Running head: ADVOCACY PLAN 1

Advocacy Plan

Samantha McDaniel

University of South Carolina

ADVOCACY PLAN 2

Advocacy Plan

The focus of this advocacy project is to address the cyclical nature of the current mass

incarceration system in America. To do this, we will be looking specifically at rates of recidivism

and factors that increase the likelihood of rearrest. Recidivism is the process of being arrested

more than once. As society’s major goal is lower incarceration rates and crime rates overall,

increased recidivism rates may be indicative of the need for review of the criminal justice

system. Recidivism rates are simply a subsection of the much larger issue of mass incarceration

in America. Research found that factors that increase recidivism include the lack of resources in

prison, the societal and economic barriers that exist upon release, lack of relationships or

community outside of prison, as well as criminal history. The effects of recidivism are very

related to the causes (such as higher rates of crime, weaker economy, and higher rates of poverty)

are very related to the causes, which work together to form a cycle of incarceration. In order to

work to decrease rates of recidivism, three advocacy priorities can be identified: ending the use

of for-profit prisons, improving the resources within prisons universally, addressing post-release

resources. The strongest priority will be to end the use of for-profit prisons nationwide, as this

will be the most challenging to achieve.

Stakeholders & Target Audience

There are three major stakeholders to consider in this project. The primary stakeholders

will be those who have experienced the incarceration system. These are the individuals who will

be directly affected. Many of those who have direct experience will have direct knowledge about

areas and services that need improvements. The two secondary stakeholders include the opposing

and supporting sides of this issue. CCA, GEO Group, (major prison corps) Marco Rubio, and

anyone making a profit will strongly oppose this project. They will not be interested in a deal
ADVOCACY PLAN 3

that costs their share of the income. However, political leaders have an obligation to represent

their constituents, not corporations. Therefore, it is very possible to shift the political

involvement in the issue by igniting more public engagement. Lastly, Bernie Sanders, Sally

Yates, and other very prominent political activists and leaders have rejected the use of for-profit

prisons, and call for an intervention that instead addresses incarceration rates and equal access to

rehabilitative resources. Their support and influence is very important in delivering the main

message.

Evidence-Based Message

Private, for-profit prisons are a very large and concerning factor leading to increased

recidivism rates. For-profit prison business models depend on constant incarceration rates and

research has shown that they are no better of an environment for incarcerated individuals than

public prisons. In fact, they are sometimes worse due to lack of government oversight. In a

country already plagued by mass incarceration, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics

found that nearly 77% of incarcerated people were re-arrested within 5 years of release. More

than half will be re-arrested before the end of the first year (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder 2014).

Our goal is to address the detrimental effects following incarceration, in order to prevent crime

and lower recidivism rates in the long-run. We plan to do this by ending the exploitative private

prison corporation models and reallocate these resources to provide universal rehabilitative

services and resources to the incarcerated population.

Messengers

There need to be messengers at the governmental, organizational, and local levels. On the

governmental level, prominent advocates around this issue such as Bernie Sanders and Sally

Yates have already begun prison reform regarding the use of private prison and its impact on
ADVOCACY PLAN 4

mass incarceration. These leaders have reached their message across the nation. They have

significant political power and credibility, as well as supporting research. Our access to personal

engagement with such prominent political figures is limited, however we can take the message

they have been working hard to advocate for and utilize it to inform and educate the public,

government leaders, and possible practice models. Sanders’ engagement in this message is a risk,

as many political leaders will want to remain distanced from the reputation of “socialist”, as

Sanders’ has been branded. On the organizational level, the American Civil Liberties Union has

also been a prominent advocate around this issue. They hold a very important amount of power

as the often are the ones who guide the message from the constituents to the ones in power. The

ACLU is a strong and prominent organization that addresses injustice through federal and local

chapters. Due to this, they are a bit easier to access, by contacting the local chapter. The ACLU

can push for change through local organizational advocacy models and gain public and political

support through awareness, education, and activism. The ACLU often has its credibility

questioned by Republican political leaders, however it is largely supported by research and data.

Lastly, on the local levels it could useful to involve individuals with a history of incarceration as

messengers. While opinions on the issue may vary, as much knowledge of the prison system will

be derived from personal experiences. However, it would be much easier to access individuals

who would be willing to be messengers, than to access Bernie Sanders. The public is also much

more likely to sympathize for the issue when brought face-to-face with the reality of the

experience. There is the risk to the credibility of these individuals as messengers, as the

reputation of incarceration could significantly affect public/governmental trust.

ADVOCACY PLAN 5

Approaches and Strategies

At the local level, we need to engage with grassroots initiatives through meeting and

organizing individual projects. Informal decision-making at this level will occur through

paneling, attendance at local town halls, and other mezzo-level engagement. At the

organizational level, we will need to meet with local and federal ACLU chapters to discuss

official policy agenda and goal setting. The informal decision-making process here will involve

unique strategies and tactics for each goal, for each community. At the governmental level,

formal policy proposals will be key. These will be formed and decided upon during the

discussion and voting process. At the informal decision-making stage for each level, we can

influence the process through lobbying, direct work with stakeholders, and community advocacy.

The timeline for this advocacy plan will work best beginning at the start of the new fiscal year.

This transitional space is when political and organizational leaders will be more open to new

ideas.

Capacity Assessment

Currently, we are advantaged with local and governmental campaigns that already exist

around this issue. Because our advocacy plan calls for the end of a business industry, private

businesses and corporate interest will be a big barrier. For-profit prisons could begin to pushback

and attack the scope of government. However, we will be able to use this as an opportunity to

address the financial benefits of rolling back the use of these prisons. Lower incarceration rates

overall will significantly reduce the economic burden on taxpayers and government in the long-

run. The next steps for our advocacy plan will be to formulate how to best reallocate funding and

resources to prevent recidivism within public prisons.

ADVOCACY PLAN 6

SMART Goal

We are working with government representatives, organizations, and public activists to roll back

the United States’ governmental use of private prisons and reallocate funds and resources to

enhancing the effectiveness of public prisons. Our five-year goal is to end prison outsourcing

nationally, and reduce the rates of recidivism in the United States by 15%.

Monitoring and Evaluation

We will continue to monitor constantly updated research and community/governmental

actions relevant to this issue to inform our approaches and advocacy. We will be able to tell that

it is working by following the plan at every stage. Each level will need to be lead, monitored, and

evaluated quarterly, to address advocacy team-specific issues. Each month, advocacy team and

partners will meet to discuss specific concerns, barriers, successes, or ideas regarding their

experience in the respective level of advocacy. Every 6 months, the advocacy team will build an

updated report regarding the number of private prisons being used by the government nationally,

where each state is in the legislative process of ending use, and the rates of recidivism

nationwide (as categorized for race, gender, age, and other significant factors). Based on the

results of these checkpoints, the advocacy team will need to look at original goals and objectives

and decide what to continue, what to do differently, and what is not working.
ADVOCACY PLAN 7

References

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf