« "Prison Abolition Without the Ethic" | Main
August 21, 2023
CCJ releases encouraging new short report on "First Step Act: An Early Analysis of Recidivism"
This morning I received an email from the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) linking me to this notable new report authored by Avinash Bhati and titled ""First Step Act: An Early Analysis of Recidivism." This CCJ press release about the short report provides this effective review of its highlights:
Previous comparisons between FSA releases and the overall federal prison population have not accounted for differences in the groups, including levels of risk of reoffending, tracking periods, and other characteristics. The CCJ analysis estimates recidivism rates among individuals released from the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) prior to the FSA who had similar risk profiles and were tracked for similar periods of time (“similarly situated”) as those released under the FSA.
According to data published by the U.S. Department of Justice, 29,946 people were released from BOP facilities under the FSA from 2020 to 2022. The Council’s analysis of this data finds that, when compared to similarly situated individuals released from the BOP prior to the Act’s implementation, individuals released under the FSA have:
- An estimated 37% lower recidivism rate. According to BOP data, the recidivism rate for FSA releases is 12.4%, compared to an estimated recidivism rate of 19.8% for similarly situated pre-FSA releases.
- An estimated 3,125 fewer arrests incurred. With a recidivism rate of 12.4%, the people released under the FSA over three years could have accounted for between 3,712 and 4,330 arrests. With an estimated recidivism of 19.8%, an equal number of similarly situated pre-FSA releases could have accounted for between 5,918 and 7,455 arrests over the same three-year period.
August 21, 2023 at 09:46 AM | Permalink
Comments
Yeah, but there were still people victimized that wouldn't have been. Why don't the reports ever address that issue?
Posted by: federalist | Aug 21, 2023 1:23:35 PM
federalist makes a good point. The report says, "...the people released under the FSA over three years could have accounted for between 3,712 and 4,330 arrests."
Translation: There were roughly 4000 crime victims harmed in that time who would not have been harmed had their victimizers been required to serve their original, fully legal sentences.
So I'm supposed to be happy that we had "only" several thousand crime victims rather than many thousand? Gosh, thousands more crime victims whose suffering could easily have been avoided under prior law just doesn't sound that wonderful.
Where's all the compassion we keep hearing about? Oh, wait, that's only for the rapist, not his six year-old "date." My bad!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 21, 2023 6:13:52 PM
Bill - The First Step Act results that show lower recidivism should be applauded and not denigrated. The report shows that fewer people are being rearrested after their release through the First Step Act than before and that is a good thing. The same people who got rearrested after the Act's passage probably would have been rearrested whether the First Step Act was there or not. Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Aug 21, 2023 7:50:31 PM
Brett Miller --
We shouldn't have low recidivism. We should have no recidivism. The FSA gave criminals a special break. Is it too much to ask them to be thankful for it and express that thanks by just living a normal life like all the rest of have to?
It's just not that hard to refrain from stealing, being violent with people (particularly people you think are smaller and weaker), and to confine your sex life to adults. If you're not going to do that, particularly after having been given a second (or third or fourth) chance, then you've earned your way to prison.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 21, 2023 9:49:55 PM
Bill - I recognize that we won't ever have "no recidivism" but I view the reduced recidivism under the First Step Act while other people such as you and federalists are grumps (you tend to look for what you want to see and what confirms your personal point of view). Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Aug 21, 2023 9:53:56 PM
Bill, since the FSA results in, roughly speaking, about a one year reduction in sentence, the proper comparison is between 4000 arrests in 2022 and 6000 arrests in 2023. If you were a policy maker given those options, which policy would you prefer --- one that results in 4000 arrests of released persons in year 1 or one that results in 6000 arrests of released persons in year 2?
