It is Time for a “Second Look” at Legislative Efforts to Combat Mass Incarceration & Recidivism

By: Sara Dalsheim

Government efficiency and spending is a hot topic of controversy in the United States. But even in the context of heated “DOGE” fights, there are proven examples of government efficiency and reduced spending that are clearly working—the passing of measures like the Second Chance and First Step Acts in an effort for mass incarceration and recidivism reduction.

The U.S. government spends a total of $80.7 billion on public prisons and jails, and $3.9 billion on private prisons and jails.[1] The government (federal and state) can reduce their spending on incarceration and correctional facilities if efforts are made to remedy the mass incarceration crisis and to combat recidivism. A decline in recidivism saves the government money, makes society safer, and allows people to leave the correctional system behind in exchange for a rich and meaningful life within their community. Legislation such as the Second Chance and First Step Acts is a great tool to mitigate the mass incarceration problem and allow government to better allocate its spending and resources – now is the time for more thoughtful legislative efforts by both the federal and state governments.

In general, “second chance” or “second look” reforms are designed to assist incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into society to reduce recidivism. Such efforts may also involve removing criminal records (i.e., expungement), making records accessible only under certain circumstances (i.e., sealing), and sentence reviews.

The Second Chance Act was a bipartisan effort passed in 2008 and authorized federal grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide reentry services and programs including providing employment training and assistance, substance use treatment, education, housing, family programming, mentoring, and victims support.[2] The goal of the programs was to enhance public safety by breaking the cycle of criminal recidivism and improving the outcomes for people returning from incarceration facilities.[3] The Second Chance Act was reauthorized in 2018 as part of the First Step Act.

The First Step Act was also a bi-partisan effort to further improve criminal justice outcomes and reduce the size of federal prison populations while establishing mechanisms to maintain public safety.[4] It required the creation of a risk and needs assessment system for the Bureau of Prisons to evaluate the recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of all federal prisoners. It also required placing prisoners into recidivism reducing programs and productive activities.[5]  Another key aspect of the First Step Act was the sentencing reforms – allowing for the review of lengthy criminal sentences and allow for potential early release for some inmates via a system that permits earned time credits, increased good time credits, reducing certain mandatory minimum sentences, and expanding the ability of those that committed convictions as minors to serve less time than previous mandated.[6]

Today, in addition to the federal government, legislatures in thirteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted “second look” judicial review policies that allow judges to review particularly lengthy sentences.[7] Six states – Connecticut[8], Delaware[9], Florida[10], Maryland[11], Oregon[12], North Dakota[13] – and Washington, D.C.[14] have enacted legislation that allow courts to reconsider a sentence under certain circumstances like how long ago the offense was committed and the amount of time already served. Four states – California[15], Colorado, Oklahoma, and New York[16] – allow for judicial reviews that focus on specific groups of people such as military veterans, those sentenced under habitual offender laws, and survivors of domestic violence.[17] There are five states – California[18], Illinois[19], Minnesota[20], Oregon[21], and Washington[22] – that have enacted prosecutor-initiated resentencing laws that permit prosecutors to request courts to re-evaluate a sentence. Additionally, fifteen state courts in California[23], Connecticut[24], Florida[25], Illinois[26], Iowa[27], Louisiana[28], Ohio[29], Maryland[30], Michigan[31], Missouri[32], New Jersey[33], North Carolina[34], Tennessee[35], Washington[36], and Wyoming[37] have found that sentences that range between 40 and 112 years are unconstitutional either under the federal or their state constitution.

The positive impacts of such legislative and legal efforts are clear. Since the Second Chance Act passed in 2008 state-level recidivism rates are 23% lower.[38] Approximately 35% of people leaving prison in 2008 were reincarcerated within three years compared to the 27% of people leaving prison in 2019 who were reincarcerated within three years.[39] Additionally, out of the 30,000 individuals first released pursuant to the First Step Act, nearly 90% of them were not rearrested or reincarcerated – a 12% recidivism rate for individuals released from federal prison compared to the previous rates around 45%.[40] As listed above, some states have made more meaningful efforts to lower recidivism compared to others, and the statistics reflect this. In California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and South Carolina it has been calculated that recidivism rates have decreased by double digits.[41]

Fortunately, bipartisan lawmakers are paying attention and as result have reintroduced further legislation to reduce the barriers faced by the millions of people with arrest and conviction records even several years after serving time and living a crime-free life.[42] The Clean Slate Act was originally introduced in 2019 and is now being reintroduced in the Senate and House to create the first federal process to seal certain low-level federal records, including sealing nonviolent federal marijuana offenses.[43] Further, the Fresh Start Act was originally introduced in 2021 and is now being reintroduced in the House and would permit a system to automatically seal records or create expungement laws to apply for federal infrastructure grants to assist with such efforts.[44]

Today in most states, the existing parole systems are ineffective at curtailing excessive sentences due to their extremely discretionary nature, lack of due process, lack of proper oversight, and lack of objective consideration standards.[45] Effective policies for sentence reductions and reentry models can reduce the economic and human costs of recidivism, while establishing meaningful prospects for those returning to society.[46] Additionally, research has shown that lengthy sentences are not a significant crime deterrent, and divert vital resources from effective public safety programs.[47]

The state legislatures should evaluate and consider the efforts of the federal government to combat the mass incarceration and recidivism issues in this country, and the federal government should do the same in reviewing legislative and judicial efforts to do the same. These efforts work; people know and appreciate that there is life outside of prison.

