Congress Reinstates Pell Grants for Incarcerated People

Since 1994 incarcerated people were barred from receiving Pell Grants for college. That’s changing.

More than 700,000 incarcerated individuals leave federal and state prisons annually and return to their local communities where they will have to compete for jobs. In today’s world, having a college education is necessary to compete for many jobs; two-thirds of job postings require some level of college education. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists 174 occupations with a typical entry level education requirement of a bachelor’s degree, and it projects that employment in these occupations will grow by 10 percent over the next decade. The stakes for returning citizens are higher than they are for others; being able to land a job can mean the difference between successfully transitioning back into a community and returning to prison.

For incarcerated students, a key obstacle to obtaining a college education is cost. Prior to 1994, those who were incarcerated were eligible to receive Pell Grants to help cover the costs of participating in these programs. The 1994 amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA) eliminated Pell Grant eligibility for students incarcerated in federal and state prisons. This led to a dramatic reduction in the number of inmates participating in college programs and a reduction in the number of programs being offered. In terms of the number of states that offered college courses, an analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics data showed that 59 percent of states offered college programs in prison in 1990; following the 1994 amendment to the HEA, this dropped to 31 percent of states in 1995.

Congressional leaders have struck a deal to reinstate Pell grants for incarcerated students more than a quarter century after banning the aid for prison education programs, with the President expected to sign the bill, which includes nearly $900 billion in coronavirus spending, today.

Reduced recidivism is closely linked to level of educational attainment. A study conducted by the American Correctional Association revealed that the rate of recidivism was 20 percent lower for those who had earned their GED (the equivalent of a high school diploma); and 44 percent lower for those who had earned a college degree.

Why this matters

Many individuals incarcerated in U.S. prisons are disadvantaged in terms of low educational attainment, which, when they get released, makes it challenging for them to find employment that provides a living wage. Thirty percent of individuals incarcerated in U.S. state and federal prisons lack a high-school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) equivalency. In addition, one-third of U.S. incarcerated adults performed at low levels of literacy and about one-half of them had low levels of numeracy skills compared with the general U.S. population.

report released earlier this year by the Vera Institute and the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality found that repealing the federal ban on Pell grants for people in prison would do the following:

Increase employment rates among formerly incarcerated students by 10 percent, on average. Combined earnings among all formerly incarcerated people would increase by $45.3 million during the first year of release alone; and

Reduce recidivism rates among participating students, saving states a combined $365.8 million in decreased prison costs per year.

Interest in education programs among incarcerated adults is high, with 42 percent having completed some level of education during their current prison term (particularly GED completion). Yet only one out of five (approximately 21 percent) were currently studying for a formal degree or credential, and of those not currently enrolled in an educational program, 79 percent reported an interest in doing so. Literacy and numeracy skills are not often used in the prison jobs available to incarcerated individuals. Although 61 percent reported having a prison job, many never had the opportunity to use their literacy or numeracy skills in that job. For example, 47 percent of incarcerated adults with prison jobs reported never reading directions or instructions as part of their current prison job, and 82 percent reported never using or calculating fractions, decimals, or percentages. Furthermore, only 10 percent reported using a computer in their prison job assignments.

Providing access to college education for incarcerated adults can help reduce Idaho’s substantial recidivism rates

Correctional Education and PSE Programs, Including College Coursework, Are Effective in Reducing Recidivism

The prison population is primed for correctional education programs that can help them when they are released, but the real question is whether such programs, when available, actually work—are they effective in reducing the rampant recidivism that has resulted in so many ex-offenders ending up back in prison? In 2013, RAND published the results of a comprehensive literature review of 30 years of studies of correctional education programs and a meta-analysis to assess what is known about how effective correctional education programs are in helping to reduce recidivism for incarcerated adults in state prisons. The results indicated that individuals who participated in a correctional education program while incarcerated (e.g., whether adult basic education [ABE], GED preparation, PSE or college education, or vocational training; i.e., career and technical education [CTE]) had 43-percent lower odds of recidivating than individuals who did not.

