Policy Proposal: Reducing Recidivism in New York City
“It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written: ‘Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand,’” Romans (15:20-21; NIV).
New York City’s recidivism is a persistent problem in the criminal justice system. This policy intervention seeks to decrease the recursion of crime that exists in New York City. This will be achieved by focusing on three aspects of Criminal Justice: (1) convicted criminals; (2) inmates; and (3) parolees. Rather than reinvent New York City’s Criminal Justice System, this policy intervention will strive to focus on specifically the implementation of faith-based alternatives to deterrence or legal incapacitation. Convicts must be precluded from being made worse by determinate sentencing; inmates can earn degrees from faith-based institutions to better prepare for their reentry to society; whilst parolees will enter Christ-centered restorative interventions, that will better position their willing compliance to parole officers and their release requirements.
New York City’s recidivism problem is clearly depicted in the data produced. The reduction of Recuring crime, thus must be reflected in empirical evidence. Criminals needn’t be fully rehabilitated before contributing back to the criminal justice system. As it is written, “[n]evertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches,” (1 Cor 7:17; NIV). The Apostle Paul’s words reveal that God’s rule is omnipotent; as his disciples are to act as embodiments of the church, bearing light within the realm of darkness.
I. Evidence of the Problem
Criminon—an international, non-profit organization dedicated to criminal rehabilitation—contends that “though crime is dropping across the state, the recidivism rate in New York is still quite high. One federal report cited New York recidivism at 40%, whereas a local New York Community Service Society report said the recidivism rate is likely closer to 50%.” The Community Service Society of New York, (CSS) formerly mentioned has been in operation since 1843, (CSS). New York CSS’s primary mission is to promote opportunity for the disadvantaged. According to a CSS reported cited by Criminon, “New York State releases about 25,000 inmates each year. More than 50 percent are back inside within three years, putting New York among the states with the worst recidivism rates in the nation.” The organization laments that “[m]any return to prison because they have no real way to earn a legal living on the outside. Some are functionally illiterate; many have little education.” (CSS). But some remain criminals. There is a significant difference between those who are disadvantaged by the system and persistent violent offenders that prey on innocence. New York City’s criminal justice policy must take into account this distinct specificity; to facilitate the most efficient form of rehabilitation. Criminal offenders granted release after serving their sentence must be willing to self-regulate their actions without government intervention. Those re-entering society, should not be reintroduced if they pose a danger to civilians. The Courts and prisons are overcrowded, leading to many offenders being released without being rehabilitated. It is more financially appealing to reintroduce recidivists back into society, rather than invest tax dollars to their rehabilitation. Instead, billions of dollars are wasted annually on further radicalizing the population; polarizing and dividing the citizenry to create crises that allow a request for greater annual appropriations, thus expanding the federal budget—but neglecting the evident problem that exists.
New York City continues to see reoccurring offenders desecrating tradition and righteousness. The New York City Police Dept (NYPD) published the “worst-of-the-worst recidivists” from 2022, reporting:
· “A high-volume offender with 101 career arrests – 88 of which have occurred since 2020;”
· “A repeat offender arrested 57 times since 2020 – with 23 of those arrests for burglary. The individual is currently free on parole;”
· “A recidivist with 87 arrests, 25 of them since 2020, and 9 of those involving a robbery charge. This individual is also free on the city’s streets at this time;”
· “An individual with 48 career arrests, including 39 since 2020. This individual has logged 17 grand larceny arrests and has 10 open warrants;”
· “A recidivist currently free despite a record of 63 total arrests, including 39 since 2020. This individual has 13 arrests for grand larceny auto.” (NYC.gov).”
New York City’s government continues to ignore the social indicators; instead remaining lenient for non-violent crimes. And the top “worst-of-the-worst” reoccurring criminal offenders are (mostly) non-violent. But no viable solutions have been proposed that has made a significant impact to preclude these occurrences. Welsh and Harris note that “[s]ocial indicators are perhaps the most accessible and widely used type of data for analyzing criminal justice problems,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 38). The NYPD should consider Welshes position that “[s]ocial indicators are extremely useful for identifying the seriousness of a problem, how it varies across groups (e.g., high vs. low income), and how it is changing over time (is it getting better or worse?). Such data are not without biases, however, and the potential user needs to be aware of these,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 39).
History of Recidivism
The problem of recidivism is nothing new. As it is written in Scripture, “[i]f your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” Luke 17:3-4 (NIV).
Wayne Welsh affirms that “[r]estorative justice has long been observed in premodern and indigenous societies;” but its principles appeared in Westernized industrialized countries only in the 1970’s,” Welsh & Harris, p. 63). Furthermore, Welsh asserts that “[b]y the 1990s, such programs had spread to all Western countries—at least 700 in Europe and 300 in the United States,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 63). Since 1990, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has attributed the cause of New York City’s reoccurring offenders to be “a high crime level, discrimination between white and black police officers, high prosecutor caseloads, overcrowded jails and prisons, and police corruption.”
The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision announced in November of 2014 that data from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) “shows that nine percent (9%) of ex-offenders, released in 2010, were sent back to prison based on a new felony conviction within three years of their release. The figure is the lowest since monitoring started in 1985,” (NYCourts). The City of New York published a report citing “32% of parolees in New York City are re-arrested within the first year following release. This proportion is fairly similar across all of the boroughs. Twenty-three percent of parolees in New York City are re-convicted during the first year, with proportions also similar across boroughs,” (InnovatingJustice). On average, 16% of all parolees experience a revocation in their first year of release, and 15% of all parolees abscond, meaning that they disappear from contact with their parole officers for at least some period of time.” (InnovatingJustice).
New York City’s overall recidivism was reported in 2014; citing that “its return rate increase[d] as the number of prior felony convictions increase[d],” (DOC). The report cited that individual crimes with the highest return rate was Burglary at fifty-five percent; contrasting individual crimes with the lowest return rate was Murder at thirteen percent. Data revealed that in 2014, “[o]ffenders committed from Upstate Urban counties were more likely to return (49%) than offenders from Suburban New York City (41%), non-Urban Upstate counties (43%), or New York City (38%),” (DOC).
Data from New York County (Manhattan) reveals that arrests for individuals sentenced to probation shows an increase in violent felonies during their first year—from 4.1% in 2012 to 7.2% in 2021, (CriminalJustice). Overall, New York City has seen an increase in violent felony offenses over the past decade throughout its five boroughs. Data reveals that New York City has seen an increase in returning to violent felonious crime in first year of probation from 6% in 2012 to 6.9% in 2021. Despite the decades of dollars spent on solutions, the city has failed to protect its citizens from violent crime. New York City also witnessed an increase in reoccurring non-violent felony offenses—from 17% in 2012 up to 17.2% in 2021, (CriminalJustice).
The United States Sentencing Committee (USSC) produced a report in 2023 displaying “over an eight-year follow-up period, nearly one-half (49.3%) of federal offenders released in 2010 were rearrested, the same rate for offenders released in 2005 (49.3%),” (USSC). Upon release oftentimes parolees return to the familiar criminal behaviors. This is warned against in scripture, as the Apostle Paul scribed “[y]ou say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is good for you. And even though ‘I am allowed to do anything,’ I must not become a slave to anything,” (1 Corinthians 6:12; NLT). Faith-based intervention will break the chains of the convicts who remain fallen; personally enslaved to commit crimes without the will to self-regulate their actions.
Changes Over Time
New York City’s recidivist problem has observably changed over time. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology published Volume 41, Issue 3 in 1950. In this issue, read Elio D. Monachesi’s article titled American Studies In The Prediction Of Recidivism. In this article, Monachesi cited a “need to develop a method which would make possible to adjust for changes in social conditions which transpire to affect the administration of criminal justice in a particular community.” (ScholarlyCommons). Monachesi added that predictions are contingent on conditions. Monachesi contended “[p]redictions that are made in any field of human behavior will be materially affected if the conditions under which such predictions are made become modified. Thus, if parole violation rates change because of changes in personnel or in the policy of parole administration, then violation rates used to predict outcome of parole which are consistent with one set of conditions cannot be utilized to predict outcome of parole when conditions are changed. This problem must be solved before the prediction of recidivism is made more efficient,” (ScholarlyCommons).
Elio Monachesi’s words bear relevance in the contemporary age; “[i]t is generally agreed that amongst the objectives of a punitive or correctional system is the prevention of the re-occurrence of criminal behavior on the part of those who have deviated from the socially accepted and legally prescribed rules of conduct. The aim of many programs of treatment of criminal offenders is the prevention of recidivism,” (ScholarlyCommons)
One prominent contemporary force responsible for the increase in recidivism in New York City appears to be its mismanagement of federal budget. The New York City Council seems to be unable to properly allocate the funding to the necessary systems required to produce a solution to recuring crime, decreasing recidivism statistics. The NYC Council declared a call “for the [Executive] Administration to restore $14.7 million in funding for programs that reduce recidivism…For years, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice has managed this programming, but the Mayor’s Program to Eliminate the Gap cut their funding and the Executive Budget only partially restored it,” (Council). Man possesses an inherent natural propensity to exploit power he pursues. Once attained, the preservation of such power and authority leads partnerships with maleficent forces; further devolving into despotic governance; and the likely revolt of his subjects. This is seen in the totalitarian policy enacted by incumbent pol, then directly rejected by independent thinkers. This natural tendency to exploit authority extends to parolees granted freedom, and tempted to return to the life of crime they once relied on. Therefore, recidivism patterns must be analyzed to better understand the nature of these recidivists. The Bureau of Justice statistics reveal that “[t]he latest study of state prisoners estimated the recidivism patterns of about 400,000 persons released from state prisons in 34 states in 2012.”
The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) reported in a 2021 study, that the problem—though subtly worsening—had remined consistent throughout the past decade. The USSC report reads “[t]he recidivism rate remained unchanged for federal offenders released in 2010 compared to offenders released in 2005 despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system” (USSC). The USSC cited the two major developments as, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)] and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision.” (USSC). The Sentencing Commission reported that “[o]ver an eight-year follow-up period, nearly one-half (49.3%) of federal offenders released in 2010 were rearrested, the same rate for offenders released in 2005 (49.3%). For offenders who were rearrested, the median time to arrest was 19 months.”
New York City Mayor Eric Adams released data in August 2022 that showed an increase in recidivism. Adams lamented that “[t]he hardworking women and men of the NYPD are doing the work, but the overall system is failing New Yorkers by allowing repeat offenders back out on the streets over and over again,” said Mayor Adams, (NYC.gov). Moreover, the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) officers and resources are being exhausted on futile attempts to stop criminals with no intention of stopping the commission of crimes; aided by the laxity of the law. Adams added “Time and time again, our police officers arrest someone who has multiple charges, but no matter how many times this person may have been arrested before, they are often walking free hours later. There is almost no accountability, and that makes us all less safe.” (NYC.gov).
The NYPD reported in 2022 “career criminals” were responsible for the “[r]ecidivism [that had] increased in recent years, and in some categories, [these] increases have been significant. The number of individuals arrested three or more times in a calendar year for crimes including robbery, burglary, and grand larceny, among others, has increased through the first six months of 2022, compared with crime in the years prior to the onset of the global pandemic.” Giving examples, the NYPD report indicated that 211 individuals logged at least three arrests for burglary through June 2022, a 142.5% increase compared with the 87 individuals arrested at least three times for burglary in the first six months of 2017. For shoplifting, 899 people have been arrested three times for that crime through June 2022, an 88.9% increase over the 476 individuals arrested three times for shoplifting through June of 2017.
Causes of Recidivism in New York City
The etiology of New York City’s recidivist problem—id est the factors that cause or contribute significantly to it—include lax legislators, crowded courts, and prisons filled to maximum capacity, (DOJ; Welsh & Harris, p.42). The U.S. Department of Justice reported that recidivism begins with youth; writing that “[c]ase files were reviewed for a subsample of 2,763 JDs and PINS. Nine out of 10 of these had prior arrests or PINS petitions, prior probation terms, or prior out-of-home placements. Findings show that 81 percent of males and 45 percent of females were arrested within 36 months of discharge from DFY custody,” (DOJ). The Department added that “[a]cross conditions, the three factors that were most often associated with the risk of recidivism were criminal history, age at discharge, and community characteristics,” (DOJ). But this is not man’s natural intended state by God. Although man is born inherently depraved, he needn’t remain that way. The government has formulated a process to maximize federal funding by taking actions that facilitate crises. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “[e]ven Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right,” Romans 2:14-15 (NLT). Yet those with mental illness are unlikely to obey laws and candor they cannot comprehend. Thus, the reallocation of the city’s funding needs to be reconsidered. The New York City Council reports that “approximately half of people in city jails having some kind of mental health diagnosis and at least 1 in 5 individuals dealing with a serious mental illness, there are clear interventions that can be funded to prevent city jails from being de facto mental health institutions,” (Council). New York City legislators seem to have capitalized on the omission of criminal rehabilitation; appearing to have routinely exploited offenders for decades, in an effort to build empirical data thus advocating greater allocation of state tax and federal annual budget.
Modern theories to reduce recidivism are afflicted by many factors. As “[l]ittle evaluation research is available” contends Welsh; adding “and there is no consensus on how to measure success,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 63). According to the Institution for Traffic Safety Management & Research (ITSMR), “The recidivism rate [in New York State] appears to have reached a plateau, remaining constant at approximately 20% in 2012, 2015 and 2018.” The study primarily sourced its data from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV); it bears significance to New York City. The John Jay Institute for Criminal Justice produced a report in March 2023, that concluded their “results suggest that New York’s original bail reforms led to an increase in overall, felony, and VFO recidivism among the subgroup of people whose case and criminal history characteristics would make them bail eligible again after the implementation of the 2020 amendments.” (DataCollaborativeForJustice). But the Institute reported that “[t]his pattern holds true for all but one subgroup: For people facing the misdemeanor obstruction of breathing charge in a domestic violence matter, the mandatory release provision of the original bail reform was associated with substantially lower overall, felony, and VFO recidivism.” (DataCollaborativeForJustice).
The John Jay Institute for Criminal Justice analyzed that “[a]ltogether, while the 2020 rollbacks likely decreased recidivism in New York City, restoring bail eligibility for the misdemeanor criminal obstruction of breathing cases appears to have had the opposite effect,” (DataCollaborativeForJustice). The National Institute of Justice reported that “[r]ecidivism is often measured by criminal acts that resulted in rearrest, reconviction, or return to incarceration with or without a new sentence during a specific follow-up period following the person's release (e.g., for 3 years post-release). Although harder to quantify, acts of misconduct that do not result in official sanctions may also be considered when measuring recidivism,” (NIJ.OJP). Yet recidivism remains one of the persistent factors; unsolvable by the state of New York. The current state of ineffectiveness reveals the government’s inability to allocate the appropriated funds. The NYC Justice Corps reported that “[r]esearch on recidivism reduction has found that seven criminogenic factors contribute to an individual’s risk of returning to crime. These factors include anti-social friends and peers, low levels of achievement in school and/or work, and unstructured and anti-social leisure time.” (JusticeCorps).
Previous Interventions
Former New York City Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell declared in September 2022 that “[o]ne crime victim is one victim too many, and the hardworking women and men of the NYPD are committed to ensuring that no one – in any New York City neighborhood – is harmed by violence or disorder,” (NYC.gov). Sewell noted “[o]ur strategies to suppress violence, to seize illegal guns, and to hold criminals accountable for their actions are beginning to gain traction. But the NYPD cannot shoulder this work alone. Our entire criminal justice system, and all of our government and community partners, must pull in the same direction and remain focused on our shared goal: the safety of everyone who lives, works, and visits New York City. We have seen too much revolving-door recidivism,” (NYC.gov). But targeting guns will not stop the problem of reoccurring crime in New York; criminals will utilize of methods of weaponry.
Yet Sewell’s zealous pursuit proved futile as routine offenders continue to evade punishment for their crimes. The former police commissioner stepped down from her position months later without giving a public explanation. The message appears clear: government seems to be intentionally unwilling to correct this problem; thus previous interventions have been futile.
Objectives to reduce recidivism must be specific; as criminal justice policy “[o]bjectives are much more specific than goals;” clearly defining “exactly what outcome is to be achieved by the intervention,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 82). Instead of creating objectives that would be effective, bearing majoritarian civic support; social justice institutions annually appropriate funding for illusory goals. These goals lack “process objectives;” existing without any clearly defined timeframes.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul ratified The Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act (S.1144A/A.5576A) on September 17th , 2021; taking effect on March 1st 2022. The plan “fix how New York handles technical violations of parole by focusing on public safety through effective reentry.” The act rewards parolees with time off for good compliance. The bill proposes that “[o]nly in the most serious cases will
re-incarceration for technical violations be an option, incarceration periods will be capped at 30
days, and people will get a lawyer and a speedy hearing before that can happen. Parole officers
will have reduced, reasonable caseloads.” As the Less Is More movement indicates, “the hundreds of millions of dollars that are saved can be invested in housing, small business grants, family programs, mental health care, and more.” The plan aims to will not only reduce racial disparities, but improve public safety. (LessIsMoreNY).
