Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 1, MORNING

October 18, 2021

On the 18th day of October, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m.

to 12:00 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: To all of you joining 

us today, and to the subcommittee members seated around 

our virtual conference table. My name is Aaron Washington 

and it is my pleasure to welcome you all to the prison 

education program subcommittee. First, I want to express 

our appreciation for the communities that have worked 

hard for this change, and that are now at the table 

helping to write these rules. We want to hear their 

voices representing impacted students, and we want to 

ensure the community hears their voices. Language 

developed and recommended by the subcommittee will inform 

the work of the affordability, ability, and student loans 

main table, and I'd like to welcome everyone around the 

subcommittee virtual table representing various 

constituencies, who have been nominated by their peers 

and selected by the Department to discuss important 

issues concerning the Federal Student Aid programs, 

authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended. You may recall, we kicked off our 

negotiated rulemaking process through our public hearings 

and solicitation of comments back in June, when we heard 

from the public on various topics concerning 

affordability and accountability, and federal student aid 

programs. We appreciated all of those who engaged with us 
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

in that process, shared your concerns, and provided 

suggestions. Based on your feedback, we have formed this 

subcommittee to focus on recommending language to the 

main committee on regulations regarding prison education 

programs. We have a robust agenda for the subcommittee 

and have distributed an issue paper and amendatory 

language. To the subcommittee members, there are several 

issues that we would like to discuss with you and 

specific questions that we'll have to generate some ideas 

and potential solutions. Without further ado, it is my 

pleasure to introduce our Undersecretary James Kvaal, who 

will provide welcoming remarks. Undersecretary Kvaal was 

formerly president of The Institute for College Access 

and Success, TICAS for short. He served in the Obama 

administration as the Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor at 

the White House and Deputy Undersecretary at the US 

Department of Education. He served in senior roles in the 

US House of Representatives and the US Senate and taught 

at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public 

Policy. So please join me in welcoming Undersecretary 

Kvaal.

 MS. WILSON: Aaron, he needs to unmute 

and put on his camera please.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Amy, would you be 

able to administratively unmute his microphone?
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 JAMES KVAAL: Sorry. I was not given 

permission. I felt like my voice had been taken from me. 

But, here we go. Thanks, everybody. I wanted to say good 

morning and on behalf of Secretary Cardona and the staff 

of the Department of Education, welcome to the first 

meeting of the Subcommittee on prison education programs. 

I want to say thank you to all of the communities that 

have been working so hard to expand opportunities for 

incarcerated students and reinstating eligibility for 

Pell Grants, it's such an important step. And thank you 

to all of you who are here now at the table to help us 

write these rules. We want to hear your voices because we 

need the voices of impacted students in order to write 

the best possible rules. In May, Secretary Cardona 

invited students who had attended college and prison 

programs to share their experiences. Their stories were 

very moving, I am told, and all of the students who 

attended the virtual roundtable told the Secretary that 

they truly realize their potential while participating in 

education in prison. Thanks in large part to the efforts 

of the educational institutions that offered them that 

second chance. Since 2015, the experimental program, The 

Second Chance Pell Pilot Site, has helped more than 

22,000 students earn more than 7,000 postsecondary

credentials, helping them build new skills, and improving 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

their odds of success. This summer we expanded that 

experiment up to 200 institutions. Doing so will ensure 

that we learn from schools across country and help us

prepare for full reinstatement. We're deeply committed to 

this work. The new rules governing prison education 

programs will extend Federal Financial Aid to more 

students who are incarcerated and to more postsecondary

education programs. By one estimate, 300 college programs 

currently operate in prisons, enrolling more than 25,000 

students, and many more could join in the future. 

Secretary Cardona and the rest of the Biden 

administration hope we can reach as many of those 

students as possible. Students who are incarcerated 

cannot necessarily vote with their feet, it is far more 

difficult to simply choose a different program if the one 

in their local facility is not high quality than it is 

for other students. That means getting these rules right 

for students is critical because we have a heightened 

need here recognized by Congress to ensure that all these 

programs are high quality programs. Throughout this 

process, we hope to ensure that the implementation of 

Pell reinstatement for incarcerated students is done in a 

way that provides meaningful quality opportunities in 

students’ best interests. For those of you who haven't 

followed past rulemaking processes, you will learn that 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

proposals will evolve as the process moves on. I want to 

emphasize that we enter these sessions with an open mind 

and the issue papers are a point of departure in 

conversation. We look forward to refining them based upon 

your expertise. I want to say thank you to the team here 

at the Department who have worked so hard to make today's 

session possible including, Jen Maturi (phonetic), Aaron 

Washington, Dave Musser, Ron Sann, Shawn Hadi (phonetic), 

Kerri Moseley-Hobbs, Elias Romanos, Emily Lamont, and 

Claire McCann. And to the members of this subcommittee, 

thank you again, for taking the time to serve. We take 

this process very seriously, and believe it helps us 

produce the best possible regulations. And we know it 

would not be possible without your hard work. The topics 

that the subcommittee will discuss illustrate the 

importance of postsecondary education and working toward 

equity and upward mobility. I appreciate all of the work 

that you are contributing and wish you the best of luck 

in your deliberations. Thanks.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, 

Undersecretary Kvaal. We're going to move into 

introductions now. So I will start. My name is Aaron 

Washington, as many of you have seen me at the main 

committee and now at the subcommittee, so I will be 

leading the subcommittee through the amendatory language. 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

And I will be engaging in discussions with you all in 

regard to language changes that you'd like to recommend 

or recommendations or proposals that you would like to 

provide to the Department. I'm going to turn it over to 

my colleague in the Office of General Counsel, Ron Sann, 

to introduce himself.

 RON SANN: Good morning, everyone. My 

name is Ron Sann. I'm an attorney in the postsecondary

education division of the General Counsel's Office. And 

during the course of our meetings, I will be joined by my

colleague, Steve Finley and Sorren Lagaard to provide 

legal support to the Subcommittee on the variety of 

topics that we will be discussing. And I look forward to 

working with you all, and all the best. Thanks.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Ron. Now, 

I would like my colleague, David Musser from the Office 

of Federal Student Aid, to introduce himself.

 MR. MUSSER: Sure, thanks, Aaron. My 

name is David Musser. I'm with the Office of Federal 

Student Aid, and I'm the director of the policy 

innovation and dissemination group. Our two roles are to 

publish the federal student aid handbook and we also 

manage the experimental sites initiative, of which the 

second chance Pell experiment is one. I'll be here as a 

technical adviser to help answer your questions about 
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

specific rules and regulations or processes that FSA 

carries out with respect to incarcerated students.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, David. My 

colleague Brian Schelling, will be facilitating for today 

on October 18th. And also he will be calling on the 

subcommittee members when their hands are raised and 

providing them with a timeframe during which they could 

speak. We're going to set it at three minutes today. And 

then, so my colleague Sophia McArdle will join us on 

Tuesday and Wednesday, but I'd like to turn it over to 

Brian Schelling to introduce himself as well.

 MR. SCHELLING: Thanks, Aaron. I think 

you said pretty much everything already. I'm in the 

policy development group with Aaron and with Vanessa and 

I will be calling on people to speak and as he said, 

we'll have a three minute time limit as we did in the 

main committee meetings. And I will give you a 30 second 

warning when there are 30 seconds left. I'm looking 

forward to the discussion today. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Brian. My 

colleague, Vanessa Gomez, I'd like to turn it to her to 

introduce herself. Well, I'm not sure if Vanessa can hear 

you guys.

 VANESSA GOMEZ: Can you hear me now? 

It's okay. Sorry. So good morning, everyone. My name is 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Vanessa. As Brian said, I work with him and Aaron in the 

policy development group. And for the purpose of this 

meeting, I will be the one sharing my screen and making 

the red line edits you all tell me to make. So thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: And finally, 

Elizabeth Daggett, from the accreditation group will be 

joining us on Wednesday to field questions on outstanding 

issues that come up regarding the Department's proposals 

relating to accreditation. She can't be with us today but 

I wanted to make sure that the subcommittee and public 

were aware that we will be having an additional member 

from the Department of Education join us on Wednesday to 

talk about accreditation issues. Alright, now we're going 

to go into the introductions of the subcommittee members. 

And so I would like each of the subcommittee members to 

take two minutes to state your name, how you would like 

to be addressed during the subcommittee meetings, your 

state, your constituency, and also I'd like you to state 

what your hope is for your constituency during these 

meetings. So the first subcommittee member I would like 

to start us off is Belinda Wheeler.

 MS. WHEELER: Good morning. Good 

morning, everyone. My name is Belinda Wheeler. I am a 

representative of consumer advocacy groups. I'm also a 

Senior Program Associate at Vera Institute of Justice. I 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

think a big part for me is I want to make sure that as 

many voices are heard as possible. And with that in mind, 

you know, I wanted to thank constituents who have met 

with me and continue to do so through this process. As

your consumer advocacy member here I just really want to 

make sure that we are continuing to do this important 

work as Vera and other entities before Vera have been in 

this space, and as other organizations have entered this 

space. It's so important we cannot get this wrong and we 

need to make sure that people who are currently 

incarcerated get, you know, quality access to really 

wonderful programming that provides them with the support 

that they in their communities need. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. We're 

going to move to Kim Cary.

 KIM CARY: Good morning and thank you. 

I'm Kim Cary the college director for financial aid at 

Ozarks Technical Community College in Springfield, 

Missouri. I'm here today proudly representing our 

financial aid administrators. I have college financial 

experience of 21 years and I serve on my college 

committee as a second chance Pell institution with our 

first cohort beginning spring of 2022. So pretty 

exciting. I'm looking forward to conversations today. 

