Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Research indicates that prison college programs are among the best tools for reducing recidivism. Individuals who take college courses while in prison improve their chances of attaining and keeping employment after release. They are less likely to commit additional crimes that would lead to their return to prison. The effectiveness of these programs led to their widespread adoption for several years. However, nearly all programs were discontinued during the 1990s and few college programs are currently available in prison settings. The history of these programs, and the debate about their merits, demonstrates the counterproductive effect that political influence can have on efforts to combat crime.

History

The University of Southern Illinois began the nation's first prison-based college program in 1953. Other programs followed, but since the development of these programs was dependent on limited funding, only 12 postsecondary correctional education programs existed by 1965. The funding situation changed significantly that year as the U.S. Congress passed Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This act gave inmates and other low-income students the right to apply for federal financial aid in the form of federal Pell grants to be used for college courses.

Title IV provided the funding that was needed to ensure the financial stability of corrections education programs. As a result, by 1973, 182 college programs were operating in U.S. prisons. By 1982 (which was the last year an official count was made), 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.

Prisoners applied for Pell grants under the same criteria as those outside prison. Pell grants are noncompetitive, need-based federal funds that are available to all qualifying low-income individuals who plan to enroll in college degree programs. For qualifying individuals in correctional facilities, the average Pell grant award was less than $1,300 per year. The total percentage of the program's annual budget that was spent on inmate higher education was 1/10 of 1%. Although the cost was relatively low, the idea of providing Pell grants to prisoners remained controversial and many argued for the elimination of these grants.

The beginning of the end for college programs in prison was in 1991, as Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina introduced an amendment to eliminate federal funds for education to inmates. Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced similar amendments. Like Helms, they claimed that federal money was being spent at the expense of “law-abiding” students who were enrolled in college outside of prison. Although these amendments failed, this argument would return the next year with the passage of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which determined that Pell grants for prisoners could be used only for tuition and fees. The 1992 bill also made those on death row, or serving life without parole, ineligible for Pell grants seeming to acknowledge the importance of education for those who would eventually be released from prison.

Despite evidence supporting the connection between higher education and lowered recidivism, the U.S. Congress included a provision in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that eliminated Pell grants for prisoners. This law had a devastating effect on prison education programs. In 1990, there were 350 higher education programs for inmates. By 1997 only 8 programs remained. Ironically, at the same time as the federal government abolished Pell grants for prisoners, many states were undergoing a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff between corrections and education spending. New York State, for example, steadily increased its Department of Corrections budget by 76% to $761 million. During the same period, the state decreased funding to university systems by 28%, to $615 million. Much of the increase in corrections spending was the result of longer prison terms and the need for increased prison construction.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading