HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING THE DEVELOPMENT AND LAUNCH OF A NEW UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM By Andrew F. Haggerty A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education—Doctor of Philosophy 2025 ABSTRACT Higher education in prison (HEP) in the United States has a long and varied history, largely tied to changing legislation regarding Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals. Recent legislation has fully restored Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals which has caused a subsequent rise in the number of HEP programs nationally. Previous HEP literature focuses almost exclusively on the outcomes of HEP, and with the number of HEP programs increasing, scholars and practitioners would benefit from scholarship analyzing HEP programs themselves with an organizational lens. To that end, this dissertation utilizes a qualitative case study approach to analyze the development and launch of an undergraduate HEP program, ultimately answering the question: how do HEP programs develop? The Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI) was selected as a common case and data was collected through interviews with 12 participants involved in the program’s creation. Data were analyzed through a critical realist frame by implementing a two-cycle coding process, borrowing components of new venture creation theory and process theory to analyze and organize themes. Themes were constructed under four broad dimensions: (a) process, the steps taken to develop the CPI; (b) individuals, the people involved in the CPI’s creation; (c) organization, the characteristics and structures of the CPI at its launch; and (d) environment, the external influences on the program’s development. The study’s findings and their implications will benefit practitioners by providing critical information about program development and scholars by providing a foundational study to begin analyzing HEP programs as organizations. Copyright by ANDREW F. HAGGERTY 2025 This dissertation is dedicated to all who spend their time, labor, and gifts to improve the lives of others in the pursuit of justice. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am one who get stressed when trying to list people to whom I want to express gratitude. The stress comes largely from the overwhelming number of people who have supported and cared for me over the past 35 years, and the past seven years in this doctoral program. Naming everyone to whom I owe appreciation would be impossible, and it hurts to think about who would be left off a list. Even so, I think expressing gratitude and to express it directly is important, so here goes my best. Just know if your name is not on this list, the very fact you are reading this counts you among those I’m grateful for. Thank you. I became a student affairs professional thanks to a conversation over a Qdoba burrito with Ellen Awad and Shauna Morin in a time of vocational crisis. You helped me pick a master’s program, find my first job, and discern my starting this program. Thanks for your continued support in times of both close and distant contact. Richard Frost, if not for your support as a bright-eyed overconfident 18-year-old in your First Year Seminar class, my trajectory may never have brought me to that point. And to my “flamily” and friends from Hope College—even if you think my job is “social studies,” being a college professor, or buying lots of pizza—you’ve had an immeasurable influence on my values and passions, which have led to this dissertation. My time as a master’s student at the University of Georgia was an unbelievable gift. This is one of those sections I am stressed to write, because listing all of the faculty, administrators, colleagues, and classmates who taught me, cared for me, and brought me joy seems impossible. Thank you CSAA14 (and 13 and 15), CSAA faculty, the CLS, and everyone at CCC. Alex C. Lange, you don’t fit neatly into any single point of my chronological overview, but our friendship began here, so here is where I’ll say thank you for, well, everything. v I have worked at three different institutions over the course of completing this degree, and I am grateful for so many individuals at Calvin University, Grand Valley State University, and Hope College. Jeff Bouman played a unique role in hiring me for my dream job when I was 25 years old and quickly blurring the lines of boss, mentor, and friend all the way through the present when we are both years past our time at Calvin and live across an ocean. To others at the S-LC and CCEGL at Calvin, DSO and DSA at GVSU, and Student Life and Student Formation at Hope, thanks. Todd Cioffi, Kary Bosma, Christina Haven, Amy Piescer, and the countless other CPI staff and supporters, thank you for green lighting this project and for supporting me through it— logistically and emotionally. Even if the final product is coming later than expected, I hope you find it useful and gratifying. Thank you for inviting me into the life of this program. To CPI students past and present, thank you for your effort, resilience, and passion to learn and grow through higher education. I am deeply grateful for my experience as a HALE student at Michigan State University. Like UGA, there are too many individuals to name, but I’d like to offer a resounding thank you to the entire “coheart” and all of the HALE and other MSU faculty who taught and challenged me over the past seven years. Matt Wawrzynski, thanks for nudging me along, improving my writing, and helping me get this darn thing done. Marilyn Amey, Chris Greenhow, Sara Bano, John Dirkx, and Kris Renn, thank you for reading, refining, and challenging my work. And this brings me to my family. Mom, Dad, Matt, and Jess, thank you for instilling in me a love of learning and a care for others. This degree and this dissertation are a direct result of how you raised me, taught me to think, challenged my assumptions, and pushed me to succeed. vi To all the Converses, I have said before and I’ll say again that I am lucky to have married into such a supportive, caring, and inquisitive family And lastly, Andrea, thank you for helping me do this. Thank you for giving me permission and confidence at the very earliest stages by thinking it was obvious I should take this on now. Thank you for all of your labor to manage our household and our children while I read, wrote, drove, and stressed throughout the past seven years. And thank you for dealing with all of my idiosyncrasies as I finished this thing my own way and on my own time—even when it was maddening. Frankie, Tradd, and Cort, none of you were born when I began this thing, and it will be a long time yet until you understand it. You have come into my life alongside this work, and I hope that in time you might get to know it and maybe it will even inspire you. Whether or not you ever see this document, I hope that you’ll become one of those to whom this dissertation is dedicated—one who spends their time, labor, and gifts to improve the lives of others in the pursuit of justice. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................16 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................47 FINDINGS .....................................................................................................................................63 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .........................................................................................94 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................119 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...............................................................................127 viii INTRODUCTION According to a series of reports produced by the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP), the number of new higher education in prison (HEP) programs in the United States each year climbed from fewer than 10 per year prior to 2016, to 10 or more per year each year since (Royer et al., 2020; Royer et al., 2021; Gaskill et al., 2023). The three reports reflected a total growth from 300 to 396 HEP programs between 2018 and 2021. Spurred initially by the 2016 Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative, which offered Pell Grant eligibility to certain incarcerated individuals (Federal Register, 2015), this growth in HEP programs has continued in part due to legislation from December 2020 which expanded eligibility to all incarcerated individuals (H.R. 133, 2020). Despite the rapid acceleration of new HEP programs, scholars thus far have only approached studying HEP through the lens of outcomes, which can be grouped into two main categories: those focusing on student development (Cioffi et al., 2020; Fine et al., 2001; Lahm, 2009; Pompoco et al., 2017) and those focusing on public outcomes (e.g., reducing recidivism and costs; Davis et al., 2014; Esperian et al., 2010). Yet, much remains unknown about HEPs, making them ripe to research, analyze, and evaluate to understand and advocate for high quality education and realization of desired outcomes. Focusing almost exclusively on the outcomes of HEP programs is useful to understand their role and society and justify their existence, but additional lenses (e.g., organizational development) would add practice-oriented perspectives to the body of literature that would provide greater benefit to facilitators of HEP programs. One timely and understudied aspect of HEP programs is their initial development. In the creation of any program or partnership, there are months or years of brainstorming, deliberating, negotiating, and planning that precede its launch (Walsh & Delaney, 2020). For HEP, this stage 1 is particularly fraught given the delicate and restrictive landscape of the field of corrections and the divergent cultures and missions of corrections departments and higher education institutions (Delaney et al., 2016; Ezren et al., 2019). This crucial period is largely absent in academic literature about HEP, which is a missed opportunity to support practitioners and policymakers who seek to launch HEP programs with a coherent guide from those who have done it before. My study seeks to fill this gap by analyzing the development of the Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI), a degree-granting, in-person program at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia, MI, in partnership with Calvin University, a private four-year Christian liberal arts university in Grand Rapids, MI, and Calvin Theological Seminary, a Reformed Christian seminary which shares a campus with Calvin University. The CPI serves as a common case in a single holistic case study (Yin, 2018) through which I gain insight into how the program developed to uncover findings that can benefit both scholars and practitioners of HEP. Utilizing a process theory lens, I conduct interviews focused on understanding the narrative of the CPI’s development. Through analysis of this narrative, I seek to find key factors (e.g., decisions, relationships, and roadblocks) that influenced the successful creation and launch of the program, ultimately answering my research question: How do HEP programs develop? The CPI serves as a useful case to study for several reasons. First, the CPI launched in 2015, and thus developed in the modern era with technologies, policies, and a broader sociohistorical environment that are reflective of current realities. Additionally, the CPI enrolls students who are both near release and serving life and long-term sentences, giving the CPI broad applicability to diverse HEP programs. Second, the CPI embodies the characteristics of quality HEP programs found in current literature, such as a strong partnership and shared goals between the university and corrections department, quality training for participating faculty, and 2 an in-person instruction with access to computers, the university’s library, and other key educational tools. Finally, early indicators of the CPI’s outcomes demonstrate its success thus far, including completion rates at 93%, 87%, and 71% for the certificate, associate, and bachelor’s degree, respectively, and a program-wide average cumulative GPA of 3.59. I describe more about my study and the selection of my case and participants in Chapter Three. In the remainder of this chapter, I describe the significance and purpose of this study in greater detail, introduce and define key terms, articulate my conceptual framework, and discuss my intended outcomes for the study. Significance and Purpose Education continues to be considered an important element of corrections in the U.S. criminal justice system, at least to some (Linden & Perry, 1982). The Corrections Education Association (CEA), for example, was formed 90 years ago, building on the work of early educators such as William Rogers, Jared Curtis, Dorothea Dix, and Austin MacCormick, who helped to found the CEA (Correctional Education Association, n.d.). Education has at various times been a central focus of U.S. prisons, and at others primarily a fringe effort by activists, yet it has never been absent (Linden & Perry, 1982). Higher education—contrasted with vocational education, high school equivalency education, and others—emerged in prisons in the mid-20th century primarily through written mail correspondence and television (Linden & Perry, 1982). HEP has since developed to be accessible to at least some incarcerated individuals in all 50 states through both correspondence and in- person instruction. Higher education plays a distinct role within corrections education for several reasons. First, HEP provides engaging educational opportunities for incarcerated individuals who have already received a high school diploma, completed a GED, or have experience in 3 postsecondary education (AHEP, 2016) and who may be overqualified for and understimulated in traditional correctional education programs. HEP also allows incarcerated individuals to work toward postsecondary degrees, which are becoming increasingly important in one’s ability to qualify for jobs upon release (Royer et al., 2020). Further, some higher education programs provide opportunities for incarcerated individuals to participate in liberal education, which— compared to more practically oriented education—intentionally seeks to develop one’s critical thinking, moral formation, and attention to societal concerns, an opportunity which is lacking in most prison settings (Duguid, 1980; Inderbitzin, 2015; Karpowitz, 2017). As articulated above, opportunities for higher education in prison have expanded tremendously since they began around 1950 (Linden & Perry, 1982). This history of expansion, though, is far from linear. In particular, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was especially disruptive to higher education in prisons (H.R. 3355, 1994). Prior to this Act becoming law, incarcerated individuals had full access to Pell Grants, which were designed to support “those students of exceptional need who, for lack of such a grant, would be unable to obtain the benefits of a postsecondary education” (Education Amendments of 1972, p. 248). Pell Grants were a boon to HEP programs, and higher education institutions around the country began building partnerships with correctional facilities to offer a range of postsecondary education opportunities to incarcerated people (Atkins et al., 2019). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, however, instituted a blanket ban on Pell Grant access to incarcerated individuals, effectively eliminating the majority of HEP programs due to a lack of ability for prospective students to pay for them. In this gap, some privately funded—and often religiously oriented—programs emerged to maintain higher education opportunities for incarcerated individuals, but they were drastically fewer in number (Atkins et al., 2019; Karpowitz, 2017). 4 Over a decade later, the Second Chance Act of 2007 began chipping away at prohibitions on education in prisons, such as requiring the discontinuation of any “project by whatever designation that seeks to compile, list, or otherwise restrict prisoners’ access to reading materials” and other educational materials, with few exceptions (sec. 214). A breakthrough for higher education came in 2016 when the Obama administration launched a pilot initiative called the Second Chance Pell (SCP) Experimental Sites Initiative, which “test[ed] whether participation in high quality education programs increases after expanding access to financial aid for incarcerated individuals” (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2016, para. 1). This pilot program included 67 participating colleges and universities and emphasized strong partnerships between the postsecondary institutions and correctional facilities. In the first two years of the experiment, over $35 million in Pell Grants were awarded to nearly 9,000 students (Bidwell, 2019). In 2019, the Trump administration launched a second round of SCP, expanding the total number of participating higher education institutions to 130 across 42 states and the District of Columbia (ED, 2020). In the federal legislature, fully repealing the Pell eligibility ban received bipartisan support in the years following SCP. The REAL Act of 2019 was a pair of identical bills proposed in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives that would strike the paragraph from the Higher Education Act (HEA) that prohibits incarcerated people from receiving Pell Grants (H.R. 2168, 2019; S. 1074, 2019). These bipartisan bills were short and specific, with the only purpose being to restore Pell Grant eligibility to incarcerated people. The bills were introduced in their respective chambers in April 2019, but did not advance further toward legislation. Another legislative target for repealing the ban was through reauthorization of the HEA. Two key reauthorization bills were introduced in 2019—one from Senator Lamar Alexander (R- 5 TN) and another from Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA 3rd District; H.R. 2168, 2019; S. 2557, 2019). The bill proposed by Senator Alexander, titled the “Student Aid Improvement Act of 2019,” was a narrow package of eight bipartisan bills intended to address key uncontroversial concerns with the lack of reauthorization of the HEA (S. 2557, 2019). To address the issue of SCP, Alexander inserted the REAL Act of 2019 verbatim into his bill. Representative Scott included a much more detailed and nuanced approach to Pell eligibility than Senator Alexander. Section 4016 of Scott’s bill stipulated requirements for institutions awarding Pell Grants to inmates, responsibilities and obligations of the Secretary of Education with this program, and communication regarding best practices for educating incarcerated individuals (H.R. 4674, 2019). In addition to executive action and proposed legislation, policymakers and other influential figures displayed increasingly positive rhetoric toward expanding opportunities for education generally—and sometimes higher education specifically—in prisons. Then Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, for example, called for the “[SCP] experiment…to be made permanent” in a commencement ceremony for Tulsa Community College’s prison education program in a speech that predated the second round of SCP (Kreighbaum, 2019a, para. 4). Other various influential groups, including the National District Attorney’s Association, Verizon Communications, and a group of Republican governors have used their rhetorical power to advocate for legislation that supports increased educational opportunities in prisons (Kreighbaum, 2019b). Amid such momentum toward the restoration of Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals, a watershed moment occurred in December 2020 when legislators included a blanket repeal of the Pell Grant ban in a massive spending bill (Green, 2020). Tucked several thousand pages into 6 the bill, the repeal received little national attention but was widely celebrated by those involved in HEP. The repeal is broadly written and offers Pell Grant eligibility for virtually all incarcerated individuals, given they are enrolled in a legitimate HEP program (H.R. 133, 2020). Per the bill’s text, Pell Grant eligibility went into effect on July 1, 2023. The rich and winding history of higher education in prisons has led to a current sociopolitical moment marked by widespread support for HEP. The primary reason for this widespread support is the overwhelming evidence HEP significantly reduces recidivism (Davis et al., 2014; Esperian et al., 2010). People who identify with the political right often articulate the economic benefit of reduced recidivism—government spending on corrections shrinks when fewer former inmates return to prison. Those who identify with the left find reducing recidivism an issue of justice and educational opportunities for incarcerated people to be a step in remedying societal wrongs that may have influenced their incarceration. Such bipartisan agreement about HEP has manifested an unprecedented increase in the number of higher education programs developed in prisons, evidenced by the AHEP reports (Royer et al., 2020; Royer et al., 2021; Gaskill et al., 2023). Further, the increase is likely to continue accelerating now that all incarcerated individuals are eligible for Pell Grants, not just some through the SCP Experimental Sites Initiative. Developing an HEP program is a complicated, and often fraught endeavor. Program development requires trusted relationships between higher education institutions and corrections departments, who are typically driven by different goals and priorities (Delaney et al., 2016). Development also requires invested staff and faculty, willing to be trained cross-functionally and work in arrangements and environments that are different from their usual norms (Delaney et al., 2016; Erzen et al., 2019; Karpowitz, 2017). Difficult decisions need to be made about the 7 credentials being offered, the modes of instruction available, and the access incarcerated students and the faculty will have to information and physical proximity. Due to this complexity, scholars and practitioners would be prudent to evaluate and research this critical stage for HEP programs—how they develop. Such insight would serve to equip future HEP leaders with critical tools to make the program development process as efficient and effective as possible, in order to provide high quality postsecondary educational opportunities to incarcerated students as quickly as possible. My study seeks to meet this need to better understand the developmental stage of HEP programs. By utilizing a single holistic case study approach, I analyze the steps taken to realize the vision of the CPI. Having described the importance of this study, I move to discuss key terms for my research and their definitions, describe the conceptual framework around which this study is built, and articulate the study’s intended outcomes. Key Terms There are several terms involved in my study that are important to define for clarity and consistency. Distinct to my study is the vocabulary used in the field of HEP. I refer to the field of study as “higher education in prison” over other alternatives such as “prison higher education” and “correctional education.” The first reason I do so is alignment with the most recent developments in the field. In particular, AHEP is the largest organization focused specifically on HEP, and has adopted the label HEP across all its literature and programs (AHEP, 2016). The second reason regards my philosophical orientation to the purpose and focus of HEP. By placing “higher education” before “prison,” I am signaling these programs are first and foremost an endeavor in higher education. The fact that HEP programs take place in a prison setting is not incidental, but it is also not primary to the traditional aims of higher education, namely student 8 learning and development and the advancement of credentials. Further, I avoid the use of the term “correctional” due to a similar orientation. While HEP does correlate with reduced recidivism (Davis et al., 2014; Esperian et al., 2010), decreased violence in prisons (Lahm, 2009; Pompoco et al., 2017), and other prosocial outcomes (Cioffi et al., 2020; Fine et al., 2001), its primary purpose is not to “correct” behavior of those who are incarcerated, but to educate them. The second consideration involves the definition of HEP. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defines HEP as a formal instructional program for incarcerated individuals above traditional high school age, with an academic, vocational, or continuing education purpose (Castro et al., 2018). Further, NCES explicitly states avocational and adult basic education (ABE) programs are excluded from this definition. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) embrace similar definitions, adding the distinction that courses must be able to be used toward a certificate, degree, or other academic credential. The RAND Corporation—a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy—conversely, articulates a broader definition including both ABE and adult secondary education. For the purposes of this study, I adopt the definition put forth by NCES, which excludes basic and secondary education, but includes postsecondary education not oriented toward an academic credential. While my case is a degree-granting HEP program, and thus aligned with the more restrictive ED and IHEP definitions, the body of academic literature used to inform this study and the broader network of HEP in the United States is inclusive of non-credential postsecondary education. There are two other important vocabulary considerations related to the field of HEP, given the sensitivity of the prison environment and criminal justice system broadly. Most such 9 concerns do not have clear consensus among those who are or were incarcerated, scholars, and advocates. The first is the term used to identify someone who is incarcerated. Common vernacular includes words like prisoner, inmate, and convict. Hickman (2015) on behalf of The Marshall Project conducted a non-scientific public survey to gather responses about the best word or phrase to use, and found mixed results. Some believed these commonly used terms to be disparaging terms, and instead preferred phrases like incarcerated person, which prioritizes one’s personhood and considers their incarceration a condition, rather than an identity. Others found the more common terms like prisoner to be accurate, appropriate, and easy to use, and phrases like incarcerated person to be clunky and too politically correct. Respondents from both perspectives included currently or formerly incarcerated individuals. Several respondents also discussed the complexity added by other uses of common terms including Prisoners of War and inmates in other involuntary confinement situations, such as psychiatric hospitals and immigration detention. Ultimately, I primarily use the phrase incarcerated individual/person/student in alignment with the perspectives of advocates for this phrase in Hickman’s survey. I do not, however, modify quotes or references from literature or participants to reflect this personal preference. Another disputed term is how to identify facilities that hold incarcerated people. Prison and jail are commonly used, while correctional facility and penitentiary are typically the official titles of specific institutions. There is less public contention about the use of these terms, and I use them interchangeably, with the exception of jail, which typically holds individuals who are awaiting trial and those with shorter sentences—usually one year or less (National Institute of Justice, n.d.). Due to the transient nature of jails compared to prisons, jails house very few HEP programs and are thus not relevant for this study. 10 In the final two sections of this chapter, I describe the conceptual framework that orients my study and the study’s intended outcomes. Conceptual Framework As described above, there are limited organization-level conceptualizations of HEP, and no studies that have focused specifically on HEP program development. As a result, perspectives from fields outside of HEP are required to frame my study. Within the broader fields of business, organizational theory, and organizational psychology, a subset of literature is focused on entrepreneurship/new venture creation (NVC). While the aims of organizations studied in this literature are often focused on making profit—distinct from the aims of most educational programs—the subfield’s focus on the creation of these organizations yields rich perspectives relevant to my study. One such perspective is Gartner’s (1985) four-dimensional conceptualization of how new organizations develop. I first provide a detailed overview of this framework, and then describe how it influences my study. Overview of Framework Reflecting on a robust landscape of entrepreneurship research, Gartner (1985) sought to “organize the many variables that have been used... to describe entrepreneurs and their ventures into a comprehensive framework” (p. 696). Where most previous entrepreneurship literature emphasized single factors of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial organizations in an effort to distinguish them from non-entrepreneurs, Gartner perceived greater complexity in the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, which led to his four-dimensional framework. Rather than finding one “key variable” (p. 697) that leads to entrepreneurship, Gartner (1985) articulated four broad dimensions that work in a dynamic relationship to influence the 11 development of a new organization. The four dimensions include individual(s), process, environment, and organization. Individual(s) refers to the characteristics of the specific people involved in the creation of new ventures; process refers to the steps taken by those individuals that lead to the launch of new organizations; environment refers to external factors that influence NVC; and organization refers to the organizational characteristics of developing and newly launched entities. I describe my conceptual framework and its uses further in Chapter Two. Utilizing Gartner’s Framework Though developed with new businesses in mind, Gartner’s (1985) framework is broad enough to be relevant across sectors. His four dimensions—individual(s), organization, process, and environment—are apparent in the development of HEP programs. Individuals such as higher education and corrections administrators are essential in HEP program development; a process of development is inherent as the program is created over time; the external environment, such as state and federal policy, have obvious effects on program development; and organizational decisions need to be made within both the university and corrections partners, as well as the emerging “meta-organization” (Gulati et al., 2012) that is the HEP program. This four-dimensional framework plays a role in both my data collection and analysis. My interview protocol is designed to elicit responses about the role each of these dimensions have played in the development of the CPI. In my analysis, part of my coding process is designed to uncover themes across interviews that describe these dimensions of the program’s development. 