Of course, not all arrests are the same, as FBI reports show that, of roughly 10 million annual arrests, about 15% (1.5 million) are for drug crimes, and another 15% are for an array of public order offenses (gun possession, drunkenness, etc). So, for a significant percentage of arrests, it is not actually the case that there are "crime victims harmed in that time." Still, it is true that a majority of offenses, according to FBI data, cause some tangible harms. But I know I would generally prefer 2800 tangible harms this year to 4200 tangible harms next year.
And, of course, with an 88% non-recidivism rate, not only does the First Step Act lead to fewer people being victimized, it also produces a greater number of persons being free and productive in society for an additional year. And, with each federal prison year costing around $40,000 per inmate, letting out 30,000 folks a year earlier saved federal taxpayers around $1.2 billion.
So, Bill, we have fewer victims, more freedom and huge taxpayer savings. Seems like a pretty good bill that the GOP Congress and Prez Trump delivered in 2018. Or am I missing something in my accounting?
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 21, 2023 10:19:18 PM
Doug, the report should dive into these these things so that policymakers can at least have the information. The other problem--are you really saying that someone getting out a year early is so grateful that he or she is disposed to commit fewer crimes? That seems a stretch when you are talking about thousands of criminals, and there is the possibility that the gratefulness wears off.
I have a feeling a lot of these studies engage in some serious gaslighting.
Posted by: federalist | Aug 22, 2023 8:50:04 AM
Doug --
"I would generally prefer 2800 tangible harms this year to 4200 tangible harms next year."
How 'bout no harms in either year?
One quite odd thing I've noticed about the "reform" crowd is that it takes crime as a given, walks past it, and then proceeds to focus at unending length solely on how the rest of us should change OUR behavior.
This is all wrong. Why take crime as a given? It doesn't fall out of the sky. It's the result of making choices. You don't choose to steal stuff and neither do I. You don't choose to sell drugs and neither do I. It's just not that hard to live a normal, honest, peaceable life. Public policy should NOT accept crime as a given.
From that perspective, one can hardly view 2800 criminal-inflicted harms as a good thing of any kind or description. (And I'd like to hear from the 2800 victims (whose victimhood could have been avoided) whether they think getting punched or robbed or carjacked was such a good deal).
One other note. Your argument, as they say, proves too much. Its upshot is that we should release everyone right now because, ya know, they're going to do their thing anyway, and we'd be saving all that dough on incarceration and increasing freedom!!! Gads, I guess abolishing prison is a great idea after all.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 22, 2023 9:24:13 AM
Have you read the report, federalist? Short reports often leave me with many questions about coverage and methodology. But unless you are claiming there is an active effort to manipulate or misrepresent the data, federalist, I see no sound basis for claiming that "gaslighting" is afoot.
Of course, many groups that devote resources to doing the hard work of collecting and analyzing CJ data have particular hypotheses and perspectives that they are exploring. Indeed, just the decision to focus on First-Step-Act released folks (and the federal system generally) is a notable choice given that these folks likely represent only about 2% of all incarcerated persons released from incarceration in the studied period. All CJ data work is really hard and contestable, and I sure wish it got nearly as much attention and analysis and resources as much less important matters such as which starting QB is the best to take in a fantasy draft.
As for what may be causing FSA-released folks to get arrested less, I mean to make no strong claims. I might guess that prison life was so challenging during COVID that persons released during that period were more likely to desist a bit longer than folks who were in prison in earlier periods. Or maybe low unemployment has made finding a job a bit easier lately, especially for those who got some training in prison, or maybe ____ (insert your own theory). And some of this may be FSA-related or not, and some of this may be contingent or not, and some may be statistical noise or not. That's why we need more and more data and research (and less and less negativity about what encouraging data we get).
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 22, 2023 9:32:50 AM
Bill Otis writes, "It's the result of making choices. You don't choose to steal stuff and neither do I. You don't choose to sell drugs and neither do I. It's just not that hard to live a normal, honest, peaceable life."
