Let’s have the DOJ re-create the wheel on Federal prison reform! “NOT”!!

I felt it was time for a 2017 blog and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates’s remarks at Harvard’s Law School were the catalyst to set me in motion.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-sally-q-yates-delivers-remarks-harvard-law-school-sentencing-and

My mantra has consistently been that many Federal prison reform initiatives can be accomplished under the existing policy framework through leadership, accountability and thinking outside the box. There is no need to re-create the wheel of bureaucracy which takes years to implement and in many cases requires new legislation. The academics, administrators and lawyers driving the reform bus have a limited understanding of BOP policy, culture and nuance. A perspective from the trenches is missing from the dialogue and that also includes the constructive feedback from justice involved people!

Two aspects of the deputy’s speech were troubling to me from a prison reform perspective.  The first quote is from the above DOJ link: (bolded for emphasis)

there were no uniform standards for the operation of these facilities, and BOP was not collecting good data about which halfway houses were performing well and which ones were not.  So last month, we took a number of steps to fix these problems, leveraging BOP’s purchasing power to impose standards, improve outcomes, and strengthen this private market.”

Having held assignments in the New York City Community Corrections office, the above statement floored me. The BOP has had extensive, uniform community corrections standards and policy for decades. There is also a “Statement of Work”, Operational and program review audit guidelines and a full time BOP contract oversight specialist.  Just refer to the below links and you can see the myriad of regulations:

https://www.bop.gov/business/docs/res_reentry_ctr_sow_2012.pdf

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/7300_009_CN-3.pdf

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/7030_001.pdf

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/1210_023.pdf

You get my point.

So I wonder if the people who attended the Harvard speech think the BOP is just developing residential re-entry standards?  I’d also like to know if the Deputy AG is under this false impression from what someone at the BOP told her or did she come to that conclusion internally?

This boils down to my points on leadership, transparency and accountability. How could a person with such high stature not realize there are standards? I think it would be better if someone at the DOJ came to the realization that if the they just decided to disengage from private corrections companies then why are we contracting out halfway houses to the private sector? At upwards of $100 per bed, per day, I suggest we re-group on this entire concept of private contracting and come up with a better solution.

I can go on for hours with personal stories about companies like Esmore, Community First and facility scandals like the “The Le Marquis” in lower Manhattan.  Equally troubling is how the prison industrial complex has been pivoting to re-entry services. Bit I digress……….

The second concern from the speech was relative to the following quote: (also bolded for emphasis)

Last month, we announced that we are building a semi-autonomous school district within the federal prison system – one that will offer programs for adult literacy, high school diplomas, postsecondary education and expanded opportunities for individuals with learning disabilities.  Today, I’m issuing a memo to the director of BOP implementing these changes and laying the groundwork for expanded efforts in coming years.  Among other things, we’re launching a pilot project at two BOP facilities that will blend in-classroom instruction with online education, using tablets customized for the prison environment.”

A quick read of this sounds impressive for the average reform supporter but consider this. What is the definition of “semi-autonomous”? Does she really think a non-transparent, non- accountable agency like the BOP is going to relinquish control?

There is currently extensive educational policy and practices that can be expanded right now without this “school district within the federal prison”. It’s just another re-creation of the bureaucratic wheel where a majority of the money will go to staff positions. Of equal concerns is the “coming years” statement because everything mentioned regarding the educational goals is obtainable within the current policy framework already and who can predict what a future administration will do.

When I began working for the system in the 1980’ there were several universities with BOP partnerships delivering programing funded by Pell Grants.  I found it to be a great outlet for the population and the empirical data of educational programming in relation to recidivism speaks for itself. Check out some of the policies, the first of which was a focus on one of my recommendations to the Colson Task Force on Federal Correction.

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5353_001.pdf

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5354_003.pdf

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5350_028.pdf

While it’s usually fashionable to re-create the wheel and spend millions for consultants to tell you so;  (Hence the Colson Task Force, Boston Consulting Group, etc.), I argue for strong leaders who can think outside the box while prioritizing education and re-entry to an equal footing with institutional security. In fact, public safety, staff safety and institutional security benefit by meaningful education and re-entry programs which occupy idle time, give people a sense of self- worth and help combat recidivism.