It's a very important topic. We also know that financial 
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

aid is not an intuitive process. And we need to ensure a 

smooth process with few barriers for this important 

process we're going to be going through.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Just a 

reminder, please, when you're speaking please turn your 

camera on so that, thank you. Our next subcommittee 

member, Stanley Andrisse.

 MS. WILSON: We're having a technical 

issue with Stanley so could you move on and I'm going to 

work with him.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Terrell Blount.

 TERRELL BLOUNT: Good morning. My name 

is Terrell Blount. I am the director of the Formerly 

Incarcerated College Graduates Network. You can refer to 

me as Terrell during the course of the meeting. One 

thing, oh, and I'm representing groups that represent 

incarcerated students. And just to note FICGN represents 

formerly incarcerated graduates and current students and 

reentry students as well. What I would like to see come 

out of this is a fair and equitable process and system. 

Not just for students and having choice and proper 

advising, but also and arguably more importantly, the 

process in which college and prison programs go about the 

reporting that takes place for those programs and 

ensuring quality.
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Terrell. 

Our next subcommittee member is Dr. Terrence S. McTier. 

You have to click on mute, Dr. McTier. Oh, Amy, it looks 

like Dr. McTier is having some technical issues, can you 

administratively unmute him? 

 MS. WILSON: Hold on one second. Oh, 

he's- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's move let's move 

to Marisa Britton-Bostwick, and then we'll come back to 

Dr. McTier.

 MARISA BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good 

morning, everyone. My name is Marisa Britton-Bostwick. I 

am the education director for the Montana Department of 

Corrections, which oversees three state prisons and then 

two private prisons within Montana. My hope is to really 

have more accredited equitable education not just within 

our Montana facilities, but across the nation, in 

correctional facilities, and to really take a realistic 

look at the exciting things that are happening in 

corrections, but also the challenging things with 

education, in correctional facilities. In the facilities 

and then also when they transition into the community. 

So, thank you, I look forward to working with all of you. 

Feel free to address me as Marisa and thank you for 

having me.
13

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Dr. Angie 

Paccione from the Colorado Department of Higher 

Education, representing state higher education executive 

officers will not be joining us this morning. But she 

does plan to join us for the afternoon session and the 

remaining sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday for the full 

day. Amy, were we able to resolve?

 MS. WILSON: I see Dr. McTier. I just 

see that you have to unmute yourself? You should. I gave 

him both. You know, I would recommend logging off and 

logging back on because you and Stanley Andrisse because 

you both currently have access. So I don't know what's, 

what's going on. So could you log on, excuse me log off 

and log back on please.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, the next item 

on our agenda is to move into the protocol. So while they 

log back in, I'll just go through the protocols and then 

we can circle back to have Dr. McTier and Dr. Andrisse 

introduce themselves. So for this subcommittee, members’ 

cameras should remain on during active negotiation at all 

sessions. So Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, your camera 

should remain on and you can turn your cameras during 

breaks and during brief times of absence. Subcommittee 

members will remain engaged in the work of the 

subcommittee and refrain from other activity, including 
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

posting on social media during the time that the 

subcommittee meetings are in session. I will introduce 

each new topic and subcommittee members who wish to speak 

on that topic should virtually raise their hand. Brian 

today, or Sophia on Tuesday and Wednesday, we'll 

determine speaking order and call upon subcommittee 

members when it is their turn to speak. Subcommittee 

members must wait their turn and follow the Department 

staff instructions. Department staff intends to do the 

same unless asked a specific targeted question during the 

subcommittee. So I don't want to, if there is a really 

great flow of conversation going on between subcommittee 

members, I don't want to interrupt that, so I will be 

sure to raise my hand as well unless you ask me a direct 

question. If you say Aaron, I need to know something 

where if you ask David Musser or Ronald Sann a direct 

question, then that's when we will chime in. But, but 

unless that happens, I will also respect that and raise 

my hand as well. Only one subcommittee member may speak 

at a time and all other subcommittee members’ microphones 

are to remain muted. For today, we will limit comments to 

three minutes to ensure that we are moving at a pace to 

get through our agenda on time and ensure we're hearing 

from everyone who wants to speak. Brian will let you know 

when you reach two minute and 30 seconds, and also when 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

you reach three minutes. If you would like to speak again 

on a topic, please just raise your hand. Please note that 

the subcommittee does not vote. The subcommittee is 

structured more like a working group. It was constituted 

and approved under the main committee protocols as 

announced in the Federal Register Notice requesting

nominations. The Department was purposeful in 

distinguishing between the main committee and the 

subcommittee. The subcommittee will provide timely 

recommendations to the main committee. The primary 

negotiator, negotiators from the main committee, and the 

federal negotiator, Jennifer Hong will vote on the 

package. The committee may also request additional 

information from the subcommittee as needed. We do not 

need to decide right now, but by the end of the day, 

today, we will need to designate a member of the 

subcommittee who will take notes and present the 

subcommittee's recommendation to the main committee. It 

can be more than one person. But the presentation will 

include the proposed regulatory or mandatory language 

that we develop here. And it should have some sort of 

accompanying report or PowerPoint presentation to provide 

a more high level overview. As I mentioned, and as we 

mentioned several times, Vanessa will be sharing her 

screen and making real time edits. She will only make 
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

edits when the committee has generously agreed to the 

change, and I will be sure to alert her when a change 

should be made. If you are suggesting a generally agreed 

upon change, please be sure to speak slowly and clearly 

so that Vanessa can capture the change. If you do not 

have exact language you would like to propose, but you do 

have a concept that the group agrees with, the Department 

will do its best to draft language for you to consider at 

the next day's meeting. Finally, I will periodically ask 

the subcommittee members to show a thumbs up or a thumbs 

down or sideways thumb to determine if the subcommittee 

is on track to provide one recommendation to the main 

committee. That's the goal, to provide one strong 

recommendation to the main committee. This also provides 

an opportunity to see if there is division on a path 

forward and how we can work together to resolve any 

outstanding issues. Amy, were we able to see Dr. Stanley?

 MS. WILSON: Let's try. Stanley?

 DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning. Thank you 

for helping me work through those technical difficulties. 

Sorry for the delay. I felt like my voice was being 

muted, I guess, in a technical way it was, but it's a 

pleasure to be here, Stan Andrisse. I am at this table as 

a formerly incarcerated individual with multiple felony 
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

convictions, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 

was told that I, you know, was not going to ever get out 

of that kind of hole that I was in I you know, fast 

forward some time I'm now, Dr. Stanley Andrisse an 

Endocrinologist and professor at Howard University 

College of Medicine, as well as the executive director of 

From Prison Cells To PhD, which is what I sit here 

representing-- the Formerly Incarcerated Student 

Constituency. I'm also on the full committee as a 

representative of individual students. So it is a 

pleasure to be here with you all, and I look forward to 

our conversations.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. And 

finally we have Dr. McTier. Is he able to rejoin us, Amy?

 DR. MCTIER: Yep. I can. Good morning, 

everyone. I am Dr. Terrence McTier. I am the director of 

the Prison Education Project at Washington University in 

St. Louis. I am coming to the space representing 

directors who will be responsible for implementing the 

changes within the Pell Grant for incarcerated students. 

I'm also on the main committee, representing the nonprivate and nonprofit sector. I'm really looking forward 

to a clear, concise, and equitable process for 

implementing Pell Grants for our students and our 

institutions. Thank you.
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you Dr. McTier. 

Dr. McTier, are you able to turn your camera on?

 DR. MCTIER: Okay, got it.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Okay, so I 

want to pause there for any questions, and if there are 

none, then we will dive into today's agenda. Okay, so 

let's dive into the agenda. So the first section, 

Vanessa, if you could pull up the amendatory language or 

share your screen. All right, that is perfect. So, the 

first part of the regulations that we're going to take a 

look at today are just some definitions and that the 

Department believes need to be updated in order to ensure 

proper reporting, and in order to ensure that we're 

capturing every, all the different locations. So the 

first step is we're going to look at a different location 

and that the black text is language that is already in 

current regulation. And so the definition of an 

additional location is a facility that is geographically 

apart from the main campus of an institution and at which 

the institution offers at least 50% of a program and may 

qualify as a branch campus. So the Department’s text 

that's used there is what we propose to add--the 

definition of additional location, and that is the 

federal, state, or local penitentiary prison, jail, 

reformatory, work farm, juvenile justice facility, etc. 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

A correctional institution is considered to be an 

additional location as defined under 34 CFR 600.2. Even 

if a student received instruction primarily through 

distance education or correspondence courses at that

location. So, we're proposing to update this definition 

and to ensure proper reporting of additional locations to 

the Department, regardless of the format of education, 

whether that be in person, online, through the mail, or 

electronic transmission. This will also ensure that 

additional locations are reviewed under accreditors 

substantive change policies to ensure the institution has 

adequate faculty, facilities, resources, and academic and 

student support systems in place, the institution is 

financially stable, and that the institution has engaged 

in long range planning for expansion. Also, if an 

additional location closes, meaning that if a school 

closes, all programs at the correctional facility, per 

section 437 of the Higher Education Act, the student 

would be eligible to have their Pell grant restored for 

the entire period that the student was in attendance at 

the institution. And so to be clear, this is already the 

Department's interpretation. So we’re essentially 

proposing to codify our existing policy and regulation. 

So I will pause there and open it up for questions. I'm 

seeing none. Can- 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MS. WILSON: Brenda, Belinda has herBelinda yeah. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, yeah.

