The American criminal justice system has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years, particularly considering its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. The mass incarceration era — fueled by the war on drugs, the 1984 crime control act, and other public safety policies — has led to disparities from policing through parole.
The cumulative impact of these policies has left a devastating trail of destruction, particularly within Black and brown communities. Civil rights lawyer and author Michelle Alexander aptly termed this phenomenon the “new Jim Crow,” highlighting its stark resemblance to the racially discriminatory laws and practices of the past. Boston had its own version of aggressive policing designed to suppress crime by so-called super predators, which led to the wholesale arrest of a generation of Black men. From stop and frisk to doctored drug tests in the state lab to civil rights violations such as those documented in the investigation of Carol DiMaiti Stuart’s murder, government actions have resulted in unprecedented community trauma.
The harm caused by such misguided policies extends far beyond any prison sentence. It invariably becomes a life sentence.
Formerly incarcerated individuals have trouble obtaining housing and decent employment while suffering from community stigma, homelessness and other indignities. Their families, often left to fend for themselves, face hardships that often lead to family disintegration amid the erosion of social support systems. The accompanying loss of economic opportunities has rippled across generations, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and crime. In the face of this profound injustice, the question of compensation for those affected by mass incarceration has gained prominence. A class action suit would be fitting, as would contemporations.
Contemporations are similar to reparations, but instead of compensating for damage going back 400 years, they aim to address damage done in the last 50 to 75 years, because the victims and their descendants are often still alive and easy to identify. This makes the administration of payments much easier than with reparations.
Understanding that many of those behind bars are victims deserving of compensation rather than perpetrators who should be paying back a debt to society is the first step. Being incarcerated is often the result of multiple failed systems, from the family, educational, social and human services designed to provide a safety net to policing and economic systems. Most of these systems are supported by taxes and are supposed to be provided equally to those in need. When this doesn’t happen, those without the necessary support often become victims.
Contemporations can take many forms. One promising approach lies in providing access to programs that increase the chance of success for returning citizens. There are several such programs, including the Prison Fellowship Academy. Massachusetts has become a national leader in providing higher education to its incarcerated population. Boston College, Emerson College and Tufts University all offer programs enabling people in prison to earn bachelor’s degrees. Tufts also runs a program for formerly incarcerated people.
A 2013 RAND Corporation report noted that any formal education in prison reduces recidivism by at least 43% and increases employment by 13%. College education brings the rate of recidivism down below 10%, and only 2% of those who earn a bachelor’s degree return to prison. But college in prison provides much more than the ability to stay out of prison; it also creates opportunities to take part in new communities and new networks for employment.
Critics of such programs often raise concerns about creating a moral hazard — in other words, enticing someone to commit a crime to get the benefit of a college education. This seems unlikely, given that individuals still tend to leave the prison industrial complex with trauma and behavioral health issues, a criminal record that makes it difficult to find employment and housing, and a greater familiarity with criminal activities and networks. Those who see punishment and justice as the primary purposes of incarceration don’t want people to leave better off in any way.
Another argument against offering education to prisoners is the associated cost. Proponents of this rationale say it is unjust for those who have committed crimes to receive educational opportunities while law-abiding citizens struggle with student loan debt. However, this argument fails to consider the broader societal benefits of investing in the rehabilitation and reintegration of incarcerated individuals.
It comes down to long-term versus short-term costs. If rehabilitation is one objective of our criminal justice system, current recidivism rates indicate that the system is badly broken. It’s like repeatedly taking a car in for repairs because it never gets fixed properly. One study showed that starting with juvenile detention and continuing throughout a lifetime, the cumulative cost to incarcerate one person, including judicial and social costs, is around $5 million. It may not seem fair to people with student loan debt that returning citizens could leave prison with no college debt, but it’s better than also having to pay, through taxes, to support the repeated incarcerations of people who don’t have the resources to support themselves.
When viewed in this context, providing education in prisons becomes a more palatable investment — perhaps even a strategic one. By equipping individuals with the tools to become productive members of society, we can reduce recidivism rates and ultimately save taxpayer money. But currently, the cost of this programming is wholly absorbed by small college programs that must raise the required funds on their own.
When researching the landscape for returning citizens, I saw no continuous improvement model nor any plan for innovation and improvement. Researchers need to objectively evaluate prison-based educational programs by following up with students pre- and post-release to better understand program effectiveness. That way, volunteers and donors will know where to direct their efforts. Successful higher education programs such as those already demonstrating their value should receive state funding that is not channeled through the Department of Correction. This would be an ideal use of the remaining funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, which was designed to help those most impacted by COVID-19, especially Black and brown communities.
Framing the cost of education as a form of reparations shifts the conversation toward acknowledging the historical and systemic injustices that have led to mass incarceration. It recognizes the disproportionate impact of American criminal justice policies on marginalized communities and seeks to address the root causes of crime through education and empowerment. Ultimately, we need comprehensive reform, including contemporations to repair the damage done by mass incarceration.
Ed Gaskin is Executive Director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets and founder of Sunday Celebrations.