Running head: HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 1

Feasibility Analysis

Higher Education in Prison

Pamela Galovich

Northern Arizona University

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 2

"The strength of the United States is not the gold at Fort Knox or the weapons of mass destruction that
we have, but the sum total of the education and the character of our people." U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell,
coauthor Pell Grant legislation (Glide, 2007)

Identification of Issue, Background, Demographics, Solution and its Benefits

Social issue

The Department of Labor predicts the U.S. labor force will grow at a compound annual rate of 0.6

percent, from 159.2 million in 2016 to 169.7 million by 2026, approximately 10.5 million people. The

Department also predicts 65 percent of all jobs in the economy will require a postsecondary education.

Per the current growth rate, projections are the U.S. will fall short by 5 million workers to meet

demand (Lacey, Toosi, Dubina, & Gensler, 2017).

According to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics, 700,000 inmates are released in the community each

year with less than a 6th grade reading level, a criminal record, and lacking the skills to contribute to

society (Carson, 2016). A study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found over three-quarters of those

former inmates are rearrested within five years after release, and half are sent back to prison (Hunt &

Dumville, 2016).

It is incomprehensible that so many of our nation’s population continue to cycle in and out of prison,

because resources are not made available to change outcomes. Financing higher education

opportunities for the incarcerated is not only is a cost-effective way to reduce crime, but leads to long-

term benefits for inmates, their families, local communities, and our national economy.

Demographics

A disproportionate number of incarcerated individuals have disadvantaged childhoods; are more

likely to be members of racial/ethnic minority groups; hold low-skill, low-paying jobs (if employed at

all) prior to incarceration; with poor education backgrounds. They are in critical need of educational

opportunities to improve their chances for employment and become productive members of society.
HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 3

Background

Seven years after the Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law, Senator Claiborne Pell, co-

authored the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, later renamed the Pell Grant. Pell Grants are federal

support for low-income students pursuing post-secondary education and were also made available to

individuals serving time in state and federal correctional facilities (Robinson & English, 2017).

In the mid-1990s “tough on crime” polices led to the elimination of Pell Grant eligibility for inmates.

Almost immediately, the majority of correctional education programs collapsed. Since the 90’s, our

nation’s prison population has grown exorbitantly, leaving us in a crisis of mass incarceration.

According to a 2018 report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly 2.2 million adults were

held in America’s prisons and jails at the end of 2016. That means for “every 100,000 people residing

in the United States, approximately 655 of them were behind bars” (Hunt & Dumville, 2016, p. 15).

In 2015, the Department of Education authorized a pilot program that restored Pell grant eligibility to

limited numbers of inmates. Sixty-seven colleges were selected to provide college level coursework in

approximately hundred prisons throughout the country. Although the Second Chance Act of 2007 did

not directly reinstate Pell Grants for students who are incarcerated, it did “set aside funding to gather

more information on prison education programs and their efficacy” (Robinson & English, 2017, p. 5).

Proposed solution

Expand access to post-secondary education opportunities for the incarcerated. Prison education is a

critical to our economy’s stability, ensures the safety of our communities, and a higher quality of life

for the formerly incarcerated. Education is not only a human right, but ensures prisoners can support

themselves and their families when they complete their sentences. I propose all students incarcerated in

federal or state penal institutions should be eligible for Pell Grants, excluding individuals serving life

sentences without parole, or are on death row.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 4

Benefits

1. Thousands of inmates are released each year without the resources needed to transition back into

society. Not having a high school education closes doors on many opportunities, making these

individuals more vulnerable to committing criminal acts and returning to prison. Studies show prison

education, especially post-secondary education, is proven to reduce recidivism. In 2016 the RAND

Corporation produced findings that show individuals who participate in correctional education

programs while in prison are 43% less likely to return. Additionally, if prisoners participated in

academic or vocational education programs, their chances of employment after release are 13 percent

higher than their peers (Davis, Bozick, Steele, Sanders, and Miles, 2013).

2. A college degree is the means to gainful employment and increased earnings potential. American

taxpayers pay about $70 billion each year to run state and federal prisons, approximately $37,000 to

incarcerate one individual (Carson, 2016). Education prepares individuals to find employment post-

release and contribute to the national economy. Education programs cost about $1,400 to $1,744 per

inmate each year, versus $37,000 to incarcerate (Davis, Bozick, Steele, Sanders, and Miles, 2013) –

funding prison education is a sound investment.

3. Post-secondary education promotes safer communities. Incarcerated individuals who enroll and

complete degrees in prison are 43 percent less likely to recidivate (Davis, Bozick, Steele, Sanders, and

Miles, 2013).

4. Post-secondary education in prison improves safety in facilities. Institutions with college programs

report fewer conduct issues and less violence, making prisons safer for staff and incarcerated people

(Delaney, Subramanian, & Patrick, 2016)

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 5

Current Funding Mechanisms and Challenges

Current sources of funding for post-secondary education in prisons

 Limited access to federal grants for low income students

 Limited to state appropriations

 Family members

 Philanthropic organizations and individuals

 Colleges and universities

Challenges to post-secondary education programs in prisons

 Inmates are ineligible for nearly all federal and state need-based financial aid programs, which

impedes enrollment.

 Incarcerated students are primarily enrolled in vocational and other nonacademic certificate

programs. Vocational training is important for future employment, but it does not provide

college degrees.

 Classes are primarily held inside prison. Security protocols and state statutes currently ban

inmate access to internet-based educational programs and resources.

 Remote locations of many prisons create difficulties in hiring and retaining instructors to work

on-site.

 Poor academic preparation means that many incarcerated students require some form of

remediation first, especially in English and math, before taking credit-bearing courses.

 Prison overcrowding often results in involuntary transfers of inmates from one correctional

facility to another, interrupting student coursework and degree completion.

 There is limited support for postsecondary correctional education programs among

policymakers and the American public.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 6

(Brazzell, Crayton, Mukamal, Soloman, & Lindahl, 2009; Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles,

2013; Erisman, & Contardo, 2005; Gorgol &Sponsler, 2011).

Proposed “Business” Model, Recommendations, and Conclusion

Suggested “business” model – Emulate Pathways Project

Launched in 2013 Vera’s Pathways Project provides states with incentive funding and technical

assistance to expand access to higher education for the incarcerated and those recently released. The

project funded by five national foundations, involves partnerships with other agencies (corrections

facilities, community supervision, service providers, educational institutions and employers) to provide

“multimodal programs that address individuals’ re-entry needs” (Delaney, Subramanian, & Patrick,

2016, p.12). Anchored with state and federal funding for higher education, the Project can be a

powerful and effective strategy to help incarcerated individuals succeed after release.

Funding recommendations to increase prisoner access to higher education

• Reinstate Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated men and women.

• Amend federal and state statutes to include additional categories of incarcerated persons

eligible for need-based financial aid.

• Ensure public colleges and universities receive state formula funding for serving incarcerated

students.

• Increase private funding for postsecondary correctional education programs by soliciting

additional resources from foundations, colleges and universities, corporations, and individuals.

(Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2013; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Gorgol &

Sponsler, 2011)

Other study recommendations

• Align post-secondary correctional education programs with state post-secondary education systems and

local workforce needs to increase their impact.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 7

• Ensure program and course offerings are covered in statewide transfer and articulation agreements.

• Build partnerships between state agencies responsible for corrections, correctional education programs,

and higher education.

• Revise federal/state statutes and regulations to support the development and expansion of Internet-based

delivery of post-secondary education.

• Convince correctional administrators, policymakers, and the public that education is a sound investment

that can reduce costs, enhance security and improve behavior inside facilities, and produce positive

outcomes after release.

• Additional studies are needed to identify the characteristics of effective programs, for example

curriculum, dosage, and quality.

(Brazzell, Crayton, Mukamal, Soloman, & Lindahl, 2009; Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles,

2013; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Gorgol &Sponsler, 2011; Erisman & Contardo, 2005)

Conclusion

Research data supports the assertion that receiving correctional education while incarcerated reduces

an individual's risk of recidivating. Research also confirms persons receiving correctional education

had improved odds of obtaining employment after release, and the costs of prison programs are

significantly cheaper than the costs- to re-incarcerate. Providing correctional education is cost-effective

solution to solving our national prison crises.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 8

References

Brazzell, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, D., Soloman, A. & Lindahl, N. (2009). From the classroom to the

community: Exploring the role of education during incarceration and reentry. The Urban

Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/30671/411963-

From-the-Classroom-to-the-Community.PDF

Carson, A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016. U. S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6187

Davis, L., Bozick, R., Steele, J., Saunders, J. & Miles, J. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of

correctional education. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html

Delaney, R., Subramanian, R., & Patrick, F. (2016). Making the grade: Developing postsecondary

education programs in prison. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.vera.org/publications/making-the-grade-postsecondary-education-programs-in-

prison

Erisman, W. & Contardo, W. (2005). Learning to reduce recidivism: A 50-state analysis of

postsecondary correctional education policy. Institute of Higher Education Policy. Retrieved

from http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/learningreducerecidivism.pdf

Glide, Christian (Ed.). (2007). Higher education: Open for business. Lanthan, MD: Lexington Books.

Gorgol, L. & Sponsler, B. (2011). Unlocking potential: Results of a national survey of postsecondary

education in state prisons. Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from

http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/unlocking_potential-

psce_final_report_may_2011.pdf
HIGHER EDUCATION IN PRISON 9

Hunt, K. S. & Dumville, R. (2016). Recidivism among federal offenders: A comprehensive overview.

United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-

publications/2016/recidivism_overview.pdf

Lacey, T.A., Toossi, M. Dubina, K. & Gensler, A.B. (2017). Projections overview and highlights,

2016–26: Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/projections-overview-and-highlights-2016-26.htm

Robinson, G. & English, E. (2017). The Second Chance Pell Pilot Program: A historical overview.

American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/publication/the-second-chance-pell-

pilot-program-a-historical-overview/