 MR. SCHELLING: Belinda has a 

question. Go ahead, Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. So 

just wanted to clarify, I love the extra definition that 

has been listed here and the inclusivity. With regards to 

the different types of carceral spaces. I think that's 

really important. I just had a clarifying question. And 

that is, with the existing language, how it refers to at 

least 50% of a program. With regards to just this little 

piece that we have here. Is that potentially something 

that the Department may look at like I know, Aaron, you 

had mentioned that you'd be beyond the additional 

language you had mentioned all these things that ED sees 

as existing policy for people who are currently 

incarcerated undertaking educational experiences. But it 

just wanted to double check about this at least 50% 

because I know with some of the other documents that 

we're going to be looking at later, there's potentially 

the idea of as soon as an educational institution is

considering being in that space, that that might actually 

trigger when this additional location paperwork makes its 

way from an education. institution to their, their 
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

corresponding accreditation agency. So just wanted to be 

clear about that percentage and how ED is seeing that.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we're just 

trying to clarify that no matter what the means of 

instruction, that the additional location will have to 

well, it'll either have to be well, you'll see we'll see 

later in the mandatory language that the program will 

either have to apply to the Department for approval of 

the program, or subsequent programs that you aren't 

required by regulations that apply to the Department will 

be all will be reported to the Department. Regardless, if 

50% of the program is offered at this location or without 

regard to without regard to the means of instruction, 

correspondence, distance, we're just trying to simply 

clarify that you must report all prisoners escaping 

programs to the Department of Education. I'm not sure 

that answers your question.

 MR. SCHELLING: Dave has his hand up 

and then Dr. McTier?

 MR. MUSSER: Yeah, I think I got it. I 

just wanted to clarify one aspect of the language that 

indicates 50% of a program. The Department interprets 

that to mean that a student can complete up to 50% of a 

program. So if there's ever a case where an institution 

has begun a program, and students are just beginning and 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

they haven't actually taken 50% of a program, the fact 

that the program will offer 50% of the program there will 

result in that being treated as an additional location 

that must be reported to the Department or approved based 

on the new requirements that Aaron just mentioned.

 MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yes, just I guess a 

clarifying question for me. Would distance come into play 

here? If the courses that are at the prison are 

primarily administered through a virtual space, would 

that be considered a branch campus as well, or is this 

solely if you go into that space, into the prison?

 MR. WASHINGTON: It will be considered 

an additional location if it was offered through distance 

education. So if your institution, for example, when it 

offers a program at a correctional facility solely 

(100%)through distance, that facility where you’re 

offering the program, it will be considered an additional 

location, and it would have to be reported to the 

Department or you'd have to apply. Perhaps there may be 

some credit or approval in there as well. Brian, do we 

have any other hands?

 MR. SCHELLING: I do not see any. I 

also I should have mentioned earlier that Teams 

apparently does not order when hands go up anymore. So if 
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

more than one hand goes up at a time, I'll try to call 

people in the order that they raise their hand, but I 

can't guarantee that I will get it right every time. But 

I will try.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I don't see any. Oh, 

well.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I did have a question. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Stanley has a 

question. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, thank you. So I 

have a question. But I may, it pertains to institutional 

eligibility as it ties to this question, but I don't 

know, if it will make more sense to bringing up when we 

move away from the definitions and are talking about 

institutional eligibility. But maybe it does get answered 

here. The idea of the 50% and, you know, are how are we 

going to address institutions that are solely or mostly, 

you know, providing education through Pell only? And, you 

know, is that something that needs to be addressed in 

some form of definition in this part here to say that 

there's a limit on how much Pell your institution offers 

or if it's the only source? And again, maybe that is 

better answered in the institutional eligibility part. 

But it does kind of tie to this idea of offering 50%.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just a clarifying 
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

question, Stan, are you so I guess just to back up a bit, 

to access Pell a student would complete the federal, the 

free application for Federal Student Aid. And there's 

some work that's done by our central processing system to 

determine the amount of aid the student is eligible to 

receive. Pell acts almost like if you if you apply and 

you're eligible, you would get hurt, you would get 

whatever Pell you were entitled to based on calculations 

about the expected family contribution and cost of 

attendance. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So maybe I could reclarify. And, you know, the question is, does/will the 

Department restrict Pell access from programs that rely 

solely on Pell funding, and that do not admit students 

who are not Pell eligible? So for programs and 

institutions that are solely just, you know, allowing 

Pell, you know, that is their sole means of the type of 

students that they bring in? You know, I think there, we 

will probably get into this conversation, some 

institutions that have that makeup are particularly

targeting incarcerated students and disadvantaged 

students. And, again, I think that this question may be 

for later. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for 

bringing that up. Say, I understand your question. And 
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

better now. And I can definitely take that back and

discuss that as well, and have an answer for you at a 

later time, but I appreciate the clarification. Thank 

you. Brian, do we have any more hands for the definition 

of dislocation?

 MR. SCHELLING: I do not see any.

 MR. WASHINGTON: And also, Belinda, 

thank you so much for your comments, I, if you have any, 

do you have any language proposals, and this is for the 

entire subcommittee. If anybody has any language proposal 

that they'd like to offer, and you'd like small tweaks to 

what we were saying here, or, any general concepts that 

you'd like to see included, you can send the entire 

subcommittee an email. I think I stated before the 

Department will try and draft some language or we can ask 

Vanessa to type on the screen in real time to see what 

would work better to ensure that we're getting to 

everybody's goal. But seeing no more discussion about 

this topic, Venessa, would you mind scrolling down to the 

confined or incarcerated individual definition? Exactly. 

So for this definition, this is also in 600.2. Currently, 

there is a definition of incarcerated student and the 

Department wanted to update the definition to mirror the 

definition more closely in the higher education 2021 

appropriations bill that amended the Higher Education 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Act. The amendments to the Higher Education Act, 

referred to an incarcerated individual and not 

incarcerated students. So that's why you see those 

changes there. We, I, see this as a technical update to 

the regulations. But there is one place where we did add 

some clarifying language. You'll see that it says as an 

individual who was serving a sentence in a federal state 

or local penal institution , jail, reformatory, work 

farm, and we've added juvenile justice facility because 

we consider that to be a similar Correctional 

Institution. And then you'll see there that underneath 

that definition, we have a definition of juvenile justice 

facility that's already in the regulation in that we've 

provided that so this subcommittee and the public can see 

how the Department has historically defined juvenile 

justice facility. The rationale behind that is that we 

believe that juvenile justice facilities that any program 

offered at juvenile justice facilities also have to meet 

the proposed definition of a prison education program. 

And going forward we wanted to codify that our 

interpretation that the juvenile justice facility was a 

similar correctional facility and the regulation applies. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Stanley and Dr. 

McTier.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. So. thank you, I
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

think these clarifications, I really appreciate these 

clarifications that were made. If I could ask for a 

clarification from the Department. A formerly 

incarcerated individual, or an individual who has a 

criminal, you know, background, or that has some type of 

conviction on their record, if they're in the community, 

they should be able to access Pell. And so that would 

mean people that have, I'm just asking for clarification 

on you know, individuals in a halfway house, home 

detention, or serving weekends--I just wanted it to be 

clarified that they actually are already still eligible 

for Pell. Is that correct?

 MR. WASHINGTON: That is, that is 

correct. So under the current definition, instead, well, 

the statute only prohibits those that are incarcerated in 

a federal or state penal institution. That's how the 

statute refers to it. Currently, if you're incarcerated 

in a federal or state penal institution, you are not 

eligible to receive Pell Grants. However, if you are in 

any Correctional Facility, other than a federal or state 

penal institution, let's say a local jail, juvenile 

justice facility, work farm, or reformatory you are 

currently eligible for Pell. And that won't change with 

these proposed regulations. The only thing that will 

change is, as of July 1 2023, incarcerated individuals or 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

individuals that are confined or incarcerated individuals 

will, in order to access Pell, will be required to enroll 

in a prison education program. And so that is the slight 

change. Right now, students are accessing Pell at local 

jails and juvenile justice facilities to enroll in any 

eligible program. And as a product of the changes to the 

ACA, these students would have to enroll in a prison 

education program as defined by our proposal, or whatever 

is published on November 1st of next year. And so that's 

the only slight change. I think you also mentioned the 

halfway house or detention. So the definition says we 

don't consider a halfway house or home detention to be 

incarcerated. So those students would be eligible for not 

only Pell, but also federal student loans. And they would 

not have to enroll in a prison education program, they 

would be eligible to enroll in any eligible program at 

the school of their choosing.

 MR. SCHELLING: Thank you, Stan. Dr. 

McTier?

 DR. MCTIER: Yes. How it worked--

release programs actually fit within this definition. I 

know. I've had students who were part of a work release 

program where they would go to school Monday through 

Friday, and then return back to the facility for an 

extended period of time. But based on this definition, 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

actually wouldn't fit within the weekends and/or the 

prison jail. I'm wondering if it will actually fit within 

that. But I think there would be some clarifying language 

on adding work release program students who choose to 

take college courses during that particular process 

because they are technically still incarcerated. But they 

actually leave the facility.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, were you going 

to address that? If not- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I wanted to make sure 

I was like raising my hand. Dr. McTier, was that a 

question you want me to answer now?

 DR. MCTIER: I just would like to see 

that added to this definition. Yeah, that's basically 

what I wanted to see.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just a clarifying 

question, you would like to see it added to the 

definition of an unconfined or incarcerated individual or 

not confined or incarcerated?

 DR. MCTIER: A part of the confined or 

incarcerated individual.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So you would consider 

these individuals who work with these program providers

to be incarcerated.

 DR. MCTIER: Correct. 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Terrell has a 

question. Terrell?