12 Intended Outcomes This study is oriented toward both practical and scholarly outcomes. Facilitators and prospective facilitators of HEP programs will benefit from this study in a practical way. As the number of HEP programs likely increases in the coming years, these data and findings serve as a resource for young and emerging programs. By understanding the key decisions, partnerships, and roadblocks of the CPI’s development, corrections and higher education leaders can take steps early in the process to anticipate such factors, potentially mitigating issues and enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of their program’s development. Advocates and policymakers can also use this information to promote and write legislation that helps to facilitate the emergence of quality HEP programs. Representative Scott’s bill (H.R. 2168, 2019) provides an example of how legislation can be crafted to support quality and accountability in HEP, including such details as various requirements for institutions awarding Pell Grants to incarcerated individuals, responsibilities and obligations of the Secretary of Education within the HEP, and required communication regarding best practices for educating incarcerated individuals (H.R. 4674, 2019). The academic fields of higher education, correctional education, adult education, and criminal justice are also enhanced by this addition to their bodies of literature. This study fills a gap in the literature of program-level analysis of HEP, where most of the current literature on HEP has focused on the outcomes of such programs. Additionally, this study serves as a discipline cross-over study that can inform more higher education focused scholars on the perspectives of corrections/criminology and can inform the corrections focused scholars on the perspectives of higher education. 13 Finally, for staff and members of the CPI, this study provides a rigorous analysis of the development of their program, leading to several beneficial outcomes. First, the study helps to develop a thorough and accurate narrative about their program that can be shared for reputation building, funding opportunities, and program advocacy within and outside of Calvin University. The study may also provoke critical reflection about the state of their program currently, based on how the program began. Such reflection may create opportunities to make adjustments that better reflect the original goals of the program or to advance the program into a desired future state by articulating from where “next steps” can emerge. Conclusion Education has been a meaningful element of the U.S. criminal justice system for centuries, and higher education specifically has played an important role over the past 70 years. The Pell Grant era ushered in a boom in HEP until the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 revoked Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals, effectively eliminating access to higher education for the majority of people in prisons. In recent years, public sentiment toward education in prison has become sharply more positive, and the number of HEP programs is rising due to both private funding and the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiatives of 2016 and 2019. In December 2020, legislators passed a full reversal on the Pell Grant ban, opening the door to a new boom in HEP. As the number of HEP programs continues to climb, attention should be paid to the critical task of developing these programs, given the potentially fraught landscape of partnership between higher education institutions, corrections departments, and other key actors. The current HEP literature has a strong focus on program outcomes and limited attention to the 14 organizational aspect of HEP programs. Specifically, there are no studies that analyze the developmental period of HEP programs, despite the importance of this phase. My study seeks to fill this gap by utilizing a case study approach to analyze the development of a six-year-old HEP program. To do so, I utilize Gartner’s (1985) four- dimensional framework for NVC to inform my data collection and analysis of the CPI’s development through interviews and document analyses. The results of my study benefits both practitioners and scholars of HEP as well as the staff and constituents of the CPI. In the next chapter, I provide a review of relevant literature, and in Chapter Three I elaborate on the case and discuss my methodological approach to the study. 15 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter I review, analyze, and synthesize literature relevant to the development of higher education in prison (HEP) programs. I begin the chapter by describing what current literature reveals about the landscape of HEP, including its present and historical characteristics. I then analyze HEP scholarship, which primarily focuses on the role HEP plays in reducing recidivism, the economic benefits of HEP, and the effect of HEP on incarcerated students. Next, I describe the characteristics of quality HEP programs. In my final section I address the specific topic of my study—how HEP programs develop. Because there is limited literature on the topic, I analyze literature on the development of organizations and programs broadly, and conclude by reviewing three narratives of HEP programs that provide insight into how such programs develop. HEP literature comes from a range of fields including higher education, correctional education, adult education, criminal justice, and other related fields. Further, as a field strongly influenced by policy, relevant literature includes both peer-reviewed academic journals and non- academic sources such as governmental documents, policy briefs, and press releases. The diverse contexts and formats of HEP literature require scholars of the field to attend to both theoretical (often academic) and practical (often non-academic) perspectives. Education scholars, for example, study the outcomes of HEP programs and theorize about how incarcerated students develop. Policymakers and advocates, conversely, emphasize describing and defining HEP programs for purposes of program implementation. My study fits in both perspectives; it is theoretical in its potential to help me theorize about how HEP programs develop, grounded in well-established organizational theory, and it is practical in that it may provide a concrete road map for higher education and corrections administrators to develop and launch HEP programs. 16 Landscape of HEP I begin this literature review by describing the landscape of HEP that emerges from its scholarship. To do so, I describe several practical aspects including the numbers and types of HEP programs today, a description of HEP as a field of study and practice, and an overview of the history of HEP in the United States. Furthermore, I discuss the theoretical aspects of HEP literature by describing the main themes of research conducted about and with HEP programs. HEP by the Numbers The total number and types of HEP programs that exist across the United States are difficult to determine because there is not clear consensus among the field on how to count and report HEP programs (Castro et al., 2018; Royer et al., 2020). In fact, two recent attempts to identify the number of existing HEP programs demonstrate divergent approaches to counting programs. One utilized data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) in tandem with a rigorous internet, phone, and email search to uncover 202 HEP programs in the United States (Castro et al., 2018). A second report utilized data from the 2020 Annual Survey of Higher Education in Prison Programs and the Research Collaborative on Higher education in prison to discover a total of 300 HEP programs (Royer et al., 2020). Determining the specific causes for the gap of nearly 100 programs is difficult, but important factors are the latter report solicited self-reported data through the annual survey rather than a researcher-driven approach to find programs, and it was compiled two years later in a time when new HEP programs were launching regularly. The proportional distribution of programs by institutional type and geography were similar in both studies (Castro et al., 2018; Royer et al., 2020). Roughly half of programs come out of public two-year colleges, with the remaining half being almost evenly split between public 17 and private four-year colleges. The programs were distributed fairly evenly throughout most of the U.S., with California, New York, and Texas hosting the highest number of programs, collectively accounting for roughly one third of all HEP programs. Royer et al. (2020) also were able to describe several additional factors of the HEP landscape from their data, including the following: • Modes of instruction: 86.2% of responding programs offered only face-to-face instruction, with the remaining offering either remote-only or hybrid instruction. More recent reports reflected increased use of remote construction, though the degree to which the COVID-19 pandemic—which was active during the survey response period— influenced the increase is unclear (Gaskill et al., 2023). • Facility type: Roughly 55% of programs operated only at male-designated facilities, 7% at female designated facilities, and 38% operated at both. • Degree pathway: Of the 119 programs that offered degree pathways, 95 offered associate pathways, 39 offered bachelor’s pathways, and 6 offered master’s pathways. The authors found no programs that offered doctorate pathways. • Number of students: About one-eighth of the programs served fewer than 25 students, one quarter served 25-50 students, one quarter served 51-100, one quarter served 101- 500, and the remaining eighth served greater than 500. The Field of HEP One likely cause of the difficulty in counting HEP programs is, until recently, HEP consisted of individual programs that did not organize into a coherent structure or distinct field. One can assume leaders in HEP likely developed an informal network over time, but a formal network did not emerge until 2010 with the inaugural National Conference on Higher Education 18 in Prison (NCHEP; Alliance for Higher Education in Prison [AHEP], n.d.). After several years of meeting together annually, leaders of the NCHEP formally organized this network into the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP) with a mission to “support the expansion of quality higher education programs in prison, empower students in prison and after release, and shape public discussion about education and incarceration” (AHEP, 2016, p. 9). AHEP is the first and only national network dedicated specifically to higher education in prison, though several other entities exist that are connected to the field of HEP. The University of Utah houses the Research Collaborative on Higher Education in Prison, which advances scholarship on HEP. The Correctional Education Association is a longstanding national network dedicated to the work of education in prison, though not exclusively higher education. Several non-profit organizations, such as the Prison Studies Project, the Vera Institute, and the RAND Corporation have broader missions that include study and advocacy of HEP. Finally, in addition to these organizing bodies, the Journal of Higher Education in Prison—the first academic journal focused specifically on HEP—was established in 2019 to provide a scholarly outlet for HEP literature. Taken together, a developmental arc emerges of once disparate individuals and groups forming more and more organized networks to advocate for, implement, and study HEP. History of HEP The current landscape of HEP has clear links to its history. Postsecondary educators have participated in prison education essentially since the beginning of an organized prison system in the U.S. (Linden & Perry, 1982). The efforts of these educators, though, were largely individual as they sought to provide educational opportunities to incarcerated people out of a personal or religious sense of mission. The recent history of HEP—which has the clearest influence on HEP today—began in 1965 with the introduction of Pell Grants (then called Basic Education 19 Opportunity Grants) into U.S. higher education (Atkins et al., 2019). This recent history consists of four distinct eras, defined by the changing legislation regarding access to Pell Grants for those in prison. The first era began in 1965 when incarcerated individuals were able to receive Pell Grants, and the number of HEP programs ballooned. A ban on Pell Grant eligibility ushered in the second era in 1994 and HEP opportunities sharply declined. The ban was partially lifted in 2016, launching the third era during which the number of programs began to climb. In 2020, the fourth era began with a full restoration of Pell Grant eligibility through federal legislation. The implementation of this legislation is too recent to understand the manner and degree to which it will influence the field of HEP, but it is likely going to continuing causing an increase in HEP programs as universities and prospective students capitalize on this new opportunity. First Era: 1965–1994 Incarcerated individuals were not mentioned in the original Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, out of which Pell Grants emerged. As a result, incarcerated individuals were assumed to be eligible for Pell Grants, which instigated a growing number of higher education opportunities in prisons as colleges and universities saw an opportunity to expand their student bodies and program offerings to include those in prison (Atkins et al., 2019; Linden & Perry, 1982). Second Era: 1994–2016 The second era of HEP’s history began when, after over two decades of access to Pell Grants, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 abruptly banned Pell Grant eligibility for those incarcerated in federal and state penal institutions (Atkins et al., 2019; H.R. 3355, 1994). As a result, the number of HEP programs sharply dropped, with those remaining being privately funded by philanthropists and religious organizations (Atkins et al., 2019; Karpowitz, 2017). 20 Third Era: 2016–2020 The third era began in 2016 with the launch of the Second Chance Pell (SCP) Experimental Sites Initiative, an executive action which allowed select colleges and universities to offer Pell Grants to incarcerated students (Federal Register, 2015). This program was renewed and expanded in 2019 and several pieces of legislation written to fully and permanently overturn the Pell Grant ban were proposed (ED, 2020; H.R. 4674, 2019; H.R. 2168, 2019; S. 2557, 2019; S. 1074, 2019). Fourth Era: 2020–Today The fourth and most recent era began in late 2020, when legislation repealing the ban finally passed attached to a governmental spending bill (Green, 2020). This final era, ushered in by political openness to Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals and culminating in a complete reversal of the ban, is marked by a dramatic increase in the number of HEP programs with no end in sight (Royer et al., 2020; Royer et al., 2021; Gaskill et al., 2023). The current and historical landscapes of HEP in the United States provide important background regarding where the field is and how it got there. The fact of a growing number of HEP programs, though, is only a partial picture of the field. Important questions emerge about why HEP programs are important and what they accomplish. HEP Scholarship As articulated in Chapter One, the vast majority of HEP scholarship focuses on discovering and articulating the outcomes of HEP programs for individuals and society. Studies tend to identify two primary aims and outcomes of HEP, namely, student development and public outcomes. The majority of studies focused on student development analyze change in incarcerated students’ behaviors while in prison as evidence of development, suggesting if those 21 who participate in HEP commit fewer offenses than those who are not, development is likely occurring (Adams et al., 1994; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Lahm, 2009; Pompoco et al., 2017). A limited number of student development studies analyze the personal formation of incarcerated students (Cioffi et al., 2020; Fine et al., 2001). Notably, some studies in both categories extend their findings about the benefits of HEP on incarcerated students to the children of such students, suggesting the incarcerated individual’s growth may have generational positive impact on their children and future generations (Fine et al., 2001). Studies on the benefits of HEP for the public focus on two interrelated outcomes: reducing recidivism and decreasing the costs of incarceration. Decades of research has demonstrated, to some degree, education in prison—especially HEP—reduces the likelihood that a person released from prison will end up back in prison (Bozick et al., 2018; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Esperian, 2010). When fewer people return to prison, the overall prison population decreases, which in turn decreases the cost on the public of incarceration overall. Several studies have analyzed this effect and have sought to quantify the savings the education in prison has on taxpayers (Aos & Drake, 2013; Davis et al., 2013; Oakford et al., 2019). Taken together, the focus of these studies demonstrates most current HEP literature is oriented toward justifying HEP to policymakers, philanthropists, and others who could influence the growth of HEP. While academics and educators likely care about the personal development of incarcerated students, policymakers and the broader public may care more about making communities and prisons safer and saving taxpayer dollars. My study does not prioritize one outcome of HEP over another and instead takes the body of literature that demonstrates the individual and societal benefits of HEP as strong justification to analyze HEP programs and how 22 they develop. That said, scholars should explore and interrogate these outcomes to better understand them further. Student Development As articulated above, few scholars have sought to analyze the personal development of incarcerated students, which is due in part to the public concerns about incarcerated individuals, and is likely exacerbated by the challenge of conducting research with incarcerated individuals as subjects due to ethical, political, and logistical concerns. Similar to the generally positive findings in the literature as a whole, the few studies that have emphasized personal development have found incarcerated students demonstrated enhanced self-esteem, better communication skills, increased academic competence, and became better members of their prison communities (Cioffi et al., 2020; Fine et al., 2001). The latter finding connects closely with the rest of HEP student development literature, which finds incarcerated individuals who participate in education are better members of the prison community. The most common factor is HEP participants commit fewer disciplinary infractions and are involved in less violence than those who do not participate in HEP (Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Lahm, 2009; Pompoco et al., 2017; Taylor, 1992). However, studies have found not only do HEP participants not negatively affect the prison community, but often benefit the community, serving as positive role models and support the growth of their peers (Cioffi et al., 2020; Dewey et al., 2020; Taylor, 1992). For incarcerated students with children, these emotional and behavioral changes can extend to their children who are often proud of their parents and see them as role models and motivators for their own educational success (Burns & Novick, 2019; Fine et al., 2001). 23 Public Outcomes While benefits of HEP for individuals are clearly articulated in the body of HEP literature, scholars predominantly emphasize the benefits of HEP on society. Such benefits fall primarily into two categories: reducing recidivism and lowering incarceration costs. Reducing Recidivism The most common argument for HEP in policy and the most common outcome of HEP studied in scholarship is reducing recidivism. Helping people released from prison stay out of prison is a non-controversial aim, justified by numerous lenses including justice, family, morality, and economy. While studies on recidivism vary in their definitions, methodology, and scope—and not all focus specifically on higher education—they are largely congruent around one main idea: participation in education while in prison is associated with reduced recidivism rates (Bozick et al.; 2018; Davis et al., 2014; Duwe & Clark, 2014; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Esperian, 2010; Fabelo, 2002; Oakford et al., 2019; Pompoco et al., 2017). This broad finding, however, has several important nuances important in literature and practice. First, while scholars agree participation in education while incarcerated reduces recidivism, the rate of the reduction is up for debate. Studies range from demonstrating a 10-15% reduction in recidivism (Davis et al., 2014; Esperian et al., 2010; Fabelo, 2010) to a 40-50% reduction (Davis et al., 2014; Erisman & Contardo, 2005) and ranges in between (Bozick et al., 2018; Esperian et al., 2010). These discrepancies are likely due in part to the diverse contexts in which these studies were conducted. Additionally, a significant challenge to recidivism studies is the lack of a consistent definition of what recidivism is (Scott, 2018). Recidivism rates can vary based on their time frame (e.g., how long are released prisoners “followed” to assess 24 recidivism?), type (e.g., for what are they reincarcerated?), and magnitude (e.g., are they in jail or prison; held or convicted; what is the length of their sentence?). Further complicating the findings about recidivism, some scholars found in meta- analyses of recidivism that very few were conducted with a high degree of methodological rigor (Davis et al., 2014; Scott, 2018). There are also concerns about selection bias—that those who choose to participate in education while in prison are less likely to recidivate to begin with (Oakford et al., 2019; Scott, 2018). While these challenges are important to identify and address in future research, the literature demonstrates education in prison reduces recidivism to some degree. Much of the education-in-prison literature is not exclusive to higher education, and instead includes adult basic education, vocational education, and other educational interventions in corrections. Scholars who focus exclusively on HEP are congruent in their findings regarding reducing recidivism (Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Oakford et al., 2019), and those who distinguish among various types of education find HEP is distinctly useful in reducing recidivism compared to other forms of education-in-prison (Batiuk et al., 2005; Duwe & Clark, 2014; Pompoco et al., 2017). Lowering Incarceration Costs Reducing recidivism has obvious individual benefits for those who do not end up back in prison after release. Additionally, a commonly studied outcome of HEP is its capacity to decrease the costs of incarceration—largely due to the lower overall rate of incarceration from a declining rate of recidivism. Similar to determining rates of recidivism, calculating savings on incarceration costs is a muddy undertaking. Studies vary in scope (e.g., state versus federal) and magnitude (e.g., individual prisoner versus collective incarceration costs), causing incongruent 25 findings. Further, scholars do not agree on the role an individual who does not return to prison plays on the overall economy (Scott, 2018). For example, a person released from prison who is re-arrested and spends two weeks in jail, but whose trial is dismissed costs less than a person who is re-convicted for a multi-year sentence. Both hypothetical people returned to incarceration, and thus recidivated, but the two-week period in jail cost taxpayers much less than a multi-year prison sentence. Studies are not consistent in how they “count” recidivism in this regard, and some cases are not transparent in how they do so (Scott, 2018). As is the case with recidivism, however, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that HEP leads to decreased incarceration costs, even if the scope and magnitude may vary (Aos & Drake, 2013; Davis et al., 2013; Esperian, 2010; Oakford et al., 2019). The literature suggests expanding access to HEP would likely save states tens of millions of dollars and the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars annually in costs for corrections. Characteristics of Quality HEP Programs As is the case with any endeavor, the positive outcomes described above are not inevitable. HEP programs need to be carefully designed and effectively implemented in order to achieve these goals. Articulating the characteristics of a quality HEP program is especially important as a new era of Pell Grant eligibility is provoking a rise in the number of programs (Castro & Gould, 2019; Delaney et al., 2016; Erzen et al., 2019; Mangan, 2021; Walsh & Delaney, 2020). Such an articulation would motivate and keep accountable programs that emerge to offer effective educational experiences in this era, and combat those which might “move into the space to exploit this new source of funding” (Mangan, 2021, p. 17). Historically, prisons have been a home for exploitative educational institutions, which operate as “accreditation mills,” which emphasize conferring as many credentials as possible—typically to yield profit— 26 regardless of whether students have achieved desired outcomes (Castro & Zamani-Gallagher, 2017, p. 4). Some HEP professionals are also skeptical of the quality of large-scale HEP programs offered by non-profit colleges and universities, perhaps for reputational or financial gains (Morona, 2021). As Pell Grant eligibility exponentially increases the number of incarcerated individuals who could afford higher education, such perspectives on previous exploitation within the field of HEP are a cautionary tale to pursue quality as the quantity of programs increases. Several scholars and practitioners have sought to advance the field by analyzing and articulating key characteristics in high quality HEP programs. I describe below several themes emerge from the literature, including a shared mission, effective partnerships, personnel training and development, curriculum and instruction, and student support. Shared Mission The purpose of my study is to determine how an HEP program is successfully launched, and the current literature on quality in HEP offers some helpful preliminary insights regarding what an emerging HEP should aspire toward. The most commonly identified element of quality programs across the literature is a clear and formalized shared mission between the corrections department (CD) and higher education institution (HEI) that advances mutual goals (Delaney et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019). The significance of program mission is underscored by a group of authors stating clearly, “the importance of a clear mission endorsed and understood by all constituents cannot be overstated [emphasis added]” (Dewey et al., 2020. p. 85). One particular challenge in finding consensus on program mission, however, is corrections staff may approach HEP with different goals in mind than higher education leaders (Delaney et al., 2015). The former, for example, may seek better behavior from incarcerated 27 students and reduced recidivism upon release, whereas the latter might prioritize the academic mission of the program. A useful example of such a distinction comes from a report, which states safeguarding academic rigor and integrity and creating an ethos of value and respect are the central goals of HEP programs (Erzen et al., 2019). While those two goals are potentially agreeable to both parties, they are strikingly focused on the higher education side of the partnership, and the corrections department may disagree with their centrality. Partnerships The importance of and challenges to defining clear and formalized shared goals is connected to the necessity of thoughtfully managed partnerships for quality of HEP programs. This influence is borne out in the quantity of HEP literature that addresses this crucial aspect of HEP programs. The most common—and most important—partnership is between the CD and HEI (Delaney et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Such partnerships are the “most critical aspect of... a successful postsecondary education program in a confinement setting,” (p. 12) and influence all phases of an HEP program, from development through evaluation (Delaney et al., 2016). Practically, regular planning and check-in meetings between partners help to facilitate consistent communication and clear written agreements can both bolster the sense of partnership and ensure its sustainability through personnel and other transitions in either environment (Delaney et al., 2016; Erzen et al., 2019). Partnerships between CDs and HEIs can extend beyond administrators and program facilitators to include faculty, prison staff, and inmate representatives (Rose & Nyre, 1979). Though the CD and HEI relationship is the most essential to the success of an HEP program, scholars and practitioners have found several other partnerships to be useful in enhancing the quality of HEP, including with local non-profit organizations where incarcerated 28 students could provide services (under the supervision of HEP program staff) for college credit. Such partnerships with community organizations can also support incarcerated students upon release by providing job training, employment opportunities, and other support services, which augment HEP’s goal of reducing recidivism (Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Another important, but understudied partnership—especially related to the development of HEP programs—is higher education administrators and faculty with prospective incarcerated students. In his compelling narrative of the development of the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI), Karpowitz (2017) described the importance of finding common ground with students BPI was trying to recruit. In an early recruitment session, for example, Karpowitz described a very skeptical group of prospective students asking questions like, “What’s in it for you” (p. 13) and “What’s the point of these fancy subjects for us” (p. 14)? Working with prospective students to address such concerns and following through on promises made is part of what has made the BPI one of the preeminent HEP programs in the country (Burns & Novick, 2019). Personnel Training and Development The majority of HEP programs offer primarily or exclusively face-to-face instruction within the grounds of the correctional facility (Royer et al., 2020). As a result, a crucial factor in the quality of an HEP program is the capacity of faculty to effectively teach in an environment that starkly contrasts their traditional classrooms (Duguid, 1980). Karpowitz (2017) expressively described “the approach to a prison building and the journey through its labyrinth of hallways are oppressive experiences” (p. 8), noting convincing professors to teach college courses inside a prison can be difficult. Beyond the oppressive aesthetics of a correctional facility, restrictive policies in prison classrooms, such as banned educational tools and materials, make for a 29 logistically and psychologically challenging experience for instructors (Dewey, 2020; Erzen et al, 2019). As a result, equipping faculty with the knowledge and resources to effectively organize and plan their courses and instruction with this environment in mind is crucial to the success of an HEP program (Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). While quality instruction can come from the recruitment of qualified and committed faculty and staff (Mukamal et al., 2015; Rose & Nyre, 1979), another key factor is effective training for those involved. Faculty development is most effective when facilitated by both the CD and HEI, as both perspectives combined create the most holistic preparation for faculty (Dewey et al., 2020; Delaney et al., 2016; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Including corrections staff in training for faculty, for example, can help corrections officers understand the academic experience and voice concerns or misgivings they have as well as give faculty a clearer sense of why corrections staff take actions they may view as unsupportive or alienating (Delaney et al., 2016). This shared knowledge and congruence helps to create a more seamless experience for incarcerated students and remove some potential challenges to their success. Curriculum and Instruction Another key aspect of HEP program quality is the curricular and instructional decisions that are made. At the program design level, program leaders need to make decisions about the level of curriculum and credentials offered; mode(s) of instruction available (e.g., face-to-face, correspondence, etc.); access to technology, the university library, and other instructional resources; and several other matters (Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). At the course design level, instructors need to determine how they will teach their courses in an environment with restricted access to technology and other classroom resources. 