New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced in March 2024 that 1,000 New York State Police, MTAPD and the New York National Guard would impose NYPD Bag Checks, (Governor). Hochul vowed to utilize the National Guard “to make the 750 members currently deployed on Joint Task Force Empire Shield.” (Governor). The National Guard will fall under the authority of the NYPD. Hochul’s bill “[allows] judges to ban people convicted of an assault within the system from using MTA services as part of [their] sentencing.” (Governor). Criminals are unlikely to follow laws banning them from New York City subway systems. No infrastructure exists that can preclude their entry. The citizens reject increased surveillance to remedy government created crisis. The rampant increase in recidivism is caused by negligence, as Hochul’s intervention failed to consider. The New York Governor boasted “[s]ince taking office, I have been laser-focused on driving down subway crime and protecting New Yorkers," (Governor). Hochul added "[m]y five-point plan will rid our subways of violent offenders and protect all commuters and transit workers.” Despite Hochul’s inability to control the crime in New York City, she provided a textual reassurance that she would not leave office until New York; stating “I am sending a message to all New Yorkers: I will not stop working to keep you safe and restore your peace of mind whenever you walk through those turnstiles," (Governor). Hochul has failed to reduce crime; thus, her position appears to remain in power under the pretext that she can make New York City safe. Instead, she is utilizing U.S. national resources to supplement her lack of proactivity. Grassroots interventions have also proven unsuccessful. On May 1st 2023, a former U.S. Marine sergeant killed a homeless man with a chokehold on the New York City subway. One year later he was charged with manslaughter in a Manhattan criminal court, just hours after he surrendered to police, (Reuters).
Different Definitions
Different groups of people have different definitions of the problem and its origins. Critics will find any proposed solution as invidious by some capacity. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word Recidivism as “[a] tendency to return to a habit of criminal activity or behavior;” whereas the term Recidivist as “[s]omeone who has been convicted multiple criminal offenses, usu. similar in nature; a repeat offender,” (Garner, B., p. 1523). Further, Black’s Law Dictionary adds “[a] criminal who, having been punished for illegal activities, resumes those activities after the sentence has been completed,” (Garner, B., p. 1523). Black’s Law Dictionary adds to Recidivate, is “[t]o return to the habit of criminal activity or behavior; to relapse into crime,” (Garner, B., p. 1523). Yet citizens contend to what qualifies as viable data; as Welsh denotes, “[a] fundamental difficulty in documenting or estimating the impact of restorative or community justice in the United States is the lack of systemic data.” (Welsh & Harris, p. 63). Critics claim the system creates criminals due to its excessive laws and loopholes. Proponents advocate that no loopholes in the legal system exist; instead vague policy has allowed for the ambiguity of New York City’s recidivist problem—imposing resistance in finding a viable solution. That is just outside of the system itself.
Internally, then consensus is no different. The DOJ reports that “even within the system, judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation and parole officers, and others are often in disagreement about what is right and what is wrong with the criminal justice system. Further, the public is divided on punishment,” (DOJ). Thus, “Legislation may also create an important push for change,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 41). Contemporary recidivists are likely to resist this course of action. Critics express concerns that the government will fail to “fundamentally [rethink] their missions,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 62). Further, that government agencies or experts [establishing] guidelines, standards, and requirements for programs reflecting these values, [thus] bureaucratizing them,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 62).
Critics—like Eli Northrup, Policy Director Of The Criminal Defense Practice At Bronx Defenders—believe similarly that those accused of committing crimes are being branded as guilty before a verdict can be decided. Eli Northrup contends that “[t]he way our system works is you’re accused of something, and then you go to trial. If you’re found guilty, that’s when you’re punished. But what bail does, particularly unaffordable cash bail, is it punishes people prior to any finding of guilt,” (CityandStateNY). And some may be willing to adhere to a pathway to its assurance. Taxpayers are likely to hold contention for the unnecessary funding of the rehabilitation of criminals. New York City should be an exception to any objection; as federal resources are abundant; yet displaced through misallocation of annual appropriations. The nation’s greatest city needn’t longer be synonymous with danger.
According to the New York City Police Department; in September 2022 [the NYPD] made 4,258 arrests for complaints of major felony crimes, a 24.7% increase over the 3,414 arrests for major felonies in the same month last year. Arrests for major felonies are up nearly 27% so far in calendar 2022, compared with the first nine months of 2021, (Nyc.gov). But this does not stop these offenders from evading responsibility for their actions through the courts. “Lawsuits often fuel the perception of a problem, as they did with domestic violence. Liability issues led police to seriously consider calls for reform,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 41).
According to PrisonPolicy.org, overall “[a]t least 1 in 4 people who go to jail will be arrested again within the same year — often those dealing with poverty, mental illness, and substance use disorders, whose problems only worsen with incarceration,” (PrisonPolicy). The organization argues that “8% of all incarcerated people are held in private prisons; the vast majority are in publicly-owned prisons and jails;” adding “less than 1% — are employed by private companies through the federal PIECP program, which requires them to pay at least minimum wage before deductions,” (PrisonPolicy).
Critics like PrisonPolicy believe that laws are too strict, opting for decriminalization and release of offenders. PrisonPolicy adds that “prisons do rely on the labor of incarcerated people for food service, laundry, and other operations . . . on average, incarcerated people earn between 86 cents and $3.45 per day for the most common prison jobs,” (PrisonPolicy).
Further, the organization believes that the “[r]ecidivism data [does] not support the belief that people who commit violent crimes ought to be locked away for decades for the sake of public safety,” (PrisonPolicy). The non-profit non-partisan group claims “[p]eople convicted of violent and sexual offenses are actually among the least likely to be rearrested, and those convicted of rape or sexual assault have rearrest rates 20% lower than all other offense categories combined,” (PrisonPolicy). PrisonPolicy’s strawman argument skewing factual data to depict violent criminals and sex offenders in an endearing light is not only unpersuasive, but inherently fallacious.
Courses of Action
No single “course of action” blanket legislation is capable of correcting New York City’s recidivist problem. Simply giving the government greater policing power ex post; poses a considerable danger to civic sovereign liberty ex ante. New York City’s recidivist problem must be broken down into three categories: (1) convicted criminals, (2) inmates, and (3) parolees. Civic rights needn’t be impacted by the rehabilitation of criminals; especially recidivists. Instead the problem of recidivism must draw its solutions from a compound of multiple strategies. Legal deterrence; criminal sanctions like retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and restoration; normative values like focusing on proportionality, equity, parsimony, humane treatment; community justice or grassroots restorative justice like mental counseling; drug treatment; and personal incentives to rehabilitate are all potential options that must be considered in great detail. Welsh details data from New York City’s Midtown Community Court, that “nearly 70% of those convicted [in New York] are order to perform community work, and of these nearly 70% complete it without violations,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 68). Author Chris Marshall writes that historically, “[p]unishments are often prescribed for particular offenses in biblical legislation. But punishment is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Contrary to what many people think today, punishment as such is not what satisfies the demands of justice. Justice is satisfied by repentance, restoration, and renewal. Punishment serves as a mechanism for helping to promote such restoration,” (Marshall, C., p. 46). Marshall adds that historically, “[p]unishments served an educative, more than a retributive, function,” in that “they helped the wider community to recognize those kinds of behaviors that constituted the most serious threats to its moral and spiritual well-being,” (Marshall, C., p. 46). The contemporary system of Criminal Justice fails to meet these historic prerequisites that have been realized upon throughout recorded history. Here, this policy serves to reignite the compassion of the criminal justice system; simultaneously sustaining individual accountability to the offender; and providing a pathway to restoration—starting the moment they enter the justice system, (in the case of incarcerated applications, the moment this policy initiative is enacted).
Former New York City Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell advocated, “Let’s be clear: Nonviolent, first-time offenders deserve a second chance, as the spirit of the state’s 2020 criminal justice reforms envisioned.” (Nyc.gov). Non-violent offenses still include: fraud and forgery; theft, larceny, and burglary; arson; cybercrimes; driving under the influence; smuggling and human trafficking; child endangerment; drug crimes; harassment; nonviolent sex-crimes; and racketeering. But Sewell noted, unlike non-violent offenders, “judges should be given the ability to hold career and violent criminals in custody pending trial.” (NYC.gov).
The Legal Action Center (LAC), founded in 1984, assists over 20,000 “justice-involved individuals” annually. The company believes that its “NYC LGBTQI ATI/Reentry Working Group,” formed in 2019, will assist “better meet the reentry needs of justice-involved LGBTQI people in NYC.” (LAC). This is an example of identity groups that seek to utilize evident problems with the criminal justice system for their own advantage. Tactics like this inhibit any progress in the reduction of recidivism.
Prison Fellowship provides a restorative approach “working behind bars to address the underlying risk factors that contribute to people committing new crimes after they are released from prison. Through a variety of in-prison programs, Prison Fellowship is building a prosocial community that focuses on the prisoners' restoration and thriving future beyond the prison walls,” (PrisonFellowship). PrisonFellowship is committed to the total renewal of the individual in the image of God; starting in prison, and continuing after release. PrisonFellowhsip explain their position; “[a]s Christians, we believe that Jesus — Himself brought to trial, executed, buried, and brought to life again — offers hope, healing, and a new purpose for each life. He can make even the most broken people and situations whole again. Through an amazing awakening to new hope and life purpose, those who once broke the law are transformed and mobilized to serve their neighbors, replacing the cycle of crime with a cycle of renewal,” (PrisonFellowship).
Wayne Welsh explains that restorative justice “[a]dvocates believe that developing an offender’s empathy for the victim has preventative effects,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 63). A second course of action is community justice. Welsh notes the concept of community justice to be “less clear,” calling it “a set of new organizational strategies that change the focus of criminal justice,” from “narrow” to broad “community policing,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 61, 62). This allows “criminal justice agencies [to] change the way they interact with the public,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 62).
Brian “Head” Welch, guitarist for the band Life and Death and Korn, had a radical Christian transformation, and writes his personal experience as God spread Christianity to those around him. Welch gives testimony that Christ arrives to people in various circumstances, oftentimes during experiences of great loss or extreme tragedy. Brian Welch writes, “[a]nother person that I had started praying for was my old friend, JC, who I hadn’t really spoken to in a while. One day, not long after my trip to Israel, he called me out of the blue and told me he had been arrested for something minor and needed someone to bail him out. While he was in jail, there was a guy who followed him around and talked constantly about Jesus. After listening to him and talking to me, JC decided he wanted to know Christ like I did, so I bailed him out of jail and told him about everything the Lord had done for me. Then he wanted to be baptized,” (Welch, B., p. 169).
Welch’s testimony shows that convicted criminals are given an opportune time for revelation; though there must be some facilitator to present the methodology that can be applied to have a personal encounter with the Lord. It is important to consider inmates to be equally important as convicts opting for alternatives to incarceration (ATI), and parolees. God uses people no matter their location, thus those in prison remain of equal importance to achieving this intervention’s outcome objectives; that is the reduction of recidivism in New York City. Many attempts have been made to reduce the level of crime present in the city, but it appears that politicians possess more interest in attaining talking points as campaign fodder for re-election; whilst riding the wave of advantaged incumbency. And no course of action issued from the State has sought consideration of a faith-based initiative to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. Byron Johnson notes that “the effect of religion remains significant even in the absence of other factors in the surrounding community that might normally prevent illegal behavior,” (Johnson, B., p. 175). Instead policymakers ought to consider a Christ-centered policy initiative, that does not discriminate to liberate a specific class of people—instead applies its authority equally among all citizens.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
This policy initiative looks to solve New York City’s problem of recidivism by (1) expanding its scope of applicability for Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI); and (2) including court-mandated faith-based ATI programs. These measures could be implemented within one fiscal year, thus resulting in effective rehabilitation of criminal offenders and parolees. These measures should not be limited to ATI, but can be utilized within the system to rehabilitate those serving sentences. Therefore, breaking down these goals into outcome objectives produces a clearer image of its intended impact.
Outcome Objectives
First, to stop recidivism, this policy hereby proposes the (1) expansion of Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) beyond the scope of substance abuse and mental illness. Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) must be expanded to include offenders beyond the scope of substance abuse and mental illness. The outcome advocated by this policy is the expansion of alternatives to incarceration (ATI) to include programs to rehabilitate all criminal offenders; thus expanding its normative scope beyond substance abuse and mental illness. Expanding the scope of ATI can be adopted henceforth by the courts, producing an immediate and lasting change. This adoption will consistently work to reform parolees; whilst creating safer streets and communities. The results of greater access to ATI are likely to show a reduction in recidivism, as criminals are less likely to desire court mandated personal reform over temporal punishment. Personal accountability merits a greater long term reduction in parolee recidivism.
Second, to deter reoccurring offenders, this policy seeks to (2) implement court-mandated rehabilitation through faith-based Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) programs. Faith-based Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) must include court mandated requirements that must be fulfilled within a timely manner. New York State’s current approximate 165 ATI programs “operate in conjunction with the criminal justice system in all New York State counties and the City of New York,” (CriminalJustice). This policy initiative can be achieved within one fiscal year, expanding New York State to approximately 166 ATI programs. The adoption of Christ-centered rehabilitation programs will provide accountability to parolees, starting from within themselves. Rather than adapting to the compliance of external authorities, citizens will be positioned with personal obligation and accountability unto their Creator. The results will reveal a natural decline in recidivists displaying the efficacy of faith-based Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) programs; as they build traction through first-hand testimonies.
Goal Setting
New York’s goal to reduce of recidivism must consider its (1) “desired future states,” that are attainable; and (2) offer an “intended change in the problem,” with a definitive length to completion; with (3) an intention to provide a “direction for change,” producing measurable progress, (Welsh & Harris, p. 78). The goals criminal sanctions must consider “five different goals (retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and restoration), and are commonly asserted as reasons for punishment,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 78). Of these, retribution, rehabilitation must be focused with hierarchal importance above deterrence and incapacitation. The result with provided restoration to the victims who have been affected by these criminals, by ensuring they do commit future offenses.
New York City policymakers must consider that instead of the criminal accepting punishment, and doing their time; they must accept a willingness to personally change, and invest consistent time indefinitely to self-regulate their own behavior. For New York City’s government to achieve this, it must utilize a Bottom-Up Approach. The Old Testament reveals the need for individual virtue from self-will. It was the prophet Isaiah who scribed that “[t]ruth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him. He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak,” (Isaiah 59:15-17; NIV).
Conversely, this objective will likely face resistance from positivist normative approaches. As Wayne Welsh denotes, “[t]ypically, change follows a top-down format,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 84). Thus, it appears more desirable to rely on policy action from one accountable source (e.g. an elected official or bureaucrat) than a collective body of individuals, (e.g. a citizen-based grassroots approach). Although more effective, a bottom-up approach will take more coordinative efforts, as its enforcement remains contingent on the will of the people. Funding plays a role in the effectiveness between top-down and bottom-up approaches to recidivism. But funding needn’t supplant the importance of budgetary allocations.
Compatible Goals
Compatible goals unanimous between stakeholders within the larger system of Criminal Justice include solving the problem of recidivism. Beyond this, resistance exists at each stage of every proposal. While Citizens are the best advocates to the needs of their communities; they are also the most divided and polarized. For New York City’s problem of recidivism, stakeholders must individuals “perceive that they ae working toward some specific end point. They may believe, correctly or incorrectly, that they are working toward the same desired end,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 84). Accordingly, communication is essentially in both the preliminary stages and throughout the policy process.
Although former Governor Andrew Cuomo produced no significant contributions to actualizing the reform of New York City’s Criminal Justice System; he did note one point of value. Cuomo stated that “[r]educing recidivism means less crime, it means safer communities, it means fewer taxpayer dollars spent on incarceration,” and that New York City’s Criminal Justice System must “stop the revolving door once and for all,” (Governing). The outcome objectives across all ideologies remains historically consistent; reducing and preventing recidivism to create safer streets and communities.
