Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

October 18, 2021

On the 18th day of October, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m.

to 3:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in

the state of New Jersey.
2

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WASHINGTON: Language. So the only 

thing that is new is that is incarcerated or is enrolled 

in eligible prison education program as defined under 

668.8. So I, I've heard a lot of the, you know, the 

comments and I just wanted to say that I understand that 

there will be based on the statutory framework we do we, 

we understand that there will be some students that that 

are incarcerated, or some individuals that are 

incarcerated that may not have access to Pell. And that 

could be because the postsecondary institution chooses 

not to offer a prison education program at that 

institution. Or perhaps that the postsecondary education 

program that the institution chooses to offer, does not 

fulfill the requirements of what will be our proposed 

definition of a prison education program. And so students 

would have to enroll in an eligible prison education 

program in order to access the Pell Grant. And 

consequently, the Department cannot require an 

institution to offer a prison education program at a 

correctional facility.

MR. SCHELLING: I see Stan has his 

hand raised. Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Aaron, thank you for 

that clarification. And, and, you know, to that point, I 
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

think there's much to be discussed, on, you know, the 

prison education program, you know, what the, what that 

is defined as. And you know, who, who are we trying to 

help? You know, who does this really help? If you, you 

know, you include this, you know, we have this new law, 

but what percentage of people incarcerated people who 

would otherwise be eligible, are we really reaching? And, 

you know, does this equate to even making a, you know, 

what, what are we missing out on impact of potentially 

reaching students defining it, as we have it defined. If 

a if a, you know, we're now we're now we're still leaving 

it in the hands of institutions, to decide whether a 

person can pursue higher education, instead of leaving it 

in the hands of the individual, whether they desire and 

wish to pursue higher education. They have to be 

fortunate enough to land at a correctional institution 

that offers a program because that correctional 

institution is partnered with the higher education 

institution. So we are leaving it to two institutions 

that historically have not represented people that look 

like me. And, you know, that's, that's problematic to me, 

that we're not leaving it in the individuals hands for 

them to pursue. And, you know, if a person isn't 

incarcerated, they can, they can, if they meet all other 

eligible characteristics for Pell, they can get Pell. But 
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

for incarcerated people were saying that they have to be 

at an institution that offers prison education, that 

that's problematic to me. And you know, who is this who 

is this really helping?

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron and Dr. McTier.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, actually, if Dr. 

McTier had his hand raised before me he can go before me. 

MR. SCHELLING: Okay. Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, I echo the 

sentiments of Dr. Stanley Andrisse. Um, I will also add 

this, or just a question and in thinking about that last 

statement, or Part B, could a student or a prospective 

student who was at a facility that doesn't offer a prison 

education program, could they apply to another facility 

that does offer a prison education program and then take 

advantage of the Pell that way? It seems like there's, 

this isn't really clear, it seems like it yeah, it's not 

clear to me. Because if I was a student, I actually have 

had students at other facilities, who will reach out to 

my program, asking if they could take classes, and to 

even get transferred to the facility where I'm at so that 

they can pursue an education. And you know, going along 

the lines of what Stanley is talking about, we're going 

to miss out on a lot of students. Because of this, this 

clause that's in here, or this rule, whatever. Just 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

wanted to throw that perspective out.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you both for 

your comments. Okay, thank you both for your comments. I 

will take those back to discuss them further amongst 

Department staff. The this requirement is, is statutory. 

And I, I think that that's I can't so there's not that I 

don't know what the discussion can well, I'll take this 

back. But this this, this is statutory. And to add a 

little bit Stanley, I understand. I think that, you know, 

we do have other mechanisms that the Department can use 

in order to advertise or alert the community about the 

availability of prison education, availability of Pell 

for those that enroll in prison education programs. We 

are currently working with many stake, several 

stakeholders, many stakeholders, to prepare them for the 

implementation of the regulations that will be developed 

here. That could be through, there's potential for us to 

do webinars, workshops, partnering with other agencies in 

order to spread the word about these programs, to 

encourage institutions postsecondary institutions that 

want to offer high quality prison education programs to 

their students, the opportunity to do so. You know, 

provided when we complete regulations, we generally 

released sub regulatory guidance, like it's called Dear 

Colleague letters or Electronic Announcements. And this 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

goes out to 1000s of financial aid administrators around 

the country. And we also work with our colleagues at the 

Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, Department 

of Corrections, to spread the word about the availability 

of Pell. So I think we also have other mechanisms to make 

people aware of this as well.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you, Aaron, a 

couple of points. One, has the Department done an 

analysis to estimate how many students it potentially 

will have a positive impact on in terms of being able to 

get higher education or being able to have access to 

higher education? And to that same respect, have they 

done an analysis if they implemented in this fashion, how 

many students they will be missing out on? I think that 

number and I know, Vera has done, you know, has put out 

and Belinda, maybe you can offer a few words. I know, 

Vera has attempted an estimate of how many students can 

be will be impacted. You know, I think, again, so I offer 

I asked that request, I would like to see that data if 

it's available and if it isn't available, I think it's it 

you know, if there's a way to come up with that pretty 

quickly? I think it would help inform this process. The 

other question that I had is, you know, you you refer to 

this being statutory. I mean, isn't that what we're here 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

for to discuss the statutory language? I mean, you know, 

please help me understand further when you say is it 

statutory? Are you is that another way of saying that we 

can't change it? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, Stan it 

wouldn't be it would be helpful if I can get your 

specific question. I see Steve wants to weigh in. And 

then that way we can take it back and talk about.

DR. ANDRISSE: So, my specific 

question is, when you say it's statutory, that they'd be 

in, you know, so a roman numeral II D, says, “is enrolled 

in eligible post prison education program.” So it is in 

the written language here that you say that to get Pell 

you have to be in a prison education program. Are you 

trying when you say that that statutory, are you saying 

that we can't change that and include something to this 

to the respect of what I've proposed?

MR. SCHELLING: Steve, do you want to 

address that?

 MR. FINLEY: Sure. I mean, the short 

answer to that question is yes. What we can do is we can 

create regulations and we can change existing regulations 

to interpret provisions in the statute, but we cannot 

override restrictions that are in the statute. So when 

the statute says, you you can qualify for a Pell if 
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

you're not incarcerated, or if you are if you are 

enrolled in a prison education program. The question then 

becomes what's the definition of prison education 

program, someone that's incarcerated and not enrolled in 

a prison education program is not Pell eligible.

DR. ANDRISSE Yes, and we can't be 

spinning around the same I I get that. So you've answered 

part of my question and that it is we cannot change the 

or, you know, then I'm a little bit want clarification on 

what we do have the power to change? As we're sitting 

here discussing this language, if we don't have the power 

to change that aspect, what am I taking time away from my 

job for if you're not giving me any power to do anything? 

So that that part, and then the other aspect of, you 

know, again, then it would be valuable to look at what 

who this will actually impact? And then, you know, if we 

can't change prison education program out of the 

language, then we really need to think about expanding 

prison education program, because from my experience and 

knowledge of the data, we are going to be missing out on 

a lot of people, if we leave it as defined. 

MR. SCHELLING: Dave, do you want to 

go ahead and address that? 

 MR. MUSSER: Sure. I think it's a 

frankly, it's a really good question, Stan. As Steve 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

said, we are limited by the requirements that are 

explicitly stated in the statute. And this is one of 

them, that essentially ties Pell Grant eligibility for an 

incarcerated student to enrollment in an eligible prison 

education program. I think our discretion here is how we 

define for example, an eligible prison education program, 

how we define an incarcerated individual, as we just 

talked about earlier, we have the ability to clarify what 

what Congress meant by those things. And so I think 

that's where if we're able to address some or all of your 

concerns through those kinds of clarifications, that's 

that's the meat of the work that we'll be trying to do 

here.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And I appreciate that 

clarification. And, you know, I would, you know, take 

aside the, I mean, I don't know, to what extent you can 

do this, but, you know, take aside your work hat. And 

think about it from a incarcerated student, the public 

perspective, or just a perspective outside of your work 

hat. You know, what you're you're given, we are given the 

task, and you all even more specifically, even more 

specifically, on figuring out how to implement this in 

the language. But I think it should be valuable for you 

to have the perspective of how many people are you really 

trying to help? I mean, if we're putting we're sticking, 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

we're, you know, how many people are we really trying to 

help? And, you know, I offer that to say, then, if we 

were restricted by this language, then we really need to 

think about how we make it most inclusive. And it would 

be helpful to have, you know, I will also look to pull up 

that data, because I've seen those numbers, and so I will 

look to pull that up. But I think to me, that's that's 

how do we help the most people with this with this here? 

I think that that should be our centering goal, you know, 

that we're sitting around this table to figure out how do 

we help the most people and in an equitable way, where 

they're, you know, receiving quality education, and, and 

that part we can't leave out, but how do we help the most 

people? And if it's, we're putting something together 

that's, you know, not with that intention, you know, I 

just I have concerned with that. 

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. And I think, Stan, unless, unless you unless 

you wanted to continue on this. I think we, we we can 

take what you said back and discuss it more. Keep in mind 

that, as David and Steve and I have described, it's this 

this is a statutory change that is required by the the 

amendments of the Higher Education Act through the 

Appropriations Bill, I think we can potentially move to 
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

the next section, but I also want to make sure that you 

had mentioned you had mentioned maybe a few other 

subcommittee members by name so I don't want to move off 

of this unless the subcommittee feels as though we're 

ready to move forward. But we have heard we do hear you, 

Stan.

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you Stanley. Thank 

you my friend for for mentioning Vera. As you know, we 

Are the consumer advocacy group representative here. The 

statistics I can definitely share them with you, Stanley 

and and the committee with the report that Vera created. 

You're 100% right, Stanley, the population that is 

currently served is tiny in comparison to the overall 

currently incarcerated the population that is currently 

incarcerated in this country. So I just want you to know, 

as a friend, colleague, that I 100% hear what you're 

saying here as someone who used to wear as you know, that 

educators hat and started a higher education in prison 

program at at Claflin, an HBCU. I got to see it on both 

sides of the of the situation. And I think, I think 

you're very right to offer up a moment of pause on 

certain things, like for example, when it says eligible 

prison education program, I can see where there would be 

a lot of potential red flags, I am very interested to 
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

hear, when we go through to defining what that prison 

education program actually looks like, as we're going to 

get to that language momentarily. I'm very interested to 

hear that because as someone who's worn the educator hat, 

and is now wearing, you know, the, the nonprofit hat with 

Vera and the technical assistance that we provide, I 

think, holistically on both sides of that, that reality 

that I've lived, that I've seen a lot of different 

programs that look like they're doing exceptionally good. 

