Justifying Prison Reforms to Reduce Recidivism

When Politics Trumps Policy

I would respond by justifying the programs and providing hard data showing why they work, why they are important, and what would happen if they were canceled. A new governor has a right to know what is going on in the prisons, and a director of a prison system has a duty to make him informed. Therefore I would not capitulate. I would instead reach out to educate and try to win the governor to my side through logic and argument.

I would start by pointing out in my response that in order to reduce recidivism rates, prison systems must reform their methods and policies. I would then show that I have implemented numerous successful reforms that have resulted in a 30% reduction in recidivism. These programs include education and job training, as well as psychological counseling and support.

Next, I would explain that while these programs might be often met with skepticism from governors and other officials, the reason for this skepticism is often because the benefits of these programs are not immediately apparent. It can take years for the effects of these programs to be seen. In the meantime, governors are under pressure to reduce crime rates and show constituents that they are getting effects right now—and the easiest way for them to do that is to make cuts—even if those cuts will be harmful down the road.

So in order to convince a skeptical governor that the programs implemented in the prison system should stay, I would provide evidence of the long-term benefits of these programs. I would also show that the alternative methods, such as harsher punishments, are not effective in reducing recidivism. Only by providing a comprehensive view of the issue will I be able to convince the governor that the programs implemented in the prison system are essential for reducing recidivism rates.