30 Regarding curriculum, HEP advocates historically argued for a postsecondary curriculum that was distinct from high school curriculum offered to incarcerated individuals and could lead students toward a bachelor’s degree (Rose & Nyre, 1979). Evidence from a survey of contemporary HEP suggests those goals have largely been accomplished (Royer et al., 2020). Regarding credentials, quality HEP programs are accredited, credit-bearing, and transferable toward a degree or certificate upon release (Erzen et al., 2019). Regarding instruction, quality HEP programs prioritize face-to-face instruction and have a “dedicated classroom and study space with minimal noise, distraction, and interruption” (Erzen et al., 2019, p. 9). Access to technology is another important instructional consideration that can pose an incredible challenge for an HEP program and the instructors and students therein. One group of authors described “internet and technology access are almost universally desired” by HEP program staff, but such access can be limited due to security and safety concerns (Dewey et al., 2020, p. 83). As a result, HEP leaders should think creatively about how the internet, intranets, local-area networks, and wide-area networks can be utilized to support instruction and learning (Delaney et al., 2016, Dewey et al., 2020). As technology is introduced into HEP programs, providing incarcerated students with opportunities to enhance their technological literacy— especially those who were incarcerated before major technological advancements had occurred—becomes increasingly important (Delaney et al., 2020). As described in the previous section, a quality HEP program will equip faculty with a range of knowledge and resources to adapt their traditional pedagogy to the prison setting. However, faculty still need to make choices about how they will implement such advice. Some instructors use HEP as an opportunity to experiment with new pedagogies rather than leaning on well-established good practices (Karpowitz, 2017). While pedagogical innovation is not 31 inherently problematic, such experimentation should not be done uniquely in the prison context, nor in a way that would limit the quality of the educational experience for incarcerated students. Student Support This review of literature suggests a quality HEP program requires effective decision- making through partnership by program leadership as well as effective development and implementation of instructional plans by faculty. The third key group of people who create a successful program are, of course, the students. There is limited literature on the specific roles and responsibilities of the students in creating a quality program, but several authors discussed the supportive environment around them that can cause a program to thrive. Key support services required for a quality HEP program include academic planning and advising, academic reentry planning, and student support services, including social- psychological support, motivational advising, and academic skill development (Erzen et al., 2019). On-site faculty office hours are an additional form of support that, though logistically challenging, are helpful to give incarcerated students more and easier access to faculty to ask questions about coursework and receive feedback (Rose & Nyre, 1979). These support services are especially important for incarcerated students, many of whom “have already been failed by [the] education system, often at an early age” (Mukamal et al., 2015, p. 3). Indeed, while all students can benefit from academic and non-academic support services, incarcerated students who are disproportionately likely to have had difficulties in school. In addition to the institution-based support services described above, several scholars discussed the benefits of peer student support amid communities of incarcerated students (Dewey et al., 2020; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Examples of program design considerations that can influence such peer support include shared housing among incarcerated students and tutoring and 32 mentoring opportunities for more experienced students. Even when not facilitated by the program structure, groups of incarcerated students collectively can create a sense of calm, positivity, and engagement within the student community that may provide a reprieve from, or even influence for the better, the general prison community (Dewey et al., 2020). How HEP Programs Develop While the literature described above demonstrates HEP scholars and practitioners continue to learn more about what makes a HEP program particularly effective, one question remains: How do we get there? As described previously, there is a dearth of literature about the development stage of HEP programs. In fact, researchers from the Vera Institute for Justice claimed they could find “no resources on how to start [an HEP program] in prison” (Walsh & Delaney, 2020, p. 4). In response, Walsh and Delaney (2020) wrote a report based on practical wisdom that serves as a ten-part guide to establishing an HEP program. The report included practical advice on several factors already discussed in this chapter, including fundamental guiding principles of HEP programs, establishing partnerships, and recruiting and training personnel. One unique aspect of Walsh and Delaney’s report largely not covered in other literature is funding HEP programs, where they articulated two basic models: program-based and student-based. Given the lack of access to financial aid for incarcerated individuals, most recent programs have a program-based funding model where students pay few or no costs for their education. With recent legislation making incarcerated individuals eligible for Pell Grants, student-based funding models are likely to be more accessible options to HEP programs. Beyond Walsh and Delaney’s (2020) report, the literature on the development of HEP programs is virtually non-existent. As a result, one has to seek wisdom from other fields about how organizations and programs develop, especially organizational theory and business through 33 which scholars have studied entrepreneurship and new venture creation (NVC)—subfields which focus on the development of organizations and programs. In addition to elaborating on this literature, I also provide lessons learned from several narratives of HEP programs, then conclude with a reflection on what program quality literature can teach us about program development. Organizational Theory and Business Literature Compared to HEP literature, organizational theory and business literature contain far more scholarship focusing on organizations and programs themselves as the unit of analysis, rather than only analyzing their outcomes. Several scholars have studied the overall lifecycle of organizations, analyzing how organizations emerge, change, and sometimes end (Kimberly, 1979; Phelps et al., 2007; Stevens, 2002). This scholarship, however, rarely emphasizes the development phase of organizational lifecycles, instead prioritizing changes and innovations over the lifecycle of an organization after it is launched. Some researchers have sought to zoom in on the developmental stage of organizations and have largely done so through the lens of entrepreneurship and NVC (Bartunek & Betters-Reed, 1987; Bhave, 1994; Gartner, 1985; Katz & Gartner, 1988; Waqar et al., 2020). The two lenses are mostly synonymous, though an imperfect distinction can be made between a focus on the individuals creating new organizations (entrepreneurship) and the organizations themselves (NVC). Related to my study, theories from this literature tend to articulate organizational development in one of two ways. The first are variance theories, which describe organizational development through several factors or characteristics. The second are process theories, which describe the stages organizations go through as they emerge. 34 Variance Theories My study’s conceptual framework is an example of a variance theory, where distinct factors—individual(s), process, environment, and organization—interact with one another to support (or hinder) the development of an organization (Gartner, 1985). Over time, several scholars have affirmed and built upon this framework (Donaldson & Mateu, 2021; Katz & Gartner, 1988; Waqar et al., 2020). Additional characteristics of developing organizations articulated by subsequent research include intentionality, boundaries, and exchange (Katz & Gartner, 1988) as well as an emphasis on the goals of such organizations, like the pursuit of “sustainable solutions to existing social problems” (Waqar et al., 2020, p. 1987). Katz and Gartner (1988) elaborated on or rephrased characteristics of Gartner’s (1985) framework, such as “resources,” which describes some of Gartner’s environment dimension and “exchange,” which describes connections across subsystems, relating to Gartner’s environment and organization dimensions. Process Theories Rather than describing non-synchronous factors of emerging organizations, some scholars sought to determine a predictable process through which organizations emerged (Bartunek & Betters-Reed, 1987; Bhave, 1994; Donaldson & Mateu, 2021). Importantly, these process theories do not necessarily contradict variance theories, but instead add a temporal articulation of organizational development. One overarching model provides a broad, comprehensive process approach to organization development, describing the three key stages: (1) first ideas, (2) commitment and early planning, and (3) implementation (Bartunek & Betters- Reed, 1987). Other models describe more refined or detailed processes, such as one describing in detail the stages of opportunity recognition and business concept (first ideas), commitment to 35 physical creation and technology development (commitment and early planning), and organization creation (implementation; Bhave, 1994; Donaldson & Mateu, 2021). Interpreting Variance and Process Theories Variance and process theories of entrepreneurship and NVC offer several considerations to my study. First, there are several non-temporal factors that likely influence the development of HEP programs, as described in Chapter One. Gartner’s (1985) framework, for example, is as applicable to HEP development as it is to NVC. As organizations, HEP programs are like NVCs in that individual, process, organization, and environmental factors (and other variance theory elements) all affect their successful launch. Further, NVC process theories can provide a basic template for how HEP programs develop. While the ultimate end (i.e., profit) may differ from NVCs, HEP programs may certainly progress through such stages like first ideas, commitments, and implementation. However, compared to for-profit companies, HEP programs likely have different aims and approaches throughout those stages. Conceptual Framework The most influential piece of literature on my study from the fields of organizational theory and business is my conceptual framework—Gartner’s (1985) four-dimensional framework for new venture creation. In this section I describe the framework in detail and explore how other scholars have utilized this framework to understand the development of organizations and programs. Four Dimensions Gartner’s (1985) framework involves four dimensions of new venture creation which, together, influence the launch of a new business. The framework contrasts previous NVC theories focused on singular dimensions, which Gartner found to be incomplete and only 36 partially helpful in understanding the process of NVC. I provide an overview of the four dimensions—individual(s), process, environment, and organization—below. Individual(s). Individual entrepreneurs are a necessary driving force behind new venture creation according to Gartner (1985). As a result, scholars have often sought to develop a psychological profile of an entrepreneur. In fact, Gartner’s framework was largely in response to his skepticism that previous studies seeking to differentiate entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs were misguided in assuming “all entrepreneurs are alike and all new venture creation is the same” (p. 701). Gartner refuted the idea of a single psychological profile but did note some research has found evidence of common psychological (e.g., need for achievement and risk- taking personality) and demographic (e.g., previous work experience, age, and education) characteristics of entrepreneurs. Process. All organizations go through various processes in their workflow and growth. In the development stage, however, the processes organizational actors perform are different from established organizations who are implementing routine functions. Understanding this reality, Gartner’s (1985) review of previous literature uncovered six common behaviors of entrepreneurs in the process of NVC: • locating an opportunity, • accumulating resources, • marketing products and services • producing the product, • building an organization, and • responding to government and society. 37 Environment. In the 1980s, Gartner (1985) observed scholars becoming increasingly concerned about the ways entrepreneurs experience and respond to their environments, describing external pushes and pulls that may create entrepreneurs. Through his analysis of organizational theory literature, he uncovered two basic views of the environment. The first, environmental determinism, suggests the environment exists and the organization must adapt to it. The second, strategic choice, views the environment as created by organizations through the selectivity of their own perceptions. Ultimately, studies demonstrate a wide range of environmental factors which contribute to NVC (Gartner noted 12 factors), including accessibility to essential resources, public attitudes, and governmental influences. Organization. Finally, Gartner (1985) found scant research on the characteristics of actual organizations in his review of literature, suggesting the monolithic understanding of entrepreneurs and their process led to an expectation that new ventures were also a monolith and not worth studying as organizations. The few studies that addressed this topic articulated factors such as differentiation, focus, leadership, and partnerships as possible influences for NVC at an organization level. Additional Considerations and Uses Gartner (1985) is obviously not the only scholar to seek to analyze the multiple dimensions of developing organizations. Many scholars since have sought to provide their own framework to NVC and some have explicitly sought to build upon Gartner’s original framework. Gartner himself has written extensively on the topic. One specific study he co-authored interrogated the organization dimension of his original framework (Katz & Gartner, 1988). Within this dimension, Katz and Gartner (1988) found four key properties of entrepreneurial organizations: intentionality, resources, boundary, and exchange. Describing each of these 38 properties in depth is outside the scope of this chapter, but notably most properties—resources, boundary, and exchange—extend beyond the organization dimension of Gartner’s original framework and can reasonably be connected with the environment (e.g., how policy influences resources allocated) and process (e.g., steps taken to create mutually beneficial exchange) dimensions. More recently, Waqar et al. (2020) utilized Gartner’s (1985) framework to analyze contemporary literature on NVC. Interestingly, the authors found strong resonance with Gartner’s framework in the literature from the past 35 years, giving credence to its use in my study. The authors did not suggest any amendments to the framework, but did provide contemporary evidence to support its tenets. In particular, Waqar et al. found ample literature suggesting the following characteristics of typical entrepreneurs: need for achievement, internal locus of control, propensity toward risk-taking, previous work experience, educational achievement, and an age range between 20-34 or 50-60 years old. Additionally, related to Gartner’s organization dimension, the authors explored that many NVCs embrace a two-fold mission of both financial stability and social purpose, which was not mentioned in the original framework. Finally, an important note is Gartner’s (1985) framework has been widely utilized by scholars studying NVC. One recent review of NVC literature identifying the article in which NVC literature was introduced as one of the 20 most frequently cited references in the field (Donaldson & Mateu, 2021). These scholars noted Gartner’s framework ushered in an era in which his understanding that NVC included a multitude of interacting variables (a departure from pre-1985 conceptions of NVC) became an assumption researchers brought into their studies (Donaldson & Mateu, 2021; Waqar et al., 2020). 39 Beyond seeking to expand or affirm Gartner’s framework as described above, some scholars have explored distinct dimensions of the model including the individual(s) (Ruef et al., 2003; Simon et al., 1999), the organization (Katz & Gartner,1988; Ruef et al., 2003), and subsets of some of the four dimensions (Chrisman et al., 1999; Duchesneau & Gartner, 1990). Interestingly, such uses of Gartner’s framework are somewhat contradictory to his original intent given that he sought to complexify the inadequate individual-factor models of NVC he saw in business and organizational theory literature at the time. Other scholars have utilized Gartner’s framework to interrogate the differences in characteristics among diverse new ventures, such as those pursued by women compared to men (Bush, 1992; Langowitz & Minniti, 2007; Shane et al., 1991) and in diverse geographical regions (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Shane et al., 1991). While Gartner’s (1985) framework is prominent in the fields of business and organizational theory, it is a difficult concept to find in both case study and educational research. The sheer number of Gartner’s citations makes it difficult to be certain, but I found no scholarship utilizing Gartner’s framework to study educational programs’ development as I do in this study. Even so, the breadth of the framework and its expansive utilization elsewhere makes it easily translatable and an effective orientation to my study. HEP Narratives Similarly, no HEP literature exists that includes systematic analysis of program development. There are, however, several narrative descriptions of program beginnings, primarily from the perspective of individuals deeply involved in the program from the higher education side. While not always generalizable, these narratives can provide insights into key aspects of the development of their HEP program. To describe this literature, I provide an 40 overview of three such narratives: A program from the University of Victoria, the Bard Prison Initiative, and the Pathways Initiative out of North Carolina. University of Victoria/Matsqui Institution Program Duguid (1980) wrote a description of the University of Victoria HEP program at the Matsqui institution in an effort to provide opportunities for replication in other contexts. As a Canadian program from the 1980s, it is not a perfect fit for my study, but it still does provide helpful insights about HEP program development broadly. Duguid emphasized the importance of the theory behind the program, and his program’s explicit goal of moral development. He readily admitted academic jargon is required to articulate program goals in the context moral development, but if tactfully proposed, such a framework can be valued by both higher education and corrections staff (as emphasized in previous literature). Moral and intellectual development are common aims of HEIs, and corrections officials may see these aims as an opportunity to develop “a more socially acceptable sense of morality” among the incarcerated students (p. 30). Duguid’s (1980) narrative of articulating academic objectives in a manner appealing to the non-academic partners of an HEP program is a poignant example of how to build consensus around shared goals. Further, the objective of moral development influenced several aspects of the University of Victoria program, including its curriculum. Program leaders made curricular decisions to emphasize history and literature given evidence that those subjects were “most effective in enhancing moral ability” (p. 32). Duguid also described several practical aspects of his program that are useful, including the need for proper learning facilities, remediation opportunities for students who are not prepared, and a congruent relationship between prison staff and faculty, all of which are articulated throughout HEP literature. 41 Bard Prison Initiative A more contemporary example of HEP program development from the United States is the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI). BPI is one of the longest running and most prominent HEP programs in the United States, serving over 300 incarcerated students annually at six interconnected prisons in New York (Burns & Novick, 2019). Karpowitz (2017) reflected on his over 15 years of experience in the program, including its early stages of development. Interestingly, BPI began as a movement among undergraduate students who organized lectures and other educational events at a nearby prison. BPI’s success led the Bard College administration to take notice and eventually pursue a degree-granting HEP program. Karpowitz’s (2017) reflection offers several salient considerations for the development of HEP programs generally. First, he underscored the importance of cultivating relationships with both corrections officials and prospective students in building a program, as seen elsewhere in the literature. His narrative provides several examples of key skepticisms and concerns from both groups that could have derailed the program development if not successfully addressed. Karpowitz also described the orientation toward HEP his team operated with—that the endeavor is more about education than corrections—and how they had to think creatively to maintain such a framework. He recounted how Bard had to “refuse to make incarceration, or a resistance to it, the guide to curriculum or pedagogy” (p. 10) and to not let students’ status as offenders be the initial or main focus of the educational experience. As described above, finding ways this perspective could align with the goals of the corrections department is an essential factor in launching a successful program. The launch of BPI also required individuals and Bard College broadly to take on several risks. Upon reflection, Karpowitz (2017) determined the “risks [of HEP] are overwhelmingly 42 moral and political, not physical” (p. 12). Such risks include, for example, challenges from the broader public that money should not be spent providing education to people who are incarcerated when people who are not convicted of a crime cannot afford a quality education. Risks also include challenges from prospective students, as described above when discussing key partnerships. Similar to Duguid (1980), Karpowitz’s (2017) narrative of the development of BPI does not provide a great deal of practical advice for others intending to launch HEP programs—nor is it intended to—but the text is rich in the philosophical and theoretical considerations that are required when taking on such an endeavor. North Carolina Pathways In a report on the field of HEP broadly, Davis (2019) specifically described the North Carolina Pathways program, which is a part of a larger initiative in three states to support postsecondary education and reentry services for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. The program is not a distinct HEP program out of one university but instead included several university/correctional facility partnerships. Upon reflection of the program’s implementation, Davis offered several considerations that would be important for HEP program developers to consider in the program design phase. Davis’s (2019) recommendations are largely aligned with good practices in HEP elsewhere in the literature. She discussed, for example, the importance of mutual program ownership, requiring risks from all parties, as well as the importance of staff and faculty training. Further, she added to previous literature in two key ways. First, she discussed the importance of the Pathways program being embedded within the Department of Public Safety. Being housed in public safety is a departure from most HEP programs, which are typically housed within a 43 college or university, though this distinction may be a result of the Pathways program being a broader college access initiative rather than a specific program. The second is she argued HEP programs should be structured to allow for incarcerated students to receive credits or earn certificates prior to release. HEP programs educate a range of incarcerated individuals—some near release, and others serving life or long-term sentences. For programs who intend to serve incarcerated students who are near release, this is an important consideration to ensure the students an opportunity to gain meaningful education and credentials to yield the post-release benefits of a college education while in college. Program Development Considerations from Quality Characteristics in HEP In addition to the specific examples of program development described above, a reflection on the characteristics of quality described in the previous section can also provide important insights about the developmental stage of HEPs. For example, sound partnerships may play a key role in the successful development of an HEP program (Delaney et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Establishing a trusted relationship between higher education and corrections administrators could lay a foundation for the development of a shared program mission and productive negotiation around potentially thorny issues such as access to technology and training higher education and prison staff. Another key aspect in HEP development is determining how program faculty will be selected and trained (Dewey et al., 2020; Delaney et al., 2016; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979; Karpowitz, 20172). These decisions are integral to the effectiveness of instruction, and ultimately the academic program as a whole. Such decisions should be made in the program design phase so as not to cause an unsuccessful launch of the program which might disadvantage students who are early to enroll and cause corrections staff to be skeptical of its efficacy. 