Compatible goals include overlapping outcome objectives between parties, agencies, and citizenry. To be confident in the policy process, one must be confident in the outcome objectives; and experience consistent progress toward that goal. Similarly, the Apostle Paul reminds us in the New Testament, that man must be mindful to look at things from within himself, and avoiding the charge that “[y]ou are looking at things as they are outwardly,” (2 Corinthians 10:7a; NASB). As man looks within himself, he is likely to find a compatible goal, and unite in compromise with his peers; even those in opposition. to achieve unity within God’s Kingdom. Further, Paul scribes that “[i]f anyone is confident in himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again within himself, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we.” (2 Corinthians 10:7b; NASB). Confidence in the policy’s outcome objectives will promote compatible goals that can be more specifically articulated during clashes between advocates of both positivist and classical theories. The fundamental outcome objective between both schools of thought is the cessation of recidivism, the conservation of human lives, and policy that promotes the betterment of society. Thus, these positions ought to be considered upon the development of process objectives.
Incompatible Goals
Diverse process objectives produce incompatible goals between stakeholders; contending the specific methodology toward achieving the unanimously agreed upon outcome objective. Thus, a conflict between proponents of Top-Down and Bottom-Up systems continues to ensue. Many citizens, their representative policymakers, and bureaucratic authorities believe that it remains the head of agencies and administrations to facilitate the change agent within their organization. This occurs with receiving instruction first from supervisors; then to staff; then to clients, (Welsh & Harris, p. 85). Positivist systems of Criminal Justice seek vastly different values than classical ones. Recidivism cannot be solved by deterrence. Punishment is failing in overcoming the rules imposed by authorities to the minds of criminals, offering each a challenge to find a loophole in its doctrine to avoid discipline. (E.g. Criminals wear masks or avoid closed-circuit television to avoid their crimes being recorded; whereas cybercriminals encrypt their identities to avoid similar incriminating evidence).
Welsh discloses further contention in the Criminal Justice System; writing that, prosecutors and defense attorneys may appear together in criminal trials, but each group answers to a different administrator head, and their goals reflects very different missions. Different agencies interact with one another, but only rarely do different agencies cooperate effectively or efficiently to process criminal cases, (Welsh & Harris, pp. 90, 91). But oftentimes it is the computerized information that unites various jurisdictions through stored data collection on an offender.
Thus, communication between various agencies is essential. Rather than allow evidential data to remain segregated within police precincts, away from the Courts; “where important decisions need to be made,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 91). The Criminal Justice System itself must effectively and efficiently communication within each of its branches of Justice. The law must be properly articulated and enforced with specificity, avoiding vague doctrine; the Courts must clearly communicate with law enforcement, in a timely manner; and the system of corrections must be effective in providing retribution, and rehabilitation. When these criteria are met, criminals will be less likely to reoffend, thereby producing a safe community.
Interagency Collaboration
Interagency collaboration is essential for ensuring continuity in New York’s Criminal Justice System. For New York City policymakers to stop recidivism, strong communication and understanding must occur between agencies, the courts, citizens, and law enforcement bureaus. Without continuity across agencies, the Criminal Justice System remains unaccountable; thus cannot meet specific policy objectives within a given timeframe. As Wayne Welsh notes, “failure to specify measurable objectives makes accountability elusive and measuring effectiveness impossible,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 93). Therefore, New York’s Criminal Justice System must audit its structure for loose coupling; addressing these imbalances and direct agencies to compromise and collaborate.
Loose coupling describes the dissociative detachment present within the decentralized system of Criminal Justice. Loose coupling defines “agencies that are responsive to one another and yet maintain independent identities,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 90). The Criminal Justice System relies on a modular symbiosis; whereby “structural elements are loosely linked to one another and to activities, rules are often violated, decisions often go unimplemented, or rendered so vague as to provide little coordination,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 90). This gives agencies independence to create specific achievable goals; yet also allow for agency lethargy, multiple interpretations of objectives, and interagency disconnect. Policymakers must consider solutions to problems that will correct future imbalances; with focus on ex ante laws policy. Reactive problem solving is based on loose coupling; whereby the police and administration seek to solve problems ex post; as they occur. New York City Criminal Justice System must tighten its interagency connections and lines of communication. As Wayne Welsh explains, “[p]roactive problem solving, however, requires a departure from the norm of “loose coupling,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 90).
Opportunities for interagency collaboration include; the New York City Police Department (NYPD) with the New York City court system, assisting to create more expansion Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI).
Impact Model
An impact model will allow various questions to be addressed in respect to the problem of recidivism. This impact model will utilize New York State’s current solution: the Clean Slate Act. Viewing the Clean Slate Act through an impact model will allow for the identification of correlative factors and compatible goals between various agencies and organizations. As recidivism has historically remained a consistent problem in New York City, it has accumulated many different solutions between various groups and ideologies. Thus, conflicting ideas have emerged causing division the prospect to remedy recidivism. But the outcome objective across all worldviews remains consistent: stop recidivism, deter crime, and create safer communities. The Clean Slate Act appears promising, offering restorative measures for parolees. But the Clean Slate Act presupposes the incarceration of the criminal, and does not consider personal accountability through faith-based release programs, or Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI).
IMPACT MODEL
Intervention: The Clean Slate Act
▼
Causes: Parolees are Disadvantaged Upon Release
▼
Intended Change: Provide NY State IDs to Parolees
THE PROBLEM
New York City has a historically high recidivism rate. The City of New York reported that across all five boroughs; “32% of parolees in New York City are re-arrested within the first year following release,” and that “15% of all parolees abscond,” disappearing from their parole officers, (InnovatingJustice). Therefore Governor Kathy Hochul’s Clean Slate Act strives to target parolees, by giving them State ID’s as they are released from prison.
THE PROGRAM
The Clean Slate Act was started in 2024 by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and plans to provide State-Issued IDs to incarcerated individuals prior to their release. This will give disadvantaged offenders a head start to rehabilitation and restoration. Critics contend it rewards criminals and dismisses parolees of responsibility. Critics like New York Senator Mark Walczyk oppose the Clean Slate Act, as it “will automatically seal criminal records three years after sentencing for a misdemeanor, and eight years after a person is released from prison for a felony conviction. Employers, landlords, and schools will now no longer have the necessary background information to make crucial decisions impacting their business or your community . . . Clean Slate takes the judicial review out of the equation and in turn provides zero oversight into if a convicted criminal truly does want to change and become an honorable contributor to society.” Proponents like the New York State Assembly argue that “this law still provides access to otherwise sealed records for certain necessary and relevant purposes,” (NYAssembly). Further, New York State DMV Commissioner Mark J.F. Schroeder highlights the Clean Slate Acts importance; as “[a] basic photo ID is required to establish housing, gain employment and access many other critical benefits, but obtaining one without a little help can be a daunting task for those who were formerly incarcerated. DMV is proud to help these men and women return to their communities and put their lives back on a positive trajectory,” (Governor). Whilst the public image of the Clean Slate Act appears rehabilitative, it is in fact restorative. But criminals cannot be indefinitely restored without retribution and rehabilitation.
THE CAUSES
New York City’s recidivism appears to be erroneous measures issued in a top-down policy. The publicity of awarding funding often overshadows its purpose and process objectives; blinded by its outcome objective. In 2017, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a solution to New York’s problem of criminal reoffenders. Cuomo proclaimed that “[a] total of 31 local agencies and not-for-profit organizations in eight regions across the state [had] been awarded funding,” (CriminalJustice). Cuomo’s program sought to “target approximately 4,300 individuals for services,” to “assist individuals who have been arrested and potentially subject to pre-trial detention, including those with behavioral health needs who are at moderate- to high-risk of reoffending,” (CriminalJustice).
Former Governor Cuomo announced that "[t]hese programs help individuals re-enter society and break the vicious cycle of recidivism in New York," adding "By helping New Yorkers turn their lives around, these programs help strengthen communities, and protect public safety across the Empire State." (CriminalJustice). More than $7.6 million later, the problem of recidivism remained persistent; Cuomo’s efforts had failed. Cuomo proceeded to publicly address the “bad news,” and reported that “there’s a revolving door where 40 percent of the people who are released from prison wind up back in prison,” (CriminalJustice).
Thus, money needn’t be a sole factor in achieving a viable solution; as displayed by its previous inefficacy. Money ought to be allocated strategically; after conducting a systems assessment and coordinating efforts with all parties.
THE INTENDED CHANGE IN THE PROBLEM
The Clean Slate Act seeks to provide parolees with a second chance to restoration. The Clean Slate Act, when viewed in a favorable light; asserts that “[s]ome types of crimes, like murder, are never eligible for sealing under Clean Slate. Additionally, a person must have completed their sentence, including all parole time, without further incident before a record is sealed,” (NYAssembly). Moreover, the New York State Assembly adds that the Clean Slate Act “does not lessen sentences or penalties and does not affect orders of protection, restitution, reparations or other forms of victim compensation,” (NYAssembly).
New York State’s current solutions to recidivism are Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) programs. The state explains that “[t]he Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) funds and oversees a variety of pretrial services and correctional alternative programs throughout New York State, often referred to as Alternative to Incarceration or ATI programs. New York State cites the current “165 ATI programs [are] designed to reduce reliance on pretrial detention and/or incarceration and operate in a manner consistent with public safety,” (CriminalJustice).
IMPACT MODEL
Intervention: Inclusive Faith-Based Alternatives to Incarceration
▼
Causes: Deterrence is Unpersuasive
▼
Intended Change: Court-Mandate Faith-Based Corrections and Alternatives to Incarceration
THE PROBLEM
Positivist theory cites environmental factors, whereas classical theory takes a closer look at the behavior of the individual and their own personal willingness to change. Now, the excessive cost of ineffective rehabilitation, and the persistent danger to society; a demand exists for a permanent solution to New York City’s recidivist problem, and the reduction of reoccurring offenders.
THE PROGRAM
Expanding access to Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) and including faith-based programs will promote an individual obligation and provide greater accountability. Parolees who exhibit greater self-regulation are unlikely to recommit a criminal offense. Man cannot bear obligation unto man; therefore he must establish personal accountability to God; and work consistently to meet these established standards.
Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) may include mandatory Christian rehabilitation, outreach efforts, and personal revelation. It produces a united system to properly rehabilitate offenders; as should New York City’s Criminal Justice system aspire to portray.
One study reported by the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology; noted that the “control group inmates were more likely than their treatment group counterparts to be single (86.7% vs. 72.8%) and to report no religious affiliation (23.0% vs. 9.7%);” and that “study participants had been admitted to jail, on average, five to six times, and two thirds (65.6%) were serving a sentence at the time of the study,” (BaylorISR).
Studies like this reveal that many incarcerated are unaccountable beyond their parole officer and post-release criminal sanctions. Rather than rely on deterrence, incapacitation, or the reward of reoccurring freedom; the Criminal Justice System must tighten its criminal sanctions, and impose stricter audit of their lines of communications between agencies, bureaus, and the courts.
THE CAUSES
The underlying cause of New York City’s Recidivism seems to be the misallocation of State appropriations; alongside the loose coupling of bureaucracy. Further, New York State strives to provide Top-Down restorative policy, to offer opportunity for parolees to adapt to society. The State of New York has conducted research studies that depict the severity of recidivation among parolees. Moral obligation ought to be taught from a young age. New York State conducted one study, that “examined recidivism among 9,477 juvenile offenders (JOs), juvenile delinquents (JDs), and persons in need of supervision (PINS) who were discharged from the custody of the Division for Youth (DFY) from 1991 through 1995,” (CriminalJustice). The study reported that 81% of males and 45% of females were re-arrested within the first thirty-six months after discharge, (CriminalJustice). Thirty years later, the problem of multi-generational recidivism remains unresolved.
THE INTENDED CHANGE
Expanding alternatives to incarceration (ATI) beyond substances abuse and mental illness; to include faith-based programs for individual moral rehabilitation. A bottom-up approach must be used. As Byron Johnson denotes, “[t]he role of government in reentry and aftercare is important, even core, but it cannot be all-encompassing,” (Johnson, B., p. 201). Thus, a Bottom-Up approach must be sought; the State should work with its citizens to promote information and awareness on the importance of moral obligation and individual civic duty. New York City’s current re-entry policy the Clean Slate Act offers no individual incentive granted by the State for parolees undergoing restorative efforts to remain accountable for their own permanent rehabilitation. This intervention will strive to achieve evident progress within one fiscal year; conducted using a grassroots approach. Total separation of Church and State needn’t apply when it comes to criminal rehabilitation and the sentencing of the courts. New York City must expand its Alternatives to Incarceration to include all criminal offenders; and expand access to its faith-based programs for internal corrections.
In sum, those subject to accountability to a human authority are far less likely to comply with deterrence. Rehabilitation needn’t always include incapacitation. Retribution and rehabilitation is likely for those who hold themselves accountable to God. Man possesses no omnipotent method of tracking or surveillance; nor does he possess the right to infringe the wellbeing of another by doing so. However, individuals who have shown criminal tendencies, and a history of criminality; must be subjected to a court-mandated path to rehabilitation, offering parolees and criminal offenders some basis of redemption in society and the eyes of their Creator. The result will facilitate faith-based Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) programs for criminal offenders, and Christ-centered rehabilitation programs for parolees. This effectiveness of this policy will contribute to the betterment of society, and achieve compatible goals and outcome objectives through expanding process objectives.
III. PLANNING AND DESIGN
The etiology of recidivism that plagues New York is evident by its government’s annual efforts to curtail it. Thus, a solution must be enacted by intervention; to ensure the achievement of the proposed outcome objective. The prospect must exhibit progress to appease stakeholders, thereby ensuring that recidivism begins to decline throughout the state. The result, in theory, is safer streets and communities; though this has yet to be actualized from incumbent pol. Instead legislators inhibit eachother’s actions; in hopes of evoking an image of the Founder’s intended divided powers. “Policies affect people. Much like programs, they are intended to benefit or punish specific groups of people through the actions of decisionmakers,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 109).
Yet the reality is the American nation is controlled by a uniparty; standing as gatekeepers to (1) the annual budget appropriated to the States; and (2) the use of the funds obtained. Recidivism seems to have become a business for maleficent bureaucrats; thus, the solution to formulating a viable solution to end recidivism must take a grassroots, bottom-up approach.
Although a program to stop recidivism must coordinate with the authority of the city and State of New York; it should source its primary strategies from grassroots Christian organizations, conduct itself in a manner that is annually updated based on statistics. This annual reformulation does not include an expanse on the budget required; rather its allocation. Moreover, the state must be willing to adopt these measures without tyrannizing the methodology of rehabilitation.
The New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) reported that “[u]nder Mayor Adams’s leadership, the city’s public safety agencies began an unprecedented collaboration to align crime data across city systems. MOCJ, the NYC Police Department (NYPD), the NYC Department of Correction (DOC), the Office of Court Administration (OCA), and many providers of city services work together to coordinate data systems to produce a more accurate picture of public safety and public health within the criminal justice framework of the city,” (MOCJ).
Target Population
This effort will feature a concisely designed program that bear applicability to all individuals within the criminal justice system; from corrections to parolees. These coordinated activities must individually include (a) rehabilitative, (b) retributive, and (c) restorative policy.
As Author Wayne Welsh opines, “[p]rogram and policy options are often weighted in terms of cost,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 104). This needn’t be the case to ensure the prevent of recidivism in New York City. Instead, an achievable outcome solution must be declared; one that considers the goals. The target population is criminal offenders, and the prevention of the recursion of their engagement in criminal activities. This includes both violent and non-violent offenders. This broad group of criminal offenders can be further organized into three subgroups by categorical hierarchy: (x) offenders, rehabilitating those who have already entered the criminal justice system; (y) inmates, restoring those who have been released from the criminal justice system; (3) (z) parolees, deterring those from reconsidering engaging in criminal actions. Focusing on those entering the Criminal Justice System will assist in the latter two groups; those released from prison, and those considering committing a criminal offense. Individually, these groups will create three distinct phases of rehabilitation and restoration. Collectively, they will create a court-mandated faith-based initiative capable of ending and preventing recidivism throughout the community. Moreover, as each candidate succeeds in their rehabilitation; they can become ambassadors of the program’s results; testifying to future candidates of their personal beneficial changes that have occurred since they ascribed to undergo such changes. This process seems to be able to end the disease of recidivism that persistent plagues New York City and its citizens.
One major deterrence is court mandated faith-based rehabilitation. Criminals are more likely to be deterred from engaging in crime when the punishment is personal reform versus temporary incapacitation. Offenders forced to consider their actions will deter crime and work to rehabilitate those who have committed it.
The intervention is aimed at criminal offenders, and those who may become influenced by criminal behavior. Qualifying Participants will include three phases of criminal reform; active cases, incarcerated inmates, and parolees. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice utilizes its own “Task Forces [to] coordinate and manage services provided to individuals who are returning to their communities after serving a state prison sentence and determined to be at moderate or high risk of reoffending,” (CriminalJustice). The intake procedures will position the Department of Faith (DoF) consider both existing and previous cases in structuring a successful intervention in New York City against recidivism. The Department of Faith (DoF) will work in coordination with the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ). In 2023, the MOCJ reported that “[o]ver the past year, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) achieved significant milestones in justice reform and legal regulations, thanks to collaborative efforts with key partners within the justice system.,” (MOCJ).
New York City must utilize its own reentry goals using County Re-Entry Task Forces (CRTF). Thus, to achieve these goals, “CRTFs conduct strategic planning to develop effective approaches to serving individuals, build local capacity to meet service needs, identify gaps in services and assess the effectiveness of the county’s re-entry system for consistency with principles of effective practice, which includes the use of Motivational Interviewing techniques, cognitive behavioral approaches; positive reinforcement; and engagement in ongoing, pro-social support; among others,” (MOCJ).
Participants must be selected by considering five issues. According to Wayne Welsh these issues include Access, Screening, Intake, Individual Records, Retention, (Welsh & Harris, p 107).
According to the Prison Journalism Project (PJP), in New York’s current Criminal Justice reform system, “[d]oing time is one part droning monotony peppered with searing regret, and one part mental and physical combat with demons, real and imagined… the promise of rehabilitation in prison became much less certain in 2022,” (PJP). The organization laments its concern that meaningful programs are the determining factor between successful criminal justice reform. The PJP writes that, “[w]ithout meaningful academic, vocational and therapeutic programs we are lost, flailing aimlessly in the subculture of drugs and violence that brought most of us here. Beyond taking personal responsibility, there is little we can do to better ourselves if the opportunities don’t exist,” (PJP).
According to America First Policy Institute (AFPI), “[f]aith-based prison programs offer a proven solution for promoting feelings of hope and self-worth, which can play a major role in reducing recidivism,” (AFPI).
The institute continues that “[p]sychologists have found that recidivism occurs when four forces converge: [(1)] thinking patterns that promote criminal behavior, [(2)] personality patterns that facilitate criminal behavior, [(3)] involvement with other individuals who participate in criminal behavior, and [(4)] having a history of engaging in criminal behavior,” (AFPI). Thus, a faith-based imitative in New York City’s must strive to eliminate at least one of these “forces." The first “force,” thinking patterns; and second “force,” personality patterns” can be adjusted and realigned to best represent the individual through Christian counseling. The third “force,” involvement with other individuals who facilitate criminal behavior, can be remedied by becoming a part of the Christian community as a result of routine commitment to the process of rehabilitation; over incarceration.
Program Components
All of the below program components, and the process itself is voluntary by the offender. No part of this policy will force compliance unto the participant. Faith cannot be forced. Alternatives to this program are currently available. Instead, this program, and its components strive to ensure a solid basis for criminals willing to undergo the process personal rehabilitation through the Criminal Justice System.
The Old Testament acknowledges that through God’s provision, comes knowledge, reformation, and wisdom; thus better preparing convicted criminal offenders how best to return back into society. In the Old Testament God spoke to Moses upon his own doubt he could fulfill his task God laid forth for him to achieve. In response, God assured Moses that he would speak through his brother, Aaron; decreeing that “You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do. He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him. And take in your hand this staff, with which you shall do the signs,” (Exodus 4:15-17; ESV). We mustn’t forget that Moses was a murderer who himself was reformed by the power of God; leading us to inner reformation today by the Lord’s provision scribed by man, in this case Moses. Thus, although someone may have committed a horrible offense, reformation through God is possible; as is reintegration into society. Therefore, we needn’t consider the worldly standards of personal bias, and instead look at the best methods for criminal reformation; thus prevent recuring criminal offenses, to decrease crime throughout neighborhoods and communities.
A specific agenda to achieve a reduction in recidivism includes weekly Christian counseling, outreach, and court-appointed checkpoints; ensuring the total reformation of the criminal’s character to that of a restored citizen—equal in caliber to any other man.
Thus, the individual process to achieve these results must include:
(1) Christian counseling must be given three times per week, for two hours each session. This counseling will be conducted by the Department of Faith (DoF). The counseling sessions will occur inside of a church, or other Christian community center. Sessions will include specific Bible studies, and relating passages to aspects of the participant’s life. Secondly these Christian counseling sessions will formulate a strategic gameplan to better prepare the participant for the next session.
(2) Outreach must be conducted one day per week, for 6 hours. This will force offenders and parolees to reinvest their abilities back into society. Contributions include giving back to local communities in various environments. This action will facilitate a personal connection to the well-being and advancement of society.
(3) Checkpoints will be conducted weekly. These checkpoints will be the responsibility of the Department of Restoration (DoR), namely the Reformation Contact; and will include required meeting with parole officers, pastors, and Christian counselors. The Reformation Contact (RC) will coordinate with the Court Contact to communicate progress with the courts, parole officers, and other case specific personnel. Failure to fulfill the weekly tasks will result in the redaction of eligibility to the program. Failure to complete the program will result in further consequences, prolonging the participant’s process of rehabilitation.
Program Staffing
As Welsh denotes, “[i]n some cases a new policy results in the creation of new agencies,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 110). The policy necessary to address New York City’s Recidivism will likely require the creation of a new agency, compromised of individual departments, each specific to the needs of the participant in the process of reformation through a system of Criminal Justice. The sequence of activities include; (a) phase one, (b) phase two and (c) phase three systems.
Phase one, (a) a system of rehabilitation; working to unclog the courts by offering faith based Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) to (x) qualifying offenders. If the participant chooses to opt in, this action will be court-mandated to ensure its compliance and effectiveness. New York’s Legal Action Center (LAC) cites that “Alternatives to incarceration (ATI) such as pre-arrest, pre-booking or prosecutorial diversion, problem-solving courts and community corrections have been shown to reduce recidivism, improve public safety and minimize costs,” (LAC). Therefore, New York City’s policies should invoke better methods of problem solving and prosecutorial diversion can be implemented to obtain more information to better identify the qualifying participant.
Phase two, (b) a system of retribution; work to reform (y) inmates within the system utilizing a bottom-up approach. Christian organizations and Churches will grant inmates greater access to fellowship programs within the corrections system. This would feature Christ-centered degree programs from accredited Universities. Thus, the inmate could simultaneously reform their minds; and better prepare for their release, and a return to contributing to their communities.
Phase three, (3) a system of restoration for (z) parolees; working to gain parolees on track to faith-based accountability. This will feature a series of court-appointed check points, and weekly meeting with parole officers—simultaneously building the individual’s relationship and obligation to God.
These three phases will culminate as one method for qualifying offenders, inmates, and parolees; producing one unified reformative system of justice. Its goal will be to prevent recidivism, specifically in New York City. This will require implementing service tasks to program staff, and building a system of hierarchy that holds its decisionmakers responsible for the totality of its actions. But the program’s curriculum will be built with a bottom-up approach. Utilizing this method of conduct for reformative criminal justice will allow for two important factors: the first (1) the policy can be adopted by the City of New York, and enforced utilizing a top-down approach; and the second (2) that this policy can be readily updated in accordance with its success in the specific prevention of recidivism based on annual statistics. According to Wayne Welsh, “[s]ervice tasks include writing job descriptions of all program staff, the qualifications and training, and the major activities that are to be completed by them,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 108).
Staff Breakdown
For a faith-based program to end recidivism in New York City, a multi-tiered policy design must be implemented. The staff and its service tasks specific to this outcome objective will consist of:
I. Decision Authority (DA)
i. PD. Program Director
ii. AD. Associate Director
II. Department of Communications (DoC)
i. PM. Primary Mediator
ii. SM. Secondary Mediator
III. Department of Law (DoL)
i. CC. Court Contact
ii. BC. Budgetary Coordinator
iii. DD. Data Director
IV. Department of Faith (DoF)
i. OR. Outreach Recruiter
ii. MC. Master of Curriculum
iii. MT. Master of Tithes
V. Department of Restoration (DoR)
i. RC. Reformation Contact
ii. RO. Reformed Outreach
Service Tasks
Expounding duties of the staff; the service tasks for each Department will include:
Department of Decision (DoD)
(1) PD. Program Director – Responsible Authority
a. The Program Director is the responsible authority, and must be capable of:
i. initiating oversight over all stages of the process;
ii. obtaining information from associate director; and,
iii. maintain responsibility for each step and the conduct of every department throughout the process.
(2) AD. Associate Director
a. the Associate Director must be capable of:
i. relaying faith-based strategies to the primary mediator;
ii. interfacing with the outreach recruiter; master of curriculum; and primary mediator.
Department of Communications (DoC)
(3) PM. Primary Mediator
a. the primary mediator must be responsible for:
i. oversight of the secondary mediator;
ii. relaying information between the associate director; and secondary mediator.
(4) SM. Secondary Mediator
a. must be capable of:
i. initiating oversight over the Legal Department; and Department of Faith; and,
ii. acting as the liaison for all the subsidiary departments, (e.g. DoL; DoF; DoR).
Department of Law (DoL)
(5) CC. Court Contact
a. must be capable of:
i. mediating between offenders and the courts, to assist in providing reputable Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI);
ii. coordinating between corrections facilities and faith-based fellowship directors;
iii. managing communications between Department of Restoration (DoR); parolees; and their parole officers.
(6) BC. Budgetary Coordinator
a. responsible for:
i. producing annual program packages for governor; and,
ii. each budget is presented to Associate Director (AD) for Program Director (PD).
(7) DD. Data Director
a. responsible for
i. data collection, and data analytics;
ii. data privacy and information security; and,
iii. ideally, this position would be filled by an attorney with a computer programming or information technology (IT) background.
Department of Faith (DoF)
(8) OR. Outreach Recruiter
a. Must relay:
i. information and data to master of curriculum;
ii. must consistently pursue an updated curriculum with consideration to current application being conducted by:
1. faith-based institutions;
2. Christian organizations; and,
3. Churches.
(9) MT. Master of Tithes
a. Responsible for:
i. Attaining donations from donors;
ii. promoting fundraising initiatives; and,
iii. ensuring donor financial strategies remain effective, and adjust them accordingly.
(10) MC. Master of Curriculum
a. The Master of Curriculum is responsible for:
i. formulating retributive, rehabilitative and restorative curriculums; and,
ii. working with the Outreach Recruiter to obtain updates to curriculum for participants.
Department of Restoration (DoR)
(11) RC. Reformation Contact
a. The Reformation Contact must be:
i. consistently pursuing research of cases eligible for ATI;
ii. consistently pursue candidacy of potentially eligible inmates; and parolees.
(12) RO. Reformed Outreach
a. Qualifying candidates (id est previous parolees) will provide testimonies of their experiences throughout the process, and of working with the Reformation Contact to new potential candidates.
For this prospective program to be successful in stopping recidivism in new York City, the data and curriculum must originate—with consistent updates based on performance—from grassroots bottom-up approach. This policy will specifically address recidivism prevention from within the individual; whereas its policy enforcement comes from a top-down approach, in conjunction with the New York City Courts and Criminal Justice System.
Christian organizations and institutions ought to curate their own method of reform in correlation with law enforcement. Thus, parolees may opt for court-mandated self-reformation; including reliability and communicability to temporal worldly authorities, like parole officers. By adhering to Biblical principles, offenders will have the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves; rather than choose temporary legal incapacitation until they can return to their life of criminality.
Provisions and Procedures
Criminal sanctions will be proposing an offer to deter incarceration through faith-based alternatives to incarceration qualifying offenders. This offer will work in coordination with existing faith-based organizations, churches, and Christian institutions. Policymakers needn’t consider the curriculum of faith-based institutions; instead the qualifying offender will be required to meet a series of checkpoints; ensuring his consistent progress. These checkpoints include regular communication with parole officers, and meet any other required criteria imposed by the court. Thus, rehabilitative policy can be achieved through the fulfillment of court mandated checkpoints at every stage of the criminal justice process; further subgrouped into three categories: (a) phase one; (b) phase two; and (c) phase three. The first, (a) phase one—will target active cases in the courts; offering an option for simultaneous retribution and rehabilitation. The second, (b) phase two—will target inmates currently in the corrections system; also offering an option for simultaneous retribution and rehabilitation, while considering the steps to restoration. The third, (c) phase three—will consider those exiting the criminal justice system, and returning to society; focusing simultaneously on restoration and rehabilitation.
This policy will feature three phases, each ascending the individual to a greater position of personal accountability and responsibility to their community.
o In (a) Phase One, (x) offenders may opt for faith-based alternative to incarceration (ATI) programs.
o In (b) Phase Two, (y) inmates may opt for attaining a degree from an accredited university with a Christ-centered curriculum.
o In (c) Phase Three, (z) parolees may opt for Christian restorative programs to assist in reintegration back into society.
· Convicts at any phase may opt out; instead selecting legal incapacitation, with the option for restorative faith-based programs upon release.
· (a) Phase One, faith-based alternative to incarceration (ATI) programs will be court-mandated if the offender is willing to exchange participation for precluding imprisonment;
· (b) Phase Two, fellowship programs for internal corrections will better prepare (y) inmates for faith-based contribution both internally and following their release;
· (c) Phase Three, will enact simultaneous accountability to the Department of Restoration (DoR), and fulfillment of checkpoints from the court. Under this provision, (z) parolees must be willing to take personal responsibility to better their lives; including regular contact with their parole officer.
Phase One. The phase one (a) rehabilitative iniatiative will consider qualifying participants both before entering and those whose cases are already within the courts. This means criminal offenders convicted of violating law, if eligible may opt for a Court-mandated Alternative to Incarceration (ATI). Through weekly Christian counseling sessions, and restitution back to the community through participating in outreach. The New York Division of Criminal Justice reports currently, “[t]he priority function of all the pretrial services programs is to determine defendant eligibility for release and to provide verifiable information such as the defendant's community ties with regard to residence and employment. The information provided to the courts is critical to the courts in determining whether” a participant is eligible for an alternative to incarceration. Here, a Christ-centered approach will ensure the effect is lasting and not temporal. The policy’s additive of faith in a higher power appears to be a significant—if not the sole determining factor—in whether a parolee returns to criminal behavior, or maintains the path to fully redeem their attainment of liberty.
Phase Two. The phase two (b) hybrid rehabilitative-restorative initiative will target inmates; and ought to conduct itself in a similar manner to that of the Rockefeller Institute of Government. The post-conviction sentence itself should be retribution; thus providing opportunity for rehabilitation and prepare inmates for post-sentence restoration as they return to society better prepared. The Rockefeller Institute of Government reports that “College-in-prison programs are run by accredited universities and colleges, and allow participants to earn college degrees intended to facilitate positive real-world outcomes outside of the criminal justice system. Reduced rates of recidivism and increased employment opportunities are among the most cited benefits of providing higher education to incarcerated individuals,” (RockInst). Whereas the Rockefeller Institute of Government utilizes accredited universities, this policy will utilize accredited faith based institutions, to offer the same prospective interests of earning a college degree while in prison; from a Christ-based perspective.
Rather than invoking further deprivation of rights; inmates can be offered an opportunity to bolster their rights upon returning back to society. As L.T. Winfree, Jr. writes, “[t]he five main deprivations of incarceration are goods and services, liberty, autonomy, security, and relationships. The deprivation model suggests that prisoners will try to circumvent the pains of imprisonment by getting involved in gangs, same-sex relationships, and the sub rosa economy to make their post-conviction sentence more bearable, (Winfree, Jr. L.T., p. 346). It is harrowing facts like these that ought decree a system of restorative policy, despite critical bias against criminals for their actions and imprisonment. Better preparing inmates for their release through offering decrees from accredited universities.
Phase Three. The phase three (c) retributive initiative will target parolees, and be court-mandated faith-based programs created by the Church, Christian organizations; and institutions. This phase will craft the steps to developing a personal relationship with God, whilst recognizing the steps to contributing back their abilities unto society, alongside the understanding of the purpose of civic engagement. At this point, participants should be willing to undergo personal restoration and take responsibility. Those who declined previous participation in phase two are still eligible for this alternative to traditional release court conditions.
L.T. Winfree, Jr. reports that “boot camp programs” implemented “between 1982 and 2010, were found to be ineffective in reducing long-term recidivism and were too expensive to justify keeping them open,” (Winfree, Jr., L.T., pp. 280, 281). Dissimilarly, here in this policy proposal, the burden falls on the participant to reform themselves from the inside out. The parolee is far likely to ascribe to restorative measures through counseling that facilitates a personal relationship with God, rather than one focusing on retributive thinking. Court-mandated checkpoints will be attained through the assistance of the Church and other Christian organizations and institution. Since “the 1960s, experts [have] acknowledged the harmful effects of long-term mental health institutionalization for persons who no longer posed a danger to themselves or others,” (Winfree, Jr., L.T., p. 270).