And it will be really nice to see if we can replicate 

those. I've also seen personally, and in other spaces, 

some that look like a bit of a concern. So I just wanted 

you to know, my friend, since you had mentioned it to me 

that I hear you I 100% understand that there definitely 

does need to be this in interrogation of an eligible 

prison education program. And I just wanted to say that 

I'm looking forward to kind of as a committee as kind of 

looking at that language, because that's that one really 

huge part of the of the document that really gets into 

the nitty gritty there. So just wanted to make sure that 

I mentioned that and thank you again, Stanley.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So one point to note is

I feel that, you know, my my colleagues and I in the 

field that, you know, worked very hard over 25 plus years
13

to, you know, work to get Pell reinstated, I think we 

clearly have a lot more work to do, because the bill is, 

I mean, this limitation. Another hypothetical, a high 

school student, finishes High School is looking to get 

into college, he doesn't have to go find a particular 

type of program that is offering this particular subset 

of type of education. That person he or she simply 

applies and if they meet the eligibility of Pell, they 

can get Pell they can apply to any institution they want 

to in the country and get Pell. But we are limiting the 

you know, that we're not opening it up as if we're 

opening it up the same way that it's open to a nonincarcerated person. So we are leaving it on the you 

know, and Belinda, I appreciate your perspective. And 

what you you know, your comment, and I mean, you're still 

wearing the hat of a person who ran a program, you know, 

I mean, so the perspective that you offered was through 

Vera and through running the program, which I love 

Claflin. And I love what Claflin is doing. I should add 

that, you know, I'm very familiar with your work, but 

it's still as a person who's running the program, from 

the view of the student and incarcerated student, they 

are very limited. How do I even know about a prison 

education program? I could tell you from being a person 

who's been incarcerated, I would have no clue where to 

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

start to try to find a program that is a prison education 

program. Like I don't, you know, I don't have any 

knowledge of this type of conversation going on right now 

that we're having, you know, we we're not thinking of it 

from the perspective of the student that is incarcerated 

of the person that is that is incarcerated. 

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stanley, I just 

wanted to pro to offer up some other type of programs 

that there are, well, just just one other type of program 

where there is kind of a distinction in a program that a 

student has to enroll in. This is kind of a tangent a 

little bit, but I just wanted to show you that there is 

that this is this is not the only place in the Higher 

Education Act or the regulations where a student would 

have to enroll in a specific type of program to access 

Title Four Federal Student Aid Pell Grants. There's a 

there's a provision in the Higher in the same section 

actually 44 that says a student without a high school 

diploma can enroll in a student without a high school 

diploma has to meet certain alternatives, right, they 

either have to take an exam or pay for a certain amount 

of credits or clock hours on their own or go through a 

process. And then after that, the student can enroll in 

an eligible career pathway program. And so so those 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

individuals without a high school diploma, would, would 

potentially be eligible to enroll in it, eligible career 

pathway program, however, they would not be eligible to 

enroll in any other eligible program that institution 

offer. And it was an eligible career pathing program is 

defined in statute, there's like, seven or eight 

different components to it. And so I just wanted to, to, 

to make to you make, I'm probably you might be aware of 

this already, I hope that I didn't say something you 

already knew. But I just wanted to let you know that 

there are other sorts of programs that also have other 

requirements that are that are that are tied to them that 

would limit a student's ability to enroll in the program 

in the form of programming. But I, I again, I definitely 

want to take this back to our senior leaders and 

colleagues at the Department to talk more about this. I 

think that we have heard a lot and we have been informed 

of of a lot by the subcommittee by you, specifically, 

Stan, and if you're if you if you are okay, we can we can 

move forward into the credit balance discussion. But if.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I'm okay with that, but 

I would like if someone has the data specifically that I 

requested in terms of the number of people that it will 

potentially impact versus, you know, the number of people 

that it's missing out on I would like to have that data 
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

brought to the committee.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yep, I noted that, 

that request. Okay. Vanessa, would you mind going to 

690.62? I think it is, it should be all the way at the 

bottom. Yeah, that's it. Thank you, Vanessa. Okay, so, 

the 2021 appropriations bill amended the Higher Education 

Act to state that no Federal Pell Grant, shall exceed the 

cost of attendance at the institution in which the 

student is in attendance. If with respect to any student, 

it is determined that the amount of a Federal Pell grant 

for that student exceeds the cost of attendance for that 

year, the amount of the Federal Pell Grant shall be 

reduced until the Federal Pell Grant does not exceed the 

cost of attendance at such institution. Keep in mind that 

the bill also made changes to the cost of attendance for 

incarcerated students as well. So postsecondary 

institutions can include tuition, fees, books, course 

materials, supplies, equipment, and the cost of obtaining 

a license certification or a first professional 

credential. So for example, if the students scheduled 

Pell award is $6,000. That scheduled award just means a 

student is attending full time for the full year. And the 

student's cost of attendance is $5,000. The law will 

require that the Pell award be reduced by $1,000. as to 

not result in a credit balance, the $1,000 reduction 
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

would not count towards a student's lifetime eligibility 

use. For example, if the student received $6,000, the 

student would have used 100% of their eligibility for 

that specific year. But because the order was reduced, 

the student would only have used about 83% of their 

eligibility for the year. So see, so we were just 

reiterating and our regulatory and our proposed 

regulatory language, we’re restating the law that direct 

financial aid administrators to reduce to reduce the Pell

award. And also we're saying that in C 1 romanette 

romanette 1 little romanette 1, we're saying that the 

Financial aid administrators, we’re directing financial 

aid administrator to reduce any other financial 

assistance student the student got before reducing the 

Pell. But if that's not possible, then the Pell Grant 

must be reduced, so that the students’, total financial 

assistance does not exceed the cost of attendance. A real

world example of this is if the student receives, for 

example, both Pell a Federal Pell Grant and GI Bill 

education assistance, both forms of aid states ignore the

other when determining the student's award amount. For 

some incarcerated students this would create a chance or 

a circumstance where the incarcerated student may receive

a credit balance where the you know, and and that's what 

we're trying to solve for this language. So I will stop 
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

there and open it up to questions. So I before I end it 

before I stop, this is also this is statutory. So this is 

something that is the 2021 Appropriations Bill amended 

the Higher Education Act and the Higher Education Act. 

This is this is something that's in statute that we don't 

have flexibility around changing this requirement. But if 

the actual wording on the paper the mandatory language 

that we’re proposing, doesn't get to what I just 

described, that's what we'd be looking for. Comments, 

discussions, and new proposed edits. 

MR. SCHELLING: I see no hands.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Brian. I

also mentioned we discussed this a bit at the main 

committee when it came up. And the main committee 

negotiators seem to be, based on my explanation not 

having seen the administrative language,But yeah, he 

seemed to be I've resolved the issue as long after I 

explained that any reduction when it comes towards a 

student's lifetime eligibility use, so unless there any 

questions. Brian, do you see any? 

MR. SCHELLING: No questions. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So we can move 

to Vanessa. I'm sorry.

 MR. SCHELLING: Terrell just raised 

his hand, Terrell. 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. I just wanted 

to make sure for part two or number two, two I, if you 

will, is that is that applicable to both federal 

financial assistance and state financial assistance? 

Because I know you mentioned the GI Bill. But if a 

student is incarcerated in the state where state 

financial aid is not, you know, barred from them 

accessing it, is it the same that applies to that meaning 

that the if they're eligible for Pell and eligible for 

the state that they reduced the state first?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, that's that's 

what it’s saying. They reduce it first, so, like they so 

the financial assistance other than Pell must be reduced 

by the amount that the total financial assistance exceeds 

the cost of attendance, and then if the other assistance 

cannot be reduced, then the students’ Pell would be 

reduced, to that point.

MR. BLOUNT: Okay, and as it normally, 

this is leaving students in the community is it is it 

normally, um, the Pell Grant is applied first, and then 

whatever state aid grants or, um, I know some colleges 

may have, you know, a pot of money for students who have 

financial need, is it federal first and then it kind of 

goes down, or is it um, the opposite?

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm going to call on 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

my colleague David Musser to describe the process for 

packaging.

MR. MUSSER: Sure, normally, when a 

financial aid administrator is packaging financial 

assistance for a student, they view the Pell Grant as the 

foundation for the aid package. The Pell Grant is you 

generally treated and the Department expects that it 

would be treated as the first piece of aid in an in an 

aid package. And other types of aid in many cases are 

reduced. If, if the combination of that aid plus the Pell 

Grant and other types of aid would exceed for example, 

the student's cost of attendance or for aid that's need 

based would exceed the student's financial need as 

calculated by the FAFSA or some other means of 

determining a student's financial need. So here, we are 

trying to account for a situation where as I as I said, 

in the vast majority of cases, Pell is not reduced when 

other types of aid are available. But we've become aware 

that there are some very limited numbers of occasions 

where the other type of aid itself cannot be reduced. And 

those cases we want to ensure that the student only 

receives aid that that goes up to their total costs for 

educational expenses.

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you.

MR. SCHELLING: No more other 
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

questions.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so Vanessa, 

would you mind going up to (inaudible) it says, you see 

34 CFR 668.8 Prison Education Programs. And um, see um, 

right there, perfect. Thank you, Vanessa. So this is the 

section. So 668 is the actual section in the regulation, 

it's titled “eligible programs” like so if you pull up on 

a search engine and you type 668.8, it wouldn't say it 

would just say eligible program. But we're proposing to 

put the definition of prison education program under that 

section. So there's, so we start from and there's so this 

is not the beginning of the section. This is the 

paragraph N so there are A through M before this, but 

these are where we start to make amendatory language 

language changes. So for the first part of the first 

change that we're making, is just we say that for Title 

Four ACA program purposes, and eligible program includes 

a direct Assessment Program and a CTP program. And we're 

proposing to add this is a purely technical, we're 

proposing to add that an eligible program also includes a 

prison education program. I don't anticipate any 

questions on that. Okay. And then Brian just stop me if 

we, if you if we get questions, I’ll keep going until we 

get some. So the second paragraph, paragraph O, this is 

this is where we begin a definition of a prison education 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

program. And this generally mirrors the statutory 

language. So if we just copy and pasted this from the 

actual law, there are two technical changes here. In the 

statute, we refer to sections 101, and 101, and 102, when 

we're talking about the types of institutions that will 

be eligible to offer, offer prison education programs. So 

we've changed that to 34 CFR 600.4, for public and 

nonprofit institutions, and we've changed that to 34 CFR 

600.6, for post-secondary vocational institutions. And so 

we see this as also a technical change to the technical 

addition to the regulation. Okay, paragraph two also 

directly mirrors the statute. The Bureau of Prisons, 

State Department of Corrections, or other entity will 

provide approval for the institution to offer a prison 

education program at the applicable correctional 

facility. So this is also another piece that mirrors the 

statute. Okay. Okay, moving down to three, i three, row 

three, three romanette three little I, the coming 

paragraph three romanette two, we will see that the 

Bureau of Prisons or the State Department of Corrections 

or other entity must make this determination based on 

indicators which the Department of Education seeks to 

define to ensure that postsecondary institutions are able 

to offer programs while collecting the necessary data, 

particularly for instance, institutions that are not 
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

already a Second Chance Pell site, or an educational 

program operating in a correctional facility that does 

not participate in the Title Four programs. The 

Department proposes to provide the Bureau of Prisons or 

State Department of Corrections or other entities with 

the flexibility in the initial two year period of 

approval during during which data collection may occur. 

We've.

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, we have we have 

some questions.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Let me finish 

this one statement, and then I'll turn it over to the 

question. So we do seek comments as to whether programs 

without relevant data in the first two years, and 

receiving this preliminary approval should face other 

restrictions, such as enrollment growth or expansion to 

additional locations.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan, and then Dr. 

McTier and then Belinda.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you. I'm not 

sure if um the best interest of students. I can't see 

where it is anymore. I think it's a three one, number 

three roman numeral one towards the “operating in the 

best interest of students.” I feel as if you know what is 
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

how, does that need a definition? I feel as if is that 

defined somewhere else, are we are we defining what that 

means?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, we will get we 

will get to the definition of a prison education program.

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, no, just.

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. Well, I'm 

sorry. I apologize. We will get to the definition of best 

interest. We're just not there yet. The next our next 

discussion will be on what best interest means I 

apologize.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

DR. MCTIER: Thank you. So I just have 

a really quick question. So it seems like the Department

is proposing. For A, B, and C, like rates are confined or 

incarcerated individuals continue their education post 

release, job placement rates for such individuals, 

earnings for such individuals. This is going to place a 

huge burden on PEP programs, because the DOC typically 

doesn't allow our programs to collect that information 

and/or data. So having this language in there for as a 

requirement for higher ED institutions to collect that is 

going to be problematic.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

address that? 
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

MR. WASHINGTON: We're gonna get into 

that in a second. I wanted to see. Thank you for your 

comment Dr. McTier. I think once we get into the next 

section, and I kind of give some background on what we 

are proposing to do, I think hopefully that will answer 

your question. And so before jumping, I just wanted to 

make sure that we were-- to did anybody have any 

questions about three romanette one? The proposed offer 

rate, because we will, we will be proposing to define 

that what “best interest” means. And we have some ideas 

behind that which I will go through with the subcommittee 

today. We will we begin the process of that. But before 

we get into defining what best interest of student means, 

we are proposing because the programs may not have, or 

institutions that would like to provide a prison 

education program may not have the data that we would 

like to see under the definition of the prison education 

program under the definition of best interest. We were 

proposing to have a two year initial startup period. And 

that would be whatever data that the Bureau of Prisons,

State Department of Corrections or other entity had 

already in order to still make that determination. But 

they're just getting a two year startup so they can come 

so they can then comply with how we define best interest.

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda, and then 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Stan.

MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you. Yes, I 

did have a question. Several times in this section. You 

have the phrase “or another entity.” I'm unsure what that 

means. And I would appreciate some clarity on that, 

because that could be very open. And I understand we need 

sometimes to have things open, but that I would 

appreciate some clarity, please.

MR. WASHINGTON: So that this is this 

was directly from statute. So the statute says has been 

determined by the Bureau of Prisons, the appropriate 

State Department of Corrections or other entity that is 

responsible for overseeing correctional facilities. 

That's direct language from the statute. If you Belinda, 

if you have a proposal for how we can better define or 

other “or another entity that is responsible for 

overseeing correctional facilities,” that would be 

welcomed. But that was language taken directly from the 

statute. 

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And I'm sorry, and 

further if, you know, if if well I'll leave it.

 DR. ANDRISSE:: Yes to I mean, if I 

have a question, but to also add another entity 

responsible, I think, sounds to me that if it's not the 
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Department of Corrections, that is overseeing a 

correctional facility. And some, you know, again, to what 

we were kind of talking about earlier to leave it open. 

If there was a case where another entity is overseeing a 

correctional facility, I can't think of what that is 

right now, personally, but you know, I think my my 

reading of it, that's what that says. For instance, if 

the Labor Department is some for some reason running a 

correctional institution, my question is to 3(ii), you 

know, “an oversight entity’s determination.” What is is 

there more definition as to what the oversight entity is, 

who that is, is it a third party entity outside of the 

Department of Corrections, as well as the higher 

education institution? What is this oversight entity?

MR. WASHINGTON: The oversight entity 

is, is the Bureau of Prisons, or state Department of 

Corrections, whatever entity is responsible for over for 

overseeing the correctional facility. I think it might be 

helpful if I provide the Department provide this 

subcommittee with some background on how the Department

proposes to define best interest. And I wanted to, I'm 

going to read. So we're moving on to the romanette 2 3 1 

romanette 2, where it says.

 MR. SCHELLING: Stan has a question. 

Did you want to. 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

DR. ANDRISSE:I'm sorry to hold up the 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So this is 

wording that is that is together to say that a Department

of Corrections, be eligible to offer a prison education 

program, right? And we're leaving it up to the that 

Department to determine if it is, you know, it just seems 

like it's a conflict of interest, if it's not an outside 

entity that is helping to provide some of this. You know, 

maybe maybe clarification will come later. But I, I see, 

like a conflict of interest in that, but I'll give myself 

some time to try to wrap around what I'm, you know, you 

know, get a better understanding. Belinda.

MS. WHEELER: Can I default to David, 

and then I'll go after David, if that's okay, because he 

had his hand up first?

 MR. MUSSER: Sure. I just wanted to 

quickly clarify that. This is another provision that is 

specifically derived from the statute, where the 

correctional facilities, the entity that's responsible 

for overseeing the correctional facility is the one 

that's responsible for making this determination. So 

however, we decide to regulate it, that will, that's the 

sort of foundational requirement that we have to look to 

in the statute. We can give some clarification about the 

kinds of things that they that such an entity has to look 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

at, the requirements for what they look at, etc. And all 

of these things, I think Aaron will explain in just a few 

moments. But foundationally, the the discretion to make 

this decision has been granted by Congress to the 

correctional agency that's responsible for overseeing the 

correctional facility.

DR. ANDRISSE: If I might add before, 

sorry, Belinda, just for clarification to what you just 

mentioned. So is this similar to how colleges for 

instance, you know, submit some information, you know, 

they have to receive accreditation from an accreditation 

entity, right? And they put together their package of the 

list of things that they need to get accredited. So it 

is, you know, that place of high the higher education 

university, college entity that is putting together a 

package to that is reviewed by accreditation entity. So 

it seems to me, are we trying to mimic that process to 

where the Department of Corrections is looking to get 

basically accredited to offer this college in prison 

program, a prison education program? Is that a correct 

kind of analogy, understanding, of what what we're 

talking about here? 

MR. SCHELLING: Dave do you want to 

respond and then Belinda? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure, so Stan, I actually 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

I think that's a very good analogy. All institutions must 

be accredited to offer postsecondary programs that 

qualify for federal student aid. And any program that is 

eligible for federal student aid has to be included in 

the institution's accreditation. That's also true of 

prison education programs. So in addition to all of this, 

that the program is also going to have to be included in 

the institution's accreditation and meet certain 

requirements for accreditation, that again, we'll get 

into in just a minute. But your I think that you this, 

it's still a good analogy that in addition to 

accreditation, a prison education program will have to be 

determined by the correctional agency to be in the best 

interest of students. And when the institution submits 

appropriate at one of these programs to the Department

for us to approve, or when they report them to the 

Department, the Department will look to see that number 

one, is this included in the institution's accreditation? 

And number two, has the correctional agency determined 

that this is in the best interest of students? And if the 

program meets both of those criteria and meets all other 

eligibility criteria, then the Department would approve 

the program. I'll pause there.

 DR. ANDRISSE:: And so that that leads 

me to my conflict of interest. So with with the 
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

accreditation process, it is a third party entity that 

that is involved. You know, I just if the Department of 

Corrections, if there's a, it is up to the Department of 

Corrections to decide if they want to offer prison 

education, if a particular Department of Education is 

like, I don't care about these incarce like education for 

incarcerated folks, I'll pass. Then all the people in 

that particular institution are missing out on education, 

because the Department is the one that is making the 

Department of Corrections is the one that is making the 

decision of whether education, you know, is being 

offered, you know, they obviously need to be part of the 

process, but giving them the full power of the process is 

problematic. 

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

address that or do you want to go after Belinda?

MR. WASHINGTON: Please go, Belinda. I 

think Belinda has been waiting.

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, no, thank you. 