44 Finally, important decisions need to be made during the design phase about curriculum, instruction, and student support resources (Delaney et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2020; Erzen et al., 2019; Rose & Nyre, 1979). These decisions can develop as the program matures, but important parameters regarding credits and degrees, modes of instruction, and access to technology are important to determine based on the shared goals and policies of the higher education institution and department of corrections. Conclusion This chapter sets a backdrop for my study on the development of HEP programs. HEP literature reveals a landscape of the field that was once small and disparate, and now growing and organized. The development of the field has been primarily influenced by changing federal policy granting and revoking eligibility to Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals. Newly granted access to Pell Grants is ushering in a growing number of HEP programs, along with a concurrent developing cohesion within the field of HEP. Most current HEP scholarship has focused on the two main outcomes of HEP: student development and public outcomes. This scholarship, though flawed, provides convincing evidence HEP is a worthwhile venture, and thus important to study. Sparse literature discusses the actual elements of HEP programs, revealing the importance of a shared mission, effective partnerships, personnel training and development, curriculum and instruction, and student support in a quality HEP program. Literature is especially scant on the development of HEP programs, which prompted me to analyze literature from organizational theory on how organizations and programs develop, revealing variance and process approaches to organizational development, out of which my contextual framework emerged. Finally, three disparate narratives of HEP programs provide some insight into factors that affect the 45 development stage of programs, but more and more systematic literature on this stage is needed to provide practitioners and scholars with a thorough understanding of key factors and considerations. 46 METHODOLOGY My study seeks to answer the question: How do higher education in prison (HEP) programs develop? To do so, I conducted a qualitative, single holistic case study in which the Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI) served as a common case, which is selected because of its ability to provide lessons about social processes (i.e., the development of HEP programs) given its commonality with such processes elsewhere (Yin, 2018). In this chapter, I describe the paradigmatic framework that led me to select a qualitative case study for this research. I then elaborate on how this case study approach fits and informs my research approach and describe my case in greater detail. Next, I describe my approach to data collection and data analysis, informed by the overarching paradigm and my conceptual framework. Finally, I conclude by discussing matters of quality in case study research, including a statement on my positionality related to this research. Research Paradigm My aim for this study is to accurately describe the process of creating an educational program. To do so, one carries an inherent assumption there is an objective reality about the nature of that process. As a result, I approached this study with a fundamentally realist ontology, assuming “there is a real world that exists independently of our perceptions, theories, and customs” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 5). That said, there is no obvious way to determine the objectively accurate description of a process—particularly one that occurred in the past. As I describe later in this chapter, I gathered data about the development of my case primarily through interviews with those who were involved. Interviews, however, are inherently subjective (Seidman, 2019). As posed by Seidman (2019), “from whose point of view should we search for the true essence... of [an] experience” (p. 17)? Interviews allow researchers to collect data from individual sources 47 who have individual perceptions of a specific phenomenon or experience. Through this method, then, I embrace a constructivist epistemology, by which people understand the world and gain knowledge through constructions of their own experiences (Maxwell, 2012a, 2012b). Critical Realism One may question the congruence between ontological realism—which contends an objective reality exists—and epistemological constructivism—which contends knowledge is constructed by the experiences and perspectives of individuals. These seemingly contradictory frameworks, however, find compatibility in the research paradigm named critical realism. Originally described by Bhaskar (1978), Maxwell (2012a, 2012b, 2020) more recently argued critical realism as an effective paradigm for qualitative research and specifically for the fields of education and public policy (both of which relate to my study). Maxwell (2012b) described the congruence of ontological realism and epistemological constructivism in this way: ...an ontology that accepts the reality of causation is quite compatible with a constructivist epistemology that holds that our understanding of the world, including our understanding of causation and causal relationships, is necessarily our own creation, incomplete and fallible, rather than an “objective” perception of reality. (p. 657) As a result, critical realism holds there is a true, objective reality that exists, but any individual conceptualization of reality is inherently only an approximation of the truth because it is born out of one’s own experiences and conceptions. Related to my study, through conducting interviews with several individuals involved in the development of my case, I pursued closer and more accurate approximation to the truth about how the program began. Importantly, critical realism is also compatible with the study of processes, such as my study (Maxwell, 2012b; Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2012). Maxwell and Mittapalli (2012) argued 48 understanding the mechanisms of a process through qualitative inquiry can help to establish an explanation of what has occurred beyond a more simplistic description. A focus on process mechanisms played a role in the analysis of my data, which I describe later in the chapter. Further, a critical realist approach attends to the broader context in which a process occurs as an important factor in understanding the process itself. The political context around HEP has played a profound role in the field throughout its history, and a critical realist approach prompts me to attend to such contextual matters in my study. Process Theory As mentioned above, critical realism is an especially productive paradigm through which to understand how processes have occurred (Maxwell, 2012b; Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2012). Process theory, while not a specific research paradigm, is one research approach that substantially influences my study. Process theory seeks to “advance theoretical explanations of how empirical phenomena unfold over time” (Berends & Deken, 2021, p. 135). Process research has a long history in the business and entrepreneurship literature out of which my conceptual framework comes, and has a significant influence on my study. I am fundamentally seeking to understand the process of how HEP programs develop, from their first ideas to the actual launch of the programs. Process theory, thus, significantly influences my methodological approach. One important aspect of process research is its attention to the narrative of a process to understand how the process occurred (Berends & Deken, 2021; Langley, 1999; Langley, 2007; Pentland, 1999). While my study is not a narrative inquiry study (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), it attends to narrative as an important factor in understanding the process of HEP program development. Langley (1999) described narrative as a “sensemaking strategy” for process data (p. 694). The goal of using narrative as a sensemaking strategy is to provide a vicarious 49 experience of a real setting, inviting richness and complexity into the process (Langley, 1999). My data collection involved seeking to understand the multiple experiences of the actors involved in the development of my case, which requires me to triangulate the multiple vicarious experiences into a coherent, nearly accurate description of the ultimate narrative. Langley (2007), specifically, described “tracing back” (p. 273) as a useful way to approach process data regarding events that have already occurred, such as my study of an already developed HEP program. More detail about process theory and its influence on my study is described in the data collection and analysis sections. Case Study Case study is an effective methodological approach for a critical realist paradigm given it often involves a realist orientation, but can also accommodate a relativist perspective (Yin, 2018). A case study is defined as an empirical method that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-word context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (Yin, 2018, p. 45). Applied to my study, this definition describes my desire to investigate the development of HEP programs and that this phenomenon is inherently bound in the social, political, and historical context in which programs develop. Utilizing a case study methodology prompts me to analyze the development of a specific HEP program (the CPI), taking into account the contextual factors that inevitably influenced its development. Such an approach is limited in its broad applicability given no two contexts are exactly the same, which causes findings to be limited in their relevance to other cases. To address this concern, Yin (2018) clarified the goal of case studies is to expand and generalize theories, rather than to extrapolate probabilities. As a result, the findings from my case are not oriented toward 50 providing specific, reliable probabilities about the success of the development of future HEP programs. Instead, the results help to establish general theories and frameworks about HEP program development that can inform efforts to create programs in the future. In this sense, the CPI is serving as a common case, which is a single case that can inform other similar phenomena (Yin, 2018). In the next section I describe my selection of the CPI has a useful case for this study and justify its effectiveness as a common case. Selection Criteria Case Selection My case for analysis is the CPI, an HEP program out of Calvin University and Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, in partnership with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The CPI began in 2015 with a vision to provide education for incarcerated individuals for personal formation and to equip them as community leaders in Michigan’s prisons (Calvin University, 2021). Its focus is to transform justice from retributive to restorative by transforming both individual lives and prison culture. Incarcerated individuals at any MDOC facility are eligible to apply for the program, and 20 students are selected each year to enroll. Students are transferred to the Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia, MI (about 30 miles from Calvin’s campus), where they reside and take classes through the duration of the program. In its earlier years, students received a certificate of completion after 30 credits, an associate degree in ministry leadership after 60 credits, and the program culminates after 124 credits (which are completed over five years) in a bachelor’s degree in faith and community leadership (Cioffi et al., 2019). At the time of writing, graduates received two certificates and a bachelor of arts with a double major in faith and community leadership and human services in five years (Calvin University, 2025). 51 The CPI serves as a useful case for several reasons. First, several organizational factors make the CPI a uniquely effective case to serve as a common case that can provide lessons for the development of other HEP programs (Yin, 2018). As described in Chapter Two, HEP is difficult to define, and includes a wide range of postsecondary educational programs in prisons including degree programs, certificate programs, and personal enrichment activities (Castro et al., 2018). Additionally, HEP programs serve diverse groups of incarcerated individuals, including those who are near release from prison and those who are serving life or long-term sentences. The CPI has conferred a range of credentials, including a certificate, associate degree, and bachelor’s degree, which build upon one another over five years (Cioffi et al., 2019). Further, a slim majority of students are serving life or long-term sentences while a substantial minority are near release. In fact, as of February 2021, the Michigan Parole Board had released seven of 116 CPI students (N. Nichols, personal communication, February 15, 2021). The diverse student body and credentials offered make the CPI a program that can inform a similarly diverse group of HEP programs which educate a variety of students for a variety of purposes. Another argument for the CPI to serve as an effective common case is the fact it launched in 2015 (Cioffi et al., 2019). Though the CPI began just before the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative ushered in a wave of and growing acceptance toward HEP programs (ED, 2016; Federal Register, 2015), its lifecycle has occurred in a contemporary sociohistorical moment where public sentiment and some policies are similar to today. Further, as technology plays a significant role in HEP programs (Dewey et al., 2020), the CPI’s status as a contemporary program gives credence to its ability to inform emerging HEP programs operating with similar technological advancements. 52 Finally, the CPI embodies several characteristics of quality HEP programs, as described in Chapter Two, such as a strong partnership between Calvin University, Calvin Seminary, and the MDOC, resulting in a shared mission of the program; robust recruitment and training of participating faculty, including training from both Calvin and MDOC staff; and in-person instruction with several student supports, including computer and library access. Additionally, several outcomes from the first several CPI cohorts indicate the program’s success (N. Nichols, personal communication, February 15, 2021). The first cohorts progressed through each of the three major milestones—only 11 out of 116 students were dismissed from the program, six of which were in the first cohort. Students also excel academically with an average cumulative GPA of 3.67. For students who leave prison before completing their degree, the CPI provides pathways to degree completion at Calvin’s main campus, with six out of the first seven parolees having completed their unfinished bachelor’s degrees. Ultimately, the CPI’s broad applicability to the range of existing and emerging HEP programs and the strong evidence of its quality ultimately cause it to be a worthwhile case to study. Participant Selection My selection of participants is through purposive sampling, designed to gain maximum variation among my participant group (Seidman, 2019). Three primary groups influenced the development of my case: the partner higher education institutions (Calvin University and Calvin Seminary), the Michigan Department of Corrections, and private advocates and supporters. Sufficiency and saturation are two key considerations when selecting interview participants (Seidman, 2019). I began with a tentative list of 15 participants and concluded with 12 participants, representing the three groups. The list reached sufficiency because representatives from all groups who influenced the development of my case were represented and saturation was 53 determined as participants within each group began expressing congruent and common responses to interview questions. Table 1 below reflects the list of participants by affiliation and role. Table 1 Research Participants by Affiliation and Role Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pseudonym Smyth James McDaniel Osborne Owen Yates Griffin Johnston Duran Gardner Simmons Goodwin Affiliation Department of Corrections Higher Education Higher Education Higher Education Department of Corrections Higher Education Higher Education Private Interest Department of Corrections Higher Education Higher Education Department of Corrections Role Social Worker Faculty Faculty President Warden President Senior Administrator Financial Supporter Director Program Director Program Director Warden Note: Pseudonyms were randomly generated and reflect surnames, which is common parlance in both corrections and higher education. Data Collection My primary method of data collection was interviews with key individuals involved in the CPI’s development. As my research paradigm prompted me to pursue various perspectives to approximate the objective reality of the program’s development (Maxwell, 2012a; Maxwell, 2012b), I gathered perspectives from people who have diverse affiliations with the CPI. As a result, I interviewed participants representing Calvin University and Calvin Seminary (the higher education institutions facilitating the CPI), the Michigan Department of Corrections, and private philanthropists and supporters of the program to ensure a well-rounded set of data. Interviewing is “a powerful way to gain insight into educational... issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose lives reflect those issues” (Seidman, 2019, 54 p. 13). Given my critical realist orientation (Maxwell, 2012a), interviewing was an effective method for my study as it provided me in-depth perspectives and experiences on the development of the CPI from those who influenced it. Gathering rich interview data from each individual participant allowed me to analyze diverse perspectives on the program’s development to find patterns and themes that represent a closer approximation of the true process of the CPI’s development than any individual participant could provide. I supplemented interview data with relevant documents, including contracts, proposals, and other relevant documents, largely to triangulate validity of and add richness and context to interview responses. Interview Protocol Case study interviews typically follow an open-ended protocol and “resemble guided conversations rather than structural queries” (Yin, 2018, p. 161). My study embraces this norm and involved a fluid structure of questions. Before beginning the interviews, I reviewed my study’s consent form and obtained interviewees’ consent to participate. Informed by elements of process research, I opened each interview brief description of the study and the question: “From your perspective, how did the CPI program develop?” Questions involving “how” are especially effective in process research given their ability to invoke narratives and descriptions of event sequences (Langley, 1999; Van de Ven & Huber, 1990). As participants responded to the opening question, I listened for noteworthy lines of subsequent inquiry that helped to answer my research question, including congruence or divergence with past participants’ responses and elements of my conceptual framework. Appendix A provides the list of questions which guided my interviews. 55 I conducted one round of interviews with my participants. The average interview lasted approximately one hour, though the fluid nature of open-ended interviews caused various interview lengths. Data Analysis I approached my data analysis utilizing a narrative sensemaking strategy (Langley, 1999). The goal of this strategy is to analyze data toward a cohesive “vicarious experience” of an actual setting, embracing richness and complexity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 359). To determine this vicarious experience, I utilized Pentland’s (1999) framework for building process theory from narrative data. The process involves moving from the text (what, literally, a subject said) to the story (the story a subject is telling) and ultimately to the fabula (the actual story of what happened; Pentland, 1999). This approach is grounded in my critical realist frame because successive analysis of my interview data guided me toward the most accurate articulation of the actual process of developing the CPI. The fourth and final step of Pentland’s process is to analyze the fabula to uncover the generating mechanisms behind the process the fabula describes. Through this narrative sensemaking strategy, I conducted my data analysis using the two- cycle coding process described by Miles et al. (2020). The process begins with first cycle coding, through which I analyzed individual interview transcripts to identify labels with which to “assign symbolic meaning” to portions of the data (Miles et al., 2020, p. 62). I began my first cycle by implementing in vivo coding within each individual interview through which I identified direct quotes from participants that spoke to my research question (Manning, 2017). I then established labels from those quotes to assign symbolic meaning as described by Miles et al. 56 Utilizing my conceptual framework and process research orientation, I took a simultaneous coding approach involving both descriptive and process coding. Descriptive coding involves assigning broad topic labels to passages of qualitative data. The four dimensions of Gartner’s (1985) framework for new venture creation—individual(s), organization, process, and environment—were descriptive codes that helped me analyze the data. That said, I did not limit myself to such a narrow set of codes, and also noted salient topics that did not fit into one of those four categories. However, I found the four categories of Gartner’s framework effectively captured all relevant codes and any which fell outside of those codes ultimately fell outside the bounds of my study. Concurrently with descriptive coding, I implemented process coding, which involves utilizing gerunds “to connote observable and conceptual action in the data” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 65). This simultaneous approach allowed me to conduct some initial exploration of the generating mechanisms behind the development of my case (through descriptive coding) while taking the first step of Pentland’s (1999) process by moving from the text to the story being told by individual participants (through process coding). Second cycle coding involved “pattern coding,” through which the first cycle codes were grouped into fewer “categories, themes, or concepts” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 79). This cycle involved analyzing codes across my interviews to synthesize both topics (descriptive codes) and actions (process codes) discovered in the first cycle. Pattern coding moved me from the participants’ stories toward understanding the fabula of and generating mechanisms behind the CPI’s development (Pentland, 1999). 57 Quality in Case Study Research One common critique of qualitative research in general and case study research specifically is their alleged limited ability to demonstrate validity of research findings (Maxwell, 2012). A single case study like mine, for example, produces data regarding an individual example of a phenomenon, and thus does not triangulate findings across multiple such examples, which may limit its applicability to diverse settings. A range of scholars have articulated responses to this critique, arguing for the legitimacy and utility of case study research. Some specifically claim the language of validity (Maxwell, 2012b), while others construct arguments around the language of research quality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 2018) and research integrity (Morin, 2017). Four common tests for quality in social science research are construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin, 2018). These four tests were translated by Yin (2018) for a case study approach, and drove the approach to quality I took for my study. Construct Validity Construct validity is an especially challenging test for case study research, given it requires a researcher to operationalize measures that are ultimately difficult to define (Yin, 2018). My study includes several safeguards for ensuring construct validity throughout. First, my conceptual framework provides a bona fide set of constructs through which my study can be analyzed. Though Gartner’s (1985) framework was not created with HEP in mind, decades of scholars studying organizational and program development have utilized and validated the framework, justifying its four categories as a useful frame for studying program development. Additionally, Yin (2018) described the importance of using multiple sources of evidence to strengthen findings through triangulation of data. My participant selection intentionally includes 58 representatives from diverse affiliations, including the higher education institutions involved, the department of corrections, and private supporters. I also reviewed relevant documents to supplement interview data. These multiple perspectives on the development of my case will provide opportunities to triangulate key data points to find convergence among diverse sources of evidence, strengthening the validity of my findings. Finally, I maintained contact with my participants throughout the study to provide opportunities to review and provide feedback on both raw data and findings. This practice allowed key informants to affirm the validity of my research (Yin, 2018). Internal Validity Internal validity in case study research involves one’s ability to make inferences based on findings (Yin, 2018). Regarding my study, this includes my ability to infer key factors of an HEP program’s development based on my interviews with those who were involved in the development of the CPI. A variety of tactics can be implemented to ensure internal validity, including pattern matching, explanation building, addressing rival explanations, and utilizing logic models (Yin, 2018). Specifically, pattern matching played a key role in my study. One layer of pattern matching involved matching interview data with my conceptual framework, which ensured findings were aligned with well-established theory. Further, pattern matching occurred across participants with diverse affiliations to ensure multiple perspectives were accounted for in any articulation of key findings, as is important for a critical realist approach (Maxwell, 2012a). Explanation building is another approach to demonstrating internal validity that I used in my study. The technique involves “analyz[ing] your case study by building an explanation about the case” (Yin, 2018, p. 228). By utilizing a process theory approach to data collection and 59 analysis (Langley, 1999; Pentland, 1999), I stayed accountable to building an explanation about the case, determining causal factors which affected the development of the CPI. Yin (2018) described explanation building as an iterative approach, which was embodied in my iterative approach to data analysis in an effort to understand the most accurate narrative of the CPI’s development and its underlying mechanisms (Maxwell, 2012a; Pentland, 1999). External Validity As described above, one significant critique of single-case case study research is its limited ability to produce findings that are generalizable beyond the specific study (Yin, 2018). Notably, case study research employs an analytic generalization approach, which seeks to “expand and generalize theories” (Yin, 2018, p. 53), rather than a statistical generalization approach more commonly found in quantitative research, which focuses on extrapolating probabilities. In single-case studies specifically, using previously established theory to inform the study can enhance its external validity (Yin, 2018). As a result, I am using theory throughout my study to bolster its external validity. Similar to construct validity, Gartner’s (1985) framework for new venture creation will help me to frame findings in a framework that is broadly applicable to diverse HEP programs. Further, my utilization of process theory (Berends & Deken, 2021; Langley, 1999; Pentland, 1999) will guide my analysis toward underlying mechanisms of the process of developing an HEP program—which are broadly applicable— rather than the specific factors related to my case. Reliability The final component in my frame of research quality is reliability, ensuring the research approach was effective and a future researcher could replicate the study (even if replication in case study research is rare; Yin, 2018). Several factors are employed in case study research to 60 demonstrate reliability, including the use of a case study protocol and a case study database to document the research in detail (Yin, 2018). Simply put, I have been collecting such a database since the beginning of my dissertation proposal preparation, and continued to document the process. All necessary documentation will be systematically gathered to be easily understood by any outside observer or potential replicator—with my specific case or otherwise. Collecting a database and describing the research process are useful tools for enhancing reliability in case study research, but are primarily oriented toward affirming reliability once the research is completed. As such, I also sought feedback from a peer debrief during the course of my research to improve reliability while the research was happening. Peer debriefing is a common practice in qualitative research through which the researcher invites a disinterested party into analytic discussions to explore and reveal aspects of the inquiry that “might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308). In other words, peer debriefers provide a second perspective on the data and analytic process, increasing the reliability of findings by affirming or challenging the researcher’s approach and outcomes. A disinterested party is someone who is knowledgeable about the research topic, but does not have a stake in the specific research project and its outcomes. My primary peer debriefer was an HEP practitioner familiar but not affiliated with my case, who was able to provide valuable perspective throughout. Positionality A final component of addressing the quality of this study is clearly stating my positionality in this research (Miles et al., 2020). My positionality related to my ontological and epistemological orientation was articulated throughout this chapter. Regarding my relationship with the specific case, I must state at the time of my data collection I was employed at Calvin 61 University as the Director of the Service-Learning Center (SLC), which does not involve any oversight of the CPI. That said, my office was connected with CPI staff for the logistical purpose of logging service-learning hours for CPI students. Outside of my role in the SLC, I also served as an instructor for the CPI in the Spring 2020 and Spring 2022 semesters. I ultimately view these connections to the program as a strength for my study. My experience as an instructor provided me in-depth exposure to the specific program and the broader field of HEP. My collegial relationship with CPI staff also provided me with essential access points to key study participants that I might not have as a pure outsider (Anderson & Herr, 2014). My lack of oversight of the CPI, complementarily, provided me a degree of distance and objectivity to the program where I was freer to analyze data and pursue findings without a pre-established agenda than if I facilitated the program. Conclusion This chapter included an overview of the paradigmatic and methodological approaches I took with this research. I employed a single holistic case study approach to study the development of HEP programs through the CPI, which served as a common case. Utilizing a critical realist paradigm—which professes objective truths exist while acknowledging constructed understandings of that truth—I interviewed participants in an effort to understand the CPI’s development and how such findings could inform the development of other HEP programs. Process research informed my data collection and analysis as my interviews and coding occurred through a narrative structure, while my conceptual framework provided a variance approach to uncovering key themes. I have attended to the key factors of quality in case study research and offered a description of my positionality related to this study. 