Promoting Evidence-Based Public Policies

By: AIF Staff

On July 16^th at 9:30 am ET, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will moderate a conversation about how the private sector and the federal government can work in tandem to reduce recidivism and increase opportunities for those exiting the criminal justice system.

The discussion, which will include leaders from JPMorgan Chase, United Healthcare, and the Heartland Alliance, will focus on how businesses, policymakers, and local leaders can help the over 2 million Americans currently in jail or prison, on probation, and on parole become contributing members of their communities upon reentering society.

To register for the virtual panel on Thursday, July 16^th at 9:30 am ET, email RSVP@AmericanIdeaFoundation.com.

Speaker Ryan has long been a proponent of addressing inequities in the criminal justice system and has advocated for legislation that offers a path for incarcerated individuals to successfully restart their lives. As Speaker of the House, Ryan helped lead bipartisan efforts to pass the First Step Act of 2018 and, without question, uniting both the left and the right to modernize elements of our justice system was one of the most consequential actions taken by the 115th Congress.

As Ryan said when President Trump signed the First Step Act into law in December 2018: “Redemption is at the heart of the American Idea, and that’s what this [legislation] is about. Creating a smoother path for those who have been incarcerated to successfully reenter and contribute to society is a worthwhile goal and one we have long been working toward.”

In a polarized political environment, it is rare to see meaningful legislation pass with 358 votes in the House and 87 votes in the Senate, and these vote totals speak to the painstaking efforts involved in developing the First Step Act over a number of years. The legislation, which was backed by Governors, law enforcement groups, former federal prosecutors, and a constellation of advocacy organizations, showed that Congress is still capable of addressing complex issues that have a meaningful impact on the lives of individuals. 

It is important to note that this legislation is literally a “first step.” Its passage was just the start of a larger conversation about how to fix serious issues within our criminal justice system and the American Idea Foundation shares President Trump’s commitment to “building on the successes of the First Step Act… with meaningful reforms that reduce crime while giving our fellow citizens a chance at redemption.”

In advance of Speaker Ryan’s panel discussion about how the First Step Act is being implemented in cooperation with private sector companies, it is important to review some of the main components of the legislation.

In a comprehensive summary of the legislation, the Congressional Research Service explained that: “The First Step Act has “three major components: (1) correctional reform via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment system at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), (2) sentencing reform via changes to penalties for some federal offenses, and (3) the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007.” Looking more closely at each of these aspects:

Correctional Reforms:

The First Step Act called for the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons to develop a risk-assessment system for prisoners and place them in evidence-based, recidivism reduction programs that are designed to decrease the likelihood of an individual committing another offense upon release. This risk-based assessment system would allow officials throughout the criminal justice system to tailor treatment programs to an individual’s needs and assess risk on a person-by-person basis.

As the Heritage Foundation noted: “The First Step Act brings a similar problem-solving strategy to fighting crime by instructing federal prison officials to objectively assess each federal inmate’s risk of recidivating, and to incentivize them to participate in evidence-based programming to change their behavioral issues, whether that is substance abuse, mental health, anger management problems, or something else.”

Rather than a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to helping released individuals reacclimate to society, the First Step Act called for the creation of a system that “provides guidance on the type, amount, and intensity of recidivism reduction programming and productive activities to which each prisoner is assigned.” This, in theory, should reduce the rates of recidivism as specialized care and treatment plans are developed for individuals.

The legislation also called for the use of incentives and rewards for incarcerated individuals who are participating in recidivism reduction programs. Some of the rewards for participation in these programs include transferring individuals to a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence, additional phone and visitation privileges, and a reduction in the length of their incarceration following completion of these recidivism reduction programs. As the Bureau of Prisons explained, a non-violent offender “sentenced to 10 years in prison and who earns the maximum good time credits each year will earn 540 days of credit” toward their release. The First Step Act gives individuals the opportunity to reform themselves and in return, receive reductions in the time served.

Further, in terms of improving the treatment of individuals who are currently incarcerated, the First Step Act made important strides. As the Marshall Project detailed: “The First Step Act calls for greater use of halfway houses and home confinement…. The proposed new law would also expand eligibility for compassionate release of elderly and terminally ill inmates, which would save the government housing and medical costs.” It would prohibit the use of restraints when dealing with pregnant prisoners, mandate de-escalation training for correctional officers, and require the Bureau of Prisons to establish pre-release procedures to help prisoners apply for government identification and benefits prior to being released. These reforms to the corrections system were long overdue and reflect a desire to show individuals compassion and assist them successfully adjust to life following incarceration.