While the right/left coalition lick their wounds from the election, let’s hope President Trump can walk the walk and immediately implement change in the Federal prison system by selecting a new director who is a true leader outside the BOP culture who will consider expanding the possibilities under the existing policy framework.

Crunch Time for Federal Prison Reform

I listened in on the Washington Post Criminal Justice forum yesterday. One of the panels involved Congressman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary who seemed a bit pessimistic about movement on criminal justice reform during this lame duck session of Congress.

What was telling is rather than speak of an upcoming vote, he mentioned there was a member “briefing” last week and there would be one again this week.   Kevin Ring of FAMM was equally sullen and it seemed like the only person on the panel with passion was Steve Cook of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys who oppose reform as articulated in their September 8 letter to House members.  http://www.naausa.org/site/index.php

I pull no punches with my take on reform that it is big business within the beltway and profitable like the Prison Industrial Complex. It’s great for lobbyists, politicians, egos and what I refer to as the Beltway “NGO Mafia”. I am a bit tainted having worked with people within the system for 30 years but; like the Aerosmith song, “it’s the same old song and dance”. (In my humble opinion). I truly hope I’m wrong this time because the media campaigns attached to the current lobbying efforts have even me wondering if this time is different.   

This morning, I read a National Review article from Grover Norquist about how it’s time to pass reform. These articles and the references to this “Right/Left” coalition are becoming passe. From a procedural standpoint, none of the 11 reform related bills have passed the full house or senate. Though the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (aka: SRACA) gets the most hype as of late, it still needs to come to a full vote then be reconciled, etc.

I’m deeply disappointed in the Corrections related provisions of SACRA which penalize our more marginalized populations by unequally awarding extra good time and allowing the Bureau of Prisons too much discretion and time regarding program implementation. My mantra is there are many more practical solutions to reform which can be implemented within the current policy and statutory framework.

Long ago, I wrote about our squandering of the perfect storm of prison reform and have been in many heated discussions because of my skepticism. I’ve watched clients and families give hundreds of thousands of dollars towards this hype for decades and it appears the end game is no different this time. I am looking forward to both the House and Senate to prove me wrong but I’m not holding my breath in doing so.  

On the bright side, companies like Google have recognized the need for reform and the societal impacts of the carceral state. Let’s just hope their resources; like that of philanthropist billionaires, doesn’t go to lobbyists, politicians and organizational budgets. Federal prison reform does not need to be some massive legislative undertaking. It starts with leadership, vision and a field perspective all missing from the reform table.   

Who do I pay for early release? (When it sounds too good to be true; it is!)

I wrote this blog at the request of Jeff Grant over at Prisonist.org. I thought I would re-post it on my site because I’m seeing more and more people getting into the consulting arena and it’s not just the white collar people who fall prey to consultants. The bottom line is beware when someone directly solicits by aggressive telemarketing, scare tactics and things that sound just too good to be true.  Here it is and I hope you enjoy:

I’ve worked with white collar individuals in various Federal prison settings off and on for almost three decades. One common theme that has remained a constant is how highly educated professionals seem to lose all sense of discernment when indicted by the government. Savy business People who are ordinarily in control of their affairs often become victims of profiteers, mainly prison “consultants”.

Probably the most prevalent issues are people being solicited to “pay” for a transfer, designation, longer halfway house placement or my favorite “early release”.  There is  a growing cottage industry of RDAP “Consultants” promising early release  and others selling extended halfway house under the “Second Chance Act”.  RUN and HIDE!

What most people don’t realize until after they become incarcerated is that paying for RDAP, a transfer, designation and more halfway house is basically a scam. Very troubling to me is that spouses, children and parents often fall victim to these solicitations even after someone reports to prison. It seems all sense of rationality disappears when the fear, anxiety and nativity take hold when a person is facing a prison term.

I once had someone on my caseload who paid $7,500 to be designated to a specific location. Unfortunately, the facility I worked at was not the place they wanted to go to! One thing profiteers realize is that when the court recommends a specific location, the Bureau of Prison’s compliance rate is approximately 74% because it is policy for them to accommodate judicial recommendations. The non-compliance rate would be higher, however, many times the recommendation is not commensurate with the individuals classification and/or program needs.

