Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024 Feb 13;257:111127. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111127

Learning with conviction: Exploring the relationship between criminal legal system involvement and substance use and recovery outcomes for students in collegiate recovery programs

Noel Vest a, Justin S Bell b, Alexa Nieder b, Rebecca Smith c, Thomas Bannard c, Sarah Tragesser d, Patrick Hibbard e, Danielle M Dick f
PMCID: PMC11031344  NIHMSID: NIHMS1971640  PMID: 38394814

Abstract

This study examines the association of criminal legal system involvement and age with substance use and academic related outcomes among students involved in collegiate recovery programs in the US. We examined 435 students in collegiate recovery using a national survey of college students. We computed differences between non-system-involved, system-involved with no incarceration history, and formerly incarcerated participants on relevant substance use and recovery-related outcomes. The results provide evidence that there are significant differences between those system-involved and those who are not. Specifically, we found significant differences across the outcomes of recovery capital, quality of life, hours worked per week, and substance use disorder symptoms, but after controlling for relevant covariates, only the differences between hours worked (non-system involved and system involved < formerly incarcerated) and substance use disorder symptoms (non-system involved < system involved and formerly incarcerated) remained significant. The study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that nearly half of the collegiate students in recovery in this sample have legal system-involvement and a third have been incarcerated. Further, interventions for collegiate recovery programs may need to be adjusted to account for legal system involvement among their members.

Keywords: collegiate recovery, criminal legal system involvement, formerly incarcerated, addiction recovery, substance use, recovery capital

1.0. INTRODUCTION

Mass incarceration has been a major public health issue in the US over the past 50 years (Wildeman & Wang, 2017). The US currently houses 1.8 million people in its jails and prisons (Sawyer, 2022; Zeng, 2022), and releases more than 600,000 people from incarceration every year(Sawyer, 2022), many with few to no job opportunities (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). For many, a co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) can complicate reentry and result in higher rates of recidivism (Cusack et al., 2010; Shinkfield & Graffam, 2009). A college degree appears to provide a protective effect, offering social mobility and a path to well-paying careers for individuals impacted by the legal system (Oakford et al., 2019). Although more than 50% of individuals leaving incarceration have a SUD (Bronson et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2015), the vast majority of colleges don’t currently pursue or recruit students from this marginalized student group. Though an estimate of students with criminal histories applying to colleges are not known, there are efforts to remove criminal history boxes from college and professional degree applications (Covello, 2023; Wilcox & Taylor, 2022). Lastly, considering the enduring racial inequities prevalent in the criminal legal system, healthcare, and higher education (Alexander, 2012; Bluthenthal, 2021; Hardeman et al., 2021; Rucker & Richeson, 2021), a more complete understanding of students with histories of involvement with the legal system and SUD is becomes crucial.

1.1. Collegiate Recovery Programs

Collegiate recovery programs (CRPs) serve college students in recovery from SUDs and behavioral addictions across the US (Laudet et al., 2015). Though resources and services vary widely from school to school, common elements include mutual-aid meetings, student drop-in centers, peer recovery supports, substance-free/recovery housing, and sponsored substance-free activities (Bugbee et al., 2016; Vest et al., 2021). Some CRPs have specialized services and resources for minoritized groups including BIPOC, LGBTQI+, and students with eating disorders, though more work in this area is needed (Vázquez et al., 2022). In sum, CRPs aim to offer a drug and alcohol-free haven in collegiate environments that can often be unsympathetic and stigmatizing for students in recovery from SUDs and behavioral addictions due to pervasive college drinking culture (Cleveland et al., 2007).

