Prisoners’ Eligibility for Pell Grants: Issues for Congress

Summary: In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), which, among other things, made prisoners ineligible for Pell Grants. However, concerns about the financial and social costs of the growing prison population combined with concerns about the recidivism rate of released prisoners have led some policymakers to reconsider whether prisoners should be allowed to use Pell Grants to help cover the cost of postsecondary coursework. Pell Grants are intended to assist in making the benefits of postsecondary education available to eligible students who demonstrate financial need.

Summary: Under Department of Education (ED) regulations, any student who is "serving a criminal sentence in a federal or state penitentiary, prison, jail, reformatory, work farm, or other similar correctional institution" is not eligible to receive a Pell Grant. However, in 2015 ED used its authority under the Higher Education Act (HEA) to create the Second Chance Pell Experiment to determine if access to Pell Grants would increase the enrollment of incarcerated individuals in high-quality postsecondary correctional education programs. Under the experiment, participating institutions of higher education, in partnership with federal and/or state correctional institutions, award Pell Grants to students who are otherwise Pell-eligible except for being incarcerated in a federal or state institution. The experiment is expected to conclude in 2020.

Summary: There are several issues policymakers might consider if Congress chooses to take up legislation to reinstate prisoners' eligibility for Pell Grants, including the following:

Summary: The Pell Grant program is a need based program that provides funds to all that qualify. Thus, restoring Pell Grant eligibility to all federal and state prisoners will increase Pell Grant program costs. Should tax dollars be used to educate convicted offenders before they are released from prison? There are some prisoners who have been sentenced to death, whose sentences exceed their life expectancy, or who might be civilly committed indefinitely under sexually dangerous persons statutes after they have served their prison sentences. Should these prisoners be eligible to receive Pell Grants? Educational attainment is lower among incarcerated adults than non-incarcerated adults and even prisoners with high school diplomas or general education development (GED) certificates might need additional assistance to help them prepare for the rigors of postsecondary education. Is there a need for additional investment in remedial education or adult basic education for prisoners to help them prepare for postsecondary education classes? Under current law and regulation, to be eligible for a Pell Grant males who are subject to registration with the Selective Service System (SSS) must register or prove they were either not required by SSS to register or failed to register for an ED-qualifying reason. There is a higher incidence of not registering among men who have been incarcerated during some or all of the period between ages 18 to 25. Should this requirement be retained for incarcerated men, or should the process for proving exceptions be modified to facilitate Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated men? There is a lack of rigorous evaluations that have isolated the effects postsecondary education has on recidivism, and little research on the best way to deliver postsecondary education in prisons. Should Congress take steps to promote data collection on the availability of, and participation in, postsecondary education to advance research on the effects of postsecondary education on recidivism? There can be barriers to providing educational programming in a correctional environment (e.g., lack of classroom space and trained instructors, limitations on internet access) regardless of Pell Grant receipt. Are there steps Congress could take to mitigate these barriers? A criminal history can be a barrier to securing employment in a variety of fields, either because some convicted offenders are prohibited from working in certain jobs due to a provision in law or regulation, or because employers are wary of hiring someone with a criminal history. Is there interest in undertaking any efforts to reduce the collateral consequences of a criminal history on post-release employment to allow the incarcerated student to fully realize the benefits of postsecondary education?

I n 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-322 ). The act, among other things, made federal and state prisoners ineligible to receive Pell Grants. The Pell Grant program is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting postsecondary education students. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed during a period when federal and state policymakers were adopting increasingly punitive measures―such as establishing new crimes, increasing penalties for certain offenses, requiring convicted offenders to serve a greater proportion of their sentences before being eligible for release, and making convicted offenders ineligible for certain government assistance programs―as a means to combat violent crime. However, concerns about the financial and social costs of an increasing prison population and what prisons are doing to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent recidivism have led some policymakers to consider whether some of the "tough on crime" policies of the 1980s and 1990s need to be changed.

Policymakers have started to reconsider whether prisoners should be prohibited from utilizing Pell Grants to participate in postsecondary education programs while they are incarcerated. Legislation was introduced in the 115 th and 116 th Congresses that would have allowed incarcerated individuals to receive Pell Grants. As Senator Lamar Alexander noted "most prisoners, sooner or later, are released from prison, and no one is helped when they do not have the skills to find a job. Making Pell grants available to them in the right circumstances is a good idea." In addition, both the Obama Administration and Trump Administration recommended expanding Pell Grants or other targeted federal financial aid to prisoners who are eligible for release after serving a period of incarceration.

However, reestablishing prisoners' eligibility for Pell Grants is not without controversy. Legislation was introduced in the 115 th Congress that would have ended the Second Chance Pell Experiment, a program begun under the Obama Administration that evaluates the effects of granting prisoners access to Pell Grants. Opposition to allowing prisoners to receive Pell Grants stems from the belief that taxpayer money should not be used to finance the education of prisoners, especially if it might compromise assistance to non-prisoners. Of note, under current Pell Grant program rules, expanding Pell Grant eligibility to prisoners would not affect the eligibility of non-prisoners or award levels of non-prisoners.

This report provides a discussion of issues policymakers might consider if Congress takes up legislation to allow individuals incarcerated in federal and state facilities to receive Pell Grants. Before discussing these issues, the report offers a brief examination of relevant data on the prison population and the educational participation and attainment of incarcerated adults. This is followed by an overview of the history of the prohibition on allowing incarcerated individuals to receive Pell Grants, and a brief discussion of who is eligible for Pell Grants.

Prison Populations and Postsecondary Education

This section provides information on the number of prisoners in the United States from 1980 to 2018 and an overview of the latest recidivism data from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). It also describes the educational attainment of prisoners, and their participation in and completion of educational programs offered to them.

The recent debate over prisoners' eligibility for Pell Grants is driven, in part, by concerns that the prohibition on prisoners receiving Pell Grants is hampering access to postsecondary education that could aid prisoners' rehabilitation, assist their efforts to find employment after being released, and help them become productive and law-abiding members of their communities. These concerns are combined with an acknowledgment that "tough on crime" policies contributed to a prison population that grew throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and the early 2000s and, because most offenders sentenced to prison will eventually be released, more people returning to their communities after serving a period of incarceration. The growth in the prison population combined with the Pell Grant ban means that an increasing number of prisoners are unable to participate in postsecondary education and large numbers of ex-prisoners are potentially returning to their communities without having enhanced skills or education while in prison that could aid them in becoming law-abiding citizens.

The prison population in the United States increased steadily from 1980 to 2009 before decreasing somewhat from 2010 to 2018 (the most recent year for which prison population data are available). There were approximately 1,471,000 prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities in 2018, compared to 330,000 prisoners in 1980. Increased prison populations are a function of increases in prison admissions, among other things, but growth in the prison population absent large increases in the percentage of convicted offenders who were sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole means that there has also been an increase in the number of people released from prison annually. Approximately 626,000 prisoners were released by state and federal correctional authorities in 2016, up from approximately 158,000 prisoners released in 1980.

A recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that 44% of prisoners released from custody in 2005 were rearrested in the first year after their release and 83% of released prisoners had been rearrested after nine years. A review of research on corrections-based educational programming suggests that prisoners who participate in postsecondary education while incarcerated recidivate at lower rates than prisoners who do not participate. However, methodological limitations in many of the studies mean that alternative explanations for the results―for example, that prisoners who took postsecondary coursework had a greater desire to reform themselves―cannot be excluded.

Employment and educational attainment have also been linked. Data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) indicate that the employment rate of adults ages 25-64 increases as their level of educational attainment increases. Sixty percent of adults without a high school diploma were in the labor force in 2017 compared to 87% of adults with at least a bachelor's degree. ACS data further indicate that incarcerated individuals have lower levels of educational attainment than the general population. Figure 1 shows that approximately one-third (31%) of incarcerated adults (age 25 or older) have less than a high school diploma, while 12% of non-incarcerated adults have not completed high school.

While incarcerated individuals have relatively low levels of educational attainment, data suggests that a large percentage of prisoners are not advancing their education while they are incarcerated. Based on a survey of 1,546 inmates in state, federal, and private prisons, the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that more than half (58%) did not further their education during their current period of incarceration. The NCES study did not ask prisoners whether the cost of postsecondary education prevented them from participating, but the Institute for Higher Education Policy notes that self-financing can be a barrier for prisoners who want to participate in postsecondary education while they are incarcerated.