Easy to say from the privileged class. The truth is encapsulated in the saying by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
Posted by: anon | Aug 22, 2023 9:46:17 AM
Bill, sound like you do not dispute my accounting of how the FSA has been a great achievement and benefit to society, but you hope we can do even better. So do I, and that is why I am eager to highlight positive developments and seek to build upon them rather than complain that there is more work to be done. That you do not wish to celebrate some good news about a bill that the GOP Congress and Prez Trump got to the finish line is notable and telling.
As for the abolish crowd, Bill, you are preaching their gospel more than I do: they generally assert crime is the product of a punitive society that invests in police and prisons rather than green spaces and free housing for all. Indeed, they point out that more prisons have generally produced higher recidivism rates. (I know you often cite the high recidivism rates for the cohort of prisoners released in 2005 over 5 years -- that period had the highest US incarceration rate in world history.) They believe they have a blueprint for constructing a society without crime; I do not think that's possible. But it sounds like you support their vision and ambition (and do not have, to my knowledge, any other proposed blueprint to get there).
As you should know, Bill, I am not a prison abolitionist. But I am someone who is encouraged by data suggesting we might be able to have less of the many costs of crime and less of the many costs of prisons. Shouldn't we all?
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 22, 2023 9:56:16 AM
anon --
If you actually think people are stealing bread -- that is, stealing for subsistence -- you're out of your mind. Watch some of the flash mobs at Neiman Marcus and tell me they're stealing bread.
Stealing is immoral and illegal. The decision to do it is just that -- a decision. Just like your decision to refuse to take responsibility for the breast-beating nonsense you write.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 22, 2023 10:24:33 AM
Doug --
"Bill, sound like you do not dispute my accounting of how the FSA has been a great achievement and benefit to society,..."
Ah yes, back to what it "sounds like." Well, thanks, but I'll stick with what I actually said (which you walk past) rather than the straw-man version of what it supposedly "sounds like."
"...but you hope we can do even better. So do I, and that is why I am eager to highlight positive developments and seek to build upon them rather than complain that there is more work to be done."
More work WAS done -- much more -- when we were building prisons like crazy and massively reducing crime (1990 - 2010). You supported that, right? Oh, no, wait, I was the one who supported that while the big crime reductions were "reducing prisoners' freedom." And so they were, may God be praised. News flash: Some people need their freedom curtailed. Others need it ended altogether, like Nazi Pittsburgh murderer I've noticed your usual flock of liberal commenters are might quiet about.
"That you do not wish to celebrate some good news about a bill that the GOP Congress and Prez Trump got to the finish line is notable and telling."
It is indeed telling -- telling you that I'm not a partisan hack who bows down in praise of Trump. He did some things right, you bet, such as appointing Brett Kavanaugh, whom one of the (your?) Leftist-inspired buddies tried to assassinate. But he also did plenty of stuff wrong. Maybe if he'd been listening less to Jared Kushner and Sidney Powell and more to Bill Barr......
Much of your comment here is written tongue-in-cheek, I get that. You're quite right, though, that I don't have a plan for getting crime to zero. I do have some plans for substantially lowering it, however, those being: (1) do the things we already know reduce crime, like more police, more proactive policing, and more incarceration (for its incapacitating effects); (2) refund rather than defund the cops; (3) ridicule halfwits like "anon" who'd like to convince us that thieves are stealing for subsistence; (4) stop pretending that criminals are victims and admit that they're victimizers; (5) reform legal academia so that it has something that remotely approaches a balance between pro-prosecution and pro-defense faculty; (6) wake up big city DAs to the fact that coddling rampant theft and smash-and-grab mobs will sooner rather than later destroy urban life -- and lots more.
I assume you agree with these anti-crime plans, yes???
Hey look, if you get to do tongue-in-cheek, so do I.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 22, 2023 10:54:33 AM
This particular one, no. I just know that a lot of people have agendas, and releasing criminals early doesn't have a great history. I have long indicated that a prison bed is a scarce resource. I've also seen you defend the idea that releasing tons of criminals from Cali prisons may make society safer, which is hogwash.