1.2. Higher Education Among System-Involved Individuals

Recently, the US Congress relaxed restrictions on Pell grant availability for scholars in prison(Castro et al., 2022) which will undoubtedly increase the number of people taking college courses in prison (Oakford et al., 2019), but perhaps more importantly, be likely to increase the number of students getting out of prison wishing to continue their education and prepared to pursue productive and fulfilling career opportunities. Research has shown that a college degree can dramatically reduce recidivism and provide soft skills for system-involved individuals (Davis et al., 2013; Denney & Tynes, 2021; Runell, 2015). Thus, colleges and universities that are better prepared to enroll and support these students will benefit from added diversification of their student populations, reduced stigma of system-involved students, and trained workforces which value lived experience (Custer, 2018; Quach et al., 2022). Although there is an urgent need to gain a better understanding of college students who have been involved in the legal system, the current literature on the topic is nascent. This brief report aims to help fill this gap in the literature.

1.3. Socio-Ecological Model of Collegiate Recovery Programs

Informed by the seminal work of Bronfenbrenner (1977), which posits there are contextual factors which constantly influence individual outcomes, Vest et al., (2022) identified a socio-ecological model which provides a theoretical framework to guide the current study. Specifically, the socio-ecological model purports that important individual/intrapersonal (demographics and biological traits), interpersonal (community that surrounds the person), organizational (school level influence) and policy factors (local and state regulations) that must be considered to understand the experience of the individual within the collegiate recovery context. Further (see Supplement 1), based on the socio-ecological model, we propose that substance use, academic, and recovery-related outcomes may be a function of age/gender/race (intrapersonal level) and legal system involvement (interpersonal level). In the case of collegiate recovery, we predict that level of system involvement (i.e., no involvement vs. non-incarcerated vs. incarcerated) may shape the identity and needs of the individual in important ways, and therefore may relate to differences in outcomes. To the extent that system involvement is associated with differences with respect to important outcomes, this will point toward directions future research should focus on when optimizing resources for the success of individuals from these different backgrounds. Thus, we conducted the following study.

1.4. Current Study

Drawing on the socio-ecological model proposed in Vest et al. (2022), this study aimed to examine and characterize differences between non-system-involved, system-involved (with no incarceration history), and formerly incarcerated students (with and without controlling for relevant covariates of age and gender) on the outcomes of quality of life, GPA, hours worked per week, recovery capital, SUD symptoms, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms among students in CRPs. As incarceration typically delays educational access, we hypothesized that age would function to help explain differences between CRP students on their levels of their legal system involvement. The non-traditional nature of formerly incarcerated students as older may explain their unique needs. Specifically, students with a history of incarceration would significantly differ from other students on the variables of interest, but these differences would become non-significant when age was controlled.

2.0. METHOD

2.1. Participants

The participants for the present study were part of the National Longitudinal Collegiate Recovery Study and explained in detail elsewhere (Smith et al., 2023). Briefly, students were recruited from CRPs across the US and Ontario, Canada1 to complete an online survey via REDCap (Harris et al., 2009). Four cohorts of participants were recruited to complete the baseline survey (Fall 2020, Spring 2021, Fall 2021, and Spring 2022), resulting in a total of 435 respondents from 51 CRPs. We only used baseline data in this secondary analysis.

2.2. Measures

Lifetime Criminal Legal Involvement.

Participants were asked their level of lifetime involvement with the criminal legal system and the item was trichotomized into three groups (non-system involved, system involved, and formerly incarcerated) for further analyses. Non-system involved referred to students with no history of “criminal legal system involvement.” System-involved referred to students who had been charged and/or convicted of a crime but had never been incarcerated. Formerly incarcerated referred to students who had served time in a carceral setting and were released.

Demographics.

Participants were asked to identify their age in years, gender, current education level, and racial/ethnic identity. In order to avoid violation of the assumptions of the Chi-square test of independence (i.e., number of cell expected should be 5 or more in at least 80% of the cells; McHugh, 2013), more specific subcategories of gender, racial/ethnic identity, and current education level were combined. See Table 1 for final categorical comparisons.

Table 1.

