Opinion: Ex-convicts should be able to receive federal student aid

H opeful college students with criminal backgrounds might head to the Department of Education website for information about how they can receive federal financial aid. These students and prospective students are met with a mugshot-like profile phototograph of a man next to the text: “Make sure you understand your status, and don’t assume you can’t get aid.”

There is no clearer way to remind the convicted of their uphill battle to rejoin society.

It is in the best interests of both crime prevention efforts and the convicted for the U.S. Department of Education to not limit federal financial aid for students with convictions.

Under the Department of Education’s current policy, those currently incarcerated at a federal or state institution cannot receive a Federal Pell Grant or any federal student loans.

Once released, students and prospective students with drug-related convictions must complete an approved drug rehabilitation program before applying. Both forcible and nonforcible sexual offenders will never receive a Pell Grant.

An effort to earn a federal work-study position while incarcerated is highly discouraged. The current policy cites “logistical difficulties” as a limitation to holding a work-study position while incarcerated. The site does not address the options for those who committed crimes unrelated to sexual assault or drugs.

After a convicted criminal serves his or her time, there is no longer any reason to impede his or her success.

At its core, this editorial is not about giving financial aid to prospective students with criminal backgrounds. Rather, it is an argument for this country to understand that prisons aren’t a place to essentially render a human’s life useless by blocking access to education because he or she has acted in violation of the law.

Theoretically, it is the responsibility of the prison system to rehabilitate the convicted criminal to the extent that he or she might rejoin civilian life. The current policy seems to dismiss that responsibility — instead the federal government reminds convicts to “understand (their) status.”

Education greatly reduces criminal activity, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. The study found that a 1 percent increase in male high school graduation rates would save the United States $1.4 billion in crime costs.

This statistic illustrates how important it is for the prison system to have a healthy marriage with higher education in the United States. Crime is largely cyclical in this country — scholastic underachievement is linked to poverty, which is itself linked to crime.

Forty percent of convicted criminals don’t have a high school diploma or a GED certificate, according to a research brief from the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.

Recidivism rates in America are shocking — a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 75 percent of former prisoners were arrested again within five years of their release.

Opponents could use this particular statistic to argue against making it easier for people with criminal records to get federal financial aid. They would decry any proposal that takes money from law-abiding, middle-class Americans and puts it in the hands of those they perceive to be incurable assailants, robbers and drug lords.

But on the outside, felons often find it nearly impossible to find minimum wage work, much less anything that could reliably support a needy family.

Many will find the idea of their taxes funding a felon’s education uncomfortable. On its face, it appears unfair. But what is the point of upholding and financing a massive correctional system — a system that houses a quarter of the world’s prisoners while only drawing from 5 percent of the world’s population — if that system doesn’t correct?