3
Elimination of Federal Correctional
Education Funding
Several federal grant programs supporting com-
ponents of correctional education were elimi-
nated during the get-tough-on-crime movement
in the 1990s, including the Pell grant program,
a need-based grant program available to low-
income postsecondary students. State and feder-
al prisoners, who accounted for less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of total grant awards, were
made ineligible for these grants when the U.S.
Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act in 1994. Eligibility was
not eliminated for inmates incarcerated in local
institutions (e.g., jails and treatment facilities),
but their length of stay may not be long enough
for them to benefit from the grant. Subsequent
changes to the law also have prohibited anyone
with a prior conviction for certain drug offenses
from receiving Pell grants. Changes to the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act of 1998 and the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act of 1998 also restricted state spend-
ing on correctional education (LoBuglio 2001).
A LEADING ROLE FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Since community colleges are committed to
open access admission, they are natural part-
ners for prisons needing support in providing
correctional education. In some states, com-
munity colleges are contracted to provide the
full range of correctional education pro-
grams. In other states, they provide only
postsecondary vocational and academic pro-
grams, including noncredit certificate-
bearing courses. In fact, a 50-state analysis of
postsecondary correctional education policy
conducted by the Institute for Higher Edu-
cation Policy (IHEP) in 2005 found that 68
percent of all postsecondary correctional
education is provided by community colleg-
es. The study also found that while less than
5 percent of prisoners are enrolled in postse-
condary education, the number of enrollees
has returned to the levels reported before the
1994 elimination of Pell grant eligibility for
state and federal prisoners (see sidebar, “Eli-
mination of Federal Correctional Education
Funding”). Moreover, given today’s larger
prison population, the actual number of inmates enrolled during program year (PY) 2003–04
was significantly higher than in the years leading up to 1994 (Erisman and Contardo 2005).
The IHEP findings were the basis for this review of partnerships between community col-
leges and prisons. The review seeks to: increase the visibility of partnerships between
community colleges and prisons, encourage their replication in other communities, and il-
lustrate how these partnerships can be a win-win for all involved—community colleges,
prisons, inmates, and the public. Providing correctional education to inmates gives com-
munity colleges the opportunity to increase their student enrollment and revenue and ful-
fill their mission to make education available to all local residents. By collaborating with
community colleges, prisons can strengthen and expand their educational services to pre-
pare inmates more effectively for their transitions to life beyond prison. Inmates prepared
to reenter society are less likely to recidivate, which, in turn, improves public safety and
saves taxpayer dollars (Chappell 2004).