Background on Pell Grants for Incarcerated Individuals

Prior to 1992, all incarcerated individuals were eligible to receive aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended), including Pell Grants and loans. Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal need-based student aid awarded to undergraduates. A 1982 report by the General Accounting Office (now known as the Government Accountability Office; GAO) estimated that approximately 11,000 federal and state prisoners received Pell Grants in academic year (AY) 1979-1980. ED's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimated that about 25,000 prisoners each year received Pell Grants during the period from 1988 to 1992. The 1982 GAO report noted that some states and schools also provided considerable financial assistance to prisoners.

The 1980s and 1990s were marked by several policy initiatives at the state and federal level to augment penalties for convicted offenders. In addition, Congress was concerned about schools established solely to take advantage of the HEA Title IV funds provided to incarcerated students, and the possibility of high student loan default rates among individuals formerly or currently incarcerated. Some financial aid administrators questioned whether Pell Grants were the most appropriate source of rehabilitative aid for incarcerated students. The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 ( P.L. 102-325 ) limited the eligibility of incarcerated students to HEA Title IV aid in several ways:

Individuals who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and those who were sentenced to death were prohibited from receiving a Pell Grant. Pell Grant aid provided to incarcerated students in each fiscal year had to supplement and not supplant the level of postsecondary education assistance provided by the state to incarcerated individuals in FY1988. No incarcerated student was eligible to receive a loan (this remains current law). The cost of attendance for incarcerated students was limited to tuition and fees, and required books and supplies (this remains current law). An institution of higher education (IHE) became ineligible to participate in the HEA Title IV programs if more than 25% of its enrolled students were incarcerated (this remains current law).

GAO published a report in 1994 in response to remaining congressional concerns regarding the use of Pell Grants by incarcerated individuals. The report provided data on the number of inmates receiving Pell Grants, described the effect of allowing incarcerated individuals to receive Pell Grants on grants for other needy students, and reviewed the research at that time on the effect of correctional education on recidivism rates. Using ED data for AY1993-1994, GAO reported that approximately 23,000 Pell Grant recipients were incarcerated (less than 1% of all recipients), and the average amount of the Pell Grant was the same regardless of whether individuals were incarcerated or not. Of Pell Grant recipients who were incarcerated, 39% were enrolled in public two-year IHEs, 35% were enrolled in private nonprofit four-year IHEs, and 12% were enrolled in public four-year IHEs. The remaining 14% of incarcerated students were enrolled in public, private nonprofit, or private for-profit programs that granted certificates (10%) or private nonprofit or private for-profit two-year IHEs (4%). GAO indicated that because the Pell Grant program operates as an entitlement for students, the number and amount of Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals had no effect on Pell Grant availability for individuals who were not incarcerated. Finally, GAO concluded that the studies on incarcerated students' participation in educational programming and recidivism "have resulted in conflicting findings" because isolating the effect of correctional education on recidivism was not possible in existing studies for two primary reasons: many interrelated factors affecting recidivism are difficult to define and measure, and an experimental design that randomly assigns prisoners to treatment and control groups would be necessary to eliminate the effect of motivated prisoners self-selecting into correctional education programs.

The culmination of the "tough on crime" approach in setting federal policy was the enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA, P.L. 103-322 ). The act, among other things, authorized grants to assist states that enacted "truth in sentencing" laws with building new prisons, expanded the number of offenses for which the federal death penalty applies, and established a series of new federal crimes. With respect to the HEA, the VCCLEA eliminated the supplement not supplant provision relating to Pell Grant funds made available to incarcerated individuals and the prohibition on Pell Grant receipt by individuals sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty. The VCCLEA also established the current prohibition against any individuals incarcerated in federal and state penal institutions receiving Pell Grants.

As a likely consequence of the newly enacted prohibition on prisoners receiving Pell Grants, combined with previously enacted prohibitions on the receipt of HEA Title IV student loans, the availability of postsecondary education programs to state prisoners and their enrollment in such programs declined. After prisoners were prohibited from receiving Pell Grants, approximately half of the postsecondary correctional education programs closed and those that remained were reduced in size. In addition, from 1991 to 2004 the percentage of state prison inmates enrolling in college courses declined from 14% to 7%.

In 2008, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Higher Education Opportunity Act ( P.L. 110-315 ), which prohibited those individuals who upon completion of a period of incarceration for a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense were subject to an involuntary civil commitment from receiving Pell Grants. This prohibition was partially in response to the fact that 54 individuals who were civilly committed sex offenders in Florida had received Pell Grants in 2004.

Under Department of Education (ED) regulations for HEA Title IV, an incarcerated student is defined as any "student who is serving a criminal sentence in a federal, state, or local penitentiary, prison, jail, reformatory, work farm, or other similar correctional institution." The definition does not include an individual who is confined in a correctional facility prior to the imposition of any criminal sentence or juvenile disposition, such as an individual confined in a local jail while awaiting trial. Similarly, it does not include students confined or housed in less restrictive settings such as halfway houses or home detention, or who are serving their sentences only on weekends.

To be eligible for a Pell Grant, a student must meet requirements established by Title IV of the HEA. Some requirements apply to all of the HEA Title IV student aid programs, and some are specific to the Pell Grant program. Among the requirements generally applicable to the HEA Title IV student aid programs for AY2018-2019 are the following:

Students must have a high school diploma or a general educational development (GED) certificate; must have completed an eligible homeschool program; or must have shown an "ability to benefit" from postsecondary education and either be enrolled in an eligible career pathway program or have been initially enrolled in an eligible postsecondary program prior to July 1, 2012. Males who are subject to registration with the Selective Service System (SSS) must be registered with the Selective Service. Students must not be in default on any HEA Title IV student loan.

Specific eligibility requirements for the Pell Grant program that may be germane to criminal justice involved individuals include, but are not limited to, the following:

Students must not be incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution. Students must not be subject to an involuntary civil commitment following incarceration for a sexual offense (as determined under the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program).

Therefore, students serving a sentence in a federal or state penal institution, operated by a federal or state government or a contractor, are ineligible for Pell Grants. Other alleged and convicted offenders, however, may be eligible for a Pell Grant. Those incarcerated in a juvenile justice facility or a local or county jail may be eligible. Individuals in a halfway house or home detention, serving a jail sentence only on weekends, or confined prior to the imposition of any criminal sentence or juvenile disposition are eligible for Pell Grants.

The other HEA Title IV student aid programs also have eligibility rules for incarcerated students (see regulatory definition above). No incarcerated individual is eligible for any of the loan programs. Incarcerated students are eligible for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program and the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program. Despite statutory eligibility, it is unlikely that incarcerated individuals would receive FSEOG or FWS aid because such funds are limited, the aid is subject to additional eligibility requirements established by each IHE, and offering FWS jobs in a correctional setting would be difficult.

In 2015, ED initiated the Second Chance Pell Experiment to determine if access to Pell Grants would increase the enrollment of incarcerated individuals in high-quality postsecondary education programs. The initiative was part of the "Obama Administration's commitment to create a fairer, more effective criminal justice system, reduce recidivism, and combat the impact of mass incarceration on communities." HEA Section 487A authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive certain HEA Title IV statutory or regulatory requirements, except for requirements related to award rules, at a limited number of IHEs in order to provide recommendations for proposed regulations and initiatives. The Secretary used this waiver authority to implement the Second Chance Pell Grant Experiment. In promoting the experiment, ED highlighted research finding that making postsecondary education and training opportunities available to incarcerated individuals increases educational attainment, reduces recidivism, and improves post-release employment opportunities and earnings.

Under the Second Chance Pell Experiment, participating IHEs, in partnership with federal and/or state prisons, award Pell Grants to individuals who are otherwise Pell-eligible except that they are incarcerated in a federal or state prison. Priority is given to students who are likely to be released from prison within five years. Incarcerated students must enroll in educational programs that lead to high-demand occupations from which such individuals are not legally barred. Education programs may not be offered through correspondence, but may be offered online. In addition, students must be able to complete such programs either while incarcerated or after being released. Participating IHEs must offer academic and career guidance, as well as transition services. Finally, the Pell Grant aid offered under the experiment must supplement and not supplant such postsecondary education assistance provided by the IHE, the prison, or another source.

There are 65 IHEs participating in the experiment, enrolling approximately 8,500 inmates in the first year, 11,000 in the second year, and 10,000 in the third year of the experiment. More than one-half of the participating IHEs are public two-year colleges. Approximately two-thirds of participating IHEs already provided postsecondary correctional education prior to joining the experiment. Some IHEs experienced start-up difficulties related to accreditation approvals, the availability of adequate facilities and space, recruiting eligible prisoners, and enrolling a sufficient number of prisoners to make the program financially viable. Of the programs originally planned, approximately 35% were designed to award a postsecondary certificate, 47% were designed to award an associate's degree, and 18% were designed to award a bachelor's degree.

