The House Supports the Restoration of Pell for those in Federal & State Prisons

Last night, the House of Representatives released its long-awaited education appropriations bill outlining proposed spending for the upcoming fiscal year. Among other things, the bill proposes a major win for thousands of incarcerated adults -- reinstating Pell grants to those in federal and state prisons.

This long-awaited proposal would allow students access to Pell for each year of enrollment at an eligible postsecondary institution (excluding for-profit institutions) while they are incarcerated.The policy would go into effect now to only expire when Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. Although the provision will have to survive a mark-up by House appropriators and negotiations with the Senate, as well as possible delays as Congress turns its attention back to the coronavirus pandemic, this is still a great step in the right direction for addressing the barriers to postsecondary education for those behind bars.

That’s a huge reason criminal justice advocates, higher education experts, correctional administrators, colleges and universities, and others have come together in support of expanding Pell Grants to students enrolled in prison-education programs. Doing so would remove many of the financial barriers students face – and by default, increase access to state financial aid, as many state financial aid programs are tied to Pell Grant eligibility. For these educational programs to be more accessible to incarcerated individuals within prisons, Congress should move forward quickly in support of this section of the bill.

The Pell Grant program, which provides federal grant aid for low-income college students, did not initially exclude incarcerated adults. In fact, by the early 1990s, roughly 23,000 students in federal and state prisons supported their postsecondary education with the Pell Grant.

But while spending on incarcerated adults added up to only a tiny fraction (1 percent) of the Pell Grant budget (which supports 7 million students across the country), some lawmakers began to circulate a false narrative that the dollars were taking away funds from other students—patently untrue.

This led to legislation in 1992 that removed Pell eligibility for individuals whose sentences determined they would never be released from prison. And then two years later, former President Clinton signed the notorious crime bill, which—among other things—banned all incarcerated adults from receiving Pell Grants, regardless of their sentence.

Thankfully, today the debate has changed considerably. Many federal and state policymakers are looking for ways to reduce prison costs and break the cycle of those who are released from coming back to prison. Evidence shows that prison-education programs are one way to do so; my research with New America has shown that postsecondary education equips individuals with the critical skills necessary for employment post-release. Those incarcerated students who complete a college credential while in prison have literacy and numeracy skills on par with the general public, closing a wide gap in skills for incarcerated adults and preparing individuals to successfully participate in the labor market upon release.

A wide array of stakeholders have joined the fight, including legislation introduced in both the House and Senate that has garnered bipartisan support. And in 2015, President Obama launched a pilot project through the Education Department—which President Trump is now expanding—to allow students at select colleges access to Pell Grants for prison-education programs. Most recently, the House’s appropriations bill for the Department of Education continues with that momentum.

The bill includes important guardrails that many of us have advocated for to ensure incarcerated students receive quality degrees comparable to the education non-incarcerated peers receive at the same institution. These guardrails include ensuring that:

● The institution must be in good standing with its accrediting agency;

● Individuals have access to courses within the facility – including students with disabilities;

● Tuition is capped at the amount of the Pell award to avoid incarcerated students paying out of pocket to enroll; and

● Programs explicitly disclose information about the program offerings, cost of attendance, how the program will affect students’ Pell lifetime eligibility, whether credits are transferable, how students can continue their education if they are transferred or released, and information on occupational or licensing barriers in the state where the facility is located and where the student permanently resides.

Another huge win in the bill is that the funds are appropriated to be used for all incarcerated adults who are eligible to receive a Pell Grant.

This longstanding, intense debate as to which incarcerated adults should receive Pell was most recently fueled by Trump’s proposed budget earlier this year, which proposed to extend Pell Grants only to those who will be released within five years. My analysis of this arbitrary divide shows that such a restriction will disproportionately exclude younger men of color, because those from Black and brown communities often experience harsher sentencing and racial prejudice within the criminal justice system, and face tougher odds in the labor market after they’re released.

“When you begin to exclude based on additional criteria, it creates conflict and resentment and you miss an opportunity to transform the culture of the prison,” said a college-in-prison facilitator during an interview with me while I was conducting my research on college-in-prison programs. “Prisons already are a culture of conflict, so why add more with a program that has the potential to have many great benefits?”

My research has found that regardless of incarcerated adults’ expected time to release, those with more than five years left in their sentences are interested in, enroll in, and complete college programs at similar rates to those with fewer than five years left. Denying those individuals access to continued education will serve only to perpetuate long-standing racial disparities in college educational attainment.

As spending negotiations continue, both the Trump Administration and Congress should take seriously the opportunities and benefits that an educational program can instill within correctional facilities, ensuring more released adults from prison are prepared for employment. Extending Pell Grant access to incarcerated students will support the creation, expansion, and sustainability of these programs to all students who are in prison and move the needle in renewing the promise of higher education for all.

Interested in staying up to date on education and workforce policy? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on the latest from our experts.