The higher education landscape in the United States mirrors broader societal inequalities experienced by formerly incarcerated people seeking access to colleges and universities. This conceptual paper employs Ray’s theory of racialized organizations to explore how structural barriers faced by formerly incarcerated students, with a particular focus on Black men, who are disproportionately represented in both the criminal justice and higher education systems. Utilizing Ray’s core tenets, diminished agency, the legitimatization of unequal distribution of resources, whiteness as a credential, and a racialized decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice, we analyze how higher education institutions function as racialized spaces impacting this population. Specifically, we explore how these dynamics impact admission practices, financial aid restrictions, academic readiness, campus climate, stigmas and mental health support. We conclude with implications for institutional accountability and offer recommendations to support this population as we argue that without substantial shifts in policies and practices, higher education institutions will continue to perpetuate barriers rather than offer a second chance for formerly incarcerated Black men.
Black menformerly incarcerated studentshigher education accessracialized organizationsreentryThe author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.section-at-acceptanceLeadership in EducationVignette: a true second chance
Meet Thomas:—Thomas, a 34-year-old Black man, was recently released from prison. Despite not finishing college before being imprisoned, Thomas knew a college degree was vital to his professional future. Therefore, when the opportunity presented itself, Thomas enrolled in an undergraduate course at a local university, while still in the justice system. For someone like Thomas, isolated from former friends, a lack of job opportunities and a host of stigmas attached to his professional record, this opportunity proved to be transformative for him as he explored new ways to move on after serving time in prison.
After being released, Thomas explored admission to the local university. He unexpectedly faced many challenges related to admission, receiving financial aid, securing mentors, engaging in campus programs, and accessing campus services. As Thomas looked for help, he met Henry, a campus admissions counselor and doctoral student. Henry encountered difficulty supporting Thomas as a result of the widespread awareness of Thomas’s criminal justice background; nevertheless, he remained invested in Thomas’s success. Henry was an early career college administrator who wanted to provide Thomas with an exceptional college experience, as he had a personal connection to Thomas’s story. As such, Henry, a doctoral student learning about research methodologies, was left to reflect on the following questions as a campus administrator invested in Thomas’s success:
How do higher education institutions interrogate their own policies, practices, procedures and assumptions to serve formerly incarcerated students?
What systematic barriers are present for formerly incarcerated students?
What should higher education institutions support formerly incarcerated students?
While Thomas’s story was unique, it is not isolated as this example was extracted from one student and one narrative. Many Black men, like Thomas, reflect broader racialized organizational barriers that shape the lived educational journeys of this population in the United States. As such, these questions are important for Henry and any other educational professional invested in transforming the landscape of higher education to make a more inclusive space for formerly incarcerated students, like Thomas, in the United States.
Introduction
Thomas’s story is the reality of many Black men in the United States. While his story is not isolated, it shows that education is not always accessible due to systematic injustices yet often framed as a gateway to success in professional fields (Harding and Harris, 2020). It is significant to note that there has been a growing body of literature discussing the prison system (Castro and Gould, 2018; Donaldson and Viera, 2021) and the increased number of incarcerated people in the United States (Abeyta, 2022; Hassan and Sherif, 2025; Quach et al., 2022; Strayhorn et al., 2013). The United States has the highest incarceration rates in the world with over 2 million incarcerated (Hassan and Sherif, 2025). Criminal disenfranchisement imposes sanctions through both criminal justice institutions and non-criminal justice institutions, such as higher education (Castro and Magana, 2020). To underscore the critical role education plays in the nation’s growth, former President Barack Obama challenged the US population to increase college degree attainment, a goal which would be closer to attaining with an increased focus on formerly incarcerated students (Strayhorn et al., 2013).
One of the significant research gaps on formerly incarcerated individuals is a lack of knowledge regarding the number of formerly incarcerated people currently enrolled in the US higher education system (Colbert, 2025). Many higher education institutions do not track this data for a variety of reasons, including safety concerns, stigma, and discrimination (Colbert, 2025; Dreisinger, 2016). While this data is not tracked, existing research shows that race, gender, and age have an impact on formerly incarcerated individuals’ ability to resume a normal life once they attempt to re-enter society (Halkovic and Greene, 2015; Riggs, 2012). Moreover, Friedman (2015) found one in three Americans, by the age of 23, will have a criminal record and that number is rising. While these numbers are daunting, the gender breakdown between men and women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds shows an additional cause for concern. Brame et al. (2014) found that “almost 49% of Black males… are arrested by the age of 23” (p. 478). These numbers, while concerning, are still high, despite the race gap narrowing. Zeng and Minton (2021) found Black people are 3.8 times more likely to be incarcerated than White people, and this was further expanded by Western et al. (2021) who found that Black men are eight times more likely to experience prison than white men. These numbers showcase an alarming fact, that the prison racial make-up does not proportionally reflect the United States overall population. The increased incarceration of Black men in the United States exemplifies the American justice system’s connections as historically, issues of race, classism, and racism have led to increased sentence times (Ouellette et al., 2025; Western et al., 2021). While these findings do not directly account for the number of formerly incarcerated students on college campuses, they do indirectly showcase that many college students could have criminal records.
Additionally, these formerly incarcerated individuals, are students who also include racial and ethnic marginalized students, students who did not attain a high school diploma, adult students, students who are working full-time, and students facing financial and housing issues (Brower, 2015; Halkovic and Greene, 2015; McTier Jr. et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2014; Riggs, 2012; Runell, 2017). As such, this paper utilizes racialized organizational theory (Ray, 2019) to explore how institutions of higher education continue to function as racialized spaces that cause structural harm and inequities for formerly incarcerated students.
Ray (2019) identifies four core tenets for analyzing how organizations function as racial structures: diminished agency, the legitimatization of unequal distribution of resources, whiteness as a credential, and a racialized decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice. These four tenets showcase how higher education perpetuates inequalities within organizations rather than individual realities and experiences. Diminished agency names how bureaucratic procedures limit the autonomy and choice of racialized individuals through gatekeeping that requires increased justification for access. The second tenet, legitimization of unequal distribution of resources, explains how institutions justify why some students receive fewer resources or supports by framing access as policies rather than structural inequities. Whiteness as a credential describes how institutional standards, norms and expectations are framed and used to center the experiences of white middle class, which puts other groups at a disadvantage, such as formerly incarcerated college students. The final tenet, racialized decoupling, frames a disconnect between institutional exclusionary practices and commitments to diversity. By applying these four tenets to the experiences of formerly incarcerated Black men, each individually and collectively reveal how these barriers are organizationally designed, which adds to the challenges facing this popluation. Much of the existing literature on this population is centered on individual level adjustments yet fails to tackle the need for educational and organizational change for equity. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to provide insight into what barriers exist for formerly incarcerated individuals, particularly Black men, and how higher education can make organizational shifts to better support, advocate, and develop systems to uplift this historically marginalized population.
