities, or to advocate for policy change. We narrowed the list of organizations from twelve to five based upon which organization’s goals best met these criteria were selected for the final analysis.

This section provides a brief summary of each interviewed organization’s mission, followed by a chart outlining the successes and barriers they identified in working on prison education reform. The section concludes with several key takeaways: inconsistencies in the perception of how prison staffing, vacancies, and funding for educational opportunities interact, and an overall understanding of the returns on investment of correctional education.

Missions & Programs

The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education

The Friday Center at UNC partners with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety in offering several different types of courses to eligible incarcerated people within North Carolina prisons.[60] The correctional education program is funded largely by the Inmate Welfare Fund; the Fund’s budget is based on
profits generated from commissary sales and phone calls made by incarcerated people.[61] Course offerings include self-paced correspondence courses and on-site classroom courses, such as Principles of Biology (BIOL 101).[62] Classroom courses are available in only seven prisons.[63] The self-paced correspondence courses
are conducted through the mail, and enrolled students receive class materials, such as textbooks, that they are allowed to keep.[64]

North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services

North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (NCPLS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit law firm that provides court
resources to inmates within the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice.[65] NCPLS is funded by a contract with the state to provide incarcerated individuals with meaningful access to the courts.[66] The NCPLS typically helps incarcerated individuals who have concerns about their past court processes and the conditions of their confinement.86 Most relevant to education reform is their Safe and Humane Jails Project, a program funded by a grant from the North Carolina Bar Association.87 The project ensures that inmates are provided necessities, such as medication or, in some instances, requested reading materials.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Carolina

            The ACLU of North Carolina, an affiliate of the National ACLU, works with a variety of communities throughout the state to promote equity in judicial practices. Their areas of focus include, but are not limited to, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ rights, and criminal justice reform. Nationally, the ACLU promotes its National Prison Project, which works to reduce constraints put on prisoners’ rights to read and write; activities that are “central to the ability of prisoners to retain their humanity.”[67] The organization aims to cut incarceration by 50% through their efforts. Within North Carolina, the primary focus is on ending cash bail.[68] Kristie PuckettWilliams, a field organizer in Charlotte working on the End Cash Bail in North Carolina campaign, explained that much of the organization’s work relies on providing information to policymakers about the problems the ACLU seeks to solve, including access to better prison education programs.[69] Puckett-Williams repeatedly referred to the education of policy makers and their constituents as integral in motivating the changes in policy and legislation suggested by the ACLU.[70]

Durham Literacy Center

            The Durham Literacy Center is a local non-profit organization with education programs throughout Durham County. Through a partnership with the Durham County Sheriff’s Office, the Durham Literacy Center provides the county’s detention centers with classes and resources for incarcerated individuals to attain their GED, learn life skills, and receive job-readiness training.[71] Supported largely by volunteers, the Durham Literacy Center relies heavily on community support in addition to grants and donations to fund its activities.93

North Carolina Citizens United for Restorative Effectiveness (NC-CURE)

            NC-CURE is an advocacy non-profit organization founded in 2007 after splitting from the National CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants).[72] The organization is membership driven, and is actively seeking funding through grants.[73] The advocacy work of NC-CURE centers around medical neglect, abuse, mental health disorders, nutrition, and more broadly, conditions of confinement for incarcerated individuals.[74] Conditions of confinement also include access to educational resources and programs that enhance the daily lives of incarcerated people.[75]

 Successes and Barriers

Based on interview data, Table 1 highlights the most significant successes and barriers that each organization faced while working on their respective missions. The table highlights the experiences of these organizations while working within the North Carolina prison system.

Table 1: Successes and Barriers in Working with North Carolina Prisons

             

Organization 

Successes

Barriers 

The Friday Center for Continuing Education

 

● Has a good relationship with the prisons

● Classes and materials are well received by incarcerated individuals

● Materials, such as books, seldom need to be
replaced

 

● Logistics, such as space for classes, are limited
● The fixed costs of installing
resources in the large number of facilities in North Carolina are significant

 

NC Prison Legal Services 

 

 

The public is expressing concern
about the effectiveness of excessive incarceration, which encourages officials to be more attentive to the concerns presented by NCPLS

 

The Safe and Humane Jails Project won a grant from the Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) that allows NCPLS to extend services beyond those that are part of their state contract and focus more specifically on inmate’s conditions of confinement

.

