Can We Pass the Second Chance Act in 2006?
August 16, 2006 - 1:50pm
Justice Matters’ editor Kathleen Pequeño interviewed Gene Guerrero of the Open Society Policy Center about the federal Second Chance Act, S 1934 & HR 1704. Guerrero, who lobbies Congress on criminal justice and civil liberties issues, previously worked with Human Rights First and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Justice Matters (JM): What is the Second Chance Act? What are the most important changes that you think it will create if it passes?
Gene Guerrero (GG): The Second Chance Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to provide better planning and coordination for people coming out of incarceration and federal support for demonstration programs to provide needed re-entry services. Most of the people who work in the field of corrections agree that transition planning should begin as soon as someone has been sentenced. There ought to be someone thinking about what that person needs, addressing the problems the person has: addiction, educational needs, and then providing transitional services to that person.
One of the most important features of this bill is that it asks — it requires — states that are seeking funding for re-entry services to engage in a collaborative planning process to establish the re-entry priorities for that state. State officials should be talking with local officials, half-way houses, nonprofits, and faith-based groups to decide jointly what the state needs. To ask, what's the best way to use limited federal funding in that state?
The collaborative planning process is modeled after something good the Bush administration has done since they took office. They've been having meetings with various people in the relevant federal departments — the Department of Justice, HUD, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Education — to talk about what happens to people coming out of prison and figure out how to cut the high recidivism rates in this country.
JM: Can you tell me more about how high recidivism rates are?
GG: Nationally, the Department of Justice has reported that 2/3 of people released are re-arrested within three years. Meanwhile, other countries incarcerate fewer people, and in the other industrialized nations, their crime rates are lower. We waste a lot of money incarcerating people who don't really need to be imprisoned and wouldn't be if they had committed their offense in France, or Germany, or Finland, or Spain. Among other things, incarceration is really expensive. We could be using other punishments that are less expensive and have less likelihood of recidivism and we could better use limited public funds on programs that offer much better promise of reducing crime. We need to really look at changing the direction of our criminal justice policy --- having a more constructive approach instead of a destructive approach.
JM: Why is this a good time to pass this bill?
GG: I have been around these issues for many years. I've thought year after year that things couldn't get worse, but year after year, they do get worse. Now, we're at the point that with 5% of the world's population, the United States has about 25% of all the prisoners in the world. We have a terrible problem in this country. For the first time in my life, I see the potential to turn this around. There are several reasons for this opportunity for real reform:
1. Crime rates are down.
2. At least for the moment, crime is not the political football it was a few years ago.
3. Now just about everyone acknowledges that the drug war has been a failure.
4. The whole faith-based initiative has opened the eyes of people to the fact that something needs to be done to help people coming out of prison.
We've made surprising progress with this act. We now have 28 sponsors in the Senate and 112 in the House of Representatives. It's passed out of the House committee, and has a really good chance of passing, especially as we line up more sponsors.
JM: You mention that crime rates are down. But if crime rates were increasing, would it be to okay to leave the system the way it is now?
GG: No, the central goal should be crime reduction. We want to cut recidivism because we want to cut crime. All the evidence shows that most of these programs do in fact cut recidivism rates. Even modest reductions not only cut crime but save money because it's so expensive to incarcerate people. Plus, you're helping people, giving them a chance to redeem themselves.
JM: What sort of response are you getting from people on Capitol Hill as you talk with them about the Second Chance Act? Have any of the responses surprised to you?
GG: There's a lot of support. The sponsorship is fairly evenly-divided between Republicans and Democrats. In the House of Representatives our lead sponsors for the Second Chance Act are Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). In the Senate the lead sponsors are Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Joseph Biden (D-DE). Co-sponsors are a diverse group including, for example, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).
Part of the reason for the strong Republican support is Bush's inclusion of this issue in the 2004 State of the Union address, saying, "America is the land of second chance." After that address, the re-entry working group --- an informal network of organizations: civil rights groups, faith groups, and service providers --- began to work with Rep. Rob Portman. He was representing Ohio at the time, and the White House asked him to take a lead on whatever came out of the process following the State of the Union address. We've also worked with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who is a former prosecutor and a former judge from Cleveland, and with Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL). They've all been leaders on this in the House. Representative Davis is known as “Mr. Re-entry.” In the Senate, Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback took the lead.