Sentencing Reforms:

Equally important were the changes that the First Step Act made to federal sentencing laws. As criminal justice reform advocate Van Jones explained: “The bill provides relief to 3,000 people serving harsh and outdated sentences for old crack cocaine charges, which weighed one gram of crack cocaine as equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. It would also eliminate mandatory life sentences for Third Strike drug offenders, end the stacking of 924(c) “guns and drug” sentences and give judges more discretion to sentence below their mandatory minimum.”

The United States Sentencing Commission detailed many of the First Step Act’s reforms to sentencing here.

Second Chance Act Reauthorization:

The First Step Act also reauthorized a host of grant programs that were initially approved as part of the Second Chance Act. Among the programs that were continued, per the report authored by the Congressional Research Service were:

• The Adult and Juvenile State and Local Offender Demonstration Program, which provides funding to states, localities, and tribes to develop re-entry programs, transitional job strategies, and employment promotion opportunities. The First Step Act also requires grantees to submit annual reports to the Department of Justice “demonstrating progress made toward strategic performance outcomes.”
• The Family-Based Substance Abuse Treatment, which provides an “alternative to incarceration for parents who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses and to provide family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children.” The aim of this program is to divert non-violent offenders away from prison and into treatment, while also keeping families together.
• The Careers Training Demonstration Program, which provides federal grant funds for establishing training programs for inmates in correctional facilities. It would also enhance connections between local employers and training programs to hopefully encourage employment once individuals are released.
• The Bureau of Prisons Early Release Pilot Program, which allows elderly or terminally ill, non-violent offenders to serve the remainder of their sentences in home confinement provided certain conditions are met.

The First Step Act also authorized federal funds to be used on a variety of reentry-related research projects that will be undertaken by the National Institute of Justice and will allow policymakers to better understand recidivism, assess various strategies used when people leave correctional facilities, and collect data to better inform future efforts. This emphasis on evidence and the ability for experts to develop more information on why individuals reoffend, what strategies work to keep individuals from reoffending, and what the government can do better will ultimately lead to subsequent improvements of the criminal justice system.

The main goal of the First Step Act was to make common-sense reforms to our justice system and help individuals get back on the path to productivity and redemption. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley summarized the efforts saying: “Over the last several years, we’ve expanded support for comprehensive criminal justice reform by listening to stakeholders and lawmakers to strike a balance that reduces crime and recidivism, and the associated taxpayer burden, while ensuring that dangerous and career criminals face steep consequences for their actions.”

The First Step Act represented meaningful progress, but the federal government should not rest on its laurels. The United States still incarcerates more citizens than any nation on the planet and all too often communities are subjected to senseless acts of violence and illegality, so there is clearly more work to be done.

As reform efforts continue, legislators must work with prisoner advocacy groups, community organizations, law enforcement, and private-sector corporations to ensure that individuals are truly given a chance at reclaiming their lives and livelihoods following their interactions with the criminal justice system. Change will not happen overnight, but with determination and diligence, we can strive to improve our criminal justice system and give those who are deserving a second chance.

By: AIF Staff

A decade ago, Congress created the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program to provide at-risk pregnant mothers and families with in-home services to help them develop parenting skills so their children are raised in physically, socially, and emotionally healthy environments. 

MIECHV was originally authorized for five years as part of the Affordable Care Act, though the idea originated with Republican Senators who developed the Education Begins At Home Act, and Congress provided $1.5 billion in initial funding. Since then, the program has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis and over time, its effectiveness has grown and more and more families and children have benefitted. 

The story of MIECHV is one worth telling, as it provides a model for policymakers to look toward as Congress develops evidence-based strategies to tackle the pressing problems facing families and communities. 

Put succinctly, MIECHV is administered by the federal government through grants to states, territories, and tribes allowing these entities to create voluntary programs, backed by data and evidence, which help families and parents build happy and healthy homes for children. The goals of the program, as defined by the federal government, are to support efforts that “improve maternal and child health, prevent abuse and neglect, encourage positive parenting, and promote child development and school readiness.” 

Broadly speaking, as described by the Health Resources and Services Administration, MIECHV gives parents the tools necessary to raise children in a productive way with customized care and individual, in-person assistance: 

“When a family chooses to participate in a home visiting program in their community, they have regular, planned visits with a trusted and caring professional. Home visitors help parents learn how to improve their family’s health and provide the best opportunities for their children. They encourage use of positive parenting techniques and help promote early learning in the home. Home visitors provide information and guidance on a wide range of topics including breastfeeding, safe sleep practices, injury prevention, nutrition, and childcare solutions. In addition, home visitors identify and assess family strengths and risks. They screen children for developmental delays, which can facilitate early diagnosis and intervention for autism and other developmental disabilities. They also help ensure that parents have support to care for their children.”

