1

Pell and Prisons: A History of Pell Grant Eligibility for Justice-Involved Students

Natalya J. Jarvis

Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University

HESA 771: Legal Aspects in Higher Education Administration

Jeanne Meyer, J. D.

December 9, 2022
 2
Pell and Prisons
Incarcerated students, sometimes referred to as justice-involved students, have more to

gain from higher education than nearly any other population (Chestnut & Wachendorfer, 2021;

Tewksbury et al., 2000). However, access to postsecondary programs can be a challenge. Even if

one is available at their facility, cost can be a significant hinderance to access for incarcerated

students. This is where Pell grant eligibility has an impact. Over the past fifty years, support for

educational programs for justice-involved students has fluctuated significantly (Corbett &

Ajinkya, 2018) and public opinion has been a major motivating factor regarding incarcerated

student eligibility for the Pell grant. This paper will consist of an introduction to the Pell grant

and postsecondary educational programs for incarcerated students, the history of Pell eligibility

for this population, and recommendations for institutions of higher education.

The Pell Grant

Developed under President Johnson, the Higher Education Act of 1965 remains one of

the most significant expansions of federal financial student aid in U.S. history (Congressional

Research Service, 2021). Title IV of this law established the Basic Education Opportunity grant;

from which the Pell grant developed. The purpose of this grant was to provide financial aid to

low-income students to attain higher education. Since its inception, over 80 million students have

received financial aid through the grant program (Department of Education, n.d.). Administration

of the grant is through the U.S. Department of Education. Funds are provided through “annual

discretionary appropriations, but the HEA provides mandatory appropriations” (Congressional

Research Service, 2021, p. i).

Requirements for eligibility for the Pell grant have changed over its lifetime. Reliably,

students must demonstrate financial need, usually through income level. Students must also be

pursuing a certificate or degree and cannot have already attained a bachelor’s degree, with a few
 3
Pell and Prisons
exceptions. Students who commit fraud on their applications are subject to fines and/or prison

time (Federal Student Aid, n.d.). Students must also be enrolling at an HEA Title IV

participating institution. Most schools are a part of this category but there are some exceptions,

the most common being certain for-profit vocational training schools that do not meet the

minimum requirements for institutional eligibility.

Justice-Involved Postsecondary Programs

While there are many different levels of educational programming within the justice

system, this work will focus on postsecondary programs. This means that any language referring

to educational structures will exclude GED and ESL courses unless otherwise specified. Even

within these boundaries, there is a wide variety of system types, scope, and course offerings.

Additionally, differences between public vs. private prisons as well as higher educational

institutions can affect student experience and program availability.

Postsecondary programs for incarcerated students can have a wide range of scope. Some

focus on vocational training, some are non-credit education courses, and others are degree or

certificate awarding programs. With this variability come different costs and availability, both of

which incarcerated students have no control over. These opportunities can also change

drastically with little warning to their participants.

Availability also depends greatly on the location of the correctional facility a student is

in. Postsecondary programs can be administered through private organizations and schools, the

prisons and jails themselves, public or private institutions of higher education, or a partnership

between these. Therefore, prisons and jails in remote and rural areas have less likelihood of

providing postsecondary education (Greene, 1999). Because there is such a variance in program
 4
Pell and Prisons
type and administration, students themselves can also have very different experiences based on

who is running their program.

Incarcerated Students and Pell

With the passing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,

incarcerated students were barred from receiving Pell grants. While this date signified the official

exclusion, political officials and public opinion had been moving against this population for over

a decade. As early as President Nixon’s “tough on crime” approach, justice-involved students

have faced backlash and roadblocks from receiving federal financial aid for higher education. As

of 2015, policies have begun to shift once again to expand access to Pell grants. This section will

examine the history of incarcerated students’ Pell eligibility, the current policies undergoing

changes, and future trajectories for these students.

Pre-1994

From the Nixon administration up until 1994, political and public opinion on the role of

prisons shifted from one of rehabilitation to punishment, especially for drug offenses (Robinson,

2022). Starting with President Nixon’s “war on drugs” initiative, punishments for drug use,

possession, and distribution rose in severity and frequency (Corbett & Ajinkya, 2018). This

resulted in a drastic rise of prison populations. Laws such as the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984

and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 only served to exacerbate these issues (Robinson, 2022).

At the same time, the cost of attendance for higher education rose dramatically resulting in a rise

in student loans (Taylor, 1994). Rising education costs and prison populations created a shift in

public opinion against incarcerated students (Robinson, 2022).