ED generally issues reports of experiments that analyze and summarize IHE-reported outcomes and "address how the experiment: reduced administrative burden; avoided creating additional costs to taxpayers; and improved aid delivery services or otherwise benefited students." The reports are intended to inform federal legislative decisionmaking. In February 2019, ED announced that the experiment would be extended an additional year but did not provide an estimate of the release of any data or an evaluation of the program.

In April 2019, GAO reported on the status of the Second Chance Pell Experiment (hereafter referred to as the 2019 GAO report ). According to the report, in AY2017-2018, 59 schools disbursed $22.3 million in Pell Grants to over 6,000 prisoners under the experiment. Schools reported various challenges implementing the experiment including, but not limited to, prisoners not being registered for Selective Service, prisoners being in default on a HEA Title IV student loan, and prisoners and school staff having difficulty proving prisoner income and financial need.

Many prisoners are interested in participating in postsecondary education, but one of the most significant barriers to prisoners taking college-level classes is their lack of resources. Providing access to Pell Grants could help reduce this barrier. However, there are several issues policymakers might consider before expanding access to Pell Grants, including overall program costs, whether the federal government should support more research on the effects of postsecondary education in correctional institutions, obstacles to providing access to postsecondary education in a correctional environment, and barriers returning prisoners might face when trying to find post-release employment related to their education.

Expanding Pell Grant eligibility to some or all federal and state prisoners will increase Pell Grant program costs. The Pell Grant program is funded by a mix of annual discretionary appropriations and permanent mandatory appropriations. Expanding eligibility would increase both discretionary and mandatory costs.

The Pell Grant program is often referred to as a quasi-entitlement because, since AY1990-1991, eligible students receive the Pell Grant award level calculated for them without regard to available appropriations. Expanding eligibility without instituting other provisions would not reduce awards for any otherwise eligible individuals and would only expand the pool of eligible individuals.

The increase in program costs that would result from making federal and state prisoners eligible for Pell Grants who are currently ineligible would be limited by several provisions under current law:

Students must have a high school diploma (or equivalent) or be enrolled in an eligible career pathway program that leads to high school completion and postsecondary credential attainment. As discussed above, 31% of incarcerated individuals do not have a high school diploma (or equivalent) and thus would only be eligible for a Pell Grant if enrolled in an eligible career pathway program. Students must not have already completed the curriculum requirements of a bachelor's or higher degree. As discussed above, 3% of incarcerated individuals have a bachelor's or higher degree. The Pell Grant award for incarcerated students may not exceed the cost of tuition and fees and, if required, books and supplies. The average AY2017-2018 Pell Grant was $4,032 for all undergraduates and $3,541 for students participating in the Second Chance Pell Experiment.

The following sections describe subgroups of individuals that may require additional consideration when extending Pell Grant eligibility.

Pell Grant Eligibility for Prisoners Who Might Not Be Released

If policymakers choose to reinstate prisoners' eligibility for Pell Grants, part of the justification for doing so is that taking college coursework might help prisoners obtain post-release employment and reduce their risk of recidivism. However, this reasoning raises a question about whether prisoners who might never be released should be eligible to receive Pell Grants. The current Second Chance Pell Experiment excludes individuals who are unlikely to be released and gives priority to students who are expected to be released within five years. Prisoners who might never be released include those who have been sentenced to periods of incarceration that would realistically exceed their natural life spans and those convicted of sex offenses who could be civilly committed to a secure psychiatric facility after serving their sentences because they are at high risk of committing a violent sex offense.

A study conducted by the Sentencing Project found that in 2016, a total of 161,957 state and federal prisoners were serving life sentences. This includes 108,667 prisoners sentenced to life with the possibility of parole (LWP) and 53,290 prisoners sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). Prisoners serving life sentences accounted for one out of every nine prisoners in 2016. The Sentencing Project also found that another 44,311 prisoners were serving virtual life sentences, which were defined as sentences where a prisoner would have to serve at least 50 years of incarceration before being eligible for release. Virtual lifers , while still technically eligible for release (i.e., they were not sentenced to LWOP), are prisoners whose sentences are so long they will most likely spend the rest of their lives in prison. Of note, the Sentencing Project's definition of virtual lifers does not include older prisoners who are sentenced to incarceration and might serve less than 50 years, but because of their advanced age are likely to die in prison. The number of prisoners serving life and virtual life sentences accounted for 14% of all inmates in 2016.

The Sentencing Project's research found that a handful of states accounted for the majority of prisoners with LWP, LWOP, and virtual life sentences. Four states (California, Georgia, New York, and Texas) accounted for 55% of all prisoners serving LWP. Four states (California, Florida, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania) and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) accounted for 53% of all prisoners serving LWOP. Five states (Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas) accounted for 55% of prisoners with virtual life sentences.

The Sentencing Project also found that from 2003 to 2016 there was a 27% increase in the number of prisoners serving any type of life sentence, though the number of prisoners sentenced to LWOP increased by 59% while the number of prisoners sentenced to LWP increased by 18%.

When debating about possibly expanding eligibility for Pell Grants, policymakers might also consider whether civilly committed sex offenders, who might never be released, should be allowed to participate in the program. Laws regarding the civil commitment of sex offenders (also known as sexually violent predator or sexually dangerous persons statutes) allow for the involuntary civil commitment of certain sex offenders at the conclusion of their prison sentences. As of 2015, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had laws that allowed for the civil commitment of sexually violent predators and sexually dangerous persons. Individuals who are civilly committed are held until courts deem that they no longer meet the criteria for civil commitment. These individuals are held in secure treatment facilities. In general, for someone to be civilly committed the individual must have committed a qualifying sex offense, have a qualifying mental condition (e.g., a personality disorder or a paraphilia ), and be identified as high risk to commit another sexual offense as a result of the disorder.

The Prison Policy Initiative reported that 5,430 offenders were civilly committed in 2016 in 15 states. Unlike most prison sentences, there is no set period of time for when someone who is civilly committed will be released. For example, Minnesota has yet to release any civilly committed sex offenders committed to its custody since the mid-1980s, and 40 individuals have died in custody.

Pell Grant Eligibility of Individuals Who Lack Selective Service Registration

Congress may consider whether to amend the HEA Title IV and Pell Grant eligibility requirement for Selective Service registration because it is an obstacle for some men who have been involved in the criminal justice system. Most men aged 18–25 are required to register with the SSS. Men who are required to register and do not do so are ineligible for Pell Grants, unless they did not knowingly and willfully fail to register. Men ages 18-25 who are incarcerated are not required to register with the Selective Service while they are in prison. Some research shows that men who have been involved in the criminal justice system are at a higher risk for failing to register due to misunderstandings and misinformation.

Under current regulations, a man who did not register may still achieve eligibility through one of several processes. If he was not required to register, he can provide evidence of his exception. If he is age 25 or younger, he can register. If he was unable to register for reasons beyond his control, he can provide evidence of the circumstances that prevented him from registering. If he has already served on active duty in the Armed Forces, he can provide evidence of such. If he did not knowingly and willfully fail to register, he may submit to his school an advisory opinion from the SSS that does not dispute his claim that he did not knowingly and willfully fail to register, and the school must not have evidence to the contrary. For incarcerated or previously incarcerated men 26 and older who failed to register, proving Pell Grant eligibility may be cumbersome. Some IHEs in the Second Chance Pell Experiment have advocated waiving the Selective Service registration requirement for incarcerated individuals in order to increase enrollments. The waiver could potentially reduce or eliminate the burden of proving eligibility or establishing eligibility for men 26 and older who were incarcerated at any time during the ages of 18 to 25.

Pell Grant Eligibility of Individuals Who Have Not Completed Secondary School

If postsecondary education completion by prisoners is a policy objective, the large proportion of prisoners who have not completed a secondary school education may also need to be addressed. As shown previously in Figure 1 , approximately one-third of incarcerated individuals have not completed high school. There are two primary federal approaches for educating adults who have not completed secondary school: supporting elementary and secondary education and supporting postsecondary career pathways.

