Decades ago, Illinois led the nation by opening the first full-time college degree-granting program in a state prison. Prison education programs reduce recidivism, prepare incarcerated people for reentry, and boost economic prospects for reentering individuals throughout Illinois. Yet today, while the state has 30,000 people who are incarcerated, far too few have access to degree programs. Providing rehabilitation opportunities for people who are incarcerated is in the state’s best interest – that’s according to policy research, voters across the political spectrum, and Governor Pritzker himself.
The best available data show a stark decline in enrollment across college in prison programs since the Covid-19 pandemic. The year before the pandemic, Illinois had about 3,300 degree-seeking incarcerated students. In 2024, there were only 384. Today, only six of the state’s 28 prison facilities offer bachelor’s degree pathways.
Program leaders point to lack of funding as the primary reason that access to higher education programs (HEPs) hasn’t rebounded. Currently, HEPs operating in Illinois do so at no cost to students, but institutions that offer degree programs do so at their own expense. Degree programs have faced challenges securing reliable sources of state funding. And while the federal government reinstating Pell grants was a positive development, restrictive requirements of those programs, and the current cuts to staff, mean that meaningful funding is unlikely to come from the federal government.
In contrast, Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs’ credit hours are partially reimbursed by the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB). This is a leading reason why CTE programs’ enrollment is far greater than degree-granting programs, with 1,722 participants last year. CTE programs are beneficial, too, but they cannot be substitutes for degree-granting programs.
Resources are needed to stabilize degree programs in prison and kickstart reenrollment. This could be accomplished through at least $1 million budgeted for IBHE and ICCB to provide grants to HEPs. At an estimated cost of $5,000 to $10,000 per student, this allocation could educate an additional 100-200 students–a 26% to 52% increase. It’s rare to find an equitable enrollment area that the state could increase by 50% in a year. There’s an existing pot of money that makes sense for the state to utilize, as well. If legislators carved out just 0.5% of the state’s Cannabis Regulation Fund as a source of revenue, that would cover a $1 million investment along with funding to administer it. Using this source of funding makes sense, as these programs certainly fit the mission of reinvestment programs addressing harm caused to communities by disinvestment, violence, and the war on drugs.
State funding would not only stabilize current programs–it would encourage new programs to enter the space. And the return on investment of HEPs is $4 for every $1 spent, so this allocated funding would more than pay for itself. College opportunities also have positive ripple effects beyond students themselves, including the children of incarcerated students being more likely to earn degrees themselves.
Incentives and Requirements
While an unfunded mandate is unlikely to help rebuild these programs, legislation and/or grant funding shouldn’t necessarily be just about reimbursing programs, either. Rather, additional resources can signal that this is a state priority, incentivize programs to expand enrollment, serve students well, and collect the necessary data. To achieve that, a line item could include some key stipulations for institutions to receive grants, which can best direct institutions to scale high-quality programs:
- Only public and private non-profit actors should be considered. This structure mirrors federal rules that exclude for-profit/proprietary institutions.
- Prison education programs receiving grants must make the costs of their program clear and transparent, which will help inform future years’ grantmaking processes.
- Institutions should take all possible and prudent steps toward qualifying for Pell grants.
- Grants should be straightforward, avoid being overly onerous to apply for aid, and should not be unnecessarily restricted.
The state can adopt two strategies to increase access to PEPs:
- Grants should be straightforward, and avoid being overly onerous to apply for
- Aid should not be unnecessarily restricted
Call to Action
Illinois has the opportunity to course correct, reversing the growing inequity in college access with a modest, targeted investment that will pay dividends for decades. Restoring and expanding degree programs reflects the principle that corrections should be about giving every person the tools to rebuild their life, but it’s also sound, evidence-driven public policy.
For just a fraction of the state’s higher education budget, we as a state can open doors that have been unjustly closed, reduce recidivism, strengthen families and communities, and generate a return that far exceeds the cost.