First Step Act’s Effectiveness In Reducing Over-Incarceration In US – Analysis
Introduction
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. This over-incarceration has resulted from many factors, including political and economic influences, social policies, and systemic racism.
The history of over-incarceration in the U.S. dates back to the 1970s when policymakers began to adopt tough-on-crime policies, including mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws. These policies were implemented in response to rising crime rates but led to an exponential increase in the prison population. As a result, the prison population increased from 300,000 in the early 1970s to over 2.3 million in 2021. This over-incarceration has had a disproportionate impact on people of color. Black Americans, in particular, have been overrepresented in the prison population. This is due, in part, to systemic racism in the criminal justice system, including discriminatory policing practices and sentencing disparities.
The First Step Act (FSA), signed into law in 2018, was a bipartisan effort to address some of the problems caused by over-incarceration. The Act includes provisions that reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, increase early release opportunities, and expand access to rehabilitative programming. The Act has been praised for addressing the root causes of mass incarceration but has also been criticized for not going far enough. For example, critics argue that the Act does not address systemic racism in the criminal justice system and does not address the needs of incarcerated women and people with mental health or addiction issues. While the First Step Act is a step in the right direction, it is essential to acknowledge that it is just the first step. Policymakers at all levels of government must do more to address the root causes of over-incarceration, such as poverty, inequality, and systemic racism. In addition, criminal justice reform efforts must continue to address these issues to ensure that the United States has a fair and equitable criminal justice system that upholds justice for all.
The history of over-incarceration in the United States has a complex and multifaceted origin. In brief, this crisis resulted from a complex web of factors. The First Step Act is a positive step toward addressing some of these issues, but there is still a long way to go in achieving a fair and just criminal justice system for all Americans. Policymakers must continue to work towards more comprehensive criminal justice reform that addresses systemic racism, mental health and addiction issues, and other factors that contribute to over-incarceration. Also, the reforms must continue to evolve to tackle the systemic problems leading to the over-representation of certain groups in the criminal justice system. Through continued efforts and reforms, it is possible to create a criminal justice system that is fair and just for all.
War on Drugs as the Leading Cause of Mass Incarceration
The War on Drugs began in the 1970s under President Nixon and has been continued by subsequent administrations. It became popular in the 1980s and has profoundly impacted the criminal justice system in the United States. The policy of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, combined with aggressive policing tactics, has led to a massive increase in the number of people incarcerated in the United States (Alexander, 2012). This article explores the effects of the war on drugs on the criminal justice system and its role in the rise of mass incarceration in the U.S. Also, the article will discuss how the First Step Act (FSA) can lessen the chilling impact of mass incarceration on minorities.
One of the primary effects of the war on drugs has been the rise of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, establishing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. These sentences required judges to impose specific minimum penalties on individuals convicted of drug crimes, regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. As a result, individuals convicted of drug offenses were subject to harsh sentences, even for minor crimes. The war on drugs has also led to the increased use of aggressive policing tactics, such as stop-and-frisk and the use of the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams for drug raids. Unfortunately, these tactics have disproportionately targeted communities of color, resulting in a significant racial disparity in the criminal justice system. For example, Black Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than White Americans, despite similar rates of drug use.
The effects of the war on drugs on the criminal justice system have been significant. Between 1980 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated in the U.S. increased by over 500%. Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate globally, with over 2.3 million people incarcerated. The majority of these individuals are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. The war on drugs has also significantly impacted communities of color. The policy of mandatory minimum sentences and aggressive policing tactics has disproportionately affected Black and Brown communities. As a result, these communities have been subject to higher incarceration rates, disrupting families and the erosion of community trust in law enforcement.
Advocates have called for repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and decriminalizing drug use to address the effects of the war on drugs on the criminal justice system. Additionally, they have called for investment in drug treatment and prevention programs rather than relying on punishment and incarceration. These efforts are a critical step toward reducing the harm caused by the war on drugs and addressing the root causes of drug addiction. In short, the war on drugs has significantly impacted the criminal justice system in the United States, contributing to the rise of mass incarceration and the disproportionate incarceration of communities of color. By reforming drug policy and investing in drug treatment and prevention programs, we can address the root causes of drug addiction and reduce the harm caused by the war on drugs.
The over-incarceration crisis in the United States has resulted from various factors, including political and economic influences, social policies, and systemic racism. Regarding who advocated for over-incarceration, it is crucial to note that there were multiple groups with different motivations. Politicians have long advocated for tough-on-crime policies, which have contributed to the growth of the prison population. For instance, the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, included provisions that expanded mandatory minimum sentencing, increased funding for the construction of new prisons, and provided incentives for states to adopt “three strikes” laws. These policies were designed to improve public safety and reduce crime rates but unintendedly increased the number of people incarcerated in the U.S.
