College Education for Prison Inmates: Reducing Recidivism
This paper explores the debate surrounding college education programs for incarcerated individuals, arguing that providing access to higher education reduces recidivism and ultimately saves taxpayer money. Drawing on studies conducted across Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and New York, as well as Utah's distance learning prison program, the paper presents statistical evidence that inmates who complete college coursework are significantly less likely to return to prison after release. It also addresses opposition to such programs and examines Utah's model of requiring inmates to contribute financially to their own education costs.
- Introduction: The Debate Over Inmate Education: Overview of the policy debate around inmate college access
- Research Evidence on Education and Recidivism: Multi-state studies link education to lower reincarceration
- Utah's Prison College Program: Utah distance learning model outcomes and cost savings
- Opposition to Inmate Education Funding: Taxpayer fairness arguments against prison college programs
- Conclusion: A Win-Win for Society: Education benefits inmates, taxpayers, and broader society
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete statistical comparisons — such as 22% vs. 31% return-to-prison rates — to make the case for inmate education programs clearly and persuasively.
- Balances advocacy with acknowledgment of the opposing viewpoint, lending credibility to the argument by fairly presenting counterarguments before refuting them.
- Grounds abstract policy debate in a specific real-world case study (Utah's program), making the argument tangible and practical.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates evidence-based argumentation: rather than relying on moral or philosophical claims alone, it anchors its position in empirical study findings and documented cost savings. Citing a Department of Education study alongside a state-level program outcome gives the argument both breadth and local specificity.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the broader policy debate, then presents multi-state research evidence supporting inmate education. It transitions to a detailed case study of Utah's distance learning program, addresses the main counterargument (taxpayer burden), and closes with a concise summary of mutual benefits. The structure moves logically from research evidence to practical application to conclusion.
Introduction: The Debate Over Inmate Education
The rehabilitation of the nation's prison population has been a hotly debated issue for many years. On one side of the debate are those who believe inmates should be given the bare minimum and be thankful for it, while the other side believes the only way to reduce recidivism is to rehabilitate inmates and help them become productive members of society upon their release. Somewhere in between lies the question of education. For several years, politicians have argued both for and against providing funds for inmates to attend college classes in a distance learning environment. News programs broadcast stories about inmates who manage to earn degrees in a wide range of fields — often at taxpayer expense. People frequently argue that taxpayers should not foot the bill for a college education for inmates, but recent studies show that doing so actually saves taxpayer dollars in the long run by reducing the costs associated with recidivism.
Research Evidence on Education and Recidivism
Studies conducted on 3,000 inmates in prisons in Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio examined how likely inmates were to return to prison if they were able to obtain a college education while incarcerated (Klug, 2002). The study concluded that "three years after their release, 22% of the inmates who had taken classes returned to prison, compared with 31% of released inmates who had not attended school while in prison."
Another study, conducted by the Open Society, found that fewer than 8% of female inmates at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility — New York's only maximum-security prison for women — who attended college classes in prison returned to prison after three years, compared with nearly 30% of those who had not participated in the college program (Klug, 2002). This is a strong argument for providing college classes to the incarcerated population.
Utah's Prison College Program
Utah's prison system began offering college courses to inmates in 1985. Today, approximately 150 full-time inmates are continuing their education at any given time. The Utah colleges use a distance learning program to teach inmates and offer a variety of courses aimed at specific degrees that will make each inmate marketable upon release (Gray, 2001).
Each semester, the prison system sees about six inmates earn college degrees, and their average income after leaving prison exceeds $30,000 per year in whatever field they enter. The program has saved Utah taxpayers more than $1.5 million in costs that would otherwise have been spent housing returned inmates. When inmates take courses or obtain a degree through the program, the rate of recidivism drops to less than 1%. As Gray (2001) notes, "lowering this rate is the base of the whole program."
Distance learning has proven especially well-suited to correctional settings, allowing inmates to access coursework without the logistical challenges of on-site instruction. For more on how distance education works as a delivery model, general reference resources provide a useful overview of its structure and reach.
Conclusion: A Win-Win for Society
Providing college education opportunities for prison inmates — regardless of who pays for it — is a positive step for everyone involved. Inmates who earn degrees are able to secure better-paying jobs upon release, which boosts their self-esteem and significantly reduces the rate of recidivism. Taxpayers save money because fewer inmates return to prison and live off public resources. It is a benefit for all parties to expand college education opportunities for inmates across the nation.
References
Klug, E. A. (2002). According to a Department of Education study, inmates who receive vocational training or take high school- or college-level classes are far less likely to return to prison within three years of their release [Brief article]. Corrections Compendium.
Gray, K. (2001). Distance learning provides education for inmates.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.