62 FINDINGS The purpose of this study was to analyze the development of a Higher Education in Prison (HEP) program to understand the factors that led to a successful implementation. The Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI) was utilized as a common case, selected because of its commonality to other programs elsewhere (Yin, 2018). I utilized a critical realist research paradigm and a process theory approach designed to discover an accurate understanding of the process of developing the program (Berends & Deken, 2021; Maxwell, 2012b). Data were gathered through open-ended interviews with 12 participants who were involved in the creation of the CPI. Participants represented higher education, the Department of Corrections, and private interests. In this chapter, I describe the data yielded from participant interviews and analysis. Data and Analysis My findings are organized in four sections aligned with my conceptual framework: process, individuals, organization, and environment (Gartner, 1985). Process Five distinct process themes emerged from the data, which can be viewed as the five core phases in the development of the program. Though the phases are not rigidly defined and certain milestones blur lines between the five phases, they loosely occurred in chronological order: origins, experimentation, program inspiration, formal proposal, and implementation. Origins Participants familiar with the very beginning of the CPI described two factors that were key to the creation of the program that occurred before anyone had even considered an HEP program: its earliest foundations and personal connections among early faculty. 63 Earliest Foundations. The earliest foundations of the CPI begin with an institutional donor who had a personally transformative experience through which he developed a personal affinity for Christian HEP programs and requested friends who wished to support him donate funds to that end. Several years later, the funds he raised ultimately led to the inspirational trip to an established HEP program which catalyzed the development of the CPI. James described the importance of the timing in the use of funds stating: We should have done something with that money far before, but it was just the right timing because we started using that money to take students to Angola prison at the very same time that things were getting started in Michigan. Personal Faculty Connections. Also significant to the eventual launch of the CPI was the personal connections faculty had. Several inaugural faculty members had experience with or family connections to prison education. Simmons shared, “I did a field education year at a state prison in New Jersey… it was very impactful.” Additionally, James described developing a mentoring relationship with an incarcerated person in a corrections facility. Several participants identified these individual experiences as key contributors to the readiness of the overall institution to consider exploring engagement in a prison setting. Experimentation The individual and institutional foundations described above ultimately sparked the earliest exploration of a relationship between Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Initial Contact. The development of the CPI began with incarcerated people submitting admissions applications to CTS, prompting a conversation among administrators about what to do. James described, “So one day, the recruiter at Calvin Seminary gets in his mailbox six 64 applications from Handlon prisoners. And he comes to me and says, what am I supposed to do with this?” Primed by the experiences and relationships described in the previous section, CTS administrators considered the incarcerated individuals’ applications. Upon consideration of applications, CTS administrators contacted the staff at the prison requesting an opportunity to teach enrichment (non-accredited) courses to the interested students. Facility staff were unsure how to respond to the request and ultimately let it stagnate on the warden’s desk. According to McDaniel, during a visit from the MDOC Director, the director happened to see the letter and “looked at it for about 30 or 45 seconds and said under his breath… yeah, make that happen.” The directive from the MDOC Director resulted in an initial meeting between facility staff and CTS faculty, which included a tour and discussion about the possibility of initial courses, and within two weeks the first non-accredited course began. Non-Accredited Classes. After discussion with CTS, the facility approved the initiation of non-accredited classes on topics such as forgiveness and reconciliation. The warden appointed a social worker in the facility to serve as the liaison for these classes. The social worker had personal ties to CTS and was granted the opportunity to use the classes as his required group development opportunity. He served as an early gatekeeper for students, receiving interest from prospective participants and admitting those he deemed a good fit. Several participants noted the importance of his role, serving as a buffer between the facility, CTS, and students. In addition to serving a role as an informal admissions officer, he also sat in on most courses at the facility’s discretion, giving facility leadership increased confidence that a member of their staff was in the room. Smyth described, “the [MDOC] administration in general… were somewhat concerned about just what was gonna go on here. So they didn't mind having somebody who worked for the prison sit in on those classes and see how it went.” 65 Program Inspiration The non-accredited classes were successful and inspired both incarcerated students and higher education faculty and administrators to explore expanding beyond individual enrichment classes toward a full-fledged program. Inspirational Trip. The most significant part of this exploration phase was a trip taken to the Louisiana State Penitentiary (nicknamed “Angola”) where a successful seminary program was established about 20 years prior. Participants who discussed the trip unanimously described it as a critical experience in the development of the CPI. The trip was inspired by a local philanthropist who was connected to CTS, aware of the funding described in the Earliest Foundations section, and aware of the Angola seminary. He gathered what Yates described as a “critical mass” of individuals including CTS administrators and faculty, the MDOC Director, an MDOC Warden, and a member of the state legislature to fly from Michigan to Louisiana for a one-day visit to Angola. The visit included conversation and tours with the Angola warden and students in the seminary program. Attendees learned about the history of the facility, the history of the program, and the effect the program has had on the facility. Attendees also visited classes and worship services and otherwise toured the grounds. During the group’s time in Angola, they were inspired, and many were specifically struck by how dramatically violence in the prison dropped since the start of the seminary program. The attendees returned considering if a similar program could happen in Michigan. Duran observed “the inmates… in the program could become kind of disciples of nonviolence in the prison and problem solvers.” He added, “the Angola example [had] real promise, and so I came back determined to continue the relationship with Calvin.” 66 The trip to Angola served as a critical hands-on experience to inspire those on both the higher education and corrections sides to pursue an HEP program. As Simmons described, “It’s one thing to know about something. It’s another thing to experience it.” Post-Trip Brainstorming. In the days following the Angola trip, both CTS and MDOC considered the possibility of developing an HEP program in Michigan. The brainstorming started in earnest after the MDOC Director formally invited a proposal from CTS with the instruction that funding for the program would not come from the state. After a short time of deliberation, CTS decided to charter a proposal. Two early challenges to launching the proposal development was the lack of funding and the fact that CTS was not accredited to confer bachelor’s degrees. On funding, the same person who sparked the trip to Angola offered to stay on as the primary fundraiser, providing funding required to complete the proposal and ultimately raising funds from other donors for the program itself. Regarding accreditation, CTS considered a natural partnership with Calvin College (now Calvin University) with an adjacent campus and common denominational affiliation. These potential solutions to funding and partnership allowed CTS to move from brainstorming to the development of a formal proposal. Formal Proposal Utilizing funding from the financial supporter, CTS offered course release to a faculty member to develop an HEP proposal. James described how the Dean at the seminary understood the proposal to be “a colossal project” and offered “some release time because [a donor] is willing to give seed money for a year.” To begin the heavy lifting, he researched and visited already established HEP programs to learn about their structures, budgets, and policies to help 67 craft a proposal for the CPI. Describing his experience, James stated, “I’ll never forget that summer. It was just a whirlwind.” The proposal ultimately served as a template for the program structure upon the program’s approval. Participants identified the proposal’s 10-year budget and program outlook as a significant feature that gave those who viewed it the confidence to approve it. “I was really impressed by it,” remarked Gardner, “…his explanation and all the work and just this opportunity seemed remarkable.” The proposal also included descriptions of the cohort structure, length of the structure, possible curricula, and program staffing ideas. After the proposal was written, the next step was to put it before both MDOC and Calvin College. Discussions with each organization occurred simultaneously, but Calvin College gave formal approval first with MDOC giving formal approval five months later. Calvin College. In the early stages of the proposal, James sought informal partnership with and advice from key figures at Calvin College including the chair of the Religion Department, members of the Planning and Priority Committee, and the President. After the formal development of the proposal, a key step was to bring it before Faculty Senate for their approval. The proposal was initially almost rejected by Faculty Senate, with senators citing what Gardner described as “grave concerns” about the program related to funding, workload, educational quality, and long-term viability. The proposal was ultimately tabled rather than rejected, and the CTS team was invited to return to the next Faculty Senate meeting. In between the two meetings, CTS revised the proposal to address some of the concerns and also began seriously considering other higher education partners in the region with whom they historically had fewer ties. At Calvin College, a couple of key champions of the proposal 68 challenged certain senators on their concerns, arguing that even if it’s difficult, an HEP program is—according to Simmons—a “bullseye to the mission” and worth pursuing. The second Faculty Senate meeting had a different tenor from the onset, with several doubters from the first meeting voicing their support for the proposal. Yates indicated he “[felt] like the tide turned” and commended the way proposers answered questions and critiques. Upon a second vote the proposal passed overwhelmingly, solidifying the partnership between CTS and Calvin College (collectively referred to as “Calvin” for the remainder of this chapter) as the higher education side of the CPI. Department of Corrections. The original proposal was sent to the MDOC Director and facility warden and assistant warden. The MDOC administrators commended CTS for being thorough, but did not need the full proposal to run through MDOC’s approval process. The administrators’ emphasis was on student selection, safety, and other elements that specifically affected the facility. James stated, “[MDOC] weren’t worried about the details of the plan. I think it was good that they saw it, but ultimately they have a couple of key issues that they’re concerned about.” The internal process for MDOC included the Director sharing the proposal with the governor and legislature, which was well received. “I didn’t want it to be a surprise to anybody,” Duran said. The Director also kept the state house and senate corrections committees informed, including inviting them to visit the facility regularly. While no votes were required to approve the proposal, the Director’s proactive engagement of executive and legislative stakeholders made his approval of the proposal unsurprising and smooth. The MDOC Director first gave verbal approval, which allowed CTS to continue moving their proposal through Calvin administrative bodies and to court prospective donors, and 69 officially signed a memorandum of understanding approximately three months before classes began. Implementation The final phase—implementation—began during the approval process and accelerated in the weeks following final approval. Participants described the implementation phase as “stressful,” “scurried,” and “like riding the front of a tidal wave.” James provided a poignant summary of this period: You're trying to find the sweet spot between total insanity and just too much speed and not enough deliberation and doing things with good care and all that. And having the process go on so long that it implodes because it can't sustain itself due to the weight of the project. Administrators involved in implementation found themselves constantly negotiating their priorities to determine where to invest their limited time before classes began. Six themes emerged from participants’ description of the implementation phase: staffing, admissions, faculty recruitment, logistical process issues, accreditation, and philosophies. Staffing. Per the proposal, CTS and Calvin College formed a committee consisting of two members from each institution. The committee was tasked with making major decisions on matters such as admissions, policy, and problem-solving. An early task was to select a director. The committee first asked a Calvin College faculty member (and supporter of the proposal development) to apply for the role, which he initially declined due to obligations in his academic department. After continued discussion, he suggested a co-directorship to make the workload more manageable and allow co-directors to work to their strengths. Simmons argued, “If I’m going be at all like a director, I don’t want to be involved in the administration… I don’t need 70 that right now.” The next ask was to another Calvin College faculty member and department chair who expressed interest but similar concern about departmental obligations—and whose strengths were in administration. Through discussions with the provost, her dean, and departmental colleagues, she was able to accept the half-time director role and the leadership team was finalized. Admissions. With only a few months to select the first cohort, the admissions process was particularly stressful. CPI staff started with Calvin’s application and tweaked it to reflect an incarcerated student population, including eliminating testing requirements and providing more flexibility on the proof of high school diploma or GED. In an effort to better understand applicants’ motivations and aptitude, CPI staff decided to include three essays in the application process: one on why applicants wanted to change from their past, one asking for comment on a quote about civility, and one describing a situation where the applicants reached out and helped someone. The prison chaplains proctored essays for all applications. Through the essays, CPI staff looked for potential, hard work, and empathy, and found them to be useful indicators of prospective students’ character and potential to succeed academically. Gardner elaborated explaining the essays were “very helpful… not just in terms of the content of their answers, but to get an idea of how good their writing skills are and a little bit of their thinking skills.” Eligibility requirements for applicants were fluid throughout the start-up process. Initially staff set a requirement that applicants had no major behaviors tickets for five years, but had to reduce that requirement. CPI staff also did not intend to accept those incarcerated for criminal sexual conduct, but unexpectedly learned some were in the first cohort without their prior 71 knowledge. Staff informally tracked the racial identities of applicants in an effort to have the cohort resemble the racial demographics of the general population. The CPI received 35 applicants for their first cohort of 20 students. While CPI staff were hoping for more, they were impressed by the quality of the initial applicants and were able to accept a full cohort. Faculty Recruitment. Teaching in the CPI was not a part of a faculty members’ normal load due to cost, so all faculty received adjunct pay for teaching. While the adjunct pay was necessary for the financial viability of the program, it caused challenges in faculty recruitment. Recruitment was ultimately a relational process where CPI staff would encourage faculty to consider the opportunity. CPI staff expanded their pool of prospective instructors by reaching out beyond CTS and Calvin College to faculty at other local colleges and universities as well. While the start-up recruitment was not always easy—math, science, and English instructors were especially difficult to fill—CPI staff successfully recruited for the first year and found the process got easier over time with returning faculty and experienced faculty encouraging their colleagues to try. McDaniel described the difficulty in the start-up recruitment sharing, “Until we kind of got rolling a bit, it was a bit of work doing that kind of stuff [recruiting faculty].” Logistical Process Issues. Due to policy restrictions within MDOC, the implementation phase required negotiating through a range of logistical process issues to meet academic needs in the prison environment. Participants described the discussion of incarcerated students having laptops as the trickiest issue to manage. “Laptop computers were key,” James explained. Partners at MDOC and Calvin negotiated whether students could have laptops at all, whether students had to share laptops, how often students could use them, which IT department was responsible for laptop security and upkeep, how and how frequently laptops would be checked for inappropriate 72 conduct, and many other factors. MDOC originally told Calvin there was no way laptops could work, but through discussion and negotiation with the facility warden and MDOC Director an initial agreement was made. At the start of the program, the original decision was to have 10 laptops—two students per laptop—and allow the students unlimited usage. MDOC administrators established a lottery system to check laptops every 30 or 60 days for any conduct concerns. In addition to laptops, administrators had to manage a range of other process issues. Some involved modifying the traditional policy and flow of incarcerated people at the facility, including providing students extended hours to common spaces and the school building for studying, placing holds on transfers of incarcerated students for the duration of the program, and providing students clear bags to carry their school materials in while providing officers view of what they were carrying. Others involved providing incarcerated students access to academic materials, including establishing an intranet to upload digital files, purchasing textbooks to be lent to students each semester, finding ways for incarcerated students to access library materials, building an internal library at the site, and figuring out how to get course materials that were in conflict with MDOC policy into the prison for teaching. Accreditation. Due to the three-month window between formal approval of the program and the start of the first class, CPI staff opted to take the risk of launching the program anticipating they would in fact receive accreditation. Throughout the implementation phase, Calvin administration was in touch with the accrediting body and ultimately submitted a request for the facility to become an extension campus of Calvin College and for a new bachelor of arts degree to be offered. Simmons explained the accreditors told CPI staff, “Go ahead and do what you’ve got to do, run your fall semester, but do not market this as an accredited program yet.” 73 The accreditation process involved a site visit from accreditors where they also visited a class, which CPI received advance notice of and participants described a smooth and positive experience overall. The extension campus and program ultimately received accreditation during the second semester of courses. Philosophies. In addition to the tasks required during the implementation phase, participants articulated several distinct philosophies they took to support a successful launch. Start Small and Stay Focused. Osborne described a “tip of the arrow” approach where CPI staff stayed focused on the core point—staying within the MOU criterion—and only negotiated on “the feathering,” or that which was not essential to the core of the program. Within this approach, participants described starting small (e.g., with the cohort size) with a vision to scale up in the future if possible. Griffin offered, “Starting small was crucial,” describing how they “gradually fine-tuned the process… and figured out how to scale it up.” If You Get a Yes. In response to questions about why the implementation phase was so rushed, Simmons said, “…if you get a yes, you gotta go.” He elaborated that in his experience working with corrections, decisions were sometimes delayed or reversed, and as a result the CPI staff tried to implement decisions quickly to avoid unexpected changes. This philosophy influenced the decision to start the first classes three months after formal approval rather than waiting an additional semester or year. Attribution to God. The majority of participants, including all participants affiliated with Calvin, identified as Christians, and several attributed the success of the implementation phase to God. “I just see God’s hand in this all over the place,” shared Johnston. Some participants described that looking back at the process they see evidence of God and others described that during the process they were motivated to act by what they viewed as God’s guidance. 74 Overall, participants described the process of starting the CPI as complicated and fast paced at times, with several stops, starts, and road blocks. However, through the hard work and dedication of the individuals involved the program ultimately launched successfully. In the next section I will describe my findings about those individuals. Individuals A diverse group of individuals with various affiliations were critical in the development of the CPI. Importantly, the majority of influential individuals had previous experiences or perspectives that motivated them toward the program’s success. Higher education faculty and administrators often had past experience working in prisons or family members involved in corrections. Both McDaniel and Simmons described previous ministry experiences they had in prison settings. Corrections administrators had often developed corrections philosophies oriented around programming, education, and rehabilitation. Goodwin described developing a philosophy earlier in his career that “programs are just as important” as custodial measures to completely run a prison. The numerous people discussed by participants can be grouped into five categories: instigators, higher education champions, department of corrections supporters, higher education implementers, and a group of individuals I am calling “the firsts.” Instigators Participants consistently identified three individuals who were the earliest instigators for the CPI. The first two were an incarcerated person and his mentor who was affiliated with CTS. The origin of the pair’s relationship was in the context of pastoral support, but given the mentor’s affiliation with CTS, conversation about the incarcerated person’s appetite for education emerged. He was arguably the first person to envision courses taught by CTS in the prison when he wrote a letter signed by five other incarcerated peers “suggesting [CTS] might 75 offer a class in pastoral care” in the prison. He also facilitated the submission of the first six admissions applications to CTS mentioned in the experimentation phase above, telling James “there’s more where those came from, so we better figure out how we can meet this need.” A third instigator was the private donor who funded the inspirational trip to Angola and supported the program’s development throughout. Through his financial and social capital, he regularly drove conversation and practical next steps by getting the right people in the right places to make progress. Higher Education Champions In the early stages of its development the program benefited from receptive and inspired faculty and administrators in higher education who said yes to opportunities and pushed the process forward. Both presidents of CTS and Calvin College were supportive of the program from the beginning. The nature of the presidents’ involvement in program development varied throughout the process, but at times they offered both practical and rhetorical support to keep the fundraising process moving. Several influential faculty members at both institutions also served as program champions. The faculty’s insight, energy, and influence often helped sway their colleagues and other players outside of their institutions to offer their support. These faculty spoke about the program in private meetings, informal conversations, and public settings. They took on crucial tasks including scheduling key meetings, instigating research, recruiting faculty, and providing feedback on important steps along the way. Noting one such faculty, Simmons shared, “People respected him, people respected what he had to say,” describing how he was an influential voice against the program at the first faculty senate meeting and for the program at the second. 76 Department of Corrections Supporters The higher education champions were only able to succeed because of receptive individuals working for MDOC. At the state level, a willing director was crucial. When asked whose buy-in was required to get the CPI started, Owen noted, “it really has to come from the director’s level.” The MDOC Director involved in creating the CPI had a family history connected to both Calvin and prison reform—his grandfather received a distinguished alumni award form Calvin for increasing educational access to incarcerated people. Several participants indicated this connection to Calvin influenced his willingness to consider the school’s partnership. In his own career, the director also had past experience working with outside organizations, which helped him navigate the cultural differences between MDOC and Calvin throughout the process. Another crucial category of individuals was MDOC staff at the host facility. Participants described the disposition of the facility warden as a critical component of the program’s success. The warden was widely known to have a program-orientation over a custody-orientation and embraced engagement opportunities for those who are incarcerated as a way to bolster rehabilitation and keep prisons safer. He was typically open to Calvin’s questions and ideas, and worked to find ways to make things work at the facility. When describing the CPI’s relationship with the warden, Simmons stated simply, “We felt very supported by him.” Another important individual was a social worker who served as a supportive person on the inside. He also had past connections with Calvin and as a result was invited by facility leadership to support the non-accredited classes described above. He helped CTS navigate the prison during those early stages, providing cultural context to administrators, greeting faculty at the gate and helping them find their way to their classroom, and helping to select participants. 