Many correctional systems spend a significant proportion of available funding on providing Adult Basic Education (ABE) and GED preparation courses. Even in cases where prisoners have a high school diploma or GED, they might still need remedial education in order to complete and pass college-level courses. Congress might consider whether there is a need for additional funding or a restructuring of programs to support ABE and GED preparation courses in prisons, or to diagnose learning disabilities in prisoners. There are several federal programs that provide some support that can be used for the secondary education of prisoners:

The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA; P.L. 113-128 ), which provides grants to states for basic education for out-of-school adults, specifies that each state must subgrant funds to support educational activities for individuals in correctional institutions and for other institutionalized individuals. AEFLA provides formula grants to states that award competitive grants and contracts to local providers. States may award up to 20% of the funds made available to local providers for programs for corrections education and the education of other institutionalized individuals. The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21 st Century Act ( P.L. 115-224 ) supports the development of career and technical education (CTE) programs that impart technical or occupational skills at the secondary and postsecondary levels. The majority of funding is awarded as formula grants to states, which are authorized to spend up to 2% of their allocation to serve individuals in state institutions, such as state correctional institutions, juvenile justice facilities, and educational institutions that serve individuals with disabilities. The Second Chance Act of 2007, as amended ( P.L. 110-199 ), authorized a series of competitive grants to support offender reentry programs operated by state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations. These programs include the Adult and Juvenile State and Local Offender Demonstration Program, which may support adult education and training, among several allowable uses. Another of these programs is the Grant Program to Evaluate and Improve Educational Methods at Prisons, Jails, and Juvenile Facilities, which authorizes grants to evaluate and improve academic and vocational education in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.

Under current provisions in the HEA, schools may establish career pathway programs for students who are not high school graduates but can demonstrate an ability to benefit from postsecondary education. Students enrolled in career pathway programs may be eligible for Pell Grants and other HEA Title IV aid. A career pathway program combines occupational skills training, counseling, workforce preparation, high school completion, postsecondary education, and postsecondary credential attainment. The ability to benefit may be demonstrated by the student passing an examination approved by ED to be eligible for federal student aid, or by successfully completing six credit hours or 225 clock hours of college work applicable to a certificate or degree offered by a postsecondary institution. Ability to benefit tests must be proctored by a certified test administrator and given at an assessment center facility. Administering ability to benefit tests to incarcerated individuals might be challenging. If incarcerated individuals do not take the ability to benefit test, they would have to successfully complete six credit hours or 225 clock hours of college work to become eligible for HEA Title IV aid. Should Congress want to take additional steps to promote postsecondary educational pursuits of incarcerated individuals, it might consider encouraging the development of career pathway programs in correctional environments such that prisoners who have not completed high school may pursue postsecondary education with the aid of a Pell Grant.

Additional Research on the Effects of Postsecondary Education in Correctional Institutions

As outlined above, there is a lack of regular, comprehensive data on postsecondary education in correctional facilities. The evaluation literature on the effect of postsecondary education on recidivism would benefit from more routinely collected and complete data on postsecondary education that allows for methodologically rigorous studies. This suggests that there might be a role for the federal government to play in collecting and reporting data on postsecondary education in correctional institutions and supporting more rigorous evaluations of postsecondary education for prisoners.

BJS collects data on the prison population through its annual National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) program and its Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). The First Step Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-391 ) requires BJS to collect data through the NPS on the number of federal prisoners who have a high school diploma or GED prior to entering prison, the number who obtain a GED while incarcerated, and the number of BOP facilities with remote learning capabilities. The SPI collects data related to prisoner participation in education and job training, but the data are collected sporadically. The most recent iteration was conducted in 2016. Prior to that, BJS conducted the SPI in 1974, 1979, 1986, 1991, 1997, and 2004, when it was known as the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. Neither the NPS or the SPI collects data on the types of degrees prisoners seek, how many receive a postsecondary certificate or degree, how much time they spend taking courses, how instruction is provided (e.g., onsite, through correspondence courses, online), or how postsecondary education programs are funded. Nonetheless, BJS has decades of experience collecting data on prison inmates from state correctional agencies and BOP. Congress could consider expanding BJS's mandate under 34 U.S.C. Section 10132 to require the collection and reporting of more detailed data on postsecondary education in correctional facilities. However, states participate in the NPS program voluntarily, so if data collection efforts become too burdensome there is the possibility that some state correctional systems will decline to participate. As a way of promoting state participation in data collection efforts, policymakers might also consider whether to make participation a condition of receiving grant funds under a program such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.

One limitation of both of the NPS program and the SPI is that they only collect data on prisoners while they are incarcerated. Variables that are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of postsecondary correctional education programs―such as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration; post-release educational attainment; post-release employment, and the nature of post-release employment; to just name a few―can only be collected after prisoners have been released, and sometimes several years after they have been released. Even though there are existing data sources that could be used to measure recidivism (e.g., criminal history records data maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or in state criminal history repositories), a new federally sponsored longitudinal data collection effort to track whether prisoners attain education credentials post-release or find employment post-release would enable additional research on the relationship between education and post-incarceration success. In addition, policymakers might consider whether to authorize the FBI to share criminal history records with non-governmental research organizations for the purpose of promoting and conducting recidivism research.

Congress might also consider other ways to promote research on prisoners' postsecondary education and its impact on recidivism and employment. The literature on postsecondary correctional education lacks studies that utilized randomized controlled trials, which are regarded as the gold standard of social science research. While randomized controlled trials could help draw more definitive conclusions about whether participation in postsecondary education reduces recidivism, it might also undermine the aims of the proposed policy change. A randomized controlled trial would require prisoners to be randomly assigned to a treatment group (postsecondary education programming) or a control group (no postsecondary education programming). This means that some prisoners who might have otherwise enrolled in postsecondary education programming would not be allowed to access it while incarcerated. Although, there are ethical considerations when conducting randomized controlled trials on prisoners and they are afforded additional protections as subjects of behavioral science research studies. Congress could also promote more rigorous evaluations of postsecondary correctional education by providing funding to the National Institute of Justice―the research, development, and evaluation agency of the Department of Justice―that is specifically dedicated for this purpose.

It has been argued that evaluations of correctional education programs and other prison-based programming should focus on outcomes other than just recidivism and employment. Cessation of criminal activity is considered an important marker of rehabilitation. However, the emphasis on evaluating how correctional education programs affect recidivism means that little is known about the process whereby education programs help shape how released prisoners re-integrate into their communities. As noted previously, correctional education is believed to help prisoners improve their cognitive skills and abilities, which, in turn, enables them to continue their education and/or training upon release and secure gainful employment. While there is value in improving the quality of evaluations that assess the effect of correctional education on recidivism and employment, there might be value as well in better understanding how the availability of, and participation in, correctional education programs affect changes in motivation, literacy gains, development of concrete skills, disciplinary actions, postsecondary credits earned, and completion of educational programs.

Policymakers might also consider whether the federal government should support research into ways to improve the delivery of postsecondary correctional education programs. There is a dearth of methodologically rigorous research on the best way to deliver postsecondary education in prison. For example, prior research seldom accounted for differences in the initial educational level of prisoners. Additionally, there is little research on the effectiveness of different modalities of providing postsecondary education (e.g., in-person instruction, correspondence courses, online learning) or whether the amount of time spent engaging in postsecondary education (i.e., the dosage ) has an effect on recidivism.

Obstacles to Providing Access to Postsecondary Education in a Correctional Environment

The following sections describe considerations unique to providing and delivering postsecondary education in a correctional environment.

Even if Congress were to provide access to Pell Grants for certain prisoners, factors related to the correctional environment might limit the ability of prisoners to participate in postsecondary education programs. Three recurring resource challenges identified by ED and GAO are space, access to educational equipment or supplies, and trained staff. In 2016, 14 states and BOP held more inmates than their maximum capacity. Correctional systems and institutions that are over capacity might not be able to provide sufficient classroom space to meet an increase in demand for postsecondary instruction. Prisons in rural areas might also have problems finding instructors who are nearby or are willing to commute to the prison in order to teach college courses. Additionally, even trained educators will require training on effective teaching strategies for correctional students and techniques and procedures for working in restrictive prison environments.

It is not unusual for prisoners to be moved from one prison facility to another within the same state or within the federal prison system. Common reasons for the transfer of federal prisoners include security reclassification, medical treatment, and program participation. A prisoner who is transferred from one facility to another would be unable to complete a college course he or she is currently enrolled in if it is an in-person-only class not offered at the facility to which the prisoner is transferred. Programs that are accessible, integrated, and transferrable in every prison in a state or across the federal prison system may reduce the need for transferred prisoners to restart their postsecondary education in a new facility. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) argued that many of the resource problems that limit access to postsecondary education could be addressed by providing more access to online courses. However, many correctional agencies limit the ability of prisoners to access the internet. Congress might consider whether there are steps that could be taken to promote online postsecondary courses for prisoners. For example, Congress could support a program to develop and test security protocols for prisoner internet access that allows them access to specific, but not all, web content.

