Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over shifting inmate-education funds to Corrections roils Utah House; bill circled
Summary
Lawmakers debated a substitute to HB100 that would move telephone-surcharge prison-education funds from the Board of Regents to the Department of Corrections, require inmates to repay 50% of certain education costs after release, and earmark funds for vocational training; the measure drew extended debate and was circled for later consideration.
The Utah House spent an extended period debating second substitute House Bill 100, a measure that would transfer telephone-surcharge funding used for inmate postsecondary education from the State Board of Regents to the Utah Department of Corrections and change payment and oversight rules for that programming.
Representative Carl Wimmer, the bill’s sponsor, said the change would let Corrections better target vocational and applied-technology training for inmates and eliminate a fiscal note that previously blocked the bill. "We're taking that money ... and give it back to the Utah Department of Corrections to be earmarked for prison education," he said, and described a plan requiring inmates to sign contracts to repay 50 percent of certain education costs after release; unpaid balances could be referred to the Office of State Debt Collection.
Supporters argued the move would focus training on job-ready skills and improve accounting for inmate education costs and outcomes, with Representative Zane Draxler noting that moving oversight to Corrections could improve programmatic fit with vocational training providers. Representative Bigelow said vocational training could reduce recidivism by giving inmates marketable skills upon release.
Opponents, including Representative Holdaway and a member who identified a conflict of interest with Salt Lake Community College, warned the change could undermine established higher-education programs that have invested in prison education for decades. Holdaway argued the Board of Regents had invested in infrastructure and programming, and representatives from Salt Lake Community College warned the proposal could threaten faculty, accreditation, and equipment investments. A member speaking from Salt Lake Community College said the college had invested more than $2.1 million in equipment for prison programs and urged colleagues to vote no.
The House considered a motion to end debate (a call of the House) but the chair confirmed that ending debate on the bill would require a two-thirds vote and the motion failed. Later, Representative Garn moved to "circle" the second substitute HB100 (set it aside and take it up later), and the motion to circle passed.
The transcript records the core policy changes as: transfer of telephone-surcharge funds to Corrections for earmarked prison education use, increased Corrections oversight to contract with applied-technology colleges, and a requirement that inmates repay 50 percent of certain education costs after release, with collection tools available for unpaid balances. Supporters and opponents agreed on the goal of reducing recidivism but differed on the proper institutional steward for the funds and program delivery. The bill was circled for later consideration rather than passed on the floor during this session.
