“Second Chance Month” Needs to Focus on Community

On the last day of March, President Trump deemed April “Second Chance Month.” The next thirty days were supposed to symbolize the White House’s commitment to helping those with criminal records readjust to society after time spent incarcerated. Specifically, the President seemed eager to implement evidence-based programs that have proven track records of getting justice-involved people employment, housing, mentorship, and appropriate medical treatment. His words were not dissimilar to a package of suggestions put forward during the final months of the Obama administration, in which the Justice department outlined a new approach to degree-granting programs in prisons, changes to processes that would prepare identification cards and other requisite documents prior to release, and an increase in funding for technology training.

Unfortunately, while similar in intention, Trump’s promise has yet to enumerate any specific steps. The White House has released seven principles that they would like to see implemented in criminal justice reform bills going forward, but many of them are vaguely worded, and are not backed by any promise of funding or evaluation of feasibility. Meanwhile, a bill currently cosponsored by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, which would expand education, vocational training, and rehabilitation programs in prisons, has been lambasted by A.G. Sessions for it’s incongruence with his unyielding tough-on-crime philosophy. The discordance from the White House is obvious, but even more concerning is the lack of focus on community-based reentry services.

We have known for some time now that community-based service providers create some of the best outcomes for recently released people. The local focus, community knowledge, and reduced-stigma environment they provide should be the ideal building blocks for any “evidence-based programs” that the president tries to implement. Unfortunately, many of these community organizations are left out of criminal justice reform discussions in favor of programs that are based in prisons and jails. Though prison and jail based programs are helpful in preparing people for release, they fail to provide a continuum of support when they leave, and that is what truly provides the best chance for a successful life after incarceration.

If we were instead to focus investments on local, community-based service providers that have a focus on recently released people, sourcing ideas would not be difficult. Stories from all around the country detail the incredible work of nonprofits to assist with housing, job placement, procuring identification documents, sobriety and recovery programs, support groups, childcare, and more. Promisingly, many of those who participate in these kinds of programs show significantly lower recidivism rates than their peers. A nonprofit in New Jersey, for example, has a recidivism rate of 19.7% – less than one third of the national average.

To ask for evidence-based programming yet ignore the success of community services such as these that are already in existence is a grave oversight in criminal justice reform. We already know some of the programs that are working, and a full evaluation of community-based services could be done to identify and support more of them. Given that the President recently revived the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, an evaluation such as this seems the perfect first project. “Second Chance Month” provides an ideal time to seriously consider the positive impact that supporting community-based services for recently released people could have.