Demographic Group Comparison Statistics

Full Sample
(N = 425)
 Non-LS Involved
(N = 213)
 Non-Incarcerated, LS Involved
(N = 117)
 Formerly Incarcerated
(N = 95)
% or M (N or SD) % or M (N or SD) % or M (N or SD) % or M (N or SD) χ 2 or F p
Gender 38.85 <.001
 Woman 53.6 (228) 66.2 (141) 34.2 (40) 49.5 (47)
 Man 28.4 (121) 17.4 (37) 47.0 (55) 30.5 (29)
 Transgender/Non-binary/Self-identify 17.9 (76) 16.4 (35) 18.8 (22) 20.0 (19)
Race/Ethnicity 3.12 .246
 Non-White 18.3 (76) 18.4 (38) 13.9 (16) 23.4 (22)
 White 81.7 (340) 81.6 (169) 86.1 (99) 76.6 (72)
Age 24.42 (5.90) 29.76 (7.58) 32.33 (6.99) 51.93 <.001
Student Status 0.07 .967
 Undergraduate 74.1 (309) 74.5 (158) 73.2 (82) 74.2 (69)
 Graduate 25.9 (108) 25.5 (54) 26.8 (30) 25.8 (24)
Open in a new tab

Note. Chi-statistic comparisons of gender, race/ethnicity, and student status. Subcategories were combined (i.e, more specific gender, race/ethnicity, student status options) to avoid violation of chi-square assumptions. Discrepancies between category totals and sample size reflect participants who did not provide demographic information. p < .05 in bold.

Academic/Work Outcomes.

Participants were asked their current semester/quarter GPA (on a 4.0 scale) and how many hours they worked weekly on average during the academic year.

Alcohol and Substance Use Symptoms.

Alcohol and substance use symptoms were measured using items adapted from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA; Bucholz et al., 1994). For items measuring other substance use, the individuals specified primary substance other than alcohol was inserted for the word “drinking” (e.g., “Has drinking ever interfered with your school…” vs. “Has using opioids ever interfered with your school.”). The (range 0–11) DSM-5 symptoms were assessed based on the time in the respondent’s life when alcohol or substance use was most prominent. While AUD and other SUDs share symptomology, alcohol usage was assessed separately due to the risk of excessive alcohol use among college students, and the tendency for campus prevention programs to target alcohol harms specifically (Hennessy et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2021).

Recovery Capital.

Recovery capital was measured using the Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10; Vilsaint et al., 2017). Respondents indicated their level of (1 to 6) agreement across 10 summed items designed to measure the continuum of resources available to support their recovery (range 10–60).

Quality of Life.

Quality of life was measured using the EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index (Schmidt et al., 2006). Respondents indicated their level of satisfaction across different aspects of their lives on a summed 5-point Likert scale (range 5–40).

2.3. Data analysis

Data were analyzed in SPSS-26 (IBM Corporation, 2019). The normality of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Massey, 1951). Outliers, considered as cases 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR) greater than the 75th percentile or less than the 25th percentile, were removed in accordance with a Tukey Fences procedure (Tukey, 1977). Demographic comparisons were assessed using Chi-squared and ANOVA tests. The homogeneity of the legal system level groups in terms of recovery-related outcomes was assessed using one-way analysis variance (ANOVA) and one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Significant covariates were carried forward in inferential models. The Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test was used to assess multiple comparisons between unequal group sizes (Tukey, 1977).

3.0. RESULTS

Analyses compared collegiate recovery students on three levels of legal-system involvement: non-system involved (50.1%), system-involved (27.5%), and formerly incarcerated (22.4%). Demographic analyses (Table 1) revealed the three groups did not significantly differ by race/ethnicity, or student status, but they did on gender. Non-system involved participants reported the highest proportion of gender identification as woman, system-involved reported the highest proportion of identification as a man, and formerly incarcerated reported the highest proportion of identification as transgender, non-binary, self-identification, or chose not to answer. Groups significantly differed by age, with age increasing by level of legal system involvement. In Supplement 2, the correlation table indicates that age was significantly associated with increased AUD severity (r = .23), recovery capital (r = .26), quality of life (r = .23), GPA (r = .14), and hours worked per week (r = .25). Identifying as a woman was associated with decreased AUD severity (r = −.11) and quality of life (r = −.12). As such, we reported our outcomes with and without controlling for age and gender (See Table 2).