 TERRELL BLOUNT: Thank you. I wanted 

to know two things. One, is the individual serving a 

criminal sentence specific to protect students or people 

who are in a jail and are pretrial, they haven't been 

sentenced to a, you know, any type of confinement yet? 

And that's to again, I'm asking to protect them from 

being, you know, enrolled in a program when they may not 

even be in the facility for an entire semester or half a 

semester?

 DR. ANDRISSE: Could I add a comment 

to that? 

 MR. SCHELLING: Yeah, go ahead, 

Stanley.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So, that's a good 

point, thank you, Terrell. And I think so again, there 

needs to be, I mean, maybe there needs to be some 

clarification, because we, our program works inside of 

both prisons and jails. And I know, a lot of jails, for 

instance, people in jails and the, you know, correctional 

staff, and leaders are not familiar that incarcerated 

individuals can get Pell or, you know, federal aid, 

because that was the question that I first had. As you 
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

mentioned, you know, people in jail have actually always 

been able to get access to Pell, under, you know, the 

changes that were made in ‘94. But, you know, I think 

this is saying some people serve sentences in jail. And 

that was a pretty gray area. Because if you're serving a 

sentence in jail, it's under a year, for instance, your 

sentence. There wasn't clarity on if that person could 

get Pell. But, you know, my reading of this is that 

people in jail who were pretrial should be able to get 

access to Pell already anyway. There needs to be more 

knowledge about that. But under this definition, I think 

it's safe. If you're serving a sentence in jail, then you 

can get access, but I agree with Terrell, I think there 

would need to be some clarification behind that.

 TERRELL BLOUNT: Yeah, and I raised 

that only because, you know, to what Stan was just 

saying, um, so you do have some places where people are, 

because the state correction system is, you know, overly 

populated. People are serving their state sentences in 

the local jail in some states, right? So I can see if a 

prison education program is teaching folks who are 

serving state sentences, which may be well over a year, 

to reach those students. But I think specifically to the 

pretrial folks, I don't suspect that people would be 

arrested, you know, for a crime, awaiting to be in front 
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

of the judge and automatically say to themselves, like, 

hey, let me enroll in college. I think there will be 

more situations where institutions are interested in 

reaching people, in just enrolling folks in programs, and 

not caring what happens once they leave that jail and 

those support services being added. So I wouldn't, 

thinking about it, I'm not saying that, you know, I would 

want to open it up to pretrial. But again, it was just a 

question on what was the purpose of that criminal 

sentence part, if it is a protection or not?

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron? You're on mute, 

Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: This language was 

taken, so any language that's in black, it was taken 

directly from the statute. So the rationale, that was the 

rationale so you'll see on the screen, we've changed 

we've added confined or we've changed students 

individual. But anything in black is language that is 

already in the in the regulation. So we've made changes 

on top of the statutory language or language that's 

already in regulation so that the committee can see what 

exactly changed. I will say that if you have any 

suggestions for ways that we can make this more clear, 

that would be helpful if you can either email those to 

the group or state on record right now, what those 
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

specific changes would be. Now I'm not saying that you 

have to have a specific regulatory language. But if you 

could provide us with a concept of how you'd like to see 

a change, that would be helpful to ensure that we're 

capturing everything in this definition.

 MR. SCHELLING: Ron, Stan, and 

Terrell. In that order. 

 RON SANN: Thanks. I just wanted to 

kind of echo what Aaron is saying. And this will be the 

theme we may encounter, often during our discussions, but

this language is statutory. And we of course, recognize 

that that it's a big country in different state 

correctional and criminal justice systems may approach 

things a little bit differently. But in this case, 

serving a criminal sense is, is seems to me, at least at 

this point, pretty, pretty clear language. And you know, 

when we look at these in practice, oftentimes, in making 

these determinations, there'll be consideration of 

individual cases. But right now, we are dealing with the 

statute as it's been drafted. So if, if the there's 

possibility that if there's a need for changes, then 

that's a possibility of amending the statute, but at 

least for now, the law is pretty clear on how we would 

implement that based on what individual cases might 

present? We would see, but at least from now, I think 
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

it's pretty clear.

 MR. SCHELLING: Dave, did you want to 

interject something there out of order? No, I'm good for 

now. Okay, thanks. Stan. Terrell. And then Kim.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, so I would, um, I 

mean, I would I have a, you know, to, as written, it is 

pretty clear language. But as implemented and understood, 

there is certainly some confusion in the field. I mean, 

again, we, you know, our program operates inside of both 

a prison and a jail. And, you know, people in pretrial, I 

would argue, you know, the folks that we work with the 

incarcerated students that we work with, and pretrial are 

eager to take part for various reasons. I mean, what 

we've seen for one thing is that, you know, they see 

benefit in the potential of helping their sentencing out 

from being involved in postsecondary education. And then, 

you know, some of the students are just this is, as we 

know, about incarcerated at, you know, prison education 

programs. Sometimes this is a first real opportunity for 

some folks to get postsecondary education, unfortunately, 

is how, you know, data will show. Um, so. But as you 

said, the language currently--pretrial individuals are 

eligible for, I just think there's, I don't know, I don't 

know if it's something that gets written in or how we 

make more people aware of that. But, you know, I do think 
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

that it's a population that we're interested in at least 

and know that we know, through our connection with this 

body, you know, with pretrial, individuals who are 

confined, that they do, they are interested in 

postsecondary education, and they see the value in it. 

But you know, as it is written, now, it's actually 

available to them. I think it's just not as widely known.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

respond?

 DR. ANDRISSE: And I want I'm sorry, 

one additional thing, I think, you know, we have the 

opportunity to add language, you know, Terrell's point 

of, you know, the danger of offering to pretrial and how 

some institutions, it offers a kind of maybe a predatory 

type of environment where they can get involved with the 

person and not really have real interest and seeing them 

continue. I think we have the opportunity to right 

language and that says, if you are going to be working 

with pretrial, then you know, there needs to be you need 

to fit the other criteria that we're going to put in 

place for credible programs and such that, you know, 

would you know, one of the things that I know, I'll be 

interested in talking about later, is the follow up to 

continue. As you know, a student would transition out of 

incarceration and how programs helping them transition 
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

into college, you know, into college campuses. So, yeah. 

I'll end there.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

respond?

 MR. WASHINGTON: As long as that was 

in the order of speakers. 

 MR. SCHELLING: No, but I thought if 

you wanted to respond to Stan's points, then- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I can wait. I'll wait 

till my turn. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Okay. Terrell, Kim, 

and then Dr. McTier.

 TERRELL BLOUNT: Yeah, thank you. I'm 

curious, where do people who are involuntary--civilly 

committed fall into the conversation, people who are 

convicted of sex offenses (the majority), that population

is after completing their criminal sentence, if you will,

if it is determined that they are not to be released, and

therefore are put into a certain section of the facility,

housing unit, or possibly even an entirely different 

facility where they're civilly committed. I know that 

within second chance Pell, that was a group that was 

eligible to participate. But technically, at least to my 

understanding, someone who is confined or incarcerated, 

it sounds like those folks will fall into that. So I was 
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

just curious, where do they you know, where does that 

stand in this conversation?

 MR. SCHELLING: Kim?

 KIM CARY: Thank you. One of the 

things I just wanted to mention, from a financial aid 

perspective that we run into is maybe a later 

conversation, but I think it's important to interject 

here, when we talk about facilities. One of the things 

that the second chance Pell does not do for us right now 

is we don't have any other exceptions to the eligibility 

process. So if a student is transferred from one jail to 

the next, which is usually out of their control, and then 

they, how do we continue their education, depending on 

where they go? They could be going completely across the 

state, not having an educational facility close. It 

depends on the type of the medium that they're using to 

learn and be taught in that institution. So and then it 

puts the student in a unique position like it does normal 

students, where there's no criteria for this specific 

group to withdraw and then not have to return funds. So 

it's very interesting that we've put these things into 

place to help these students. But at the same time, we're 

still using the same criteria as normal students who were 

in an educational facility who can make those decisions 

to stay in the program for the whole semester and not be 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

forced out of it mid-term, or at any times beyond their 

control. So I just wanted to just throw that out there 

that as we talk about the different locations, some are 

very set, and we know the students are going to be 

staying there, the individuals, but some of them, like 

your local jails and things like that, where they could 

be serving a sentence, even in that scenario, they could 

be transferred out depending on the jail capacity and 

what's happening there.

 MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yes, I was going to 

actually, I actually agree with Terrell in terms of 

clarifying the other types of spaces. I was going to say 

that in the definition, it says or other similar 

correctional institutions, I think that there's a level 

of ambiguity there. I want to be clear on what those 

institutions are, if this definition is going to be long, 

I'd rather it be long and clear. And the reason why I say 

that is I'm thinking of diagnostic centers and whatnot, 

that many men and women attend, that will also operate as 

a correctional facility, but they don't have the 

correctional name included in their facility name, I 

guess, in a sense, you just want to make sure that that's 

added. And I'm just thinking about long term care 

facilities as well. Also, as I'm thinking through this 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

particular definition, the word confined, is a little bit 

concerning. When we think about home detention. We know 

that there's a large portion of people who are 

incarcerated at home, and so I'm just a little bit 

challenged by that. Can find when it actually says at the 

very end not considered X, Y and Z. So, just wanted to 

throw that out there.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Brian. I 

just wanted to go back through a few points. So just to 

start with that last point—confined-- that is also in the 

statute. So what we were doing here is trying to mirror 

what the statute said, to the regulation, and again, the 

only change from the statute was adding juvenile justice 

facility or other similar correctional institutions. I 

think it would be interesting, it'll be interesting to 

hear from the subcommittee, whether we would want the 

Department to provide an exhaustive list of every type of 

facility that a student could reside in. Or would that be 

something that would be better put into a summary with 

guidance perhaps, or maybe preamble language? Do we want 

to have, you know, a really expansive definition of a 

confined incarcerated student, I'd like to hear from the 

committee about that. In regard to the transfer of a 

student being involuntarily transferred to another 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

facility, there are two parts of the definition of prison 

education program that we will see that do require-- not 

only will that require the Bureau of Prisons and State 

Department of Corrections or other oversight entity, to

take into account whether credits can be transferred to 

at least one institution, one (inaudible) institution, 

and also that there, there is also a part of the 

definition of a prison education program, credits have to 

be transferred. So the creditor, the Department and the 

Bureau of Prisons, the State Department of corrections 

will be looking at. Well, we can't control whether a 

student is transferred or not. So a different facility, 

there are requirements in the statute, the end in the 

proposed regulation, that would require us to require 

multiple entities to look at how easily credits can be 

transferred. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Ron.