Complicated Systems of Responsibility for Correctional Education

There are a variety of arrangements through which educational programming is provided to prisoners. In some states, correctional education is the responsibility of the correctional agency; in other states, a separate entity is responsible for providing it, either through a correctional school district or through the state's education department. Having separate agencies responsible for confining prisoners and providing prisoner education can add additional layers of bureaucracy and the agencies' missions might, at times, conflict. Beyond this, in many states the warden of each correctional institution is the one who makes the decision about whether postsecondary education courses will be offered at the prison. Also, the warden can cancel postsecondary courses if he or she objects to them.

A 2019 GAO report described the importance of schools coordinating with prison staff and state corrections agencies. This suggests that for an effective expansion of educational activities to occur, there might be a need for states and BOP to have a uniform or coordinated curriculum across all correctional facilities in their respective systems. Policymakers might consider whether there is a need to promote more consistent policies in how states provide correctional education. For example, Congress could place conditions on federal funds to require state correctional departments to determine what type of postsecondary education courses will be available at each facility.

The educational programs accessed by prisoners may not be designed to increase their academic and post-release success given the unique attributes of the prison population. ED provides a research-based guide for developing education programs to help incarcerated adults transition successfully to their communities. For example, incarcerated individuals may benefit from supportive services. Support services may include assistance selecting academic programs, tutoring, assistance with study skills, assistance with financial literacy, academic and employment counseling, or other academic supports to help them succeed in individual courses and their program of study. For example, some individuals may require advice and assistance in choosing courses, educational programs, and careers that will transfer more easily to practical employment in their post-release communities of choice. Practical employment options for former prisoners are those that provide earnings that permit self-sufficiency, are open to individuals with a criminal record, and are available despite any possible residential or transportation constraints.

Some individuals may want to complete their program of study post-release. An incarcerated student who begins a postsecondary degree program through a postsecondary correctional education program may not be able to complete such degree before release and would benefit from the postsecondary correctional education program credits being fully transferrable or articulated to an educational program available to noninstitutionalized students. Strategic partnerships that ensure institutional courses are fully transferrable and articulated to multiple academic programs may increase the program completion rate.

Increasing Opportunities for Post-Release Employment

In addition to issues related to providing greater access to postsecondary education in prisons, policymakers might also consider issues related to prisoners being able to utilize the education and skills they learned during their coursework to secure post-release employment.

Vocational certificates are a form of postsecondary credential that is popular with prisoners. One study found that approximately one in three prisoners (29%) would like to enroll in courses where they could obtain certificates from colleges or trade schools, which is greater than the proportion of prisoners who reported that they would like to enroll in courses that offer an associate's degree (18%), bachelor's degree (14%), master's degree (5%), professional degree (1%), or doctorate degree (2%). However, it is important that the vocational training inmates receive while incarcerated is aligned with employment opportunities that are available in the local job markets to which inmates will return. As IHEP notes, "learning vocational skills that are quickly made obsolete by technological advances or that are irrelevant to local employment opportunities is a waste of money by funders and effort by students." Policymakers might consider whether there should there be mandated coordination between correctional agencies, state departments of labor, and business organizations to ensure that inmates are using Pell Grants to participate in postsecondary education programs that provide the skills needed to secure meaningful employment when they are released.

A criminal history can be a barrier to securing employment in a variety of fields, either because formerly incarcerated individuals are prohibited from working in the field due to a provision in law or regulation, or because employers are wary of hiring someone with a criminal history. One estimate suggested that in 2010, 12% of noninstitutionalized men had a felony conviction, and in 2014, 34% of unemployed working-age men had a criminal record. Increasing access to Pell Grants might be for naught if prisoners cannot get hired because of their criminal histories. Policymakers might consider whether there is a need to undertake efforts to reduce the collateral consequences of a criminal history on post-release employment. For example, Congress could consider expanding the Department of Labor's Federal Bonding Program for employers that hire recently released prisoners.


Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Summary: The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334, Title II) included a number of changes to agricultural conservation programs, including reauthorizing and amending existing programs, directing existing program activities to specific resource concerns, shifting funds within the title, and authorizing a budget-neutral level of funding.

Summary: Debate over the conservation title in the 2018 farm bill focused on a number of issues in the different versions in the House- and Senate-passed bills (H.R. 2). These differences were resolved in a House-Senate conference to create the enacted bill, which is a mix of both versions that were passed by both chambers. The enacted bill reauthorizes and amends portions of most all conservation programs; however, the general focus is on the larger programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).

Summary: Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding and are not subject to appropriation. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the conservation title of the 2018 farm bill makes up 7% of the bill's total projected mandatory spending over 10 years, which is $60 billion of the total $867 billion. The conservation title is budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; however, the 2018 farm bill is projected to increase funding in the first five years (+$555 million over FY2019-FY2023) and decrease funding in the last five years (-$561 million over FY2024-FY2028). Generally, the 2018 farm bill reallocates mandatory funding within the conservation title among the larger programs.

Summary: The two largest working lands programs—EQIP and CSP—were reauthorized and amended under the enacted bill, but in different ways. The House-passed bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP, whereas the Senate-passed bill would have reauthorized CSP and reduced program enrollment. The enacted bill creates a mix of both the House- and Senate-passed bills by reauthorizing CSP and reducing program enrollment, as well as creating a new incentive contract within EQIP. Funding for CSP is shifted away from an acreage limitation under prior law to limits based on funding. EQIP is expanded and reauthorized with increased funding levels.

Summary: The largest land retirement program—CRP—is reauthorized and expanded by increasing the CRP enrollment limit in annual increments from 24 million acres in FY2019 to 27 million by FY2023. To offset this increased enrollment level, the enacted bill reduces payments to participants, including cost-share payments, annual rental payments, and incentive payments. The 2018 farm bill also reauthorized and amended the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Most of the changes to ACEP focus on the agricultural land easements by providing additional flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities and authorize an increase in overall funding.

Summary: The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) is reauthorized and amended by shifting the program away from enrolling land through existing conservation programs to a standalone program with separate contracts and agreements. Under the revised program, USDA is to continue to enter into agreements with eligible partners, and these partners are to continue to define the scope and location of a project, provide a portion of the project cost, and work with eligible landowners to enroll in RCPP contracts.

Summary: While the 2018 farm bill does not create new conservation programs, it does require that a number of existing programs direct a dollar amount or percentage of a program's funding to a resource-specific issue, initiative, or subprogram. Through these directed policies Congress has established a level of support, or required investment, to be carried out through implementation to target specific issues such as nutrient runoff or groundwater protection. The directed policy may also reduce the implementing agency's flexibility to allocate funding based on need, as well as reducing the amount available for activities under the larger program that may not meet a resource-specific provision.

Summary: High commodity prices in years past, changing land rental rates, and new conservation technologies have led over time to a shift in farm bill conservation policy away from programs that retire land from production (CRP) toward programs that provide assistance to lands still in production (EQIP and CSP). Much of this shift occurred following the 2008 farm bill (FY2009-FY2013) and continued under the 2014 farm bill (FY2014-FY2018) as the level of total mandatory program funding for CRP was reduced relative to EQIP and CSP. Funding for easement programs (ACEP) also declined somewhat under the 2014 farm bill, but is projected to level off under the 2018 farm bill. Partnership program (RCPP) funding has also increased in recent farm bills, but remains relatively small compared to the other categories of programs.

F ederal agricultural conservation assistance began in the 1930s with a focus on soil and water issues ass ociated with production and environmental concerns on the farm. During the 1980s, agricultural conservation policies were broadened to include environmental issues beyond soil and water concerns, especially issues related to production, such as erosion and wetlands loss that had effects beyond the farm. Many of the current agricultural conservation programs were enacted as part of the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198 , Title XII). These programs have been reauthorized, modified, and expanded, and several new programs have been created, particularly in subsequent omnibus farm bills. While the number of programs has increased and new techniques to address resource challenges continue to emerge, the basic federal approach has remained unchanged—voluntary farmer participation encouraged by financial and technical assistance, education, and basic and applied research. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the suite of agricultural conservation programs through two primary agencies—the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

Figure 1. Common Conservation Program AbbreviationsSource: CRS.