Individuals who participated in a correctional education program while incarcerated had 43-percent lower odds of recidivating than individuals who did not

Postsecondary education in prison as a strategy to reduce recidivism is not a new idea. Corrections and education professionals have been successfully putting these programs to the test for decades. (It also stands to reason that such programs may provide employers with a larger pool of skilled workers to hire.) Here are a few programs across the country whose outcomes speak to the transformative power of postsecondary education in prison:

California:

  • Project Rebound supports students in the California State University system and helps them to earn bachelor’s and graduate degrees: “In California, more than half of the people released from prison wind up behind bars again. But just 3 percent of Project Rebound students return to prison, according to 2010 figures. Graduation rates for Project Rebound students are high, too; more than 90 percent eventually graduate, while the university’s overall graduation rate is closer to 50 percent.”

Indiana:

  • Since its inception in 2013, Westville Education Initiative at Holy Cross College has conferred 34 associate’s degrees. As of November 2017, no graduates had recidivated.

New York:

  • In 2013, the Bard Prison Initiative reported a recidivism rate of less than 4 percent among its alumni.
  • Over 21 years, Hudson Link has awarded 700 degrees in collaboration with eight colleges and five prisons. The organization reports a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent.

Oklahoma:

  • Since 2007, Tulsa Community College has awarded approximately 500 associate’s degrees and certificates to incarcerated students. These students have recidivated at a rate of only 5 percent.

Oregon:

  • Chemeketa Community College has operated a college program in prison since 2007. The recidivism rate among its 256 graduates is just 6 percent. In 2018, 42 students graduated with a cumulative GPA of 3.8.

Texas:

  • An eight-year recidivism study found that of 883 people who received college degrees in Texas prisons, 27.2 percent of associate’s degree holders and 7.8 percent of bachelor’s degree holders had recidivated, as compared to 43 percent of people who did not participate in postsecondary education programming.

According to the Prison Studies Project, prison education tends to significantly outperform other methods of rehabilitation — boot camps, shock incarceration, and even vocational training — when measured by recidivism.

Correctional Education is Cost Effective

The RAND study also showed that correctional education programs are highly cost-effective. Focusing on the outcome of recidivism, they used a hypothetical pool of 100 inmates, the direct costs of correctional education programs and of incarceration itself, and a three-year reincarceration rate to assess cost-effectiveness. The study estimated that the direct costs of providing education to the hypothetical pool of 100 inmates ranged from $140,000 to $174,400 (or $1,400 to $1,744 per inmate). The three-year reincarceration costs for those who did not receive correctional education were estimated to be between $2.94 million and $3.25 million, compared with $2.07 million and $2.28 million for those who did. It is estimated that every dollar invested in prison education programs saves taxpayers, on average, between $4 and $5 in three-year reincarceration costs. This is a conservative estimate in that it compares only the direct costs of correctional education programs with the direct costs of incarceration.

The three-year reincarceration costs for those who did not receive correctional education were estimated to be between $2.94 million and $3.25 million, compared with $2.07 million and $2.28 million for those who did

Conclusion

There is a growing consensus about the need to address the multifaceted problem of mass incarceration across the country. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle are finding common ground in both acknowledging the problem and in trying to address it through the various levers available to them at the front end of the criminal justice system (e.g., sentencing reform) and at the back end (e.g., providing more services to returning citizens).

With solid evidence showing that correctional education programs are effective—and cost-effective—at improving employment outcomes for participants and at helping to keep formerly incarcerated individuals from returning to prison, education is another lever that policymakers can use to help reduce recidivism rates.

