We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FIRST STEP ACT HEARING IGNORES HALFWAY HOUSE ELEPHANT
Senate Judiciary Committee leader Richard Durbin (D-IL) presided over a hearing last Wednesday commemorating the 5th anniversary of the First Step Act. The testimony was positive, upbeat, and largely useless.
“Five years ago, we wrote the blueprint for reimagining rehabilitation and protecting public safety, and now we know by the numbers that it works,” Durbin said to open the proceeding. “Today, I am looking forward to reflecting on what we can achieve… In order to make our system fairer, we must continue to learn from and [build upon] the proven successes of ‘smart on crime’ policies like the First Step Act. We must provide more opportunities for those who are incarcerated to reenter society successfully, reunite with their families, and contribute to their communities.”
Ja’Ron Smith, former Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy under Trump, noted that the recidivism rate for First Step releasees is about 37% lower than what it was before the Act passed, used to be. Smith said, “For those released under the First Step Act, the rate is just 125. And technical violations – not new crimes – account for a third of that number.”
J. Charles Smith III, president of the National District Attorneys Assn, said First Step “did a great job of differentiating between good people making bad decisions and bad people making bad decisions. The bad people who make bad decisions stay in jail… The good people who made a bad decision, were convicted for it, [and] went to jail for it, are getting rehabilitated and released earlier as well, as they should.”
Steve Markle, an officer with the National Council Of Prison Locals, lauded the Act but said the Federal Bureau of Prisons 20% staffing shortfall (40% among correctional officers) “not only compromises safety by reducing the number of staff available to respond to emergencies but also hinders the provision of programming for the First Step Act. To fully realize the Act’s potential,” he said, “it is crucial to address the critical staffing crisis within the Bureau. The Council believes that the staffing crisis can only be resolved by addressing the pay band issue.”
It fell to Walter Pavlo, who was not a witness at Durbin’s lovefest, to explain a major glitch in First Step Act’s implementation of the evidence-based programming problem. Inmates are motivated to earn credits because those credits can buy up to a year off their sentences and – if any credits are left after the one-year credit -more halfway house or home confinement. But, writing in Forbes last week, Pavlo observed that inmates are being denied the right to spend those credits because “the BOP does not have room in halfway houses to monitor those who have rightfully earned First Step Act credits. The result, thousands of prisoners languish in expensive institutions rather than being placed in community halfway houses.”
Prisoners with many months of First Step halfway house/home confinement credit are being told by halfway houses that they cannot be accommodated. I know of one prisoner awarded his nine months of halfway house/home confinement credit only to be told that the halfway house could only give him a third of that. The Act states in 18 USC 3624(g)(11) that the BOP Director “shall ensure there is sufficient prerelease custody capacity to accommodate all eligible prisoners.” Pavlo writes, “This is a problem that is going to persist unless something is done.”
The BOP’s Residential Reentry Management Branch administrator said in a speech two weeks ago that halfway houses had a “90-day projection of 99% utilization,” meaning, Pavlo said, “that there was no room to place any more prisoners.”
The BOP knew five years ago that it would have to increase halfway house capacity, but doing so is a bureaucratic nightmare. Because the BOP has relied on halfway house staff to monitor home confinement inmates, the capacity crunch has affected home confinement placement as well. A decade ago, the BOP worked with the US Probation Office to get some prisoners monitored on Probation’s Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) to allow some home confinement prisoners to be monitored by Probation rather than halfway houses. But as of now, only 3.6% of home confinement prisoners are on FLM.
The BOP has an Interagency Agreement with Probation which Pavlo says presents “an opportunity to expand FLM in a manner that is both cost-effective and consistent with the evidence-based practices. However, each district court is responsible for participating, or not, in FLM. Getting every district court to coordinate with the BOP has been an issue for years, as the few prisoners in FLM clearly demonstrate.”
FLM costs far less than a halfway house per diem or halfway house-monitored home confinement. However, FLM is managed by each of the 94-odd federal judicial districts. Some participate with the BOP: others do not. Pavlo said a retired BOP executive told him, “I think the BOP would be receptive to expanding the program and it would resolve many of the issues related to capacity for prerelease custody, but the Courts are going to have to help.”
Senate Judiciary Committee, Five Years of the First Step Act: Reimagining Rehabilitation and Protecting Public Safety (January 17, 2024)
Press Release, Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Fifth Anniversary of the Landmark First Step Act (January 17, 2024)
Forbes, The Bureau of Prisons’ Halfway House Problem (January 16, 2024)
– Thomas L. Root