 

 

 

Educational programming is inconsistent across prison installations 

 

There is limited funding for DPS to do its job

 

Vacancies at DPS result in less attention devoted to inmates’ needs, and raise security concerns

 

Attracting people to work in extremely rural prisons is difficult

ACLU of NC

 

 

Maintains a partnership with NCDPS’s Reentry Council Collaborative which allows the ACLU to suggest improvements to policies about inmates’ transitions from prison to communities

 

Education is integral to these transitions[76]

 

 

 

Education is needed for policymakers who do not feel responsible for the issue or do not have facilities under their jurisdiction 

 

Existing funds within DPS are allocated in an inefficient manner

Durham Literacy Center

 

 

 

Facilitated Durham County Jail
becoming an approved site for GED testing by working with the testmaker and
local community college  The Literacy

 

Center’s program is becoming more
popular among incarcerated persons

Difficult to increase programs due to lack of volunteers and approval
processes (for example, background checks)

Space in jails is a constraint on
the number of classes offered

Incarcerated persons only allowed out of their cell
for programs for short periods of time each day, limiting time for courses 

Literacy rates of incarcerated
persons are very low, and there is often a need for pre-GED courses, which
are often unavailable in jails 

NC-CURE

● Has successfully collaborated with other entities, including the U.S. Department of Justice, to better protect inmates’ rights

● Positive working relationship with DPS, although this dynamic fluctuates based on the gubernatorial administration

 

● Unrealistic standards for an inmate to be
recommended by the case manager for certain secondary education programs● Recent violence in prisons within NC[77] has prompted the undoing of progressive policies and an increase in regulations

● Additional funding needed since it
is a struggle to remain volunteer based and membership supported

● Some inmates want to see additional
secondary education programs, but the primary focus appears to be on GED courses

● Primary concern of prison administration is security

             

Trends in Successes and Obstacles

There are several commonalities in the barriers and successes faced by these organizations. While most of the interviewees expressed that recognition of the benefits of correctional education has increased among legislators and DPS personnel that they interact with, interviewees emphasized that funding shortfalls, staffing issues, and logistical barriers persist.[78] Each of the organizations discussed the positive effects of education on reducing recidivism and increasing the well-being of incarcerated persons. Several organizations also spoke of the public’s increasing understanding of issues related to criminal justice and prison reform.[79]

Funding sources for the organizations varied; however, the availability of resources was emphasized by all of the interviewees as an important consideration and potential constraint on their activities. Several organizations receive funding through state contracts and tax revenues,[80] while others rely on grants, donations, and volunteers;[81] however, none of the organizations indicated that they are primarily funded through federal programs. Several organizations identified a lack of funding and resources for correctional
education in North Carolina as limitations to their work.[82] There was considerable disagreement among interviewees about how the issues of staffing and education interacted with each other, especially when discussing the allocation of funds. While a lack of funds for adequate staffing was identified as a major challenge and security concern for implementing prison education programs by some organizations,[83]others stated that the issue stemmed instead from a poor allocation of existing funds within DPS divisions and personnel.[84] Multiple organizations also noted that resources and staff availability varied across installations, creating inequalities in access to prison education programs across the state.[85] While it is unclear if these staffing and funding concerns stem from a lack of available resources or from inefficient allocation of funds, the understaffing issue was commonly cited as a barrier for implementing new education programs.

An additional barrier for the implementation of prison education programs is the structure of North Carolina’s state prison system. With 55 prisons of varying sizes spread throughout the state, each prison has unique installation challenges and considerations. One interviewee highlighted the issue that many prisons simply lack space and staff for running additional educational programs and services.[86] This interviewee also discussed the trade-offs between using funds to install educational programs in numerous smaller prisons versus larger more centralized prison systems; while smaller prisons may offer fewer existing programs, larger centralized prisons have the potential to reach more individuals with the same amount of resources.109

Conclusions   

            Our research revealed disparities in the availability of educational programs in prisons across the state; some offered postsecondary programs in collaboration with local universities while others only had the required GED programs and vocational training.[87] While it was unclear what led to these discrepancies, interviews with representatives from non-profit organizations and DPS officials highlighted multiple barriers to the implementation of prison education programs. These barriers include logistical considerations, such as the availability of space and staffing, as well as funding concerns. These barriers, in particular funding concerns on behalf of DPS administrators, pose obstacles to the introduction of new programs. Another challenge identified in interviews with legislators, DPS personnel, and representatives of nonprofit organizations is persistent understaffing in state prisons. These vacancies were cited as a cause for recent disorder in several prisons, leading to casualties among staff and incarcerated individuals. As a result, addressing the shortage of staffing has become one of the highest priorities for legislators and DPS administrators.