The First Five Years Fund summarized the program well, stating: 

“Evidence-based home visiting programs, like those made possible by MIECHV, pair families with limited support and resources with trained home visitors such as nurses, social workers, and educators. Home visitors meet with families at home and work with families from pregnancy through their child’s kindergarten entry to help lay the foundation for the health, education, development, and economic self-sufficiency of the entire family. Visits by caring, experienced professionals can turn good intentions into good parenting, breaking generations-long cycles of poverty, addiction, abuse, and despair.”

MIECHV grants focus on providing assistance to states, localities, and tribes so they can assist the most vulnerable children and families in our communities. Consider some of the program’s statistics: 

• In FY2018, 71% of participating families had incomes 100% below the federal poverty rate. 
• 3 out of every 4 families participating were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. 
• Many of the parents who received help via MIECHV had a high school education or less, some struggled to provide adequate child care, and others had a history of substance abuse. 

MEICHV has been so impactful, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, because it prioritizes the “use of home visiting models with demonstrated effectiveness while providing states important flexibility to tailor their approach to their local communities’ needs.” Grantees had to incorporate proven models when creating their individual visitation programs, and then had to demonstrate that their programs were helping families and children in a half-dozen ways: 

1. Improved maternal and newborn health
2. Reduced child injuries, neglect, and abuse
3. Improved school readiness and achievement
4. Reduced crime or domestic violence
5. Improved family economic self-sufficiency
6. Improved coordination and referrals for community resources

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities elaborated, MIECHV puts “a high premium on evidence-based family support programs, providing most of its funds to support rigorously evaluated programs for which there’s well-documented evidence of success.  These programs have proven an effective strategy for strengthening families and saving money over the long term.  Research shows they can lead to reduced health care costs, reduced need for remedial education, and increased family self-sufficiency.”

This evidence-based approach has been successful and MIECHV is making a tangible difference in every state in the nation. Because of the program, in-home visits were conducted in nearly 900 counties in FY2018 and in FY2019, the program served over 154,000 parents and children and conducted more than 1,000,000 home visits. 

In recent years, states have seen meaningful results after launching their programs and subsequently tweaking them based on the evidence, and parents and children are benefitting. In addition to the immediate impacts of better health outcomes for young children and lower rates of neglect, abuse and violence, MIECHV’s longer-term benefits were detailed in a reported titled, Evidence on the Long-Term Effects of Home Visiting Programs. Some of the longer-term benefits of the program include:

• “Evidence-based early childhood home visiting appears to be cost-effective in the long term. Home visiting programs incur costs right away, but participating parents and children can see improved outcomes over their lifetimes. As a result, benefits generally exceed costs over longer periods of time.
• “Early childhood home visiting has improved outcomes for parents and children across a wide range of child ages, outcome areas, and national models. Statistically significant estimated effects have been found for families after they no longer are receiving home visiting services, with evidence of effectiveness for families with children up to 21 years old. Studies have found effects in many of the outcome areas that MIECHV aimed to influence, including maternal and child health, parenting, child development, family economic self-sufficiency, child maltreatment, and intimate partner violence.
• “The largest benefits from evidence-based early childhood home visiting come through reduced spending on government programs and increases in individual earnings. Home visiting can increase parents’ earnings in the longer term by reducing maternal alcohol abuse and increasing parents’ high school graduation rates. Home visiting can increase children’s earnings in the long term by reducing child maltreatment. Home visiting programs appear to reduce government spending in the longer term by reducing families’ need for public assistance programs.”

As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which was negotiated by American Idea Foundation President and Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, MEICHV was funded and reauthorized through 2022 with a further emphasis on evidence and results. As the National Council of State Legislatures noted: 

“The new model authorizes states to use up to 25 percent of their grant funds to enter into public-private partnerships called pay-for-success agreements. This financing model requires states to pay only if the private partner delivers improved outcomes. The bill also requires improved state-federal data exchange standards and statewide needs assessments.

“The MIECHV program emphasizes that seventy-five percent of the federal funding must go to evidence-based home visiting models, meaning that funding must go to programs that have been verified as having a strong research basis. To date, 18 models have met this standard. Twenty-five percent of funds can be used to implement and rigorously evaluate models considered to be promising or innovative approaches. These evaluations will add to the research base for effective home visiting programs. In addition, the MIECHV program includes a strong accountability component requiring states to achieve identified benchmarks and outcomes. States must show improvement in the following areas: maternal and newborn health, childhood injury or maltreatment and reduced emergency room visits, school readiness and achievement, crime or domestic violence, and coordination with community resources and support.”

