Undergraduate Law Review at Florida State University

Why Florida Should Use Senate Bill 720 as a Model for Future Legislation Advancing Criminal Justice Reform

—

by

Undergraduate Law Review at FSU
in

Writer: Evelyn Shvartsman

Editor: Gaerin Alexander

Associate Editor: James Banks

I. Introduction

Decades of research demonstrate that education has been recognized as an effective tool for rehabilitation within the criminal justice system; inmates who received education through correctional programs have significantly lower odds of returning to prison compared to those who did not.1 Incarcerated individuals who participated in high-quality correctional education were 43% less likely to return to prison within three years compared to those who received none.2 Currently, Florida law presents a significant barrier for previously incarcerated individuals who reside in Florida and seek in-state tuition for state and local universities. In other words, permanent residents of Florida who, in many cases, have lived in the state their entire lives, are denied in-state tuition simply due to previous incarceration.3 This restriction causes an unnecessary financial obstacle, inflicting harm on those reintegrating into society, as it limits opportunities for higher education, workforce development, and long-term stability. As a result, Senate Bill 720 should serve as a model for future legislation focused on expanding education for justice-impacted Floridians by amending the state’s tuition residency statute.

II. Preliminary Systemic Disadvantages from a Young Age

Interdisciplinary research across neuroscience, developmental psychology, speech pathology, and criminology shows that, within correctional settings, limited access to specialized services such as speech-language pathology support, educational programming, and mental health care causes individuals to often experience compounded disadvantages during incarceration. 66–90% of juvenile offenders have below-average language skills,4 yet access to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and justice professionals in this particular field is critically inadequate. As a result, these cognitive-communication impairments may lead to disruptive behaviors that authorities mislabel as defiance, disruption, or intentional misconduct, often resulting in escalated offense charges and legal involvement.5 Additional systemic barriers can also be seen through the neuroscience of adolescent brain development. The prefrontal cortex6 remains underdeveloped throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.7 Childhood trauma, abuse, neglect, exposure to violence, and instability8 also disrupt the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis,9 the amygdala, and the ventral striatum,10 contributing to impulsive behavior, susceptibility to peer influence, and difficulty evaluating long-term consequences. 

Despite these findings, approximately 700,000 U.S. adolescents are incarcerated annually,11 and, in 2019 alone, 36,479 youth were held in residential placement facilities in the US, all removed from their typical social context during a time of extensive social and emotional development.12 These findings demonstrate the necessity of educational support, rehabilitative services, and developmental intervention within correctional institutions to reverse these negative effects not just for juveniles, but for incarcerated adults and the broader American society. Specifically under Florida’s tuition residency laws, justice-impacted individuals are subjected to restricted education access, denying them affordable higher education upon release, further exacerbating these disadvantages.

III. Legislative and Policy Background

Florida’s current tuition residency framework primarily follows Florida Statute § 1009.21,13 under which individuals must demonstrate twelve consecutive months of lawful residence through official documentation. These requirements create significant barriers for both incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, as imprisonment disrupts their ability to maintain continuous documentation and physical presence in Florida. As a response, Florida legislators introduced a series of bills attempting to preserve tuition residency eligibility for justice-impacted individuals. Early legislative efforts began during the 2024 legislative session, when House Bill 76714 and Senate Bill 6215 were introduced. These bills proposed that incarceration would not, for otherwise qualified individuals, remove their Florida residency status for tuition purposes. These propositions gained support from criminal justice reform advocates, educators, and workforce development organizations. However, the legislation was ultimately vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis, who argued that allowing incarcerated individuals to maintain residency for tuition purposes would “reward criminal activity” and allow them the same higher education benefits available to “law-abiding citizens.”16 This rationale conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment17 by indicating government support for barriers that create unequal access to educational opportunities and undermine reintegration efforts for returning American citizens. Following the veto of the 2024 legislation, lawmakers continued proposing reforms through House Bill 4518 and Senate Bill 36019 in the 2025 legislative session, advocating for the same principle. These efforts eventually evolved into Senate Bill 72020 during the 2026 legislative session, which did not pass through the committee responsible for reviewing its financial impact in March of 2026, thus ending its chances of becoming law during that sitting. Nevertheless, the bill’s failure does not diminish the significance of its purpose. Rather, Senate Bill 720 should serve as a model for future proposed legislation aimed at correcting structural barriers within Florida’s tuition residency framework and expanding educational access to justice-impacted individuals.