The benefit to reinstating Pell Grants to prisoners is threefold:

  1. Education reduces recidivism. Therefore, we reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. While education in prison does cost money, it reduces spending overall, which is a win for taxpayers.
  2. Education increases production. Simply put, a college education will likely result in a higher-wage career, and the resulting contribution to society will also benefit the community.
  3. Reduced crime and victimization. Many times a prisoner recidivates by committing a new crime, and victimizing someone in the process. Reduced recidivism means reduced crime, reduced victimization, and safer communities.

We hope that higher education leaders, public safety agencies, and community organizations will band together to swiftly implement high quality educational opportunities for incarcerated people.

Many times a prisoner recidivates by committing a new crime, and victimizing someone in the process. Reduced recidivism means reduced crime, reduced victimization, and safer communities.


Research

Emily DeRuy, “From Convict to College Student,” The Atlantic, August 26, 2016.

Alesha Seroczynski, director, Westville Education Initiative, Holy Cross College of Notre Dame, e-mail correspondence with John Bae, program associate, Vera Institute of Justice, January 22, 2018.

New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, College Programs: Educating Those Who Are Incarcerated to Reduce Recidivism (Albany, NY: New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 2013).

Hudson Link for Higher Education in Prison, “Hudson Link for Higher Education in Prison.”

Chemeketa Community College, “Corrections Education at Chemeketa.”

SpearIt, “The Return of Pell Grants for Prisoners?” Criminal Justice 31, no. 10 (2016), 10-13.

Bozick, Robert, Jennifer Steele, Lois M. Davis, and Susan Turner, “Does Providing Inmates with Education Improve Post-Release Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis of Correctional Education Programs in the United States,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 3, May 2018, pp. 389–428. As of August 5, 2018: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6

Carnevel, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl, Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, June 2013.

Castro, Erin L., Rebecca K. Hunter, Tara Hardison, and Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda, “The Landscape of Postsecondary Education in Prison and the Influence of Second Chance Pell: An Analysis of Transferability, Credit-Bearing Status, and Accreditation,” Prison Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, 2018, pp. 405–426.

Crayton, Anna, and Suzanne Rebecca Neusteter, The Current State of Correctional Education, paper commissioned in preparation for the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31–April 1, 2008. Davis, Lois M., Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs that Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-266-BJA, 2013. As of July 23, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html

Davis, Lois M., Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams, Susan Turner, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Jessica Saunders, and Paul S. Steinberg, How Effective is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go From Here? Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-564-BJA, 2014. As of July 25, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html

Davis, Lois M., and Michelle C. Tolbert, Evaluation of North Carolina’s Pathways from Prison to Postsecondary Education Program, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2957-LGF, April 2019. As of July 25, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2957.html

Duwe, Grant, The Use and Impact of Correctional Programming for Inmates on Pre- and Post-Release Outcomes, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, June 2017.

Ellickson, Phyllis L., Joan R. Petersilia, Michael N. Caggiano, and Sandra Segal Polin, Implementing New Ideas in Criminal Justice, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, R-2929-NIJ, April 1983. As of July 25, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2929.html

Erisman, Wendy, and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy, Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy, November 2005.

French, Sheila, and Paul Gendreau, “Reducing Prison Misconducts: What Works!” Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2006, pp. 185–218.

Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Education and Correctional Populations, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 195670, April 13, 2003.

Indiana Code, Title 35, Criminal Law and Procedure, Article 50, Sentences, Chapter 56, Release from Imprisonment and Credit Time, 2017. As of July 25, 2019: https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2017/title-35/article-50/chapter-6/ section-35-50-6-3.3/

Mukamal, Debbie, Rebecca Silbert, and Rebecca M. Taylor, Degrees of Freedom: Expanding College Opportunities for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Californians, Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, February 2015. 15

New York State Bar Association, Special Committee on Re-Entry, recommendations, Albany, N.Y., January 2016.