The conservation title of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334 , Title II) reauthorized and amended many of the largest conservation programs and created a number of new pilot programs, carve-outs, and initiatives. The House- and Senate-passed farm bills ( H.R. 2 ) each included a number of amendments to existing conservation programs, many of which did not overlap. This generally resulted in the inclusion of a mix of amendments from each chamber being in the enacted bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that total mandatory spending for the title will increase by $555 million during the first five years of the 2018 farm bill (FY2019-FY2023), compared to a continuation of funding levels authorized in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill; P.L. 113-79 ). Mandatory spending for the title over 10 years (FY2019-FY2028) is projected by CBO to be reduced by $6 billion, relative to the 2014 farm bill authorized levels . Generally, the bill reallocates funding within the conservation title among the larger programs and pays for increases in the short term with reductions in the long term.

The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and amended all of the major USDA agricultural conservation programs. Generally, farm bill conservation programs can be grouped into the following types based on similarities: working lands, land retirement, easement, conservation compliance, and partnership and grants (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a list of conservation programs). Most of these programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual appropriation), and include funding authorities that expire with most other farm bill programs at the end of FY2023.

Other types of conservation programs—such as watershed programs, emergency programs, and technical assistance—are authorized in legislation other than the farm bill. Most of these programs have permanent authorities and receive appropriations annually through the discretionary appropriations process. These programs are not generally addressed in the context of a farm bill and are not covered in detail in this report, except for cases where the 2018 farm bill made amendments to the program.

This section provides a general discussion of programmatic-specific amendments made to various conservation programs and subprograms. For a detailed section-by-section analysis of amendments in the 2018 farm bill, including statutory and U.S. Code citations, see Appendix . Unless otherwise noted, conservation programs discussed in this section are authorized to receive mandatory funding through the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). For additional analysis of conservation program funding, see the " Budget and Baseline " section.

Land retirement programs authorize USDA to make payments to private landowners to voluntarily retire land from production for less-resource intensive uses. The primary land retirement program is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP includes a number of subprograms, many of which were codified or reauthorized in the 2018 farm bill. The farm bill also authorizes a number of initiatives and pilot programs.

CRP was originally authorized in the 1985 farm bill and has been reauthorized and amended a number of times since. The program provides financial compensation for landowners, through an annual rental rate, to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period (typically 10 to 15 years) to improve soil and water quality and wildlife habitat. CRP operates under two types of enrollment—general and continuous. General enrollment provides an opportunity for landowners to enroll in CRP through a nationwide competition during a specific period of time. Continuous enrollment is designed to enroll the most environmentally desirable land into CRP through specific conservation practices or resource needs. Unlike general enrollment, under continuous enrollment, land is typically enrolled at any time and is not subject to competitive bidding. Many of the 2018 farm bill amendments apply to continuous enrollment contracts, including the creation of new pilot programs and amendments to existing subprograms. A detailed analysis of amendments to CRP may be found in Table A-2 .

Congressional debate over CRP in the 2018 farm bill centered on how to increase enrollment limits, while not increasing overall cost. As such, the enacted bill incrementally increases the enrollment cap while reducing various rental rates, cost-share payments, and incentive payments. The 2018 farm bill increases the enrollment limit in annual increments from 24 million acres in FY2019 to 27 million acres in FY2023. This increase in enrollment is partly offset by reducing rental rates for general contracts to 85% of the county average rental rate and to 90% of the county average rental rate for continuous contracts. Cost-share payments are limited to the actual cost of establishing the approved practices, including not more than 50% for seed mix costs. The enacted bill also establishes minimum enrollment levels for continuous contracts (8.6 million acres by FY2022) and grassland contracts (2 million acres by FY2021).

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

CREP was originally created as a CRP initiative in 1997, but was not codified into statute as a CRP subprogram until the 2018 farm bill. The provision in the 2018 farm bill is similar to the original version of CREP in that it authorizes USDA to enter into agreements with states to target designated project areas with continuous CRP enrollment contracts. Projects are designed to address specific environmental objectives through targeted continuous, noncompetitive, CRP enrollment that typically provides additional financial incentives beyond annual rental payments and cost-share assistance.

The new language in the 2018 farm bill allows existing CREP agreements to remain in force, but allows them to be modified if mutually agreed upon. CREP agreements are generally with states, but the 2018 farm bill expands eligible partners to include nongovernmental organizations (NGO). The enacted bill formalizes agreement requirements with partners, including matching fund contributions (previously not less than 20% of the project cost) and possible waiver of such contributions. The enacted bill requires the matching fund contribution to be a negotiated part of the agreement, or not less than 30% if most of the funds are provided by an NGO. Payments from an eligible partner may be in cash, in-kind, or through technical assistance. Additional requirements for select cost-share payments, incentive payments, and maintenance payments are also included. Specific requirements are included related to grazing, forested riparian buffers, and drought and water conservation agreements.

The FW program was created in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 farm bill; P.L. 107-171 ) as a pilot within CRP to enroll farmable or prior converted wetlands into CRP in exchange for additional financial incentives. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized FW program at the current 750,000 acre enrollment limit.

The 2014 farm bill authorized grassland contracts under CRP, which enrolls grassland, rangeland, and pastureland into 14 to 15 year CRP contracts. Only select grazing practices are allowed under the contract in exchange for annual and cost-share payments. The 2018 farm bill reauthorizes the contracts and increases the enrollment limit to not less than 2 million acres by FY2021 from the previous limit of not more than 2 million acres. USDA may not use unenrolled grassland acres for other types of CRP enrollment. The enacted bill also prioritizes the enrollment of expiring CRP land, land at risk of development, or land of ecological significance.

The 2018 farm bill creates a new pilot program referred to as CLEAR 30, which enrolls expiring CRP land into 30-year contracts devoted to practices that improve water quality. CLEAR refers to the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, And Rivers initiative that is authorized to enroll land in continuous contracts that would reduce sediment and nutrient loading, and harmful algal blooms. Under a CLEAR 30 contract, the landowner must maintain the land in accordance with an approved plan and adhere with the terms and conditions of the contract. Contract holders receive compensation in thirty annual cash payments similar to those calculated under general CRP contracts. Technical assistance is required for each contract and agreement. USDA must create the CRP plan for a contract, but management, monitoring, and enforcement may be delegated to another federal agency, state, or local government, or to a conservation organization.

Soil Health and Income Protection Pilot (SHIPP)

The 2018 farm bill also creates a new SHIPP pilot program under CRP to remove less productive farm land from production in exchange for annual rental payments and to plant low-cost perennial cover crops. Eligible land is limited to (1) land in states selected by the Secretary within the prairie pothole region, (2) land that has a cropping history in the three years prior to enrollment, but which was not enrolled in CRP during that time period, and (3) land that is considered to be less productive than other land on the farm. No more than 15% of a farm may be enrolled in the pilot and no more than 50,000 acres of the CRP may be used for the pilot. Under a SHIPP contract, a participant would be required to plant a USDA-approved, low-cost, perennial, conserving-use cover crop at the participant's expense. In return the participant would receive an annual rental payment that is 50% of the general CRP annual rental payment, or higher for beginning, limited-resource, socially disadvantaged or veteran participants. Contracts are three to five years in duration, but can be terminated early if considered necessary by USDA; or if the participant agrees to pay back the annual rental payments. Harvesting, haying, and grazing are allowed outside of the local nesting and brood-rearing period, subject to additional conditions.

Working lands conservation programs allow private land to remain in production, while implementing various conservation practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area. Program participants receive some form of conservation planning and technical assistance to guide the decision on the most appropriate practices to apply, given the natural resource concerns and land condition. Participants receive federal financial support to defray a portion of the cost to install or maintain the vegetative, structural, or management practices agreed to in the terms of the contract.

The two main working lands programs are the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Combined, both programs account for more than half of all conservation program funding. The 2018 farm bill amended both programs, but in different ways and to different degrees. A detailed analysis of amendments to EQIP and CSP is provided in Table A-3 and Table A-4 , respectively.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP is reauthorized and expanded in the enacted bill. The program provides financial and technical assistance to producers and private landowners to plan and install structural, vegetative, and land management practices on eligible lands to alleviate natural resource problems. Eligible producers enter into contracts with USDA to receive payment for implementing conservation practices. Approved activities are carried out according to an EQIP plan approved by USDA and developed with the producer that identifies the appropriate conservation practice(s) to address identified resource concerns on the eligible land. The program is reauthorized through FY2023 with a graduating level of mandatory funding—$1.75 billion in FY2019 and FY2020; $1.8 billion in FY2021; $1.85 billion in FY2022; and $2.025 billion in FY2023.

