Raise Your Voice

What is the Higher Education Act drug provision?

The Higher Education Act (HEA) was signed into law over three decades ago by President Lyndon Johnson to open the door to a college education for students to whom it had previously been closed. It establishes federal financial aid programs such as Perkins Loans, Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, PLUS Loans and Work-Study Programs. The Act is periodically reviewed and updated by Congress to ensure adequate funding and access to college for millions of Americans. The 1998 revision to the HEA included a new provision (the "drug provision," also known as the "aid elimination penalty,") that has since blocked over 180,000 potential students from college opportunities due to drug convictions hindering their Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
What is wrong with the new provision?

IT PUNISHES STUDENTS TWICE FOR THE SAME CRIME.
These would-be students having their aid cut already paid whatever price the criminal justice system demands. It doesn’t make sense to continually punish young people in such a way that limits their ability to get an education and improve their lives. Additionally, judges handling drug cases already have the option of denying drug offenders federal benefits, and school administrators have the power to expel problem students. These are the people who know the students best, and they should be the ones who decide their educational futures - not the federal government.

IT HURTS LOWER INCOME FAMILIES.
Denying financial aid to students hurts only those students who need the aid, namely, children of lower income families. Children of the well-to-do need not worry about losing their college opportunities; they can afford the quality legal representation necessary to avoid drug convictions as well as the price of tuition without financial aid. Young ex-offenders are likely to be adversely affacted by Setbacks like the inability to raise money for tuition, and may be sent into a downward spiral toward failure.

IT HAS A DISCRIMINATORY IMPACT.
In New York State, almost 95% of those in prison for drug offenses are people of color, but the fact is that the majority of people and the majority of drug users are white. According to The Sentencing Project, African Americans, who comprise approximately 13% of the population and 13% of all drug users, account for more than 55% of those convicted for drug offenses. There is no reason to believe that the disproportionate racial impact of drug law enforcement won’t spread into the realm of higher education via this law.

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS IN WHICH IT PURPORTEDLY SEEKS TO ENROLL STUDENTS.
Studies reported by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy show that for every $1 spent on treatment, $7 is saved in criminal justice, health care, or welfare costs that otherwise would be borne by society. But treatment accounts for less than 15% of the drug control budget; hence, most of those who need it don’t get it. While financial aid can be restored after successful completion of a qualifying treatment program, the provision does not allocate any money for treatment. The same students who can’t afford college without public aid are also likely to be unable to afford private treatment, much less to afford the cost in time off from work or school necessary to participate in such programs.

IT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR NATION'S DRUG PROBLEM.
The goal of the Higher Education Act is to make it easier, not more difficult, for all students to obtain a full education. To limit the students eligible for federal aid is counterproductive. Denying students the opportunity for a college ducation brings us no closer to solving the nation's drug problem; instead it only increases the already destructive impact of the horribly misguided War on Drugs.

IT IGNORES THE MAJOR DRUG PROBLEM ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
The major drug problem in this country, on campuses and elsewhere, is alcohol abuse. However, no one seriously suggests that revoking eligibility for financial aid would be a sensible approach to that very serious problem - even though drinking is also an illegal activity for the great majority of college students, who are under 21. Additionally, the treatment provision is overly broad and fails to distinguish between casual use and serious abuse. The fact that a student has been caught smoking a joint, for example, is no more an indicator of addiction than underage drinking is an indicator of alcoholism.
What student governments support HEA reform?
What is the Coalition for HEA Reform?
With whom can I speak for further information?
If you have any questions about the Higher Education Act reform project, please contact David Guard via e-mail or telephone at (202) 293-8340.
Where can I find the most recent campaign news?
Sign up for Drug War Chronicle, DRCNet's free e-mail magazine, for weekly coverage of the HEA reform effort and other drug policy news - http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/.
What do I answer for FAFSA Question 31?
If you are unsure how to answer Question 31 of the Federal Application for Financial Student Aid (FAFSA), see the worksheet explaining how you need to answer.