The distribution of societal resources between law-abiding citizens and the prison population has come under sharp focus in recent weeks. Last month, for instance, a California prisoner received a heart transplant, even though many non-criminals are forced to incur long waiting periods and hefty medical fees.
Now, a slow progressive movement is enabling select inmates to receive Ivy League degrees, an opportunity foreclosed to all but the richest and brightest in the general populace. Ever since the federal government denied Pell grants to inmates in 1994, private organizations have largely taken up the cause to give criminals a free education. In New York, charities, as well as certain universities including Columbia, offer degrees that range from one-year certificates to doctorates. Texas offers a unique program that requires its inmates to pay back any tuition grants they receive as a part of parole.
Private institutions are free to assume the burden of funding degrees for prisoners, and should be encouraged to do so. Minimally educated individuals wallowing in poverty before they enter prison still have no outlet for success upon release, unless something is done for them behind bars. No professional organization and even many minimum-wage occupations will not hire an individual with a felony conviction; a degree tells an employer that a prisoner has made up for his crime by working hard toward an education while in prison.
Prisoners involved in higher-education programs are far less likely to commit crimes once released, thus breaking the cycle of dependency and recidivism that often plagues paroled convicts. It should not be surprising that ex-cons who can find good jobs after prison have no need to return to a life of crime. Furthermore, college degree programs can be used as an incentive for good behavior while in prison. The programs, as a privilege that can be revoked, provide leverage for wardens in maintaining order and discipline. Finally, educational opportunities supply hope for prisoners in an institution that typically is defined by the absence of hope.
Although it is encouraging that some states provide opportunities for inmates to have a better future upon their release, a line should be drawn to prevent the use of state money to fund degree programs for those behind bars. The idea that getting locked up for selling drugs, beating your spouse or killing your neighbor ensures a tuition-free degree is unacceptable. Until every needy person seeking higher education outside of prison can get a free ride with public funds, states should not assist those who have broken the law.
Some sociologists argue that using public funds to offer inmates access to higher education improves society as a whole. This is partially evident from the fact that prisoners are less likely to commit additional crimes if they have taken classes in jail. Although it did not specifically address degree programs, a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that inmates who receive an education are 23 percent less likely to commit another crime. The study also found that it is cost-effective to offer inmates educational programs because it prevents squandering resources on imprisoning repeat offenders.
These findings are notable, but still do not justify appropriating taxpayer money without more conclusive evidence. The proposed Pataki budget already calls for cuts in TAP grants. Colleges and universities across the country are increasing tuition, and the recession is financially constraining parents and students already hard up on cash. Millions of hard-working, law-abiding citizens already have difficulty financing higher education, and these students, not convicted felons, should take precedence when distributing taxpayer dollars.