Table 2.

ANOVA and ANCOVA Results for Recovery and Academic-Related Outcomes by Level of Legal System Contact

Measure Non-LS Involved
 Non-Incarcerated, LS Involved
 Formerly Incarcerated
 F p η2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Step 1
SUD Severity 9.73 (1.38)a 10.27 (1.31)b 10.55 (1.01)b 11.52 <.001 .069
AUD Severity 9.51 (1.77) 9.82 (1.84) 9.93 (1.70) 1.99 .138 .011
Quality of Life 30.25 (5.65)a 32.42 (4.69)b 31.73 (5.44)b 6.54 .002 .032
Recovery Capital 51.06 (6.76)a 54.29 (5.67)b 54.47 (6.17)b 13.27 <.001 .064
Grade Point Avg. 3.46 (0.48) 3.40 (0.58) 3.50 (0.52) 0.85 .430 .004
Hours Per Week 14.30 (15.27)a 16.70 (16.34)a 25.74 (16.71)b 10.54 <.001 .048
Step 2 Controlling for Age and Gender
SUD Severity 9.73 (1.38)a 10.27 (1.31)b 10.55 (1.01)b 9.01 <.001 .055
AUD Severity 9.51 (1.77) 9.82 (1.84) 9.93 (1.70) 0.48 .617 .003
Quality of Life 30.25 (5.65) 32.42 (4.69) 31.73 (5.44) 1.74 .177 .009
Recovery Capital 51.06 (6.76) 54.29 (5.67) 54.47 (6.17) 2.58 .077 .013
Grade Point Avg. 3.46 (0.48) 3.40 (0.58) 3.50 (0.52) 1.51 .222 .008
Hours Worked 14.30 (15.27)a 16.70 (16.43)a 25.74 (16.71)b 7.48 .009 .038
Open in a new tab

Note. Comparisons based on ANCOVA adjusting for age and gender. p < .05 in bold. Cells that do not share subscripts differ significantly according to Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference.

Before controlling for age with a one-way ANOVA, there were significant differences among groups between recovery capital and quality of life, but after controlling for age, these comparisons became non-significant. After controlling for age and gender, there were only significant differences between groups in terms of SUD severity and hours worked weekly. Post-hoc analyses revealed non-system involved reported significantly lower SUD severity than those with any legal system involvement (system-involved, formerly incarcerated). Formerly incarcerated reported significantly greater hours worked per week than non-system involved and formerly incarcerated. Notably, age was significantly positively associated with all outcomes which became non-significant in the ANCOVA (e.g., higher age associated with greater with greater SUD severity), suggesting this variable as an explanation of the variance between several recovery-related differences among groups.

4.0. DISCUSSION

This study examined legal system involvement association with six substance use, recovery, and academic-related outcomes among college students in recovery from substance use and behavioral disorders. Demographics indicated significant differences between age and gender. Before adjusting for control variables, we found significant differences on measures of recovery capital, quality of life, SUD severity, and weekly hours worked; however, only significant differences on hours worked per week (non-system involved, system-involved < formerly incarcerated) and SUD symptom count (non-system involved < system-involved, formerly incarcerated) were evident after controlling for age and gender between groups. The study offers support for the theoretically derived socio-ecological model of CRPs (Vest et al., 2023), such that inter- and intrapersonal variables must be considered to understand outcomes in collegiate recovery contexts.