The new law includes a number of amendments to EQIP that focus on water quality and quantity-related practices, soil health improvement, and wildlife habitat improvement. The law also reduces the funding allocation for livestock-related practices from 60% to 50%, and increases the allocation for wildlife-related practices from 5% to 10%.

One of the larger changes the 2018 farm bill makes to EQIP is that water conservation system payments are expanded to include irrigation and drainage entities that were previously ineligible. Eligible entities may be states, irrigation districts, groundwater management districts, acequias, land-grant mercedes, or similar entities. Practices must be implemented on eligible land of the producer, land adjacent to a producer's eligible land, or land under the control of the eligible entity. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and payment limits may be waived for eligible entities, but USDA may impose additional payment and eligibility limits. Priority is given to applications that reduce water use. It is unclear how this expansion in eligibility, compared with the previous producer-only policy, may affect implementation of the program.

CSP provides financial and technical assistance to producers to maintain and improve existing conservation systems and to adopt additional conservation activities in a comprehensive manner on a producer's entire operation. CSP contracts must meet or exceed a stewardship threshold for at least two priority resource concern at the time of application and meet or exceed at least one additional priority resource concern by the end of the contract. The House-passed bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP, whereas the Senate-passed bill would have reauthorized CSP and reduced program enrollment. The enacted 2018 farm bill creates a mix of both the House- and Senate-passed bills with amendments. The enacted bill reauthorizes CSP, but amends how the program limits future enrollment. The new law shifts CSP from a program limited by acres (10 million acres annually under prior law; approximately $1.4 billion in FY2018) to one limited by total funding ($700 million in FY2019 in mandatory funding, increasing to $1 billion in FY2023). CBO projects this change from prior law will reduce the program by more than $12.4 billion total over ten years (see Table 2 ) for a total cost of $5.1 billion. Reduced spending from this reduction offset increased mandatory spending in other conservation programs (see Figure 3 ).

In addition to the amended funding structure of CSP, the enacted bill also made a number of amendments to the program. CSP's ranking criteria is amended to focus on an application's actual and expected increase of conservation benefits, and to add a cost competitive selection criteria for similar applications. Contract renewal options are amended to require renewal applicants to compete with new applications, whereas previously their acceptance was guaranteed. Additionally, payments for adopting cover crops, grazing management, and comprehensive conservation plan development are amended to include higher and more comprehensive payment options.

Other EQIP and CSP Initiatives and Subprograms

CIG is a subprogram under EQIP that awards competitive grants to state and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, tribes, and individuals to implement innovative conservation techniques and practices. The 2018 farm bill expands project eligibility to include community colleges, urban farming, and monitoring practices. A new on-farm conservation innovation trial is authorized at $25 million annually from total EQIP funding. The new on-farm trial funds projects through producers or eligible entities that test new or innovative conservation approaches, such as those related to precision agriculture technologies, nutrient management, soil health, water management, crop rotations, cover crops, irrigation systems, and other USDA approved approaches.

The House-passed farm bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP. While the 2018 farm bill retained CSP and also authorized a new Conservation Incentive Contract under EQIP. The new EQIP incentive contracts are limited to select priority resource concerns within specific geographic regions. No more than three priority resource concerns may be identified in each geographic region. EQIP incentive contracts extend for five to ten years and provide annual payments to incentivize increased conservation stewardship and the adoption, installation, management, and maintenance of conservation practices. In determining payment amounts, USDA is required to consider the level and extent of the practice being adopted, the cost of adoption, income forgone due to adoption, and compensation ensuring the longevity of the practice.

The new EQIP incentive contracts exhibit some similarities with CSP contracts, including addressing priority resource concerns; and providing annual payments for adopting, maintaining, and improving practices. The EQIP incentive contracts also include notable differences from CSP, including a no stewardship threshold for entry; no comprehensive requirement for addressing resource concerns; no whole-farm enrollment; and no limit on payments. Pending implementation of EQIP incentive contracts, it is unclear what impact they may have on CSP enrollment or on general EQIP contracts.

Amendments under the commodities title (Title I) of the 2018 farm bill changed how base acres are used to calculate eligibility for certain commodity support programs. Base acres not planted to a commodity program-eligible crop within the last ten years are ineligible for select commodity support programs. Under the 2018 farm bill, these acres are now eligible for a one-time enrollment into a new Grassland Conservation Initiative under CSP.

While the new grassland initiative is within CSP, it has separate requirements from other CSP contracts. Unlike CSP, the grassland initiative would not require whole-farm enrollment. The initiative has no required stewardship threshold for entry, requiring the participant to only meet or exceed one priority resource concern by the end of the contract. Whereas CSP contracts must meet or exceed a stewardship threshold for at least two priority resource concern at the time of application and meet or exceed at least one additional priority resource concern by the end of the contracts. Grassland initiative contracts are short term—five years with no renewal or reenrollment option, and a participant may terminate the contract without penalty at any time. Payments under the initiative are not subject to the CSP payment limit, but cannot provide more than $18 per acre.

Easement programs impose a permanent land-use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the land in exchange for a government payment. The primary conservation easement program is the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, which provides financial and technical assistance through two types of easements (1) agricultural land easements (ALE) that limit nonagricultural uses on productive farm or grass lands, and (2) wetland reserve easements (WRE) that protect and restore wetlands. The other conservation easement program—the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP)—was reauthorized in the forestry title (Title VIII) of the 2018 farm bill and is not covered in this report.

The 2018 farm bill reauthorizes and amends ACEP. Most of the changes made to ACEP in the 2018 farm bill focus on the ALE. Under ALE, USDA enters into partnership agreements with eligible entities to purchase agricultural land easements from willing landowners to protect the agricultural use and conservation values of the land. The enacted bill provides additional flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities, including the eligibility of "buy-protect-sell" transactions in which an eligible entity purchases land prior to the acquisition of an ALE, agrees to hold an ALE on the land, and then transfer the land within a select time period to a farmer or rancher. The bill also amends the nonfederal cost share requirements by removing the requirement that an eligible entity's contribution be equal to the federal share, or at least 50% of the federal share if the entity includes contributions from the private landowner. The nonfederal portion contributed by the eligible entity may include cash, a landowner's donation, costs associated with the easement, or other costs as determined by USDA. Other flexibilities provided eligible entities include the consideration of geographical differences, terms and conditions of easements, and certification criteria of eligible entities. Several amendments reduce the roll of USDA in the administration of ALE, including amendments to the certification of eligible entities, the right of easement enforcement, and planning requirements. For a detailed analysis of amendments to ACEP see Table A-7 .

By comparison, the 2018 farm bill made fewer changes to WRE. Most of the amendments to WRE center on compatible use and vegetative cover requirements. Compatible use authorization is expanded to include consultation with the state technical committee, consideration of land management requirements, and improving the functions and values of the easement. Requirements for a WRE plan were amended to allow for the establishment or restoration of an alternative vegetative community that is hydraulically appropriate on the entirety of the WRE if it would benefit wildlife or meet local resource needs.

In other amendments to ACEP, Congress specified new directions regarding USDA's handling of the subordination, exchange, modification, or termination of any ACEP easement. The enacted farm bill increases mandatory funding for ACEP from the FY2018 authorized level to $450 million annually for FY2019 through FY2023.

Other Conservation Programs and Provisions

The 2014 farm bill created RCPP from four repealed programs. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized RCPP and made a number of amendments to the program (see Table A-8 for a detailed analysis of RCPP amendments). Prior the 2018 farm bill, RCPP utilized 7% of existing conservation programs (referred to as covered programs ) through RCPP projects that were defined by eligible partners. Eligible partners would define the project's area, goals, and resource concerns to be addressed through the use of covered programs. Partners would enter into project agreements with USDA, in which they would provide a "significant portion" of the overall cost of the project. USDA issued no regulations for RCPP and instead utilized funding notices and operated it with the regulations of the covered programs.

Amendments enacted in the 2018 farm bill shift RCPP away from using contracts from covered programs to establishing RCPP as a stand-alone program with its own contracts. Prior to the 2018 farm bill, USDA would enter into agreements with a partner on a project that would target covered program contracts in an agreed upon area for a defined resource goal. The actual contract with the farmer or rancher, however, would be an EQIP, CSP, ACEP, or HFRP contract. The enacted bill no longer uses this framework; instead it requires USDA to use a contract specific to RCPP that will fund eligible activities similar to those available under covered programs, but not using the funds of those programs. The list of covered programs is also expanded under the bill to include EQIP, ACEP, CSP, HFRP, CRP, and Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO).

