Thoughts on the De-Incarceration Trend

So it’s picking up steam – the de-incarceration dialogue. Key political figures, bipartisan coalitions, conservatives and liberals, foundations and advocacy groups are coalescing around the fact that the United States has built a massive system of prisons and jails but failed to achieve its overarching public safety goals. Recidivism rates are unacceptable (adult and juvenile); youths are pervasively harmed in various jails, lockups, institutions and prisons across the country; many juvenile justice “systems” have less-than-acceptable outcomes relative to individual and community functioning after youths interact with the juvenile justice system – yet prison spending alone is now estimated at $74 billion annually (about $7.4 billion to private prisons according to Vera Institute and Council of State Governments). What!?

Imagine what your state or community could do with a fraction of that spending if you had a cohesive, science-driven and health-focused (e.g., nurturing communities, prevention-focused) system of care for all families, not just vulnerable ones. We know from prevention research that with wise investments in health care, school-community and youth/family interventions, we can save billions of dollars over the lifetime of children and youth that receive such interventions. Yet we seem to be pushing hard to de-incarcerate without the broader dialogue as to how to properly invest and scale effective programs in these three critical areas.

I love that we’re talking about closing prisons and focusing our work at the community level. I’m very happy that we acknowledge our disappointments over “get tough” criminal justice policies such as mandatory minimums, structured sentencing that disallows flexibility and common sense in dealing with lower risk offenders — I also love that the discussion is an intelligent one that includes budget, policy, and multiple impact layers and is not just a one-dimensional conversation (e.g., budgetary savings alone). Yet what I’m not hearing loudly enough are conversations to help shape the national vision for what healthy communities can and should look like. Why aren’t we having concomitant discussions as to how to invest our intervention dollars in prevention strategies with proven records of success and in developmentally appropriate ways? Why aren’t we expanding Nurse-Home Visiting Partnerships all over the map? Investing in anti-bullying programs and the Good Behavior Game in elementary schools? Funding universal high-quality pre-kindergarten? Offering affordable, community-based programs such as Strengthening Families and ecologically scaled efforts like Communities That Care? Broadening healthy nutrition programs? There are many other great interventions and approaches – these are listed as examples.

The list goes on and on. And one answer is that while we’ve been investing in prevention science, we’ve invested much less in learning HOW to bring successful evidence-supported practices to widespread scale, in culturally and contextually relevant ways so that many more could benefit from these successful interventions.

So I strongly encourage everyone in the de-incarceration dialogue to invest in the future of prevention (before we start shutting down prisons without appropriate community-based solutions). Let’s work hard to shift dollars away from ineffective and in fact overly punitive public safety responses toward technologies and solutions that, when combined with effective public health strategies (e.g., surveillance, community mapping, and population-based prevention / early interventions) contribute to more nurturing, positive communities. Let’s create a measured plan where we build healthy communities by investing in these approaches and at the same time reduce our unsuccessful dependence on incarceration strategies. By engaging populations at early and appropriate points on the developmental continuum – we can really have the communities that we all deserve and feel much more positive about our investments in our families and institutions.

JJDPA Reauthorization – Accountability and Transparency at Many Levels

On April 21^st, Senators Grassley and Whitehouse hosted an important Congressional oversight meeting involving compliance performance management, OJJDP, DOJ and ultimately – the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (not formally reauthorized since 2002). Experts provided valuable testimony; many important take home points were noted including the Senate’s strong support for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

What seemed apparent in the hearing was the recognition of multiple layers of responsibility for the problems – from budgeting and appropriations policy (Congress), to DOJ/OJJDP (regulatory, administrative, compliance) to states (implementation, compliance, integrity).

It is important to fix things and be accountable. Also important are transparency, authenticity and commitment to the policy goals of the JJDPA for everyone involved at every level. We are kidding ourselves if anyone believes that states can realistically reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact on a couple of hundred thousand dollars (such as being asked of the minimum allocation states and territories). Hard to imagine how folks can effectively monitor and comply with the expectations of the Act with current federal appropriations levels. We delude ourselves when advocating for an Act that reinforces this expectation if appropriations and implementation supports are not in place to fulfill policy goals. And we shouldn’t settle. By settling I mean advocating for a policy (in this case the JJDPA) and claiming victory if/when the Act is reauthorized but sufficient funding does not follow.  Sure the JJDPA saves thousands of lives and is a terrific federal policy for protecting vulnerable children and youth. Yet we are likely to be complicit in misleading our states and ultimately our kids if Congress, DOJ/OJJDP and the states don’t put into place the proper tools to get the job done.

Colleagues at the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives, National Implementation Research Network, SAMHSA, Administration for Children & Families (HHS), Children’s Bureau, Corporation for National & Community Service – Social Innovation Fund among others have a growing set of tools, research and ideas for how to truly get the most effective outcomes when investing public and private dollars. It is past time to build the sorts of collaborative and accountable partnerships in government (all levels) to achieve better results. Such partnerships offer the expertise and training that would significantly help in supplementing the existing wisdom found among career government employees. We owe it to our children and families, our taxpayers and all others to ensure that we properly resource and carry out effective policies. Let’s get the JJDPA reauthorized with updated prevention science embedded in the Act, improved regulatory guidelines and management, stronger administration but most of all  — proper resources to get the job(s) done.