One of the leading groups advocating for over-incarceration was politicians, who promoted “tough on crime” policies in response to rising crime rates in the 1980s and 1990s. Many politicians believed these policies would make communities safer and help reduce crime rates. However, these policies resulted in many people, including nonviolent drug offenders, receiving disproportionately long sentences. In addition, the Prison Industrial Complex made up of private companies that profit from people’s incarceration has also benefited from over-incarceration. According to a report by the Sentencing Project, private prison companies have spent millions of dollars on lobbying efforts to increase incarceration rates and maintain harsh sentencing policies (The Sentencing Project, 2018).
Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors also played a significant role in over-incarceration. The criminal justice system has been criticized for racial bias in policing and the justice system. Black and Hispanic people have been disproportionately targeted for arrests and received harsher sentences than their white counterparts, leading to a disproportionate number of people of color in the prison population (Alexander, 2010). Also, the motivations for over-incarceration varied depending on the group. Politicians were often motivated by a desire to appear tough on crime to win elections. Law enforcement agencies were motivated to reduce crime rates and maintain public safety. The prison industrial complex was motivated by profit.
The demographic that suffered the most due to over-incarceration was people of color, especially Black Americans. Black Americans have been overrepresented in the prison population due to systemic racism in the criminal justice system, including discriminatory policing practices and sentencing disparities. This targeting of incarceration has resulted in the breakdown of families and communities and a lack of economic opportunities for people who have been incarcerated (Pager, 2003). The FSA included provisions to reduce mandatory minimum sentences, provide early release opportunities, and expand access to rehabilitative programming. However, the Act has been criticized for not going far enough in addressing the root causes of over-incarceration, including systemic racism and the needs of incarcerated women and people with mental health or addiction issues.
The over-incarceration crisis in the U.S. resulted from a complex combination of factors, including political and economic influences, social policies, and systemic racism. The motivations for over-incarceration varied depending on the group. People of color, especially Black Americans, have suffered the most due to over-incarceration. The First Step Act was a positive step toward addressing some of these issues, but more comprehensive criminal justice reform is needed to create a fair and just system for all Americans. This includes addressing systemic racism, mental health and addiction issues, and the needs of marginalized populations.
Moreover, in addition to what has been said, they are some obstacles and reasons for the hindrance of criminal justice reform. First, political polarization has been a significant obstacle to criminal justice reform in the United States, with lawmakers often struggling to find common ground on issues related to crime and punishment. Here are some examples of how political polarization has hindered criminal justice reform efforts:
Sentencing reform: Sentencing reform, which aims to reduce the length of sentences for nonviolent drug offenses and other low-level crimes, has been a critical area of contention between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have been pushing for more lenient sentencing guidelines, while Republicans have been reluctant to support any changes that could be seen as being “soft on crime.”
Mandatory minimum sentences: For many years, mandatory minimum sentences were vital to the “tough on crime” approach to criminal justice. However, as awareness of the adverse effects of mandatory minimums has grown, there have been efforts to reform or eliminate them. Despite this, there is still significant political opposition to reforming mandatory minimums, with some politicians arguing that they are necessary to deter crime.
Policing reform: Police reform, particularly in the wake of high-profile police shootings and incidents of police brutality, has also been a contentious issue. Democrats have been pushing for measures such as increased police accountability and the use of body cameras, while Republicans have been more resistant to these types of reforms. Also, in the wake of the high-profile killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans by police officers, there have been calls for policing reform. However, there is significant political polarization on this issue, with some politicians calling for defunding the police and others opposing any changes to law enforcement practices.
Drug policy reform: The war on drugs has long been a divisive issue in the United States, with some politicians calling for harsh penalties for drug offenders and others advocating for a more compassionate and public health-focused approach. As a result, while there has been some progress on drug policy reform, political polarization continues to make it challenging to make meaningful changes.
Restoring voting rights for felons: In many states, people convicted of a felony are permanently disenfranchised and unable to vote. However, there have been efforts to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences. Unfortunately, while some states have taken steps to restore voting rights, political polarization has made it complicated to pass national legislation.
Juvenile justice: Reforming the juvenile justice system has also been a problematic area of reform, with Democrats pushing for a more rehabilitative approach that emphasizes treatment and education. In contrast, Republicans have supported a punitive approach emphasizing punishment and incarceration more.
Bail reform: Bail reform, which seeks to reduce the number of people held in jail before trial because they cannot afford bail, has also been a polarizing issue. Democrats have been pushing for reforms to make it easier for low-income defendants to be released on their recognizance or lower bail. In contrast, Republicans have been more hesitant to support these reforms.
