Maggie VanDerMolen May 9, 2014 SWRK 258 Second Chance Act During the last four decades, the prison population in the United States as swollen to an unprecedented size. As recently as 2010 the incarceration rate was five times greater than was in 1972 and currently there are about 2.3 million people imprisoned in the US (Zimring, 2010) (National Association of Advancement of Colored People, 2008). The continual increase in the incarceration rate and the exponential growth of prison populations has placed an incredible burden on the U.S. economy. This unsustainable demographic shift was the catalyst for the creation of the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention, or commonly known as the Second Chance Act (SCA).Through the creation of this act, the US government hoped to improve the services provided to individuals transitioning out of prison by government agencies and non-profits, and thereby reduce the national recidivism rates. The SCA is expected to reduce the national recidivism rate by providing additional support for individuals transitioning from prison back to their communities. Hopefully this support will minimize the rate at which these individuals commit crimes once again. Although programs that assisted offenders during their transition back to their communities existed before the implementation of the SCA, the creation of the SCA as an expansion and improvement on those programs is believed to bring about a reduction in the rate of recidivism before its implementation. Based off the knowledge that the punitive nature of the American criminal justice system has exponentially increased the amount of its prisoners, the SCA intends to provide more integrated rehabilitative support in the hopes of reducing recidivism rates. Given the need for substantial change in the criminal justice system, the SCA was created to develop long-term solutions for the reducing rates of recidivism. No expiration or time limit was placed on the act, and given its lofty long-term goal of reducing the recidivism rate by 50%, the SCA will probably remain in effect for quite some time until recidivism rates are significantly reduced from their current state. The framework that the SCA established in the hopes of achieving this long-term goal has changed over the course of its existence. In the initial stages of the act’s implementation, states had to apply for SCA funding, which they would then redistribute amongst agencies and non-profits. Each state would be responsible for developing ways to quantify the outcomes of their programs along an annual, five year and ten year continuum (Schultz, 2006). From the content of recent applications for SCA funding, it seems that aspect of the application process has changed, and now non-profits and agencies can apply directly for SCA funding, rather than through their states. If a government agency or non-profit receives SCA funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) for the SCA, it will either be through 12 month, 24 month, or multi-year contracts. Organizations that wish to receive SCA funding must prove that their programs can reduce recidivism rates through the following support systems for offenders: strengthening family ties between offenders and their families, during incarceration and after reentry into the community, address mental health issue and substance abuse, and provide transitional housing, literacy, vocational and service placement, alternatives to incarceration and generally comprehensive reentry services. The funding provided to these programs is expected to provide economic opportunity and status redistribution for individuals transitioning from the prison system back into their communities. The ultimate goal that the SCA set out to achieve is the increase in public safety through the reduction of recidivism, with this long-term goal being measured by a 50% reduction in recidivism (measured within a 5 year period post release). As the act was new and therefore had reliable way to measure the potential effectiveness, when it was adopted in 2007, no time limit was set for this specific goal. The SCA did outline two intermediate, more achievable goals for the reduction of the recidivism rate though. The first aims to reduce the recidivism rate by 2% within the first 5 years of the SCA’s implementation. The second aims to reduce the recidivism rate by 5% within the first 10 years of the SCA’s implementation. As noted earlier, the vast increase in the incarceration rate over the three decades prior to the SCA’s adoption, a reduction of recidivism rates by 5% within the first 10 years was certainly a stark departure from the contemporary demographic trends (Zimring, 2010). While these long-term and intermediate goals are helpful in terms of tracking the SCA’s success, the majority of the content of the SCA focuses more specifically on the advancement of short-term goals. The primary short-term, and ongoing, goal of the SCA is the development and the support of “evidence based programs and practices” that provide goods and services to individuals who are transitioning out of the prison system. Perhaps the support of these organizations is better described as an “immediate goal” rather than a short-term goal, as the framework of the SCA is built to support his goal throughout its foreseeable future existence. Through achieving its short-term, or “immediate goal” of providing consistent support to organizations that are effectively aiding and affecting individuals transitioning out of the prison system, the intermediate and long-term goals are more feasible as the national recidivism rate begins to reduce one program participant at a time. A noteworthy aspect of this immediate goal is that the SCA’s emphasis on the support of “evidence based programs and practices” which