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

 5
Pell and Prisons
By the early 1990’s, political opinion was not sympathetic to incarcerated students

(Corbett & Ajinkya, 2018). This was a major issue for the hundreds of correctional programs of

higher education. As early as 1973, 71% of correctional facilities offered postsecondary

correctional programs (Herron & Williams, 1984). By 1990, more than 35,000 incarcerated

students were enrolled in college programs through their facility with 772 programs nationwide

(Stephan, 1992). This would change, however, with the passing of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which eliminated Pell grant eligibility for incarcerated students.

This lack of funding made it nearly impossible for thousands of students to access higher

education (Tewksbury & Taylor, 1996).

This change caused significant interruptions in education to incarcerated students

participating in postsecondary programs. One of these students was Jason B. Nicholas who lost

funding for his program because of the law. In 1994, Nicholas filed an injunction against Richard

Riley, the current Secretary of Education, stating that the prohibition violated “the Equal

Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act” (Nicholas v.

Riley, 1995, para. 5). However, the court ruled in favor of Riley and the motion to dismiss was

granted. Part of the court’s rationale was that Nicholas was not entitled to Pell grant funds under

the constitution and that the “classification between prisoners and nonprisoners is rationally

related to legitimate governmental purposes” (Nicholas v. Riley, 1995, sec. II.A.2).

But it was not only the students that were affected, the programs themselves were

impacted as well. As correctional facilities and their partners in higher education faced increased

backlash, funding became more scarce and public opinion made it difficult to maintain such

programs. In their survey, Tewksbury et al. (2000) reported that by the fall of 1998 “Nearly 35

percent of correctional education directors reported that curtailing Pell Grant eligibility had
 6
Pell and Prisons
‘completely changed’ or ‘eliminated’ all PSCE programming” (p.49). This drastic change

occurred within just four academic years. These significant changes to students and institutions

show how swiftly the landscape of higher education can change when new public policy is

introduced.

Second Chance Pell Initiative

After this constriction, the next two decades showed slow regrowth of correctional

educational programs but lack of funding and the impact of the retributive correctional approach

of the late 20th century significantly curtailed these programs potential (Corbett & Ajinkya, 2018;

SpearIt, 2016). Over the course of the past twenty years, however, those sentiments began to

shift once again. Historical and contemporary data overwhelmingly shows that a rehabilitative

approach, especially education, in the prison system reduces recidivism, is less expensive in the

long run, and helps reintroduction (Robinson, 2022; Corbett & Ajinkya, 2018; Taylor, 1992;

Taylor, 1994). As the “tough-on-crime” attitudes have faded, bipartisan support for educational

correctional programs has grown (SpearIt, 2016).

This shift was especially salient under the Obama administration. During the end of

President Obama’s second term, the U.S. Department of Education published the “Notice

Inviting Postsecondary Educational Institutions to Participate in Experiments Under the

Experimental Sites Initiative” (2015). Through this initiative 67 institutions out of 200 applicants

were selected to pilot incarcerated students receiving Pell funding for postsecondary education

(Robinson, 2022). Under this first wave, 12,000 students were able to receive funding across

more than 100 prisons (Erwin 2016). Cantora et al. (2020) described first-hand the process of

implementing this experiment as part of the University of Baltimore.

 7
Pell and Prisons
Between 2016 and 2020, over 22,000 incarcerated students had received Pell funding for

postsecondary educational programs (Chestnut & Wachendorfer, 2021). In their survey of 59 of

the original participant groups, Chestnut & Wachendorfer found that 540 students had completed

baccalaureate degrees, 3,035 had attained associate degrees, and 3,499 had gained a certificate or

diploma through the program (2021). Although the COVID-19 pandemic did cause some

disruption to students’ learning and programs in 2020, most were able to continue with their

education (2021).

Recent Developments and Future Trajectories

With the election of President Trump in 2016, who often used “tough-on-crime” rhetoric,

advocates for the program had been concerned for its longevity (Robinson, 2022). However,

bipartisan support and the promising data from the first four years of the initiative prompted the

expansion of the program in 2020 (Chestnut & Wachendorfer, 2021; Robinson, 2022). This

would nearly double the initiative in size. In the announcement, it was stated that “130 schools

located in 42 states and the District of Columbia” would now be a part of the program (U.S.

Department of Education, 2020, para. 3).

While this expansion was significant, greater change would come soon after. As part of

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, the ban on all incarcerated students’ Pell eligibility

was officially lifted (2020). Beginning in the 2023-2024 academic year, all qualified incarcerated

students will have access to Pell funding. While it is impossible to predict how implementation

of this policy will go, it is likely that there will be a need to significantly expand the

postsecondary programs available to these students.

