POLICY MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
113th United States Congress
Charlene Griffin, Advocate for Prison College Programs
Funding Prison College Programs
April 25, 2014
This memo is to acknowledge the careful response of Congressman Steven Israel (D-NY) on
March 28, 2014 to the policy options brief on funding prison college programs. Though it has
been made clear that the 113th U.S. Congress is not willing to provide tax levied funding for
prison college programs, Congressman Israel mentioned social impact bonds. This along with
another innovative option must be further discuss with the 113th Congress.
Executive Summary
Though controversial, there are undeniable cost and public safety benefits to offering higher
education to people in prison. For this reason the 113th Congress is respectfully asked to find
some acceptable method to increase access to higher education in prisons across the country.
Prison college programs have a long standing and proven track record with lowering recidivism
rates, or the rate that people return to prison. Recidivism rates are at 5.6% for people who
received a Bachelors Degree in Prison College Programs, as compared to the 43.4% rate for all
who are released nationally1. When people stay out of prison it reduces government spending
on incarceration, increases public safety and increases the public base of tax revenue because
the ex-inmate is better equipped to sustain taxable income after release from prison.
The opportunity to save money and improve public safety rest mostly on lowered recidivism
rates. This rate is most affected by how prepared the ex-prisoner is to obtain and sustain
employment at living wage levels. Since 1994 the recidivism rate has improved. In 1994 the
recidivism rate was 67%, which means that two-thirds of everyone released from prisoned
returned in three years.2 Now that positive results have been achieved from progressive
programs, it is wise not to revert back to policy that will undo that progress.
In 2014, NYS Governor Cuomo launched an initiative to restore 10 prison college programs
across the state. That legislation was defeated. Opponents mainly argued that middle class
students are being priced out of college and need support. Of course, middle class students
must be supported, but are we really taking resources away from middle class families by
supporting prison college programs? What is the 113th Congress’ responsibility to public safety
and the poor undereducated minority groups over represented in the prison system?
Government must find a way to provide for the needs of all groups within its citizenry, even
incarcerated citizens.
I. History of College Education for Prisoners
In 1965 the U.S. Congress passed Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This gave all low-income
students (including incarcerated students) an opportunity to receive Pell Grants to pay for
college courses.3 By 1973, 182 college programs were operating in U.S. prisons. By 1982, 350
programs were active in 45 states and approximately 27,000 inmates received some form of
postsecondary education. Although the numbers had increased significantly, this represented
just 9% of the total prison population at the time. 4
In 1991 corrections costs rose along with the cost of attending college. For instance in NYS
prison budgets experienced a 76% hike while college costs rose due to a 28% reduction in state
funding.5 Many students attending college on campus hit financial barriers to prohibit them
from continuing their education. Politically, it became a point of contention to allow people in
prison to continue their college education, while increasingly, people outside of prison were
halted in their pursuit of higher education. Many arguments against Pell grants for inmate-use,
highlighted the fact that police officers and corrections officers often could not afford to
educate their families, how then can individuals who broke the law be afforded this
opportunity.
Considering these sentiments, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was
passed to restrict Pell Grants for use by people in prison. Within three years of the Pell Grant
removal, the number of higher education programs in prisons dropped from 350 to eight
nationwide.6
Prison college programs accounted for less than 1% of the Pell Grant budget. In the 1993-94
school year, 3,327,683 students nationwide received Pell grants of which 25,168 were prisoners
— fewer than 1 percent.7 The total spent on prisoners was $34.6 million, out of
$5.3 billion
spent on all Pell grantees.8 This is a very reasonable investment considering the effectiveness
of higher education on lowering recidivism and improving public safety.
II. Social Justice Issues
A glance at the U.S. prison system uncovers social justice issues that must also be considered.
See the graphics below:
This chart illustrates the
amount of crime that is
motivated by financial
gain. Note the amount
of burglary and robbery.
Also consider the
amount of drug and
weapons crimes that
might be associated
with illegal drug
businesses.
It is reasonable to
conclude that higher
education can provides
citizens with means to
earn a living wage
without resorting to
crime.
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-freedom/statistics-on-prisoner-population-rates/
Note the higher rates of
men of color
incarcerated in the U.S.
prison system. African
American Males are at a
particularly alarming
rate of incarceration,
especially because
African Americans only
account for 12% of the
U.S. population.
http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/4/23/american-failure.html
The chart to the left
shows that African
American children and
families are
disproportionately
affected by cycles of
incarceration.
The chart also reveals an
alarming correlation
between incarceration
and low education
attainment amongst a
large group of African
American fathers.
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-freedom/statistics-on-prisoner-populationrates/
http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/civilian-incarceration-rates-large.jpg
Above is another chart illustrating the notably higher proportion of undereducated African
American Males that end-up incarcerated.
Upon looking at these statistics it becomes clear that even though African Americans make up
only 12% of the U.S. population, African American men are significantly over-represented in the
criminal justice system. This is evidence of insufficient resources prior to being incarcerated.
So, the offer of education while in prison is perhaps an opportunity that many African American
men are not being afforded access to in society.