To overcome the challenge of threats to security and understaffing, the COEP has the opportunity to increase focus on education as a means to improve incarcerated individual’s sense of purpose and critical thinking skills. In this way, the COEP also helps to address safety concerns that are currently taking priority over educational spending and program implementation.

Policies and legislation at the federal and state levels are creating more opportunities for incarcerated individuals in the juvenile justice system to receive educational services while detained. WiderNet could capitalize on the growing demand for education for juvenile inmates and the available funding associated with providing these services by matching the installation of COEP to the educational needs of these institutions. By proposing both COEP and a plan to cover the cost of the system, WiderNet can overcome another challenge with funding new programs brought up by interviewees in all three segments.

WiderNet could emphasize the diversity and recency of the content on the COEP, contrasting the materials currently in prisons. The wide range of materials on COEP will enhance education programs, improve incarcerated persons’ access to job information, and provide an outlet for recreation. Specifically, the COEP allows for consistency in teaching materials, access to online courses not currently available to inmates for GED and vocational certifications, and a wider array of recreational reading material than prisons have space or funding for in their physical libraries.

Lastly, an empirical, powerful finding of the RAND report is that for every dollar invested in prison education programs, four to five dollars are saved in future incarceration costs.[88] Utilizing these findings to gain buy-in from stakeholders and the public could provide an opportunity for WiderNet to present the COEP as a cost saving initiative to decrease future spending within prisons.

There are several areas for further research that WiderNet could explore. One area, highlighted by the
interviews with NC legislators, includes the bills related to prison education and the distribution of tablets to inmates that failed to pass. Understanding why these bills did not garner widespread support could provide additional insight into the attitudes of legislators towards increased technology for prison education.

Another avenue for additional research would be to expand the scope of those interviewed. This should include additional legislators, particularly Republican legislators, as we only were able to speak with the offices of democratic members and the views of prison education may vary by political affiliation. Interviews with additional prison staff, specifically ground level staff working in the prisons themselves, rather than just those overseeing prison administration, could provide firsthand insight into the barriers mentioned, such as space and staffing, within each facility. These additional perspectives could help to hone WiderNet’s approach to these policy making bodies to gain their support for installing COEP in North Carolina prisons.

             

 

Appendix A: Services found in Correctional Institutions across North Carolina112

Institution

High School

Level Courses:

GED/ABE/

HSE113

Vocational Training

Post-

Secondary Classes

Human

Resource

Development

114

Cognitive

Behavioral

Intervention

115

Life Skills

Community College Partnerships

Albemarle Correctional

 

Stanly Community College

Alexander Correctional

 

 

Catawba Valley Community College

Avery Mitchell Correctional

 

 

 

Maryland Community College

Bertie Correctional

 

 

 

 

Martin Community College

Brown Creek Correctional

 

 

 

South Piedmont Community College

Burke CRV Center

 

 

 

 

 

Caldwell Correctional

 

 

 

Caldwell Community College

Caledonia Correctional

 

 

 

 

Halifax Community College

Carteret Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Carteret Community College

Caswell Correctional  

 

 

Piedmont

Community College

& UNC Outreach Program

Central Prison

 

 

Wake Technical Community College

Columbus

Correctional

 

 

 

Southeastern Community College


 

 

Institution

High School

Level Courses:

GED/ABE/

HSE116

Vocational Training

Post-

Secondary Classes

Human

Resource

Development

117

Cognitive

Behavioral

Intervention

118

Life Skills

Community College Partnerships

Craggy Correctional  

 

 

 

 

Asheville-Buncombe
Technical

Community College

Craven Correctional  

 

 

Craven Community College

Dan River Prison Work Farm

 

 

 

 

Piedmont Community College

DART Cherry Program

 

 

 

 

 

Foothills Correctional

 

 

 

Western Piedmont

Community College

& Appalachian State University

Mountain View Correctional

 

