By Peter Sachs / The Bulletin
WASHINGTON - College students from Oregon and California are
more likely than students in every other state but one to be denied
federal aid for school because of a felony or misdemeanor drug
conviction, according to an analysis of U.S. Department of Education
data.
The advocacy group that analyzed the data, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, found that nearly 190,000 applicants for federal higher education aid nationwide - and more than 3,600 applicants in Oregon - were refused money between 2001 and 2004 because of drug convictions.
In Oregon, the number of denials amounted to only 0.36 percent of all applicants living in the state, but that rate was still well above the national average and placed the state second only to Indiana. California led the country in absolute number of denied applications, although its rate of denials was the same as Oregon's.
Whitman College sociology professor Keith Farrington suggested that the higher rates of denied federal aid in Indiana, California and Oregon might be because of the increasing use of methamphetamine in those states.
The students most affected by the drug conviction exception are older, so-called "nontraditional" collegians like Albany resident Melanie Cavyell, who worked for more than a decade before enrolling in Linn-Benton Community College last August.
Cavyell, 33, is finishing a welding degree program, but her college plans almost were derailed when she was convicted last August for a felony drug offense that occurred in 2004.
Cavyell, like thousands of other college students convicted of a drug crime after they turned 18, fell under the "Aid Elimination Penalty," a section of the federal higher education law. Adults who apply for money through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, and who have a drug conviction may be ineligible for federal Pell grants and Stafford loans.
Cavyell was able to get a scholarship from a nonprofit group to make up for the aid she lost just a few weeks before school started last fall. She said she understands the reasoning behind the law but wishes an appeals system were in place for applicants to argue why they deserve the money despite their offenses.
In February, at the urging of the Education Department and other groups, Congress clarified the law, applying it only to those students who are convicted while they are enrolled and receiving loans or grants. But the change has not satisfied opponents of the law.
"The partial reform really will only help a small number of students," said Tom Angell, a spokesman for Students for Sensible Drug Policy. His organization is a nationwide advocacy group with chapters on university campuses that seeks to soften some drug laws. "We would like to see the drug conviction question taken off the financial aid form."
The federal law, enacted in 2000 with the goal of reducing drug crimes, doesn't affect those convicted of selling or possessing narcotics before turning 18, nor does it affect people who have had a record expunged.
The only way the government learns that an applicant has a conviction is if he or she volunteers the information on the FAFSA form.
Jane Glickman, an Education department spokeswoman, said that if the agency finds out that someone lied on a FAFSA form, the punishment could include a $20,000 fine and time in prison. But she also noted that there is no database listing all drug convictions nationwide.
The FAFSA does not ask about any other misdemeanor or felony convictions that an applicant may have. Drug offenses aside, Glickman said other criminal convictions would not necessarily disqualify a person for federal college assistance, as long as the applicant is no longer in prison.
In a 2005 report that looked at a number on federal programs that can deny money based on drug convictions, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, found that the college aid denial had little measurable effect on cutting drug crimes.
Meanwhile, states like Oregon that have their own loan and grant programs are also affected by the federal policy. The Oregon Opportunity Grant receives some of its money from the federal government, so it must go along with federal policies in handing out money, according to the grant's administrator, Susan Degen.
One of the biggest problems with the federal penalty is that it doesn't define what "enrollment" means, Degen said. For example, students on a break between terms would likely have already registered for upcoming classes but would not be taking classes during those breaks. That apparently leaves them in a gray area.
Which prompted Degen to wonder, "What happens if someone goes out and does crazy stuff during spring break?"