Racialized incarceration and higher education
The United States remains a deeply racialized society, despite the movement towards equality over the past 400 years of its existence. In many cases, this is displayed in the health, political, economic, educational, and especially the criminal justice system (Major and Gordon, 1994). Higher education reflects these broader systems in a micro landscape of the United States. Ray (2019) argues that the United States does not have race neutral institutions. Additionally, Ray (2019) asserts that institutions operate as racialized organizations that reproduce inequities through systematic policies and practices. Moreover, these individuals who are racialized can experience what Ray et al. (2023) calls racialized burdens which are the “administrative practice that normalizes and reinforces patterns of racial in- equality in public services, simultaneously reproducing disparate treatment while obscuring discrimination because bureaucratic actors are just following the rules” (p. 139). Perhaps this is most apparent in college settings and environments where historically Black students felt excluded due to race, gender, and class (Harper et al., 2009; Ford et al., 2023).
While Black men face challenges that include gender, economic status, and religious affiliation simultaneously, their formerly incarcerated status adds another layer of exclusion for college students. In addition to those barriers, formerly incarcerated status has also emerged as an additional hurdle as students have been excluded due to admission policies, pathways to gain entry, support services, and stigmas on campuses from faculty, staff and students (McTier Jr. et al., 2017; McTier Jr. et al., 2020). All of these are a form of racialized gatekeeping (Rodriguez et al., 2022), which control resources, opportunities and spaces, such as campus environments, which can be seen as invisible punishments for this population. These racialized gatekeeping results in racialized burdens these students face that speak to two of Ray (2019)‘s racialized organization tenets: diminished agency and the legitimization of unequal resources.
Alexander (2010) highlights the concept of invisible punishments as “the unique set of criminal sanctions that are imposed on individuals after they step outside the prison gates, a form of punishment that operates largely outside of public view and takes effect outside the traditional sentencing framework” (p. 144). Unlike a traditional sentence on a person’s life, invisible punishment often influences a person’s job opportunities, housing, and access to education. While these practices are not placed directly on the individual, they are informal and powerful practices that disproportionately impact Black men, since students must self-identify if they have been formerly incarcerated in admissions materials. These challenges lead to the true nature of individual punishments and their continued impact, shaping higher education institutions as racialized organizations influencing the future of a population truly in need of a second chance. Building on this, the following section provides a structured review of existing literature on the experiences of the population. It is important to acknowledge that the barriers explored in the literature review are not isolated challenges, but interconnected manifestations of higher education as a racialized organization. Ray’s (2019) framework allowed us to analyze each layer of the organization, while naming the realities of reducing inequities in the structure, policies, practice and norms of the system.
Barriers facing formerly incarcerated students in higher education
In the United States, incarceration has a detrimental effect on the educational, social, economic, and emotional futures of formerly incarcerated individuals (Brower, 2015; McTier Jr. et al., 2020; Strayhorn et al., 2013). Formerly incarcerated individuals face a variety of challenges in higher education, including admissions practices, resource access, social stigmas, invisible minority status, stereotype threat, and psychological and mental health issues (Brower, 2015; Huerta et al., 2023; Johnson and Dizon, 2021; McTier Jr. et al., 2020; Strayhorn et al., 2013). As a result of these individual and structural barriers, formerly incarcerated individuals face what Beckett and Murakawa (2012) call the shadow carceral state which refers to the covert functions of social punishment (without violation of law) that work in conjunction with overt functions of punishment, such as financial penalty for crimes committed. Due to their formerly incarcerated status, the educational environment these students enter is not always welcoming. This identity has erected impediments to the eradication of this population on college campuses. Additionally, these students frequently face a lack of support and a sense of pressure from parole and/or probation officers and are frequently advised to avoid contact with other formerly incarcerated individuals (Halkovic and Greene, 2015). Support services for these students are frequently non-existent or severely limited (Halkovic and Greene, 2015). These obstacles, in combination with environmental stressors that impair their productivity, may have a long-term effect on their development, and frequently begin during the formerly incarcerated individuals’ application process. Among the barriers facing these students, admissions play a powerful role gatekeeping access.
Admissions and enrollment
The admissions process has historically served as a gatekeeper to higher education (McTier Jr. et al., 2017). This is no different for formerly incarcerated students. This population frequently reports encountering roadblocks as they seek admission to higher education (Brower, 2015; Custer, 2013; Johnson et al., 2021; Strayhorn et al., 2013; McTier Jr. et al., 2017). These obstacles can arise throughout the application process, resulting from a lack of understanding, and significantly affect their academic aspirations. In recent years, incoming formerly incarcerated individuals are required to “check the box” which indicates they have been convicted of a crime (Halkovic and Greene, 2015; Johnson et al., 2021; Riggs, 2012). As a result, college and university admissions policies create additional barriers for students with felony convictions (Custer, 2013; Weissman et al., 2008), who wish to pursue a college degree. Additionally, those with a criminal history are vetted through a long process that includes detailed notes of their conviction(s), interviews with a committee composed of university community members, a record of rehabilitation, and the university committee makes recommendations regarding admission which may come with conditions upon acceptance.
Admission screening is conducted to evaluate formerly incarcerated individuals and to evaluate their risk factor for admission to colleges and universities (Copenhaver et al., 2007; Custer, 2013). Admissions offices may deny otherwise qualified formerly incarcerated students’ admission to college due to their criminal history. These admissions policies have a direct impact on the matriculation of formerly incarcerated students, many of which are Black men (Weissman et al., 2008). For example, Halkovic and Greene (2015) report that the community college applicants who had “felony convictions were less likely to complete their applications when faced with questions about their criminal records, which perpetuates the structural injustice of the school to prison pipeline” (p 763). This troubling statement highlights the tensions between higher education and the criminal justice system. This is further expanded by Hines et al. (2019) who discovered that if higher education refuses to address these structural injustices, the problems associated with formerly incarcerated individuals’ admissions will persist. This only reminds formerly incarcerated students of the shadow carceral state where they are being penalized for a non-criminal offense which is based on their status. These discriminatory admissions practices disproportionately affect formerly incarcerated students, specifically Black men and this would correspond with Ray (2019) fourth and final tenet of racialized organizations which asserts the racial decoupling of rules from practice. This racialized decoupling manifest when institutions maintain race-neutral admission policies (Ford et al., 2023) while implementing practices that exclude formerly incarcerated students. In many cases, these students have to provide additional paper documentation, which is form of gatekeeping before these students are allowed to take a class on a college campus. While these processes may not be racially motivated, this disproportionate impact on formerly incarcerated students of color cannot be ignored as scholars and practitioners work to create a more inclusive college environment that leads to higher completion rates.