IV. Mechanics of the Proposed Bill

    Modeled after Senate Bill 720, the proposed legislation would amend Florida Statute § 1009.2121 by inserting the following language: “An individual may not lose his or her resident status for tuition purposes solely by reason of incarceration in a state or federal correctional facility in this state.”22 Through this amendment, the bill would establish substantial statutory protection, preventing incarceration from stripping otherwise qualified Florida residents of in-state tuition eligibility. Notably, the legislation would not create automatic residency status for incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals who were not previously residents of Florida, nor would it eliminate or change Florida’s existing residency verification requirements. Instead, the bill would operate as a corrective mechanism addressing a structural inequity, rather than a benefit for a specific population of individuals. The practical implications of this proposition are substantial; postsecondary education would be financially accessible for many formerly incarcerated individuals residing in Florida. As a result, returning citizens would face fewer systemic barriers to employment, housing, financial stability, and social reintegration and access to workforce development, vocational certification programs, and long-term career opportunities would become more attainable for justice-impacted Floridians. Moreover, the legislation reflects broader rehabilitative principles, as extending barriers beyond the systemic disadvantages during imprisonment through the inaccessibility of affordable higher education prolongs punishment beyond incarceration itself.

    The proposed legislation also raises minimal constitutional concerns and, in fact, assists with the constitutional and ethical implications embedded within the current statute. The bill already applies equally to all qualifying Florida residents regardless of race, gender, marital status, socioeconomic status, and military status.23 The proposed legislation would add a clause preventing incarceration from serving as the sole basis for residency loss. Other concerns may include federal preemption, but are likewise unlikely, as the proposed legislation would operate exclusively within Florida’s authority and would not conflict with federal criminal law.24 In addition, as case law generally upholds state authority to set tuition criteria as long as it is non-discriminatory,25 it is within the state of Florida’s jurisdiction to enact the proposed legislation to allow educational access, rehabilitation, and workforce reintegration opportunities for incarcerated and previously-incarcerated individuals. Ultimately, given that educational access is a rehabilitative tool capable of reducing recidivism and promoting economic and social stability, the proposed legislation should be implemented.

    V. Policy Benefits and Societal Impact

      With respect to long-term public safety, economic return, and reintegration benefits, correctional education programs and job training positively affect post-release employment outcomes, have been repeatedly associated with lower rates of reoffending, and reduce recidivism rates as a whole.26 Economically, every dollar invested in career and technical education results in a $11.95 return with a 97% chance the program will produce benefits greater than the cost. Every dollar spent on correctional education programs results in $5 recovered in direct [avoided] reincarceration costs,27 ultimately providing significant long-term fiscal benefits. 

      Employment also plays a critical role on societal post-release advantages, as formerly incarcerated individuals who find employment within one year of release reduce recidivism rates by approximately 40%.28 Additionally, national recidivism data indicate that over 60% of formerly incarcerated individuals are rearrested within three years, and over 70% within five years.29 However, formerly incarcerated individuals are 24% less likely to return to prison if they held a job during incarceration, and those who maintain employment for one year post-release experience a recidivism rate of just 16%.30 Florida-specific data reflects similar trends, as male inmates with employment arranged post-release demonstrate recidivism rates of approximately 14.5% lower compared to unemployed formerly-incarcerated male individuals.31 Moreover, in relation to Florida’s most recent recidivism rate of approximately 21%, those in work release programs reduced the recidivism rate by about 9% across three years.32

      Postsecondary degrees increase wages, employment stability, and long-term economic contribution through workforce participation.33 By preserving in-state tuition eligibility for formerly incarcerated Florida residents, education would not only become more accessible but would also strengthen both individual financial stability and Florida’s broader labor force. Increased workforce participation contributes to higher tax revenue, a stronger state economy, expanded labor market participation, and reduced reliance on public assistance programs,34 further reducing long-term costs for taxpayers. Likewise, as the proposed legislation requires an adjustment to residency verification rather than implementing state expenditures, the lack of fiscal impact on the state budget indicates that the long-term savings associated with reduced recidivism, increased workforce participation, and lower taxes outweigh short-term administrative costs.35

      VI. Contemporaneous Florida Legislative Efforts

        The proposed legislation also aligns with Florida’s broader criminal justice reform efforts. Florida Senate Bill 134436 was passed during the 2025 legislative session, aimed at early intervention and support for youth in order to divert them away from the delinquency system and toward rehabilitative services. The legislation recognized the developmental and behavioral needs of adolescents, ultimately enacting changes to reduce long-term justice system involvement among youth populations. Similarly, Florida Senate Bill 1300,37 introduced in the 2026 legislative session, focuses on education and workforce development opportunities for current and formerly incarcerated individuals through vocational training, career certification programs, and labor preparation initiatives. Together, these proposals reflect an emerging legislative understanding that rehabilitation, education, and reintegration produce more effective long-term public safety outcomes. Alongside future legislation modeled after Senate Bill 720, these bills can make rehabilitation, workforce participation, and economic stability attainable through accessible education for justice-impacted individuals, ultimately strengthening communities, reducing recidivism rates, and improving public safety statewide.