In the case I referred to above, the “consultant” missed a very basic policy issue which prevented the desired location which could have been proactively managed prior to sentencing. I often hear attorneys and others comment how the BOP does not follow the recommendation but I beg to differ. I monitored the incoming pipeline (thousands of inmates) of both a camp and medium facility for many years and when the recommendation is commensurate with the level and program needs, it closer to 90%.

I recently had a client who hired me because he said I was the only one who told him it was easy to get into the RDAP. He had contacted many people which he found on line who had a song and a dance about how they would “get him into RDAP” and “get him early release”. For people with a legitimate and documented substance abuse issue, it is extremely easy to get into the RDAP. The BOP automatically identifies, then transfers participants into the program even if the RDAP is not at the initially designated facility. No judicial recommendation is even needed. Recently, an attorney I frequently work with in Baltimore sent me a copy of an email he sent to a consulting company which instructed them to cease and desist contacting his client about getting them into RDAP.  He also forwarded the solicitation materials to me which told the person how a “judicial recommendation wasn’t enough” to get them into RDAP and how they were going to “get them 18 months off the sentence”.  This is quite comical from my perspective but to someone facing a sentence, it’s just what they want to hear.

As I mentioned before; no court recommendation is needed to get into the RDAP plus the BOP policy on early release is clear about how long one receives off the sentence as well as the mandatory amount of halfway house placement (aka: RRC) which is required for the community transitional phase of the RDAP program.  That leads me to my final common area of concern which is regarding the “Second Chance Act” (SCA).

The Second Chance Act of 2007 is simply a law that was passed in 2008, which the Bureau of Prisons operates under. It does NOT mandate the BOP to place people for any specific time period nor did it take away any of the discretion the BOP had prior to its implementation. Most people do not realize the SCA had the most impact on state prison populations, funding and re-entry programs. All it did from a Federal prison standpoint was establish the “Elderly Offender Pilot Program”, (long since closed) and gave the BOP discretion in placing people up to 12 months in the halfway house under 18 USC 3624. You do NOT apply for the SCA!

In summary, I’d like to be clear the victimization of white collar people I refer to is not illegal nor is it limited to white collar people. It’s basically buyer beware that you’re paying for things which will ordinarily occur within the framework of the prison system.  Private outside entities have little control or impact because of the statutory discretion given to the BOP. Though it is practical to be as prepared as much as possible prior to the prison experience; one should carefully reconsider engaging entities who direct market and/or have that magic bullet that sounds too good to be true.

My next blog is going to focus on the issue of “friendly extortion” many white collar individuals face in prison which is not only prevalent in the higher security level facilities but also present in federal prison camps.

 

 

 

No reform for Christmas

As we wind down the year, I am posting my March Testimony in DC before the Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections. As I reflect on the hype from the pundits, money thrown at the Beltway Lobbyists and NGO Mafia by naïve Billionaires; I can only hope the reform movers and shakers will soon realize many positive reforms can be accomplished simply with leadership within the current law and BOP policy.  My fear still looms that by “compromise legislation” we will squander out prefect opportunity for reform. It’s time for the President to pressure the DOJ to think outside the box to accomplish the reforms referenced below:

TESTIMONY:

”  I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Colson Commission with practical, “shovel ready” reforms. I will also comment on current correctional treatment practices and pending legislation if my 4 minutes permit.

My perspective is from both sides of the fence having worked directly with the incarcerated in classification, programs and re-entry, having audited BOP facilities, policy writing and training case management staff. Since my retirement from the BOP in 2011, I have continued to work with the incarcerated, their families and attorneys throughout the country as an advocate.

I believe I have a pulse on the agency policy and culture yet occupy a neutral position as both a retiree and reformer. I am not here to criticize nor defend the BOP. I simply have a passion for Federal prison reform. The most important thing I can communicate is the BOP has good correctional policies but there must be a broader interpretation to maximize its potential under the existing framework.

Our country has failed as evidenced by the high rate of recidivism, demographic makeup of our prison population and lifetime “collateral consequences” of a felony conviction.