[1] Economics of Incarceration, Prison Pol’y Initiative (last updated Apr. 30, 2025), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/#:~:text=Key%20Statistics%3A,prisons%20and%20jails%3A%20%243.9%20billion%20%2B.

[2] Impacts of the Second Chance Act, U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Apr. 30, 2024), https://www.ojp.gov/archive/news/ojp-blogs/safe-communities/from-the-vault/impacts-second-chance-act#:~:text=The%20Second%20Chance%20Act%20authorized,their%20participation%20in%20the%20economy.

[3] Id.

[4] An Overview of the First Step Act, Fed. Bureau of Prisons (last visited May 6, 2025), https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp.

[5] Id.

[6] Liz Komar, The First Step Act: Ending Mass Incarceration in Federal Prisons, The Sent’g Project (Aug. 22, 2023), https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/the-first-step-act-ending-mass-incarceration-in-federal-prisons/.

[7] Becky Feldman, The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws, The Sent’g Project (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-of-the-nations-sentence-review-laws/.

[8] Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-39.

[9] Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204A.

[10] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.1402.

[11] Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-110.

[12] Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 420A.203.

[13] N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-32-13.1.

[14] D.C. Code Ann. § 24-403.03.

[15] Cal. Penal Code § 1170.91.

[16] N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.47.

[17] See also D.C. Code Ann. § 24-403.04 (allowing for the ability to seek compassionate release based on elderly age alone).

[18] Cal. Penal Code § 1172.1.

[19] 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-9.

[20] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.133.

[21] Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137.218.

[22] Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 36.27.130.

[23] People v. Contreras, 411 P.3d 445 (Cal. 2018).

[24] Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction.,115 A.3d 1031 (Conn. 2015); Connecticut v. Riley, 110 A.3d 1205 (Conn. 2015).

[25] Peterson v. State, 193 So.3d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016).

[26] People v. Buffer, 137 N.E.3d 763 (Ill. 2019).

[27] State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014); State v. Pearson, 836 N.W.2d 88 (Iowa 2013).

[28] State ex rel. Morgan v. Louisiana, 217 So.3d 266 (La. 2016).

[29] State v. Moore, 76 N.E.3d 1127 (Ohio 2016).

[30] McCullough v. State, 192 A.3d 695 (Md. 2018).

[31] People v. Stovall, 987 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. 2022).

[32] State ex rel. Carr v. Wallace, 527 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. 2017).

[33] State v. Comer, 266 A.3d 374 (N.J. 2022).

[34] State v. Kelliher, 873 S.E.2d 366, 389 (N.C. 2022).

[35] State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022).

[36] State v. Haag, 495 P.3d 241 (Wash. App. 2021).

[37] Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyo. 2014).

[38] 50 States, 1 Goal: Examining State-Level Recidivism Trends in the Second Chance Act Era, Council of St. Gov’ts Just. Ctr. (Apr. 2024), https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/50-states-1-goal/.

[39] See id. (explaining that “[r]ecidivism rates reflect the correctional system’s response to people after reentry’s behavior”).

[40] Liz Komar, The First Step Act: Ending Mass Incarceration in Federal Prisons, The Sent’g Project (Aug. 22, 2023), https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/the-first-step-act-ending-mass-incarceration-in-federal-prisons/.

[41] 50 States, 1 Goal: Examining State-Level Recidivism Trends in the Second Chance Act Era, Council of St. Gov’ts Just. Ctr. (Apr. 2024), https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/50-states-1-goal/.

[42] Bipartisan Lawmakers Reintroduce Legislation to Advance Second Chances at Federal and State Levels, The Clean Slate Initiative (Apr. 30, 2025), https://www.cleanslateinitiative.org/in-the-news/csa-fsa-intro-2025#:~:text=Since%202018%2C%2012%20states%20have%20taken%20action,the%20press%20conference%20is%20available%20online%20here.

[43] Id.

[44] Id.

[45] Becky Feldman, The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws, The Sent’g Project (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-of-the-nations-sentence-review-laws/.

[46] See 50 States, 1 Goal: Examining State-Level Recidivism Trends in the Second Chance Act Era, Council of St. Gov’ts Just. Ctr. (Apr. 2024), https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/50-states-1-goal/.

[47] Liz Komar, Ashley Nellis, & Kristen M. Budd, Counting Down: Paths to a 20-year Maximum Prison, The Sent’g Project (Feb. 2023), at p. 3, found at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2023/02/Counting-Down-Paths-to-20-Year-Maximum-Prison-Sentence.pdf.