 

 

 

Nash Correctional

 

 

 

 

Nash Community College

Neuse Correctional

 

 

Wayne County Community College

New Hanover Correctional

 

 

 

 

Cape Fear Community College

Correctional

Institute
for

Women

 

 

 

Wake Tech & UNCCH

Harnett Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

North
Carolina

Central Community College

Hoke Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

High School

Level Courses:

GED/ABE/

HSE119

Vocational Training

Post-

Secondary Classes

Human

Resource

Development

120

Cognitive

Behavioral

Intervention

121

Life Skills

Community College Partnerships

Johnston Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Johnston Community College

Lanesboro Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Cleveland

Community College, Gaston College at

Lincoln Community College

Lumberton

Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Robeson
County

Community College

& National Center for Construction

Education and Research

Marion Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

McDowell Tech Community College

Morrison Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Richmond Community College

Odom

Correctional

 

 

 

Roanoke Chowan Community College

Orange Correctional

 

 

 

Piedmont

Community College

& UNC-CH

Pamlico Correctional

 

 

 

Pamlico Community College

Pender Correctional

 

 

 

 

Cape Fear Community College

 

Institution

High School

Level Courses:

GED/ABE/

HSE122

Vocational Training

Post-

Secondary Classes

Human

Resource

Development

123

Cognitive

Behavioral

Intervention

124

Life Skills

Community College Partnerships

Piedmont Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Polk Correctional

 

 

 

 

Rutherford Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Sanford Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Southern Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Swannanoa

Correctional

Center for Women

 

 

 

 

Tabor Correctional

 

 

 

 

 

Warren

Correctional

 

 

 

 

                                                  

 

*112
Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” 24-60.

*113, 116, 119, 122
GED, ABE, and HSE refer to General Education Degree, Adult Basic Education, and High School Equivalency programs, respectively. According to Frank Perry’s annual report, incarcerated people who read below the sixth grade level are mandated to enroll in ABE, while incarcerated people reading between the sixth- and twelfth levels are mandated to take GED courses.

*114, 117, 120, 123
Human resource development courses seek to improve incarcerated people’s social skills while in prison

*115, 118, 121, 124
individuals better control their emotions and anger.

 

 

Appendix B: List of Interviewees 

 

Name

Title

Category

Dylan Arant

Legislative Assistant to Senator Jeff Jackson, North
Carolina Senate

Legislator

Valerie Foushee

Senator, North Carolina Senate

Legislator

Kenneth Lassiter

Director of Prisons

DPS

Nicole Sullivan

Director, Rehabilitative Programs and Services

DPS

Kristie Puckett-Williams

Charlotte Field Organizer, ACLU-NC

Non-Profit

Mary Pollard

Executive Director, NC Prison Legal Services

Non-Profit

Elizabeth Forbes

Director, NC-CURE

Non-Profit

Andrew Deibert

Durham Literacy Center

Non-Profit

Raphael Ginsberg

Associate Director of Correctional Education, The

Friday Center,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Non-Profit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

Bibliography

American Civil Liberties Union. “ACLU
National Prison Project.” ACLU. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclunationalprisonproject

American Institutes for
Research. “Non-Regulatory Guidance NDTAC: Technical Assistance Center for the
Education of Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.”

Accessed October 28, 2018. https://neglecteddelinquent.ed.gov/whattitleipartd

Benner, Gregory Zeng, Songtain,
Armstrong, Annie, Anderson, Cathrin, and Carpenter Erin. “Strengthening
Education in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report.”
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, May 2017.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251118.pdf

Breslin, Ryan. “NC DPS Updates
Lawmakers on State Prison Reform.” Spectrum News, Central NC. Last modified
November 16, 2018. Accessed December 1, 2018. http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triangle-sandhills/news/2018/11/16/nc-dps-updateslawmakers-on-state-prison-reform

 

 Congressional Research Services. Juvenile Justice
Funding Trends. CRS Report R44879.