clearly and statistically prove that their methods work to reduce recidivism among their clients. This precept is at the heart of the SCA’s efforts to reform the programs aimed at helping individuals transitioning back into their communities post prison release. Not only will organizations with more effective strategies help the SCA reach its long-term goal of reducing recidivism by 50%, the support of effective organizations can also have a strong economic effect. Therefore, the SCA’s immediate goal of supporting effective organizations further supports two goals of the SCA; the first, and obvious, goal being the reduction of recidivism and the second being the saving of money in the long run. To ensure that the organizations that the SCA supports are truly effective, it requires that organizations which wish to apply for SCA funding agree on a particular framework by which the organization will be judged for effectiveness. On top of the obligation of each organization to report on the state of each individual they are serving, the NIJ has contracted with various research agencies and institutes to specifically conduct studies on the effectiveness of particular organizations that have received SCA funding. The NIJ, which is housed under the National Office of Justice Programs, is responsible for processing applications for the SCA. The NIJ is also responsible for the oversight and evaluation for the programs which are awarded SCA funding. While the NIJ has created multi-million dollar contracts with these research institutes such as the Urban Institute and Social Policy Research Associates to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, the hope is that through the effective establishment of the programs within these organizations will ultimately lead to programs that effectively reduce recidivism rates long-term, thereby saving the government the cost of keeping those individuals in the prison system. The importance of the SCA’s successful implementation of thoroughly evaluating programs’ effectiveness, which the hope of establishing programs that achieve a longterm level of effectiveness, becomes more clear when the cost of maintaining the prison system is compared with the cost of healthcare. Excluding federal costs, counties in the U.S. spend more than $70 billion from their own taxes and revenues on criminal justice, while they spend $68 billion of their own money on healthcare (National Association of Counties, 2013). While some Americans may believe that they have no connection to criminal justice, the sheer cost of the criminal justice system that comes from tax-payer dollars shows otherwise. If the evaluations of organizations are successful in deeming which programs are effective and therefore deem further funding and which are not effective, the SCA could encourage the growth of a higher percentage of programs that show statistical success in the reduction of recidivism rates, and thereby a reduced cost on the criminal justice system. This immediate goal of evaluating these organizations can have a significant impact on the American economy and society overall. Through this narrowing of the organizations that can receive grants awarded by the SCA for sufficiently meeting its standards of effectiveness, the SCA is ideally able to starve ineffective organizations to death and support the growth of effective organizations. Part of the growth supported by the SCA of these successful programs is the programing provided for prisoners during incarceration as well as post release. This wholistic integration of programing for pre and post release prisoners within organizations can aid to the ease and fluidity of individuals transitioning back into their communities from prison. Overall, the SCA saves money by paying effective organizations to preform more services, than more organizations to perform less effective services. While the goal of reducing the costs of the criminal justice system may couch some attitudes that cutting the cost of the criminal justice system is the primary goal of the SCA, the overall goal of reducing the rate of national recidivism is just and can contribute to greater social equality. In no way is the goal of reducing the rate of recidivism undemocratic or tyrannical, as the methods with which the SCA intends to reduce recidivism involve the direct social and economic empowerment of individuals transitioning from prison back into their communities. (DeFina, The state of the Economy and the Relationship between prisoner Reentry and Crime, 2010) Overall, the implementation of the goals the SCA outlines would result in the redistributions of resources through the employment opportunities and thereby the advancement or support of the individual’s status. The economic effects of incarceration on an individual are drastic; individuals earn 40% less annually post incarceration than they did before their arrest (Justice Center: Council of State Governments, 2013). These statistics are likely due to the fact that generally employers are wary to hire individuals with a criminal history. The aid and support that programs funded by the SCA are able to give these individuals can help prepare them to either reenter the job force they once were a part of or prepare for a new job through job training. With the job skills that these individuals earn, the have more job opportunities in which they can be financially successful, and thereby support their status as an employed individual. The goals of the SCA are also targeted toward the population they intend to serve through their support of mental health screenings and healthcare and drug treatment. Given the fact that such a large population of prisoners are incarcerated for drug related offenses, it seems necessary that the SCA would support drug treatment programs as a means