The surprise is that people are so willing to look at these issues comprehensively. The act creates two different types of grants. The first, main grant program is for the demonstration grants. If states go through the collaboration process, that helps them get a grant. The idea is to show that transition programs are cost-effective and to encourage their replication more broadly. Then the second grant program goes straight to nonprofits and faith-based groups for mentoring programs.
Meeting with conservative members of congress, they are very supportive of mentoring and programs in prison. There's a growing recognition that an overly harsh sentence can do more harm than good.
JM: Is there any resistance to the Second Chance Act? Where is it coming from?
GG: There hasn't been much opposition, but it's been mostly one of two things. There are still a few conservative people who argue that nothing about rehabilitation works. Then secondly, there's argument from some conservatives that the federal government shouldn't take this role, which should be done by the states.
Oh, and some Democrats are nervous about crime issues. We've had to work to get them to support the bill.
JM: You're hoping to pass this in session (which wraps up at the end of September). What will happen if it doesn't pass?
GG: We'll start again with the new Congress. It will be re-introduced in February or March of 2007.
There's a lot of interest from corrections people, and there's been a lot of effort to pass this. A failure to pass it would be a setback. This is a significant change of policy.
This is primarily a state issue --- most people are leaving state prisons. But the federal government plays a leadership role for bad or good. The federal government can set a positive example and can push the states in a constructive direction.
JM: So what's next for this bill?
GG: Congress is on break in August, and one important thing people can do is contact their local congressional offices in August to express support. When Congress returns in September, we have one month to pass it. We're hopeful. It's made it onto the House floor. There are a couple of situations in which it might pass, including being inserted into another bill as an amendment or passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and then making its way through the House. People need to let their congressional members know that they support this bill, especially while Congress is back in their home districts in August.
Right now, if you look at what is being done about re-entry --- there are good programs out there. The challenge is to make these programs more widely available to reach all the people, families, and communities who need them.This interview was done in August, 2006 for the Summer/Fall issue of Justice Matters.
Justice Matters (JM): What is the Second Chance Act? What are the most important changes that you think it will create if it passes?
Gene Guerrero (GG): The Second Chance Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to provide better planning and coordination for people coming out of incarceration and federal support for demonstration programs to provide needed re-entry services. Most of the people who work in the field of corrections agree that transition planning should begin as soon as someone has been sentenced. There ought to be someone thinking about what that person needs, addressing the problems the person has: addiction, educational needs, and then providing transitional services to that person.
One of the most important features of this bill is that it asks — it requires — states that are seeking funding for re-entry services to engage in a collaborative planning process to establish the re-entry priorities for that state. State officials should be talking with local officials, half-way houses, nonprofits, and faith-based groups to decide jointly what the state needs. To ask, what's the best way to use limited federal funding in that state?
The collaborative planning process is modeled after something good the Bush administration has done since they took office. They've been having meetings with various people in the relevant federal departments — the Department of Justice, HUD, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Education — to talk about what happens to people coming out of prison and figure out how to cut the high recidivism rates in this country.
JM: Can you tell me more about how high recidivism rates are?
GG: Nationally, the Department of Justice has reported that 2/3 of people released are re-arrested within three years. Meanwhile, other countries incarcerate fewer people, and in the other industrialized nations, their crime rates are lower. We waste a lot of money incarcerating people who don't really need to be imprisoned and wouldn't be if they had committed their offense in France, or Germany, or Finland, or Spain. Among other things, incarceration is really expensive. We could be using other punishments that are less expensive and have less likelihood of recidivism and we could better use limited public funds on programs that offer much better promise of reducing crime. We need to really look at changing the direction of our criminal justice policy --- having a more constructive approach instead of a destructive approach.
JM: Why is this a good time to pass this bill?
