The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

* Since 1994, due to a provision in legislation signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, the nation’s inmates have been denied access to federal Pell Grants – small grants for low-income people to help pay for college. This act essentially cut off public support from Washington for college programs in prison. In 1995, under the leadership of then Governor George Pataki, New York banned inmates from receiving the State’s Tuition Assistance Program grants, effectively shutting down nearly all New York’s 70 in-prison college programs. Currently only eight programs in 16 facilities offer higher education courses to New York inmates.

Education from the Inside, Out presents strong evidence that in-prison college programs have a significant and direct impact on the rate at which people return to prison. Among other research, the report includes the results of a New York State Department of Correctional Services study:

* In 1991, the Department view published Analysis of Return Rates of the Inmate College Program Participants that tracked men and women who had earned a degree in the Inmate College Program during the 1986-1987 academic year, finding the rate of return for degree-earners to be significantly lower than that of participants who did not earn a degree. Of those earning a degree, 26.4 percent had been returned to the Department's custody, whereas 44.6 percent of participants who did not earn a degree were returned to custody. Degree earning inmates also returned to prison at a lower rate than would be expected when compared to the overall male return rate.

Robert Gangi, Executive Director of the Correctional Association of New York, said, “The policy of most states and the federal government of locking up thousands of people each year, some for disproportionately long sentences, some for the second and third time, does little to reduce crime and often leads to hazardous conditions of confinement.” Gangi, a regular visitor to New York’s correctional facilities, continued: “Our report points government leaders and concerned citizens in a different direction, making the case for the positive value of in-prison college programs.”

The report includes a full examination of the tangible benefits of post-secondary correctional education:

* Reduced rate of recidivism. Experts maintain that inmates who participate in college programs return to prison less often because higher education increases opportunities for meaningful, steady employment and improve cognitive functions.

* A safer, more manageable prison environment. Prison administrators and program practitioners alike report that college programs in prison provide an incentive for good behavior; produce mature, well-spoken leadership who have a calming influence on other inmates and on correction officers; and, communicate the message that society has sufficient respect for the human potential of incarcerated people.

* A cost-effective method of improving public safety. The short- and long-term benefits of a better educated population makes investment in higher education for incarcerated individuals and people in the community smart fiscal policy. A cost-benefit analysis conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles and referenced in Education from the Inside, Out found that the cost to the state per crime prevented by offering education to inmates is about $1,600; the cost per crime prevented by extending prison sentences is $2,800. In other words, “[a] $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same investment in education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration.”

According to Jackie Ross, principal author of Education from the Inside, Out: “Higher education in prison is highly valuable because it bolsters men and women who are among the most underserved in our society and critically in need of a college education and degree. College level learning serves to decrease anti-social behaviors and increase self-efficacy among inmates.”

Education from the Inside, Out also includes a review of six model post-secondary correctional education programs and first-hand testimony from program directors in New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Massachusetts. Statements from incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people are also highlighted throughout the report, further substantiating the importance of college programs in correctional facilities.

* Wes Caines, an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility in Ulster County, New York and a participant in the Bard Prison Initiative, an in-prison college program sponsored by the well-regarded liberal arts institution Bard College, told Correctional Association’s visitors: “Prison culture is an extension of street culture. You must consciously withdraw from prison culture, street culture, and negative culture that is detrimental to progress. Bard [college] is a way to disengage from the prison mentality.”

The report concludes with specific recommendations for New York policymakers:

* Restore and expand public funding for college programs in prison primarily by lifting the ban on inmate eligibility for Tuition Assistance Program grants.

* Expand access to higher education opportunities for formerly incarcerated people as a means of supporting successful re-entry and community well-being.

* Require New York’s Board of Parole to consider participation in college programs as a qualifying indicator for parole release.