Um, I reiterate a lot of the same sentiments that Stanley 

has brought up here, Stan, sorry, has brought up here I I 

do want to ask for ED to consider four Section three, one 

and section three two the roman numerals. I understand 

that this is statutory language. So I understand that a 
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

lot of this really just has to stay as is. I would like 

to identify this as an area just like earlier where I'd 

mentioned about the accreditation and additional 

location, I wonder if this could be an area that we could 

highlight, potentially to have some additional 

information being brought here? I think that, you know, 

this is a really unusual situation and I'm so glad that 

we're being proactive, as opposed to reactive, but we've 

never seen corrections, education, accreditation students 

all kind of being in this place. And again, you know, I'm 

really glad that we're being proactive. Want to make sure 

that with these two sections that you know, Stan and I 

and others have kind of pointed out that there there is, 

although the statute is clear, the actual reality of 

process, you know, might be something a little bit 

different. So I just kind of wonder whether or not we 

could highlight this is potentially being some space 

where some language could be put in because if it's read 

in certain ways, it might have people such as 

corrections, thinking that they've got, you know, carte 

blanche on here. And we all know that this is going to be 

this unusual situation with the FAFSA Simplification Act 

and the the language approved by Congress that we are 

going to have, quote unquote, strange bedfellows, we're 

going to have education, you know, we're going to have 
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

corrections, we're going to have the institutions, you 

know, in every prison education program. So just wanted 

to see if I could highlight that as something that we 

could kind of put a little ring around that because I 

think something additional perhaps needs to be put in 

here.

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 

Belinda. And we welcome any language as we go along. We 

welcome any language suggestions that you have. Stan, I 

wanted to say you you are correct. If the Bureau of 

Prisons, State’s Department of Corrections or other 

entity does not approve the program to operate in the 

correctional facility, then students would not have 

access to that program, they would not be able they would 

not have, they would not have access to Pell to enroll in 

the program. Sorry. So to make it more like to better 

state it so the bureau like that, as David mentioned, 

that is a statutory requirement and so we're going to 

what I'd like to do is move on and not move on, but move 

into how the Department sees defining this for the State 

Department of Corrections and Bureau of Prisons. So that 

it does offer some sort of standard or guidance on how to 

how the Department would define that they determine that 

they make these determinations. Alright. Okay. So 
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

authorizing statute states that the Bureau of Prisons or 

State Department Departments of corrections will 

determine if each prison education program is operating 

in the best interest of students. The determination is 

important without it a student enrolled in a PEP cannot 

access Title Four aid. But we also know this is a new 

role for the Bureau of Prisons and State Departments of 

corrections. I'll just probably say BOP and DOC as I as I 

read this, so I don't have to I don't keep saying the 

acronym over and over again but and we want to provide 

clear guidance to the field about what that means. To 

define this term, the Department proposes to benchmark 

the indicators provided by Congress against a reasonable 

assessment of the best interest for students and require 

prison education programs to meet those standards. We 

propose to require that the best interest interest 

indicators are that our inputs meet the same quality as 

some of the programs at the institution or in their 

state. Those indicators are experience, credentials, and 

rates of turnover or departure of instructors, also the 

transferability of credits, and if the institute if the 

program offers relevant academic and career advising 

services. We propose to require that the best interest 

indicators that outcomes be benchmark, be benchmarked. 

The Department will provide a standard that the indicator 
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

may be compared or assessed. Those indicators are: rates 

of confined or incarcerated individuals continuing their 

education post released, job placement rates for such 

individuals, earnings for such individuals, rates of 

recidivism for such individuals, and we also propose to 

add an additional indicator for completion rate. Only a 

little only a little bit left. The Department believes 

that defining this process, that through defining the 

process the BOPs and the DOCs will use to determine if 

the PEPs the Prison Education Programs will be we think 

that this will be a strong tool as we defined the process 

to ensure that programs are operating in the best 

interest of students. It will ensure consistency in the 

BOP,DOC determination without and without clear clear 

definition and may lead to subjective standards by which 

prison education programs are approved and impact the 

program's overall integrity. The Department ultimately 

seeks to ensure that students benefit from their 

education. For this discussion, the Department will 

listen to you all as expert experts and I will likely 

take many note many of your questions back to discuss 

amongst my colleagues at the Department. And to be clear, 

the Department intends to define the indicators and after 

we hear and read your ideas that you may email to the 

group and in between the first and second session the 
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Department will provide proposed and mandatory language 

to define indicators. So, I will pause there for your 

reaction.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you. Um, in 

regards to the indicators and you know sorry with regard 

to job placement and earnings for instance, what 

consideration and you know, how would you take into 

consideration the collateral consequences that are in 

place that bar individuals from job placement and 

earning? So, you know, a program prison education program 

may be doing a great job at providing quality education, 

but it is not their fault that their student that 

graduated you know, has trouble finding a job for 

instance or earnings are lower. It is it is known that 

formerly incarcerated people have you know, complications 

with employment and that their earnings are less than 

non-formerly incarcerated individuals. Additionally, you 

know, we have through our program, really tried to, you 

know, inform our correctional partners and other partners 

about the aspect of recidivism and and the value of 

tracking recidivism and you know, putting so much or at 

least putting so much emphasis on recidivism. Again, you 

know, someone can have completed a program, and, you 

know, there and not have recidivate it, but is living 
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

under a bridge homeless without, you know, without a good 

job or earnings, right? So, what is recidivism, what 

usefulness is recidivism, just because they haven't 

committed another crime, for instance, or, you know, been 

reincarcerated, if the quality of life of that individual 

hasn't been improved? So, you know, I have, you know, I 

would like, you know, just to bring that particular 

aspect to the table and think about the earnings and job 

placement, and you know, how we can think about the 

consideration of the other collateral consequences that 

may impact, um, those indicators. 

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you. I wanted 

to reiterate a lot of what Stan had mentioned there, too. 

One, I actually have three short questions, which I'll 

just kind of put out there. I would appreciate really 

understanding who is going to track this information? Is 

it like the alumni of an educational, you know, and they 

report that to corrections? Or is this part of the 

accreditation? I'd really like to understand who's 

tracking this info, in addition to the concerning 

questions. And again, I know that a lot of this is in the 

FAFSA Simplification Act, it's already passed through 

Congress. But I'm still curious about who is actually 

tracking this, how that and also the equity involved in 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

this, you know, if you've got a very small program, you 

know, there's going to be when, when Pell for all becomes 

available, we're going to see some huge educational 

institutions that have a lot of resources in this space 

to do all sorts of tracking of whatever's needed, but 

we're also going to have, you know, smaller educational 

programs that may not have those resources. How are we 

going to make sure that equity is kind of kept in mind 

here with with both the students are being served, but 

also the programs that are doing it, and while still 

maintaining that same quality? As Stan has mentioned, you 

know, just where, where's that equity value, and I want 

to, that's something that we're always talking about at 

Vera and the technical assistance that we provide the 130 

different programs, but also talking with other 

constituents, such as SCEA and the Jamii Sisterhood. You 

know, this was a this was a really good point that a lot 

of different constituents have kind of brought to me 

about how equitable this is. And then also, this goes 

back to an earlier question that I'd mentioned about this 

whole idea of waivers and potentially, and an educational 

institution that is granted a waiver. If they are asked 

that waiver is actually withdrawn, are some of these 

indicators, some of the responses to these indicated 

questions, are these going to potentially be some of the 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

reasons for a waiver being revoked? That's all I had to 

say. Thank you.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So I may have jumped the 

gun a little bit earlier. But I just really wanted to 

reiterate the point that this places a huge burden on PEP 

programs, again, to collect this information. And the 

reason why that does that is because most DOCs restrict 

access to contacting individuals once they're released. I 

know my my institution, currently we were fighting to 

have access to students who are released back into the 

community to at least get their information, their phone 

number, their address, and all of those things. And the 

DOC says they don't want us to contact them. So how do we 

collect job placement rates and potential earnings as 

well? The other piece of that is, what about students who 

are released and then they're required to go to like 

mandatory treatment centers, post incarceration, for a 

extended period of time, this doesn't capture that, 

essentially, we will be failing based off the language 

that's proposed here, because we can't collect that 

information. And the individuals can't even get a job. I 

think the other piece of to this and I'll yield my case, 

is the fact that we're still contending with a lot of 

state laws around employment. If you have a certain type 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

of crime you most likely won't get employed. I think 

about my students who have sexual related offenses, they, 

no one's going to hire them. I shouldn't say no one's 

gonna hire them. But there is becoming very, very 

difficult for them to find employment. Once they're 

released from the communities, right, it looks like the 

metrics will not look good for PEP programs. Just wanted 

to put that out there. 

MR. SCHELLING: Thank you. Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I thank you for those 

comments. Some of the things we heard from Stan where you 

know, specifically on recidivism, taking more than just a 

return to prison. I'm sorry, Stan did you want to say 

something? Right? Oh, okay. Okay, taking things taking 

more things to account just not only if a student 

returned to prison, but particularly they returned like 

if they were homeless, you know, that could be something 

that the Department would want to look at. Belinda, will-

- you asked a few questions, Who will track equity and 

about the equity? I wanted to go through each of the 

Departments proposals with you all today or start going 

through them so I hopefully when you hear the proposal, I 

will start, you know, with, let's see, the first thing is 

rates of confined or incarcerated individuals and their 

continuing education possibilities. We'll start there, 
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

and I will I will tell you what the Department's proposal 

is. And then hopefully you can provide more feedback to 

us based on that. If the waiver is revoked, we'll be well 

some of these things play into it? It could I mean, as we 

saw the the we the 25% cap waiver on on exceeding 25% of 

students that are were enrolled, we saw that if the 

institution violated any parts of the definition, that 

could be a potential for revoking the waiver with the 25% 

waiver. We'll also I also see, I believe it's in 

paragraph 12, or 13. I'm sorry, I will that will be that 

paragraph 13, that the secretary can also withdraw 

approval of a Prison Education Program, if they violate 

any other terms of 668.8. And then to Dr. McTier's point 

about the burden, I hear I hear you, and I think that 

once we start going through the proposals, maybe you can 

provide us more information. I think you'll see that the 

Department has thought in many of our proposals to, to 

use our data sources that we have readily available to 

make these to define these indicators, as opposed to 

pushing the majority of the burden onto the Bureau of 

Prisons, the State Department Education. So we're 

(inaudible) define it and I think you'll be able to see 

through some of our our benchmarking that we're proposing 

to use data that we have.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, thank you, Aaron. 

So, it sounds if I hear correctly, this these indicators 

and benchmarks, we do have room to provide the language 

and the language for that correct. So this is something 

that was left open within the statutory to be clarified. 

Am I correct on that? MR. WASHINGTON: Correct. 