Version 3. Updated May 2018.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44879.html#_Toc524516986

Davis, Lois, Jennifer Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm
Williams, Sarah Turner, Jeremy Miles,

Jessica Saunders, and Paul Steinberg. “How Effective
Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here: Summary.” RAND
Corporation, 2014.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR564/RAND_R
R564.sum.pdf

Durham Literacy Center. “About Us.”
Durham Literacy Center Webpage. Accessed November 11, 2018.https://www.durhamliteracy.org/#!about/crzm

———. “Programs.” Durham Literacy Center Webpage.
Accessed November 11, 2018.

https://www.durhamliteracy.org/programs

Green, Erica. “Senate Leaders
Reconsider Ban on Pell Grants for Prisoners.” The New York Times (New
York, NY). February 16, 2018. New York edition. Accessed September 21, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/pellgrantsprisoners.html

Guze, Jon. “State Budget 2018:
Juvenile Justice.” John Locke Foundation. Accessed October 25, 2018.https://www.johnlocke.org/update/state-budget-2018-juvenile-justice/

“Idealist Home Page.” Idealist. Accessed November 27,
2018.

https://www.idealist.org/en/?type=JOB

 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2017, S.860, 115th Cong. (Aug. 1, 2017).

 

Lenzmeier, Trevor. “Banned Books, Lack
of Librarians: What It’s like to Read in a NC Prison.” WRAL.com, April 17,
2018. https://www.wral.com/banned-books-lack-of-librarianswhat-it-s-like-to-read-in-a-nc-prison/17493049/

Powell, LaToya. “‘Raise the Age’ Is
Now the Law in North Carolina.” NC Criminal Law Blog | UNC Chapel Hill School
of Government(blog). August 31, 2017. https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/nccriminallaw/%E2%80%9Craiseage%E2%80%9Dnowlawnorthcarolina

National Research Council. Reforming Juvenile Justice:
A Developmental Approach.

Washington, District of Columbia: The National
Academies Press, 2013.

https://doi.org/10.17226/14685

NCCALJ (North Carolina
Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice). “Interim Reports.”
Accessed October 22, 2018. https://nccalj.org/interimreports/

North Carolina Department of
Corrections, Library Services: “Policy & Procedures.” September 24, 2007. https://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/policy_procedure_manual/D1100.pdf

———. “Recreation: Policy & Procedures.” October 5,
2007.

https://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/policy_procedure_manual/E.1900_10_05_07.pdf

North Carolina Department of Public Safety.
“Administration: Governmental Affairs.”

Accessed November 18, 2018. https://www.ncdps.gov/aboutdps/sections/administration/governmentalaffairs

———. “Adult Correction & Juvenile Justice.”
Accessed November 19, 2018.

https://www.ncdps.gov/AdultCorrections

———. “Department of Public Safety appoints new
Director of Prisons.” North Carolina

Department of Public Safety. Last modified
April 20, 2017. Accessed November 18, 2018.https://www.ncdps.gov/news/press-releases/2017/04/20/department-public-safetyappoints-new-director-prisons

———. “Education Services Contacts.” Accessed November
18, 2018.

https://www.ncdps.gov/adult-corrections/prisons/education-services/contact-us

———. “Governmental
Affairs: Legislative Updates.” https://www.ncdps.gov/aboutdps/administration/governmental-affairs/legislative-updates

———. “Rehabilitative
Programs & Services.” Accessed November 18, 2018 https://www.ncdps.gov/adult-corrections/alcohol-chemical-dependencyprograms/rehabilitative-programs-services

———. “Case Management.” July 3, 2017. https://files.nc.gov/ncdps/C.1400_%20070317.pdf

———. “Rehabilitative
Programs and Services: State Reentry Council Collaborative.” https://www.ncdps.gov/our-organization/adult-correction/
rehabilitative-programsservices/reentry-programs-and-services-0

———. “Professional Standards, Policy and Planning.”
Accessed September 20, 2018.

https://www.ncdps.gov/about-dps/professional-standards-policy-and-planning

North Carolina Division of
Prisons Program Services. “Academic/Vocational Education.” February 14, 1997. https://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/program/educ.htm

North Carolina General Assembly. “Senator Jeff
Jackson.” Accessed November 18, 2018.

https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/membersByDistrict.pl?sChamber=S&nDistric
t=37

———. “Senator Valerie P. Foushee.” Accessed November
18, 2018.

https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=S&nUserID=383

North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services. Website Home
Page. Accessed November 11, 2018.

http://www.ncpls.org/

Oschner, Nick. “Incident report
details morning of violence at NC prison.” WBTV On Your Side. Last modified
August 14, 2018. Accessed November 16, 2018. http://www.wbtv.com/story/38884446incidentreportdetailsmorningofviolenceatncprison/

Perry, Frank, Guice, W., Sullivan, Nicole, Solomon,
George, Smith, Rick. “Educational

Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015.” North
Carolina Department of Public Safety, May 2016, 14-20.

https://files.nc.gov/ncdps/documents/files/2015%20EDSvcsAnnual%20Report.pdf

Pilot Project: Tablets for Inmates, S. 584, 2017 Gen.
Assem. (N.C.).

