Several states have found a way to spend less of their own money on vocational and college courses for prisoners: They encourage inmates to use Pell Grants, the chief source of federal aid for needy college students.
Although it is a cost-effective way for states to help prisoners acquire education and job skills, the practice is provoking touchy political dilemmas for prison educators, college presidents, and state policy makers. In some instances, the reliance on Pell Grants may even violate federal regulations.
Some critics flatly object to helping prisoners obtain Pell Grants. They say they do not want to encourage inmates to receive the grants because that reduces the amount of aid available to needy students who are not incarcerated.
Others say certain states are shirking their own financial responsibilities to educate inmates in state prisons by relying more heavily on Pell Grants.
Still others say they are concerned because the approach could encourage colleges and for-profit trade schools to become more aggressive in recruiting students eligible for Pell Grants from the prisons to fatten institutions’ bottom lines.
The practice of relying on Pell Grants could become more widespread, some fear, as states become squeezed by financial problems, and as more and more states turn prison management over to private companies.
At least one major private-prison operator has ties to a proprietary school. The school, Branell College, recently won approval to take over vocational-education programs in seven Florida prisons, after the state cut its own financing for the courses. Now, instead of Florida paying for the courses, the federal government for the most part is footing the bill through Pell Grants. Branell offers prison-education programs in 18 prisons across the country, in addition to operating business schools at 10 campuses in the South.
Financial pressures have triggered states’ growing reliance on Pell Grants.
In Illinois, for example, the Department of Corrections School District contracts with 18 colleges and universities to provide vocational and college courses in the state’s prisons. The state spends about $6-million on the program.
Two years ago, the General Assembly voted to exclude inmates from participating in the state’s financial-aid programs. Lawmakers agreed to shift the $1.4-million of financial aid directly to the prison-education program, but that was only a one-time transfer of funds.
Now the corrections school district is asking the colleges to have the inmates apply for Pell Grants to pick up some of the district’s costs. Ray Quick, superintendent of the corrections school district, says the policy makes sense because “the State of Illinois doesn’t get as much federal funds as it sends” to Washington in taxpayer dollars.
Most of the 18 colleges and universities are cooperating, but the presidents of at least two -- John Wood and Sauk Valley Community Colleges -- say they will not help inmates apply for Pell Grants.
Using Pell Grants to offset state spending “does not seem to be consistent” with the intent of the Pell Grant program, says Robert Keys, president of John Wood.
Moreover, says Mr. Keys, if more prisoners receive Pell Grants at the state’s prodding, that “might mean that some deserving student in North Carolina or someplace else doesn’t. The funds are not limitless.”
In 1991-92, Pell Grants will go to more than 3.4 million students, most of them from families with incomes below $35,000. Although by law the maximum grant could go as high as $3,100, Congress has never appropriated enough money to allow grants larger than the current $2,400 maximum. The maximum amount is based on the total appropriation set by Congress. An increase in the number of prisoners receiving Pell Grants could hinder efforts to raise the maximum or could force Congress to deny eligibility to other students.
The Department of Education does not know how many recipients are inmates, but because most prisoners are poor, many would qualify under the current criteria.
Department officials also note, however, that regulations require that Pell Grants go only to students who actually incur costs for education. If colleges and schools are establishing a “phony cost of attendance” to justify a Pell Grant, the department would have “concerns,” officials said.
Florida’s growing reliance on Pell Grants for education in state prisons began gradually in the mid-1980’s, when the state tightened policies that had been providing generous reimbursements to public colleges that offered courses to prisoners.
Prisoners seeking postsecondary education were left with two choices: They could sign up for correspondence courses using their own funds and federal aid, or they could enroll in vocational training offered by the state’s Correctional Education School Authority.
Then, in 1989, the state began a series of budget cuts to the corrections-school authority. The authority’s budget went from about $22-million in 1989 to about $13-million today, says Benjamin H. Groomes, Florida’s director of correctional education.
Rather than leave some prisons’ vocational-training shops empty, Mr. Groomes invited an institution that was already providing basic literacy courses in the state prisons -- Branell College -- to provide the vocational courses.
Nearly 300 students are enrolled in Branell’s postsecondary programs in auto mechanics, basic carpentry, and consumer electronics. Tuition for the programs is $3,800, and many of the prisoners are using Pell Grants to pay the costs. Under federal law, Pell Grants can cover up to 60 per cent of tuition, which in this case could bring the reimbursement near to the $2,400 maximum.