        VII. Conclusion

          Florida’s current tuition residency framework creates barriers for formerly-incarcerated individuals reintegrating into society. Legislation modeled after Florida Senate Bill 720 offers reform that aligns with modern rehabilitative principles, neuroscientific research, equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment, and broader public safety objectives. Educational access should not be viewed as a reward for criminal conduct, but rather as an investment in rehabilitation, economic mobility, and community safety. By correcting an unintentional structural barrier while supporting rehabilitation and reducing future criminal justice involvement, Florida has the ability to advance not only individual opportunity but also Florida’s broader interests in bipartisan benefits, including economic reintegration, reduced correctional costs, stronger workforce participation, and safer communities.

          1. Barack Obama, The President’s Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 811 (2017). ↩︎
          2. Lois M. Davis, et al., How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here?, 14 RAND Corporation (2014). ↩︎
          3. Fla. Stat § 1009.21 (2002). ↩︎
          4. Karen Bryan, Jackie Freer & Cheryl Furlong, Language and Communication Difficulties in Juvenile Offenders, 42 Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 505 (2007). ↩︎
          5. Shameka Stanford, Casualties of Misunderstanding: Communication Disorders and Juvenile Injustice, 24 ASHA Leader 44 (2019). ↩︎
          6. Madeline B. Harms & Seth D. Pollak, Emotion Regulation, 2 Encyclopedia of Adolescence 110 (2024). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for executive functioning, impulse control, emotional regulation, and long-term decision-making. ↩︎
          7. Betty J. Casey & Kristina Caudle, The Teenage Brain: Self Control, 22 Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 82 (2013). ↩︎
          8. Id. ↩︎
          9. Amber J. Tresca, What is the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis?, Verywell Health (Apr. 2026), https://www.verywellhealth.com/hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-hpa-axis-5222557 (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). The HPA-axis is a vital body system containing the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, and the adrenal gland (connecting the central nervous system and the endocrine system)—that works together to adjust the balance of hormones in response to stress leading to altered fear reactivity and arousal responses. ↩︎
          10. Colleen M. Berryessa, Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent Development on Juvenile Judge Decision-Making, 69 Juv. Fam. Court J. 19 (2018). The amygdala and ventral striatum are emotional and reward-processing regions of the brain. ↩︎
          11. Caitlin Cavanagh, Healthy Adolescent Development and the Juvenile Justice System: Challenges and Solutions, 16 Child Dev. Perspect. 141 (2022). ↩︎
          12. Id. at 3. ↩︎
          13. Fla. Stat § 1009.21 (2002). ↩︎
          14. H.B. 767, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2024). ↩︎
          15. S.B. 62, 2024 Leg., 126th Sess. (Fla. 2024). ↩︎
          16. Fla. S. Jour., 92d Leg., Reg. Sess., vol. I, at 5 (2025). ↩︎
          17. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. ↩︎
          18. H.B. 45, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2025). ↩︎
          19. S.B. 360, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2025). ↩︎
          20. S.B. 720, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026). ↩︎
          21. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21 (2002). ↩︎
          22. S.B. 720, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026). ↩︎
          23. Fla. Stat. § 1009.21 (2002). ↩︎
          24. 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (1996). A federal law passed in 1996 that restricts states from offering postsecondary education benefits (including in-state tuition rates) to undocumented immigrants based on state residency. ↩︎
          25. Lawrence J. Conlan, Durational Residency Requirements for In-State Tuition: Searching for Access to Affordable Higher Learning, 53 UC. L. J. 1389, 1392-93 (2002). The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that states have broad authority to set tuition criteria for public institutions. ↩︎
          26. Robert S. Melgaard & Jynelle S. Robinson, Office of Programs and Re-Entry, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (2024), https://www.fdc.myflorida.com/content/download/1241/file/2023-24-Annual-Report.pdf (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
          27. Id. at 19. ↩︎
          28. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 29 (2004). ↩︎
          29. Stephanie F. Melhorn, Makinizi Hoover & Isabella Lucy, The Workforce Impact of Second Chance Hiring, U.S. Chamber of Com. (Sep. 2024), https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/data-deep-dive-the-workforce-impact-of-second-chance-hiring-3 (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
          30. Id. ↩︎
          31. Melgaard & Robinson, supra note 24, at 7. ↩︎
          32. William D. Bales, et al., An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Prison Work Release Programs on Post-Release Recidivism and Employment, U.S. Dep’t of Just. 30 (2016). ↩︎
          33. U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats., Education Pays, 2024 (2025), 
            https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2025/data-on-display/education-pays.htm (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU).
            ↩︎
          34. Bruce Western & Becky Pettit, Incarceration & Social Inequality, 139 Daedalus 8, 18 (2010). ↩︎
          35. Lois M. Davis et al., supra note 33, at 38-39. ↩︎
          36. S.B. 1344, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2025). ↩︎
          37. S.B. 1300, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026). ↩︎

          Comments

          Leave a comment