Best Practices for Institutions of Higher Education

 8
Pell and Prisons
With such a large expansion of an already limited infrastructure, it will be crucial for

higher education institutions to be well versed in the applicable statues and rules and develop

their programs consistent with best practices in the field. This population of students is already

marginalized, stigmatized, and has less access to education than any other group. Incarcerated

students are also less likely to be familiar with governmental forms, are more likely to be first-

generation students, and have less access to technology. All of these factors mean that

institutions of higher education will need to be incredibly mindful and student-centered when

implementing their programs.

Extra assistance with the registration process and application for financial assistance will

need to be provided by institutions. Bridge courses will also be extremely important as students

may be at a wide range of readiness for postsecondary education and have no other way to

achieve those benchmarks. Faculty and staff must approach administration of their students with

care and compassion in order to address systemic shortcomings. Access to postsecondary

educational programs will especially need to be expanded into correctional facilities in rural

areas that are less likely to have established connections with institutions of higher education.

The programming itself will need to be flexible in order to accommodate different learning

modalities, access to technology, and the potential for shifts in political climate.

Conclusion

With overwhelming data showing that postsecondary educational programs have positive

outcomes, it is in society’s best interest to establish, maintain, and support these initiatives. The

need for consistent messaging and data publication will also be crucial in order to foster positive

public opinion for rehabilitation-based justice systems. As the past fifty years have shown,

political attitudes have the most impact on the longevity of education for justice-involved
 9
Pell and Prisons
students. With funding being a substantial roadblock for justice-involved students’ pursuit of

higher education, support for robust federal financial aid through the Pell grant is the most

effective way to increase access to education for this underserved population.

 10
Pell and Prisons
References
Chestnut, K. & Wachendorfer, A. (2021). Second chance pell: Four years of expanding access

to education in prison. Vera Institute of Justice.

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/second-chance-pell-four-years-of-

expanding-access-to-education-in-prison-2022.pdf

Congressional Research Service. (2021, September 9). Federal pell grant program of the higher

education act: Primer. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45418

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Publ. L. No. 116-260. (2020).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133/text

Corbett, E. S, & Ajinkya, J. (2018). In Consideration of Reinstating Pell for Incarcerated

Students. UCLA: The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8hw362rw

Federal Student Aid. (n.d.). Importance of submitting accurate information. Retrieved December

9, 2022, from https://studentaid.gov/help/submitting-accurate-info.

Greene, J. (1999). Comparing private and public prison services and programs in Minnesota:

Findings from prisoner interviews. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 11(2), 202-232.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparing-private-and-public-prison-

services-and-programs-minnesota

Herron, R. M. J. & Williams, D. (1984). National survey of post-secondary education programs

for incarcerated offenders. National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Erwin, H. Sr. (2016, June 25). 12,000 Incarcerated Students to Enroll in Postsecondary

Educational and Training Programs Through Education Department’s New Second

Chance Pell Pilot Program, Second Chance Educational Alliance.

https://perma.cc/89NA-3C7S.
 11
Pell and Prisons
Nicholas v. Riley, 874 F. Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1995). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp/874/10/1477783/

Name v. Name, Volume number Reporter Page number (Court Year). URL

Robinson, G. (2022, April 01). From ‘undeserving criminals’ to ‘second chance students’: Pell

grant eligibility and incarcerated students. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law &

Social Change. Retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/14647-from-

undeserving-criminals-to-second-chance#_edn4

SpearIt. (2016). The return of pell grants for prisoners. Criminal Justice, 31(10), 10-13.

Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2814364

Stephan, J. (1992). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 1990. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Taylor, J. M. (1992). Post-secondary correctional education: An evaluation of effectiveness and

efficiency. Journal of Correctional Education, 43(3), 132–141.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41970928

Taylor, J. (1994). Deny pell grants to prisoners that would be crime. Criminal Justice, 9(2), 19-

56.

Tewksbury, R., & Taylor, J. (1996). The consequences of eliminating pell grant eligibility for

students in post-secondary correctional education programs. Federal Probation, 60(3),

60-63.

Tewksbury, R., Erickson, D. J., & Taylor, J. M. (2000). Opportunities lost: The consequences of

eliminating pell grant eligibility for correctional education students. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 31(1-2), 43–56. doi:10.1300/j076v31n01_02

 12
Pell and Prisons
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Federal pell grant program annual data reports. Retrieved

December 9, 2022, from https://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell-data.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2015, August 3). Notice inviting postsecondary educational

institutions to participate in experiments under the experimental sites initiative: Federal

student financial assistance programs under title iv of the higher education act of 1965,

as amended. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/fsa-print/publication/23894

U.S. Department of Education. (2020, April 24). Secretary Devos expands second chance pell

experiment, more than doubling opportunities for incarcerated students to gain job skills

and earn postsecondary credentials. https://perma.cc/2UXK-JDXT