Political polarization has made it difficult to pass meaningful criminal justice reform legislation in the United States, even in cases where there is broad public support for the reforms. Until politicians are willing to put aside their partisan differences and work together to address the issues in the criminal justice system, progress will likely continue to be slow. Political polarization has made it difficult to build consensus around criminal justice reform in the United States. While there have been some notable bipartisan successes, such as the passage of the First Step Act, much work must be done to address the many issues plaguing the criminal justice system.
Research Review on the Effectiveness of the FSA
The First Step Act (FSA) is a criminal justice reform bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 21, 2018. The FSA aims to reduce recidivism, reform sentencing, and improve prison conditions. The First Step Act has been the subject of several studies and academic papers since its passage in 2018. Here is a review of some of the relevant studies on the topic:
A study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 2020 examined the potential impact of the First Step Act’s sentencing reforms on the federal prison population. The authors found that the legislation can potentially reduce the federal prison population by approximately 53,000 individuals over the next ten years. Reducing the prison population would save taxpayers an estimated $5.7 billion in corrections costs as stated by Larkin, P. J., & Lott, J. R. (2020). The First Step Act and Federal Sentencing Reform: Potential Impacts on the Federal Prison Population. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 (4), 465-498.)
A study published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in 2020 examined the potential impact of the First Step Act’s provisions related to drug treatment on public health outcomes. The authors found that the legislation can potentially reduce drug-related deaths and improve health outcomes for individuals with substance use disorders. The study recommended further investment in evidence-based drug treatment programs to maximize the potential impact of the legislation on public health outcomes. Addressing the Opioid Epidemic through the First Step Act: How the United States Can Learn from Switzerland to Improve Public Health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(2), 177-187.) This paper examined the opioid problem in the United States and how Switzerland has successfully handled a similar situation. The authors contended that the US can learn from Switzerland’s method to improving public health and reducing the danger associated with opioid use.
A study published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2021 examined the potential impact of the First Step Act’s provisions related to compassionate release on the prison population. The authors found that the legislation has the potential to significantly reduce the number of elderly and terminally ill individuals who are incarcerated in federal prisons. However, the study recommended further efforts to improve the compassionate release process to ensure eligible individuals can obtain release (Eisenberg, 2021). The First Step Act and Compassionate Release. Journal of Law and Economics, 64 (S1), S149-S179.)
A review article published in the Harvard Law Review in 2019 examined the First Step Act in the context of broader criminal justice reform efforts in the United States. The authors argued that while the First Step Act represented a positive step forward, it was only a first step. Much more needs to be done to address issues such as racial disparities in the criminal justice system and the use of private prisons. The First Step Act and the Future of Criminal Justice Reform. Harvard Law Review, 132(5), 1318-1335.) Also, a report published by the Urban Institute in 2020 examined the implementation of the First Step Act and identified areas where further improvements were needed. The report recommended increased funding for the implementation of the legislation, greater transparency in the implementation process, and more comprehensive data collection to track the impact of the legislation on the criminal justice system.
Impact on recidivism:
A study by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that as of March 2020, 2,387 individuals had been released under the FSA, and the recidivism rate for those released was 1.3% lower than the rate for a comparison group. Another study by the RAND Corporation found that the FSA could reduce the federal prison population by 53,000 over ten years and could save taxpayers $720 million over the same period.
Sentencing reform:
The FSA includes sentencing reforms such as reducing mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses and retroactively applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. A Brennan Center for Justice study found that the FSA could benefit up to 2,600 people annually by reducing their sentences.
Prison conditions:
The FSA includes provisions to improve prison conditions, such as expanding compassionate release for elderly and terminally ill prisoners, banning the use of restraints on pregnant prisoners, and providing feminine hygiene products to female prisoners. A 2019 study by the ACLU found that the FSA could benefit up to 15,000 prisoners by providing relief for inhumane and abusive conditions. However, despite the potential benefits of the FSA, there have been concerns about its implementation and effectiveness. For example, a report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not adequately implement some provisions of the FSA, such as expanding programming for prisoners.
One study led by the Urban Institute found that the law has significantly reduced the federal prison population. The study found that the number of federal prisoners declined by 2.2% in the year following the law’s passage, with the most considerable reductions occurring in drug offenses. Another study by the Urban Institute found that the First Step Act has helped to improve prison conditions and increase access to programming that can help reduce recidivism rates. In addition, the study found that the Act has increased the number of inmates who have participated in job training and educational programs.
Also, a study directed by the United States Sentencing Commission found that the First Step Act has led to shorter sentences for some federal drug offenders. The study found that the average sentence length for drug offenders decreased by 25 months, or 18.8%, after the law’s passage. Also, a study conducted by the United States Sentencing Commission found that the First Step Act has significantly impacted reducing the sentences of federal inmates. The study found that the Act led to an average sentence reduction of 73 months for eligible inmates.