This study adds to the literature by identifying differences among college students in recovery based upon their level of criminal legal system involvement. Greater hours worked among formerly incarcerated students may be related to the economic consequences of their carceral involvement. Wage gaps that do not exist with entry level legal system involvement (i.e., misdemeanors, arrest), are noted among individuals with late-stage, carceral setting involvement (Apel & Powell, 2019). Formally incarcerated students may face greater obstacles to higher paying jobs and are therefore forced to take greater responsibilities to supplement their income. These responsibilities have the unfortunate potential to interfere with valuable time that should be devoted to studies. That formally incarcerated students reported higher SUD severity than their non-incarcerated counterparts seems reflective of the general incarcerated population. Individuals with a history of incarceration tend to have greater addiction severity than non-justice involved populations, but also tend to access treatment infrequently (Tsai & Gu, 2019).

Though students with incarceration histories may have SUDs which are more severe and work more hours weekly, they do not differ on other recovery-related outcomes when accounting for age and gender. This study is critically important as it provides preliminary evidence in a research area where there currently is nothing in the literature to guide policy. Focusing on this student group is vital for reducing the burden of mass incarceration in the US, particularly when considering the compounding inequities from structural racism present in the criminal legal, healthcare, and higher education systems.

These results have important implications for college health care providers, CRP staff, and college administrators. Knowing the characteristics of justice involved students, these stakeholders in higher education organizations may propose implementing trainings that increase understanding about these students in CRPs and how their needs may differ. Understanding that these students may be working more hours and have drug use symptomatology that is more severe than other students and helping them to secure financial aid/scholarships and find additional support in the local community (additional local mutual-aid meetings) may be vital for their success. We also acknowledge that these students may be economically disadvantaged (i.e., not financially supported by family of origin, facing employment discrimination, supporting family/children) in ways that students not having histories of incarceration would not be and the resulting requirement to be employed may lead to less time in community-based recovery activities. Welcoming this marginalized student group to CRPs and our universities should be prioritized. Future studies should include qualitative explorations into the complex needs and challenges of this student group as well as examining how incarceration impacts important career milestones for CRP students after graduation.

The study has limitations. First, this was a secondary analysis of existing data. The hypotheses and research question were generated with general knowledge regarding which measures were collected. Second, the data were analyzed cross-sectionally, and measures were self-reported. This limits any causal inference (substance use severity may increase the chances of legal system involvement) and introduces the potential for social desirability and recall bias. Third, we combined non-white students into one category which limits the complexity of our findings regarding race. Future research should conduct studies that place emphasis on recruiting from these marginalized groups. Lastly, this study only examines students that identify themselves belonging to a current CRP, and the measurement of system involvement is limited to those willing to report this sensitive information. There are likely many students in recovery on college campuses but not currently in CRPs or who do not wish to disclose legal system involvement. Future studies may focus on these harder to identify students for inquiry.

5.0. CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on college students with legal system involvement in recovery and represents a logical step forward in helping these marginalized students find success. Though there is much work to be done in the future, these findings help guide researchers, administrators, and clinicians on the importance of identifying these students and providing services to aid in their successful matriculation through higher education.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • Legal system involvement and its relationship with college students in recovery

  • Associations between non-justice involved, system involved, and formerly incarcerated

  • Students that are formerly incarcerated more likely to work more hours

  • Justice involved students more likely to have SUDs that are more severe

  • Findings can help guide researchers, college health clinicians, and college administration

Acknowledgements:

The National Longitudinal Collegiate Recovery Study Group consists of Tom Bannard (PI 2020-present), Danielle Dick (Project Lead 2020–2022), Karen Chartier (Project Lead 2022–2023), Meredith Francis (Co-project Lead 2022–2023, Project Lead 2023-present), Rebecca Smith (Research Coordinator 2020–2022, Project Consultant 2022-present), Ya-Li Yang (Research Coordinator 2022-present), and members of the Recovery Science Research Collaborative: Jessica McDaniel, Austin Brown, Jason Whitney, Thomas Bannard, Rebecca Smith, Waltrina DeFrantz-Dufor, Matt Statman, Anne Thompson Heller, Erica Holliday, and Noel Vest.