The 2018 farm bill maintains RCPP's broad partner-focused goal of creating opportunities to leverage federal conservation funding for partner-defined projects. Additionally, the revised program provides additional flexibilities to partners, including the make-up of a partner's project contribution, guidance and reporting requirements, agreement renewals, and in the application process.

Mandatory funding for the program is increased to $300 million annually for FY2019 through FY2023 from $100 million annually under prior law. However, RCPP no longer receives a percentage of funding from covered programs, which could change the overall scale of RCPP depending on how this change is implemented. The allocation of funding is also amended to provide 50% to state and multi-state projects and 50% to projects in critical conservation areas (CCA) as selected by USDA.

The WFPO program provides technical and financial assistance to state and local organizations to plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to conserve, develop, and utilize land and water resources. Project costs are shared with local partners. Smaller projects may be authorized by the Chief of the NRCS, whereas larger projects must be approved by Congress. The 2018 farm bill made few amendments to WFPO, the most substantial being the authorization of permanent mandatory funding of $50 million annually. Historically, the program received discretionary funding through the annual appropriations process—most recently $150 million in FY2018.

Two farm bill provisions require that in exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. These provisions were originally authorized in the 1985 farm bill as highly erodible land conservation ( Sodbuster ) and wetland conservation ( Swampbuster ). They are collectively referred to as conservation compliance . The 2018 farm bill amends wetland conservation provisions to specify that (1) benefits cannot be denied if an exemption applies and (2) affected landowners must have the opportunity to be present during an on-site inspection. The enacted bill also authorizes annual discretionary appropriations for wetland mitigation banking. For a detailed analysis of amendments to the wetland conservation provisions, see Table A-1 .

A third type of compliance requirement introduced in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill; P.L. 110-246 ) addressed crop production on native sod ( Sodsaver ). While Sodsaver is not included in the conservation title of the farm bill, it operates in a manner similar to conservation compliance requirements in that benefits are reduced if production occurs on native sod.

Policy Issues That Shaped the Conservation Title

Beginning with the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (1981 farm bill; P.L. 97-98 ), agricultural conservation has been a stand-alone title in all farm bills. The breadth of the conservation title has grown with each passing omnibus farm bill. Debate over the 2018 farm bill focused on the differences within the conservation title of the House- and Senate-passed bills ( H.R. 2 ). The conference agreement resolved these differences to create a final version of the title in the enacted law that represents a mix of proposals from the two versions. Overarching themes of the conservation title include (1) targeting of funds or acres in existing programs, (2) a shifting of funds among the different types of conservation programs, including a continued emphasis on working lands programs, and (3) provisions that address environmental regulations through voluntary conservation measures.

Directed Policies Within Existing Programs

The 2014 farm bill focused on simplifying and consolidating programs within the conservation title. Conversely, the 2018 farm bill does not create new programs, but it does require that a number of existing programs direct a specific level of funding or acres, or percentage of a program's funding, to a resource- or interest-specific issue, initiative, or subprogram. Table 1 highlights some of the directed policies created by the 2018 farm bill and compares them with prior law. Some of these policies existed prior to the 2018 farm bill, but did not include a specified funding or acreage level. Through these directed policies Congress has specified a level of support or required investment that USDA is to achieve through program implementation. One potential consequence of these directed policies may be reduced flexibility of the implementing agency to allocate funding based on need, as well as reduced total funds or acres available for activities of the larger program that may not meet a resource-specific provision. Most of the conservation programs in the 2018 farm bill are authorized to receive mandatory funding, so these directed policies also have funding, unless Congress subsequently directs otherwise.

Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding. According to CBO, the conservation title makes up 7% of the total projected 2018 farm bill spending over 10 years, which is $60 billion of the total $867 billion (see Table 2 and Figure 3 ). Historically, funding for the conservation title has experienced both increases and decreases within farm bills. The 2018 farm bill conservation title is budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; however, it is projected to increase funding in the first five years (+$555 million over FY2019-FY2023) and decrease funding in the last five years (-$561 million over FY2024-FY2028). While most titles received an increase in authorized mandatory funding over the projected 10-year baseline, three titles, including conservation, did not.

Historical and Programmatic Shifts in Conservation Funding

The bulk of mandatory spending for conservation is authorized for working lands and land retirement activities. While recent farm bills have increased funding for easement and partnership programs, they remain relatively small compared to three main programs—EQIP, CSP, and CRP (see Table 2 and Figure 4 ). The 2018 farm bill conservation title is considered budget neutral over the ten-year baseline and generally reallocates funding among the larger existing programs.

Over time, periods of high commodity prices, changing land rental rates, and new conservation technologies have led to a shift in farm bill conservation policy away from land retirement and toward an increased focus on working lands programs. Much of this shift occurred following the 2008 farm bill and continued in the 2014 farm bill as the level of total mandatory program funding for land retirement programs declined relative to working lands programs (see Figure 4 ). Increasingly, the separation between land retirement programs and working lands programs has become blurred by an increase in compatible use allowances for grazing and pasture use under land retirement programs. Most conservation and wildlife organizations support both land retirement and working lands programs; however, the appropriate "mix" continues to be a subject of debate.

Additionally, some conservation program supporters are divided over the relative benefits of shorter-term land retirement programs (CRP) versus longer-term easement programs (ACEP). Unlike land retirement programs, easement programs impose a permanent or longer-term land-use restriction that the land owner voluntarily places on the land in exchange for a government payment. Supporters of easement programs cite a more cost-effective investment in sustainable ecosystems for long-term wildlife and land preservation benefits. Supporters of short-term land retirement programs cite the increased flexibility and broader participation compared with permanent or long-term easement programs. The 2018 farm bill did not amend the duration of ACEP easements, but did create two new subprograms under CRP that would provide additional options for longer-term CRP contracts (30 years under CLEAR30) and shorter-term CRP contracts (3-5 years under SHIPP).

In recent years, Congress has placed greater emphasis on programs that partner with state and local communities to target conservation funding to local resource concerns. These partnership programs leverage private funding with federal funding to multiply the level of assistance in a selected area. The 2014 farm bill repealed a number of these partnership programs and replaced them with RCPP. The 2018 farm bill amends and expands the number of partnering opportunities under RCPP, CREP, and CIG. However, based on available funding, these programs remain relatively small compared to others in the conservation title.

Environmental Regulation and Voluntary Conservation

USDA has cited voluntary conservation practices as a way to address environmental concerns and potentially reduce the need for traditional regulatory programs. A number of provisions in the conservation title speak to the relationship between voluntary conservation measures and environmental regulation. One such provision is regulatory certainty. Regulatory certainty refers to using voluntary measures to address a specific resource concern in exchange for the "certainty" that additional measures will not be required under future regulations. A new regulatory certainty section in the 2018 farm bill (§2503(f)) authorizes USDA to provide technical assistance under the farm bill conservation programs to support regulatory assurances for producers and landowners, under select conditions.

The 2018 farm bill also makes existing regulatory certainty measures permanent, including the Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative, which was created in 2012 as a partnership between NRCS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under this partnership agreement, private landowners who voluntarily make wildlife habitat improvements on their land through NRCS conservation programs, and agree to maintain them for 15-30 years, receive in return a level of certainty they will be exempted from potential future regulatory actions related to at-risk species under the Endangered Species Act. The 2018 farm bill makes this partnership agreement permanent and allows for the initiative to be expanded to include CRP.

Another environmental regulatory-related provision in the enacted 2018 farm bill (§2410) is a sense of Congress statement encouraging watershed-level partnerships between nonpoint sources and regulated point sources to advance the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).

Appendix. Comparison of Conservation Provisions Enacted in the 2018 Farm Bill to Prior Law

This appendix includes a series of tables, arranged by subtitle, included in Title II of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-334 ). U.S. Code citations are included in brackets in the "Prior Law" column. Corresponding section numbers in the 2018 farm bill are included in brackets in the "Enacted 2018 Farm Bill" column. Funding for most Title II programs is covered in the "Funding and Administration" subtitle (Subtitle E, see Table A-6 ). Where appropriate, funding levels are repeated within a program's corresponding subtitle table. Tables are generally organized by section number of the 2018 farm bill, except where it is appropriate to cross-references relevant amendments to provide a complete picture of the program.