Nonprofit Finance Fund, “New York State Increasing Employment and Improving Public Safety,” July 2, 2018. As of June 15, 2019: http://www.payforsuccess.org/project/new-york-state-increasingemployment-and-improving-public-safety

Rampey, Bobby D., Shelley Keiper, Leyla Mohadjer, Tom Krenzke, Jianzhu Li, Nina Thornton, and Jacquie Hogan, Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults: Their Skills, Work Experience, Education, and Training: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies: 2014, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2016-040, 2016. As of June 15, 2019: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Schwartz, Natalie, “Ed Dept Expands Second Chance Pell Grant Program for People in Prison,” EducationDive, May 21, 2019. As of June 18, 2019: https://www.educationdive.com/news/ed-dept-expands-second-chancepell-grant-program-for-people-in-prison/555220/

Tolbert, Michelle, and Juliana Pearson, Correctional Education Data: Resources to Support the Collection, Reporting, and Analysis of Federal Data, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, 2011.

Torpey, Elka, “Employment Outlook for Bachelor’s-Level Occupations,” webpage, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2018. As of June 18, 2019: https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/article/bachelors-degreeoutlook.htm

Turner, Susan F., “Multiple Faces of Reentry, “ in John Wooldridge and Paula Smith, eds., Oxford Handbook on Prisons and Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Urban Institute, “How Do Pay for Success and Social Impact Bonds Differ?” Pay for Success, website, undated. As of June 15, 2019: https://pfs.urban.org/ask-expert/content/how-do-pay-success-andsocial-impact-bonds-differ

Urban Institute, “Getting Started with Pay for Success: Frequently Asked Questions,” webpage, June 20, 2017. As of June 15, 2019: https://pfs.urban.org/faq

U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Launches Second Chance Pell Pilot Program for Incarcerated Individuals,” July 31, 2015. As of June 15, 2019: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educationlaunches-second-chance-pell-pilot-program-incarcerated-individuals

U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Issues First-Ever Pay for Success Awards to Expand Opportunity in Career and Technical Education, Dual Language Programs,” October 11, 2016. As of June 15, 2019: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educationissues-first-ever-pay-success-awards-expand-opportunity-career-andtechnical-education-dual-language-programs

U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Builds on ‘Rethink Higher Education’ Agenda, Expands Opportunities for Students Through Innovative Experimental Sites,” May 20, 2019. As of June 15, 2019: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-builds-rethinkhigher-education-agenda-expands-opportunities-students-throughinnovative-experimental-sites

U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, “Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act Demonstration Projects,” notice of funding availability, February 2019.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Student Aid, Actions Needed to Evaluate Pell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated Students, GAO-19-130, Washington D.C., March 2019.

U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 6543, Aim Higher Act (2017-2018), July 26, 2018. As of June 13, 2019: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6543

U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2168, Restoring Education and Learning (REAL) Act of 2019, April 9, 2019a. As of June 13, 2019: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2168

U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2635, Promoting Reentry Through Education in Prisons (PREP) Act, May 9, 2019b. As of June 13, 2019: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2635/text

U.S. Senate, S. 1074, Restoring Education and Learning (REAL) Act of 2019, April 9, 2019a. As of June 13, 2018: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1074

U.S. Senate, S. 1337, Promoting Reentry through Education in Prisons (PREP) Act of 2019, May 7, 2019b. As of June 13, 2018: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1337

Vera Institute of Justice, “Unlocking Potential: Pathways From Prison To Postsecondary Education, Request for Proposals,” 2012, not available to the general public.

White House, Proposals to Reform The Higher Education Act, Washington, D.C., 2019. As of June 18, 2019: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HEAPrinciples.pdf

Author: BarNone, Inc.

BarNone, Inc. is a Boise, Idaho-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose purpose is threefold: 1. Awareness: holding Idaho Reentry Summit events, conducting social media campaigns and speaking to Idahoans to encourage communication, collaboration and education of the criminal legal system, statistics, and the people who are impacted by incarceration. 2. Advocacy: working with members of the Legislature, municipalities and agencies to impact policy. 3. Resources: connecting people with community resources and support when they are returning to their community after a period of incarceration and centralizing the information for those resources.