That's what we're seeking to do right now. I just want to 

clarify as well, the, there most of this language is 

directly from the statute. So what we're proposing to do 

is, is add language so so you'll see where you see like 

earnings, earnings or job placement, that is just copy 

and pasted from the statute. That is not that is not 

language the Department that the Department has proposed. 

And then so during, during this, what we're proposing to 

do during the subcommittee meetings, we're going to we're 

going to try and either develop language here, or take 

your comments back between sessions one and two and 

provide that language. So for indicators A, B, C, and D, 

that is language that is taken directly from the statute. 

For indicators, E, F, and G, most of the beginning 

portions are taken from statute, and we've just added a 

little bit as a framework, but we can also hear your 

feedback. You see the general idea of what we'd like to 

do and and maybe we can add more language or make things 

more clear, but we generally the overall framework of A 
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

through A through G. Is in the statute.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, but you know, for 

instance, with job placement and earnings as I was, we we 

have room to where we can define, you know, to both Dr. 

McTier's point, um, it may, they may look like their 

program is not succeeding, if they have, you know, a 

number of individuals with offenses that are harder to 

get jobs for. So how do we how do we correct job 

placement? You know, so what, when you say job placement 

rates, is there going, what is the benchmark or, you 

know, are you looking for 20% of your students 30% of 

your students place in a job within one year? You know, 

what, what are the benchmarks? And then I think there 

needs to be language, to specifically acknowledge that 

there are real barriers in place for individuals with 

criminal convictions. So, you know, there needs to be the 

acknowledgment of that somewhere, or we need to think of 

language that will acknowledge that there's these 

barriers in place. So if you shoot for 30%, but then your 

program has 100% of the students in your program, have, 

you know, are individuals with sex offenses. There needs 

to be data that supports that these these individuals 

with this type of crime, have the hardest time of getting 

job placement or something to that nature. You know, I 

think that we just need to be factoring the collateral 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

consequences of incarceration into these metrics and 

indicators and benchmarks that we create. And and to that 

point, I think it would be, you know, it would be 

valuable to provide you say that, you know, the research 

and data that you have available, if you could provide 

those for the different benchmarks and indicators that 

will be very helpful.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

DR. MCTIER: Yeah, I just want to know 

who-- it doesn't really specify who's going to collect 

this information and then where does it go? And then how 

is this information going to be used? I think there needs 

to be a level of clarity here, within this. And then, you 

know, it seems like this stuff is being written as if 

people are oblivious to the trials and tribulations that 

people with criminal records face in society. Some of 

this stuff is unrealistic and it's just setting us up for 

failure. It's kind of frustrating, because I'm just 

sitting here thinking like, golly, I'm looking at my alum 

who are struggling to find employment, struggling to, you 

know, just make ends meet with housing. And, you know, it 

seems that like, there's a huge disconnect between 

reality and what we really want them to do this doesn't 

this doesn't account for reality. 

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron. 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think, you know, 

one of my colleagues had recommended that we actually 

pull up the statutory language for people on the actual 

and project it out to the audience. And I think that, 

what what I can do is try and come back to that for 

tomorrow morning, when we were tomorrow morning, we're 

planning to have this, you know, to spend at least two 

hours on this specifically this discussion. But I just I 

think it would be helpful because to pull up a statutory 

language, because, again, these A through H are A through 

G, I'm sorry, are are specifically called like written in 

the statute Congress specifically delineated a number of 

areas where programs have to meet requirements. And so we 

seek to define them during this and so maybe what I can I 

see more hands I was I was gonna propose, like, just 

before I was gonna propose that I just start going 

through each of them like so I will start at A and I will 

give you I will provide you all with what the 

Department's idea what idea what ideas are for them, and 

then we can then you can provide your comments based on 

having that concrete knowledge of what the Department is 

proposing to do. I think we can definitely get maybe we 

can definitely continue this conversation. I want people 

that that's why we have this last hour to just kind of 

talk about it. And maybe we just everything, maybe 
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

instead of me going through the Department's proposals, 

people can, you know, can just state their opinions on 

what it should be today. But we do have proposals, just 

just so you all know, and I can start going through them 

whenever you whenever we get through the first reactions 

to this piece of the statute.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I'm, I'm open to 

moving forward and the way that you proposed, Aaron. And 

I just want to clarify, you know, putting the statutes up 

would be helpful. I mean, I, you know, personally 

understand, you know, what you're mentioning, and I think 

it, you know, we're wanting to clarify this, this 

statutory language. And that goes into, it's not to say, 

I'm not saying that we need to remove job placement, or 

earnings, I'm saying that we need to further define what 

we mean by that. And I believe we have that flexibility 

if I'm understanding correctly?

MR. WASHINGTON: The Department’s 

intent is to define each of the indicators. Yes. 

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Is there a way to for us 

to put contingency plans in this if certain programs 

don't meet whatever these benchmarks are? I feel like 

again, if we can't change the statutory laws that are 
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

already in play, well can we put some of these some 

failsafe mechanisms for our programs who might not be 

able to check a lot of these boxes?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, that's what we 

want to talk to you all about. And so we can get your you 

know, your ideas on what the proposals on what those what 

that should be and you know, and again at their concepts 

or actual language. I think that for this section 

specifically, you see, we provided a lot of amendatory 

language, for this section specifically we did not 

because we really wanted to rely on the experts in the 

community, to the people that we selected to be the 

representatives of the constituencies to provide us to 

provide us with direction or language or concepts, things 

that we need to make sure we take into account when we 

get to draft when we draft this language. So, I think 

with that we can probably start. Let's start with, let's 

start with the, let's see, I'm sorry, I'm getting. Okay, 

let's start with the Continuing Education Post Release. 

So, the rationale for defining the rationale for defining 

this is that we want to continue we just wanted we want, 

you know, we want to know, you know, if students are 

continuing their education, post release? And potential 

calculation for this would be the percentage of students 

who re-enroll in higher education within a certain number 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

of years. And a potential benchmark, could be to compare 

the rates of confined or incarcerated individuals 

continuing their education post release to the overall 

transfer or continuing education rates at the 

institution. A data source could be that ED could 

potentially calculate rates of re enrollment for prison 

education programs, so the Department would calculate it. 

But that will require additional reporting to do so. To 

the extent that students re-enroll in the institution, 

they attended as a PEP, they could calculate and report 

rates of re enrollment. So they're so the depart there's 

a there's an idea for the Department to calculate this 

rate or, you know, to the extent that students re enroll 

at the same institution, then maybe the institution could 

calculate the rate as well. And then the cohort, we would 

define, the Department would seek to include only 

students who will be released in the cohort. So that's 

our idea behind them, A, and that's kind of an overall 

framework. So I'd like to get your thoughts on that. 

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I don't like that. What 

about the individuals who are not returning back to the 

community where the school is located? How are we going 

to account for those students? It just, yeah, again, it's 

going back to this point that a lot of the stuff that is 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

being implemented doesn't make sense. So I'm not a fan of 

that that suggestion.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so I did, I did 

mention that the Department could also potentially 

calculate a rate rates of re enrollments using our 

internal systems. For example, you know, we have several, 

we have a database that can that tracks, aid to students. 

So potentially, we could use that to track if a student 

re enrolled in a program post release, of course, we 

would need to know, likely but if the student was 

released, and then if the student received Title Four aid 

after that date, that would indicate that the student re 

enrolled in a program like if they received the Pell 

Grant or federal loan, so. So David would like to say 

something as well. So. 

MR. SCHELLING: Yeah, or Belinda. But 

DaveMR. WASHINGTON: Sorry, I didn't mean, 

sorry about that. 

MR. SCHELLING: No, that's alright. 

Belinda. 

MR. MUSSER: Go ahead, Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I was just gonna 

clarify. Sorry, I was trying to get it back to you, 

David. First, so just to clarify, again, everything comes 
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

down to this equity and who is going to do it. So I did 

hear you say, Aaron, that there is potentially a way that 

the Department would do some of this, some of these data, 

working out determining the rates of continued education 

post release. Is that what we're thinking? Or were you 

also potentially thinking of like so financial aid would 

let alumni know, like the Alumni Association and, and 

again, also with if someone's in a state facility, and 

then they go to federal, I'm just trying to connect the

dots is all and making sure that it's equitable. So I 

would appreciate some clarity on that.

MR. SCHELLING: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: So Aaron mentioned at a 

high level the Department's capabilities with respect to 

a with a we're talking about confined or incarcerated 

individuals who have been released and who subsequently 

continued to be enrolled in public Secondary Education, 

The Department does maintain enrollment information for a 

very large percentage of students who ever received aid 

previously. So if a student receives the Pell Grant, 

while incarcerated, the institution generally will report 

that student their enrollment to the national National 

Student Loan Data System. That system tracks enrollment 

for, essentially any individual who received Title Four 

aid, and then thereafter, it typically will track 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

enrollment for those individuals going forward, even if 

they don't receive aid subsequently, at institutions. So 

one way that we might be able to calculate this rate at 

the Department would be and I think Aaron mentioned it 

before, the key would be to know which individuals had 

been released. Once we know which individuals had been 

released, the National Student Loan Data System will will 

generally have their enrollment recorded, and the 

Department could calculate that rate based on that 

enrollment information. So that is one that the 

Department could take a large part in in calculating.

MR. SCHELLING: Kim, did you still 

have a question?

MS. CARY: I would like to say that I 

would agree that the COD origination area would need, or

the NSLDS would need to be the place to do that. I don't 

see any other way that it would be the resources that the 

institutions would not be available for us to maintain 

that kind of followthrough. So I would encourage the 

Department to look at it from the COD or NSLDS 

perspective.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I will also raise this 

question, what about institutions that ask criminal 

history questions that criminally screen out students 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

with records? This will be kind of counterproductive as 

well. 

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

MS. WHEELER: Perhaps just another 

clarifying question here? David, I did hear you say about 

one of the ways that the Department could end up doing 

taking care of the bucket for this kind of work is that 

you would get information from corrections to then 

determine who would-- you know so that you can start kind 

of tracking? I'm not a FERPA expert, but I just wanted to 

clarify, like, is this something that would be a FERPA 

issue? And would that be something that the educational 

institutions would have to get a special release for for 

FERPA so that then that information could then be shared? 

Just trying to piece together the logistics.