We would also like to thank the members of the Recovery Science Research Collaborative, based at Kennesaw State University, who provided input and feedback on the survey and study design, and the Association of Recovery in Higher Education. Lastly, we would like to thank the Collegiate Recovery Program Directors for sharing this opportunity with students, and the students in recovery who participated. This study would not have been possible without your contributions.

Grant Funding:

Noel Vest was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers K01DA053391 and L30DA056944. Rebecca Smith was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (F31AA028720). Patrick Hibbard was supported in part by Grant R24DA051950 from NIDA.. This project was supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (1H79TI083296-01). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any governmental agencies.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflicts of Interest: None

Declarations of interest

none

1

We note that there were only a small number of students from Canada (n=5, 1.1% of sample) and we ran all statistical analyses with and without these students with no changes in significance of outcomes. We opted to keep these students in our results for sake of completeness, though we realize that Canadian students may face different barriers which may not apply to a U.S. based student.

References

  1. Alexander M (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (Revised edition) New Press. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Alexander%2C+M.+(2012).+The+New+Jim+Crow%3A+Mass+Incarceration+in+the+Age+of+Colorblindness+(Revised+edition).+New+Press.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bluthenthal RN (2021). Structural racism and violence as social determinants of health: Conceptual, methodological and intervention challenges. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 222, 108681. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bronfenbrenner U (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bronson J, Stroop J, Zimmer S, & Berzofsky M (2017). Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007–2009
  5. Bucholz KK, Cadoret R, Cloninger CR, Dinwiddie SH, Hesselbrock VM, Nurnberger JI, Reich T, Schmidt I, & Schuckit MA (1994). A new, semi-structured psychiatric interview for use in genetic linkage studies: a report on the reliability of the SSAGA. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55(2), 149–158. 10.15288/jsa.1994.55.149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bugbee BA, Kimberly Caldeira MM, Andrea Soong MM, Kathryn Vincent MB, & Amelia Arria MM (2016). Collegiate Recovery Programs: A Win-Win Proposition for Students and Colleges 10.13140/RG.2.2.21549.08160 [DOI]
  7. Castro EL, Royer CE, Lerman AE, & Gould MR (2022). Beyond Pell restoration: Addressing persistent funding challenges in prison higher education toward racial and economic justice. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. 10.1037/dhe0000439 [DOI]
  8. Cleveland HH, Harris KS, Baker AK, Herbert R, & Dean LR (2007). Characteristics of a collegiate recovery community: Maintaining recovery in an abstinence-hostile environment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(1), 13–23. 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Couloute L, & Kopf D (2018). Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html
  10. Covello GV (2023). Ban the Box Policies on College Applications Across the United States: A National Landscape and Exploratory Descriptive Analysis [University of Georgia] https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/9949558727102959
  11. Cusack KJ, Morrissey JP, Cuddeback GS, Prins A, & Williams DM (2010). Criminal justice involvement, behavioral health service use, and costs of forensic assertive community treatment: A randomized trial. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(4), 356–363. 10.1007/s10597-010-9299-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Custer BD (2018). Reconsidering Policy Barriers for Justice-Involved College Students. Journal of College Access, 4(1), 51–63. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jcaAvailableat:https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jca/vol4/iss1/6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis L, Bozick R, Steele J, Saunders J, & Miles J (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults
  14. Denney MGT, & Tynes R (2021). The Effects of College in Prison and Policy Implications. Justice Quarterly, 38(7), 1542–1566. 10.1080/07418825.2021.2005122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hardeman RR, Hardeman-Jones SL, & Medina EM (2021). Fighting for America’s Paradise: The Struggle against Structural Racism. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 46(4), 563–575. 10.1215/03616878-8970767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, & Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hennessy EA, Tanner-Smith EE, Mavridis D, & Grant SP (2019). Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis. Prevention Science, 20(5), 715–740. 10.1007/S11121-018-0960-Z/TABLES/3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. IBM Corporation. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (26.0) IBM Corp. [Google Scholar]