Today, many convicts with mental illness often enter the corrections system, adding to the increasing problems for both corrections and parole officers. A Christ centered program that engages in weekly counseling, outreach, and checkpoints will allow greater individual accountability, improve self-value, and acknowledge the importance of every citizen’s contribution to upholding a civilized society. Total restoration requires the personal will to improve, possessing a different personal image, and striving to live like Jesus.
In sum, this policy targets the long-term restoration of New York City convicts. Specifically, presenting Christian alternatives to traditional “positivist reform.” Stopping recidivism and recuring criminality in New York City will require the facilitation of shifting the mindset of parolees, ex-convicts, and felons to stand before the Lord, and recognize that they, too, are children of God. The implementation Christian oversight will assist the parolee in maintaining his path of righteousness, and establish a meaningful responsibility within the Christian community to curate obligation, reliability, and personal accountability. These actions will better prepare the convict in all phases for reintegration into society. Moreover, the enactment of this policy will formulate the necessary departments required to achieve the desired outcome objective. Most importantly, it will better position the participant to recontribute back to the society that was criminally violated—completing the circle of Criminal Justice, thereby succeeding in achievement of criminal reformation.
IV. IDENTIFYING RESOURCES AND EXAMINING COSTS
Stopping recidivism in New York City must address three stages of Criminal Justice. These three interconnected stages include (a) convicted offenders; (b) inmates; and (c) parolees. Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) will lower the costs of incarceration, and unclog appeals from the Courts. Faith-Based College-Degrees will lower the costs of incarceration, and reduce the cost of programs following release. Parolees eligible to participate in faith-based restorative programs will lower the cost in two areas: (1) the cost of rehabilitative resources; and (2) future court costs following a parolee’s rearrest
Required Resources
Funding ATI Programs for Convicted Offenders
A Christian based policy initiative to halt recidivism in New York City does not require more funding; instead, it requires proper allocation of funding. Whilst many organizations, like the New York ATI Reentry Coalition (NYATIRC) believes that “New York State should invest $16 Million, plus $200,000 for a comprehensive study of needs, to begin the process of becoming the [first] State in the nation to bring ATI and reentry services to scale,” (LAC).
The success rate of previous programs proves that this needn’t be the case. Accepting no alternative other An ATI report developed by The Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACEI) at Georgetown University and prepared for the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice reveals that “[s]ocial rewards, such as a letter to the individual or an authority figure, or reduced treatment or supervision can reduce costs for programs while providing meaningful rewards for clients,” (CriminalJustice). The report adds that “[f]ishbowls” can “help to ensure that rewarding individuals remains cost effective,” (CriminalJustice). The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services define this as a “process where individuals who are engaging in the desired behavior are eligible to draw from a fishbowl or hat with the incentive items written on slips of paper. Most of the items will have minimal monetary value (Petry & Bohn, 2003),” (CriminalJustice).
Funding Degree Programs for Inmates
The cost of a college degree program for inmates is around $5000 annually. A faith-based college degree program should be no different. This would better prepare inmates for restoration back into society; and allow them to better acclimate to parolee expectations. This would, thus greatly contribute to the reduction of lower recidivism throughout New York City. The Justice Policy Institute writes that “[a]ccording to the City of New York Department of Correction, the average annual cost per jail inmate is $62,595. By contrast, some ATI services cost as little as $1,400 to $13,000 per person served,” (JusticePolicy). Hudson Link provides access to higher education for inmates. The organization writes that by “[p]artnering with accredited New York State colleges, Hudson Link delivers quality undergraduate education that is cost-effective. Educating a full-time undergraduate student is estimated to cost $5,000 annually. Nationally, over 67% of formerly incarcerated people return to prison within three years of their initial release date. However, less than 2% of Hudson Link graduates return to prison for a new crime within this three-year period,” (HudsonLink).
The benefit, as intended by a faith-based college education whilst incarcerated, resembles the objective outcomes of Hudson Link. The organization reports that “alumni return to their families and communities as role models, and 85% are gainfully employed in the field of social services within three months of release,” (HudsonLink). New York University (NYU) has formed the The New York University Prison Education Program (NYU PEP), a “multi-partner, cross-university initiative that offers free college courses to incarcerated, and formerly incarcerated students,” (PrisonEducation). New York University has created a sustainable approach to their prison education system. The university writes that “[t]he Prison Education Program at NYU is generously funded through external grant money and private donations, as well as in-kind support. Our students receive full-tuition scholarships, living stipends, and other forms of financial aide to support their professional and educational goals post-release,” (PrisonEducation). The implementation of a Christ-centered college education will take NYU’s approach, thereby allocating funds by donations. The Department of Faith (DoF) will be responsible for carrying out these measures; specifically the Master of Tithes (MT).
Funding Restorative Programs for Parolees
Parolee programs must consider supervision fees and other factors that may contribute to costs. One method is the parolee could fund their own restorative program; placing the parolee into an immediate position of responsibility and obligation. This would make it less likely for recuring crime to occur. This concept has been initiated in New York by the State’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS); citing that “New York State has enacted a law (Correction Law, Section 201 [9]) requiring parolees to pay a monthly supervision fee. Generally, parolees are expected to pay $30 per month,” (DOCCS). The DOCCS adds that “[Parole Officers] will discuss the supervision fees with parolees, how the fee is to be paid, and in certain circumstances, where individuals may obtain a temporary or permanent waiver due to disability, financial circumstances, unemployment, or other qualifying financial hardship,” (DOCCS).
Acquisition of Resources
To achieve a robust system of sustainable funding, various methods of attaining appropriations annually must be achieved. Proprietary positions must focus their efforts on the consistent multi-sourced acquisition of appropriations.
The Acquisition Process
According to the State of New York’s website, its budget process uses an “executive budget model.” New York State writes that “[u]nder this system, the Executive is responsible for developing and preparing a comprehensive, balanced budget proposal, which the Legislature modifies and enacts into law,” (Budget). In New York, “[t]he Governor is required by the State Constitution to seek and coordinate requests from agencies of State government, develop a ‘complete’ plan of proposed expenditures and the revenues available to support them (a ‘balanced budget’), and submit a budget to the Legislature along with the appropriation bills and other legislation required to carry out budgetary recommendations.” (Budget). Moreover, “[t]he Governor is also required by the State Finance Law to manage the budget through administrative actions during the fiscal year,” (Budget). But this should not be the only means of funding attained by this project.
Authorization and Oversight. Further, New York relies on sub-departmental staff to prepare “individual program requests,” (Budget). The New York State Division of the Budget (DOB) adds that “[t]he head of the agency or its top fiscal officer may hold internal hearings at which program managers outline their budgetary needs,” (Budget). Thus, the Department of Decision’s (DoD) Program Director (PD) will be responsible for authorizing all budgetary proposal and funding sources. This is the sole individual who bears responsibility for every individual within its operation.
Annual Budget Requests. The Department of Law’s (DoL) Budgetary Contact (BC) will be responsible for interfacing with the New York State administration and local New York City government to request annual appropriations. The Budgetary Contact will formulate individual program requests to the New York State Division of the Budget (DOB) for its annual consideration.
Attaining Donations. The Department of Faith’s (DoF) Master of Tithes (MT) will be responsible for campaigning for donations. The Master of Tithes (MT) will contact local Christian organizations and Churches to gain funding. Moreover, companies can donate money and products for participants for various companies’ promotion and marketing campaigns.
Current Appropriations. The budget ought not change annually to ensure the most effective means of reformation. A properly allocated annual budget should preclude concern over the longevity of the program. Moreover, donations can be invested into the furthering of the program at the will of New York City’s citizens; based on the visible success of this program.
To achieve this, the New York City Council must re-fund their programs, including alternatives to incarceration (ATI). The New York City Council states that “There are several programs that face cuts or inadequate funding, which the Council prioritized in its Preliminary Budget Response but were left out of the Mayor’s FY25 Executive Budget,” (Council).
On April 20th, 2024 the New York Senate reported that programs currently in effect to reduce “recidivism and improving workforce reentry” include: (1) “[i]nvesting $7.1 million to provide more intensive supervision for individuals on parole through the Supervision Against Violent Engagement (SAVE) program;” (2) “[e]xpanding transitional housing and college programming across all state prisons;” and (3) allocating “$1 million for transportation for visitors to and from State Correctional Facilities,” (Senate).
On May 17th, 2024 the New York City Council requested “for the Administration to restore $14.7 million in funding for programs that reduce recidivism,” (Council). The New York City Council cites that “[t]hese include $8 million for reentry programs that reduce recidivism by ensuring that people transitioning from incarceration can successfully return to their communities;” alongside another “$6.7 million for Alternative to Incarceration programs that intervene with services tailored to participants that can help reduce unnecessary incarceration and recidivism,” (Council). Specifically the New York City Council cites that “these programs took a nearly $28 million cut and were only partially restored in the Executive Budget,” (Council). The City’s Council cites that following the pandemic most volunteer programs lost their funding; including “Volunteer programs, such as Alternatives to Violence Project, were suspended because of COVID-19. Guest speakers for Narcotics Anonymous or educational programs ceased visiting because of the pandemic. Reduced programming opportunities turned rehabilitation into an empty hope for many incarcerated people, (Council).
As L.T. Winfree, Jr. writes “Since 2007, many states have turned to new policies intended to reverse corrections growth while also containing costs (Pew Center on the States 2018). Diversion from prison was one such policy shift,” (Winfree, Jr., L.T., p. 392).
Timeframe
This policy initiative must be enacted, re-evaluated and revised within the first year. Every stage of this intervention should be subjected to strict annual scrutiny; and reworked accordingly to best fit the needs of the intervention—and the betterment of its participants. Convicted criminals’ eligibility to alternatives to incarceration (ATI) ought to be re-evaluated quarterly, as data can be accumulated each court case; procuring a large quantity of data. Thus, quarterly assessments can be analyzed by the Department of Law’s (DoL) Data Director (DD); but will give annual policy revisions from its findings; given to the Department of Communications’ (DoC) Secondary Mediator (SM). The Data Director will assemble annual reports on the efficacy of faith-based corrections degree programs. Moreover, the Data Director will compile data on a quarterly basis, summarized on an annual basis for parolees, ensuring the efficiency of the intervention and allowing for its revision.
Welsh denotes three pertinent criteria ought to be addressed to ensure process objectives are conducive to the outcome objectives; including, “(1) all the specific implementation activities that need to be accomplished, (2) assignment of responsibility for each specific task to one or more individuals, and (3) a specific date by which each task is to be completed,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 254). It remains essential to set strict deadlines that must be met, in order to achieve progress and overcome stagnation. To ensure the staff remains on course throughout this process, until we are able to achieve the outcome objective that our stakeholders eagerly await: creating programs that contribute to the fundamental reduction of recidivism and recuring criminal activity in New York City; without relying on government intervention or legal incapacitation.
Gantt Chart
To ensure this is completed in a timely manner, Wayne Welsh suggests utilizing a Gantt Chart for placing the policy into practice. A Gantt Chart, notes Welsh; is “a blueprint for putting all the program or policy elements into operation;” thus literal “step-by-step instructions explaining how to implement the program,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 254). A Gantt Chart can be utilized to actualize the “develop[ment of] a program or policy timeline,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 254). An example of the Gantt Chart (seen below) can be actualized in practice. Here, representative dates are established to display each stage’s relativity throughout the process objective.
Mechanisms of Self-Regulation
The best methods of self-regulation are a clearly defined jurisdiction and timely internal communication. Moreover, holding one person accountable as the primary decision maker ensures every subgroup within the program initiative strives to fulfill their role to the best of their abilities.
Respective Roles
As Wayne Welsh writes, “[a]ll participants, both staff and clients, must understand their respective roles,” (Welsh & Harris, p 256). Welsh adds that “[l]eaders must: (1) clearly communicate the program’s rationale, values, and intent; (2) clarify the staff’s job descriptions; (3) spell out behavioral expectations, and specify rewards and punishments; and (4) allow staff to ask questions,” (Welsh & Harris, p 256). Therefore, only the Department of Decision’s (DoD) Program Director (PD) will be the sole individual responsible for authorization requests, and finalizing budgetary approval from subagencies within the program. Here, the Program Director has no authority; but is instead responsible for invoking authority over everyone within the program. To self-regulate the Program Director, the Associate Director will act as the liaison between the Program Director and the subagencies within this program. Moreover, the Program Director (PD) will be obligated to meet a series of annual checkpoints; and failure to fully achieve these annual checkpoints will result in termination of the Program Director.
Maintaining Morale
To bolster collective morale to all members within the program, 3% of all profits will be evenly distributed to every staff member in this program, as an annual performance bonus. This may not seem like a significant incentive, but it serves as a fiscal reminder of God’s Holy Trinity, and His protection over those who bear reverence in His faith. To offset the desire for staff members to aim for a purely fiscal profit, a mandatory 10% tithe will be imposed on all annual bonuses given. This tithe will be distributed back to Churches and faith-based organizations that work with us.
Critical Resistance
This program must anticipate—and welcome—critical resistance. Wayne Welsh reminds the reader that “[c]onflict is not something to be avoided at all costs. It may provide the opportunity to identify and resolve misunderstandings, and it may also point out difficulties in implementation that deserve attention,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 258). Here, resistance is likely to be found in proponents of legal incapacitation as a solution to solve crime. However, the citizens must pay for each inmate in their tax dollars. Thus, as Welsh notes, the solution is clear. If participants have more input in the planning process, “resistance can be anticipated and perhaps minimized. However, if resistance surfaces it should be dealt with fairly and seriously,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 258). But in all instances of critical conflict, it is important to address the direct source of the resistance. Public relation teams being able to display the decrease in recidivism and the rehabilitation and restoration of criminal offenders, inmates, and parolees, will speak for itself. Therefore, all thoughtful resistance must be considered. Welsh writes that “[r]esistance may come from any of the participants involved: clients, targets, even the program or agency’s own staff (i.e., the action system).” Welsh believes that the threat that spurs from change originates in the discomfort and uncertainty it invokes, (Welsh & Harris, pp. 257, 258). Welsh adds that “[c]hange challenges long-standing values and views of the world; it introduces risk,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 258). But sometimes that specific change is necessary to produce progress toward a universally beneficial outcome objective.
Overall, the budget to implement faith-based programs in three sectors of New York City’s Criminal Justice System does not need to change. The current standing budget can be utilized and its program allocations mirrored. A Gantt Chart can be used to ensure each process objective is achieved in a timely manner. Program outreach recruiters can rally support to obtain consistent donations—an act that will play an essential role in the longevity of the program and its resources. The Courts will benefit from the implementation of specific achievable objectives, namely the proper procurement and allocation of appropriations.
V. MONITORING THE PLAN
The stewardship and direct monitoring of each process objective is essential to the New York City program’s success. Through utilizing a system of Data collection, the success of each process objective can be observed. This will allow the staff to determine if the policy initiative was executed in accordance with its design. Moreover, it will ensure that the target population was reached. But to provide empirical evidence of its success will require the coordination of multiple parties within the program.
God created man with the ability to steward his resources. When the world was created, God tasked Adam to steward the land. The second chapter of the Bible reveals this, whereby “[t]he LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it,” (Genesis 2:15-16; NIV). Over one millennium later, the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Church of Colossae, carried this same message; scribing “[p]ut your heart and soul into every activity you do, as though you are doing it for the Lord himself and not merely for others,” (Colossians 3:23; TPT). Stewardship has transformed from tilling the land to tilling unto society and manifesting faith by testimony within our communities, by first-hand experience revelation can be pursued.
As Wayne Welsh denotes, “[h]istory has taught us that good intentions alone are insufficient: planning and implementing an intervention are two different things,” Welsh, W., p. 290). Whilst this policy advocates the planning of these good intentions; it must focus on the intervention’s implementation. The staff provisions “may overlap to some degree with decision authority and target identification;” hence the need for maintaining organization throughout the process, (Wayne & Harris, p. 222). Wayne Welsh adds that “[a]t the monitoring stage, we attempt to find out if the program or policy was implemented properly. Monitoring refers to the collection of information to determine to what degree the design or blueprint (the program or policy ‘on paper’) is being carried out as planned,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 295, 296). This will involve a great deal of training, specifically on the confidentiality and allocation of the participant’s sensitive information.