Academic readiness and financial aid challenges
Academic difficulties confronting all Students of Color are well documented in the literature (Harper, 2012; Miller et al., 2014). However, there is an added layer of barriers for Black men who are formerly incarcerated. Runell (2017) notes formerly incarcerated individuals, who are Black, Latino, and Bi-racial, see their post-incarceration communities as spaces that “were least educationally advantaged when they first entered the higher education program” (p. 903) which were impacted by “deeply rooted inequalities of race, class, and place which shaped both crime and opportunities to avoid crime” (p. 903). While issues of race and class are prevalent in American society, they are exacerbated in educational settings, where Students of color and those from low socioeconomic status often struggle with various societal factors.
For example, 35% of all Black men in the United States are unable to complete their high school education due to incarceration (Halkovic and Greene, 2015). While it is possible to earn a high school diploma while incarcerated, this is not an option for all inmates and it is more daunting as across all post-secondary levels, Black men have the lowest degree attainment rates. Halkovic and Greene (2015) assert that the high correlation between educational attainment level and incarceration among Black men is concerning given that 60% of Black men who spent time in prison did not complete high school.
As if these figures were not depressing enough, funding for General Education Development (GED) programs that affect students’ ability to earn the credentials required to apply to colleges has been declining in recent years (Miller et al., 2014). While reduced funding for the GED influences some students, it is only one of the many challenges this population faces, including admissions, financial aid, stigma, and stereotypes.
In addition to academic readiness, formerly incarcerated individuals who also hold additional marginalized statuses and identities, such as race, face more obstacles when it comes to obtaining federal financial aid for college. Due to a variety of societal, historical, and cultural factors, African Americans often receive less wages than white Americans, face harsher living conditions, have shorter life expectancies, and struggle to obtain and finance higher education (Major and Gordon, 1994). As a result of generational disparities, Black American households must pay a greater share of college costs, and Black students need more financial aid than their non-black counterparts (Price and Viceisza, 2023). Perna et al. (2017) discovered that 50% of all federal aid awarded in 2015–2016 was in the form of federal loans, which limited the aid for formerly incarcerated individuals.
Historically, research shows that Black men are disproportionately represented among of first-generation college students, with limited access to financial resources (Furquim et al., 2017; Hines et al., 2019). To access higher education, Black and other marginalized students must borrow more money than their non-white counterparts for college. For Black American households, obtaining additional funding for education is associated with generational inequalities (Dwyer and DeMarco, 2024). As a result, this cycle of financial disparity continues post-graduation, as these students typically earn less than their white peers and are required to repay larger student loan amounts, thus reducing their monthly and annual incomes (Dwyer and DeMarco, 2024). The financial barriers center Ray’s (2019) second tenet, as higher education institutions operate with funding models that disadvantage several populations. For example, formerly incarcerated Black men face federal aid restrictions, reduced GED program funding and in some cases, generational wealth disparities. While these policies may appear to be race-neutral, each function to maintain racialized resource allocation as Black formerly incarcerated students must also navigate issues of race and gender, which are not often the same challenges impacting their white counterparts. By ignoring these compounded barriers in institutional policies and practices, it perpetuates racial disparities in educational access for these students. Furthermore, For Black and racialized minorities and their various marginalized identities are more likely to possess a conviction that disqualifies them from receiving federal financial aid (Wheelock and Uggen, 2008). More specifically, Wheelock and Uggen (2008) argue that “it is therefore plausible that tens of thousands have been denied college funding solely on the basis of their conviction status” (p. 23). The combination of a person’s race and their formerly incarcerated status intensify the environmental and transitional challenges faced due to negative societal factors (Major and Gordon, 1994). As such these individuals are less likely to have access to financial aid in general, which in turn leads to a determination that college is not affordable.
Stigma and hidden identity
The stigma attached to being a formerly incarcerated college student influences their educational trajectory. Copenhaver et al. (2007) defines stigma as “a condition caused by both criminal history and financial barriers that forces many to find alternative ways to adapt to the world to fit in and succeed (p. 268). Copenhaver et al. (2007) distinguishes stigma in accordance with Goffman’s 1963 definition as “…the state of an individual who is socially excluded” (p. 268). Additionally, Goffman (1963) differentiates stigma into three components (physical deformities, blemishes of individual character, and tribal stigmas), but for the purposes of formerly incarcerated college students, blemishes are the most pertinent of the three. Blemishes are defined as “social defects involving personality, mental illness, incarceration, and homosexuality” (p. 269). For these students, blemishes have a significant implication on their college experience.
Blemishes are not uncommon among college student populations, their impact on formerly incarcerated college students tie their formerly incarcerated status to their educational experience. While it may not be public knowledge that they were at one time incarcerated, they carry that weight and the perceptions that come with that status. This could lead to social isolation as a form of protection from various university members who can provide pivotal support as they navigate college. While the ability to navigate campus environments is not contingent upon one’s capacity for relationship development, research indicates that it is critical during the collegiate educational journey (Ford et al., 2024; Brower, 2015).
Stigma has a long-lasting impact on the daily lives of formerly incarcerated college students. They are frequently categorized as a “risk” to public spaces within society, such as higher education institutions, due to their incarcerated status (Halkovic and Greene, 2015). Similarly, to other groups that concealed their identities, such as LGBT students, additional issues such as depression and identity-related stress are associated with having invisible statuses. While these difficulties are associated with students who face LGBT stigma, hidden identities are not unique to students who identify as LGBT (Lewis et al., 2003). As a result, disclosing a hidden identity can have a detrimental effect on the academic success of all students with hidden identities. However, for formerly incarcerated college students, established stigmas may result in stereotype threat formation among college students (Halkovic and Greene, 2015).
Additionally, daily life for formerly incarcerated college students is frequently plagued by a variety of social stigmas that influence their identity formation in college environments. Stigma has a significant impact on their identity, frequently causing them to conceal their status. Coined by Goffman in 1963, hidden identity is highlighted as disclosing only favorable information about themselves out of fear of repercussions and rejection. Additionally, Maruna (2011) added that the term “invisible stripes” refers to the stigma associated with individuals who are forced to navigate life with a criminal record. While many institutions across the country have included diversity and commitments to inclusion in their mission statements prior to 2025, few, if any, have included formerly incarcerated individuals. Higher education has failed to engage in research, policy, and support services for formerly incarcerated individuals; thus, many formerly incarcerated individuals choose to remain invisible on college campuses. This invisibility reflects Ray’s (2019) concept of diminished agency, where higher education institutions have structured campus environments that compel formerly incarcerated Black men to conceal their status instead of creating spaces for challenge, acknowledgement, support and understanding of their pathways into and through higher education.
Literature suggests Black men tend to feel out of place and mistreated on college campuses (Ford et al., 2023; Brooms, 2019). As with other marginalized identities that can be concealed, “outing” or exposing one’s identity may have direct consequences for formerly incarcerated individuals’ educational journey. This can be both challenging and stressful for students who choose to share their status (Halkovic and Greene, 2015). Due to the stigma associated with their formerly incarcerated status, many formerly incarcerated individuals avoid pursuing education to avoid falling behind academically and socially (Miller et al., 2014). As is the case with other populations with concealed identities, Halkovic and Greene (2015) state that the participants in their study found the experience “liberating” as they shared their lived experiences. Stigma is not only a social barrier but also a psychological burden. The weight of concealing one’s incarcerated status, coupled with stereotype threat (author citation), racial battle fatigue (author citation), which is common for Black men in college environments, often manifests as stress and trauma (Ford et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2007), which racialized burdens (Ray et al., 2023). These racialized burdens manifest through mandatory criminal background disclosures during the admissions process and the lack of campus supports for formerly incarcerated individual. These realities make it critical to center the mental health challenges faced by formerly incarcerated Black men students as they attempt to reenter higher education.
Mental health and the reentry stress
Many individuals who have been incarcerated experience mental and emotional trauma following their release and health problems increase due to incarceration (Wallace et al., 2016). Moreover, incarceration has been identified as a source of stress for incarcerated individuals (Addison et al., 2022; Addison et al., 2025; Strayhorn et al., 2013). During incarceration, individuals lean on their personal and family support systems which can lead to strain on those relationships (Wallace et al., 2016). Formerly incarcerated college students often face culture shock for the formerly incarcerated college students as many are trying to repair damaged personal and professional relationships (Miller et al., 2014). The restrictions individuals face during incarceration such as limited social interaction, reduced free time, and lack of supportive community, which could impact how students navigate college campuses.
Given that, formerly incarcerated college students often experience difficulties with social interactions. While formerly incarcerated college students may no longer be housed in a correctional facility, additional factors may affect their social interactions and result in mental health problems (Strayhorn et al., 2013; Wallace et al., 2016). For instance, if an individual’s release is constrained by curfews, regular progress reports with parole officers, and a fear of stigma associated with their formerly incarcerated status, the impact of added stress will be magnified. Miller et al. (2014) asserts that supporting friends, family, and professionals is important for formerly incarcerated individuals. Specifically, Miller and team shared that “trauma counselors are especially trained to address posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and to walk the formerly incarcerated through the shock of reentry and the pains of the past” (p. 73). While trauma counselors may be beneficial during the transition, Wallace et al. (2016) state “individuals with strong social ties have been found to be protected against a variety of mental health problems, ranging from mild depression to suicide” (p. 5) and may not feel comfortable connecting with counselors. A strong supportive network can mean the difference between obtaining a college education and adding stress to student populations. Collectively, these benefits are important as research shows that higher education can provide pathways towards education and the need for reintegration. Building on these supports, it becomes essential to explore how higher education itself provides unique benefits that extend beyond the classroom, offering pathways to reintegration and educational success.
Benefits of higher education
In recent years, positive outcomes have been associated with formerly incarcerated individuals who enroll in higher education post-incarceration (Custer, 2013; Halkovic and Greene, 2015; Miller et al., 2014; Riggs, 2012; Runell, 2017). After completing a college education, research shows that formerly incarcerated individuals have greater opportunities for upward social mobility (Castro et al., 2015), which has been associated with a better quality of life (Johnson and Manyweather, 2023; Johnson and Dizon, 2021). Formerly incarcerated college students add value to higher education institutions by providing additional perspectives for the campus community (Halkovic et al., 2013). Postsecondary education has also been used to increase this population’s employment opportunities and social capital (Runell, 2017). Additionally, formerly incarcerated college students report increased confidence and purposefulness in their decision-making following college. Runell (2017) discovered that formerly incarcerated college students center campus engagement they often “relinquish criminal identities and behaviors” (p. 902) to their higher education experience along with other factors such as program membership, neighborhood characteristics, and new takes on benefits and risks associated with crime. Various support points will also help students, particularly those formerly incarcerated. For example, Strayhorn et al. (2013) study on Black males noted how the presence (or absence) of support (i.e., institutional, familial, and mentorship) both contributed or hindered their transition into and navigating college.
While supportive networks are critical for the development of formerly incarcerated college students, their experiences have been documented to emphasize the importance of resiliency and motivation. Strayhorn et al. (2013) defines resiliency as “derived or drawn from a variety of sources (e.g., incarceration experience, stigmas, family, and intrapersonal) and is defined as one’s capacity to persist in the face of adversity” (p. 84). While adjusting to campus environments may be difficult, formerly incarcerated college students who are able to overcome stigma, isolation, and a lack of support frequently express a strong desire to complete their education. While their circumstances may vary, the grit with which these students strive to succeed is a shared goal (Brower, 2015; Copenhaver et al., 2007; Strayhorn et al., 2013).
Higher education is often portrayed as a space for students to redefine, reshape, and redevelop their identities. Students can explore and learn more about themselves and the world around them. Formerly incarcerated individuals should also be afforded this opportunity as they attempt to redefine the stigma attached to their formerly incarcerated status. These students bring a variety of “gifts” to college campuses, including an eagerness to learn, a sense of perseverance, an enthusiasm for giving back to their local communities, and an unwavering commitment to improving and transforming their own lives (Halkovic et al., 2013; Halkovic and Greene, 2015). Importantly, education will contribute to breaking the cycle of recidivism. While these benefits are important, it is critical to acknowledge that they remain largely unrealized for most formerly incarcerated Black men due to the racialized organizational barriers described in this paper. Higher education has the potential to transform lives and reduce recidivism if it dismantles the structures that diminished agency, legitimacy of unequal distribution of resources, whiteness as a credential, and the racial decoupling of rules from practice establish. This is a reminder that research has done a great job of highlighting what challenges and hurdles impact Black men who are formerly incarcerated, but what becomes possible when racialized organizations hurdles are removed.