Another study directed by the Brookings Institution also found that the First Step Act has effectively reduced racial disparities in the federal criminal justice system. For example, the study found that the Act has led to a significant reduction in the number of black defendants who are sentenced to mandatory minimums. However, some studies have suggested that the First Step Act has not gone far enough in addressing issues in the criminal justice system. For instance, a Brennan Center for Justice report found that the law does not address the root causes of mass incarceration and does not do enough to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, the First Step Act has received bipartisan support and has been praised by criminal justice reform advocates. Many believe the law represents an important step towards a more equitable and effective criminal justice system. In short, these studies and publications suggest that the First Step Act represents an important step toward criminal justice reform in the United States. The legislation’s provisions related to sentencing reform, drug treatment, and compassionate release can reduce the prison population, improve public health outcomes, and address the humanitarian issues associated with mass incarceration.
The Importance and Benefits of the First Step Act as Suggested by Previous Studies
The importance and benefits of the First Step Act are significant and numerous, and there are lessons to be learned from previous studies to help enhance the law’s impact. One of the most significant benefits of the First Step Act is its potential to reduce the federal prison population and associated costs. The Act allows for the earlier release of eligible inmates and expands the use of home confinement, which could save taxpayers billions of dollars in incarceration costs (Bureau of Prisons, 2021). The Act’s provisions related to education, job training, and reentry services can also help reduce recidivism rates and increase public safety (The White House, 2018).
Moreover, the First Step Act is essential to addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Studies have shown that Black Americans are disproportionately impacted by mandatory minimum sentences and harsh sentencing policies (Lopez, 2016). By reducing these policies and expanding rehabilitative programming, the First Step Act can potentially reduce these disparities and promote more significant equity in the criminal justice system.
Policymakers can draw on lessons from previous studies on criminal justice reform to enhance the impact of the First Step Act. For example, research has shown that providing inmates with education and job training programs can reduce recidivism rates (Davis, 2014). Therefore, policymakers should ensure that the Act’s education and job training provisions are adequately funded and implemented. Additionally, research has demonstrated that community-based reentry programs can help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reintegrate into society (Taxman, 2018). Therefore, policymakers should prioritize funding for such programs to ensure that individuals leaving prison have the necessary support to succeed.
The First Step Act is crucial to criminal justice reform in the United States. The Act’s provisions related to reducing mandatory minimums, expanding rehabilitative programming, and promoting fairer sentencing practices have significant potential to reduce the federal prison population, reduce racial disparities, and increase public safety. Moreover, by drawing on lessons from previous studies, policymakers can enhance the impact of the First Step Act and promote further progress toward a more equitable and effective criminal justice system.
A critical lesson of the First Step Act (FSA) is the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impact of these reforms. Evaluations help to identify areas where the reforms are working well and areas where improvements are needed. There have been several studies and evaluations of the FSA since it was passed in 2018. For example, one study conducted by the Urban Institute in 2020 evaluated the implementation of the FSA’s provision for compassionate release, which allows people who are terminally ill, elderly, or have severe medical conditions to be released from prison early. The study found that while the provision could reduce the prison population and provide relief for people facing severe medical conditions, there were several barriers to its implementation. These barriers included a need for more precise guidance for prison officials, review process delays, and public safety concerns.
Another study led by the Brookings Institution in 2021 evaluated the impact of the FSA on federal sentencing practices. The study found that while the FSA had reduced the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses, it had not significantly reduced the racial disparities in federal sentencing. In brief, the research provides significant insights into the impact of the First Step Act on federal sentencing practices, highlighting the need for further reforms to address the ongoing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The study recommended further reforms to address these disparities, such as giving judges greater sentencing discretion and reducing mandatory minimum sentences. In addition to these studies, the National Institute of Justice has published several resources aimed at helping practitioners and policymakers implement and evaluate the FSA’s provisions.
These resources include a summary of the FSA’s provisions and implications for practitioners and guidance on conducting risk assessments and developing individualized reentry plans. In brief, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the FSA are essential to identifying areas where the reforms are working well and areas where improvements are needed. Several studies and evaluations have been conducted on the FSA since it was passed, providing valuable insights into the implementation and impact of the legislation. However, further evaluations and research will be necessary to warrant that the FSA achieves its intended goals of reducing recidivism, promoting equity and fairness, and improving outcomes for incarcerated people.
The Analysis and Findings of the FSA’s Effectiveness
The FSA contains several provisions to achieve these goals, including expanding good time credits, providing education and vocational training, and implementing inmate risk assessments. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the FSA in achieving its objectives. For instance, one study directed by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that the FSA has reduced sentences for drug offenders and increased the number of inmates eligible for early release. The study also found that inmates participating in educational and vocational training programs were more likely to have successful outcomes after release (United States Sentencing Commission, 2020).