Data collection will help the average citizen better understand the benefits of community correction programs; and their effects on society. But data collection and its feedback mechanisms must be (1) secure, even after the participant leaves the recidivism program; (2) immediately and progressively beneficial; and (3) accessible to the general public. Community corrections programs are cost-effective; thus, they have become a permanent attribute of America’s contemporary system of Criminal Justice. L.T. Winfree, Jr., notes that “[c]ommunity corrections programs are definitely here to stay, as they not only provide a cost-effective alternative to incarceration but also are a legitimate sentence in their own right,” (Winfree, L.; p. 288). Therefore data instruments must be tuned prior to civic engagement; or basing further policy action on its results.
Data Collection Instruments
This program must collect data from throughout New York City to better understand the nature of recidivism, its pathogenesis, and the vulnerabilities of the problem itself—to best find a solution.
Convicts. This program must aim to target criminals convicted of committing a crime, and offer an indeterminate faith-based alternative. The use of trained observers could assist in the relaying of information where these interventions can be best applied. According to Willard M. Oliver, “[r]esearch has consistently found that minority neighborhoods do see higher numbers of arrests and the use of force,” (Oliver, W., p. 200). To achieve a reduction in recuring crime, “trained observers” should utilize (1) the narrative method; and then “[record the] events in detail, in the order in which they occur," (Welsh & Harris, p. 303). Utilizing this program to preclude further criminal behavior will reduce inmates and parolees; thus alternatives to incarceration (ATI) ought to be the initial focus of this intervention.
Inmates. The Queens Public Library remains a hub of generational data in outreach efforts within the city’s Criminal Justice System. The Queens Public Library has worked to assist inmates with outreach efforts for over a century; writing that the “Queens Public Library has provided outreach services to the criminal justice system . . . beginning in 1915 with the prison traveling library station” (QueensLibrary). Their efforts offer a wealth of data that can be applied to contemporary strategies, including current the Library’s efforts underway.
The Queens Public Library notes that their program is “[c]leverly named by the program’s first participants at Queensboro Correctional Facility[. Thus,] ‘See You on the Outside’ equips individuals preparing for reentry with a professional resume. Participants also receive a list of resources that are tailored to their previous work experience and skill sets and are encouraged to continue visiting with the Queens Public Library for personal assistance as they embark on their reentry goals,” (QueensLibrary).
The Queens Public Library works in partnership with Brooklyn Public Library, to “provide library services to patrons who are incarcerated at two Rikers Island Facilities,” (QueensLibrary). The Library’s plan works by “[e]ach participant [receiving] a smartphone that connects to online resources and services that assist with reentry, such as financial and transportation apps and the Library’s virtual programming. They will also receive a data plan, technology assistance, and job training that provides the information, skills, and resources needed to take important next steps,” (QueensLibrary). The Library notes their provision of “an in-person rolling cart library service, along with virtual and by-mail reference services,” working primarily based on donations, (QueensLibrary).
Parolees. The Queens Public Library notes that “[t]he Correctional Outreach Team extends library services to both the Queens Division of Parole and the Department of Probation during orientation sessions held at each respective organization’s location. Individuals in attendance can obtain a library card, referrals to trainings, and information on upcoming workshops and programs offered at the library,” (QueensLibrary). The Library also offers “[a] program for people impacted by the justice system who are connected to Southeast Queens,” (QueensLibrary). The Public Library assists “people impacted by the justice system” with getting an ID, and is funded by Khaleel Anderson, state Assembly Member for the 31st District (QueensLibrary). The Queens Library, armed with one hundred years of data, gives unprecedented insight into the necessary elements of focus to ensure longevity of the faith-based initiative. Welsh writes of the data's importance, that “[o]bservational data may provide a rich and detailed source of information about program activities and policy provisions. By observational data, we mean that evaluators and/or trained observers actually participate in or observe the program or policy in operation,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 303). Further, these “[o]bservers must be trained in how to make observations and how to record their observations. We need some systematic method for making and recording observations. Three main observational techniques are possible: (1) the narrative method, (2) the data guide method, and (3) the structured rating scheme (Sherman & Berk, 1984),” (Welsh & Harris, p. 303). Implementation of the data guide method will allow for the “evaluator or change agent” to specific questions positioned to observers, (Welsh & Harris, p. 303). Enacting the structured rating scheme is the “most constrained” of all methods, (Welsh & Harris, p. 304).
Wayne Welsh informs the reader that, “[d]ata (e.g., observations, surveys, interviews) [is] collected to find out what is actually being delivered to clients (the program or policy in action),” (Welsh & Harris, p. 296). This will assist in the elimination of gaps between the process objectives and the outcome objective. Welsh believes “[s]ervice record data [has] at least two advantages: such data is (1) inexpensive, and (2) easily obtainable,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 305). Whilst data remains easily obtainable, this program must consider the security of its storage; albeit inexpensive, the security of data ought to a primary factor considered in the cost of the enactment of this program.
Fiscal Monitoring
An essential component of this intervention is the proper utilization of its funding. Not in that it will require more monetary appropriations; but in the sense that its current funding needs to be reported with strict scrutiny to best allocate the annual budget given. This program will ensure to generate regular financial reports that are required by both award and Federal regulations, (Welsh & Harris, pp. 289, 310).
According to the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice’s (MOCJ) Fiscal Manual, notes that “[t]he Fiscal Unit, under the direction of the Fiscal Director, is responsible for monitoring the financial compliance of vendors serviced under MOCJ human services contracts and for processing payments related to contracts and other billable services. The MOCJ’s Fiscal Unit performs two major functions: Accounts Payable and Fiscal Field Reviews,” (NYC, p. 3). The Fiscal Unit’s methodology of financial compliance of vendors will be replicated within this program. New York City’s “[d]iscretionary funding, [is] a duly-appropriated sum of money in the City’s expense budget where the total monetary value for discretionary contract awards, [and one that] is predetermined by the New York City Council and [its] total contract amount cannot be negotiated,” (CriminalJustice). Yet, New York City’s City Council gives annual discretionary funding to select entities, writing “[e]ach year the New York City Council awards discretionary funds to nonprofit organizations to meet local needs,” (CriminalJustice). This symbiosis caters to institutions and bureaucratic discretion. Hence, this policy initiative will eliminate discretionary funding, and enumerate the precise allocation where each appropriation or donation will be applied. Programs for convicted criminal offenders; participating inmates; and parolees will be furthered through annual revision dependent on performance data and assessment. Alas the definition of discretionary funding must be specified. Black’s Law dictionary reveals the definition of “discretion” to be “[w]ise conduct and management exercised without constraint; the ability coupled with the tendency to act with prudence and propriety. Freedom in the exercise of judgment; the power of free decision-making,” (Garner, B., p. 585). The City of New York’s discretion must be reimagined. This policy initiative aims to reject the pattern of discretionary funding and spending; as decision-based monetary transactions seem vulnerable to coercion in its nature; judging by the ineffectiveness of the city’s efforts to decrease recidivism throughout the city, after nearly a century of “progress.” Thus, discretionary spending must be precluded from the policy initiative.
Beyond finances, the data obtained in this program is priceless; therefore must be protected under secure procedures and undefiant staff. As Welsh gives notice to the reader “[s]trict procedures must be developed for handling, using, and storing such information,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 317). Welsh reports that “[h]istory has taught us that good intentions alone are insufficient: planning and implementing an intervention are two different things,” (Welsh, W., p. 290). Thus, the program’s intentions are there; and have remained a representative factor for decades to no avail. Therefore, this proposal strives to specify the prerequisites for the implementation of the strategically coordinated intervention. Welsh reminds the policymaker that “[i]t is necessary to have a sound accounting and financial reporting system in place prior to implementation of the intervention (see Section ‘Resource Planning,’ Chapter 4), and it is necessary to comply fully with the reporting requirements of the funding agency,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 309).
Data Collection Responsibility
Service record data must be used responsibly to monitor the records kept by data collectors. The responsibility of the data collected is imperative to the process. The participant’s must be justly assured that their private information will remain confidential; this assertion must remain valid indefinitely. As Wayne Welsh defines, “[s]ervice record data refers to written, typed, or computerized records that are kept by staff,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 305). Welsh concludes that “[s]omeone must take responsibility to make sure the job gets done,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 315).
Therefore, the Program Director (PD) will incur all burden throughout the data collection process. Moreover, the Program Director (PD) will maintain indefinite responsibility for the data after the participant exits the program; and any durations that exceed beyond the existence of this program. The Program Director (PD) is personally responsible for securing and destroying all data, should a participant drop out from the program; or the program itself be dissolved.
But the roles must each work toward the outcome objective of total rehabilitation. Reducing recidivism begins with the individual. A grassroots approach to stopping crime begins with deterring the criminal. Rather than legal incapacitation or deterrence; retributive, restorative, and rehabilitative policies would allow for a personal reformation to occur before an individual returns to the community without oversight.
The Department of Law’s (DoL) Data Director (DD) must be tasked to fulfill this duty. The Data Director (DD), working alongside the Budgetary Coordinator (BC) and Court Contact (CC); make up the Department of Law (DoL). The Data Director must be well versed in data analytics; confidential procedure; and U.S. law. Ideally, this position would be filled by an attorney with a computer programming background.
A Brief Hierarchy of Data Collection Responsibilities
I. Decision Authority (DA)
i. PD. Program Director
ii. AD. Associate Director
II. Department of Communications (DoC)
i. PM. Primary Mediator
ii. SM. Secondary Mediator
III. Department of Law (DoL)
i. CC. Court Contact
ii. BC. Budgetary Coordinator
iii. DD. Data Director
Detailed Overview of Each Data Collection Role
The Decision Authority (DA) will consist of two parties, the (1) Program Director (PD) and the (2) Associate Director (AD). The (1) Program Director (PD) assumes the burden of total responsibility, both moral and legal, over the data collection process. The (2) Associate Director (AD) compiles requests from the designated representatives from each Department. Here, specific focus exists on the Department of Law (DoL).
The Department of Communications (DoC) will consist of two parties; the (1) Primary Mediator (PM), and the (2) Secondary Mediator (SM). The (1) Primary Mediator (PM) is responsible for receiving monthly reports from the Secondary Mediator (SM). The (2) Secondary Mediator (SM) is responsible for receiving monthly reports from the Court Contact (CC), Budgetary Coordinator (BC), and Data Director (DD).
The Department of Law (DoL) will consist of three parties; the (1) Court Contact (CC), the (2) Budgetary Coordinator (BC), and the (3) Data Director (DD). The (1) Court Contact (CC) is responsible for coordinating cases with the courts to determine inmate eligibility. Once an inmate is determined a participant for the program, their data will be reserved on an encrypted server throughout their journey through the Criminal Justice system. Upon the participant’s release, or should a participant decide to end further participation the program; the data will be anonymized. This will allow for the further of the program, without the potential to infringe on the sovereignty of any citizen. Regarding Data Collection, the Court Contact will report all findings to the Data Director. The (2) Budgetary Coordinator (BC) will receive all necessary data pertaining to the participants funding, and any additional expenses required throughout the process. Regarding Data Collection, the Budgetary Coordinator (BC) will report all findings to the Data Director (DD). The (3) Data Director (DD) is responsible for relaying all data to the Secondary Mediator (SM; to be reviewed and directed to the Associate Director. Ultimately, this will be seen by the Program Director, who bears personal responsibility over the entire program. The information will be stored on encrypted servers; but its visibility will remain consistently updated and accessible to the general public.
Information System Capacities
The information systems that will be used will include a digital array of categorical factors to best place a candidate into the best program. This process will be equal no matter the stage within the system of Criminal Justice the participant exists in. Offenders, inmates, and parolees morally opposed to the idea of finding Jesus ought not be forced; as this defeats the purpose altogether. Alternative means will always exists aside from this initiative; hence the importance of the willingness of the participant. Wayne Welsh writes that the “[i]nformation collected from monitoring analysis is vital for modifying the program or policy to correct any implementation gaps detected,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 301).
These information systems will utilize the data collections monitoring instruments—including observational data, service record data, service provider data, and participant data—to evaluate the information obtained directly from participants, (Welsh & Harris; pp. 302-308).
As it is written in the New Testament, scribed by the Apostle Paul; “[y]ou have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, ‘Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!’? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires,” (Colossians 2:20-23; NLT).
Feedback Mechanisms
Various methods of feedback mechanisms can be enacted to ensure total comprehension of their performance, the performance of their participants, and where specifically the implemented program services fall short. According to Wayne Welsh, a “staff may be more receptive to doing the work if they find out that they receive useful feedback about client performance, program services, and their own performance,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 316).
God decrees provision Paul encourages us to steward feedback “[t]hink about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. And when Christ, who is your life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory. So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you,” (Colossians 3:2-5a; NLT).
The New York Department of Health (DOH) utilizes “[i]nteractive infographics, real-time data feeds, and annual reports on important environmental health topics,” (NYC.gov). Similarly, New York City’s program to halt recidivism would offer interactive infographics, real-time data feeds, and annual reports on the percentage of increase of decrease in recuring Crime.
The New York City (NYC) Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice pledges to “[make] criminal justice system data available to all New Yorkers,” (CriminalJustice). The NYC Mayor’s office website boasts that the interface “[i]ncludes historical data on rearrest and recidivism rates within a year, with a highlight on violent felony offense and gun possession charges going back to 2009,” (CriminalJustice). But the data offered is available through a Microsoft Excel Data Spreadsheet. The Mayor’s office offers little (if any) accessibility for those wanting an brief summary or visual overview; thus gatekeeping the information to analytical technicians—not the general public. This egregious oversight must be addressed to further this policy agenda; and make data more accessible to the public. Thus, the data procured throughout the duration of this program must be prioritized to be (1) confidentially secure; but (2) observably accessible.
In sum, monitoring data needn’t be overly technical; lest precluding the general public from interfacing and benefiting from its consistent reporting. Granting access to the public is the most effective way to self-regulate the progression of this program. The Queens Library offers over a century of observable data, techniques, and strategies that ought to be considered in this policy’s implementation. But the data must be protected at all costs, without compromise. Inmates and Parolees are most likely to benefit from these procedures; however, convicted criminals also remain eligible to opt for Christ-centered Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI). Anyone undergoing personal reformation through Christ to combat the influence to re-engage in criminal behavior following their programs—whether ATI, corrections, or parole—should follow a similar pathway to reformation that places God at the center of the program, and facilitates personal accountability through divine obligation. The bottom line, the data should be safe; no matter what legal condition the participant may find themselves faced with. Monitoring data is essential to progress, success, and public trust. It requires an individual commitment to justice—established not only in the gathered observational data but the total essence of the participant. The policy will require a state of self-regulation for both the participant and the policymaker.
VI. EVALUATING OUTCOMES
New York City’s recidivism must be assessed in three stage of intervention. First, (1) offenders that are eligible for Christian Alternative to Incarceration, (ATI); second, (2) inmates that pursue degrees from faith-based institutions; and third, (3) parolees undergoing a Christ centered restorative policy. Yet, all three instances must be assessed differently.
New York City can target the monitoring of three independent goals; thus diminishing recidivism throughout the city. First, (1) offenders can be assessed with impact evaluation, allowing the results to depict their progress before and after. Second, (2) inmate interventions can undergo both efficiency analysis and continuous evaluation. Third, (3) parolees will be subject to continuous evaluation, ensuring they maintain course throughout the intervention. The programs themselves ought to be personally compelling, invoking engagement within the participant. Wayne Welsh writes that “programs are more than activities . . . [and] can affect a client’s experience . . . [thus] consequently affect[ing] program outcomes,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 359). Specifically, the various forms of evaluations when expounded entail the specific focus required within each assessment to ensure progress and success in every participant alongside the intervention.
Types of Evaluation
As Wayne Welsh notes, this policy initiative must take “one of three major approaches: (1) impact assessment, (2) continuous evaluation, or (3) efficiency analysis. Another type of evaluation, process evaluation, focuses on whether a program was implemented as it was designed. Process evaluations are not intended to measure program effectiveness,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 354, 355).
(1) Impact assessment means “compar[ing] actual outcomes to [the] desired outcomes (objectives), (Welsh & Harris, p. 355). This will require quantifying “the desired outcomes” and gaining “information about the status of clients on these measures prior to their exposure to the intervention,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 355). But impact evaluation is limited to the instance that the samples were taken; thus further methods exist for real-time assessment, (Welsh & Harris, p. 356).
(2) Continuous evaluation provides stakeholders more information on the viability of the intervention’s success, (Welsh & Harris, p. 356). Welsh writes that “comparisons of programs over time generate more information about why certain outcomes are being produced, Welsh & Harris, p 357). Continuous evaluation is conducive to a Biblical worldview, as God remains continuously present in our lives, no matter our decisions.