of reducing recidivism. This increase in the number of prisoners incarcerated due to drug related offenses is a result of shifting attitudes towards drugs. One organization called “DrugPolicy” outlines how the change in attitudes towards drugs took place in a top-down way, which resulted in the spike of incarceration rates. “In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants.” More and more individuals were sent to prison for drug related offenses due to mandatory sentencing, which denied the court case-by-case discretion in sentencing. The growth of drug related offenders filling prisons continued as the War on Drugs pressed on through the 80’s. “The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.” (The Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Since much of the same laws and policies, which were responsible for the mass incarceration of drug offenders still remain in place, it in necessary for programs hoping to reduce recidivism rates to provide drug treatment. Fortunately, the number of individuals who are in incarcerated for a drug offense is lower than it was in 1997. There are approximately 237,000 people in state prisons, 95,000 people in federal prisons, and 5,000 people in juvenile facilities for a drug related offense (Sakala, 2014). There is no evidence to support the notion that the successful implementation of the SCA would be harmful for the larger population. While the SCA does require more funding from tax dollars than previous programs with the goal of reducing the national recidivism rate, the increase in cost does not appear to have a negative effect on any particular population. In fact, the increased cost of the SCA, not only helps the individuals transitioning back into their communities, but also help those communities which are welcoming returning members. Part of this support has come from the increased practice of SCA programs in engaging with and supporting incarcerated individual’s family members while they are still in prison (Justice Center: Council of State Governments, 2013). As individuals leave the prison system and return to their families and communities, they are hopefully met with more of a support system than they would otherwise have had. Furthermore, funding provided by the SCA supports practices that are then able to keep tabs on and support individuals transitioning back into their communities. One such practice is the use of graduated sanctions and incentives, which essentially allows local levels of government to enact swift sanctions on ex-offenders as a response to low-level parole violations. The support of local levels government and community agencies makes these sanctions possible as they can more quickly approve sanctions on individuals deemed necessary for them. Although this practice of quickly sanctioning parole violators seems to be in line with the punitive practices that resulted in the exponential growth of the prison system, its practice actually has a positive effect on communities welcoming individuals back from prison. As discussed in the article “Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections,” research shows that the immediate application of a sanction for violating the conditions of a persons release has a greater effect on the individual’s likelihood to avoid future criminal behavior, than the actual severity of the sanction itself (Wodahl, 2011). Therefore, the support that the SCA provides local government agencies and non-profits to work closely with individuals transitioning back into communities, which includes the ability to quickly apply sanctions for violations of parole, diminishes the long-term prospects of those individuals’ participation in crime, and creates a safer community on the whole. Especially given the support of local communities ability to work with returning community members, the SCA seems to be consistent with the values of the social work profession. The goal of the SCA to support organizations that effectively empower individuals who are transitioning out of the prison system clearly is in line with the efforts within the social work profession to help individuals better their living circumstances and overall wellbeing. One potential pitfall of the SCA could be that it applies the same practices used to reduce recidivism rates across the board, irrespective of particular communities’ cultural practices and needs. Since the SCA does not in fact provide services, but rather contracts with local organizations that work to empower individuals, this pitfall of using practices that don’t apply may be avoided on the whole. Still, there is little evidence that proves that the model of the SCA is particularly good at promoting culturally relevant practices, and as is the case, this may be an aspect that does not completely line up with the values of the profession of social work. While it has been established that the SCA is well intentioned and improves the support that local government agencies and non-profits can provide individuals transitioning back into their communities, the actual effect that the SCA will have on recidivism rates has yet to be seen. This fact is largely due to the lack of comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of the programs support by the SCA overall. One reason that the SCA may not reduce recidivism rates to the extent that it intends to is that it does not truly challenge the status quo of the criminal justice system. Its creation is essentially an expansion on previous policies that assumed that money spent on aiding prisoners transitioning back into their communities was directly correlated with the reduction of recidivism. In reality, not much has changed about the criminal justice system, and even the programs the SCA support remain a cog in the larger punitive system