Considerations for faculty and campus administrators
Richards et al. (2011) offer the following recommendations for improving the lives and reenter experiences of formerly incarcerated people including, reduce the U.S. prison population; Increase the scope and range of restorative justice programs; End the ‘war on drugs’; Demilitarize the criminal justice system; End punishment packages; Restore voting rights to felons and prisoners; Close old and functionally obsolete prisons; Restore federally funded higher education to all prisons; Properly prepare prisoners for release; Improve medical services; Provide community resource centers; and Provide residential treatment centers (p. 204).
While these points are critical and we think it is critical to understand and acknowledge these points, we extend beyond individual level interventions to center considerations for organizational transformation. Drawing from Ray’s (2019) framework, we believe meaningful support for this population is needed. This support, which is often individualized, must be systematic and must dismantle the institutional structures, policies, and practices that are used to exclude them. As mentioned, formerly incarcerated college students can be a critical part of the conversation as it relates to increasing the college degree attainment of the US population. Higher education must prioritize the education of marginalized populations in US society to address a population that requires significant attention. We offer the following considerations to encourage, empower, and ask that higher education institutions focus on a population of students who are often overlooked to create transformational change that address Ray’s four tenets.
Higher education
In the United States, there is a demographic cliff approaching where the number of traditionally college-aged individuals seeking to attend college will decline (Grawe, 2021). Formerly incarcerated individuals should be encouraged to pursue higher education as the number of college aged students diminishes in the US. Campus administrators, policymakers, faculty and community leaders should work to learn more about re-entry and what is needed to support this popluation. Moreover, higher education institutions can work with correctional facilities to gauge education within the correctional facilities, which could help higher education institutions assess baselines for potential applicants.
Cornwall (2023) notes that colleges offer affinity housing, such as first-generation college students, so why not apply that to formerly incarcerated students? This is a unique population that contains what the Cornwall (2023) report noted as “carceral capital,” which refers to the distinct mixture and accumulation of knowledge and skills that develop from being in the streets and prison. The ingenuity once used to commit a crime can be used to solve modern problems. Innovation from those who do not come from traditional educational backgrounds can enhance the university experience. This would also work to destigmatize this population, assuming their formerly incarcerated status is not hidden. The result could render a great sense of belonging for all college students, and especially this population which deals with a heavy stigma.
Special attention to Black populations
This scholarship places a heavy emphasis on Black men, who are disproportionately represented in the prison system and disproportionately exclude from higher education. Moreover, scholarship on former incarcerated college students often place an emphasis on Black and Latino communities (Brower, 2015; Halkovic and Greene, 2015; Strayhorn et al., 2013), as Black and Brown people are often highly represented in the US prison system. This also highlights the importance of Ray (2019) theory of racialized organizations in the context of higher education and the obstacles racialized formerly incarcerated students face. While there is not a dismissal of individual responsibility, there is a heightened attention paid to the structural elements of an organization that influence the entrance and/or matriculation of formerly incarcerated students. The four tenets of Ray (2019) theory: diminished agency, legitimacy of unequal distribution of resources, whiteness as a credential, and the racial decoupling of rules from practice highlight how systemic these issues are and how racialized persons are impacted by them. There is no “one size fits all” approach to working with Black and Brown formerly incarcerated college students, However, best practices for working with students from marginalized populations should be considered. Anti-deficit approaches should be explored when working with Black and Brown former incarcerated college students to minimize the deficit ways of thinking used when working with these students.
As discussed earlier, stigmas shape how Black men navigate college campuses, and the challenges this population faces are further complicated by their formerly incarcerated status. As such, critical part of working with and understanding formerly incarcerated college students’ experiences is acknowledging the invisible status of being formerly incarcerated, as it is something that may not be exposed for each student. Moreover, many existing research sample sizes are found by their self-identification. As a result, stigma will continue to be an issue for formerly incarcerated college students, especially when we see overlap with other marginalized groups such as Black and Latinos, who are also stigmatized. By addressing the disproportionate impact on Black men who identify as formerly incarcerated students means institutions must acknowledge how they function as racialized organizations. This means moving beyond diversity statements to examine how student services offices such as admissions and financial aid offices systematically disadvantage Black students with criminal records.
Admissions and financial aid support
Who gets to attend college is often a question that is just as important as who can afford college. While both questions are different, each often requires college students to decide which type of institution to attend and if it is affordable, if they can gain attendance. While it may be difficult to have specialized staff to aid marginalized communities like formerly incarcerated students, providing cultural navigators could be helpful in their success. Cultural navigators are campus staff members who aid students with negotiating and navigating campus environments (Strayhorn, 2015). This could also be particularly important for those who are dealing with the impacts of attending college with this invisible identity. Reforming these practices challenges racialized decoupling which could lead to more institutional accountability instead of individual accommodation.
Reduced recidivism for a true second chance and reintegration
As we have mentioned, education should not be only used to reduce recidivism, yet it could be helpful. Education stays a vital part of reducing recidivism rates both in the United States, and internationally. Using education as a method to reduce recidivism has been documented in existing literature (Cecil et al., 2000), however, we think the true value is to offer retention-based strategies to engage this population in programs, events, clubs, and services. College campuses often offer campus organizations, student center programming and have identity-based centers and spaces for student success. For students who seek to self-identity, the use of student organizations, centers, and selective programming could assist in their ability to navigate higher education spaces.
Today’s prison system often does not provide incarcerated individuals with opportunities for personal growth and development. However, there are cases where incarcerated people have access to education. Consequently, many individuals exit the prison system without the chance to reintegrate into US society and pursue a meaningful life transformation. We believe that pipeline programs into 2 year and four-year institutions could start a much-needed conversation on how to aid and help formerly incarcerated individuals live better lives. However, institutions must frame these initiatives as rectifying organizational exclusions rather than perpetuating deficit narratives that position educational access as conditional or a part of societal rehabilitation.