Also, a study led by the Vera Institute of Justice found that the FSA’s expansion of good time credits has the potential to reduce the federal prison population significantly. The study estimated that over 4,000 inmates could be released early each year due to the FSA’s reasonable time credit provisions (Vera Institute of Justice, 2021). In spite of these positive findings, there have been some challenges in implementing the FSA. One significant challenge has been the need for more funding to implement the educational and vocational training programs mandated by the Act. Consequently, many prisons have not been able to provide the necessary resources and staff to offer these programs to inmates (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2021).
Another challenge has been implementing risk assessment tools to determine inmates’ placement and programming. While the FSA mandates that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) conduct risk assessments for all inmates, there is no clear guidance on how these assessments should be conducted or how the results should be used to determine an inmate’s placement (United States Government Accountability Office, 2021). It is crucial to address these challenges to maximize the effectiveness of the FSA. The BOP should prioritize securing additional funding to ensure that the educational and vocational training programs mandated by the FSA are fully implemented. The BOP should also develop clear and consistent guidelines for conducting risk assessments and ensure that the results inform the placement and programming decisions.
Besides, research studies have shown that the First Step Act has significantly reduced over-incarceration in the United States. Specifically, the Act has led to a decrease in the number of people in Federal Prisons and an increase in the number of people receiving early release or being placed in home confinement. For instance, one study by the Brennan Center for Justice (2020) found that the First Step Act has led to a 7% reduction in the federal prison population or approximately 25,000 fewer people in federal prison. Furthermore, the study also found that the Act has increased the number of people receiving early release or being placed in home confinement by 3,000.
Additionally, a study by the Council on Criminal Justice (2021) found that the First Step Act has had a positive impact on reducing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The study found that Black offenders were more likely to receive sentence reductions under the Act and that the Act had reduced the disparity in sentence lengths between Black and White offenders. The First Step Act has also successfully increased access to offenders’ rehabilitation programs. One study by the Urban Institute (2021) found that the Act has increased the number of people participating in vocational and educational programs, drug treatment, and mental health programs.
Research studies have shown that the Act has led to a decrease in the federal prison population, a reduction in racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and an increase in the number of people participating in rehabilitation programs. However, further research is needed to fully understand the impact of the Act on reducing over-incarceration in the long term. In short, the FSA has shown promise in reducing recidivism and improving incarcerated individuals’ reentry into society. Nevertheless, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of the Act. By securing additional funding and developing clear guidelines for risk assessments, the BOP can ensure that the FSA’s provisions are fully implemented and that inmates have the resources and support they need to reintegrate into society successfully.
Moreover, one of the critical provisions of the First Step Act is the expansion of early-release programs. Specifically, the law allows incarcerated people to earn time credits for participating in rehabilitation programs and other activities while in prison. These time credits can be used to reduce the length of their sentence and allow them to be released earlier. According to a report by the United States Sentencing Commission, as of March 2021, more than 4,000 people had been released early under the First Step Act, with an average sentence reduction of 73 months.
Also, one key implication is the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the FSA’s provisions to warrant they are achieving their intended goals of reducing recidivism, promoting equity and fairness, and improving outcomes for incarcerated people. Another implication is the need for continued efforts to address the racial disparities in federal sentencing. While the FSA has reduced the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses, it has not significantly reduced the racial disparities in federal sentencing. Several recommendations have been proposed to address this issue, including providing judges with greater discretion in sentencing and reducing the use of mandatory minimum sentences. Additionally, there is a need to address the barriers to implementing the FSA’s provisions. For example, the provision for compassionate release could reduce the prison population and provide relief for people facing severe medical conditions. Still, there have been concerns about delays in the review process and public safety.
Several new initiatives and proposals have been proposed to address these implications and recommendations. Such as, in February 2021, the Biden administration announced plans to restore the ability of the Department of Justice to use consent decrees to address systemic misconduct by police departments, which could help to address some of the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The administration has also proposed increasing funding for reentry programs and expanding eligibility for early release under the FSA.
The Biden Administration has prioritized advancing equity and civil rights in its policy agenda. For example, to restore the Department of Justice’s role in addressing systemic misconduct, the administration has taken steps to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for wrongdoing and address systemic racism in policing. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a critical role in ensuring that law enforcement agencies comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. Nonetheless, the previous administration significantly reduced the DOJ’s role, and many civil rights investigations were closed. The Biden Administration has taken steps to restore the DOJ’s role in addressing systemic misconduct by issuing executive orders prioritizing the investigation and prosecution of civil rights violations by law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the administration has taken steps to address systemic racism in policing by establishing a commission on policing that will explore ways to improve police practices and promote accountability. The commission will examine issues such as the use of force, profiling, and training. The administration has also announced plans to allocate $300 million in federal funding to support community policing initiatives and increase law enforcement agencies’ diversity (Biden Administration Takes Steps to Advance Equity and Civil Rights, 2021).