which fails to truly rehabilitate. The ideological assumption that spending money programs that help individuals transition back into their communities from prison will definitely reduce recidivism rates is not covert, but rather straightforward. It is so straightforward, that one would almost not questions its accuracy. Yet, the studies conducted by Lance Hannon and Robert DeFina in “The State of the Economy and the Relationship Between Prisoner Reentry and Crime,” show that crime and incarceration is tied most closely to the state of the economy, not the troubleshooting efforts on the part of government to reduce crime. In their article, they quote other criminal justice scholars, writing “Research and policy discussion of the problem of prisoner reentry commonly focuses on the deficits of offenders that place them at a high risk of unemployment, martial instability, and subsequent offending. However, we seldom ask how the communities to which the prisoners are returning might affect the likelihood of obtaining a steady job, reestablishing family ties, and staying out of prison.” (DeFina, The state of the Economy and the Relationship between prisoner Reentry and Crime, 2010). So while the creation of the SCA is a step in the right direction, it may not be addressing the real social problems necessitating the need for further support of individuals as they transition from prison back into their communities. The feasibility of actually reduction the recidivism rate by 50% through the SCA is unlikely due to a variety of political and economic factors. First off, there are more political implications underlying the successful implementation of the SCA than may appear. Although the SCA appeared to be very popular due to its bi-partisan support, the work necessary for truly reducing the recidivism rate is not politically popular. As previously noted, the increase in the prison population over the last 4 decades was particularly due to shifting attitudes about drug offenses and other crimes, and the growing support of punitive measures, rather than the stark increase in crime itself. In fact, in the 90’s the incarceration rate increased while the rate of crime actually decreased (Zimring, The Scale of Imprisonment in the United States: 20th Century Patterns and 21st Century Prospects, 2010). Although the public may not particularly fear the SCA, it may fear an act that would take further steps to provide rehabilitative care rather than punitive action. As of now, the SCA is not on the general public’s radar, but if radical amendments were made to it in the future, it might receive some public resistance. Additionally, the SCA may not be economically feasible due to the current state of the prison system. Since dramatic increase in the prison population, the U.S. has supported the creation of several private prisons, which actually make a profit off of imprisonment. The amount of money that the SCA should receive from the government every year to support government agencies and non-profits is debatable, but the fact that private prisons will fight to stay alive and make money is clear. Although private prison owners do not determine policy, the revenue that those prisons make in comparison with the hefty price-tag of truly reforming the prison system, may cause policy makers to sweep the problem of the increasing prison population under the rug for the sake of economic profit (Zimring, The Scale of Imprisonment in the United States: 20th Century Patterns and 21st Century Prospects, 2010). Overall, the implementation of the SCA is definitely an improvement on previous programs trying to reduce recidivism rates. Through its dedication to support local government agencies and non-profits and the written commitment to evaluate those organizations, the SCA can support the development programs that successfully reduce recidivism. The lack of clear and comprehensive reporting on the effectiveness of the programs that the SCA support gives the impression that the act is either not fulfilling its goals or simple not keeping good track of them. Research on individual programs that would then be compiled into an a comprehensive study should be conducted to determine the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the SCA. Bibliography DeFina, L. H. (2010). The state of the Economy and the Relationship between prisoner Reentry and Crime. Social Problems , 57 (4), 611-629. Justice Center: Council of State Governments. (2013). Reentry Matters: Strategies and Successes of Second Chance Act Grantees Across the United States. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center. National Association of Advancement of Colored People. (2008, January 1). Criminal Justice Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from National Association of Advancement of Colored People: http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet National Association of Counties. (2013). Lower Jail Recidivism and Reinvest the Savings: Support the Second Chance Act. Washington DC. Sakala, P. W. (2014, March 12). Mass Incarceration: the Whole Pie. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from Prison Policy Initiative: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html Schultz, E. (2006). The Second Chance Act. Corrections Today , 69 (5), 22-23. The Drug Policy Alliance. (2012, January 1). A Brief History of the Drug War. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from The Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutionsdrug-policy/brief-history-drug-war Wodahl, E. (2011, April). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 386-405. Zimring, F. E. (2010). The Scale of Imprisonment in the United States: 20th Century Patterns and 21st Century Prospects. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 100 (3), 1225-1246.