U.S. Department of Education.
“Neglected and Delinquent State Agency and Local Educational Agency Program.”
2014. Program Home Page. December 9, 2014.

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleipartd/index.html

White, James. General Assembly of North Carolina
Session 2017. June 28th, 2017.

https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/Senate/HTML/S257v9.html

WiderNet. “The Corrections
Off-line Education Platform.” WiderNet: Casting a Wider Net. Accessed November
26, 2018. http://www.widernet.org/coep

The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing
Education. “Credit Programs for Part-time

Students: Correctional Education.” The University of
North Carolina. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://fridaycenter.unc.edu/creditprograms/correctional/

——. “Credit Programs for
Part-time Students: Courses Offered via Correspondence.” The University of
North Carolina. Accessed November 16, 2018.

https://fridaycenter.unc.edu/creditprograms/selfpacedcourses/correspondence/

 

 


Footnotes

 

[1] WiderNet, “The Corrections Off-line Education Platform,” WiderNet: Casting a Wider Net, Accessed November 26, 2018, http://www.widernet.org/coep

[2] Lois M. Davis, Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams, Susan Turner, Jeremy N. V. Miles,
Jessica Saunders, and Paul S. Steinberg, “How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here?,” 2014, xvi. 3 Ibid, 3. 4 Ibid, 3.

[3] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice.”

[4] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Professional Standards.” 7 Ibid.

[5] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Case Management.”

[6] Ibid.

[7] WiderNet, “The Corrections Off-Line Education Platform.”

[8] North Carolina Department of Corrections, “Library Services.”  12 Ibid, 1-2.

[9] Ibid, 2.

[10] Ibid, 2.

[11] Trevor Lenzmeier, “Banned Books, Lack of Librarians: What It’s like to Read in a NC Prison,” WRAL.com, April 17, 2018.

[12] Frank Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” North Carolina Department of Public Safety, May 2016, 20.

[13] Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” 14.

[14] Ibid. 19 Ibid.

[15] North Carolina Division of Prisons Program Services, Case Management,” July 3, 2017, p.1.  21 Ibid, 1.

[16] Ibid, 1. 23 Ibid, 1.

[17] Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” 5.  25
Ibid, 6.

[18] James White, “General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2017,” June 28, 2017.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” 3.

[21] Jon Guze, “State Budget 2018: Juvenile Justice,” John Locke Foundation.

[22] NCCALJ, “Interim Reports.”  

[23] LaToya Powell, “Raise the Age’ Is Now the Law in North Carolina,” NC Criminal Law Blog | UNC Chapel Hill School of Government (blog), August 31, 2017. 32 Ibid.

[24] NCCALJ, “Interim Reports.”

[25] Ibid. 35 Ibid.

[26] Gregory Benner et al., Strengthening Education in Short-Term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report, 8, Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service, December 2016. 37 Ibid, 8.

[27] Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018.

[28] Erica L. Green, “Senate Leaders Reconsider Ban on Pell Grants for Prisoners,” The New York
Times
, February 16, 2018.

[29] American Institutes for Research, “Non-Regulatory Guidance NDTAC: Technical Assistance Center for the
Education of Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.”

[30] Ibid.

[31] U.S. Department of Education, “Neglected and Delinquent State Agency and Local Educational Agency Program,” Program Home Page, December 9, 2014.

[32] Ibid.

[33] National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (Washington, District of Columbia: The National Academies Press, 2013), 211. 45 Ibid, 211.

[34] Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2017, S. S860, 115th Cong. (Aug.
1, 2017).

[35] National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile, 212.

[36] Congressional Research Services, Juvenile Justice Funding Trends, CRS Report R44879, Version 3, Updated May 2018, 1.

[37]
Ibid, 1. 50 Ibid, 1.

[38] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Adult Correction & Juvenile Justice.”

