Prison Education Rankles Critics
Some legislators say that letting inmates use Pell grants for college coddles criminals
AS an inmate in the medium-security Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Norfolk, Tom Farina was serving a five-year term for armed robbery and armed burglary when he turned his life around. He entered the Boston University (BU) Prison Program, and by the time he was released in 1985, he was 12 credits away from completing a bachelor's degree, paid for by a federal Pell grant.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Mr. Farina, who has since received a master's degree in social work, and now works for a mental health clinic and a methadone clinic, says the opportunity to get a college education sped up his rehabilitation.
Without a liberal arts degree, "I'd be doing life by now," he says. His fight against narcotics and alcohol addiction was won only after he channeled his anger toward positive goals, such as developing a better self-image and helping others, he adds. The BU program helped him to see that he could be "a decent, moral human being."
As state and federal budgets tighten and as citizens call for policies that "get tough on criminals," some legislators have begun to label prison education programs as another example of policies that coddle criminals. BU's program, like others across the United States, is privately run, but prisoners apply for federal Pell grants to pay for tuition and books. This federal funding is what rankles conservative critics.
In July 1991, Sen. Jesse Helms (R) of North Carolina sponsored legislation that would end prisoner access to Pell grants.
"You may teach inmates how to fix automobiles," the senator argued. "You may teach them how to write, certainly how to read. But a college education free of charge? Such a policy is an outrage." The Helms measure, which passed with overwhelming support in Congress, had been watered down to exclude funding only for prisoners sentenced to death and to life without parole.
Prison education is not a bad thing in itself, a Helms aide says, but inmates should not be competing with law-abiding citizens for government funds. Pell grants, which are designed to pay up to 60 percent of tuition fees, are based on financial need. The aide argues that inmates have an unfair advantage against other college applicants: Since inmates have no income, they can demonstrate a greater need for grants and often receive the maximum amount ($2,400). In some states, colleges charge higher tuitio n for prisoners, take the maximum level of Pell grant assistance, and then "forgive" the remaining 40 percent of prisoners' tuition.
Calling this practice a "rip-off," the aide asks, "Why not set up a separate funding program for prisoners so that we can keep track of where the money goes?"
The US Department of Education does not keep statistics on how much Pell-grant money goes to inmates, but the aide says a computer survey of the 1990-91 academic year estimates the figure to be nearly $100 million.
Some colleges may profit from prison programs, says Rom Skvarcius, acting dean of BU's Metropolitan College, but BU's program is running at a deficit. Last academic year, BU spent almost $1 million on teacher stipends, a full-time administrator, textbooks, and other administrative costs; in return, BU received $100,000 in Pell grants.
BU only began taking Pell funding last year for its prison program. The professor-volunteers, who teach inmates at the prison, often are willing to work without pay to reduce costs.
Prison education can actually save money, says Elizabeth "Ma" Barker, professor emeritus of English and the BU program's founder. Massachusetts spends $23,000 to imprison one inmate for a year.
Only 3 to 4 percent of those graduating from the program at Norfolk return to prison after release, she says, compared with the state's 27 percent rate of recidivism. By reducing the number of returning prisoners, proponents of education programs say the state saves on money required to house prisoners.