MIECHV was built on a sound premise: States, tribes, and territories would create individual programs by using evidence-based home visitation models that had already been proven to increase standards of living and improve health outcomes. They could then tailor their individual programs to meet the unique needs of parents and children, letting the evidence and data drive their decision-making. As this occurred, the federal government stood ready to fund and support their efforts, while also taking steps to ensure that data and information would be collected and analyzed to better inform future efforts. Ultimately, this allowed service providers and grantees to build on success, which in turn, has yielded more tangible benefits to the parents and children who participate in the program. As the program has grown and aged, Congress has continued to make meaningful improvements so evidence always informs this life-changing program.  

The American Idea Foundation believes that the condition of your birth should not determine the outcome of your life, and the MIECHV program provides a worthwhile example of how the federal government, working in tandem with researchers and organizations at the state and local level, can ensure that all children have the opportunity to succeed and lead productive lives. It is an approach that should be replicated as we work to meet other pressing policy challenges.   

By: AIF Staff

The recent protests surrounding the murder of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks are the latest and most visible reminders that policing power is one of the most critical responsibilities we give the State in our free society. Its importance cannot be overstated –citizens are unable to go about their daily lives if they are living in fear of violence. And more often than not, police officers are leaders in our communities, who selflessly undertake the vital role of keeping citizens safe from crime and illicit activity. 

The challenges that police officers face while doing their jobs are large, and they are given powers that are commensurate with those challenges. However, with that power comes the expectation that the police will use their power responsibly. 

As the last few weeks have shown, there are many ideas on how to improve policing and how to preserve the trust between the police and the communities they serve. House Democrats have introduced the Justice in Policing Act, Senator Tim Scott and his Republican colleagues have offered the JUSTICE Act, and the President has offered solutions via an Executive Order. These are all positive contributions to a long overdue, and much needed, conversation about how we ensure that our laws are enforced equally and that proper oversight is given to the law enforcement officials in whom we entrust these important responsibilities. Our country has put off having this difficult, but necessary conversation for too long and as a result, countless lives have been lost and meaningful progress has been delayed. 

A critical piece that should not be overlooked in our current discussion about policing reform is the importance of allowing evidence and data to drive improvements in policing strategies. As policymakers look to improve policing operations and reduce preventable abuses of authority, they will need a roadmap to understand what actually works in this space. In order to develop this roadmap, both the Administration and the Congress should build on other programs that have developed a body of evidence around what works, and then, on a bipartisan basis, determine the optimal level and allocation of funding for those programs.

As Congressman Will Hurd said in a recent op-ed: “The way we solve these broader issues isn’t by defunding the police but by ensuring they do better.” The best way to determine if departments are in fact doing better, is by increasing and strengthening the amount of evidence and data related to their work. 

Increasing the utilization of reporting, evidence, and data is not a new concept, and the federal government has successfully done this before. One example to look towards is the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Visitation program. This program, created under President Bush, codified under President Obama, and reauthorized under President Trump, provides for a tiered-evidence funding model where new interventions are tested, promising interventions are scaled up, and proven interventions are funded at higher levels. This model has led to the successful funding of nurse-family partnerships and it gives policymakers a template to follow in the pursuit of evidence-based policing strategies.   

As Congress works toward improving policing outcomes, they should create a tiered-funding model at the National Institutes of Justice to identify and fund policing practices that reduce violence and improve officer safety. All levels of government are going to be rolling out new public safety practices or incorporating reforms that have been pushed for years, as governments do so, they should ensure police departments are actually achieving the goals that are being pursued.

To help advance the conversation about compiling better data and evidence in policing, former Speaker Paul Ryan, the President of the American Idea Foundation, sent the following letter to Attorney General William Barr. As Ryan said in the letter: 

“Our nation’s law enforcement officials have one of the most difficult occupations in our society. They are given immense powers to complete those tasks and have a responsibility to uphold the public’s trust by equally applying our laws. In light of this power and responsibility and to improve its efforts, we urge the DOJ to prioritize learning how best to continue guaranteeing the safety of our citizens and law enforcement personnel.”

Without question, we need to act decisively to prevent police officers from abusing their authority and from harming the very citizens that they swore an oath to protect. But as we do this, lawmakers should also push to increase the amount of data and reporting around techniques and strategies and create a repository of good ideas that have proven to work in communities around the country. 

Given the immense responsibility that we place in our law enforcement officers, increasing the amount of evidence and data collected with their efforts will ultimately help the police and their fellow citizens, who they serve and protect, achieve a more equitable system of justice.