Policy Implementation Analysis: Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2019

The Public Policy Process 40:834:524

May 8, 2021
Introduction

In this policy implementation analysis, I will be reviewing the implementation of the

Reverse Mass Incarceration Act (2019). Some of the key topics that I will be analyzing include

the effectiveness of the policy including process results and outcomes, analyzing the process

flow across different stages and levels of implementation that the policy requires, analyze

mechanisms for the variations at each level and why they differ at each level, and finally

summarize any key challenges that were faced during implementation of this policy. With these

core topics, implementation and the steps necessary to enact this policy will become clearly

outlined and any challenges thereafter will be noted.

Expectations of Implementation & Results

To begin, I will first outline the desired results of the policy and the impacts it is expected

to have on key stakeholders and communities directly affected by the issue of mass incarceration

in the United States. With the implementation of this policy, the expected result is that prisons on

a state level will be incentivized to reduce their prison rates by issuing state grants to go towards

programs on a state level that will aid in reducing the state’s prison population over time. This

incentive program should encourage state officials to put money towards programs and policies

that will ultimately reduce their prison population by 7 per cent and rate of crime decreases by 3

per cent. With these goals in mind, the idea is that public programs like unemployment, job

security, food banks, after school programs, mental health assistance, and more.

Not only will those vulnerable communities who are statistically more likely to come in

contact with the prison or criminal justice system be able to seek outlets and options to avoid

prison time, but states will also save money and reduce crime rates but reducing their

1
incarceration rates statewide. The incentive program that is tied to this policy is meant to

encourage state officials to actively seek alternative solutions to crime or misconduct in their

state and to dive deeper into the reasons why people are committing crimes or becoming

incarcerated in their state.

Variations of Implementation

Following the expected results of the policy on a state level, I will assess the points of

variation across all levels of implementation for state and local officials and staff who will be

executing the policy. What the state officials are trying to accomplish is reducing their

incarceration rate and crime rate by the required percentages in order to qualify for the grant

money. Thus, the state officials will need to delegate to local officials to implement public

programs that will aid in reducing the incarceration and crime rates in high crime volume

communities across the state.

In order to consider the proper public programs to implement in order to successfully

reduce incarceration and crime rates, the assumptions that will need to be made are based on the

communities where there are highest crime and incarceration rates across the state. Once those

communities are identified, the state and local officials will need to research and understand what

those communities need in terms of reducing crime rates so that incarceration rates are ultimately

reduced as well. For example, if Community X is seeing their highest crime rate come from petty

theft, there may be underlying issues of employment or lack of government assistance that are

causing individuals to commit crimes of theft. Therefore, local officials will need to come up

with improvements to programs designated to those specific areas in order to encourage

individuals to utilize support and not rely on crime to survive.

2
 Coordination on how to address targeted community crime and incarceration rates will

vary, which means that state officials will need to delegate based on specific needs of each

targeted community. Per my previous example, if some communities are experiencing high

crimes of theft and others are experiencing high gang-related crimes, then the state officials will

need to work with local officials to come up with curated plans that will benefit the needs of the

particular community. The variations will need to be tailored and cannot be universal across a

statewide initiative.

Mechanisms of of Social Structure

In this section, I will discuss how the different variations on a local level have an impact

on authority and social structure for implementing this policy. In the table below, I will outline

the variations of implementation will bring about change in those particular communities and

ultimately how these variations will be coordinated and executed. The format of this table was

pulled from Sandfort and Moulton Appendix G, Table G.2.

Establishing Viable Identifying the Logic Coordinating

Options of Change Activities

How do we reduce Implementing new Review and analyze Coordination for

crime rate and public service core issues that are these programs will
incarceration rates to programs to underlying in include acquiring the
abide by the policy encourage communities with proper staff at the
requirements at a developmental high crime and the local level, using
statewide level? assistance rather than assistance needed to grant funds to support
incarceration for low target those issues the programs, and
rate crimes (i.e. (i.e. high rates of implementing
mental health domestic violence community outreach
services) can be offered programs to bring
services to educate on awareness to the
the harmful effects of sources of crime in
domestic violence the community and

3
 and mental health alternatives to help
counseling for those the citizens avoid
affected by or incarceration
inflicting the
violence)

Political and economic authority:

● Regulations and funding will need be implemented in order to provide these public
service programs for targeted communities

Culture:
● Community wide endorsement of the public service programs with detailed
information distributed to the community will need to be accessible to all citizens in
order to educate those in need on the services being provided and the benefits they hold
● Beliefs and values will need to be considered when curating these programs in order to
align and resonate with community members

In summation, the above table outlines how targeted communities will benefit from

public service programs in order to reduce incarceration rates and crime rates in areas across the

state where they occur the most. The table also identifies the political and economic authority as

well as cultural impacts when dealing with individual communities.