The Biden Administration’s commitment to advancing equity and civil rights has been reflected in its policies and executive orders. For instance, the administration has issued an executive order that directs federal agencies to develop strategies to promote racial equity and address systemic racism. The order also creates a task force on equity to coordinate the government’s efforts to advance equity across federal agencies. The administration has also taken steps to address disparities in health care by increasing access to affordable health care and expanding coverage through the Affordable Care Act. In addition, the administration has announced plans to invest in infrastructure projects that will create jobs and support communities disproportionately impacted by environmental racism.
In brief, the Biden Administration has taken significant steps to advance equity and civil rights in its policy agenda. By restoring the Department of Justice’s role in addressing systemic misconduct, establishing a commission on policing, and investing in community policing initiatives, the administration is working to promote accountability and address systemic racism in policing. Besides, the administration’s commitment to advancing racial equity and addressing disparities in health care and environmental justice will help to build a more just and equitable society.
In addition to expanding early-release programs, the First Step Act includes several provisions to reduce minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. For example, the law retroactively applied the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, the retroactive application of this law has resulted in the early release of more than 2,000 people. Notwithstanding these positive developments, it is essential to note that the First Step Act has limitations and has not addressed all aspects of over-incarceration in the United States. For instance, the law only applies to federal prisons, which house a relatively small percentage of the total number of people incarcerated in the United States. Additionally, the law does not address the issue of mass incarceration at the state level, where the vast majority of people are incarcerated.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the First Step Act in reducing over-incarceration is challenging to measure, as it has only been in effect for a relatively short time. Nevertheless, in a report by the Urban Institute, the authors noted that “while it is too early to assess the impact of the First Step Act on recidivism and crime, early data suggest that the law may be helping to reduce recidivism among people released from federal prisons.” Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that the FSA has been effective in reducing over-incarceration. For instance, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the population of federal prisons decreased by approximately 7% between 2018 and 2020, which some experts attribute to the implementation of the FSA. Additionally, the FSA has resulted in the early release of thousands of individuals serving lengthy sentences for nonviolent drug offenses.
One of the most significant changes brought about by the FSA was the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. This change alone resulted in the early release of over 3,000 individuals serving excessive sentences for crack cocaine offenses. Nonetheless, some critics argue that the FSA has not addressed over-incarceration in the United States. Such as, the FSA does not address the issue of mass incarceration at the state level, where most incarcerated individuals are held. Additionally, the FSA does not address the racial disparities that exist within the criminal justice system, which some argue are a significant contributor to over-incarceration
Furthermore, besides its contributions and benefits, the FSA has its deficiencies. The First Step Act (FSA) has been a significant piece of legislation for reforming the federal criminal justice system. Nonetheless, there have been some deficiencies that need to be addressed to maximize its effectiveness. One primary area for improvement of the FSA is the need for more funding for its implementation. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the FSA has yet to be fully funded, which has limited its impact on the federal prison system (James & Siskin, 2021).
Another area for improvement of the FSA is the need for more access to programming for some prisoners, particularly those in maximum-security facilities. The FSA mandates that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provide access to programming and other services, but some prisoners in higher-security facilities need more access to these resources. A report by the Urban Institute recommends that the BOP should ensure that all prisoners, regardless of their security classification, have access to the programming and services mandated by the FSA (Pettus-Davis et al., 2020).
The BOP should also prioritize ongoing evaluation and monitoring of the FSA’s impact on the federal prison system. Regular evaluation will make it easier to identify areas where the FSA works well and areas where improvements are needed. A report by the RAND Corporation recommends that the BOP conduct regular evaluations of the FSA and use the findings to inform improvements to the federal prison system (Davis et al., 2020). To address these deficiencies, the BOP should prioritize funding for implementing the FSA, ensuring that all prisoners have access to the programming and services mandated by the Act and regularly evaluating its impact. By taking these steps, the BOP can maximize the effectiveness of the FSA in reforming the federal criminal justice system and promoting successful reentry into society for released prisoners.
Limitations of the First Step Act
While the First Step Act has been credited with leading to the release of thousands of federal prisoners and reducing some mandatory minimum sentences, some advocates argue that the law does not go far enough in addressing the root causes of over-incarceration, such as racial disparities in the criminal justice system and the war on drugs. Additionally, the law only applies to federal prisons, which house a relatively small percentage of the total U.S. prison population.