 RON SANN: Thanks, I just want to echo 

what Aaron's saying and sort of provide the subcommittee 

with just a little guidance in that. While I understand 

this, you know, often the desire to put more specificity 

into the rules, having flexibility is actually 

beneficial, especially in a situation like this, where 

we're, we're making determinations based on state laws 

and procedures. And while we're, you know, fortunate to 
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

have tremendous expertise here on the subcommittee, it is 

a large country with lots of different possibilities for 

types of institutions. So Aaron’s suggestion that we 

include some discretion in the preamble in terms of the 

types of similar correctional institutions that we may 

identify in our discussions, but to restrict the rule 

beyond what's here, ultimately may be counterproductive 

to what I think the subcommittee's objectives seem to be. 

Thank you.

 MR. SCHELLING: I don't see any other 

hands raised.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I don't know if anyone 

addressed Terrell's point about the civilly committed 

issue that was raised-- that point? Was Aaron, were you 

or someone else going to address that?

 MR. SCHELLING: Go ahead, Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I can address that 

can be one second, I apologize. So right now, the 

statute, essentially, the changes, the amendments made by

the appropriations bill essentially struck all of the 

language prohibiting--- confined are those that are 

confined into a federal or state penal institution from 

the statute. It also struck the language that those 

currently having an involuntary civil commitment from 

that language as well. So the fact that I don't the best 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

implication does not prohibit those having an involuntary 

civil commitment from accessing Pell. I will say that, 

you know, correction, the correctional facilities as well 

as you know, may have, well, I think that, that I'll 

leave it there. Did I answer your question, Terrell?

 TERRELL BLOUNT: To my understanding, 

you're saying that that language has been removed and 

therefore, people who are civilly committed involuntarily 

should be able to access Pell Grants?

 MR. WASHINGTON: They may be able to 

access Pell Grants-- that's all dependent on, you know, 

their student eligibility requirements that are, you 

know, any student that's going to access Pell still has 

to establish eligibility through, you know, things like 

having a high school diploma or the equivalent of a valid 

social security number. I see David, I'm going to allow 

David to chime in as well.

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, thanks, Aaron, just 

really was just following on to what you already said the 

student after the provisions in the new law become 

effective, otherwise an eligible student who is in an 

involuntary civil commitment, but is not incarcerated in 

one of the facilities listed in this definition, is fully 

eligible for Title IV aid, meaning they'd be eligible for 
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Pell Grants, direct loans, etc. And they would not have 

to be enrolled in an eligible prison education program as 

individuals who are incarcerated would.

 MR. SCHELLING: If I could, Dr. 

McTier?

 DR. MCTIER: I was just going to say, 

I can send an email with, but I think the prison policy 

initiative actually has an exhaustive list of the 

different types of facilities that exist within the 

country that will be useful and helpful for crafting this 

or expanding this definition, specifically around the 

other similar Correctional Institutions. It actually gets 

that a lot of what Terrell is talking about regarding the 

pretrial detention centers, but also thinking about 

trying to, I'll just send that report out so that you all 

can review that in terms of crafting this, this 

definition.

 MR. SCHELLING: Thanks, Dr. McTier. 

Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I just wanted to add I 

think the civil commitment point was also addressed in 

the in question 23 of the FAFSA, which asked about drug 

convictions as well. So I think they the new law, removes 

that and the civil commitment aspect to my understanding.

 MR. SCHELLING: Dr. McTier, is your 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

hand still raised or did you have another question? Okay, 

Dave?

 MR. MUSSER: Just one last question. 

Actually, from me to Dr. McTier. Going back to our 

earlier conversation about individuals on work release 

programs. You had indicated that there are occasions 

where work release programs have individuals working, but 

and serving some portion of their time just not 

necessarily on weekends. Did you have a particular set of 

criteria for what someone on a work release program would 

need to fulfill in order to not be considered 

incarcerated under these provisions? I was just curious 

what you had in mind with that? So for example, did you 

have in mind that the individual would be serving a small 

number of days per week in a facility, but otherwise is 

working? And just the days that they that they are 

incarcerated aren't necessarily on the weekend? I just 

wanted to understand what you had in mind for that type 

of exemption.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, so I think that so 

when individuals doing work release programs, they 

typically spend a significant portion of their time 

incarcerated. So that could be seven days a week. But 

they're able to Monday through Friday, or whenever they 

have classes, leave the facility, take their classes, and 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

then come back to the facility, where they're 

incarcerated. So that timeframe can be a little tricky. I 

will need a little more time to kind of digest that 

question. But for the most part, I will say that a person 

on federal workload not federal but on work release is 

actually still incarcerated.

 MR. SCHELLING: Stan?

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, to that point. So 

that's, I think, the individual that Dr. McTier is 

talking about. So from the Department of Justice in most 

state correctional and even Federal Correctional 

perspectives, an individual who is on home detention is 

considered under the confines of that state correction or 

federal correction. So you know, home detention, for 

instance, is by the correctional institutions considered 

incarceration, you are still under the confinements of 

that Department. So I mean, you know, there is that 

person who by the Department of Corrections definition, 

they consider them to be incarcerated, even though 

they're on home detention, or even if they're on work 

releases Dr. McTier was just mentioning, but we're trying 

to say that we're going to create a definition that says 

they're not incarcerated. So there are some, I mean, I 

think there's confusion between, you know, what this 

definition is, and what the definition of most 
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Departments of corrections,--I think that we just need 

clarification. What Dr. McTier is mentioning, is that 

person-- Dr. McTier, is that person taking classes, does, 

does that person need to be included here, because are 

they taking prison education classes? Or it sounds like 

the example that you're giving, they're going to a 

campus? And so they're already enrolled in an outside 

campus? But are they eligible? Are they getting--Because 

I think there's some confusion around that, because by 

Department of corrections, they're still incarcerated. So 

either they may think that they're not eligible to get 

federal aid, or, you know, are they having challenges 

getting federal aid? And I know, in my experience that a 

lot of people don't know. And then some people do 

experience getting aid in that, who fall into categories 

like that. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, for all 

the comments. I think we have enough, I think we have 

enough information to move to the next topic. I know that 

we're going to be getting some emails with proposed 

language or kind of, you know, proposed it-- like a 

framework for ideas of what we can add to the regulation. 

I want, I want to also tell you what to keep in mind that 

we have, so we have the regulations, right that 
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

definitions like that, the rules that your school 

institutions are required to follow. But we also have 

preamble, preamble means like, that's kind of the 

explanation of, essentially, of what we're proposing to 

do in the regulations. And we also have subregulatory 

guidance, like things like Dear Colleague letters and 

electronic announcements that we can also provide more 

information. So when you're sending all those, when 

you're sending all those ideas, you know, keep in mind 

that if it's if it's captured in the regulation, it's 

just something that you'd like to se. The Department

tells the community that doesn't necessarily have to be 

in regulation, it can also be explained elsewhere. And 

finally, the last point I'll make about the home 

detention definition or, you know, I understand what 

you're saying. Stan, I think that this is language from 

the higher the statute. So that is the language that we 

are required to follow. So if somebody's in a home 

detention, they would, they would be they would not be 

considered confined or incarcerated, part of the 

Department's awarding of Title Four aid. That doesn't 

mean that changes the definition for the bureau of 

prisons are part of Department of Corrections. We're only 

talking about Title Four aid. And we're essentially 

saying that if you're on home detention, you'd be 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

eligible for not only Pell, but also loans and also to 

enroll in any eligible program that you wish to enroll

in. So I'd like to move forward to Section 2.7. And 

Vanessa if you wouldn't mind scrolling down. Thank you. 

Perfect. Thank you so much. So, um, both the law and the 

regulations state that an institution does not qualify as 

an eligible institution if more than 25% of the 

institution's regular students in the most recently 

completed award year were incarcerated. We'll see below 

that institutions submit an application to waive this 

rule. The waiver is automatic for public and nonprofit 

institutions that consist solely of four year or two year 

educational programs for which it awards a bachelor's 

degree, an associate’s degree, or postsecondary diploma. 