 MR. MUSSER: Not being a FERPA expert, 

I don't want to speak specifically to that point. 

However, the Department if we if if we decide that, that 

that having the Department calculate this rate, is the 

way that that we want to go. I think what we would do is 

in that analyze all of the different privacy 

considerations and the laws surrounding those 

considerations to make a determination about number one 

feasibility, but number two, if it's feasible, what what 

kind of steps need to be taken, for example, seeking the 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

students consent before for doing any of these things 

before we actually went down this road? But I would defer 

to our FERPA attorneys before saying anything further on 

that point.

MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I mean, so Belinda hit, 

you know, on the point that I mentioned earlier on the 

idea of the conflict of interest with having this in the 

Department of Corrections’ hands. I mean, it would seem 

to me that, you know, that is a very valuable, valid

point about FERPA and being able to get some of this 

information about the students. But that also just brings 

to the further point of, you know, what I was, you know, 

moving towards is that Departments of Corrections, you 

know, it just seems odd. And if there's ways that we can 

clarify that, you know, we're we're putting education in 

the hands of the Department of Corrections. The 

Department of Corrections was not created, designed, 

meant to oversee education. You know, so it just, it 

doesn't seem like-- it seems like if we are going to have 

them involved, they should not be the main overseer, they 

should be partner maybe. But that, you know that they're 

not they weren't designed to do education there they are 

the Department of Corrections that you know that that's 

not what they're designed to do depart-- I mean, however 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

educational institutions were, that is their mission that 

is their design. So, you know, it just, I don't quite 

understand why the educational institution wouldn't have 

a say. But then again, you know, to my conflict of 

interest aspect, I mean, then there's there just needs to 

be, I see there needing to be a third party entity, and 

all of this, like it needs to be collective. There's just 

a lot of conflicts. If the, you know, there's just 

there's a lot of conflicts that are in play. And I would 

just concur with Belinda's aspect of, you know, this 

might be a couple of these might be FERPA issues. 

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I just 

wanted to reassure everyone that this is a collective 

process. I think we mentioned earlier, this schools, the 

institutions, actually we'll see later, there's even if 

it goes even further in statute, but the school must have 

be authorized by the state, they have to be accredited. 

Also, there are certain parts of the statute that require 

that the that the schools not have different certain 

negative actions or adverse actions that were taken 

against them in the last five years by the Department 

that they are, they're correct, or the accreditor. So 

this is a collective process. The Bureau of Prisons and 

State Department Corrections are they have the statutory 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

authority to make the determination whether a program 

operates in their institution they oversee, and they 

don't make that they don't make the determination that 

they that the programs can operate in the facility, then 

the students there can't access Title IV aid. So so but 

the process is not only in the hands of the BOP. Now they 

do say if the program can operate in the correctional 

facility, but you know, there are still other players, 

there's the Department, there's the accreditor, there's 

the state, as well. And there's the student themselves. 

And I think that that's that's essentially what I want to 

stay, I'll stop there. 

MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you. I will

say just as a side note, I've got a lot of questions 

about adverse actions later on Allen, Aaron, but I know 

we're not at that section. So just to clarify, okay, so 

it sounds like we potentially have a route for point A? 

Potentially, I put that in quotation marks, quick 

clarifying question, once that data is collected, so say,

for example, the Department takes that bucket and they've

you know, they've cleared all the FERPA whatever the 

situation is, once that data is collected, how does ED 

potentially see that data being used? Again, does it go 

back to the waiver? Does it go back to accreditation? You
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

know, I'm very curious as to where that data point then 

goes and what it means to which entities? Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so for the for 

the standard, for the consequence, for how the data is 

used, we we we wanted to reserve that conversation for 

the second session. I think the first session, we really 

wanted to just hear from you all, more about the 

Department's proposal, you know, and ensuring that we are

able to define it in a way to, you know, provide a 

framework for the Bureau of Prisons and state Department 

of Corrections. We we right now I'm hearing that the 

Bureau of Prisons and State Department of Corrections 

cannot do this. They cannot This is the statute, the 

statutory, this is the statutory framework is not it will

not be easy for the BOP, DOC to implement. And therefore,

the Department is saying, we’ll just, let's let's define 

it as a subcommittee. Let's give them the guidelines. 

Let's define the guidelines to which the Bureau of 

Prisons and state's Department of Corrections will 

determine if the programs can operate in their 

institutions. So we that's the definition that we're 

creating to provide the Bureau of Prisons and DOCs with 

the framework. And we will definitely we'll definitely 

talk about the consequences and the actual standards. But

we want to kind of get good get your ideas on like the 
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

benchmarking first. Thank you. Thank you.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I just want to say I 

think that there's so much power being given to the 

prison, as if we don't know the relationship that they 

hold with incarcerated individuals and with higher 

education institutions. Essentially, it's making it 

impossible to, you know, provide quality education, 

whatever that quality is, or even provide an education in 

general, because we're relying solely on what the prison 

is willing to do and what they're going to do. I can tell 

you as a director of a prison program, it is sometimes 

very difficult to just even get a regular document 

signed. And so adding these these measures in there and 

then saying, we're going to allow the DOC to make these 

decisions, collect the data, and all of this other stuff, 

it's going to be a nightmare. And so I just don't support 

that all of these things are going to be ran through the 

DOC. I do agree with Stanley that there needs to be an 

equal playing field with, we can add Department of 

Education or someone else on the decision making process. 

But just giving the DOC 100% of the power, I'm not a fan 

of that. It's already hard as it is, and then adding all 

of these other requirements is going to be stressful, not 

a fan. 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, thank you, Dr. 

McTier. I certainly agree with you on that aspect of the 

difficulty, it's going to propose to people in your 

position. I wanted to just bring another thought to the 

committee. So there are programs like Dr. McTier's, and 

many others that have better Second Chance Pell sites 

that are already doing this work. And that will work to 

fit the new regulations, what they might whatever they 

whatever they might be as we come up with them. What 

about the programs that weren't Second Chance Pell sites? 

What is what was the idea of how these will be created? 

Is it I mean, is the idea that the thought is that the 

DOC that wasn't offering, you know, that doesn't even 

know these committees are going on right now. There's 

some director in Idaho, who has no idea that these types 

of these conversations are going how do we get prison 

there? You know, so what, you know, as we think about 

this, the DOCs aren't thinking about the individuals 

getting education as much as the incarcerated individuals 

themselves are. You know, so we're leaving it, I guess my 

question is, what do we propose was going to be the 

process? Does some director at DOC say I want to bring 

education to our institution? Or is it a higher education 

institution that says, I want to run a prison education 
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

program? So they talk to a DOC, or, you know, what, what 

is the process? And both of those processes, by the way, 

are not including incarcerated individuals in it. But you 

know, who how are new programs going to be started up? 

What is the thinking behind you know, we've this bill is 

in place now, how are we going to start new programs?

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I can respond 

to that and if the response is we can have a dialogue 

about that. I mean, if you if you Stan you if you deem 

this response sufficient, I think we can move into the 

Department's proposal on job placement. But, but the 

process will be that the postsecondary institution that 

wishes to provide the prison education program will seek 

approval from the Bureau of Prisons, or the State 

Department of Corrections to operate in their facility. 

The Department cannot force, I think I've stated that, 

but the Department cannot require, sorry, that's a 

postsecondary institution offer a prison education 

program. So that will be the first step. If I'm a school, 

I want to I if I'm a school, I go to the, the 

correctional facility I'd like to operate in and I say, I 

have a proposal for prison education program, here it is, 

the Bureau of Prisons will then based on a definition 

that we based on the definition that we develop here 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

during this subcommittee, the Bureau of Prisons will 

review it. To for the for their first two years, they'll 

use whatever information they have available to approve 

it to determine that it is in the best interest of 

students. And then after the first two years, they will 

base their determination on the definition as proposing 

as the proposing regulation. After that, for the first 

program, the first two additional locations, the 

institution will be required to apply to their 

accreditor. And their accreditor will have to evaluate 

the program. They'll also have to do a site visit, within 

a year, and then they will also have to review the 

methodology behind which the institution, well, the 

proposed the proposal is they will also they're proposing 

that they also review the methodology behind credential, 

instructors, transfer, transferability of credit and 

academic support services. Then, after that, the 

institution will apply to the Department of Education. 

And that's also we've also outline that proposed in 

proposed regulatory text, how institution will apply to 

the Department for the first program at the first two 

additional locations. And so that that is that that would 

be the process for.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So, thank you, that's 

very helpful. So it sounds that under the way that it was 
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

designed, that it is the higher the higher education 

institution, that I mean, DOC could potentially go to a 

higher education institution saying, would you be 

interested in the higher education institution? Then 

says, they could be interested. I'm just my thought is, 

again, to the the idea of how do we impact more people? 

And so it seems that I mean, I know you, you mentioned 

there that you can put out Dear Colleague letters, but 

how does how does an institution of higher education even 

know that they can move into this space? You know, how 

are we going to actually increase the number of 

incarcerated people benefiting from this? You know, are 

we, you know, should there and, you know, again, I'm not 

an expert in the way these the wording needs to be. But I 

mean, don't we think, don't we need that consideration? 

Is there some type of advocacy that will be done to let 

you know, how are we going to let higher education 

institutions know that this is a space that they can move 

into? I mean, we've now reinstated Pell but then if 

nobody knows, if no institutions of higher education know 

about it, you know, how are we increasing the number of 

prison education programs? 

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yes, I just want to maybe 

raise a solution. If the DOC is required, or if if that's 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

what the Department of ED is requiring that the DOC have 

the power to collect this information and whatnot, is it 

possible that we added additional language requiring DOC 

to work collaboratively with stakeholders? And to approve 

or deny based on majority vote within that group? Is 

there a way that we can add that language to what's 

already proposed?

MR. WASHINGTON: I can take that back. 

Dr. MCTIER: Please.

MR. WASHINGTON: If you wanted to 

provide that in an email too just if you want to add 

anything to that I can take them back to discuss further. 

DR. MCTIER: Cool, thanks.