Before I found out I had 4 minutes to speak, I had typed 20 plus pages of testimony which I eventually condensed to 8 but even that doubled the amount of time allocated. I could talk to this commission for 40 minutes so, I am simply going to cut to the chase.

1) Population Reduction recommendation: Something that can be implemented immediately is regarding various Reduction in Sentence initiatives, (RIS) contained in PS # 5050.49, Compassionate Release. The BOP is NOT crediting Good Conduct Time (GCT) towards program eligibility for RIS initiatives. It is my opinion; the agency has the statutory authority to credit GCT under the law, specifically 18 USC 3624:

“(b) Credit Toward Service of Sentence for Satisfactory Behavior.—

 

  1. Subject to paragraph (2), a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year  [1] other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner’s life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations.

This discretion should be used for ALL RIS incentives especially “Elderly Offenders” who by some estimates cost the government upwards of $56,000 yearly for medical center placement. The crediting of earned good conduct time would result in substantial cost savings and crowding while not jeopardizing public safety as a BOP threat assessment is conducted prior to program approval.

2 Population Reduction recommendation: The BOP/DOJ has never used the authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4)(B), which authorizes the Attorney General to transfer custody of non-citizen prisoners convicted of certain non-violent offenses to ICE for repatriation before the end of their sentences.   While a number of states have availed themselves of this authority to reduce populations of non-citizen prisoners, no regulations have been issued by the Justice Department to implement this program since its enactment as part of AEDPA in 1996.

3 Population Reduction recommendation: Review and change the “Director’s Discretion” exclusions under BOP Policy 5331.02, Early Release Provisions which prohibit early release under 3621 (e). There is no need for the BOP to be any more restrictive in granting early release than what is written in the law and this policy even allows certain Misdemeanor offenders to be denied early release.

4 Rehabilitation and employment Programs recommendation: The next recommendation is I ask you review the BOP policy 5353.01, Occupational Educational Programs and strongly encourage this commission to study what progress the agency has made in regards to Page 5, paragraph c. as well as set mandates or institutional quotas to expand the use and involvement of the programs referenced in this directive. When I was hired by the BOP in 1988, there were College and Vocational (VT) apprenticeship programs through the DOL. The reduction in line staffing levels by increased caseloads has presented roadblocks for staff to assist with educational and vocational programs within this directive.

5 Staffing recommendation: The BOP should re-allocate some of their 39,000 plus positions and increase staffing at the institutional level. Although the BOP is the largest correctional agency in the country, approximately 209, 000 as of (3/05/15), it holds only slightly more offenders than the state of Texas (168,000) (BJS-2013), yet it maintains 6 Regional offices, the DSCC, various training centers, and a Central Office with 10 Divisions. An independent entity should study the administrative staffing levels and need for regional offices and thousands of bureaucratic employees who do not work directly with offenders for direct programs to accomplish re-entry goals.

When I was hired in 1988, the average caseload for case managers was manageable at (approx. 120 inmates). There was a policy quota in the Unit Management manual for “not less than once case manager per 100 inmates”. This allowed regular, meaningful interactions with the population in offices directly on the ranges of the inmate housing units.

The BOP practiced a “Unit Management” concept which was a multi-disciplinary team consisting of a case manager, counselor, unit manager, education representative and staff psychologist. The average inmate team meeting or staffing (referred to as a program review) had a majority of the team in attendance to identify programs to address Criminogenic needs for a comprehensive correctional treatment plan. This program review concept, no longer practiced as intended, is still included in the policy Inmate Classification and program Review, PS # 5322.13: however, a majority of inmate program reviews are now on a one on one basis, without the physical presence of a unit manager, educational representative or staff psychologist. In many cases, this one on one, “team” has a focus to quickly sign forms and move along.

It should be noted the historical unit management concept and evolution came from various research articles from BOP personnel like Tom Kane and Doug Lansing, (See Federal Probation Journal) and called for caseloads of approximately 50 to 100 inmates per caseload. Years later, (1989) a national case management work group was established by the BOP Correctional Programs Division and was comprised of Wardens, Regional administrators and Central Office staff. The very first recommendation in the final report was to reduce caseloads to 90-100 inmates. Today, caseloads are approximately 200 inmates while unit managers have upwards of 500 inmates. Case management staff does not have the time to interact with offenders or deliver groups and other programs given the paperwork and administrative responsibilities of such large caseloads.

