The Problem
Though unpopular, prison college programs benefit society and should be re-instituted across the nation. Prison college programs give people the opportunity to prepare to re-enter society successfully. In this process three major benefits are realized: improved public safety, increased social justice and decreased tax spending on corrections. In regards to public safety, prison college programs prepare people to maintain employment after incarceration, thus decreasing the likelihood of a repeat offense. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, the United States currently holds the highest population of incarcerated people in the world (“Prison Population”). Many of the people incarcerated have committed offense that can be corrected with an appropriate intervention. For instance, people who have convictions like drug selling, burglary, robbery, etc. are likely to abandon such behavior if they have the skills to maintain living wage employment. For the general population of people released from prison in the United States, 43.4% (or 4 out of 10) return to prison within 3 years (this is a “recidivism rate”) (“State of Recidivism”). For people who have received a Bachelors Degree in prison, only 5.6% return to prison in 3 years (Bosworth). Prison College Programs give people the tactical skill to secure employment, but there are also cognitive, spiritual, mental and emotional improvements that people undergo while attaining a degree. In this process we build citizens to contribute to society and improve public safety over all.
From a social justice stand point, prison college programs will aid in addressing a serious African American male education gap in the United States. According to the Schotts Foundation for Public Education, 13 states have high school graduation rates for African American males below 50%; 18 states are between 51% and 59% including states with big populations like New York, Texas and California (Black Male Graduation Rates). Considering the low educational attainment, it is not surprising that black males are incarcerated at a rate much higher than any other race or gender. The Sentencing Project reports that black men have a rate of incarceration at 2,841 per 100,000, as compared to white men at 463 per 100,000 (Trends in U.S. Corrections). By examining these facts we notice that the educational needs of black males are not being met nationally. Low or poor quality education fuels the school-to-prison pipeline for black males. Providing a college education in prison allows many black males access to education that is not always available in their home communities.
The opportunity to reduce tax spending rests on lowered recidivism rates. States spend $31,286 per inmate per year on average, the lowest being Kentucky at $14,603 and the highest being New York at $60,076 (Delaney). College prison programs give the nation an opportunity to lower the incidences of people returning to prison for repeat offenses, which saves millions – especially because additional offenses tend to carry longer sentences. Also consider that people are able to obtain and maintain employment after prison if they’ve been educated. This leads to an increased tax base and less reliance on social services and child welfare agencies as a result of incarceration (Delaney).
Policy Options
I. Restore Pell for inmate use
The best but most unpopular solution is to restore Pell Grants for inmate use. 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 (Mentor). 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 (Mentor).
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 (Anderson). The total spent on prisoners was $34.6 million, out of $5.3 billion spent on all Pell grantees (Anderson). This is a very reasonable investment considering the effectiveness of higher education on lowering recidivism and improving public safety. This would be the broadest sweeping option to providing college access to prisoners across the country.
II. Shift some financial responsibility to the incarcerated student (via Federal Education Loans) (in conjunction with Option 1)
Many Americans must invest in their education by way of student loan or by family contribution. The person in prison could be held responsible for a reasonable portion of his or her own tuition. The details of this type of solution would have to be worked out to ensure a reasonable payback period and prevent predatory lending. This system would assure 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.
III. Matching Campaign to encourage private donors
Currently, There are two innovative models that 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 (Social Impact Bonds). 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 government reimburses the investor. If the model is not successful the investor is not reimbursed. The government could partner with investors to role out a similar model to provide higher education in prisons. Visit the Goldman Sachs website for more information about this option: http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/investing-and-lending/urban-investments/case-studies/social-impact-bonds.html.
Government Sponsored Donor Matching: 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 (“Pathways”). For students in prison, Pathways is experimenting with models to provide education while incarcerated and support services after incarceration. They are targeting the last two years of incarceration and the first two years of release. Programs like this should be supported in part by tax dollars. If the government matched this effort, there would be enough resources to impact more incarcerated people around the country.