MR. SCHELLING: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: Yeah, this was just a 

follow on to the earlier discussion by Stan about how 

institutions would become aware that this was something 

that was available to them that they were allowed to go 

into prisons and offer prison education programs. FSA is 

working on a variety of different aspects of the 

implementation of these provisions even now. And one of 

the things that we've already identified as something 

that will be crucial to doing this well, is technical 

assistance, both to correctional agencies and and prison 

facilities, to help them understand what the requirements 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

will be once they've been fully decided by by this group 

and the Department. But also training for our 

postsecondary institutions. FSA has a lot of different 

avenues by which we provide training, both in general in 

what we have a federal conference every year, but also in 

through webinars, through announcements of new 

requirements, or new authorities, that sort of thing. So 

we do plan to make institutions aware in a pretty broad 

way of this new authority, and all of the requirements 

that will go along with it as part of the implementation 

of this prior to July 1st, 2023.

MR. SCHELLING: Go ahead, Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: I think it would be 

helpful before we end today to just walk through the 

actual statutory language and I I'm aware that David 

would be willing to project it. If not, I have it IMR. MUSSER: Sure, no, I can do it.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, okay. I think 

that would be helpful. I don't, I don't want to I want 

everybody who has their hand raised to be able to make 

their statements for sure, but we do because we get 

three. I kind of wanted to quickly run through the 

statutory language just so people can see it for like as 

a foundation of our of our, thank you David. But I think, 

Brian, you'll say who was next to speak before I start 
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

that.

MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier has his 

hand up. Did you want to get something in before we go-?

MR. WASHINGTON: No.

DR. MCTIER: No, sorry. That was 

still-

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, okay. Thank you, 

David. Alright, so I think we can see here that the first

portion of the the first portion of the statute is just 

saying what prison education program means and the term 

prison education program is an eligible program, under 

this title offer that Institute of Higher Education as 

defined in 102, section 101 and 102. That will be we 

already talked about this, that is the the public or 

nonprofit and vocational postsecondary institutions. So 

we've, so essentially, we've copied and pasted that from 

the statutes, the regulation. Then, we can see it goes on

to say it's offered by an institution that has, has been 

approved to operate in a correctional facility by the 

appropriate State Department of Corrections or other 

entity that is responsible for overseeing correctional 

facilities, or by the Bureau of Prisons. And I know there

was a lot of conversation around what other entity meant 

or why the Department chose to put it there. And as you 

can see, here, it is a it was directly a copy and paste 
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

from the statute. There was a slight change so that 

romanette three has been determined by the appropriate 

State Department of Corrections to be or DOC, BOP to be 

operating in the best interest of students. Based on 

we've changed that a little bit from the amendatory 

language, because we said that we know that the Bureau of 

Prisons and State Department of Corrections won't have a 

lot of data on upon startup. So we actually we changed it 

to allow for two year startup, initial startup period, 

and they can use whatever data that they will, they will 

want to or had access to, in order to make that 

determination that they are operating in the best 

interest of students. You can see if you can scroll down 

a little bit there David, you can see all of the 

indicators here. You can see the individuals can have 

students continuing education post release, their job 

placement rate, their earnings, rates of recidivism, 

those were copy and pasted directly from statute. And 

then also you can see for five through seven for the 

experience, credential experience and credentials of 

instructors, the transmittal of credits, and offering 

relevant academic and career services. Those were copy 

and pasted from statute as well. But in the regulation, 

we just added a slight framework about how the Department 

saw inputs. And that was to say that the inputs had to be 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

similar to other programs offered at the institutions. 

Scroll down a little bit, David, I'm sorry. Thank you, 

David. This is another portion of the statute, the 

transferability of credit. So you can see here that the 

Bureau of Prisons, and the State Department of 

Corrections will be looking at transferability of credit. 

And as as the as we define it, as the Department defines 

it, that's how they'll be looking at it. So they will 

look into the Department's definition. And so they will 

have a framework for how to look at it. So we won't we're 

not saying that the Bureau of Prisons will just have no 

guidance on how to evaluate transfer credit policies, 

right, it makes sense to the idea that a Bureau of 

Prisons would understand transfer of credit policies, it 

makes sense that they that they may not they could be 

some other than do but they may not. So based on so the 

Bureau of Prisons, will be looking at it based on a 

definition that we prescribe, but also just as a 

condition of eligible program eligibility eligibility. 

The programs have to offer transferability of credits at 

least one institution in the state, or it gets a little 

more nuanced. If it's a Federal Correctional Facility, 

the state that most students will reside upon release. 

And so that's just a condition of program eligibility. So 

the Congress was clear to say in two places that 
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

transferability of credit was very, very important to 

prison education programs. That is a paragraph that we 

have copy and pasted into the regulation as well, and 

made no changes other than to update the regulatory site. 

These, these are three criteria that are copied, 

generally copy and pasted into regulation, on the 

accreditation piece, we have made a slight change, but 

generally they have been copied and pasted into 

regulation. So when we when Congress talks about 

suspension, emergency action or termination of a program, 

that those are things that the Department will look at. 

We have different sub parts in the Code of Federal 

Regulations and subpart g outlines the process by which 

the Department can suspend or terminate. And institutions 

participated, participates in the Title Four programs or 

other related consequences around suspension or 

termination. So that's something that I'm sorry.

MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, Stan had a 

question. I'm not sure if.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I'll pause for 

questions. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Just really quickly is 

the person representing the correctional Department of 

Corrections with us today?

MR. WASHINGTON: Can you, can you, can 
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

you please expand on the question a little bit, Stan?

DR. ANDRISSE: Is MarisaMS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm here. Hi.

Dr. ANDRISSE: Hi, I just you know, 

there's been a few questions. I think, as you know, Dr. 

McTier, and others have brought up that are relating to 

the Department of Corrections response, I'm just was 

just, I wasn't aware, if you were with us today.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm here. I 

have the same concerns. And I, I hear you and I think 

that we need to be really careful that for me, that the 

Department of Corrections, we are building strong 

partnerships with educational facilities. So we're not 

driving this, this bus on our own. But I think it's 

really important and I have appreciated what you said 

Stan, and Dr. McTier, so much, because I think it's 

really important that we don't forget who we're here for. 

And I think that it's important to keep bringing these 

things up. But for me, in Montana, we are building really 

strong relationships with our educational facilities, and 

we're not driving the bus, we're in partnerships. So I'm 

here, if I can be of any assistance on that, and I'm 

happy to I just I think it's just really important to 

know that I think if I'm right Aaron, and that it's a 

partnership, it's not Department of Corrections, that's 
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

going to be running everything.

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, the 

institution is going to be the person that's providing 

the programming, right. Postsecondary institution will be 

providing the programming on campus at the at the 

correction facility I'm sorry, that the correctional 

facility. The the Bureau of Prisons role is to determine

through the Department's definition that we will create 

here. If the programs can operate in the facility. I 

think, I don't, think maybe I would need some more 

information to to how could the Department I don't see 

how the Department could require the Bureau of Prisons to 

you know, allow them.

DR. ANDRISSE: So one, Marisa, thank 

you for that comment. I think it's extremely helpful to 

the conversation. And I mean, so it sounds like they 

Montana has is doing things fairly well. And, you know, 

from a correctional expert herself, it sounds like it is 

a partnership, where the Department is not in the 

driver's seat, it sounds like is what she's just 

mentioned. So I mean, would it be, you know, from a 

correctional expert, it sounds like it is a partnership. 

So maybe adding that language “partnership” would be 

helpful.

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I think it's
70

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

really important to that we remember all people that are 

going to be involved in this. I mean, incarcerated people 

that are entering the community incarcerating 

incarcerated individuals that are going to be in the 

facilities for a long time. But also looking at rural 

areas and urban areas. Because a lot of times we can't 

get educational partnerships in a rural area. You know, 

Montana is it takes six hours to get from one town to the 

next. So, I think there's a lot of really fine aspects 

that need to be looked into statutory or not, so that 

everyone is included in this. Because, you know, 20% is 

not enough, in my opinion. So, I think there's a lot of 

little things that need to be looked at so that everyone 

can be included in this Second Chance Pell.

MR. SCHELLING: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you. From an 

institution perspective, I would say that coming into the 

Second Chance Pell was a real eye opener for us and an 

opportunity for us to reach out to our partners in 

Missouri and learn what it was all about. And there's a 

lot more to it than even I had realized and we continue 

to learn. So I think that it's it is a definite 

partnership. We have a state of Missouri that is very 

open to our conversations. We have a community college 
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

that has many locations across The Southwest area. So 

we're very open and building partnerships with for your 

institutions that will take these students once they've 

completed with us, no matter where they are, if once 

they're released, there's lots of other areas that could 

eventually reside in their community. So it's a very much 

a partnership. And I think one of the biggest hurdles for 

us was coming into this during the pandemic, we were all 

set to have in class conversations with students and in 

our teaching style and programs, and learned very quickly 

that we couldn't do that because everyone was shut out 

and at home and all these different places we couldn't 

meet that face to face. So, we had to quickly transition 

and realize, no matter what we do, it's a teaching 

mechanism, we need to make sure it never can be 

interrupted again, and that we have continuous education 

for students. So it's a big partnership, not just with 

for two years and four years, but the Department head and 

with our state agencies and local agencies with 

incarcerated students. Thank you.

MR. SCHELLING: Thank you. Aaron. Or, 

Marisa, did you have something you wanted toMR. WASHINGTON: I let Marisa go 

first.

MR. SCHELLING: Looks like she's 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

declining.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry, alright. 

So yeah, I think we've definitely heard the idea about 

partnership. And I think that's something that I can, I 

hope, I hope I have expressed that it is not just the 

Bureau of Prisons, that it is the institutions. It is the 

accreditor, it is the Department, and it is, you know, 

the individual students that are going to be enrolled in 

these programs. And the idea here is to ensure that they 

the idea for us right now is to ensure that they're able 

to access quality quality prison education programs. If I 

could go, we have 12 minutes left, and we still have one 

more thing that we need to do, which is decide who would 

like to report out. So if I could, I don't know, I don't 

think there's much left of the let's maybe take five more 

minutes to go continue going through the statute. And 

then we'll stop and then we'll talk about who would like 

to report and then we'll end for the day. So these three 

the three items that the basically these are the three 

adverse negative action type of things, I hesitate to say 

adverse actions, I know that's a defined term in our 

regulations. But if there are actions taken by the State 

Department or creditor, then the bureau the program 

cannot the prog... the program cannot participate, 

participate in the Title Four programs, the proposed 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

prison education program could not participate. David, 

can you scroll down a little bit? So these two provisions 

are so this the first provision is that if the program 

leaves the licensure or certification that the program 

satisfies all educational requirements in the state, or 

if it's a federal institution in the state that the 

majority of our most or more than half of incarcerated, 

confined or incarcerated individuals participate in the 

program and return to. I apologize, I'm probably talking 

fast, I do apologize. The second provision was copy and 

pasted. And we've also added a little bit of explanation 

into that we'll talk about that tomorrow. But that's the 

provision that that education can now be offered to 

students if that education is designed to lead to 

licensure occupation, for which the student will be 

prohibited from obtaining. And that that was that was 

essentially copy and pasted but we've added some 

amendatory language under that to further clarify it. 