Posted by: federalist | Aug 22, 2023 11:09:12 AM
federalist: got it, you have not read the report you are criticizing. But because "a lot of people have agendas," you feel comfortable criticizing the report without reading it. And you also have apparently not seen data that Cali prison populations were reduced about 30%+ from 2006 to 2014 with Cali hitting record low crime rates in the state in 2014. Not claiming direct causation --- but this kind of data (which we see in a number of jurisdictions) reinforces my general sense that it is sometimes possible to reduce prison populations while also reducing crime. I consider it a noble goal to seek legal reform that can reduce crime and incarceration, and it seems the FSA is possibly helping us move toward that goal.
Bill: we have gone through the numbers that show, in fact, that during the massive US prison growth was during the 25 years of massive crime increases (from 1965 to 1990). Thereafter, there was a great worldwide crime decline, though in US the decline was at the same level or sometimes less than in most other western nations that did not massively increase prison populations. But I know you do not like for actual data to get in the way of your feelings about imprisonment.
Posted by: Doug B. | Aug 22, 2023 1:52:24 PM
First of all, Doug, I didn't criticize the report. I just made some general observations, and I noted that there are agenda-driven studies--this one has an unexplained 37% lower recidivism rate and does not note the acceleration of victimization. I asked you for your thoughts.
Posted by: federalist | Aug 22, 2023 2:12:19 PM
federalist: Sorry I mistook your comments as criticism of the report, which you did not read, when you talked about what you thought the report "should dive into" and suggested there was "some serious gaslighting" in these kinds of reports. I did note that a report about arrest data which shows a big decline in arrests suggests a significant reduction in overall victimization. And I noted that short reports often leave me with many questions about coverage and methodology.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 22, 2023 2:29:08 PM
I just read it. It really needs to explain the 37%---that's such a big reduction. Feels like we'd need longer time frame etc. And there is a lot of agenda-driven "scholarship."
Posted by: federalist | Aug 22, 2023 2:53:47 PM
Doug --
"As for what may be causing FSA-released folks to get arrested less, I mean to make no strong claims. I might guess that prison life was so challenging during COVID that persons released during that period were more likely to desist a bit longer than folks who were in prison in earlier periods."
How's that? The unpleasantness of prison life might actually deter criminals from wanting a return trip and thus, on release, to get a normal job and lead a normal life?
Goodness gracious! Doug, have you been listening to some rightwing crazies or something?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 22, 2023 7:23:58 PM
I do not think many would dispute, Bill, that people are generally eager to avoid being subject to 23-hour lockdowns and exposure to deadly diseases and inadequate healthcare during a global pandemic. I do not think acknowledging that reality makes me a "rightwing crazy." And I will leave to you want label to give to someone who would suggest we literally torturing people in prison with the hope of reducing reoffending.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 22, 2023 9:03:59 PM
The 37% probably dooms this report to be not worthy of serious consideration as something that would inform policy.
Posted by: federalist | Aug 23, 2023 8:44:00 AM
Not sure I understand your meaning, federalist. Are you saying you do not believe/accept the basic data reported? Or are you saying that you accept the basic data reported, but that this data cannot help inform policy without some (agenda-driven?) speculations about the drop in recidivism for the studied cohorts?
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 23, 2023 9:15:14 AM
I don't "accept" the data. I don't know how they came up with "similarly situated" and whether the control group was properly selected. And the results seem too good to be true. Thus, call me very skeptical that this should inform policy or that the report reflects reality. There are a lot of agendas out there.
And Doug, the poor poor criminals being locked up 23 hrs during a pandemic--awwww. Real, hardworking citizens lost their livelihoods etc. with ridiculous lockdowns etc. My guess, though, was that you were a member of the Amy Acton Fan Club . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Aug 23, 2023 11:42:31 AM