(3) Efficiency analysis will describe “cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses,” whether progress has been achieved, and the necessary steps required to produce a more cost-effective model, Welsh & Harris, p. 357). These questions must consider if “the change that is being produced” is “worth the cost,” Welsh & Harris, p. 357).
Three Prerequisites
Three prerequisites for evaluation must be met; including specific clear and measurable objectives. These three interventions are (1) a clear design; (2) meaningful, logical, and comprehensive; and (3) present empirical evidence that can leave no doubt that “critical elements have been delivered to clients as planned,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 360). The intervention will, by design, produce changes in the processes for all three categories of prospective participants.
Convicts, inmates, and parolees must all produce tangible benefit from this process. Subproblems, like a participant’s unwillingness to comply (or even subtle resistance to the agenda) can incur foreseeable obstacles. The intervention must be properly implemented to ensure that the program’s policy is not only conducive to reduce recuring criminality in theory, but that it produces empirical results that can be quantified and referenced in comparison to non-participants. Despite the ability to evaluate this program’s outcome; policymakers and participants must remember that “[o]ne weakness of many impact evaluations is that their results are limited to a specific point in time,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 356). Something that worked in one season, is likely to face obstacles in another; thus, policymakers, staff, and the program participants should anticipate these changes through annual revision. Recidivism mustn’t not look at information from the past; but consider the point that the program was implemented, and compare its results with its present state, (Welsh & Harris, pp. 355, 356). But the prospect to evaluate the changes in recidivism must be evaluated independently from its theory. Although an intervention may sound prophetic; it must actualize success; thereby reducing recidivism rates throughout New York City.
As the Apostle Paul scribes in the New Testament, “[l]et two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people,” (1 Corinthians 14:29-33; NLT). Policy interventions ought to invoke the same approach that has historically proven reliable throughout recorded history. A viable solution needn’t reinvent the wheel; but rather target specific components that neglect oversight; thus contribute to the furthering detriment of recidivism in New York City.
Measuring Outcome
Evaluability Assessment
Wayne Welsh notes that “[a]n evaluability assessment is a method for uncovering actual program components and isolating those elements that can be measured (Wholey, 1994). This evaluable model of the program is the program that is tested in the evaluation. Any program elements that cannot be measured are put aside,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 361, 362).
For this intervention, (1) convicts seeking ATI; (2) inmates pursuing college degrees; and (3) parolees that have committed to restoration, will be measured by isolating each element within the intervention and comparing the success rates to convicts, inmates, and parolees who refused participation. Moreover, this data will allow policymakers to consider if this is truly effective, and are not just functional in theory. This process will require an overview of all resource materials, and the conducting interviews with representatives of each element within the program. An evaluability assessment often include “reading written documents that describe the program,” and casefiles, whilst interviewing both staff and program clients, (Welsh & Harris, p. 361). Welsh opines that “[a]lthough an impact evaluation can tell us about the success or failure of a particular program, we can’t be sure what components of the program are causing the observed outcomes,” Welsh & Harris, p. 359).
Logic Modeling
A logic model can be used to ensure strategic and program planning, effective communications, effective planning, a continuous learning and improvement, (Welsh & Harris, p. 364). Further, a second assessment is often conducted prior to the evaluation study, (Welsh & Harris, p. 364). Logic modeling will help to clarify the restricting of the program based on its performance. The implemented logic model ought to consider the problem, any subproblems, activities, output measures, and outcome measures. A logic model when focusing on the problem, will consider the specific number of individuals that return to prison after participating in the intervention versus those who have not undergone participation. Moreover, these goals can be converted to more specific objectives. The subproblems, can look at convicts, inmates, and parolees that have failed to acclimate to the intervention. This can ensure that the goals are converted to objectives; thus producing measurable outcomes. Activities assess the actual rate that participants return to society. This ensures that the program while faith-based, provides the necessary training to allow participants to enter the job industry without bias.
Output measurement must be calculated both short-term and long-term. In short term, it can be used to assess changes. (E.g. How have various policy changes contributed to the efficiency of this intervention? Does this implemented change need to be invoked across all three phases of the intervention?) These changes could be in attitudes, awareness, and the proactivity of pursing a job, and the personal betterment of the participant, (Welsh & Harris, p. 363). Long term measurements can address and compare participants who have notably change with those merely passively participating in the process. Long-term data must be take priority when assessing and evaluating the success of various attributes of the intervention. Recidivism is a recuring problem that occurs long-term; thus its data must be assessed. The output measurement in reducing recidivism in New York must continuously observe long-term data; similarly applying Cohort and Time Series Design to maximize the intervention’s efficacy.
A report from West Virginia University Press published in 2019 indicated that evaluators “used logistical regression to evaluate the potential for recidivism based on numerous factors in addition to treatment,” (Miller, A., p. 419). The first study group (x) reported that “participants receiving the treatment were statistically significantly less likely (p = .04) to recidivate than their peers one month after release. Ultimately, 66% of the treatment group recidivated by three months post-release (whereas 87% of the nontreatment group recidivated),” (Miller, A., p. 419). Yet, the records show that 62% of the second treatment group (y) “remained in their communities at 36 months post-release. However, it is important to recognize that the intervention used by [the first group; (x)] was executed in a detention facility, whereas [the second group; (y)] was utilized in a corrections facility,” (Miller, A., p. 419).
Here, The logic model will allow convicts, inmates, and parolees to enter a dynamic intervention that updates based on its own performance; rather than a one-size-fits all solution to halt recuring crime in New York City. Yet the implementation of this intervention also must do its best consider the preclusion of potential confounding factors.
New York City’s (NYC) Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice’s (MOCJ) evaluating strategies “assess the organization’s capacity to maintain an internal control structure with reasonable assurances that its assets are safeguarded against loss or misuse,” (NYC).
Confounding Factors
Random Assignment
Random Assignment will allow for the formation of a control group that can be used to track the progress of participants within the program. This will “randomly assign eligible clients to separate treatment and control groups,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 371). Welsh discloses that “[t]his is the best method for dealing with confounds, when possible. For ethical and practical reasons, however, random assignment is not always possible, (Welsh & Harris, p. 372). In these cases, Non-Equivalent Comparison Groups, and Propensity Score Analyses can be used.
Non-Equivalent Comparison Groups
But as Welsh denotes, “[o]ften we cannot randomly assign subjects to treatment and control groups,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 372). However, Welsh notes that it is possible to re-enact these conditions; writing that, “we can attempt to construct treatment and comparison groups made up of clients with similar characteristics,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 372). But some form of non-equivalent comparison must be co0nsidered as resistance and unforeseeable conflict is likely to incur at some point, by some participant, during the duration of this intervention.
Propensity Score Analysis
A propensity score analysis is a method that “allows researchers to estimate treatment effects by collapsing variables known to be associated with the decision to place individuals into the program into a single score;” alongside the prerequisites for the methodology behind “controlling for that score,” (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983, 1985; Rubin, 1997). All three stages of intervention (convict, inmate, parolee) will benefit from imparting a propensity score analysis. This form of analysis will help better understand the characteristics of the optimal candidate for participance. This intervention ought not discriminate by any form; albeit avoid forcing participation in any capacity.
Research Design
Meta-Analysis
Wayne Welsh writes that “[t]o date, meta-analyses have found that behavioral and cognitive-behavioral methods are more effective for delinquent youths than various types of client-centered, nondirective therapies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For adult correctional treatment, cognitive-behavioral and behavioral approaches work better than other treatments, (Wayne & Harris, p. 360). The Old Testament reveals the importance of observation, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Specifically, the Lord reminds us that “[y]ou shall thus observe all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them; I am the LORD,” (Leviticus 19:37; NASB).
Three main observational techniques are possible: (1) the narrative method, (2) the data guide method, and (3) the structured rating scheme. The Narrative Method allows “an observer records events in detail, in the order in which they occur;” whereas the Data Guide Method “gives observers specific questions that they are required to answer from their observations, (Welsh & Harris, pp. 303, 304). A structured rating scheme may invoke more persuasive considerations, as the decisions are enumerated. A structured rating scheme asks “observers to rate some kind of behavior on a standardized scale or checklist, (Welsh & Harris, p. 304). In theory, these forms of evaluation would be conducive to detailing the findings and organizing the data gained from the three interventions. But, as Welsh and Harris warn, “the presence of observers may actually alter the behavior of program personnel or participants,” thus producing an unreliable outcome, (Welsh & Harris, p. 304).
Pretest-Posttest Design
Pretest-Posttest Design exists in simple form, with Control Groups, or with Multiple Pretests, (Welsh & Harris, p 375). In its simple form, the results are unreliable, (Welsh & Harris, p 375). The Prettest-Posttest with a control group is far more reliable than its simple form, as “[a] control group gives us some means of comparing initial measures with later measures,” (Welsh & Harris, p 375). Whereas the pretest-posttest with multiple pretests provides “a baseline of behavior or attitudes for each group before the intervention begins,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 377).
Longitudinal Design
The Longitudinal Design involves measuring “the outcome at several points after the treatment has ended.” This practice allows for the “[certainty] that our outcome results are stable,” (Welsh & Harris, p 378). Less favorably, “it tends to be expensive, takes a long time, and is difficult to conduct,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 377). Yet some form of longitudinal design must be implemented in order to track the long term efficacy of specific factors. Longitudinal design ought to cater to the stakeholders in the intervention, as it will show progress and achievement; bolstering support to the overall longevity of the policy intervention.
Cohort Design
Cohort Design allows for “similar groups of people [to] go through the same system or experience but at different times,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 378). Cohort Design would allow for the improvement of programs over times, shaping its applicability to a diverse variety of conditional factors. The downside, would be an incremental lack of specificity. As more data is gained from various groups of people at different times; there will exist various external factors that will be unclear in the depiction of its overall results. The benefit will be the resiliency opf each program; yet the detriment will be that too broad of a program may be created to invoke actual change.
Time Series Analysis
Time Series Analysis utilizes data taken over time. Welsh states that, “[t]ypically the pre-intervention data exist prior to the study. Specifically, “Time series analysis involves [(1)] analyzing rates of some phenomenon . . . within a population over a long period of time prior to implementation of a policy and then [(2)] comparing those data to the same rate information for a period of time following implementation,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 379). Time Series Analysis would best apply to ATI participants and parolees; as the goal of this program is stopping recidivism. This form of analysis could apply to the other category incarcerated inmates, however it would be difficult as would rely on multiple parties over time with a broad range of factors that could influence the outcome.
Evaluation Results
Whilst the interests of major stakeholders ought to be considered in this intervention; it must also recognize the nessicity of consideration for “citizens, politicians, criminal justice officials, volunteers, [and] targets, (Welsh & Harris, p. 381). While programs have had varied success, evaluations underscore the importance for criminal justice agencies to involve the community, especially key stakeholders, as well as to define goals clearly (McLean, 2004), (Benekos &Merlo., p. 216).
Author Byron Johnson notes that “[b]ecause faith-based programs focusing on mentoring, drug treatment, restorative justice, cognitive restructuring, or spiritual transformation already exist in most communities, rigorous evaluation and ongoing research will make it possible to not only understand how faith might matter but how these faith-informed approaches can be modified and improved,” (Johnson, B., p. 73).
Thus, this evaluative data must quantify its data, considering both long-term and short-term effects; whilst accounting for random assessment and confounding factors. Moreover, it mustn’t discriminate against any party; yet it must only accept those willing to commit themselves to the intervention. The intervention must be adaptable; able to account for the external factors that produce various influences over time; by fortifying the foundation of the intervention with consistent evaluation and ongoing reallocations of focus to achieve the stakeholder’s desired outcome objective. The evaluative data ought not focus its results on the stakeholder; but on the betterment of the participant. In all three phases of intervention; convicts, inmates, and parolees will be given equal opportunity to commit themselves to meaningful change; whilst avoiding further detriment. Society will see a benefit from this policy intervention, as the crimerates decrease through the city of New York; returning the streets back to their communities, without the need for community policing and government interference. Evaluating the outcome of the policy will ensure its longevity whilst promoting the conduct within each phase to actualize the best output; thus contributing to the reduction of recidivism in New York City.
VII. REASSESSING AND REVIEWING THE INTERVENTION
The next step in resolving the crisis of recidivism in New York City must face a reassessment of its own progress; and take the necessary steps to preclude further waste of appropriations. In effective policy bears the propensity to persist long after it begins to decline in efficacy. Even long after programs have ceased to produce any improvement, they are continuously funded year after year. This waste of appropriations results in the failure to achieve the expected outcome objective, alongside the decline of morale of engaging in any reformative action. Further, the lack of success in achieving the prospected outcomes results in reluctancy of investors to continue its funding. Thus, it remains essential to clarify the meaning of the terms that this policy seeks to achieve. Through Reassessment, Reviewing, and Revision, we can curate a resilient blueprint to halt recidivism and begin its decline to the target level.
The word Assess is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “[t]o calculate the amount or rate of . . . [to] impose . . . [and t]o determine the value (of something) . . . [or] to evaluate the importance, quality, or extent or (someone or something),” (Garner, B., p. 144). The word Assessment is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “the [d]etermination of the rate or amount of something” and often includes the “[i]mposition of something,” (Garner, B., p. 144). The word Reassessment is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a] reappraisal, revaluation, or review; a recalculation of an amount payable or owed,” (Garner, B., p. 144). The word Review is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “[c]onsideration, inspection, or re-examination of a subject or thing. Plenary power to direct and instruct an agency or subordinate, including the right to remand, modify, or vacate any action by the agent or subordinate, or to act directly in the place of the agent or subordinate,” (Garner, B., p. 1579). The word Revision is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as the “re-examination or careful review for correction or improvement (Garner, B., p. 1579).
It remains essential to avoid failure, plan for success, and be adaptive in the methodology required to produce the expected outcome objective, a reduction in recidivism for New York City. But contemporary New York politicians and policymakers remain ineffective in their efforts to achieve these results. As it is scribed in the Old Testament, “[t]hey plot injustice and say, ‘We have devised a perfect plan!’” (Psalm 64:6a; NIV). For “[t]here is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD, (Proverbs 21:30; NIV).
Avoiding Failure
Failures can be encountered at any time during this intervention. Thus, the preclusion of overt factors that could produce detriment within the efficacy of this intervention. Additional influential forces ought to be addressed to mitigate the potentiality of compromising the validity of the intervention. This intervention needn’t be broad, nor seek to redefine New York City’s entire criminal justice system. Instead, it must strive to execute a concise design, thus better targeting its actions to focus on the most effective means of implementation. Moreover, this policy must strive to maintain support of its stakeholders, whilst not catering to their expectations. Stakeholders are important; but they are not the purpose of the creation of this intervention. Stakeholders expect progress; yet the participants must be the central factor that the success of this intervention relies upon. Current criminal justice interventions focus on (1) attaining stakeholder support, and (2) acquiring the necessary funding required to funnel funds into the trough of perpetual crises. This policy intervention seeks to place an end to the eternal business of pseudo-restorative criminal justice policy intervention initiatives. God warns that we must care for the poor, as it is decreed “[d]o not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will exact life for life,” (Proverbs 22:22-23; NIV). God manifests abundance for those willing to places their total faith in his unchanging eternal word; as this policy is crafted to represent.
Planning for Success
Success planning requires consistent attention to “crucial elements” of communication with stakeholders. Thus, a successful intervention will require six tasks: (1) stakeholder communication; (2) fortification of the capacity for internal learning; (3) interpreting the performance data; (4) procedural formalization; (5) relevant training; and (6) curating a conducive environment for the participant’s needs to achieve the intended success. Policymakers “rarely have any control over the environments within which policies and programs are implemented: they have lives of their own, driven by visions and goals that may be independent of our new innovation, (Welsh & Harris, p. 406). Yet adaptive learning will require reassessing the efficacy of the action plans previously executed.
Adaptive Learning
Learning requires a process of microevolution. The program cannot remain stagnant once implemented; as statis is unstable. Programs unwilling to change become detriments themselves; not only for the wasted funding required to sustain it, but also the belief that its participants undergo a meaningful revelation. Rather than feed the needs of stakeholders; this policy intervention will facilitate the appropriate methodology to attain the initial consensus of decreasing recidivism in New York City. No other benefits need to be presented to stakeholders. This policy is not a lucrative business proposal, nor a pipeline for the reintroduction of criminal offenders; but a means to an end for criminals willing to apply faith to their endeavors. As Welsh denotes, the intervention must “pay attention to changes that occur in areas such as political climate, fiscal health of funding sources, key policymakers, and policies related to our intervention,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 406). Forcefield analysis assists in helping to locate “the forces that sustain a problem or issue over time [and] are more potent than others,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 406, 407). Welsh and Harris warn the policymaker that “planned change improves the likelihood of successful intervention, but it cannot guarantee it . . . [i]n real life, systems don’t always behave the way we want them to,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 407, 408).