77 His involvement was supported by facility leadership and he was given the opportunity for his involvement with CTS classes to fulfill his requirement to run a group for the incarcerated people at the facility. “He was instrumental,” Gardner explained, “in the fact that he was there and had been there for years and just was a trusted, respected member. We really benefited by that.” Higher Education Implementers While the previous three groups of people were especially crucial in the early phases of program development—the origins, experimentation, and program inspiration—they stayed involved throughout the start-up process. Once the process progressed to the formal proposal phase, a wide range of new individuals became critical to design and implement the details of the program. Participants consistently described the importance of the proposal writer and those who supported his work through financing and course release. Participants described the final proposal as impressive and thorough, and commended the time, effort, and skill its production took. Participants suggested that without such a detailed proposal, CPI supporters would have had a difficult time courting donors, gaining faculty support, and implementing the program launch on such a short timeframe. As described in the staffing section above, the four-person committee and the pair of co- directors unsurprisingly played a critical role in implementing virtually all aspects of the CPI program. The committee collaboratively managed admissions, faculty recruitment, curriculum decisions, student orientation, and relationships with facility and state MDOC staff. The committee also served as a general resource for the directors who were in what McDaniel described as “kind of a lonely business” facilitating an HEP program. 78 There were also several higher education implementers participants described as having distinct but no less crucial roles in program development. Calvin IT staff built solutions that allowed students to access library materials, share files without internet, and ensure security and proper use of laptops. As described above, a Calvin College dean facilitated the accreditation process for the branch campus and new degree. And numerous administrative assistants and operations staff diligently worked to maintain organization and ensure completion of key tasks. “The Firsts” The individuals described above were the earliest advocates of the program and needed the least convincing to engage. Another key category of individuals was the next layer of individuals whom I am calling “the firsts.” These individuals were the first to say “yes” to the asks and invitations of the champions and implementers, and the program would not have launched had they not been willing to do so. The earliest donors were integral to the program launch. Osborne stated that had those donors not been interested, “that would’ve been one time to close [the program].” The donors’ investment both provided initial funding to support the program launch and inspired later donors to join in the project. The first faculty similarly allowed the program to start and convinced future faculty to teach. Participants described many of the early faculty had to adjust to teaching in a prison context, accepting a more restrictive environment and figuring out how to adapt instructional techniques to fit the culture of an incarcerated student body and the limited resources they were able to bring into the prison to teach. Finally, the first students worked hard and took risks to get the program off the ground. Complementing the adjustment experiences of the first faculty, the first students had to adjust to an educational environment in their prison context. Gardner described how building emotional 79 and relational walls is a survival strategy in prison, “and when they come into the classroom, we’re asking them to basically take down those walls.” Participants described growing pains in the first cohort with some students getting dismissed due to behavior issues, but those who stayed gained the trust of both Calvin and MDOC. The first cohort also helped to assimilate students in subsequent cohorts to teach them the behavior and work ethic required to both succeed in the program as an individual and to allow the program as a whole to persist. Griffin described, “You cannot make this work unless you get a good first cohort or two of students who create the culture than then assimilates other new students and cohorts as they come in.” Additional Considerations on Individuals In addition to describing specific individuals, several participants offered general terms that illustrated the network of individuals required to launch an HEP program. One heuristic described was that you first need changemakers and then the first followers. These two groups of individuals serve as the catalysts that spark involvement from all others. James stated, “I'm going to give advice to anybody trying this, you have to think systemwide, you need key people in a variety of areas.” He went on to describe how the CPI’s development required experts in budgeting, fundraising, IT, accreditation, curriculum development, faculty influencers, prison system supporters, and support from established programs. More than any individuals, the network of experts was crucial. Organization An HEP program is a complex organization given its inherent collaboration between higher education and corrections, which are two entities with distinct cultures, priorities, and structures. The development of the CPI as a distinct organization involved several factors: location, finances, program structure, program characteristics, and partnerships. Some factors 80 were more strongly determined by Calvin, some MDOC, and others a collaboration between the two. Location The early stages of the CPI’s development did not involve a specific facility. In determining which facility would host the program, there were three major considerations: (a) a reasonable driving distance to Calvin’s main campus, (b) a welcoming warden who is open to the program, and (c) the right amount and type of space to host the program. CPI staff considered three facilities that potentially fit each of those criteria, and two of the three were seriously considered. One facility was in primary consideration due in part to its modern facilities. However, when MDOC and Calvin staff toured the facility, they discovered though modern, the facility did not have the type and amount of space required to house the program. Owen shared he “tried to find where this program could run [at the facility] … but just couldn’t make it happen.” The second choice in location—Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility—was located directly across the street and was the ultimate choice to host the program. Reflecting the three considerations, Handlon was about a 35-minute drive from Calvin’s main campus. As described above, the Handlon warden was deeply committed to a programs- oriented correctional philosophy. Handlon had a history of hosting vocational and other programs—though they were not operational at the time—which resulted in a largely unused educational building that met the CPI’s needs. According to Owen, Handlon “was built with a lot of program space and it was basically sitting vacant… it’s a no brainer.” One challenge for the program at Handlon was despite the warden’s program orientation, participants described its culture at the time as disciplinary and violent. In recent history, Handlon had been known as a 81 “gladiator’s prison” where incarcerated people learned to fend for themselves in a violent prison culture. Finances The foundation of the program budget was designed through the initial proposal, which estimated the program would cost between $7,000-8,000 per student. Essential to the financial aspect of the CPI’s organization is no funding would come from the state. Johnston received the message that “if you guys want to do something, you’re on your own” because state legislators were unwilling to allocate more funding to prisons. The program’s financial independence from the state proved crucial in MDOC’s ability to approve the program both to reflect fiscal responsibility to the public and to avoid improper entanglement between a Christian seminary and college and the state. Another important aspect of the CPI’s funding is the program needed to be financed almost exclusively through fundraising—neither CTS nor Calvin College had the capacity to fund the program through its operational dollars. The private donor described above offered to lead the majority of the fundraising effort in partnership with CTS and Calvin College advancement and administrative teams, which was a significant and critical undertaking. Johnston argued in addition to the two main partners from corrections and higher education, “you almost maybe serve as a third willing party to support funding and fundraising and thing like that.” Faculty pay was a significant point of discussion at all phases of the CPI’s development. Due to funding limitations, CPI planners determined the program would not be viable unless all faculty were paid an adjunct rate regardless of their standing at their home institution. Johnston explained how one fundraiser noted learning about faculty taking adjunct pay helped them raise 82 money by demonstrating the sacrifice others were making for the good of the program and knowing “that the professors have got skin in the game.” Finally, in the original proposal a nominal fee would be required from enrolled students, but upon further exploration the logistics and policies of an incarcerated student’s fee were too complicated to implement. Program Structure The program structure of the CPI has evolved over time, though participants described several key characteristics in the program development phase, including program leadership, cohorts, curriculum, and admissions. Leadership (Co-Directors). As described above, the early CPI was led by co-directors. The original planners did not originally intend for co-directors—seeking instead a single director—but due to prospective director interest and capacity moved to the two-person model. Several participants described this as fortuitous because the co-directors’ strengths complemented each other. One director focused more on the relationship with MDOC and direct relationships with the students and the other focused more on the administrative aspects of the program and the relationships on the higher education side. Cohort. The 20-student cohort was a program distinctive from the earliest stages of the proposal. Citing the CPI’s differences from Calvin’s traditional residential program, Yates clearly stated, “it really needed to be a cohort model,” so students experienced the program together. Program planners thought 20 students was small enough to build community and large enough to accomplish program goals. Within the cohort structure, CPI staff advocated that the cohorts be housed together in the same unit to help them build community and support one 83 another academically. Griffin specifically stressed the importance of the cohorts being well selected to build an intra-cohort culture of accountability and support. A unique element of the CPI’s cohort is the majority of students are serving life and long- term sentences, which differs from many other HEP programs, which prioritize incarcerated people who are near release. In addition to educating incarcerated individuals, a goal of the CPI was to change prison culture, which Simmons said required “long term sentence guys.” According to Simmons, the men serving long term sentences were “the ones who understand it. They’re the guys who set the tone. They’re also the guys that have been locked up long enough where they’re done goofing around. They… got it out of their system.” Curriculum. The curriculum development occurred entirely through Calvin, with MDOC participants expressing they were not involved in its development. For consistency, clarity, and to simply make curriculum development manageable, CPI planners elected to design a single degree and curriculum that all students would complete. The original degree was a Bachelor of Arts in Ministry and Community Service, comprised of religion, sociology, social work, and ministry courses in addition to Calvin’s core curriculum. (In time, however, the degree was changed to Faith and Community Leadership, which participants described as a better understood degree title for both Christian and non-Christian stakeholders.) Admissions. The initial admissions process is described in the process section above. Related to the organization of the CPI, participants noted admissions decisions were held by Calvin, but MDOC staff played a part. The Handlon warden spread the word to other wardens about the program and application process, ensuring incarcerated people across the state were aware of the opportunity. (Admits originally housed in other facilities were transferred to 84 Handlon after admission.) Calvin also sent the names of prospective admits to MDOC staff for screening before announcing admissions decisions. One conversation among CPI staff about admissions was whether or not to use public information to learn about the crimes committed by prospective and admitted students. The original decision was not to do so, but some applicants self-disclosed their crimes on application materials. Justifying the decision, Gardner explained, “the philosophy was treat them as much as possible like any student [at Calvin] … [their crime is] not something that we should be going online and just find out.” (In time, CPI staff changed their decision—contrary to the opinions of the majority of national HEP colleagues—to better understand their students’ histories.) Program Characteristics In addition to concrete elements of the CPI’s structure, participants also described the broader characteristics of the CPI as an organization. Christian Identity. As an outgrowth of efforts from a Christian seminary in partnership with a Christian college, the CPI is openly a Christian program. Its Christian identity has benefited its launch, with participants describing how personal and institutional faith-based missions to educate incarcerated people helped individuals and organizations make sacrifices to get the program started. Simmons described that education in prison touches the people who are starting programs “at a deep missional level,” and “if you don’t have that, you’ll quit. You’ll burn out. You’ll realize how much work it is and say, yeah, I don’t think so.” Calvin’s Christian mission in alignment with the CPI’s mission and vision convinced administrators, faculty, and donors to invest the time, money, and effort to get the program running. The CPI differs from some other Christian HEP programs in two key ways. First, the CPI does not require students to sign any theological statements and admits students of all religious 85 and spiritual identities. Second, the CPI curriculum is grounded in the liberal arts, which includes a range of courses and disciplines that are omitted in many other seminary-based HEP programs. Student-Centered. Participants described the CPI as distinctly student-centered, grounded in the acknowledgement that CPI students would be different from traditional Calvin College students. CPI staff encouraged faculty to be mindful of the students’ experience, considering it as a resource for educational outcomes like textbooks and other sources. Emphasizing incarcerated individuals’ different backgrounds compared to traditional Calvin students, Yates explained, “there are ways of teaching that you can draw [life] experience in, but if you’re teaching assuming an 18-year-old, you’re usually not very mindful of that.” CPI staff also helped faculty to consider their students’ context including the pros and cons of the students living together, the time constraints and liberties students had as incarcerated people, and the ways students’ life experience connects with course content different from traditional Calvin students. Yates emphasized the importance of a student-centered approach where students “felt like… faculty were making adjustments to their context so that it felt honoring and respectful to the students.” Partnerships All HEP organizations are fundamentally grounded in partnership between the higher education partner and the corrections partner. Some programs have added layers of nuance, including the CPI, which requires partnership between two higher education organizations—CTS and Calvin College—and the collective higher education partner with MDOC. CTS/Calvin College. The partnership between CTS and Calvin College originated due to the practical need for CTS to find a bachelor’s degree granting institution to help fulfill their vision of an HEP program. Calvin College was a natural fit due to proximity and similarity, but 86 participants described their partnership as far from easy. The two institutions had limited collaboration in recent history for two reasons. First, CTS was watched more closely by their governing denomination as a professional school for future ministers. Second, the general perception was CTS viewed its Calvin College counterparts as “junior colleagues” relative to their standing as seminary faculty and staff. Describing the differences between CTS and Calvin College, Gardner simply stated, “I think it’s a very different kind of institution… we just kind of got a pond between us and we’re happy not to cross it.” Despite historical challenges, participants spoke positively of the collaboration between CTS and Calvin College for the CPI. Some faculty served as a bridge between the two institutions, including the proposal writer according to some participants. Simmons added nuance to the discussion of the partnership sharing: I think collaboration is a very good idea. It makes it absolutely harder in terms of logistics, marketing, billing, who gets their name on this thing,” but in collaboration, “the obvious question immediately comes up: why? Collaboration forces institutions [to articulate] why they’re doing it. Calvin/MDOC. Elements of the partnership between Calvin and MDOC are described in detail throughout this chapter, including key conversations and relationships, culture, paperwork and financial agreements, and facility decisions. On an organizational level, participants identified the most significant connection during the implementation phase was between the CPI co-directors and the facility warden. In the earliest phases and for overall approval the state-level MDOC administration was essential, but as the planning moved toward the day-to-day implementation of the program, CPI and facility staff worked directly with one another. 87 Organization Summary The organization of the CPI’s earliest phases was dynamic and often changing, but grounded in the core partnerships of CTS and Calvin College and the collective Calvin and MDOC. Throughout the program’s development, administrators determined and revised who owned which aspect of the organization, where they needed collaboration, and where they could operate independently. Questions of culture, relationships, and logistics all influenced decisions made about the program as it moved toward its launch. I will discuss culture in greater detail in the next and final section. Environment HEP programs take place in complex environments, accounting for diverse and often conflicting cultures. Participants described the CPI’s environment through the singular environments of MDOC and Calvin, as well as the interplay between the two. Several also noted the local, state, and national political environment surrounding the creation of the CPI. MDOC In describing the MDOC environment, participants noted the distinction between the department culture and the facility culture. The core aspects of MDOC culture were its hierarchical power and decision-making structure, its punitive and repressive orientation toward incarcerated people, and the deep history of the department which made culture powerful and hard to change. Duran stated simply and clearly, “the atmosphere in a prison can be very repressive.” Several participants, however, described that at present MDOC culture is slowly changing to embrace more educational programs. The facility culture reflected that of the department, but had unique lenses based on its history. As described above, Handlon had a reputation as a “gladiator’s prison, a real tough 88 prison to be in,” according to Johnston, housing many younger men early in their incarceration. As a result, the facility emphasized the punitive and repressive approach, often using a heavy disciplinary hand in an effort to enhance safety and security. The Handlon staff had a range of perspectives about the CPI, though many expressed skepticism and cynicism, suggesting the program was “codling convicts” or “hug a thug,” according to Goodwin, and there was no way you can teach someone in prison. The warden’s support of the program in a hierarchical culture convinced most staff to go along even if they did not believe in the program. Some participants affiliated with Calvin described examples of getting grief from facility staff, but did not experience outright obstruction. Participants affiliated with MDOC noted staff could get moved if needed to accomplish the goals of the facility, but did not cite any specific examples of moving staff related to the CPI. Among skeptical facility staff, the aspiration (and in time reality) of decreased violence due to the program swayed some toward increasing openness. Simmons provided a poignant story to illustrate the dynamic among some skeptical facility staff sharing: The first shift captain… said I just wanna introduce myself. I just want you to know two things. One, I will support this. And so, if you have any issues or problems, let me know, and I'm supporting it because that's the order that came from Lansing. I’ve been doing this for 25 years and seen all sort of programs come that are gonna solve all our problems and they never do. And your program’s not gonna work. And he said, the reason is because you’re dealing with convicts and they're always gonna be convicts. And he said, so you can try, you know, you can have at it and I'm gonna support it. Cause I was told to, but it's not gonna work. 89 Another notable aspect of the environment at Handlon is the non-students incarcerated there. Participants did not describe this aspect of the environment in depth, but did mention students experienced some jealousy and resentment from those who were not enrolled in the program due largely to the privileges CPI students were afforded compared to the general population. Griffin shared, “[CPI students got] privileges and opportunities that other people aren’t getting, and that could create jealousy and resentment.” Further, CPI students came out of a general population in which interpersonal tensions were profoundly prevalent, often driven by race and politics. While the CPI sought to build a community that transcended such divisions, the tense environment was unavoidable at times both inside and outside of the classroom. Calvin The environment at Calvin College played a significant role in the CPI’s development. I described in the process section about the road blocks planners experienced when getting the program approved by the faculty senate. At the time of the proposal, Calvin had experienced budget cuts and reduction of faculty and staff due to enrollment and other financial challenges. Participants cited this reality as foundational to the concerns of faculty who stressed adding something as new and audacious as the CPI would be difficult with the strain being experienced on campus. James explained, “Calvin College was in the midst of financial difficulties that they were trying to resolve. Faculty were feeling workload increases. There were a bunch of things in the college system,” that prevented the proposal from initially passing the faculty senate. An aspect of Calvin’s culture that supported the program development is its orientation toward its Christian mission. As mentioned in previous sections, participants described connecting the program to Calvin’s mission was a consistent talking point from those who were advocating for support from faculty and administration. 90 MDOC and Calvin More than either environment individually, participants described the way the MDOC and Calvin environments came together. The CPI’s development involved a constant negotiation of two cultures with fundamentally different philosophies. In corrections, culture is hierarchical, rigid, disciplinary, and prioritizes distance from incarcerated people for sake of safety and control. In higher education, culture is more collaborative, adaptable, and prioritizes interpersonal connections and relationship-building for sake of mutual learning and growth. As the two organizations came together in partnership, though, both took steps toward one another. MDOC made concessions such as permitting students to gather for group study, allowing laptops to support instruction, and giving instructors some autonomy in their classrooms. Calvin recognized the more rigid approach to discipline and took a conservative approach to behavior issues, including dismissing students for infractions in situations when MDOC may not have required it. Griffin found the cultural divergences and convergences fascinating, sharing “the most interesting thing was the people and their institutions and cultures adjusting to each other… trust and culture struck me as the biggest thing that I noticed the most.” In addition to diverging philosophies, MDOC and Calvin had diverging goals. MDOC generally embraced the traditional goals of HEP of reducing recidivism by providing students training and education prior to their release. Conversely, Calvin sought to improve prison culture and equip graduates to serve other incarcerated individuals with their experience. Building trust between two such different organizations became an essential element in the success of the CPI. Participants expressed that trust building required trial and error and took time. Through a blend of both formal and informal relationships across organizations, 91 implementers sought to respect one another’s boundaries and desires and move slowly through potential changes. Politics The development of the CPI occurred in a distinct political environment. The MDOC director is a politically appointed position, which meant the personnel, priorities, and philosophies of the department may change with different state administrations. While the governorship was consistent throughout the development of the CPI, there was a director transition shortly before the first classes began. The CPI’s relationship to the state budget was an important political environmental factor. As described above, the CPI’s funding staying separate from the state budget was important to MDOC. Additionally, participants described that some MDOC administrators were motivated to support the program due HEP’s possibility to reduce corrections costs, allowing the state to direct funds elsewhere. Another political body that played a small role was the Michigan officers union, which called the Handlon warden in the early phase of the CPI. The union expressed issue with the incarcerate individuals receiving an education while the facility staff and their families work hard to pay for schooling. The conversation concluded, though, with the warden describing how the funding comes entirely from Calvin. National HEP Landscape The final environment described by participants was the national HEP landscape. As detailed above, other well-established HEP programs provided crucial inspiration and information to develop the CPI. Additionally, early CPI staff connected with the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP), attending conferences, meeting colleagues in the field, and 92 gaining valuable insight to help run the program in the early years. Describing her involvement with AHEP, Gardner shared, “the conversations at [AHEP] were very helpful conversations and presentations.” Conclusion Gartner’s (1985) four dimensions of New Venture Creation—process, individual(s), organization, and environment—proved to be a useful way to organize my findings, though my themes within each dimension did not match his descriptions precisely. The process of developing the CPI moved through meaningful stages from the origins through implementation; the individuals involved fit well into categories including instigators, champions, supporters, implementers, and “the firsts;” the organization of the CPI was dynamic and multi-faceted; and the overlapping environments of Calvin, MDOC, the broader political environment, and the field of HEP all played a role it the CPI’s development. In my next and final chapter, I provide an interpretation of my findings, discuss implications for practice and theory, and address limitations to my study and the possibility for future research they hold. 93 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS My study sought to answer the question: How do higher education in prison (HEP) programs develop? To answer this question, I utilized the Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI) as a common case and conducted interviews with higher education and corrections professionals involved in the CPI’s development. Mindful of Gartner’s (1985) framework for new venture creation (born out of entrepreneurship literature), I analyzed the interview data using a two-cycle coding process (Miles et al., 2020) focused first on analyzing individual interviews and second on analyzing across interviews to discern the most accurate picture of the program’s development. In this chapter I provide interpretation and implications of my findings. I first provide interpretation of my findings, describing what my study teaches about the development of HEP programs. Next, I share implications for practice and theory before describing my study’s limitations and recommendations for future research. Interpretation of the Findings Gartner’s (1985) framework for new venture creation (NVC) proved to be a useful way to organize my findings, even if Gartner’s description of each of the four dimensions (process, individuals, organization, and environment) did not perfectly align with the way each dimension was born out in my data. Gartner’s framework most effectively applies to a relatively simple new venture. He primarily discusses a single individual creating a single entity within a single environment. Conversely, my study’s case reflected a coming together of multiple well- established organizations comprised of numerous individuals in diverse environments to create a new entity—the CPI. As a result, while my findings aligned well with Gartner’s four dimensions broadly, they pushed the boundaries of Gartner’s