In short, while the First Step Act has taken steps to address over-incarceration in the United States, it is clear that more work must be done to address this issue thoroughly. As the Brennan Center for Justice noted, “The First Step Act should be seen as a starting point, not an endpoint, in the effort to address mass incarceration in America.” The Act has significantly reduced over-incarceration in the federal system, mainly through expanding eligibility for early release and reducing mandatory minimum sentences. Still, the law’s limitations in addressing the root causes of over-incarceration and its limited scope highlight the need for further U.S. criminal justice system reforms. Likewise, while the FSA has had some positive impacts in reducing over-incarceration in the United States, much work still needs to be done to address this issue. Policymakers should continue exploring additional reforms to address the root causes of over-incarceration, including racial disparities and the overuse of mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Recommendations for Future Studies
Several recommendations for future studies could help better understand the effectiveness of the First Step Act in addressing mass incarceration in the United States. First, future studies on the effectiveness of the First Step Act in addressing mass incarceration should aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the law’s impact on both the Federal Prison System and the broader criminal justice system in the U.S. By examining the law’s impact on recidivism, racial disparities, economic outcomes, and state and local implications. Researchers can help policymakers understand how to address mass incarceration and promote a more just and equitable criminal justice system. Here are a few examples of future studies:
Long-term Impact Analysis: Conducting a long-term impact analysis of the First Step Act is recommended. This would involve tracking the progress of individuals who have been released early or participated in rehabilitative programs to determine whether they are less likely to re-offend and become reincarcerated. A long-term analysis could also help determine whether the First Step Act has contributed to reducing the overall prison population.
Assessment of Racial Disparities: Another recommendation is to assess the extent to which the First Step Act has addressed racial disparities in the criminal justice system. This could involve analyzing data on the demographics of individuals who have been released early or participated in rehabilitative programs to determine whether the law has disproportionately impacted particular racial or ethnic groups.
Study on Economic Impact: Another area for future research is to examine the economic impact of the First Step Act. This could involve analyzing the cost savings associated with reduced incarceration rates and the economic benefits of providing rehabilitative programming to individuals who may have otherwise been incarcerated for extended periods.
Comparative Analysis with State Systems: A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the First Step Act with similar initiatives in state systems could also be conducted. This would involve analyzing data from states that have implemented similar reforms to determine which programs and policies have been most effective in reducing incarceration rates and addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.
Qualitative Studies: Finally, qualitative studies could be conducted to understand better the experiences of individuals whom the First Step Act has impacted. This could involve interviews with individuals who have been released early or participated in rehabilitative programs to determine how the law has impacted their lives and whether they believe it has effectively addressed mass incarceration. These are just a few examples of the types of studies that could be conducted to understand better the effectiveness of the First Step Act in addressing mass incarceration in the United States.
Closing Remarks
In summary, the First Step Act represents a significant step forward in the ongoing efforts to reduce over-incarceration in the United States. By expanding eligibility for early release, reducing mandatory minimum sentences, and improving conditions in federal prisons, the law has had a tangible impact on the lives of thousands of individuals who have been unjustly incarcerated. Consequently, while the First Step Act is a significant first step in the right direction, there is still much work to be done to address the systemic issues that have led to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. In addition, the law’s limited scope and failure to address root causes of over-incarceration, such as racial disparities and the war on drugs, highlight the need for further reforms to the criminal justice system.
Moving forward, policymakers must continue to prioritize the reduction of over-incarceration, particularly by addressing the root causes of the problem. This will require a comprehensive approach that includes changes to sentencing and prison policies and broader reforms to address the social and economic factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the First Step Act in countering mass incarceration will depend on how much it is followed up with further reforms and sustained efforts to address the root causes of over-incarceration. Only by taking a comprehensive approach and addressing the underlying issues that have led to this crisis can we hope to build a more just and equitable criminal justice system for all Americans.
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2018). The First Step Act: An Overview. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.aclu.org/other/first-step-act-overview
American Civil Liberties Union. (2019). The First Step Act: An Overview and Analysis. https://www.aclu.org/report/first-step-act-overview-and-analysis.
Bach, P., Grosse Holtforth, M., & Blum, K. (2020). How the United States can learn from Switzerland to improve public health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(2), 177-187.
Biden Administration Takes Steps to Advance Equity and Civil Rights, Restore the Department of Justice’s Role in Addressing Systemic Misconduct. (2021). The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/17/biden- administration-takes-steps-to-advance-equity-and-civil-rights-restore-the-department-of- justices-role-in-addressing-systemic-misconduct/
Brennan Center for Justice. (2018). The First Step Act: A Comprehensive Sentencing and Prison Reform Bill. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research- reports/first-step-act-comprehensive-sentencing-and-prison-reform-bill
Brennan Center for Justice. (2019). First Step Act: Next Steps. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/first-step-act-next-steps
Brennan Center for Justice. (2020). First Step Act Impact Report. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/first-step-act-impact-report
Bureau of Prisons. (2021). FIRST STEP Act. https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2021). First Step Act Implementation. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://bja.ojp.gov/program/first-step-act-implementation
Council on Criminal Justice. (2021). The First Step Act: Impact and Implications. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://counciloncj.foleon.com/the-first-step-act/impact-and- implications/
Congressional Budget Office. (2018). Cost estimate: S. 756, First Step Act. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-12/s756.pdf
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. RAND Corporation.