  19. Laudet AB, Harris K, Kimball T, Winters KC, & Moberg DP (2015). Characteristics of Students Participating in Collegiate Recovery Programs: A National Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 51, 38–46. 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin KP, Benca-Bachman CE, & Palmer RHC (2021). Risk for alcohol use/misuse among entering college students: The role of personality and stress. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 13, 100330. 10.1016/J.ABREP.2020.100330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Massey FJ (1951). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 68–78. 10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. McHugh ML (2013). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 143–149. 10.11613/BM.2013.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Oakford P, Brumfield C, Goldvale C, Tatum L, diZerega M, & Patrick F (2019). Investing in Futures: Economic and Fiscal Benefits of Postsecondary Education in Prison In New York: Vera Institute of Justice. https://risingscholarsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/general/investing-in-futures.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Quach K, Cerda-Jara M, Deverux R, & Smith J (2022). Prison, College, and the Labor Market: A Critical Analysis by Formerly Incarcerated and Justice-Impacted Students. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1), 78–97. 10.1177/00027162221112772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rucker JM, & Richeson JA (2021). Toward an understanding of structural racism: Implications for criminal justice. Science, 374(6565), 286–290. 10.1126/science.abj7779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Runell LL (2015). Identifying Desistance Pathways in a Higher Education Program for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(8), 894–918. 10.1177/0306624X15608374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sawyer W (2022). Since you asked: How many people are released from each state’s prisons and jails every year? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/08/25/releasesbystate/
  28. Schmidt S, Mühlan H, & Power M (2006). The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. European Journal of Public Health, 16(4), 420–428. 10.1093/eurpub/cki155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Shinkfield AJ, & Graffam J (2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 29–42. 10.1177/0306624X07309757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith R, Bannard T, McDaniel J, Aliev F, Brown A, Holliday E, Vest N, Defrantz-Dufor W, & Dick D (2023). Characteristics of students participating in collegiate recovery programs and the impact of COVID-19: an updated national longitudinal study View supplementary material. Addiction Research and Theory 10.1080/16066359.2023.2216459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Tsai J, & Gu X (2019). Utilization of addiction treatment among U.S. adults with history of incarceration and substance use disorders. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 14(1), 9. 10.1186/S13722-019-0138-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Tukey JW (1977). Exploratory data analysis (Vol. 2). Reading, MA. [Google Scholar]
  33. Vázquez E, Nieri T, Fernandes F, Cravalho D, Ryan-Shirey F, Molina L, Pemberton SM, & Cheney AM (2022). Voicing student recovery: Embracing diversity in collegiate recovery programs. Journal of American College Health, 0(0), 1–10. 10.1080/07448481.2022.2119400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Vest N, Hennessy E, de Martell SC, & Smith R (2023). A Socio-Ecological model for collegiate recovery programs. Addiction Research & Theory, 31(2), 92–99. 10.1080/16066359.2022.2123471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vest N, Reinstra M, Timko C, Kelly J, & Humphreys K (2021). College programming for students in addiction recovery: A PRISMA-guided scoping review. Addictive Behaviors, 121, 106992. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Vilsaint CL, Kelly JF, Bergman BG, Groshkova T, Best D, & White W (2017). Development and validation of a Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10) for alcohol and drug use disorder. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 177, 71–76. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Webster JM, Dickson MF, Staton-Tindall M, & Leukefeld CG (2015). Predictors of Recidivism Among Rural and Urban Drug-Involved Prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(8), 539–555. 10.1080/10509674.2015.1087444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilcox MM, & Taylor TO (2022). Ban the Box: Addressing Effects of Systemic Racism on Justice-Involved Individuals in Pathways to Professional Psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 17(2), 191–199. 10.1037/TEP0000407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wildeman C, & Wang EA (2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1464–1474. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30259-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeng Z (2022). Jail Inmates in 2021 - Statistical Tables https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ji21st.pdf

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1971640-supplement-1.docx (309.3KB, docx)

RESOURCES