Recommendations for Improvement & Challenges

Through the implementation of this policy, there are very specific and in some cases

niche needs for individual communities that are in need of assistance in reducing incarceration

rates and crime rates for the purposes of this statewide grant. In order to accomplish this

successfully, state and local officials will need to collaborate on best practices and ways that each

targeted community needs to address their incarceration and crime rates. This could impose

challenges on delegating grant funds to communities across the state as well as monitoring the

efforts for each community. There would need to be teams created to monitor success and results

for each community, which could involve a lot of funding and manpower to execute. This would

4
have to be reviewed and authorized at a state level to ensure each community is getting the

proper teams and funding to execute against their local community goals.

A recommendation for improvement with implementing this policy is to not initiate the

program with expectations of 7 percent decrease in incarceration rates and 3 percent decrease in

crime rates at a state level. Before assigning those numbers to all states, a full investigation and

analysis should be conducted in order to see what numbers are actually possible to reduce

incarceration and crime rates. For example, some states may be able to reduce these rates by

double those initial numbers and some may not be able to reach those numbers within the given

time frame that the policy requires. For the success of the states and the goal of the policy to

reduce mass incarceration, all research that is possible should be conducted to ensure the best

possible results of the implementation of this policy.

5
Appendix

Policy Identification Brief:

Executive Summary

Mass incarceration is a persistent issue throughout American history that has more than

quadrupled in the last four decades (The National Academies Press, 2014). As incarceration has

affected millions of Americans over this time, the main demographic that is affected by mass

incarceration are people of color, dominantly Black men, from lower income communities in

America (Oxford Bibliographies, 2018). Mass incarceration is the phenomenon of increasingly

high incarceration rates that exists in America, typically targeting people of color, that has

serious implications on communities, families, and the success of those people who have been

touched by the prison system in some way. The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2019 is a

policy with a goal to undo the policies, practices, and norms of the prison system in order to

reduce incarceration rates, recidivism rates, and prevent mass incarceration from existing in the

future. The act aims to incorporate a grant program to persuade states to reduce their prison

populations and other practices that lead to high imprisonment rates (H.R.2865 Congress,

2019-2020).

Context of Problem

Policy action is important for mass incarceration because it is inherently an issue that began due

to problematic policies of the past. Policies like the 1994 Crime Bill* and more of the like are a

huge part of the reason why there are 2.2 million adults in the penal system as of 2009, and why

that rate has increased tremendously since then. Another important reason for mass incarceration

to consider when discussing the urgency and need for policies surrounding this issue is that

during the 1960s and 1970s, a time of high crime and tumultuous political climate, there was

6
pressure on the U.S. government to work hard at combating crime rates. However, despite the

implementation of these policies that were passed to reduce crime rates, it had negative

implications. Many of the crime bills, policies, and changes to legislations surrounding crime and

incarceration disproportionately targeted people of color from lower income communities. What

we know today is that these policies targeted these minority groups and excluded those in

privileged situations, which created a rippling effect of incarceration throughout the country (The

National Academies Press, 2014). Policy action is important now more than ever because these

past policies and legislation have caused a continuous increase in incarceration rates. Mass

incarceration destroys families, communities, and costs taxpayers and states money to maintain

the facilities that incarcerate them. It’s also important because it is affecting people of color and

lower income communities excessively compared to the white, upper class counterparts who

have effectively evaded the prison system due to their privilege in our society. Mass

incarceration was built on a foundation of racism and classism and for America move forward

towards a progressive future, this issue must be reversed completely.

Policy Alternatives

The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2019 has a goal to incentivize states to reduce their

prison populations by providing grant programs to uphold the overall objective. The bill requires

that states are eligible only if they are able to reduce the total number of individuals incarcerated

in correctional or detention facilities in the state is reduced by no less than 7 per cent and that the

crime rate within the state does not increase by more than 3 per cent. The grant will be awarded

to states to implement evidence-based programs that are designed to reduce crime and

incarceration rates. To apply, each state must fill out an application to be eligible for the grant

program, which includes clear methodology based on population size and other factors.

7
 This approach is effective and beneficial to the goal of reversing incarceration in America

because it is using an incentive program so that states have the funds to implement programs or

policies within their own states to reach the goals of reducing incarceration rates. The granny

money will give the state the opportunity to really work towards this goal without overextending

any other state budgets they may have. This is also an opportunity to add in more programs

statewide that will uplift communities that are comparatively more impacted by mass

incarceration than others. The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2019 does not specify how the

state must allocate the dollars from the grant program, which gives the states the ability to

distribute those funds to programs that will most effectively reduce crime and incarceration rates

in their state, as the needs of each state can vary. By introducing an incentive program for this

goal, each state can join in the effort to reverse mass incarceration on terms that they set

themselves and the funds necessary to do it. For example, the grant dollars may be allocated

towards more after school programs for kids, employment efforts for struggling adults, free

counseling services, and more.