Future research and conclusion
This conceptual paper provides an overview of this population’s educational experiences and the obstacles they face as they enter higher education environments, which shows the impact of racialized organizations on their academic journeys. Ray (2019) theory of racialized organizations’ four tenets were applied to analyze and understand the structural barriers that impeded formerly incarcerated college students. However, this literature has many gaps exploring their experiences as the vignette with Thomas showed there are many things missing in research on their experiences. There have been few connections between individuals who have served time in prison, who have been released from the prison system and then entered college environments. While the exact number of formerly incarcerated students on college campuses is unknown, we do know they exist and are navigating campus environments. In addition to acknowledging that this population exist, there needs to be additional clarity on who should be responsibility for collecting and tracking data on formerly incarcerated students. Our recommendation is that this is a collaborative effort between institutions, higher education agencies, correctional systems, and community based organizations when appropriate to best support this often overlooked and understudied population. This could lead to coordinating ethical data collection points with could lead to longitudinal data systems to understand the unique educational pathways of this population and focus on improving student success and outcomes instead of recidivism practices. In reflection on these points and the vignette introduced at the start of this conceptual paper, we believe that students, like Thomas, need support. Moreover, as university faculty and staff members, we feel that we are often left to feel like Henry. The role of campus administrators could go a long way in supporting, advocating, and developing strategies for enhancing the experiences of formerly incarcerated college students.
As mentioned earlier, when exploring the impact of the Ray’s racialized organizational framework, the four tenets: diminished agency, the legitimatization of unequal distribution of resources, whiteness as a credential, and a racialized decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice each illuminate the different dimensions of how the system of higher education excludes this population. For the purposes of this paper, we operationalize Ray’s tenets in higher education context as the following: racialized access to resources, racial hierarchies within organizations, racialized legitimation, and decoupling of diversity rhetoric from actual practice, as each is significant for understanding the experience of Black men who are formerly incarcerated. Each of the tenets are highlighted in different ways and could be seen in every aspect of formerly incarcerated Black men’s experiences. For example, through this conceptual paper, tenet one, racialized access to resources is showcased through the disproportional access to financial aid, loan, and in some cases, admissions to institutions. This form of gatekeeping exposes the impact of access to resources and higher education. Racial hierarchies within organizations or tenet two, can be seen in the stigmas associated with the experiences these students face when interacting with faculty, staff and peers, as some individuals could for see this population as institutional risk instead of scholars which reinforces the unequal power relationships between students and campus administrators. Tenet three or racialized legitimation, in conjunction with challenges related to risk, could be seen as how some exclusionary practices can be seen as challenges related to campus safety. The final tenet, decoupling of diversity rhetoric from practice, challenges the idea that institutional campus leaders value concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion, however, rarely include formerly incarcerated individuals within campus initiatives. Each of these tenets, both individually and collectively, showcase how higher education continue to function as a racialized organization, with the greater context of a racialized society, which complicates the multi-layered realities of Black men who are formerly incarcerated.
While existing literature shows the connection between this population’s success in college and recidivism rates, that should not be the sole focus of our society or education. Higher education administrators, scholars and practitioners should consider how this population defines success. While reduced recidivism is an expected result for formerly incarcerated college students, other goals to consider include: their employment prospects, educational journeys, and aspirations for a better life. If the current narrative is not changed, there may be a narrow focus on reducing recidivism as opposed to providing a transformative education for formerly incarcerated college students.
Future research should examine the experiences of formerly incarcerated individuals pursuing higher education through racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic lenses. Special attention should be given to admissions screenings, disclosure of formerly incarcerated identity and academic gatekeeping. Along with these as well as racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic barriers, how does this manifest for formerly incarcerated individuals within other underexplored identities, such as disability or sexual orientation? While existing literature on formerly incarcerated individuals’ experiences in undergraduate education is space, there is another consideration that should be explored. For example, what does formerly incarcerated status look like for students pursing advance degrees? The challenges associated with advance degree attainment and Black men are well documented as existing literature often points to issues of racial identity formation (Ford et al., 2024) racial battle fatigue (Ford et al. 2025) and racism in graduate education (Johnson and Strayhorn, 2023). If higher education’s goal is to ensure equal access to education for all students, policymakers, scholars, and higher education professionals must look beyond how we have been socialized to view formerly incarcerated individuals and seek ways to support the invisible minority on our campuses. Relevant work exists on this population in other global contexts, which could be used to help sharpen what is unique about the U.S. experience for formerly incarcerated individuals.
While the use of Ray’s racialized organization theory provides a valuable lens for understanding the unique experiences formerly incarcerated individuals in higher education, there are some disadvantages to using racialized organizations as a framework. One limitation is applying Ray’s first tenet, diminishing agency, which could overemphasize when characterizing the experiences of formerly incarcerated students. This can lead to a “deficit-based” framework for formerly incarcerated students, who are often framed as victims of a system. What is noteworthy is how formerly incarcerated students are able to navigate bureaucracy, create supportive networks, and advocate for policy changes while existing on college campuses. A second limitation relates to its meso-level approach, that accounts for what happens within an organization but does not fully account for what is happening at the macrolevel. For example, an organization may want to help a formerly incarcerated individual such as financial aid (ex. Pell Grants) or even student employment, but they may be prevented based on federal or state laws. In these cases, Ray’s theory may attribute a barrier the formerly incarcerated student faces to an organization, but in actuality, the barrier is coming from outside the organization due to legal and policy structures. A third disadvantage concerns the fourth tenet, racial decoupling, where Ray (2019) posits racializing decoupling takes place in racialized organizations to maintain “colorblind” formal rules while secretly practicing racial exclusion. The primary challenge with practices like this is how do scholars prove that empirically to support this population. For example, if a study found that an admissions office denied 21 Black formerly incarcerated applicants, the institution could cite “safety concerns” or “incomplete transcript.” To prove “racial decoupling,” rather than an application of safety procedure, would mean getting internal access to sensitive organizational data that researchers may not gain access to.
While the presence of formerly incarcerated individuals in higher education is not new, the limitations showcase where educational research on their experiences navigating higher education is still lacking. The United States lacks an integrated system for reintegrating these students from the criminal justice system into higher education (Castro et al., 2015). Although there has been no empirical evidence showing a relationship between college admission criminal history disclosure and campus safety (Castro and Magana, 2020), formerly incarcerated individuals face stigmas associated with their past offenses. Moreover, admissions practices should be examined to better serve formerly incarcerated individuals pursuing higher education, to create a more equitable college environment for this population, and to oppose the shadow carceral state (Britton, 2022; Castro and Magana, 2020; Castro and Zamani-Gallaher, 2018). We also must address how a greater proportion of individual impacted by the criminal justice system are African American men and how this can further perpetuate the carceral state in higher education even after serving time in prison.
