Question

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed a law that prohibits people in state and federal prisons from receiving Pell Grants. President Obama authorized an experimental program to allow certain colleges to apply on behalf of individuals in prison for Pell Grants and attend college courses while incarcerated. The money goes directly to the college for the cost of tuition and fees.

What are the pros associated with allowing people in prison to be eligible to receive Pell Grants again?

What are the cons associated with allowing people in prison to be eligible to receive Pell Grants again?

Do you think the Trump administration should offer continued support for this experimental program?

Explain using research and data. 300 words

Answer 1

1.Pros of Pell grants:

a. They help cover educational expenses.

b. They increase your opportunity for better colleges.

c. Students might use the amount to cover other financial expenses besides education.

d. If paid on time, they help to build credit.

e. Even the students who are I'm prison can study and improve and become responsible citizen.

2. Cons of Pell grants :

a. They must be repaid.

b. Savings and income from part-time job may not be enough to cover it.

c. You start your financial live with debt.

d. You may have to sacrifice other life goals.

e. Defaulting will damage your credit really bad.

3.

if every Pell-eligible state prisoner pursued and received a grant—a highly improbable outcome—they would make up less than 6.5% of the total number of recipients. Moreover, the projected fiscal gains from greater post release employment, reduced public assistance, and reduced recidivism costs make Pell grant restoration an obvious win for taxpayers. A study from the Vera Institute predicts Pell restoration would yield over $365.8 million annually in savings from reducing recidivism and reincarceration costs for state corrections budgets.

Restoring Pell grant access does not make college education automatically available to all prisoners. The adjustment would not mandate federal or state correctional institutions to provide postsecondary education. College and universities would be able to set academic and behavioral criteria for enrollment, and prisons could make participation in higher education contingent on continued, responsible conduct during sentences. These and other factors —such as limitations in facility spacing and staff, the financial challenges of developing a higher education program in prison even with Pell dollars, and the need to prioritize other rehabilitative programs like cognitive behavioral therapy and drug treatment—will lead to a substantial difference between the number of eligible prisoners and the number of actual incarcerated students receiving Pell Grants. These variables explain why—even with Pell eligibility—only two percent of incarcerated individuals received Pell funding in the 1993-1994 academic year.

Thus it could be beneficial for the society is Trump government continues this policy. As they will learn and study and might become something good and responsible citizen in future.