David can you, the technical is that the number two, the 

technical assistance, that was not put into the 

regulation, because that is something that the 

Department, David Musser, actually described that process 

that we are engaging in right now, earlier. We are 

currently talking with the Department, the Attorney 

General Department of Justice, to find to determine ways 
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

to for it to be seamless, and to implement prison 

education programs and to spread the word spread, the 

wisdom, make-- put displayed that the BOP and Department 

of Corrections on notice that these programs are coming. 

And hopefully if they're high quality, they'd be willing 

to partner and collaborate with the schools and 

Department of Education and their accreditors. The next 

paragraph, Federal Pell Grant Eligibility that was that 

we saw that in 668.32 so that is not going to be in the 

regulation. We put we put that all confined or 

incarcerated individuals are eligible for Pell in 668.32, 

we've already talked about that. This is the evaluation 

piece. So most of this will not, this is something that 

the Department of Education is going to be required to do 

in collaboration with our institute of educational 

services. So this will not show up in the regulation. 

There's a report to not only Congress, but the public. So 

the this will show up in regulation. There, the schools 

will be required to submit an annual report to the 

Department. We'll see how we define that while we're 

proposing to define that in regulation tomorrow, where 

there's a there's a number of things that the schools are 

going to have to report to the Department of Education as 

a part of their program, as a part of their eligibility 

they're going to be they're going to acknowledge an 
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

application that they're that the Department will require 

them to report things to us. But instead of listing all 

those things out and regulation, we we're going to 

propose that we release the Federal Register Notice, or 

some sort of subregulatory guidance with those with those 

data elements that the Department seeks to collect. So we 

can provide, we can we can have flexibility. And we can 

also provide more guidance on how institutions go about 

getting collecting those items. And we can scroll down 

David. I that's all the reporting conforming amendments, 

no. And then I think that's that's essentially that's 

essentially it. I think it does say that the effective 

date. Yeah, yeah, that's it. That's essentially the the 

statute but no later than July 1. Oh, sorry. So the 

regulations will be effective on July 1, 2020, July 1, 

2023. So according to our master calendar, that's the I 

guess that's the name that they they give to when when we 

when we publish regulations, and when they'll be 

effective. We hope to publish these regulations by 

November 1, 2022, and it will go into effect July 1, 

2023, as required in statute and as by a master calendar. 

And so that is essentially the framework. And I think 

hopefully, with that, I did talk very fast. I know, 

everybody tells me I talk very fast, especially when I'm 

trying to go through something. But I hope that that 
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

shows you that a lot of what we have proposed in the 

Definition of Prison Education Program is required by 

statute. It's required by statute. So so when we dive 

back into the best interest metrics tomorrow, sorry, the 

best interest benchmarks, we're gonna start with job 

placement, and then we'll move down the list in order. 

Let's see. We'll move down the list in order and I will 

provide you with the Department's proposals, I hope that 

we can see that I hope you'll be able to provide us 

feedback on what the Department's proposal for defining 

the indicators is, and and yeah, so that's it. With six 

minutes left, I did want to, I did want to ask the 

subcommittee who would be willing, if anybody had time to 

think about it over the lunch break or throughout the 

day, is there anybody from the subcommittee or several 

representatives that would be willing to present out to 

the main committee? And that will be determined by the 

main committee, so we don't have a specific date yet, but 

it wouldn't be for the November session. It would be for 

the for the December for the December session. And I 

apologize, I don't know the date. I'm pulling it up right 

now. But the so the subcommittee member would report out 

for the December session. So does anybody have a, would 

anybody like to volunteer to to to report out to the main 

committee with the subcommittee's recommendation? 
77

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

MR. SCHELLING: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So, I wouldn't mind 

doing it. But I also just want to ask, do we have to make 

that decision now since we have, we'll, you know, meet 

the rest of this week and then also another week? You 

know, but yeah.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So that will be so 

we would most likely be reporting (inaudible) some day on

between December 6th and the 10th, and the reason that we

want to establish it earlier, I mean, it doesn't have to 

be today but maybe tomorrow morning but we want to 

establish earlier because the person that's doing it, we 

want to let the person that's doing it know that they 

probably need to be taking some pretty intensive notes 

from the conversations. The Department is of course here 

to help with with with the report. Of course we you know,

we have the amendatory language but in the way that it 

has gone in previous report out, some some committees 

have done very extensive reports. Some subcommittees have

done PowerPoint presentations. Some subcommittees have 

done I saw one where it was kind of like this dialogue 

between two or three people just with microphones, it was

in person of course, but so it was, it's just the report 

has been done in such different ways. I just would want 

to subcommittee member that or the members that are doing
78

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

it to be aware that they're doing it and be able to, you 

know, not, everybody's paying attention, but I just 

really have like, you know, extensive information for 

whatever, however they're going to report to the main 

committee. So we can we can we can table it if nobody, I 

know, Stan, you said you'd be willing. ButMR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

MS. WHEELER: I just wanted to offer 

up if Stanley would like some assistance, as he you know, 

if if he is the person that goes forward with this, I 

just wanted to offer up and say I'm very happy to help in 

any way possible.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So we do have 

three minutes left, I don't think it would be the best 

idea to go down the job placement. I think that it would 

be, you know, I want to give it I want to give it the 

attention it deserves. So we'll pick back up tomorrow, 

andMR. SCHELLING: Stan has a question.

 DR. ANDRISSE: One question I was just

holding until you finish that was back to David's point 

of FSA having planning and already starting advocacy and 

outreach efforts. Are there a specific set of dollars set

aside to do that type of outreach and advocacy work? Or 

has if it's not in, you know, written somewhere 
79

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

appropriated to this, has FSA appropriated some certain 

set of dollars to it?

MR. SCHELLING: David, did you want to 

address that?

MR. MUSSER: Sure. When the law was 

first enacted, FSA, consulted with DOJ to see what kinds 

of resources could be brought to bear for this. DOJ may 

may end up being able to use some grant funding to to 

solicit some some assistance for technical assistance. 

There is no specific dollar amount that has been 

specifically appropriated for this purpose. So FSA is 

devoting the, whatever resources we can put together to 

to do this work at the moment. But Congress didn't 

provide us with additional funding for this. So we're 

working within the existing operating budget that we have 

for for this fiscal year. And for next fiscal year to do 

this work. As I mentioned, DOJ does have some grant 

programs that it works on that may be able to be used, at 

least at least in part for this purpose. But I can't 

speak to that specifically, I'd have to go back and talk 

with my colleagues on that front.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, to my 

understanding, I mean, that piece is partially what Vera 

tapped into to offer technical assistance for I mean, and 

Belinda, please, if you are familiar, correct me if I'm 
80

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

wrong, but thank you for that clarification. So one 

additional point to that, David, or yes, David, sorry, is 

to, does FSA intend to solicit, I mean, what does FSA, 

one, solicit grant opportunities to help in that aspect 

of outreach? Is there already mechanisms in place that 

FSA reaches out to do that?

 MR. MUSSER: So if you're talking 

about outreach to postsecondary institutions, FSA has a 

lot of avenues that we've already established for doing 

that. As I mentioned, we have a training website where 

we, we have a conference that we provide every year, we 

have a training website that schools are familiar with. 

But we also have a portal, that's nearly all schools are 

law are hooked into and are familiar with, where we make 

announcements and, and send announcements to all 

participating institutions, and let them know when new 

information is available. We generally do that with new 

webinars, new training, new information about new laws, 

so that we have documents that we refer to as Dear 

Colleague letters that we publish, that, again, a lot of 

institutions are aware of, and look for, to be sure that 

they're up on the current guidance that's available. So 

we have a lot of different vehicles for providing that 

guidance directly to schools. And we also have a training 

team that we've already informed will will be will need 
81

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

to help with this process and get the word out to two 

institutions.

DR. ANDRISSE: So that's fantastic. 

One last point. And that really is incredible. I'm 

excited about that. Is there an FOA in place? Like are 

you, do you fund other entities to help you do that, was 

my initial question. So it sounds like you're doing it 

internally. But do you fund other entities to do it?

MR. MUSSER: So no FSA does not fund 

other entities to provide training. That's it that's 

training to post-secondary institutions is something that 

we do in house from FSA.

MR. SCHELLING: Kim.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I just wanted to jump 

in here, we have now exceeded 3:00 o’clock. I, I really 

don't want to curtail or cut off conversation. But I, we 

did publish to the community that we would end that 3:00 

and what what I would what I really wouldn't want is that

somebody who had scheduled, you know, until 3:00 to be a 

part of the conversation, not to have been able to be a 

part of the conversation because we decided to go past 

3:00 with discussions. So I really want everybody who had

their hands up to be able to talk for today. And then 

tomorrow, we really, really do have to end at 3:00 just 

so to make sure that anybody watching and doesn't miss 
82

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

out on some of the conversation. Of course, it will be 

posted online, but we have exceeded the time.

MR. SCHELLING: Kim.

MS. CARY: Just to follow for Stan. We 

do also have not only FSA but we have our national 

association of financial aid. And we have, each state has 

their their state association. So we're very good in our 

financial aid community of getting information out to 

what to know what is going on and helping each other so I 

can give you more information on that if you'd like.

MR. SCHELLING: I think that's it, 

Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. And with that, 

thank you all. We've completed our first day of the 

subcommittee and tomorrow we'll start back with the best 

interest discussion. Thank you so much.

MR. SCHELLING: Thanks, everyone. 
83

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21
84

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21