[39] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Governmental Affairs: Legislative Updates.”

[40]Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018

[41] North Carolina General Assembly, “Senator Valerie P. Foushee.”

[42] North Carolina General Assembly, “Senator Jeff Jackson”

[43] In addition to those interviewed, we reached out to Senator Michael Lee, Senator Shirley Randleman, Senator Erica Smith, former Senator Angela Bryant, Representative James Boles, and Representative Mark Walker. 57 Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018; Author’s Interview with Valerie Foushee, Senator, November 5, 2018.  58 Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018. 59 Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018; Author’s Interview with Valerie Foushee, Senator, November 5, 2018.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Pilot Project: Tablets for Inmates, S. 584, 2017 Gen. Assem. (N.C.).

[46] Ibid.

[47] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Department of Public Safety appoints new Director of Prisons,” last modified April 20, 2017.

[48] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Rehabilitative Programs & Services.”

[49] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Administration: Governmental Affairs;” North Carolina
Department of Public Safety, “Education Services Contacts.”

[50] Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018; Author’s Interview with Nicole Sullivan, Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services, October 26, 2018.  67 Ibid.

[51] Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018.

[52] Ryan Breslin, “NC DPS Updates Lawmakers on State Prison Reform,” Spectrum News: Central NC, last modified November 16, 2018.

[53] Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018.

[54] Ibid.  72 Author’s Interview with Nicole Sullivan, Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services, October 26, 2018.  73 Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018; Author’s Interview with Valerie Foushee, Senator, November 5, 2018; Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018; Author’s Interview with Nicole Sullivan, Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services, October 26, 2018.

[55] Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018; Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018; Author’s Interview with Nicole Sullivan, Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services, October 26, 2018.

[56] Author’s Interview with Dylan Arant, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Jeff Jackson, October 24, 2018; Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018.

[57] Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018.

[58] Author’s Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Director of Prisons, October 26, 2018.

[59] “Idealist Home Page,” Idealist.

[60] The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education, “Credit Programs for Part-time Students:

Correctional Education,” The University of North Carolina.

[61] Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018.

[62] The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education, “Credit Programs for Part-time Students: Courses Offered via Correspondence,” The University of North Carolina.

[63] The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education, “Credit Programs for Part-time Students: Correctional Education.”

[64] Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018.

[65] North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Website Home Page.

[66] Author’s Interview with Mary Pollard, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, October 26, 2018. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.

[67] American Civil Liberties Union, “ACLU National Prison Project,” accessed December 3, 2018.

[68] Author’s Interview with Kristie Puckett-Williams, ACLU-NC, October 29, 2018.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Durham Literacy Center, “Programs,” Durham Literacy Center Webpage, accessed November 11, 2018. 93 Author’s Interview with Andrew Deibert, Durham Literacy Center, November 9, 2018.

[72] Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid.

[76] North Carolina Department of Public Safety, “Rehabilitative Programs and Services: State Reentry Council
Collaborative.”

[77] Nick Oschner, “Incident report details morning of violence at NC prison,” WBTV On Your Side, last modified August 14, 2018, accessed November 16, 2018.

[78] Author’s Interview with Andrew Deibert, Durham Literacy Center, November 9, 2018; Author’s Interview with Mary Pollard, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, October 26, 2018; Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018.

[79] Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018; Author’s Interview with Mary Pollard, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, October 26, 2018.

[80] Author’s Interview with Mary Pollard, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, October 26, 2018; Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018.

[81] Author’s Interview with Andrew Deibert, Durham Literacy Center, November 9, 2018; Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018; Author’s Interview with Kristie Puckett-Williams, ACLU-NC, October 29, 2018.

[82] Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018; Author’s Interview with Kristie Puckett-Williams, ACLU-NC, October 29, 2018; Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018.

[83] Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018.

[84] Author’s Interview with Kristie Puckett-Williams, ACLU-NC, October 29, 2018; Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, The Friday Center Correctional Education, October 26, 2018.

[85] Author’s Interview with Elizabeth Forbes, NC-CURE, November 12, 2018; Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, The Friday Center Correctional Education, October 26, 2018.

[86] Author’s Interview with Raphael Ginsberg, Correctional Education at The Friday Center, October 26, 2018. 109 Ibid.

[87] Perry, “Educational Services Annual Report Calendar Year 2015,” 24-61.

[88] Davis et al., “How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here?”