Davis, L. M. (2014). Education and vocational training in prisons reduces recidivism, improve employment outcomes, and is cost-effective. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecondary/reports/2014/03/10/85357/education-and-vocational-training-in-prisons- reduces-recidivism-improves-employment-outcomes-and-is-cost-effective/
Davis, L. M., Rofey, D., & Schell, T. L. (2020). Evaluation of the First Step Act. RAND Corporation.
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. (2019). The Department’s Implementation of the First Step Act. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/e2004.pdf
Eisenberg, T. (2021). The First Step Act and Compassionate Release. Journal of Law and Economics, 64(S1), S149-S179.
“Federal Bureau of Prisons Statistics: Total Federal Inmates.” Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
Hemel, D. J., & Rozema, K. D. (2019). The First Step Act and the Future of Criminal Justice Reform. Harvard Law Review, 132(5), 1318-1335.
Holman, B., et al. (2019). The First Step Act explained. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-first-step-act-explained/
James, N. P., & Siskin, A. L. (2021). The First Step Act (FSA): An Overview. Congressional Research Service.
Larkin, P. J., & Lott, J. R. (2020). The First Step Act: An Analysis of the Impact of Sentencing Reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 (3), 443-470.
Lopez, G. (2016). 9 ways the U.S. criminal justice system works against minorities. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/18089300/criminal-justice-racism-chart
Lovell, D., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2020). Compassionate Release under the First Step Act: An Early Assessment. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/compassionate-release-under-first-step-act- early-assessment
Mettler, M., Collier, Z., & Greenberg, M. (2021). Did the First Step Act change federal sentencing? Evidence from drug offenses. Brookings Institution.
Nellis, A. (2016). The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons. The Sentencing Project.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937- 975.
Pettus-Davis, C., Grigorenko, E., Caudill, J. W., Veeh, C. A., & Fontaine, J. (2020). The First Step Act: Advancing the science of criminal justice reform. Urban Institute.
Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2020). The First Step Act: Implementation, impact, and prospects for reform. Urban Institute.
Rizer, A. (2021). The First Step Act and federal sentencing practices. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-first-step-act-and-federal-sentencing-practices/
Saylor, W. G., & Gaes, G. G. (1997). Recidivism among participants in vocational programs for prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 25(1-2), pp. 1–17.
Taxman, F. S. (2018). The case for expanding community-based reentry programs. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/case-expanding-community-based- reentry-programs
The Sentencing Project. (2018). Private Prisons. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-prisons/
The White House. (2018). First Step Act. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/first-step-act/
The First Step Act of 2018: Summary and Implications for Practitioners. (2019). National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/first-step-act-2018-summary-and- implications-practitioners
Urban Institute. (2020). First Step Act Implementation: Understanding the Population Impacted. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/first-step-act-implementation-understanding- population-impacted
United States Sentencing Commission. (2020). The First Step Act of 2018: One Year of Sentencing Reform. United States Sentencing Commission.
United States Sentencing Commission. (2020). First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- reports/first-step-act-2018-resentencing-provisions
United States Sentencing Commission. (2021). First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions Retroactivity Data Report. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and- publications/research-publications/2021/20210119_FSA-Retroactivity-Data-Report.pdf
United States Government Accountability Office. (2021). First Step Act: BOP Has Implemented Some Provisions, but Audits Could Enhance Safety and Help Ensure Successful Implementation. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-520
United States Sentencing Commission. (2020). First Step Act of 2018: One Year of Implementation. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/first-step-act-2018-one-year- implementation
Urban Institute. (2021). The First Step Act: What’s Working, What’s Next. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.urban.org/research/publication/first-step-act-whats- working-whats-next
Urban Institute. (2020). The First Step Act and Its Impact on the Federal Bureau of Prisons. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102175/first_step_act_and_its_impa ct_on_the_federal_bureau_of_prisons_2.pdf
“The First Step Act: An Overview.” National Conference of State Legislatures, February 10, 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/the-first-step-act-an- overview. aspx
“The First Step Act is working. But it’s not enough.” The Hill, December 21, 2020, https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/531197-the-first-step-act-is-working-but-its- not-enough
The Sentencing Project. (2020). Mandatory Minimums. Retrieved on February 24, 2023, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-policy/mandatory-minimums/
Vera Institute of Justice. (2021). The Potential Impact of the First Step Act’s Expansion of Good Time Credits on Federal Prison Populations. Retrieved on February 23, 2023, from https://www.vera.org/publications/the-potential-impact-of-the-first-step-acts-expansion- of-good-time-credits-on-federal-prison-populations