II. Benefit of College Education for Prisoners
Reducing Government Spending on Incarceration
According to the Vera Institute, the average cost of incarceration is $31,286 per year per
inmate.9 The average sentence is roughly 3 years.10 According to Forbes Magazine, 650,000
people were released from state prisons in 2010.11 If re-incarceration rates could be cut in half
$2.7 billion could be saved each year. Forbes also stresses that sustained employment allows
people to depend less on public assistance and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and
making purchases.12
According to Dallas Pell, people who achieved their Bachelors Degree in prison had recidivism
rates reduce to 5.6% as oppose to the 43.4% recidivism rate of the general public. 13 Of course,
those likely to commit to prison college programs are also likely be committed to living an
honorable life. For these restored members of society the U.S. government should be prepared
to meet half way with viable opportunities.
Increasing Public Safety
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Property Crimes are the most
commonly reported crime in the United States.14 Property Crime includes ”the offenses of
burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is
the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims.”15
Considering this category, it can be induced that a major motive to commit these types of
crimes are financial gain. With the intervention of a college education people are released
better equipped to sustain employment and adequate earnings as evidenced by the reduced
recidivism rates previously stated. These reduced recidivism rates also represent reduced
incidents of crime, which equates to an increase in public safety.
Increasing tax revenue
Before examining the increase in tax revenue, reconsider the fact that on average it costs
$31,286 each year to incarcerate a person. Also consider that repeat convictions are commonly
punishable by increased sentences, so that recidivists would stay in prison much longer than
they did the first time.
In Illinois alone, Kane-Willis suggests that up to $47.3 million could have been saved in
corrections spending in 2002 if prison education programs continued. If those same prisoners
worked she estimates a contribution $ 10.5 million per year to the state's economy in
purchases and tax revenues.16
III. Options and Evaluation
The following options were suggested as a way to possibly bundle and diversify the sources of
funding for in prison college programs. A reasonably small financial investment can make a big
impact in providing education in prison. Keep in mind that 4 major prison college programs
(Bard, Cornell, Hudson Link, Prison Education Project) quote per student costs from $1000 to
$5000 dollars a year. They all are partnered with private colleges to offer the courses in prison.
Imagine if the $34.6 million that used to be available through Pell Grants in 1994 could be made
available again. This sliver of funding could restore access to college across the nation and it
does not have to be completely covered by tax funds. Instead tax funds can be used as
reimbursement or matching funds in conjunction with private donors to make the previously
mentioned total.
Restore Pell for inmate use
One far-reaching way to ensure that all low-income earners have equal access to
education is to reinstate Pell for inmate use. The Pell Grant is based on income and this
action would simply give these low-income students equal access to need-based aid.
Though prison education opponents often make an argument to suggest that Pell Grant
use in prison makes less money available for campus based students, the argument is
false. Campus based students are granted appropriate Pell Grants regardless to Pell
Grant use in prison. Opponents go further to say that aid to prisoners will take
opportunities away from middle-income students. Middle-income students are typically
not eligible for Pell Grants at all, only low income students.
Make individuals responsible for a portion of costs (via Federal Loans)
Regardless of financial need, the person in prison can be held responsible for a
reasonable portion of his or her own tuition upfront. The person in prison should be
allowed to take their first 30 credits receiving a full Pell Award. After 30 credits, the
student can be responsible for 15% of tuition, which could be covered by student loans
or the student can get an outside funder like a family member or church to cover the
cost.
Why is the 30-credit mark appropriate? Many people who end up in prison have not
completed high school or earned a GED. It is expected that many of them will need noncredit remedial courses in the first few semesters to build a basic skills foundation in
math and writing. This 30-credit grace period gives the incarcerated student the basic
skills and study habits to succeed throughout the rest of the college years. After that
time it is fair to teach the concept of investing in your own future by paying a portion of
your own tuition, ideally by student loan.
This system ensures the American taxpayer that the student is not asking for a hand out,
but a hand up; and is willing to invest in his or her own future. This system also builds in
a mechanism to control government spending by eliminating aid to students who do not
cover the 15% cost privately.
Matching Campaign to encourage private donors
Prison college programs can also be aided by a government supported donor-matching
fund. For every amount that a private donor makes, the government can match the
donation up to a reasonable limit.
Over the past 20 years, a handful of prison college programs stayed in operation due to
private donors. Programs like the Bard College Prison Program and the Hudson Link for
Higher Education in Prison are both model non-profits that successfully coordinated
prisons, colleges and donors to sustain in prison college programs. Aside from garnering
financial support, these programs also encouraged a community where prisoners and
donor get to know each other. In many cases these donors become mentors and
advisors to people as they transitioned from prison.
A government sponsored donor matching program could go a long way to diversify
funding for prison college programs and provide a degree of social capital to the
incarcerated student as they interact with donors who may connect them to
opportunities after incarceration. A matching program can also give the prison college
programs a base of general operating support that can be used according to the needs
of the program. Since operating needs go beyond tuition, it is important to have
funding that is not based on student tuition and direct costs alone.
