It highlights a major paradox between science and practice: We know — not “suspect,” not “think,” but actually know, as much as is possible with science at any given time — that family-based programs to reduce recidivism are both clinically effective and cost-effective. But they remain in rare use. And ultimately, we all suffer: The US has the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world, one in nine young Black men is in prison at any given time, and elected officials still seek to score cheap points with a frightened populace by pledging to get “tough on crime.”
The following passage from the editorial is especially striking:
The average cost to keep a person in prison for a year in the United States is slightly over $23,000 (Liptak, 2008) – an amount that, for non-violent offenders, could easily cover tuition costs at many colleges. As but one example, the state of Arizona spends more to incarcerate Latinos and African-Americans than to educate these same populations at the state universities.
So, what is to be done? Again, there are interventions that we know will work, particularly for juvenile offenders. Among adults, educational and therapeutic programs are again known to work and to save taxpayers money. From Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (failed) 2007 Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act:
Recidivism for inmates who participate in prison education, vocation, and work programs have been found to be 20 to 60 percent lower than for nonparticipants. The Federal Bureau of Prisons found a 33- percent drop in recidivism among Federal prisoners who participated in vocational training.
Simply put, cries that we cannot afford such programs in difficult economic times are straw-man arguments — tough economic times should lead to greater use, not less, of programs that we know will reduce costs to the justice system without increasing crime. Family-based programs should be a part of this effort.