And there are other programs at the institution that are 

not four or two year programs that lead to a bachelor’s 

or associates or diploma, the Department, the institution 

must submit documentation to the Department that confirms 

that in other programs that have a completion rate of 50% 

or more. So that's basically just giving you all a 

background on what the regulations currently say are and 

Vanessa, can you scroll down to the redline language? Oh, 

you already have it up, thank you. So we proposed several 

changes to regular--First, that an institution cannot 

apply for the waiver until it has provided eligibility of 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

the present education program for at least two years. We 

also propose to codify the circumstances under which the 

Secretary will not approve the waiver. For an institution 

that has a program other than a two year or four year 

program. Similarly, , we propose that the program 

maintain a 50% completion rate or greater, we also 

propose that an institution that violates any part of 

668, well, 668.0 --that's where we're proposing to put 

the definition of a prison education program. So I'll 

probably say that a lot. And so we get that it might not 

be clear to the public just yet. But in your amendatory 

language that you've received, you'll, if you look at 

668.0, that's where we're proposing to put the definition 

of a prison education program. So if so, so we also 

propose that if the institution violates any part of 668, 

point eight, or the proponent of the proposed definition 

of a prison education program for the first two years, or 

if the Department determines the school is not 

administratively capable, or financially responsible, 

then we would not approve the waiver to exceed 25%. of 

students incarcerated, student enrollment. So I want to 

pause there for questions. Or comments, doesn't have to 

be a question. It can be a general comment.

 MR. SCHELLING: See no hands raised.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, would 
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

you mind scrolling down? I think you can see on your 

screens that we've added May about several paragraphs and 

to clarify, the waiver is not automatic. So they do have 

to apply for the waiver, and there will be a review by 

the Department. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Terrell.

 TERRELL BLOUNT: Yeah, could you just 

provide a little bit more information on what the waiver 

is and like the purpose of it?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes. So essentially, 

in the statute in the law and the statute, the statute 

says that if 25% of-- there's a definition of eligible 

institution. And we say that your school is not eligible 

if more than 25% of the students in the regularly 

enrolled students were incarcerated. And there is a 

process by which you can exceed that 25%. But it's, but 

you have to apply it to the Departments--So I have some 

language. If you give me a second, somebody else can 

chime in. But if you give me a second, I can find the 

process by which the Department approves the waiver. If 

the waiver is fora two or four year institution with this 

only granting bachelor’s or associate’s degrees apply for 

the waiver, the waiver is automatic. But if the 

institution offers programs that aren't two or four year 

programs that lead to a bachelor’s or associate’s 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

diploma, then they would have to submit documentation 

that the students in those programs have a 50% completion 

rate. And that documentation will also have to be 

approved at some point by an independent auditor.

 MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I might need, 

this is very, so it seems just one question I have is 

what is the could you give us background as to the 

purpose behind adding this waiver? And two, do you have 

information on the institutions that have been granted 

this waiver or that have applied for this waiver within 

the second chance, Pell, you know, so I guess, just more 

it seemed, you know, if I could have more information on 

what you're trying to protect from in adding this 

language?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, the waiver 

already exists. So that's the statutory requirement that

like you know, as an eligible institution. But I think 

the addition, currently, you know, we went with a 

codifier process, and regulation that describes the 

circumstances under which the Secretary would approve the 

waiver. So if, let's say, for instance, if an 

institution- 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Can I clarify one 

point? So the 25, when this was originally the 25% 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

aspect, that was, you know, what year was that 

established and was it trying to prevent, you know, some 

institution just solely providing prison education? 

Because, you know, I'm just trying to get to what is, 

what was the original thought behind that needing to be 

added in? Give me a little more help in understanding 

crafting this new language for it?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I would have to defer 

to my colleagues in the Office of General Counsel about 

when it was added to the statute, but it is a statutory 

requirement. So that is something that we will have to 

follow.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. And I mean, I 

guess even more clarity on what I'm thinking, you know, 

so this would, if we move to a place where there are 

places of higher education, that meet all the other 

quality aspects that we're going to make sure get 

instilled in this, you know, providing prison education 

programs? As it's written now, an institution couldn't be

primarily built upon focusing on providing education to 

the prison population, you know, like, we have HBCUs, for

instance, that are particularly you know, their whole 

mission is to try and which, you know, which were created

after slavery ended, and were, you know, created as a 

means to, you know, specifically educate a certain 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

population of people. As the law is written now, there 

couldn't be an institution that comes into place, 

providing quality education, that was specifically 

focused on educating people in prison. And I'm wondering, 

you know, why was that put in place? I mean, I can 

understand how you would not want predatory institutions 

to come in and prey on incarcerated individuals. But what 

about if there were an institution built that met all the 

other quality aspects? I mean, and is this just in place 

to stop predatory institutions from coming in? You know, 

I just wanted clarification on the thought behind that. 

And also, I mean, for us to think forward on, you know, 

my thinking of how HBCUs were created with this effort to 

educate a certain population, you know, is it 

unimaginable for higher education institutions to be 

created with the whole, you know, initiative to help 

educate this group of individuals? 

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, you know, I 

can, we can take that question back and give you more of 

a historical background on the question. As it stands 

right now, this is a statutory requirement, but we will, 

we will take it back and provide you with more 

information on like the historical context of fact, in 

the statute. If we could, if I could get the 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

subcommittee's thoughts on the actual waiver application, 

the requirements of, you know, the requirements as we see 

the 50% completion rate for the other programs was 

already a part of the definition. However, we've added 

you know, if the institution is not compliant with our 

definition represented case program, and also if they're 

not administratively capable, or financially responsible. 

Does this subcommittee have any feedback on that? Brian, 

I'm not.

 MR. SCHELLING: Not seeing any hands 

raised.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. 

Vanessa, if you can move down to paragraphs four and 

five. Thank you. So we also propose to add the authority 

for the Department to withdraw the waiver if any parts of 

this section are violated. So if an institution looks 

like it is not financially responsible or if an 

institution is not administratively capable. Also, in our 

discussions, we recognize that the revocation of the 

waiver would immediately make the institution ineligible 

per statute and regulations. So, we provide a wind down 

process for, for example, if the waiver is revoked, 

today, like during the 2021-22 award year, the school 

would need to reduce its enrollment of incarcerated 

students to no more than 25% of its regular students by 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

the end of the 2022-2023 award year. However, during that 

time the school could also demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements, but 50% completion rate for certain 

programs, it's administratively capable and financially 

responsible and now they're in compliance with the 

definition to maintain their waiver. So we're saying that 

they're if the Secretary revokes the waiver, they would 

have to wind down that that portion of the program that 

exceeds 25% of regular enrolled students. However, during 

that time, they could work to come back into compliance 

and demonstrate that to the Secretary. And I think one of 

the targeted questions that the Department had for the 

subcommittee is, how would we ensure that students are 

not harmed if an institution's waiver from the 25% 

threshold is withdrawn?

 MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Yes, the 

waiver the waiver situation is a very complicated one. So 

I, so to answer your initial question, Aaron, I think 

you're right, I think there is a very clear opportunity 

here for potentially great harm, or great success for 

students if that waiver was removed. You know, an 

institution was allowed to increase student enrollment 

and then for whatever reason, they, you know, the 

Department has decided that because of these, you know, 
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

requirements, that they're not hitting it that then they 

have to go down. This gets back to that initial thing 

partially gets back to that initial point about the 50% 

of an additional location. You know, if we definitely do 

the, that institution X has their accreditation, 

additional location approved, then there's that automatic 

teach out plan that locks that institution to make sure 

that those students, you know, that if an institution 

goes down dramatically with their student enrollment, 

that the teach out plan will protect them. If there's 

institutions that haven't yet reached that 50% and they 

don't have that accreditation, additional location, 

there's that potential loophole. But then also, now we've 

got accreditation agencies that have been forced to be 

removed from regional to national, and say, for example, 

correctional space A, has institutional accreditation 

from, you know, accreditation agency X, but then 

accreditation agency, Y, then wants to bring in the 

different potential standards between accreditation 

agencies. There's just a lot of different issues at play 

here. And if an educational institution in a cultural 

space where there's only one degree and or one 

institution in place, how do we make sure that those 

students that are already enrolled, and that institution 

has been, you know, forced to go down? Which may be a 
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

very good thing, and we certainly want those institutions 

to go down. But how we make sure that there's, that if an 

automatic teach out plan isn't a requirement for an 

educational institution to enter this carceral space to 

begin with, then that's a problem. That's where the 

students could potentially fall through the cracks. So, I 

just want to bring the larger issue at play here, just to 

make sure that equity piece is available to students.

 MR. SCHELLING: Go ahead, Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, thank you 

for that, Belinda. First, I will say as Ron said, and I 

said, if you have any language for this waiver piece, you 

know, propose to add that and it will be definitely be 

helpful. What I heard is that you would like prison 

education programs to automatically be required to have a 

teach out plan, did I get that right? And, will go ahead.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, if so, and that 

gets back to that initial thing of what you said about 

people being allowed to come back into this space or 

continuing this space after experimental after the 

experimental side, or if they've never been in the space, 

a teach out seems almost automatic to help with the 

equity of students if they have to reduce their student 

population.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

Okay, so we do, we do talk about the requirements around 

a teach out plan later on in the definition of a prison 

education program. So perhaps we can come back to that 

conversation once we get there.

 MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I just wanted to 

reiterate the request for if there was a list of current 

institutions that received this waiver. And also if it's 

available to have the institutions that applied. And then 

additional requests that were or a question, I guess, the 

ones that got the waiver, will they just be, you know, 

retrospectively added in and they don't have to apply for 

the waiver again, since they got it as a you know, under 

the experimental side?

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron and then Dave.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'll let David speak 

to that.

 MR. SCHELLING: Okay.

 MR. MUSSER: Yeah, thanks. We do have 

the list of institutions that currently have a waiver of 

this limitation. I will go back to my colleagues and FSA 

to get that list and if we can, we will share it with the

subcommittee members, should not be an issue. Regarding 

the eligibility for the waiver, moving forward, I defer 

in part to the Department's general counsel on this. 
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

However, my understanding is that if the institution 

otherwise meets the provisions that we are putting 

together here, on July 1, 2023, they will continue to be 

eligible for the waiver that they had already received. 