Policy Recommendations

In order to begin the process of reversing the effects of mass incarceration and the practices that

uphold it, we must look at the layers by which mass incarceration has been able to exist and

continuously grow over the last few decades. For the states to receive the grant fund that

supports this cause, they will need to implement programs and practices that aid in reducing

mass incarceration (Washington Post, 2016). It is not as simple as enforce the law or increase

police presence, as we have learned is a practice that does not actually reduce crime, but targets

people of color from lower income communities. It is not as simple as regulating laws and

increasing strict practices to enforce them. What needs to be done in order to move towards the

8
progressive goal of eradicating mass incarceration is implement social programs and encourage

positive change in cultural norms that will over time reduce crime rates, prison rates, and

recidivism rates. Some of these social programs include more support for lower income

communities such as employment opportunities, public service programs like S.N.A.P. or

affordable housing. The effects of poverty are one of the biggest reasons why people commit

crime in the United States. Those who are living in poverty are more likely to have untreated

mental health issues, have fewer opportunities for success, and are commonly less educated. As

results of classism and capitalism, there are communities of people in the United States who are

unable to move up in society and provide a sustainable lifestyle for themselves and their families.

This can cause distress and desperation, which leads to crime (Vitanna, 2016). Encouraging and

providing more mental health services to people in lower income communities can prevent

people from succumbing to violent or criminal behavior and not be funneled into the prison

system because of poverty. If states provide ample employment opportunities and government

services to help people get back on their feet, they will be less likely to commit crime in order to

survive.

Endnotes

● The 1994 Crime Bill was created to implement stricter and more tough criminal

sentences for crimes committed and also to encourage states to build more prisons to

accommodate for these stricter sentences. This bill, among many other policies over the

last few decades, is one of the biggest reasons that scholars believe that mass

incarceration has been able to continuously increase year over year (ACLU, 2019).

9
 ● The infographic on the right, produced by the ACLU, visualizes the issue of mass

incarceration in the United States in comparison to the rest of the world. This graphic

shows how massive incarceration has become in the United States.

Policy Field Map

In my public policy field map, I laid out how each federal, state, and local stakeholders

are involved in the policy for ending mass incarceration, which I had introduced in my Policy

Brief.

In the above policy field map, it is clear that every level is affected by this policy from

the federal level down to the local level. U.S. Congress has the control in whether this policy is

passed because they need to vote on it. Then, once it’s passed, the federal prisons will need to

make some reforms and then the state level gets affected. The state level has state officials, state

10
prisons, and state police affected. The state officials need to vote if they're going to go through

with the policy and then enforce it at a state level. State prisons and police forces would be

affected. Then at a local level, districts will have to enforce the policy and implement new

training, protocol, etc. to maintain the policy initiatives and enforce the changes that it has set to

make.

11
 References

The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research (BCTR). (2019, March 13). The

ripple effects of mass incarceration. Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-living/201903/the-ripple-eff

ects-mass-incarceration

Cardenas, T. (2019, June 26). Text - H.R.2865 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): REVERSE

mass Incarceration act of 2019. Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2865/text

Christopher M. Sullivan, Z. (2019, April 18). Does more policing lead to less crime - or just

more racial resentment? Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/07/25/does-more-policin

g-lead-to-less-crime-or-just-more-racial-resentment/

Eisen, L., & Chettiar, I. (2019, May 21). Joe Biden, Cory BOOKER, the 1994 crime bill and

the future: How to UNWIND American mass incarceration. Retrieved February 14,

2021, from

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-biden-booker-the-crime-bill-and-the-fut

ure-20190521-gciohe4zlbd2haayddqzns7fn4-story.html

Gaille, L. (2019, December 16). How poverty influences crime rates. Retrieved February 14,

2021, from https://vittana.org/how-poverty-influences-crime-rates

Mass incarceration. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-97801

95396607-0033.xml

12
Ofer, U. (2019, June 04). How the 1994 crime BILL fed the mass incarceration crisis.

Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/how-1994-crime-bill-fed-ma

ss-incarceration-crisis

Read "The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences"

at NAP.edu. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2021, from

https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/2

[Infographic] combating mass incarceration - the facts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2021,

from https://www.aclu.org/infographic-combating-mass-incarceration-facts

Sandfort, Jodi, and Stephanie Moulton. Effective Implementation in Practice : Integrating

Public Policy and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest

EbookCentral,http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rutgers-ebooks/detail.action?docID=

1908956.

13