On August 3, 2015, the Department of Education invited higher education institutions to apply for participation in Second Chance Pell, a pilot program under the Experimental Sites Initiative. If approved, higher education institutions collaborating with federal or state prisons will allow inmates to receive Pell Grants while incarcerated.
State and federal prisoners had access to Pell Grants until 1994, when Congress banned access, claiming that allowing inmates access to Pell Grants restricted access of law-abiding citizens. At the time of the ban, inmates represented less than 1/10th of 1% of all grant recipients, constituting $34.6 million out of $5.3 billion.
Since the announcement, progressive groups lauded the pilot program as a …show more content…
The most notable issue is the eligibility requirements of inmates. The pilot program seeks those who are “eligible for release back into the community, particularly those who are likely to be released within five years of enrollment in the program.” This excludes a crucial population in prison: the makers of prison culture. Those who are in prison for less than 5 years generally do not participate in the culture of prison, let alone define it.
The culture of prison has a big influence on prison education programs. Prisoners who get involved with educational programs face a number of challenges. The corrections officers who monitor the inmate do not see the point of educating criminals. Other inmates often see participation in education programs as essentially working with the enemy. A functional prison education program must change the perception of education within the prison to succeed. To change that perception, the cultural leaders of the prison must be included in the process. Those cultural leaders have long sentences. They make a life in …show more content…
Scott believes that limiting Pell Grants to inmates with five or less years indicates a misunderstanding about prison culture. Inmates with ten or more years in prison make a life in prison.
Every student in Scott’s first graduating class had a sentence of thirty-five years or more. These inmates become teacher’s aides and promote the program as they move between prisons throughout the state. Most prisoners move between prisons because length stays lead to organization, which prison administration fears will result in a more difficult environment to control. The practice is actually beneficial for spreading the word about each of the prison education programs around the state.
It seems that the pilot program is, at best, an experiment. ESI will choose favorable higher education institutions and gather data. If the results back up what the numerous other studies have shown, the experiment could open the doors for more inclusive policy changes.
However, Pell Grants are currently available to inmates in municipal and county jails, along with juvenile justice centers. States throughout the U.S. collect data indicating the benefit of prison education. It is tough not to question the need for
State and federal prisoners had access to Pell Grants until 1994, when Congress banned access, claiming that allowing inmates access to Pell Grants restricted access of law-abiding citizens. At the time of the ban, inmates represented less than 1/10th of 1% of all grant recipients, constituting $34.6 million out of $5.3 billion.
Since the announcement, progressive groups lauded the pilot program as a …show more content…
The most notable issue is the eligibility requirements of inmates. The pilot program seeks those who are “eligible for release back into the community, particularly those who are likely to be released within five years of enrollment in the program.” This excludes a crucial population in prison: the makers of prison culture. Those who are in prison for less than 5 years generally do not participate in the culture of prison, let alone define it.
The culture of prison has a big influence on prison education programs. Prisoners who get involved with educational programs face a number of challenges. The corrections officers who monitor the inmate do not see the point of educating criminals. Other inmates often see participation in education programs as essentially working with the enemy. A functional prison education program must change the perception of education within the prison to succeed. To change that perception, the cultural leaders of the prison must be included in the process. Those cultural leaders have long sentences. They make a life in …show more content…
Scott believes that limiting Pell Grants to inmates with five or less years indicates a misunderstanding about prison culture. Inmates with ten or more years in prison make a life in prison.
Every student in Scott’s first graduating class had a sentence of thirty-five years or more. These inmates become teacher’s aides and promote the program as they move between prisons throughout the state. Most prisoners move between prisons because length stays lead to organization, which prison administration fears will result in a more difficult environment to control. The practice is actually beneficial for spreading the word about each of the prison education programs around the state.
It seems that the pilot program is, at best, an experiment. ESI will choose favorable higher education institutions and gather data. If the results back up what the numerous other studies have shown, the experiment could open the doors for more inclusive policy changes.
However, Pell Grants are currently available to inmates in municipal and county jails, along with juvenile justice centers. States throughout the U.S. collect data indicating the benefit of prison education. It is tough not to question the need for