One note of caution is that garnering donor support may be easier in certain geographic
locations and not as easy in other locations. Both of the programs mentioned
previously are located in geographic locations where there is a high concentration of
donors from high-income brackets.
IV. Recommendations
Considering the controversy and public sentiment for prisoners having access to higher
education, it is unlikely that Pell will be restored. However, it is important to consider the
needs of all citizens. The impact of higher education in prison reduces government spending
and improves public safety. For these reasons, the government must take some responsibility
for facilitating with the process of offering higher education in prison.
There are two innovative models that combine elements of the options mentioned above to
offer a politically sound compromise: (1) Social Impact bonds and (2) matching support to
foundation that are willing to combine funding resources for this important cause.
Social Impact Bonds (Use tax dollars for success only)
Social Impact bonds are a new initiative most notably executed by Goldman Sachs and
Bloomberg Philanthropies in New York City.17 These investors are providing funding for a
cognitive based curriculum offered in NYC Jails to reduce recidivism amongst youth offenders.
If the model is successful the investors is reimbursed by the government. If the model is not
successful the investor is not reimbursed. Take a look at the diagram below to learn more
about the implementation and evaluation of this model.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/investing-and-lending/urban-investments/casestudies/social-impact-bonds.html
The government could partner with investors to role out a similar model to provide higher
education in prisons around the country.
Encouraging foundations to collaborate by providing donor matching incentives with tax
dollars
There is a second model of foundation support that should inspire a matching commitment
from the government. The Pathways to Post Secondary Education project combines support
from several sources including the Ford Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to
improve education outcomes among various low performing populations including people in
prisons and jails.18 For students in prison, Pathways is experimenting with models to provide
education while incarcerated and supportive services after incarceration.
See the diagram below:
http://www.vera.org/project/pathways-prison-postsecondary-education-project
A carefully designed, holistic programs like this, should be ultimately supported by the
government, at least partially.
V. Conclusion
As a basic consequence of human nature, mistakes and offenses will be made by people in
society. It is in the greater interest of the public for citizens to be corrected and adequately
equipped for economic self-sustainability. Prison education programs have a proven success
record with making people better equipped to succeed after prison, which saves tax payers the
cost of repeat incarceration, increases public safety and increases the base of tax revenue by
giving people the skills they need to consistently earn taxable income.
Despite opposition, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard the public. Therefore,
government must find an acceptable level of investment that can be contributed to
rehabilitating people after crime. Higher education is the most worthwhile and impactful
investment that can be made. So, the 113th Congress must be challenged to make every effort
to support prison college education programs to ensure the long lasting and stable
rehabilitative effects of higher education.
Center for the States. State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons .
2/13/2014
<http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_correc
tions/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf>.
1Pew
2
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reentry Trends in the U.S. 2/14/2014.
<http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm>.
3
Mentor, Kenneth. "College Courses in Prison." 8/1/2012. Encyclopedia of Prisons &
Correctional Facilities. Ed. 2004. SAGE Reference Online. SAGE Publications. 2/13/2014
<http://www.sagepub.com/hanserintro/study/materials/reference/ref15.2.pdf>.
4
Ibid
5Ibid
6
Pell, Dallas. "To Restore Pell Grants in Prison is to Restore My Father's Vision of Educational
Opportunities for All." 6/1/2011. Reflections on Pell - The Pell Institute. 2/12/2014.
<http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Reflections_on_Pell_June_2013.pdf>.
7Anderson,
Nick. "Advocates push to renew Pell grants for prisoners, citing benefits of higher
education." The Wasington Post. 12/3/2013.
8Ibid.
9Delaney,
Christian Henrichson and Ruth. "The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Tax
Payers." 2/7/2012. Vera Instutute. 2/14/2014.
<http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_ver
sion_072512.pdf>.
10Ibid
11Altschuler,
David Skorton and Glenn. "College Behind Bars: How Educating Prisoners Pays
Off." 3/25/2013. Forbes Magazine. 2/13/2014.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/collegeprose/2013/03/25/college-behind-bars-how-educatingprisoners-pays-off/ >.
12Ibid.
13Ibid,
Pell.
14Federal
Bureau of Investigation. "Crime Rates in U.S. Decline." 9/19/2011. Federal Bureau of
Investigation. 2/13/2014.
<http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911>.
15Federal
Bureau of Investigation. "Propery Crime." 9/1/2010. FBI: Crime in the United States.
2/13/2014. <http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/>.
16Kane-Willis,
Kathleen. "Intersecting Voices: Impacts of Illinois' Drug Policies." 2006. The Illinois
Consortium on Drug Policy. Roosevelt University, Institute for Metropolitan Affairs. 2/12/2014.
<http://www.roosevelt.edu/CAS/CentersAndInstitutes/IMA/ICDP#publications>.
17
Goldman Sachs. “Social Impact Bonds.” 4/22/2014. <http://www.goldmansachs.com/whatwe-do/investing-and-lending/urban-investments/case-studies/social-impact-bonds.html>.
18
Vera Institute. “Pathways from Prison to Post Secondary Education Project.” 4/22/2014.
<http://www.vera.org/project/pathways-prison-postsecondary-education-project>.