6 Recommendation to Avert further growth/rehabilitation programs:

The next recommendation is regarding Comprehensive Sanction Centers (CSC). This concept is contained in BOP Program Statement, 7310.04, CCC Utilization and Transfer Procedure, but was also studied and deemed effective by BOP researches as reflected in the below survey:

http://www.bop.gov/resources/research_projects/published_reports/gen_program_eval/oreprsurvey.pdf

An urban, CSC concept can be expanded in conjunction with the AOUSC to offer diversionary drug treatment, mental health and veterans courts to divert individuals from the Federal correctional system. It would also operate as a day reporting center, long term housing facility and Residential Re-entry center to provide comprehensive and direct services while offenders also participate in work, educational and vocational programs.

One of the biggest failures regarding our prison system is the construction of large facilities far outside metropolitan areas away from the family unit and community resources. Large, urban CSC’s could have both a diversionary and long term custodial mission, but include a pre-release unit for transition. The population would receive programs and services through community partnerships but also give support to the various community organizations and faith based groups in the spirit of restorative justice. This concept was practiced on a smaller level back in the 1990’s in what was referred to as “The Urban Work Cadre”. (see BOP Operations Memo 225-91 (7300), entitled Community Service Projects,  which allowed inmates in various parts of the country to work in the community 18 months from release. Even today, the BOP has partnered with other Federal agencies to provide labor and services which can be better formalized into vocational training programs.

From a BOP technical perspective, the classification policy, PS 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification: allows inmates who are assigned to “Community Custody” to participate in work and/or community programs.

Prior to the widespread adoption of “Satellite Camps”, the BOP allowed inmates who were even Medium security, to work outside secure facility fences based on the assessment done on what is/was referred to a BP-338 (Custody Classification/Review). The Unit Team assessed the various factors and characteristics of individuals and reduced the “custody level”. There is already a BOP Threat Assessment tool – (BP-338) in the BOP SENTRY system which can be modified rather than re-created which is suggested in the CORRECTIONS ACT.

7 Recommendation for a build out of the RRC infrastructure: There is a need to build out the RRC infrastructure, especially given the inmates being processed under the “Minus 2” provisions of the USSC. Although the Second Chance Act of 2007 increased the statutory amount of time individuals can be placed in RRC’s to 12 months, it has been my experience few are placed for over 6 months due to limited bed space. Current law and policy allows for direct designation to RRC’s for short sentences and longer periods of work/study release, yet placements are often restricted given limited because of bed space which does not honor the intent of the SCA of 2007. There also needs to be a greater adherence to the impetus in PS # 5330.11, Psychology Treatment programs: that directs warden’s to recommend “The Maximum RRC placement” for inmates who complete the Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program.

8 Legislative Changes Recommendation: The most profound suggestion I can make to this commission is similar in scope to FedCURE’s Barber initiative which I strongly support. This practical and easy to implement approach currently exists within the BOP framework and culture and is known as the “Old Law” good time system.

I am not advocating a return to the Federal parole system bureaucracy but the return to the good time system prior to the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) which could save the government tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars and provide a drastic population reduction

Specifically, inmates who maintain clear conduct and make satisfactory progress towards their overall comprehensive treatment plan, earn extra and statutory good time for the possibility of release just under 66% or (2/3) of their sentence. In addition, forfeited good time because of misconduct could be earned back with periods of clear conduct so there are incentives for good behavior as well as programming with the enhancement of security and staff/inmate safety. Under the current system, once good conduct time is withheld, it can NEVER be earned back.

In regards to current, back end, legislative efforts, there is no need to reinvent the wheel with pass labor intensive bills which allow the BOP too much discretion, created new bureaucratic tools that take years to study and implement. Look no further than the early release provisions under 3621 (e) for the Residential Drug Abuse program (aka RDAP). It was an extremely cumbersome process with waiting lists and reduced time benefits. People now embellish drug and alcohol histories in the pre-sentence report and a cottage industry has evolved to manipulate RDAP eligibility due to the early release incentive. The single “Program”, not the treatment, becomes the end game.