Mary Z. Pate, Branell’s director of operations, says inmates are “not obligated to pay the balance.” Ms. Pate says Branell can afford the arrangement because it does not have the added costs of providing classroom space, electricity, and building upkeep.
Florida has also authorized two other institutions to provide a limited number of courses in prisons -- Indian River Community College and Business Training Institute, a proprietary school.
Mr. Groomes says the system is not perfect, but it is the only way inmates can receive postsecondary training, given the reluctance of state officials to finance it. “In my state, they’re not interested in providing inmates college education,” he says.
Indeed Florida’s approach has drawn an ambivalent reaction from state officials. For example, during the Legislature’s 1991 session earlier this year, the issue was raised in the Senate’s Corrections Committee and its Education Committee. Legislative staff members reported to lawmakers that the approach could eventually dry up Pell Grants for other students.
Legislators decided to take no action. “They just wanted to let the market proceed,” says Ray Wilson, staff director of the corrections committee.
Mr. Wilson says he understands the decision. “In the short run, it’s obviously in the state’s interest to export these costs,” he says, and “the vendors have their own economic objectives in mind.” But he says ultimately “the traditional student winds up getting penalized.”
Wilson C. Bell, Florida’s assistant secretary of corrections, says he also has “some reservations” about the policy. But he says since the state cannot afford to provide prison programs itself, and other states do it too, “certainly Florida should get its fair share.”
The degree to which states rely on Pell Grants varies widely.
Some, like Washington State, depend very little on Pell Grants. The state spends $8.5-million of its own money on prison education programs that include postsecondary vocational and college-level courses.
In Michigan, the state provides only two-year college and vocational programs for prisoners, and only at five prisons where they are mandated under court order. Inmates are required to apply for Pell Grants, and the state picks up the rest of the cost, which runs as much as $900,000 annually.
Other states, including Maryland and Ohio, arrange for nearby two- and four-year colleges to provide the college courses, but require inmates to pay for them themselves. Often inmates supplement their own funds with Pell Grants.
New Mexico follows a mixed model. In most prisons, college courses are available free at the associate-degree level through Santa Fe Community College. That costs the state between $500,000 and $750,000 a year. But at the one prison operated by a private company, Corrections Corporation of American (CCA), Branell provides the education. Branell requires all inmates who enroll to apply for Pell Grants, but otherwise does not charge inmates tuition.
Branell’s parent company, the Education Corporation of American, is partly owned by the same group of investors that owns a piece of CCA. The companies’ headquarters are next to each other in Nashville. Ms. Pate, Branell’s director of operations, says the school also operates in prisons operated by companies other than CCA. She said other proprietary schools also compete for prison-education business.
Lamar Alexander, the Secretary of Education, served on the investor group’s board of directors from 1988 to 1989. A spokeswoman for the group, Massey Burch Investment Group Inc., said the six-member board was not involved with Education Corporation of America’s business practices. According to Secretary Alexander’s financial disclosure form, in 1988 he also obtained a loan of between $100,000 and $250,000 from a Massey Burch affiliate. The spokeswoman said the outstanding loan was not directly related to ECA or CCA.
Stephen J. Steurer, executive director of the Correctional Education Association and statewide coordinator for corrections education in Maryland, says the involvement of proprietary schools in the prison education market using Pell Grants is a “new phenomenon,” and adds: “In a way, it scares me.”
Mr. Steurer says the situation holds open the chance that some inmates will use their Pell Grants for low-quality programs and then use up their eligibility. And even students in well-regarded programs, like those offered by Branell, could find themselves in courses whose credits will not be accepted by other institutions.
A greater concern to Mr. Steurer and other prison educators is that some institutions might be “jacking up their prices” to take full advantage of the Pell Grant.
He also fears that if states and institutions “start fudging around with the original intent of a Pell Grant,” Congress or the Department of Education will try to eliminate prisoners from the program.
So far, Congress shows no signs of doing that. And an Education Department official says “the fact that prisoners are getting Pell Grants is perfectly all right, provided all the rules are followed and that the cost of attendance is a genuine cost of attendance.”
Meanwhile state officials and educators say they expect the practice will continue because Pell Grants help states provide programs that they may not have the funds, or willingness, to shoulder themselves.
“As long as states do not have the money,” says Ms. Pate of Branell, “the money has to come from somewhere.”