And only if they, you know, one of these, one of these 

conditions where the Department would revoke the waiver, 

would they lose the waiver that they already have?

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, um, thank you, 

David. Do we have any more comments on this section? 

Outside of, you know, getting the list of institutions 

and kind of providing more historical framework for why 

this was added to the statute, did we have any more 

comments on that post military language?

 MR. SCHELLING: I see no hands raised. 

Oh, Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I'm sorry, I know you 

were just getting ready to move on Aaron out, just to 

clarify, and I know that we've got other language later 

on in this document as well. But thinking of the FAFSA 

Simplification Act and a lot of different, a lot of 

different reporting data points, that educational 

institutions and or correctional institutions will have 

to provide the Department but those educational 

institutions would be aware of it. So things like 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

employment, you know that the completion levels, there 

was a, well, you've got the completion level there. But 

there were other requirements, other data points that 

were listed in the FAFSA Simplification Act, which are 

going to be listed later here. Are there also potentially 

going to be other reasons for an educational institution 

to be prompted to go to-- for that waiver to be removed 

or really thinking it's primarily focusing on that on 

that completion, right and those other you know, 

financial things? So just wanted to clarify that because 

in the FASFA simplification act, there's a bunch of other 

data points, I just wanted to see how they'd be used.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so the 

completion rate is defined, the completion rate for this 

specific waiver is defined in the regulation 600.7. I 

apologize that it's not posted. But that is separate from 

the completion rate that the Bureau of Prisons, the 

Department of Corrections will be using, in their 

determination. The Department, we'll see later is 

proposing to define. So those are two separate those will 

be two separate definitions of the completion rate. I 

hope that answered your question. And I think you have 

more to the question, can you repeat those? I may have 

forgotten to answer a piece of it.

 MS. WHEELER: No, no, no worries. I 
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

just and again, I think it's really good that we're going 

piece by piece, but I know that there's other things 

coming up and I'm sometimes wondering how things will 

interrelate with each other, but again, it's just there's 

a bunch of other data points, which from an accreditation 

standpoint, and or how the FASFA Simplification Act is 

written, that some of those data points could, you know, 

it could say a lot about a, quote unquote, quality of an 

educational institution success rate in that particular 

space. So, I'm just kind of wondering, and maybe this, I 

just need to pencil it in and kind of we move forward. 

But I'm just curious as to how some of those other data 

points that are, you know, required as part of the FASFA 

simplification act, whether or not they will potentially 

impact the waiver, withdrawal, or removal, that's, um, 

it's not clear to me yet, whether or not those will and 

if they will, how, or if they should actually be written 

in this language.

 MR. WASHINGTON: You know, that's 

something that we can definitely circle back to if you 

feel as though there should be more additions to the 

language for why the Department would revoke the waiver, 

if we, Vanessa if you can scroll back up to C1. So we 

will see there that, you know, the Department can revoke 

the waiver, if you look at it with C1, romanette, if the 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

institution is not compliant with any part of 668.8. The 

definition 668.8 covers everything, it covers the 

Department's approval, the creditor approval, it covers 

the Bureau of Prisons and State of Corrections approval. 

It covers the reporting and so if the institution is not 

in compliance with any section of 668.8, which was 

unfortunately, I'm sorry that people haven't been able to 

see that yet. But if an institution does not comply with 

any portion of our proposed definition, that would be a 

circumstance in which the Department could revoke the 

waiver. So I think we may be covered there. But if we 

don't feel that we are, we can always circle back to it. 

And if you have a proposal to add more protections or 

guardrails, then we can always consider that as a 

subcommittee.

 MR. SCHELLING: I see no other hands 

raised.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, can 

you go to oh, and I apologize that we have a break coming

up at noon. And so I think we can get through a few more 

sections before then. And 600.21, Vanessa, sorry I don't

think I told you where to go. Okay, so this is this 

section, this part of the regulations is about updating 

application information. So all the black is already in 

regulation and then you see those three little stars, it 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

just means that something comes after what we've written 

there and something comes before and after it, I just, I 

didn't want to copy and paste the entire regulation in 

there. So we kind of just see exactly what we're trying 

to get to. So it says its provided in paragraph D, the 

(inaudible) and eligible institution must report it to 

the Secretary in the manner prescribed by the Secretary

no later than 10 days after a change occurs in the 

following: There's a long list and then we started at 

number 12. And the reason we started well, I'll come back 

to that, but we've added number 14, right, and that's if 

an institution adds an eligible prison education program, 

location. And so that will ensure that schools are always 

reporting their additional locations. If they offer a 

prison education program at a correctional facility, no 

matter if it's a correspondence, distance, in person, 

they would have to report that facility to the Department

as an additional location. And we talked a little bit 

about while we talked about the dislocation definition, 

about an hour ago, and so that's ensuring proper 

reporting of that additional location. So, um, oh and um 

I guess I can just add a little bit more. There is 

precedent for us, you know, as requesting that the, you 

know, application information be updated. As you can see, 

we've added a number 12. It's addition of a second or 
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

subsequent direct assessment program. We generally mirror 

the language after that, because the best schools already 

have to report to us certain programs that they add. So 

that just mirrors that language. I will consider this 

more of a technical change. If there's any ideas on 

language or let us know please. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you for that. 

Aaron. I've got two questions. So number one relates to 

the additional location that's listed at the end of that 

new section. So just to clarify, when you're saying that 

you're talking about the substantive change additional 

location, as described by, or as defined by, you know, 

the statute and also, you know, additional, like 

accreditation agencies, I just wanted to I'm just 

wondering, does this need to be read with the full 

understanding that we're referring to an additional 

location, as described by that language and not just a 

general layman's kind of section on it? And if so, does 

that need to be then cross referenced back to that 

definition? So that's question number one. And then 

question number two, given that, like, for example, in 

some parts of the country right now, we have higher 

education and prison programs, where they are 100% in 

carceral spaces and accredited by their program 
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

accreditor. Given that, would the beginning of the 

sentence be its establishment as opposed to its addition? 

Because if it's a carceral, like if it is one of these 

rare occasions where we have an educational institution, 

I know there's a couple in Texas, for example, where the 

entire degree programs, and it's 100% students who are 

currently incarcerated. I'm just wondering, and maybe 

this is semantics from an English major, but I'm just 

wondering whether or not its establishment as opposed to 

its addition might be more appropriate? But I'll leave 

that to the legal team to move through. 

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, go ahead.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, thank you for 

that. I yeah, I think we can take that back to, unless, 

unless our council wants to weigh in now, we can 

definitely take that back to see whether we should change 

it from addition to establishment. And also, so for the 

cross referencing, you're saying just say it's an 

addition of an eligible prison education program. add an 

additional case and as defined under 600.2?

 MR. SCHELLING: Go ahead if you want 

to respond.

 MS. WHEELER: Sorry. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you. I just didn't want to jump in. So yes if you 

are indeed saying that that is referring back to that 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

exact definition. I think it's important for everyone, 

because I just see how the lines are blurred sometimes in 

the actual practice of what educational institutions are 

seeing. So I would appreciate cross references if that's 

exactly what the government is referring to so that 

there's no murky water with that.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, that makes 

sense. Alright, I think it is referring back to the 

additional definition.

 MR. SCHELLING: Ron, you know, GC 

would like to respond.

 RON SANN: Yeah, I just want to say 

we're making, you know, making notes of these comments, 

lots of these questions are not really strictly legal 

questions, and we need to discuss it within the 

Department, from a policy program point of view. 

Certainly, anything that that improves clarity through 

cross references is something we would be in favor of. So 

that's, that's a very helpful comment. Thank you. But the 

actual decisions that we make are sort of, we need to 

consult, but thank you.

 MR. SCHELLING: I see no other hands 

raised. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Let's go to

Vanessa if you can scroll down to 668.32. So you have to 
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

go all the way past this next the present education 

program definition, I think it might be the section right 

after this. So just scroll all the way down. Yeah. You 

can keep going, Vanessa, I think my screen might just be 

a little delayed. But if you yeah, you keep going, keep 

going, keep going. So it should say 34 CFR 668.32. So 

just keep going, keep going, I'll actually tell you when 

to stop instead of saying keep going. You can keep going, 

Vanessa. I don't know maybe my screen is frozen. Vanessa, 

can you keep scrolling Vanessa? Pause. There it goes. So 

scroll back up a little bit. I think that it's right, 

it's right before this one, so it's right before the 

disclosure so if you scroll up a little bit more. Keep 

scrolling. 

 VANESSA GOMEZ: You said 668. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: 32, right there. 

That's perfect, that's perfect, you can leave it right 

there. Thank you. I appreciate that Vanessa. Sorry for 

not being more clear about that. So here is- 

 VANESSA GOMEZ: Is that what you mean?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry? Yeah, 

it's, it's perfect. The screen is perfect. Right there. 

Thank you, Vanessa. So this is a technical change to 

eliminate the so okay, sorry, 668.32 is where in the 

regulations the Department defines student eligibility. 
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

So this is not the entire section. This is just like a 

little screenshot of the section that we are proposing to 

amend and we're just so as you can see in the regulation 

before us, what we have is not incarcerated in federal or

state, you know, institution. And we propose to change 

that to is not incarcerated, or does not enroll in an 

eligible prison education program, as defined under that 

668.8, which is the proposed definition of a prison 

education program. So we see this more of a technical 

change so to eliminate this prohibition, we don't have to 

do it, per statute. But I'd still want to open that up 

for discussion if you have any language changes for 

clarity.