The core philosophy of BOP correctional treatment is not some “magic” single program but an overall, comprehensive treatment plan which addresses multiple Criminogenic factors. It is this multi-faceted program plan that should be awarded with good time for ALL people making progress towards achieving correctional treatment goals similar in the way the BOP awards current GCT for GED program participation.

Cumbersome “back-end” bills incentivize single programs fall short of the core BOP concept of treatment. Most notably is the recent current “CORRECTIONS ACT” legislation which has morphed from previous bills and unequally rewards good time for inmates who have complete “programs proven to reduce recidivism”. While this bill has good intent, it falls short in addressing comprehensive treatment goals, creates a new threat assessment tool unfamiliar to the BOP culture and allows far too much BOP discretion and time for program implementation.

I believe my time is up so I will end with four quick comments:

1) Remove or reduce the 10 years mandatory minimum for the Elderly offender program and other RIS initiatives.

2) Remove the 6 month limitation restriction for home confinement to the actual 10% as indicated in the law.

3) Reinstate Pell Grants

4) Require the BOP to update their policies regularly or return to the Operations memorandum system. “

 

Mr. President, please hear the voices of people from the trenches who have served the government but also those who have served time!(Before you pull out the pen)

Just about every day, there is yet another article on criminal justice reform. Just today, we read about the video released by the Whitehouse regarding the president traveling over the next few weeks to speak with leaders around the country.

While it all sounds great, the president may truly be missing the mark if relying mostly on the feedback of “leaders”. After retiring from the DOJ, it is my experience that it is the “Leaders” who have the most distant perspective from reality when it comes to prison reform and what is really happening at ground level. It is the forward thinkers working in the trenches of our prisons and our people (yes people) who have served time who have a pulse on the system, quality of services and what it will take to accomplish reform. Where are these voices when it comes to ownership and having a seat at the table when “Blue Ribbon” Commissions and task forces are formed?

It’s a great photo op and sound bite when people who have served time are briefly paraded in front of the “leaders” to testify, but where is their seat at that same table? There is a greater need for the stakeholders to be more than just NGO academics, lawyers and lobbyists from within the beltway to drive the reform dialogue. Actually, it is more than just a need for even policy and legislative change. It is equally important to understand and change organizational culture by listening to people who have no ulterior motives or organizational biases and/or filters.

I am concerned on two fronts regarding the recent developments and desperation on Federal crime bill legislation. Both concerns are equally troubling but typical given the dysfunction, mainly status quo, within the beltway.

My first fear is the president will sign anything which makes it to his desk, regardless of the efficacy to fulfill his legacy. My second concern is this climate of desperation, money and lobby groups controlling politicians have finally convinced hold outs to jump on board to move substandard, compromised legislation.

As the companies controlling the prison industrial complex read the writing on the wall, it makes perfect sense for entities like ALEC to pivot from obstructing prison reduction legislation and lobby for bills offering millions for re-entry programs and services. I would imagine the GEO Group and CCA are salivating on the potential of obtaining correctional treatment related contracts where overhead is low and profit is extremely high.

Excuse my pessimism; but as I close my eyes and cross my fingers for a meaningful, comprehensive Omnibus Crime bill, I have a few questions for those within the beltway:

Does anyone remember the Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections? Though I have limited faith in Blue Ribbon Commissions, why would legislation get passed without Colson Report findings when 1 million dollars was just spent to study the BOP, legislation and population reduction?

With such a large BOP bureaucracy and mandate to offer correctional treatment and re-entry services prior to release, why are we allocating so much money to programs which are supposedly already being delivered by paid government workers and current contracts?

What do you tell the people incarcerated and their families who don’t meet the restrictive criteria to be eligible for the extra good time awards and other benefits?

Why does the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act automatically exclude many types of offenders for political expediency regardless of looking at the underlying causes of the criminogenic factors?

Perhaps the most important question is why have we not taken full advantage of the reforms under the current statutory and policy framework which could be implemented immediately through LEADERSHIP?

As the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, SAFE ACT, CORRECTIONS ACT, Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act, Justice Safety Valve Act, Redeem Act and others compete for passage, I hope we won’t look back at this perfect climate of the right/left alliance as a wasted opportunity by passing something as short sighted as the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987!