GG: I have been around these issues for many years. I've thought year after year that things couldn't get worse, but year after year, they do get worse. Now, we're at the point that with 5% of the world's population, the United States has about 25% of all the prisoners in the world. We have a terrible problem in this country. For the first time in my life, I see the potential to turn this around. There are several reasons for this opportunity for real reform:
1. Crime rates are down.
2. At least for the moment, crime is not the political football it was a few years ago.
3. Now just about everyone acknowledges that the drug war has been a failure.
4. The whole faith-based initiative has opened the eyes of people to the fact that something needs to be done to help people coming out of prison.
We've made surprising progress with this act. We now have 28 sponsors in the Senate and 112 in the House of Representatives. It's passed out of the House committee, and has a really good chance of passing, especially as we line up more sponsors.
JM: You mention that crime rates are down. But if crime rates were increasing, would it be to okay to leave the system the way it is now?
GG: No, the central goal should be crime reduction. We want to cut recidivism because we want to cut crime. All the evidence shows that most of these programs do in fact cut recidivism rates. Even modest reductions not only cut crime but save money because it's so expensive to incarcerate people. Plus, you're helping people, giving them a chance to redeem themselves.
JM: What sort of response are you getting from people on Capitol Hill as you talk with them about the Second Chance Act? Have any of the responses surprised to you?
GG: There's a lot of support. The sponsorship is fairly evenly-divided between Republicans and Democrats. In the House of Representatives our lead sponsors for the Second Chance Act are Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). In the Senate the lead sponsors are Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Joseph Biden (D-DE). Co-sponsors are a diverse group including, for example, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).
Part of the reason for the strong Republican support is Bush's inclusion of this issue in the 2004 State of the Union address, saying, "America is the land of second chance." After that address, the re-entry working group --- an informal network of organizations: civil rights groups, faith groups, and service providers --- began to work with Rep. Rob Portman. He was representing Ohio at the time, and the White House asked him to take a lead on whatever came out of the process following the State of the Union address. We've also worked with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who is a former prosecutor and a former judge from Cleveland, and with Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL). They've all been leaders on this in the House. Representative Davis is known as “Mr. Re-entry.” In the Senate, Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback took the lead.
The surprise is that people are so willing to look at these issues comprehensively. The act creates two different types of grants. The first, main grant program is for the demonstration grants. If states go through the collaboration process, that helps them get a grant. The idea is to show that transition programs are cost-effective and to encourage their replication more broadly. Then the second grant program goes straight to nonprofits and faith-based groups for mentoring programs.
Meeting with conservative members of congress, they are very supportive of mentoring and programs in prison. There's a growing recognition that an overly harsh sentence can do more harm than good.
JM: Is there any resistance to the Second Chance Act? Where is it coming from?
GG: There hasn't been much opposition, but it's been mostly one of two things. There are still a few conservative people who argue that nothing about rehabilitation works. Then secondly, there's argument from some conservatives that the federal government shouldn't take this role, which should be done by the states.
Oh, and some Democrats are nervous about crime issues. We've had to work to get them to support the bill.
JM: You're hoping to pass this in session (which wraps up at the end of September). What will happen if it doesn't pass?
GG: We'll start again with the new Congress. It will be re-introduced in February or March of 2007.
There's a lot of interest from corrections people, and there's been a lot of effort to pass this. A failure to pass it would be a setback. This is a significant change of policy.
This is primarily a state issue --- most people are leaving state prisons. But the federal government plays a leadership role for bad or good. The federal government can set a positive example and can push the states in a constructive direction.
JM: So what's next for this bill?
GG: Congress is on break in August, and one important thing people can do is contact their local congressional offices in August to express support. When Congress returns in September, we have one month to pass it. We're hopeful. It's made it onto the House floor. There are a couple of situations in which it might pass, including being inserted into another bill as an amendment or passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and then making its way through the House. People need to let their congressional members know that they support this bill, especially while Congress is back in their home districts in August.
Right now, if you look at what is being done about re-entry --- there are good programs out there. The challenge is to make these programs more widely available to reach all the people, families, and communities who need them.