 MR. SCHELLING: Real quick here and 

I'm, I'm not seeing the screen clearly. I'm not sure if 

any of the other participants are observing the same 

discombobulation that I am.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, let's, let's 

give Vanessa a moment to work with her three, maybe 

Vanessa, maybe you want to unshare work with a little bit 

and come back? And if first, if I can also simply share 

my screen as well for the committee. Okay, there we go. 

 MR. SCHELLING: There it is, it's 

back. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. So as you 
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

can see here, we've just made a technical change. But I 

do again, I do want to open it up for conversation in 

case there's um, wording that you that you could 

recommend to the Department to make the point more clear.

 MR. SCHELLING: I see no hands raised.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I see people looking 

intently at the page so I don't know if there's going to 

be a comment on it, or if everybody's okay with it? I 

also don't want the subcommittee to feel as I'm rushing 

them through this language.

 MR. SCHELLING: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Sorry to be coming back 

on here all the time. So just to step back for a second, 

is with Pell. For All being reinstated, is the not 

incarcerated like is that I'm sorry, Hmm, that doesn't 

seem like it even needs to be there anymore since Pell is 

already reinstated to people who are currently 

incarcerated. So why would we still continue to have the 

language is not incarcerated? Apologies if I'm 

overthinking this.

 MR. SCHELLING: Go ahead, Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think there we were 

trying to ensure that it was clear that the student has 

to be enrolled in a prison education program. So if the 

student isn't incarcerated, is incarcerated, sorry, and 
70

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

is enrolled in maybe just an eligible program. I mean, we 

can’t say that they can't, but they would have to access 

federal student aid to access the Pell Grants, they would 

have to be enrolled in a prison education program. You 

know, you were aware that there are students likely 

enrolled in prison education that are not accessing Title 

Four that have right, and may not access Title Four right 

to finish their program. But for Title Four purposes, In 

fact, I think we say, a number two for the purpose of the 

Federal Pell Grant Program, and that's what we're trying 

to say that they must be enrolled in a prison education 

program. However, Belinda, would your recommendation be 

to simply strike unincarcerated?

 MS. WHEELER: I'm thinking that way, 

but I definitely want to hear my other colleagues who 

have their hands up first before I weigh in. So 

definitely want to check in with them if that's okay, 

first?

 MR. SCHELLING: Dave, did you still 

want to respond?

 MR. MUSSER: Yeah, I can real quick. 

This, this was our attempt to implement the statutory 

provision that connects eligibility for Pell with 

enrollment in an eligible prison education program. So 

the law provides that if you are incarcerated, if you if 
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

you meet the definition of incarcerated, then you must be 

enrolled in an eligible prison education program or else 

you are still not eligible for Pell Grant funds. So 

that's the reason for that wording here is that either 

the individual is not incarcerated, in which case they're 

eligible for Pell, if they're otherwise eligible, or, if 

they are incarcerated, they're enrolled in an eligible 

prison education program.

 MR. SCHELLING: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes this, I mean, I 

don't even know exactly, I want to think more on this, 

and maybe bring this back to some of the other 

individuals that we've kind of gathered together to, to 

think about this. But I have a little bit of concern 

that, you know, so if you're at a correctional 

institution that doesn't have a prison education program, 

you one, can't access education, or two, you have access, 

you know, but you can't access education and get a Pell 

grant. Or two, you have to participate in a 

correspondence course, from, you know, an institution 

offering a correspondence course that has been approved. 

I mean, I don't know how or what we think about that, or, 

you know, what, what about the individuals, you know, 

that that limits what individuals can do in terms of the 

school that they can attend. I mean, I don't know what 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

people's thoughts are on that, you know, you are in 

Denver, Colorado, and Colorado doesn't have any type of 

prison education programs. But you want to go to the 

University of Denver, and you have, like, family that 

will assist you in doing a correspondence course, or 

doing the course some other way. You're ineligible to get 

Pell if you are to do that? I mean, is that how we, I 

mean, that's how it's written now. And I just, you know, 

I need to think more on that. I'm a little bit 

uncomfortable with it.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

respond to that? And then Belinda and Dr. McTier.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments, Stan. So there are so far that we're really, I 

think that for the for the scope of the Department's 

authority is federal student aid. And we're really 

talking about federal student aid only. So there are 

institutional eligibility requirements that have to be 

fulfilled in order for institutions to be able to 

disburse federal student aid. There's also other program 

eligibility requirements, program length or program 

structure. And there's also some eligibility 

requirements. So if all of those aren't in line, if the 

institutional program is-- students are not eligible for 

federal student aid, and it, you know, they, the student 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

wouldn't be able to access Pell. So the program would 

have to be offered by an eligible institution and, and 

also the Department doesn't currently have the authority 

in statute to require postsecondary institutions to 

partner with correctional facilities to offer prison 

education programs. So I, I think that you know, it would 

be the postsecondary institution that, you know, that 

goes into the eligible institution that goes into the 

facility to offer the eligible prison education program. 

And if those don't occur, then the student wouldn't have 

access to aid and of course, the student would then still 

have to be eligible to receive a Pell Grant.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Could I clarify? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sure. I'm sorry 

if I didn't get that right.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So, for instance, you 

know, an institution that allows internet access. What if 

someone wanted an incarcerated person wanted to take an 

online course and that particular Correctional 

Institution allowed online, you know, them to access the 

online course. So you're saying as the law, as it's 

written as we're looking right, if that online course 

that that person is taking, has not applied to be a 

prison education program, that individual could not get 

Pell?
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: It would have to be a 

prison education program as we're going to define it.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah. And that's my 

challenge, because we're limiting a lot of people from 

accessing education, if we do that. I mean, the person 

that I just mentioned, that's 1000s of people. I mean, 

you know, that's 1000s of people that we're going to miss 

out on. If we, or then the other thing that I would 

suggest, is we add language that reconstitutes-- to make 

every institution apply for being eligible to offer 

prison education. And that sense, they don't have a 

physical operating prison education program that they're 

going inside of in the prison. But that individual who 

wanted to take an online course, could apply to that 

school and take an online course, because that 

institution has done what it needs to do to be eligible 

to offer prison education.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So you mean one 

single. I'll let, I'll let David, and then I'll weigh in.

 MR. SCHELLING: David wants to respond 

to this.

 MR. MUSSER: To be honest, I think 

Aaron, you were going down a similar road that I was 

going down. The rules, the Department's regulations for 

Federal Pell Grants require students to be enrolled in an 
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

eligible program as a regular student. And in general, 

that means that they have to be enrolled in a program for 

the purposes of obtaining a degree. And we generally 

don't have the ability to allow students to enroll in a 

single course, or one or two courses and qualify for Pell 

Grants for those two courses. Unless, enrollment in those 

courses is part of an eligible program for which the 

student is seeking a degree or other recognized 

credentials.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes and maybe then let 

me clarify that, you know, in my theoretical example, 

that literally includes 1000s of individuals, they are 

indeed, you know, what you just mentioned, they are not 

just taking a single course, they're looking to get a 

degree, and they're incarcerated. And they're, you know, 

they're looking to get a degree online. But the 

institution that they've applied to, has not taken the 

steps to become a prison education program. You know, so, 

you know, my thoughts on that, is that, you know, should 

we add some type of language that encourages, requires, 

pushes, gives information on every institution, 

postsecondary institution looking to at least be 

eligible? And is that even something --can an institution 

be eligible and not be in a prison just yet, for 

instance? You know, I think, I don't know that, as I 
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

mentioned, I don't know the answer to it, but I 

definitely feel uncomfortable, that we're not including 

such a large number of people by you know, as it is 

currently, you know, written or you know, thought about. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Brian, you're on 

mute, but I think you called.

 MR. SCHELLING: Yeah, Aaron, did you 

want to respond and then Belinda? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: No, no, no, go ahead 

Belinda, please.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. I just wanted 

to get back to that one note about incarcerated with an 

additional kind of context, Dr. McTier had mentioned 

earlier, you know, how we were looking at the definitions 

of, you know, individuals who are considered incarcerated 

or not, and say, for example, there were people on 

weekends or things of that nature, home detention. So 

with that individual group in mind, if they're not 

considered incarcerated, as listed with that earlier 

definition that we looked at, does this now then mean if 

we keep this language that they are now included? And if 

that is indeed the case, I wonder if we do indeed decide 

to perhaps get rid of the is not, eliminated section 

here, whether or not Dr. McTier's point earlier about who 

is not considered incarcerated, it almost seems like 
77

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

these two might potentially be, you know, offsetting each 

other. So like what, while someone may not be covered up 

in that earlier definition that we were kind of talking 

about, now seems if I'm, if I'm reading this correctly, 

seems to be included. And I know Dr. McTier had his hand 

up anyway. So I just wanted to kind of check in with him 

to see, am I reading this right, and are we covered? And 

is this kind of, therefore even more confusing? But I'll 

default.

 MR. SCHELLING: Aaron, did you want to 

reply?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we're so we are 

at the we're at 12, well, we're at 11:59. I want to make 

sure that folks have a chance to take a break, which I 

think we should come back to the discussion after lunch, 

and then I can follow up with the answer to Belinda's 

question.

 MR. SCHELLING: Okay, Dr. McTier had 

his hand up earlier, too. I'm not sure he still had a 

question.

 DR. MCTIER: I can yield or wait, 

yeah.

 MR. WASHINGTON: With that said, we 

will take a break until 1:00 p.m. and return to talk 

about the technical change a little more. Okay, thank you 
78

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/18/21

so much.

 MR. SCHELLING: Okay. Thanks, Aaron.
79

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/18/21