definitions of each dimension given the more 94 complex landscape of my study. Given my study’s broad alignment with Gartner’s framework, however, I will continue using this framework in this section to provide an interpretation of my findings. Process My data yielded several significant aspects of the HEP program development process that augment a successful launch, including the initial inspiration, the importance of starting small, a crucial written proposal, and a messy implementation. These findings largely reflect the early three-stage process framework proposed by Bartunek and Betters-Reed’s (1987)—(a) first ideas, (b) commitment and early planning, and (c) implementation—while adding greater complexity and context based on the HEP setting. Other NVC process frameworks including Gartner’s (1985) proved too narrowly tailored to business development to be meaningfully reflected in my findings. Initial Inspiration The development of the CPI relied on the initial inspiration of a variety of key individuals during its early stages. Two serendipitous sparks of inspiration came in the earliest stages of the program’s development. First, Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) received a financial gift earmarked specifically for engagement with prisons. In time, those who were aware of the gift developed an idea for a visit to an established HEP program, which created a domino effect of inspiration to other influential individuals. Second, an incarcerated student contacted a CTS administrator, which led to a personal relationship between the two and inspired the administrator to support the development of the CPI. Though some sparks of inspiration were serendipitous, others were intentionally designed. For example, the list of attendees on the early trip to the seminary at Angola was 95 designed to spark inspiration in key influential figures both within the higher education and corrections spheres. Whether serendipitous or intentional, these sparks of inspiration were key catalysts in continuing the process of developing the CPI. Start Small A common strategy throughout various phases of the CPI’s development was to start small with experimental pilots. Through the success of these pilot efforts, decision makers were convinced and motivated to continue to approve next steps. The first example of starting small was the early non-accredited courses CTS was approved to teach at Handlon. An initial course proved to be successful for all parties, which led to multiple courses being taught in the future. The experience of teaching multiple non- accredited courses helped prepare both higher education and corrections administrators to transition to a structured, multi-course academic curriculum by the program’s first semester. Similarly, program developers chose to constrain their cohort size to 20 students so each year could start small, learn about the success and challenges of their approach, and make changes prior to welcoming the next group of students. The small cohort approach helped administrators learn from their mistakes and build an effective program by the time it grew to their desired size of five cohorts totaling approximately 100 students. Lastly, where higher education and corrections administrators disagreed on practice and policy questions, they frequently took a “start small” approach to determining the mutual agreement point. The best example from the data was laptop use for CPI students. Calvin administrators wanted all of their students to have laptops to reflect the realities of modern education, as called for by contemporary HEP scholars and practitioners (Delaney et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2020). Conversely, corrections administrators sought to disallow laptops due to 96 security concerns. Through negotiation administrators developed an approach where students would share laptops and instituted regular checks to ensure proper use of laptops. This approach proved successful and in time all students were assigned laptops with similar checking processes. The Written Proposal A crucial aspect of developing the CPI was a comprehensive written proposal that served as the foundation for the program and provided a framework for administrators to provide feedback and ultimately vote to approve the program’s launch. In the CPI’s case, CTS provided course release for a faculty member to travel, research, and write what resulted in a 118-page proposal outlining a proposed mission, curriculum, budget, and organizational structure for the CPI. The proposal proved important at multiple levels. First, the proposal provided continual inspiration to those involved in its creation to continue their efforts to get the program launched. Second, the proposal provided an in-depth framework for the Calvin College faculty senate to read, debate, and vote on, ultimately leading to the college’s buy-in to launch the program. Finally, the proposal provided a road map during the implementation phase of the program, as implementers were able to fall back on the proposal to make quick decisions on key aspects of the early stages of the program, including its curriculum and governance structure. The Messy Implementation The final stage in the CPI’s program launch was its messy implementation. Participants described how the implementation was fast and chaotic, largely due to only having about three months between the official program approval and start of the first semester. Despite the short timeline and messy implementation, participants expressed getting started right away was the 97 right choice so the program could continue making progress rather than stagnate in the implementation phase. Admissions proved to be a particularly challenging aspect of the messy implementation. Designing and distributing an application to incarcerated individuals throughout the state—many of whom were in remote locations—with limited access to technology was difficult. However, the CPI staff found themselves surprised with the number and quality of applications they received and especially found the essay questions to be insightful in helping to make their admissions decisions. The messy implementation also brought to a head several differences in opinion between Calvin and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), including the example of laptops described above. Implementers on both sides frequently disagreed, came to a consensus on a short-term solution, implemented the solution, and then made changes as needed in the future. In addition to laptops, examples of such conflict included student access to study time and space, students carrying academic materials throughout the facility, and instructors bringing in relevant course material that violated traditional contraband policy. Individuals The individuals who actually enacted the processes described above were central to my study’s findings. Specifically, two important aspects about the individuals involved in the creation of the CPI were the personal histories of individuals and the categories of key individuals Personal Histories of Individuals As described above, an important aspect of developing the CPI was the inspiration to create the program. Beyond inspiration to develop the specific program, however, my data 98 demonstrated the personal histories of the individuals involved prime them for such inspiration and motivate them to act. Older conceptions of NVC sought to understand distinct psychological or demographic characteristics that inclined entrepreneurs to create new organizations (Gartner, 1985), but my findings suggest that individuals’ past experiences are more likely to drive them to create an HEP program. On the higher education side, virtually every individual involved in the earliest stages of program development had personal ties to HEP or prison ministry. The author of the CPI proposal developed a relationship with an incarcerated person before conversations about the CPI began. The organizer of the trip to Angola and the future director of the CPI both had prior experience with ministry efforts in prisons. These participants described how their past experiences softened them to the idea of taking the difficult and potentially risky next steps of program development. Similarly, corrections administrators attributed their personal histories and philosophies as critical in their openness to an HEP program in their facilities. The MDOC Director at the time had family ties to a grandfather who was a champion of education in prison. The facility warden’s professional history emphasized programs and rehabilitation of incarcerated people. These backgrounds reflected a through line in virtually all individuals involved in the development of the CPI—something about their past primed them to be motivated to work toward making the CPI a reality. Process of Individuals: Champions to “Firsts” A clear connection emerged in the data between the process and individual dimensions in that the types of individuals involved followed a processual pattern, beginning with the champions of the program and then moving to the supporters, the implementers, and the group of 99 individuals I call the “firsts.” Participants described several instances throughout the program’s development where its development could have stalled, and at each stage the groups of individuals helped to propel it forward. The champions were the earliest and most important individuals who started the program development process and mostly stayed involved through its launch. The champions inspired the supporters—who often were in administrative positions of influence—to back the program and use their station to help the program development progress. The implementers were a key group of individuals who helped the program successfully launch after the champions and supporters formally approved its development. Finally, the “firsts” were a group of individuals who accepted risks to become the first faculty and staff who facilitated the first semester of the program, both financially and academically. Each of these groups played a distinct role critical to the successful launch of the CPI. Organization HEP programs are complex organizations involving at least two constituents: the higher education partner and the corrections partner. Within those constituents there are additional layers of complexity. On the higher education side, there may be multiple institutions (as is true for the CPI), donors, and institutional governance structures. On the corrections side, there are shifting political appointees, other state-wide staff, and facility administrators and officers. Amid the complexity, this study yielded three core realities about HEP organization: location matters, finances matter, and structure matters. Notably, such organizational characteristics closely reflect organizational characteristics for NVC posited by Katz and Gartner (1988), giving further credence to components of NVC theory’s usefulness in understanding HEP program development. Katz and Gartner’s conceptualization of “resources” would include an HEP 100 program’s location and finances; “boundary” would also include location—specifically the mutual influence of the HEP program and the prison facility on each other; and their idea of “exchange” effectively incorporates an HEP program’s complex structure and “transactions [that occur] across borders of subsystems” (p. 432). Location Matters The location of an HEP program is a critical component of its development, particularly for a fully in-person program like the CPI. Participants described three essential features in selecting a location: (a) proximity to the main campus of the higher education partner, (b) a location with a receptive warden, and (c) a location with space to host the program. Notably, these three criteria are not necessarily static—location decisions involve both the right space and the right time. In the case of the CPI, the facility originally considered was found to not have the right amount of space to host the program, but the facility ultimately chosen hired a receptive warden and had a significant amount of classroom space that in recent years lied dormant, resulting in the right set of circumstances to launch the HEP program. Finances Matter All organizations have to attend to finances, and as described above, HEP programs have added layers of complexity to financial decisions given its multiple constituents. The CPI had to contend with the amount of dollars both higher education institutions and the department of corrections were willing to contribute to the program. In its case, all partners were unwilling to contribute financially out of its operational budget, which led the CPI to heavily pursue donors to fund the program. The higher education institutions did provide some in-kind support for the program’s development in the form of course release and staff time. Largely due to the faith- 101 based identities of the higher education partners, the MDOC offered no funding from the state to support the program. One critical aspect of the program’s finances was—due to the limited capacity of the higher education institutions to fund the program—teaching faculty were not able to receive course release and were required to be paid as adjunct faculty, which both increased the amount of funds needed to be raised and caused difficulty in recruiting faculty to teach. Finally, an initial champion of the program was a local businessman and philanthropist, and his involvement in courting other donors was a crucial component of the financial stability of the CPI. Such an individual was incredibly helpful in creating buy-in from prospective donors in the area. Structure Matters The structure of the CPI was dynamic from its onset and was often developed through initial decisions that may have changed over time. As described above, the original written proposal helped to provide a foundation for short-term decisions related to program structure, even if decisions may have changed in the future. The CPI launched with a leadership structure of co-directors supported by a small committee from the higher education partners. Such a structure helped the program to make quick decisions (due to its small size) but also consider diverse opinions (due to its representation). Further, the co-director structure allowed for two individuals with different strengths to divide the core responsibilities of the role, which ultimately enhanced their effectiveness. The cohort size, make-up, and curriculum are other programmatic aspects essential to consider in an HEP program structure. 102 Who Owns What In the case of the CPI, there was added complexity to the partnership model (traditionally a higher education partner and a corrections partner) in that two higher education institutions came together to form the higher education side of the partnership. Further, within both of the two major partners, there are complex structures. Within higher education institutions, there are administrative leaders, faculty leaders, and program administrators. Outside of the institution, there are also accrediting bodies and government agencies that affect their practice. Within departments of corrections, there are state-level administrators including both governor- appointed and career administrators as well as local, facility-based administrators and staff. Amid this complexity, these data reflect the importance of HEP programs clearly defining who does what within their complex organizational structures. Katz and Gartner (1988) similarly reflected a need for emerging organizations to establish repetitive, cyclical, and predictable exchanges between subsystems. Within the CPI, higher education administration and faculty leaders and state-level department of corrections administrators were involved in high- level decision-making, asking broad questions related to proposals and giving approval for the program to move forward. After this phase, the day-to-day administration and decision-making fell to program directors, committees, and administrative staff within the host facility. One clear distinction of ownership was that curricular and other academic decisions were largely determined by the higher education partner. The primary interjection corrections had in the academic experience was when the implementation of academic goals conflicted with standing department policy, such as when course material faculty intended to bring to their classes would be considered contraband. Such instances began—and sometimes ended—in 103 conversation between facility and program administrators, though occasionally elevated to state- level and higher education institution administrators when challenges persisted. Program admission was a unique area of blended ownership for the CPI. Calvin maintained primary ownership over academic credentials and the admissions applications, but the two partners collaborated on the prospective students’ criminal history. Specifically, when the CPI developed, Calvin’s understanding was that they would not receive applications from incarcerated people convicted of criminal sexual conduct (CSC). After admitting their first cohort, Calvin staff found some admitted students did have CSC convictions, which demonstrated confusion in their shared understanding of the admissions policy related to CSC and each partner’s role in enforcing that policy. Environment The example of admissions confusion above was one of several examples of environmental incongruence between the fields of higher education and corrections. One of the most significant challenges in creating the CPI was navigating the differences between the two environments. Additionally, my study demonstrated developing an HEP program not only requires attending to the shared environments but also attending to the individual partners’ environments and external environments as well. Cultural Differences Participants in my study consistently described significant cultural differences between the MDOC and Calvin that are reflective of differences in the broader fields of corrections and higher education (Delaney et al., 2016; Ezren et al., 2019). Corrections culture includes a strong commitment to structural hierarchy and authority, a cynical view of incarcerated individuals and their potential for change, and an emphasis on punitive measures to affect behavior. Conversely, 104 higher education culture tends to value shared expertise and wisdom and orient around growth potential of students. Put succinctly by Delaney et al., (2016), “Corrections departments and educational institutions are driven by different organizing principles or missions, and this means that colleges and corrections staff may approach postsecondary programs with different goals in mind” (p. 13). These differences most directly came to ahead for the CPI in on-site policy and personal interactions. Notably, during the interview phase of my study, I observed a clear distinction between the manner of the Calvin and MDOC interviews. The interviews were largely congruent on their substance—the story each group told was roughly the same as the other. However, interviews with the Calvin participants tended to be much longer, more detailed, and wandering, whereas MDOC participants tended to be much less verbose and provide answers to my specific questions rather than musing on topics beyond what I originally asked. These distinctions in interview style were remarkably congruent with the cultural differences between the two groups. Policy. The rigidity and restrictiveness of the prison environment is not conducive to education, and CPI developers had to adapt prison policy for incarcerated students to make education possible. Examples of policy adaptation include the facility permitting faculty to bring in classroom materials that would otherwise be considered contraband, permitting incarcerated students to possess laptops and other educational materials that other incarcerated individuals could not, and adding flexibility into incarcerated students’ schedules and ability to gather which allowed for additional peer engagement—a practice lauded as beneficial for incarcerated student success (Dewey et al., 2020; Rose & Nyre, 1979). Where MDOC policy could not change to reflect Calvin’s preferences, Calvin adapted their educational environment to uphold those policies. One significant example is Calvin IT 105 developed an intranet system where students could upload assignments and communication to faculty without connecting to the internet or accessing outside material. CPI staff also worked with faculty to adapt their courses in instances when their preferred course plan conflicted with inflexible MDOC policy. Personal Interactions. A significant cultural sticking point in developing the CPI was developing shared understanding about how CPI faculty staff would interact with their incarcerated students. On Calvin’s main campus faculty and students regularly share personal histories, engage in debate, or demonstrate care through physical touch such as a hand on a shoulder or a hug. In a prison, these actions would be radical departures from cultural norms given the distance corrections staff place between them and incarcerated individuals given their cynical, punitive perspectives. Program developers had to determine how to best reconcile these differences, leading to explicit policies about personal interactions including the permissibility of handshakes (but no other physical contact) and a rigid policy disallowing the exchange of any non-course related material between faculty and incarcerated students. Developing Mutual Respect. A notable development through the creation of the CPI was the willingness for both the MDOC and Calvin to demonstrate mutual respect for one another’s culture by making choices that reflected the other’s values. The MDOC, for example, softened policies as described above which reflected Calvin’s desire to provide time and space for students to learn. Additionally, Calvin adopted a rigid approach to addressing student behavior, choosing to make difficult decisions to dismiss students due to policy violations even before the MDOC would have required or requested dismissal. These and several other examples on both sides helped to develop trust between the two partners that helped solidify their commitment to working together to find solutions amid vast cultural differences. 106 Individual Environments In addition, the shared environment created by the CPI partnership, CPI developers had to attend to the individual environments within the MDOC and Calvin and the external political environment. MDOC. As described above, the MDOC is a hierarchical environment with a rigid chain of command and authority structure. This reality supported the CPI’s development in that a supportive MDOC director and facility warden helped to get the program approved—they had the authority to say yes, and others were required to fall in line. At the facility, however, the environment was not always receptive to the program even if the staff followed directive to facilitate the program. In the early stages of the program development, Calvin faculty occasionally faced disruptive language and actions from the corrections officers with which the faculty interacted. While no major disruptions affected the program and facility leadership were able to address significant concerns, the experiences reflected a tension in the facility environment that persisted through the program’s launch. Calvin. A significant moment in the development of the CPI was the program’s approval by the Calvin College faculty senate—which took two attempts. At the time the proposal went before the faculty senate, Calvin’s environment was experiencing scarcity. Declining enrollment and budget challenges created an environment where programs were shrinking, and faculty felt stretched. As a result, faculty were concerned about adding something as new and significant as an HEP program and initially were unwilling to support it. However, another aspect of Calvin’s environment was its clarity and commitment to its mission to “equip students to think deeply, act justly, and live wholeheartedly as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.” After the initial rejection from the senate, CPI supporters advocated for the program as “a bullseye to the 107 mission” according to one participant. This argument proved fruitful as the program proposal passed with relative ease at the second opportunity. Political Environment I described in my literature review how prison education is a political topic with uncommon bipartisan support, which can augment an institution’s push to develop an HEP program. In my study, participants described two main ways the political environment affected the program’s development. First, participants noted the importance of a supportive MDOC Director in the program’s creation. The director is a governor-appointed position and as a result can shift under changing administrations. Such a shift occurred during the development of the CPI, which caused the outgoing director to prioritize signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in his final days in the role to solidify the program’s foundation before a new director took over. Delaney et al. (2016) identified MOUs and other formal written agreements as critical to program success, especially during transitions like the CPI experienced. Second, conversations about the state budget were important in the creation of the CPI. Specifically, the MDOC Directors and state legislators told Calvin administrators no state funding would support the program, at least in part due to Calvin’s Christian identity and mission. While the responsibility of funding the program thus fell entirely on Calvin, the program gained political protection when MDOC administrators and state legislators received pushback from constituents by allowing them to say no public funding supported the program. Connecting with Other HEP Professionals Only one participant spoke of the broader national HEP environment, though she expressed connecting with the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (AHEP) proved to be 108 incredibly helpful during the CPI’s development. The alliance provided feedback on potential policies and practices the CPI was considering implementing, which sparked important discussion and reflection among CPI developers in the early stages. As more HEP programs continue to emerge nationally, AHEP will likely be a growing body with increasing experience that will continue to be a useful sounding board and support for HEP program developers. Implications for Practice As described above, HEP programs are complex organizations with numerous partners and constituents. To simplify this complexity, I will focus the implications of my study for practice on three broad groups: higher education administrators, corrections administrators, and advocates and policymakers. Higher Education Administrators Higher education administrators who aspire to launch and HEP program can prepare for a complex, unpredictable, and ever-changing road ahead. To navigate the program development process, administrators ought to seek support from others who have developed programs before, get the right people involved, anticipate challenge and complexity, and carve out the necessary time to see the process through. Find a “Mentor” Program A critical moment in the CPI’s development was the trip to the seminary at the Angola prison in Louisiana. The trip served as an inspirational spark and proof of concept to both higher education and corrections administrators that such a program could develop in Michigan. Beyond the trip, several CPI developers continued to stay in contact with the warden and other staff at Angola to provide advice and feedback as they developed the CPI proposal. While the proposal process involved visits to several other HEP programs throughout the country, the CPI 109 benefited from having a primary “mentor” program at Angola to provide inspiration, program data, and policy and structure ideas as the CPI was advocated for and designed. Higher education administrators developing their own HEP programs would benefit from seeking and developing a relationship with an aspirational program that can serve similar functions. Find the Right People My study demonstrated amid the complex organization of an HEP program, a successful launch requires having the right individuals in place in the right roles at the right time. Higher education administrators should pursue colleagues and advocates who have personal passion or history with corrections and education in prisons through past practice or research. Starting an HEP program is grueling work, and intrinsic passion drove many CPI administrators to press on through difficult phases in its development. The successful development of the CPI also required courting the right allies throughout the higher education institution. When the initial proposal was met with resistance from Calvin faculty, CPI developers pursued influential and well-respected faculty and administrators to buy into the program and advocate for the proposal to others. Prior to the second (successful) vote, these individuals expressed their support and likely helped motivate others to buy in as well. Anticipate Cultural Differences The cultural differences between higher education and corrections described above is profound—in many ways the two fields operate under completely opposite norms, assumptions, and values (Delaney et al., 2016; Ezren et al., 2019). Higher education administrators need to anticipate such differences when developing an HEP program and from the beginning keep the prison context in mind. Anticipating these differences will help to maintain developers’ morale when ideas or requests are met with non-answers or resistance from the corrections department 110 and help developers think creatively throughout the process about how to find solutions amid these differences. Finally, higher education administrators can build trust with the corrections department by demonstrating a proactive understanding of and respect for their institution’s culture rather than pushing cultural boundaries by trying to push their traditional higher education practices into the prison setting. The Proposal: Time and Resources Higher education administrators should prepare for a both time- and resource-intensive process. Part of the successful launch of the CPI was due to an over 100-page proposal written over nearly a year and involved extensive research and travel by a faculty member who had received course release to pursue the project. The thoroughness of the proposal both helped to get the proposal approved by the necessary bodies and helped to get the program started during its short launch window. When difficult questions arose and there was not sufficient time to deliberate and decide, program implementers were able to lean back on the proposal to guide their decisions in the early phases. Having such a detailed document was invaluable for the CPI and would benefit others starting HEP programs as well. Implementation is Messy Finally, higher education administrators can anticipate the implementation of an HEP program will be messy and complex. CPI implementers dealt with unpredictable decision- making processes and timelines, which caused them to have to stall at some phases and have to act quickly at others. As one participant said, “…if you get a yes, you gotta go.” Further, even when processes and policies were clearly planned and articulated, unexpected changes caused them to have to adjust their approach on the fly. Higher education administrators should prepare 111 to be flexible, make quick decisions, and always be willing to change decisions based on new information or new directives from program partners. Corrections Administrators In the case of the CPI, the higher education administrators primarily drove the program and implementation, but corrections administrators served crucial roles in providing approvals, advocating for the program internally, and designing policies and practices. Without supportive allies in the MDOC at both the state and facility levels the program would have never launched. Like higher education administrators, corrections administrators who are helping to launch an HEP program should seek to find the right people and to anticipate cultural differences. Additionally, corrections administrators should work to prepare their facility staff for the emergence of a counter-cultural program in their facility. Find the Right People Similar to higher education administrators, corrections administrators should seek to find people who have a professional orientation toward programming and rehabilitation to work with the program. The warden of the host facility is a particularly key figure who should have such a perspective. Further, while the corrections officers and other facility staff would ultimately comply with the orders of the warden, facility staff who support the program can improve the experience for the program faculty they interact with daily. During the CPI’s development, a facility social worker was a key figure to help bridge gaps between the facility and Calvin as he was trusted by the facility to host Calvin faculty for non-accredited courses and trusted by Calvin to help support their efforts in a new environment. 