As we mentioned earlier, in the United States, there is a demographic cliff where higher education enrollment will continue to decline (Britton, 2023). Higher education professionals will need to find more ways to keep enrollment numbers with increasing accessibility and online courses. As our society becomes more specialized, there will be an increasing call for college-educated individuals. Formerly incarcerated individuals are an untapped resource that can add invaluable experience to the workforce and broader society. Higher education has a duty to develop minds from all walks of life and should make it a point to remove these second chance barriers which can dissuade formerly incarcerated individuals from pursuing a college degree. If higher education is truly invested in equal access, then it must do more to remove second chance barriers for students like Thomas. Without addressing how higher education operates as a racialized organization, the efforts to support formerly incarcerated Black men will remain a challenge. Ray’s racialized organization framework showcases how campus structures, policies, and procedures disadvantage formerly incarcerated Black men. As enrolment challenges and demographic shift society and higher education, this population can no longer ignore this population. In short, without confronting how higher education functions as a racialized organization institutions will continue to perpetuate barriers rather than dismantle them stopping what should truly be a second chance. True second chances require more than just occasional accommodations, they demand organizational transformation that redistributes power, support and resources to formerly incarcerated Black men who, like many other marginalized populations, have been excluded from higher education spaces.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesAbeytaM. (2022). Academic pathways for formerly incarcerated students. J. Committ. Soc. Change Race Ethn., 8, 37–49. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48676894 (Accessed October 27, 2022).AddisonH. A.RichmondT. S.GhoseT.JacobyS. F. (2025). The lasting impact of incarceration: a qualitative thematic analysis of mental health in formerly incarcerated black men. Soc. Sci. Med.380, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118244, 40451063AddisonH. A.RichmondT. S.LewisL. M.JacobyS. (2022). Mental health outcomes in formerly incarcerated black men: a systematic mixed studies review. J. Adv. Nurs.78, 1851–1869. doi: 10.1111/jan.15235, 35362166AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.BeckettK.MurakawaN. (2012). Mapping the shadow carceral state: toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theor. Criminol.16, 221–244. doi: 10.1177/1362480612442113BrameR.BushwayS. D.PaternosterR.TurnerM. G. (2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime Delinq.60, 471–486. doi: 10.1177/0011128713514801, 26023241BrittonT. (2022). Educational opportunity and the carceral system: sentencing policies and black men's college enrollment. Rev. Black Polit. Econ.49, 444–474. doi: 10.1177/00346446211036763BrittonT. (2023). College or bust… or both: the effects of the great recession on college enrollment for black and Latinx young adults. J. Res. Educ. Effect.16, 36–62. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2022.2054885BroomsD. R. (2019). Not in this alone: black men’s bonding, learning, and sense of belonging in black male initiative programs. Urban Rev.51, 748–767. doi: 10.1007/s11256-019-00506-5BrowerR. (2015). Against all odds: from prison to graduate school. J. Afr. Am. Males Educ.6, 1–24.CastroE. L.BrawnM.GravesD. E.MayorgaO.PageJ.SlaterA. (2015). Higher education in an era of mass incarceration: possibility under constraint. J. Crit. Scholar. High. Educ. Student Aff.1, 13–33. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol1/iss1/2CastroE. L.GouldM. R. (2018). What is higher education in prison? Introduction to radical departures: ruminations on the purposes of higher education in prison. Crit. Educ.9, 1–16. doi: 10.14288/ce.v9i10.186439CastroE. L.MaganaS. (2020). Enhancing the carceral state: criminal/ized history questions in college admissions. J. Coll. Stud. Dev.61, 814–831. doi: 10.1353/csd.2020.0077CastroE. L.Zamani-GallaherE. M. (2018). Expanding quality higher education for currently and formerly incarcerated people: committing to equity and protecting against exploitation. Natl. Inst. Transform. Equity. Available online at: https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:82869 (Accessed October 27, 2022).CecilD. K.DrapkinD. A.MacKenzieD. L.HickmanL. J. (2000). The effectiveness of adult basic education and life-skills programs in reducing recidivism: a review and assessment of the research. J. Correct. Educ., 207–226. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41971937ColbertC. J. (2025). Beyond barriers: supporting formerly incarcerated students in American higher education. J. Prison Educ. Res.9, 1–18.CopenhaverA.Edwards-WilleyT. L.ByersB. D. (2007). Journeys in social stigma: the lives of formerly incarcerated felons in higher education. J. Correct. Educ., 58, 268–283. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23282578 (Accessed October 27, 2022),CornwallG. (2023). Revolutionary’ housing: how colleges aim to support formerly incarcerated students. The Hechinger Report. Available online at: https://hechingerreport.org/revolutionary-housing-colleges-aim-to-support-a-growing-number-of-formerly-incarcerated-students/CusterB. D. (2013). Why college admissions policies for students with felony convictions are not working at one institution. Coll. Univ.88, 28–36.DonaldsonV. M.VieraC. (2021). College after prison: a review of the literature on barriers and supports to postsecondary education for formerly incarcerated college students: John Jay College Institute for Justice and Opportunity.DreisingerB. (2016). Incarceration nations: a journey to justice in prisons around the world: Other Press, LLC.DwyerR. E.DeMarcoL. M. (2024). Unequally indebted: debt by education, race, and ethnicity and the accumulation of inequality in emerging adulthood. Emerg. Adulthood12, 878–893. doi: 10.1177/21676968241241560, 39605803FurquimF.GlasenerK. M.OsterM.McCallB. P.DesJardinsS. L. (2017). Navigating the financial aid process: borrowing outcomes among first-generation and non-first-generation students. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.671, 69–91. doi: 10.1177/0002716217698119FordJ. R. (2025). I am overworked and I’m not taking care of myself”: The experiences of Black men in doctoral programs navigating racial battle fatigue. The Journal of Higher Education, 96, 485–511.FordJ. R.BriscoeK. L.AndersonA.HamiltonD. (2024). Negotiation Spaces: Interrogating Black Men Doctoral Students’ Experiences Using Cross and Fhagen-Smith’s Black Identity Development Model. Journal of College Student Development, 65, 352–370.FordJ. R.MatthewsD. Y.WoodardD. M.KeppleC. R. (2023). Not every advisor is for me, but some are: Black men’s academic advising experiences during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 13, 543.FordJ. R.WallaceJ. K.MatthewsD. Y.GillamD. A. A. (2023). Race based admissions and affirmative action: Revisiting historical implications on Black students in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 4, 46–62.FriedmanL. M. (2015). The Big Trial: Law as Public Spectacle. University Press of Kansas.GraweN. D. (2021). The agile college: how institutions successfully navigate demographic changes. Baltimore: JHU Press.GoffmanE. (1963). Embarrassment and Social Organization. In SmelserN. J.SmelserW. T. (Eds.), Personality and social systems (pp. 541–548). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1037/11302-050HardingD. J.HarrisH. M. (2020). After prison: Navigating adulthood in the shadow of the justice system. Russell Sage FoundationHarperS. R.PattonL. D.WoodenO. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of Higher Education, 80, 389–414HalkovicA.FineM.BaeJ.CampbellL.EvansD.GaryC.. (2013). Higher education and reentry: the gifts they bring: John Jay Research.HalkovicA.GreeneA. C. (2015). Bearing stigma, carrying gifts: what colleges can learn from students with incarceration experience. Urban Rev.47, 759–782. doi: 10.1007/s11256-015-0333-xHarperS. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: a report from the National Black Male College Achievement Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.HassanM. A.SherifY. A. (2025). How should we better express respect for surgical patients who are incarcerated?AMA J. Ethics27, 239–241. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2025.239HinesE. M.CooperJ. N.CorralM. (2019). Overcoming the odds: first-generation black and Latino male collegians’ perspectives on pre-college barriers and facilitators. J. Multicult. Educ.13, 51–69. doi: 10.1108/JME-11-2017-0064HooksB. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom: Routledge.HuertaA. H.LopezE. F.SalazarM. E.TorresG.MunozM. Y. (2023). “Bridging criminal justice scholarship into the field of higher education: implications for research, practice, and policy” in Higher education: handbook of theory and researcheds. Perna, L.W. , vol 38. Philadelphia: Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-06696-2_9JohnsonR. M.AlvaradoR. E.RosingerK. O. (2021). What’s the “problem” of considering criminal history in college admissions? A critical analysis of “ban the box” policies in Louisiana and Maryland. J. High. Educ.92, 704–734. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2020.1870849JohnsonR. M.DizonJ. P. M. (2021). Toward a conceptualization of the college-prison nexus. Peabody J. Educ.5, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2021.1991692LewisR. J.DerlegaV. J.GriffinJ. L.KrowinskiA. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol.22, 716–729. doi: 10.1521/jscp.22.6.716.22932JohnsonR. M.ManyweatherL. (2023). Examining the experiences of formerly incarcerated Black men at community colleges: The role of community cultural wealth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 36, 287–300.JohnsonR. M.StrayhornT. L. (2023). Examining race and racism in Black men doctoral student socialization: A critical race mixed methods analysis. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16, 539–553. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000420MajorR.GordonJ. (1994). The American black male: his present status and his future. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.MarunaS. (2011). Reentry as a rite of passage. Punishment Soc.13, 3–28. doi: 10.1177/1462474510385641McTierT. S.Jr.BriscoeK. L.DavisT. J. (2020). College administrators’ beliefs and perceptions of college students with criminal records. J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract.57, 296–308. doi: 10.1080/19496591.2019.1648273McTierT. S.Jr.Santa-RamirezS.McGuireK. M. (2017). A prison to school pipeline: college students with criminal records and their transitions into higher education. J. Underrepresent. Minor. Prog.1, 8–22. doi: 10.32674/jump.v1i1.33MillerB.MondesirJ.StaterT.SchwartsJ. (2014). Returning to school after incarceration: policy, prisoners, and the classroom. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ.144, 69–77. doi: 10.1002/ace.20115OuelletteH. M.HuebnerB. M.GiuffreA.SlocumL. A.SchaeferB. P. (2025). The role of race, gender, and poverty on length of pretrial jail stays: a multi-site analysis. Criminol. Public Policy24, 33–63. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12678PernaL. W.KvaalJ.RuizR (2017). An updated look at student loan debt repayment and default. Philadelphia: Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative. 51–8.PriceG. N.ViceiszaA. C. (2023). What can historically black colleges and universities teach about improving higher education outcomes for black students?J. Econ. Perspect.37, 213–232. doi: 10.1257/jep.37.3.213QuachK.Cerda-JaraM.DeveruxR.SmithJ. (2022). Prison, college, and the labor market: a critical analysis by formerly incarcerated and justice-impacted students. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.701, 78–97. doi: 10.1177/00027162221112772RayV. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev.84, 26–53. doi: 10.1177/0003122418822335RayV.HerdP.MoynihanD. (2023). Racialized burdens: applying racialized organization theory to the administrative state. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory33, 139–152. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muac001RichardsS. C.RossJ. I.NewboldG.LenzaM.JonesR. S.MurphyD. S.. (2011). “Convict criminology: prisoner re-entry policy recommendations” in Global perspectives on re-entry: exploring the challenges facing ex-prisoners. eds. EkunweI. O.JonesR. S. (Finland: Tampere University Press), 198–222.RiggsR. (2012). “Higher education and incarceration in the United States: the intersection of institutions” in Prisoner reentry Institute at John jay College of criminal justice.RodriguezA.DeaneK. C.DavisC. H.III (2022). “Towards a framework of racialized policymaking in higher education” in Higher education: handbook of theory and research. ed. PernaL. W., vol. 37 (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 519–599.RunellL. L. (2017). Identifying desistance pathways in a higher education program for formerly incarcerated individuals. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol.61, 894–918. doi: 10.1177/0306624X15608374, 26437950StrayhornT. L. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: from advisor to cultural navigator. NACADA J.35, 56–63. doi: 10.12930/NACADA-14-199StrayhornT. L.JohnsonR. M.BarrettB. A. (2013). Investigating the college adjustment and transition experiences of formerly incarcerated black male collegians at predominately white institutions. Spectrum J. Black Men2, 73–98. doi: 10.2979/spectrum.2.1.73SmithW. A.AllenW. R.DanleyL. L. (2007). “Assume the position... you fit the description” psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 551–578WallaceD.FahmyC.CottonL.JimmonsC.McKayR.StofferS.. (2016). Examining the role of familial support during prison and after release on post-incarceration mental health. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol.60, 3–20. doi: 10.1177/0306624X145480, 25156422WeissmanM.RosenthalA.WarthP.Meyers-PeeplesR.FrazierA. (2008). Closing the door to higher education: another collateral consequence of a criminal conviction. Syracuse, NY: Center for Community Alternatives.WesternB.DavisJ.GanterF.SmithN. (2021). The cumulative risk of jail incarceration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A118:e2023429118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023429118, 33846257WheelockD.UggenC. (2008). “Race, poverty and punishment: the impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality” in The colors of poverty: why racial and ethnic disparities persist. eds. HarrisD.LinA. C. (Russell Sage).ZengZ.MintonT. D. (2021). Jail inmates 2019. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available online at: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji19.pdf (Accessed October 27, 2022).
Edited by: Roman Liera, Montclair State University, United States
Reviewed by: Lystra Hagley-Dickinson, The Open University, United Kingdom
Christin Mujica, Medical University of South Carolina, United States