Current New York City Standards of Evaluation
As Jesus reminds us in Revelation, “[t]hese are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” (Revelation 3:14-15; NIV). Policy ought not be neutral nor inep—it must be observably effective, producing empirical progress for stakeholders. Though, this policy should ensure not to cate4r to the interests of the stakeholders, as all men bear a propensity to invoke detriment and commit sin unto his community, himself, and produce works against God. But He remains with us, despite our tendency to drift from His will; thus eternal objective truth remains undeniably successful in previous policy studies.
Currently, three Sentencing Reform bills are underway in New York City’s Crimiinal Justice system. The New York City Bar writes that a “suite” of bills titled Communities Not Cages will assist in the reformation of their Criminal Justice system. This Christmas tree legislation will allow for the restoration and rehabilitation of convicted offenders; thus offering an opportunity for “successful reentry for those willing to commit themselves to the program.
These three policies include:
First (1) the Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Act (A.2036-A AM Meeks / S.6471 Sen. Myrie) “allows judges to consider the individual before them in sentencing rather than requiring them to sentence people to predetermined sentences and reduces the potential for coercive pleas,” (NYCBar). This is an essential component to ensuring that the proper judgment is made on cases. But it also assists in promoting the potentiality of judicial activism under the pretext of impartial judgment “considering the circumstances.”
Second (2) the Second Look Act (A.531 AM Walker / S.321 Sen. Salazar) states that it will “enable those currently incarcerated with long sentences to petition judges for reduced sentences,” (NYCBar). In New York, everyone convicted of a crime has a right to appeal. Therefore, this is in erroneous in giving more power to the state to bypass the legal system with bias and personal enrichment. This bill appears to be an earmark in the pork barrel bill touted by the state.
Third, (3) the Earned Time Act (A.1128 AM Kelles / S.774 Sen. Cooney) strives to “enable those serving long sentences to earn credit to reduce their sentences by complying with prison rules and by participating in treatment, education, vocational training, and work programs,” (NYCBar). The progress of this implementation is marked by both long-term evaluation and immediate compliance. This is important to halting recidivism, for prisoners who are released on parole; and minimizing the capacity for violations on the will of the participant. Benekos & Merlo note that “critiques of punitive ideology, get-tough legislation, and co-optation of the courts coincide with increasing evidence that the public is supportive of alternatives to incarceration, such as treatment programs (e.g., drug courts) and early intervention initiatives (e.g., Head Start, parental training, and drug education), (Benekos & Merlo, p. 252).
Thus, “[w]ith [enough] evidence to support the effectiveness of some intervention strategies . . . the costs and consequences of the punitive era of politics and criminal justice may be the necessary initiative to give larger voice to a new proactive, progressive era of criminal justice,” (Benekos & Merlo, p. 252). Therefore the correct tasks of implementation must be addressed appropriately; revising policy at the redevelopment of an action plan, after assessing data accumulated from the process, and taking consideration of the first three stages.
Tasks of Implementation
- Stage 1: Analyzing the Problem
The first step is to revisit the analysis of the problem. External changes must be noted accordingly, and considered to ensure the relevancy and efficacy of the intervention. This measure will ensure that the policy remain relevant to the needs of the participants, and facilitates the requirements necessary to achieve each process objective. Moreover, this will offer stakeholders the confidence needed to sustain their morale, extending its longevity.
- Stage 2: Setting Goals and Objectives
Second, again recounting the necessary objectives and considering their efficacy unto further design of the program.
- Stage 3: Designing the Program or Policy
Third, redesigning the policy to ensure each process objective will facilitate the means to achieve the outcome objective expected by stakeholders.
- Stage 4: Developing an Action Plan
Fourth an action plan must orient he process objectives with actionable steps. These must be specific in achieving the outcome objective. The development of an action plan “specified the entire sequence of tasks that need to be completed in order to successfully launch or implement the program or police,” (Welsh & Harris, pp. 419, 420).
- Stage 5: Developing a Plan for Monitoring Program / Policy Implementation
Fifth, a plan to monitor the actionable steps must be formulated and its policy implemented. Welsh and Harris write that “[i]mplementation refers to the initiation, management, and administration of the action plan,” (Welsh & Harris, p. 421).
The New York City Bar estimates that “[y]ears of evidence, including decades of DOCCS’ own data, shows that people age out of crime, and that older people pose the lowest risk of recidivism when released,” (NYCBar).
- Stage 6: Developing a Plan for Evaluating Outcomes
Sixth, the development of “comparisons of certain groups of subjects, and measurement on specific variables, over particular time periods,” must occur in order to better assess the outcome of each participant, (Welsh and Harris, p. 373). This can better assess the opportunity to solidify the intervention; thus further the potential the incorporation of those serving virtual life sentences for non-violent crimes. The New York City Bar writes that “[n]early 1 in 5 incarcerated people under the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS) custody is serving a life or virtual life sentence (with a maximum sentence of 50 years or more) – a total of over 9,000 people,” (NYCBar). Not all inmates with virtual life sentences are incarcerated for crimes that require long term imprisonment; but were subjected to determinate sentencing. These instances may be reappealed under this faith-based intervention, as the program continues to evaluate the scope of each process objective.
- Stage 7: Reassessing and Reviewing the Program or Policy Plan
Lastly, program directors must produce in coordination with staff, an “examination of program documentation, the review of representative case files, and some observation of program activities,” in order to place these reassessment strategies into action, thus producing a better suited program without compromise, or waste of funding, (Welsh & Harris, p. 326).
New York City’s Mass Incarceration Task Force (MITF) produced a report on May 13th, 2021 that aimed to (1) arresting fewer people; (2) arraigning fewer people; (3) convicting fewer people; (4) sending fewer people to prison; (5) reducing prison sentences; (6) reforming prisons; and (7) reforming parole, (MITF; NYCBar). Unlike New York City’s Mass Incarceration Task Force that “calls for a broader re-imagining of the purpose of the criminal justice,” this faith-based system allows for a more direct and specific approach to restoring the individual, (NYCBar).
Conclusion
This reassessment must first re-envision its process objectives, then compare with the original process objective; implementing the necessary changes. This action will assist with the allocation of the budget, thus allowing the funding to be proportioned to the specific areas necessary to ensure its efficacy. The review of the data attained from the participants can be applied to solidify the active programs to maximize their effectiveness. This step will allow for policymakers to focus on reformulating specific areas that require the reformation; rather than distributing focus across the entire program. The omission of revision in areas that are currently functioning and progressing to their expected capacity will allow for better functionality of target processes. The revision must be clear and concise; include the cohesion of wording and applicability where possible. The less this policy needs to be interpreted by its executors the more tightly woven orientation can be displayed to reveal transparent set of data to be used in a better analysis of the process. Unity is important in the implementation of this intervention, as corners cannot be cut, nor can participants be neglected to maximize statistics. The goal is the reduction of recidivism, not the longevity of this policy. If executed properly; this policy should remain self-sustainable and in a natural state of demand for its duplication. Therefore, its effectiveness must be shown in this stage of research, reviewing, and revision.
Bibliography
AFPI. (Accessed on July 14th, 2024). Research Report: Reducing Recidivism Through Faith-Based Prison Programs. America First Policy Institute. Issues. https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/research-report-reducing-recidivism-through-faith-based-prison-programs
BaylorIST. (Accessed on July 8th, 2024). Assessing a Faith-Based Program for Trauma Healing Among Jail Inmates: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Baylor University: Institute for Studies of Religion. https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/article-assessingtrauma.pdf
Benekos, P. et al. (2006). Crime Control: Politics & Policy: Second Edition. Anderson Publishing: LexisNexis Group.
Budget. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). Agency Budget Preparation. The Budget Process. Citizen's Guide. https://www.budget.ny.gov/citizen/process/index.html; https://www.budget.ny.gov/citizen/process/process-agencyPrep.html.
CityandStateNY. (July 1st, 2024). A (not so) Brief Guide to New York’s Bail Reform Evolution - City & State New York. https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2023/05/not-so-brief-guide-new-yorks-bail-reform-evolution/385379/.
Council. (Accessed on July 14th, 2024). NYC Council Calls for Budget Restorations and Greater Investments in Programs to Address Recidivism, Mental Health and Keep New Yorkers Safe Ahead of Public Safety Executive Budget Hearing. Press. https://council.nyc.gov/press/2024/05/09/2600/.
Council. (Accessed on June 24th, 2024). NYC Council Calls for Budget Restorations and Greater Investments in Programs That Address Recidivism and Mental Health to Improve Public Safety and Advance Closure of Rikers ahead of Criminal Justice Executive Budget Hearing. Press. https://council.nyc.gov/press/2024/05/17/2610/.
CriminalJustice. (1999) Factors Contributing To Recidivism Among Youth Placed With The New York State Division For Youth. Bruce Frederick, Ph.D. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/dfy/dfy_research_report.pdf
CriminalJustice. (2017). Governor Cuomo Announces More than $7.6 Million for Programs Designed to Reduce Recidivism and Reliance on Incarceration https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/press_releases/2017-10-26_pressrelease.html
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on July 14th, 2024). County Re-Entry Task Force Initiative. NY DCJS. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/initiatives/offender_reentry.htm
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on July 15th, 2024). Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) Programs. NY DCJS. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/ati_description.htm.
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024) Funding Programs. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ofpa/fundingprograms.html
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on July 29th, 2024). System Data. NYC. Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/system-data/.
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on July 7th, 2024). Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) Programs. NY DCJS. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/ati_description.htm
CriminalJustice. (Accessed on Jun 29th, 2024). The Recidivism for Individuals Sentenced to Probation Report. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/recidivism/docs/New%20York.pdf
CSS. (Accessed on June 24th, 2024). An Effective Policy to Cut Recidivism. Community Service Society of New York. https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/an-effective-policy-to-cut-recidivism
DOCCS. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). Community Supervision Handbook. https://doccs.ny.gov/community-supervision-handbook/community-supervision
DOH. (Accessed on July 29th, 2024). Data Features. https://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/data-features/.
DOJ. (Accessed on July 1st, 2024). Factors Contributing to Recidivism Among Youth Placed With the New York State Division for Youth. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/factors-contributing-recidivism-among-youth-placed-new-york-state.
Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Governing. (Accessed on July 7th, 2024). New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's 2014 State of the State Speech. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-new-york-governor-andrew-cuomos-2014-state-of-the-state-address.html
Governor. (Accessed on June 30th, 2024). Governor Hochul Announces Five-Point Plan to Protect New Yorkers on the Subway. Governor Kathy Hochul. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-five-point-plan-protect-new-yorkers-subway
HudsonLink. (Accessed on July 21, 2024). What We Do. Hudson Link for Higher Education in Prison. https://hudsonlink.org/what-we-do/.
InnovatingJustice. (Accessed on June 28th, 2024). Recidivism Among Parolees in New York City, 2001-2008. https://www.innovatingjustice.org/sites/default/files/documents/Recidivism_Parolees_NYC.pdf
ITSMR. (Accessed on June 24th, 2024). ITSMR Research Note. https://www.itsmr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Recidivism-Research-Note-AUG-2020.pdf
Johnson, B. (2011). More God, Less Crime. Templeton Press: West Conshohocken, PA.
JusticePolicy. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). Alternative To Incarceration Programs: Cut Crime, Cut Costs and Help People and Communities. https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/04-04_REP_AlternativetoIncarceration_AC.pdf
LAC. (Accessed on July 15th, 2024). Legal Action Center. Alternatives to Incarceration and Reentry. https://www.lac.org/work/priorities/restoring-opportunities/alternatives-to-incarceration-and-reentry
LAC. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). New York State Should Invest $16 Million, Plus $200,000 For a Comprehensive Study of Needs, to Begin the Process of Becoming the 1st State in the Nation to Bring ATI and Reentry Services to Scale. https://www.lac.org/assets/files/2022-ATI-Budget-Campaign.pdf
LAC. (Accessed on June 30th, 2024). Legal Action Center | NY ATI/Reentry Coalition. https://www.lac.org/major-project/ny-ati-reentry-coalition
LessIsMoreNY. (Accessed on June 29th, 2024). Explaining The Less Is More Act. #LessIsMoreNY. https://lessismoreny.org/explaining-the-less-is-more-act/
Marshall, Chris. Little Book of Biblical Justice: A Fresh Approach To The Bible's Teachings On Justice (Justice and Peacebuilding) (p. 45). Good Books. Kindle Edition.
Miller, A., et al. (2019). Reducing Recidivism: Transition and Reentry Practices for Detained and Adjudicated Youth with Disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 42(3), 409–438. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26736483
MITF. (Accessed on August 11th, 2024). A Pathway Out of Mass Incarceration. https://documents.nycbar.org/files/MITF_Pathway_Handout.pdf
MOCJ. (Accessed on July 14th, 2024). New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Shares 2023 Highlights. NYC. Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/press-release/mocj-2023-highlights/
NIJ.OJP. (Accessed on June 30th, 2024). Recidivism. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism
NYAssembly. (Accessed on July 7th, 2024). Clean Slate Act. New York State Assembly. https://nyassembly.gov/cleanslate/?sec=what_it_does
NYC. (Accessed on July 29th, 2024). Fiscal Manual. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/criminaljustice/downloads/pdfs/Fiscal%20Manual%20-%20FINAL.PDF
NYC. (Accessed on June 26th, 2024). Career and Violent Criminals Are Exploiting New York's Criminal Justice System. City of New York. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00055/career-violent-criminals-exploiting-new-york-s-criminal-justice-system
NYC. (Accessed on June 27th, 2024). September 2022 Crime Statistics. City of New York. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00061/september-2022-crime-statistics
NYCBar. (Accessed on August 11th, 2024). A Pathway Out of Mass Incarceration And Towards a New Criminal Justice System: Recommendations for the New York State Legislature. New York City Bar Association. https://www.nycbar.org/reports/a-pathway-out-of-mass-incarceration-and-towards-a-new-criminal-justice-system-recommendations-for-the-new-york-state-legislature/.
NYCBar. (Accessed on August 11th, 2024). Criminal Justice Reform in New York | 2024 NYS Legislative Agenda. https://www.nycbar.org/blogs/criminal-justice-reform-new-york-2024-nys-legislative-agenda/
NYCourts. (Accessed on July 1st, 2024). Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/webdocs/Recidivism_Rates_2010.pdf
NYSenate. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). Senate Passes 2024-25 Budget Addressing Critical Priorities for New Yorkers & Enacting Key Majority Proposals. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/senate-passes-2024-25-budget-addressing-critical-priorities-new.
NYSenate. (Accessed on July 7th, 2024). Senator Walczyk Reacts To Governor Signing "Clean Slate Act" Into Law. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/mark-walczyk/senator-walczyk-reacts-governor-signing-clean-slate-act
Oliver, W. (2017). Policing America: An Introduction. Wolters Kluwer: New York.
PJP. (Accessed on July 14th, 2024). Rehab Programs Grow Fewer and Fewer in N.Y. Prisons. Prison Journalism Project. https://prisonjournalismproject.org/2023/03/14/rehab-programs-grow-fewer-ny-prisons/.
PrisonEducation. (Accessed on July 21st, 2024). What We Do. Prison Education Program. https://prisoneducation.nyu.edu/what_we_do/.
QueensLibrary. (Accessed on July 29th, 2024). Correctional Outreach. Queens Public Library. https://www.queenslibrary.org/programs-activities/community-outreach/correctional-outreach.
Reuters. (Accessed on July 1st, 2024). Former US Marine Charged with Manslaughter in NYC Subway Choking Death. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-us-marine-surrenders-be-charged-choking-death-new-york-subway-cnn-2023-05-12/.
RockInst. (Accessed on July 15th, 2024). A Second Chance: College-in-Prison Programs in New York State | Rockefeller Institute of Government. https://rockinst.org/issue-area/a-second-chance-college-in-prison-programs-in-new-york-state/
Scholarly Commons. (Accessed on July 1st, 2024). American Studies in the Prediction of Recidivism. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3792&context=jclc
USSC. Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-offenders-released-2010
Welch, Brian. Save Me from Myself: How I Found God, Quit Korn, Kicked Drugs, and Lived to Tell My Story. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Welsh, W. (1999; 2016). Criminal Justice Policy & Planning: Fifth Edition. Anderson Publishing: Waltham, MA.
Winfree, Jr., L.T., et al. (2019). Introduction to Criminal Justice: The Essentials – Second Edition. Wolters Kluwer Publishing: New York.