112 Anticipate Cultural Differences Both partners in an HEP program need to anticipate cultural differences and seek compromise (Delaney et al., 2016; Ezren et al., 2019). Corrections administrators should anticipate a higher education partner will seek to humanize and relate to their incarcerated students more than is traditional in a corrections setting. Corrections administrators should also anticipate requests about course topics and materials that push the boundaries of both policy and norms for what typically occurs in and comes into the prison. Part of the CPI’s successful launch was a willingness for the MDOC to consider such requests and find creative solutions rather than rejecting these boundary-pushing ideas outright. Prepare Facility Staff Corrections administrators can also anticipate pushback from their facility staff related to the cultural differences between corrections and higher education, which is a reality for HEP programs that has spanned decades (Rose & Nyre, 1979). The warden and other administrators may need to wield their authority to ensure appropriate behavior from their staff but can also frame the launch of the program in the context of the benefit to the facility. HEP programs tend to reduce violence in prisons and make corrections officers’ jobs easier, and articulating these outcomes may soften the perspectives of skeptical facility staff. Advocates and Policymakers Given the role the majority of my participants played as either MDOC or Calvin employees, my study yielded limited implications for advocates and policymakers, though those groups of people are necessary for HEP program development. Two interrelated concepts did emerge in my data: advocates and policymakers should anticipate pushback to the program and should make budgetary decisions accordingly. 113 Participants from all spheres described instances where staff, prospective donors, and others expressed concern with the program, particularly arguing people convicted of crimes do not deserve a fully funded education. In response to this critique, advocates found success by describing the program was privately funded and donors were able to allocate their money as they see fit. Further, advocates can point to the HEP program as an investment in safer prisons and lower recidivism rates, as reflected in numerous studies on prison education outcomes. Given the organizational lens of my study, its findings were rich with implications for various players in the HEP world. I will now turn to describe the implications for theory before concluding with my study’s limitations and recommendations for future research. Implications for Theory In additional to practical implications, my study’s findings offer several implications for theory as well, including adding complexity to NVC theory, conceptualizing college programs through an entrepreneurship lens, and expanding understandings of partnerships in higher education. Revising New Venture Creation and Organizational Theory Gartner’s (1985) framework of NVC served as a useful frame for my study, though my study illuminated limitations to the theory. Most notably, Gartner’s framework focused largely on single individuals who created new companies. This narrow approach to the individual dimension severely limits the theory’s applicability to more complex organizations such as HEP programs. My study can help new venture creation theorists to broaden their understanding of the implications individuals have on organizational development. Specifically, theorists should explore new venture creation that involves numerous individuals, including articulating different types of individuals involved and their relationships with one another. Similarly, Gartner’s 114 organization dimension can be expanded to acknowledge multiple layers in complex organizations comprised of partnerships between two or more organizations, rather than conceptualizing only a single organization. Gulati et al. (2012) utilized the term “meta- organizations” to discuss the existence of such complex organizations. The work of Gulati et al. primarily describes meta-organizations, and scholars and theorists should take further steps to analyze NVC with meta-organizations—like HEP programs—in mind. Another aspect of NVC theory that my study challenges is a dichotomy between variance theories which focus on district factors of organizations (Donaldson & Mateu, 2021; Gartner, 1985; Katz & Gartner, 1988; Waqar et al., 2020) and process theories, which focus on the temporal process of emerging organizations (Bartunek & Betters-Reed, 1987; Bhave, 1994; Donaldson & Mateu, 2021). My study design rejected this dichotomy, attempting to analyze both variance and process aspects of HEP program development. I successfully gathered data and meaningful findings through both lenses, and my study would seem incomplete without the incorporation of both. Future scholarship should similarly embrace complexity in analyzing NVC to achieve a fuller and richer understanding of how organizations emerge. Similar to my call to complexify new venture creation and entrepreneurship theory, my study offers an opportunity for organizational theorists more broadly to embrace complexity in their study of organizations. For example, organizational theorists can explore how to categorize groups individuals involved in organizations as I did by describing groups like champions and implementers. Additionally, my study can serve as a model to study complex organizations born out of partnership between multiple other organizations. 115 New Understandings of College Programs In addition to new venture creation theory, my study also has implications on higher education organizational theory. Specifically, my study can prompt theorists to conceptualize higher education program development through an entrepreneurship lens. I initially explored new venture creation due to the lack of higher education program development theory. Higher education scholars would benefit from theorizing program development through an entrepreneurship lens, which could result in new venture creation theory unique to higher education rather than the more traditional business and non-profit literature. Higher Education Partnerships and Town-Gown Two other theoretical areas my study can influence are higher education partnerships and town-gown relationships. My literature review did not explore these areas in depth, but my study has clear implications on them. The dearth of HEP literature beyond research on program outcomes indicates neither area has thoroughly explored the role of local prisons and state and local departments of corrections has partners to higher education institutions and aspects of the community in town-gown relationships. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Case study research carries inherent limitations largely due to its narrow scope and single-case sample size (Maxwell, 2012; Yin, 2018). While I addressed limitations in chapter three by emphasizing attention to quality in case study research, the gaps caused by such limitations still exist and create ample opportunity for future research. My recommendations include replicating this study with new cases to validate or challenge these findings, similar case studies of established programs to explore different programmatic stages, and longitudinal studies that accommodate larger portion of a program’s lifespan. 116 Replicating Studies I selected the CPI in part due to characteristics that made it a common case, indicating findings from my study would be generalizable and relevant to other cases (Yin, 2018). Even so, replicating this study with other cases could help to validate or challenge these findings, adding depth to our understanding of HEP program development. Studying Established Programs My study focused on the development phase of an HEP program, though my approach could be applied at other phases in a program’s lifespan. I am aware that since the CPI launched there have been countless challenges and changes to program structure and policy. Future case study research of established programs at various phases would provide valuable insight on the factors involved in maintaining and growing HEP programs. While I am not aware of any such studies in HEP literature, the field of management could offer inspiration where scholars have studied the broader lifecycle of organizations (Kimberly, 1979; Phelps et al., 2007; Stevens, 2002). Longitudinal Studies Another opportunity to address my study’s limit of its focus on a single phase of an HEP program’s lifespan is for scholars to conduct longitudinal studies to follow a case for an extended time. Scholars and practitioners could gain immense value from studying the same HEP program from its early development phases through its first few years and beyond. Such studies could connect decisions and actions from the development phase to resulting successes or failures down the road, illuminating broader consequences of choices made. 117 Conclusion In an era of increasing national attention to higher education, my study provides valuable insights into the factors involved in developing an HEP program. Since numerous past studies have illuminated the value of prison education—especially demonstrating its role in decreasing prison violence and recidivism (Davis et al., 2014; Esperian et al., 2010; Lahm, 2009; Pompoco et al., 2017)—it is important to begin studying HEP programs themselves so we can better understand how they are developed, structured, and sustained to achieve those outcomes. This case study research begins to fill that gap, describing several factors related to the process, individuals, organization, and environments of HEP program development. These findings are useful for both practitioners and scholars who seek to better understand HEP programs and to create quality HEP programs that will serve students and communities in the future. 118 REFERENCES Adams, K., Bennett, K. J., Flanagan, T. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, S. J., & Fritsch, E. (1994). A large-scale multidimensional test of the effect of prison education programs on offenders’ behavior. The Prison Journal, 74(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855594074004004 Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. (n.d.). Conference archives. https://www.higheredinprison.org/national-conference#archives Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. (2016). Prospectus: A working document to support the planning and launch of the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. https://www.higheredinprison.org/guiding-documents Anderson, K. G., & Herr, G. L. (2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. SAGE Publications, Inc. Aos, S., & Drake, E. (2013). Prison, Police, and Programs: Evidence-Based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money. (Doc. No. 13-11-1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Atkins, C., Dubler, J., Lloyd, V., & Webb, M. (2019). “Using the language of Christian love and charity”: What liberal religion offers higher education in prison. Religions, 10(3), 169- 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10030169 Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577242 Bartunek, J., & Betters-Reed, B. L. (1987). The stages of organizational creation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(3), 287-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922699 Batiuk, M. E., Lahm, K. F., Mckeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history analysis. Criminal Justice, 5(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802505050979 Berends, H., & Deken, F. (2021). Composing qualitative process research. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018824838 Bhaskar, R. (1978). On the possibility of social scientific knowledge and the limits of naturalism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 8(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 5914.1978.tb00389.x Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90031-0 119 Bidwell, A. (2019). GAO report identifies Second Chance Pell implementation challenges, urges ED to evaluate. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. https://www.nasfaa.org/news- item/17952/GAO_Report_Identifies_Second_Chance_Pell_Implementation_Challenges_ Urges_ED_to_Evaluate Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 389-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6 Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(4), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600401 Burns, K. (Producer), & Novick, L. (Director). (2019). College behind bars [Motion picture]. United States: Public Broadcasting Service. Calvin University (2021). Calvin Prison Initiative: Education for transformation. https://calvin.edu/prison-initiative/ Calvin University (2025). Prison Initiative: About. https://calvin.edu/prison-initiative/about Castro, E. L., & Zamani-Gallaher, E. M. (2017). Expanding quality higher education for currently and formerly incarcerated people: Committing to equity and protecting against exploitation. Association for Study of Higher Education & National Institute for Transformation and Equity. https://cece.sitehost.iu.edu/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/Expanding-Quality-Higher-Ed-FINAL.pdf Castro, E. L., Hunter, R. K., Hardison, T., & Johnson-Ojeda, V. (2018). The landscape of postsecondary education in prison and the influence of Second Chance Pell: An analysis of transferability, credit-bearing status, and accreditation. The Prison Journal, 98(4), 405- 426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518776376 Castro, E. L., & Gould, M. R. (2019). Higher education in prison: Thoughts on building a community of scholarship and practice. Critical Education, 10(13), 1-15. https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186525 Chrisman, J. J., Bauerschmidt, A., & Hofer, C. W. (1999). The determinants of new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879802300101 Cioffi, T., Haggerty, A. F., & Bouman, J. P. (2020). Equipping students for a “specific uprising” toward justice: Lessons learned from a university prison initiative. Christian Higher Education, 19(1-2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2019.1689201 120 Clandinin, D., J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Correctional Education Association. (n.d.). History. https://ceanational.org/history/ Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J. N. V., Saunders, J., Steinberg, P. S. (2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here?: The results of a comprehensive evaluation. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html Davis, L. M. (2019). Higher Education Programs in Prison: What We Know Now and What We Should Focus on Going Forward. Perspective. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE342.html Delaney, R., Subramanian, R., & Patrick, F. (2016) Making the grade: Developing quality postsecondary education programs in prison. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/making-the-grade-postsecondary-education-programs- in-prison Dewey, S., Codallos, K., Barry, R., Drenkhahn, K., Glover, M., Muthig, A., Roberts, S. L., & Abbott, B. (2020). Higher education in prison: A pilot study of approaches and modes of delivery in eight prison administrations. The Journal of Correctional Education, 71(1), 57-89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915042 Donaldson, C., & Mateu, G. (2021). New venture creation: A systematic review of associated literature. TEC Empresarial, 15(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v15i1.5399 Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1990). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(90)90007-G Duguid, S. (1980). Post-secondary education in a prison: Theory and praxis. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 29–35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ228176.pdf Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885514548009 Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. (1972). 121 Erisman, W., & Contardo, J. B. (2005). Learning to reduce recidivism: A 50-state analysis of postsecondary correctional education policy. The Institute for Higher Education Policy. https://www.ihep.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/uploads_docs_pubs_learningreducerecidivism.pdf Erzen, T., Gould, M. R., & Lewen, J. (2019). Excellence in practice: A guide for higher education in prison. Prison University Project & Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. https://assets-global.website- files.com/5e3dd3cf0b4b54470c8b1be1/5e3dd3cf0b4b5492e78b1d24_Equity%2BExcelle nce-English-web.pdf Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. The Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23282764 Fabelo, T. (2002). The impact of prison education on community reintegration of inmates: The Texas case. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 106-110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41971087 Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., Martinez, M., Roberts, R. A., Smart, P., & Upegui, D. (2001). Changing minds: The impact of college in a maximum-security prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/changing_minds.pdf Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279094 Gaskill, S., Gould, M.R., Price, V., Castro, E.L., Lerman, A.E. (2023). The landscape of higher education in prison, 2020-2021. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. http://higheredinprison.org Green, E. L. (2020, December 21). Financial aid is restored for prisoners as part of the stimulus bill. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/us/politics/stimulus- law-education.html Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571- 586. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1975 Hickman, B. (2015, April 3). Inmate. Prisoner. Other. Discussed.: What to call incarcerated people: Your feedback. The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/03/inmate-prisoner-other-discussed Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. (1965). H.R. 3355, 103rd Cong. (2nd Sess. 1994). 122 H.R. 2168, 116th Cong. (1st Sess. 2019). H.R. 4674, 116th Cong. (1st Sess. 2019). H.R. 133, 116th Cong. (2nd Sess. 2020). Inderbitzin, M. (2015). Active learning and educated hope: College and prison partnerships in liberal education. Liberal Education, 101(3), 46-51. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A433010766/AONE?u=msu_main&sid=AONE&xid=8f3 7d4ca Karpowitz, D. (2017). College in prison: Reading in an age of mass incarceration. Rutgers University Press. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429-441. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306967 Kimberly, J. (1979). Issues in the creation of organizations: Initiation, innovation, and institutionalization. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.5465/255737 Kreighbaum, A. (2019a, June 26). DeVos calls for making “Second Chance Pell” permanent. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/06/26/devos-calls- making-second-chance-pell-permanent Kreighbaum, A. (2019b, October 11). The private sector weighs in on Pell Grants in prisons. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/11/employers- governors-back-federal-aid-students-prisons Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271- 282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079965 Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 341-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2007.00177.x Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications, Inc. Linden, R., & Perry, L. (1982). The effectiveness of prison education programs. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 6(4), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J264v06n04_04 123 Mangan, K. (2021). The expanding role of colleges in prison education: The opportunities and obstacles in educating the incarcerated. Ascendum & The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.ascendiumphilanthropy.org/assets/Uploads/Resource-Page- Content/Grant-Partner-Pubs/PrisonPopulation.pdf Manning, J. (2017). In vivo coding. In Matthes, J. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0270 Maxwell, J. A. (2012a). A realist approach for qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Inc. Maxwell, J. A. (2012b). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412452856 Maxwell, J. A. (2020). The value of qualitative inquiry for public policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077800419857093 Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2012). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 145-168). SAGE Publications, Inc. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. Morin, S. M. (2017). At the intersection of institutional religious identity and worldview diversity: Exploring students’ sense of belonging at a Catholic university (Publication No. 10610781) [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Morona, A. (2021, January 18). Ashland University’s prison program at the center of national controversy. Open Campus. https://www.opencampusmedia.org/2021/01/18/ashland- universitys-prison-program-sits-at-the-center-of-national-controversy/ Mukamal, D., Silbert, R., & Taylor, R. M. (2015). Degrees of freedom: Expanding college opportunities for currently and formerly incarcerated Californians. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574136 National Institute of Justice (n.d.). Correctional facilities. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/correctional-facilities Notice Inviting Postsecondary Educational Institutions to Participate in Experiments Under the Experimental Sites Initiative, 80 Fed. Reg. 080315 (August 3, 2015) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 668.32). 124 Oakford, P., Brumfield, C., Goldvale, C., & Tatum, L. (2019). Investing in futures: Economic and fiscal benefits of postsecondary education in prison. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/investing-in-futures.pdf Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553249 Phelps, P., Adams, A., & Bessant, J. (2007). Life cycles of growing organizations: A review with implications for knowledge and learning. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00200.x Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing inmate misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12290 Rose, C., & Nyre, G. F. (1979). Inmate and Ex-Offender Postsecondary Education Programs in California. Summary. In Undefined (p. 36). http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED175347 Royer, C.E., Castro, E.L., Cortes-López, E., Gould, M.R., & Lerman, A.E. (2020). The landscape of higher education in prison 2018-2019. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. http://higheredinprison.org Royer, C.E., Castro, E.L., Gould, M.R., & Lerman, A.E. (2021). The landscape of higher education in prison 2019-2020. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison. http://higheredinprison.org Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519766 S. 2557, 116th Cong. (1st. Sess. 2019). S. 1074, 116th Cong. (1st Sess. 2019). Scales, M. G. (2019, October 23). Let prisoners use Pell Grants. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/let-prisoners-use-pell-grants-higher-education-can-help- reduce-recidivism/ Scott, R. (2018). Reducing recidivism via college-in-prison: Thoughts on data collection, methodology, and the question of purpose. Critical Education, 9(18), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v9i18.186303 Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. (2008). https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ199/PLAW-110publ199.pdf 125 Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90029-D Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (1999). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00003-2 Stevens, S. K. (2002). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for non-profit capacity. Stagewise Enterprises. University of Utah Prison Education Project (n.d.). The research collaborative on higher education in prison. https://prisoneducationproject.utah.edu/research/the-research- collaborative-on-higher-education-in-prison/ U.S. Department of Education (2016). 12,000 incarcerated students to enroll in postsecondary educational and training programs through Education Department’s new Second Chance Pell program. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/12000-incarcerated-students- enroll-postsecondary-educational-and-training-programs-through-education-departments- new-second-chance-pell-pilot-program U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Secretary DeVos Expands Second Chance Pell Experiment, More than Doubling Opportunities for Incarcerated Students to Gain Job Skills and Earn Postsecondary Credentials. https://www.ed.gov/news/press- releases/secretary-devos-expands-second-chance-pell-experiment-more-doubling- opportunities-incarcerated-students-gain-job-skills-and-earn-postsecondary-credentials Van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change. Organization Science, 1(3), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.213 Walsh, B., & Delaney, R. (2020). First class: Starting a postsecondary education program in prison. Vera Institute. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/first-class-post- secondary-education-in-prison.pdf Waqar, A., Jamil, M., & Fadzil, A. F. (2020). Comprehensive review of social entrepreneurship: Developing the conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of social new venture creation. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(4), 1987- 1995. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 126 APPENDIX A Interview Protocol Informed Consent Before beginning the interview, I would like to review important information about your participation in this research and affirm your consent to participate. [Review information from informed consent document with participant. Obtain verbal consent and a signature on the informed consent form.] Do you have any questions before we begin? Opening Question • From your perspective, how did the CPI program develop? Remaining Questions (if not covered in response to opening question) Narrative • What were the key moments in time that led to the successful launch of the CPI? Individual(s) • Who were the key players in the development of the CPI? • What role(s) did those key players play? • How did specific individuals support or hinder the development of the program? • What characteristics of the individuals involved influenced the programs development? Process • How did the opportunity to create the CPI emerge? • What resources were required to launch the program? • What conversations or meetings were pivotal in the development of the CPI? • What decisions needed to be made to advance the development process? Who was involved in those decisions? 127 • What roadblocks emerged that challenged the development process? Environment • What external factors influenced the development of the CPI? How did they support or hinder its creation? o Consider: Policy (federal, state, MDOC, and Calvin) and institutional culture (MDOC and Calvin) • How did those involved in developing the CPI respond to environmental factors? Organization • What characteristics of your organization supported the development of the CPI? • What characteristics of your organization hindered the development of the CPI? • What role did partnerships between organizations (e.g., between Calvin and the MDOC) play in the development of the CPI? 128