The First Step Act
A Law Enforcement Perspective on Federal Penology Reform
Abstract
The First Step Act (FSA), signed into law in 2018 under President Donald J. Trump, stands as a landmark achievement in federal criminal justice reform. As one of the earliest former major county sheriffs to support this legislation, I viewed it not as a political compromise, but as a pragmatic shift toward smarter criminal justice practices grounded in public safety and applied criminology. This paper evaluates the implementation and impact of the FSA from a law enforcement perspective, utilizing data released by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and independent analysis conducted by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ). While much academic debate centers on theoretical constructs, this perspective offers insight from the front lines of policing, corrections, and public safety management. Through programs that reduce recidivism, update sentencing guidelines, and foster rehabilitative environments, the FSA has demonstrated measurable success in enhancing federal penology. This paper analyzes these outcomes and offers a framework for how applied criminology principles can continue guiding effective justice policy reform.
Policy Brief/
Sheriff (Ret.) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA
CEO/President, Sheriff Myers & Associates
Professional-in-Residence, Criminology Department - Benedictine College
Support for the First Step Act: A Law Enforcement Perspective
Introduction
The First Step Act (FSA) was passed into law with rare bipartisan support in December 2018 and immediately became a watershed moment in federal criminal justice reform. Crafted to address over-incarceration, reduce recidivism, and create a more efficient and rehabilitative federal prison system, the FSA was met with both praise and skepticism. From my perspective as a former sheriff and applied criminologist, it represented a long-overdue correction to a system that had become bloated, rigid, and counterproductive in many areas. Federal sentencing disparities, a lack of meaningful reentry programming, and outdated incarceration practices had placed a heavy burden not just on the system but on communities, victims, and law enforcement. This paper offers a practical, data-informed, and operational assessment of the FSA's rollout and impact.
Legislative Goals and Strategic Priorities of the FSA
The FSA focused on several key components that were designed to reshape federal incarceration policy:
1. Risk and Needs Assessment: A validated, evidence-based tool—PATTERN—was introduced to determine inmate program eligibility and assess recidivism risk.
2. Earned Time Credits: Inmates participating in educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programming became eligible to earn credits toward early release or transfer to supervised custody.
3. Sentencing: Retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and changes to mandatory minimums sought to mitigate disproportionate penalties for non-violent drug offenses.
4. Compassionate Release: The Act expanded access to compassionate release for terminally ill or elderly inmates.
5. Reentry Planning: Required individualized reentry plans to be developed, increasing the likelihood of successful reintegration into society.
These reforms reflected a pragmatic understanding that incarceration should not only serve as punishment, but as a catalyst for change.
Law Enforcement Rationale for Support
Law enforcement professionals are too often excluded from policy conversations surrounding criminal justice reform. However, our role on the front lines provides a distinct and necessary perspective. Supporting the First Step Act was not an abandonment of law and order, but a logical step in aligning federal policy with what we know works: proportional justice, rehabilitation opportunities, and evidence-based correctional practices. Public safety is not compromised when we reduce recidivism—it is enhanced. From a policing standpoint, successful reintegration means fewer repeat offenders, less community victimization, and reduced strain on local law enforcement agencies.
Implementation Successes: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Metrics
Since the enactment of the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has taken deliberate and progressive steps to implement its provisions. According to the 2024 BOP directive, over 20,000 federal inmates have qualified for early release or pre-release custody through Earned Time Credits (ETC). These credits are directly linked to the successful completion of approved programs that focus on cognitive behavioral therapy, job skills training, substance abuse treatment, and educational advancement. BOP’s internal metrics show a measurable decrease in disciplinary infractions among program participants and lower rates of recidivism upon release.
Moreover, the PATTERN risk assessment tool has been employed to triage federal inmates by criminogenic needs and public safety risk. Although some critiques have emerged regarding algorithmic bias, law enforcement professionals recognize the importance of structured decision-making tools to reduce human error and inconsistency in release decisions. The operational enhancements to prison programming infrastructure have had a cascading effect—creating a culture of accountability and incentivized improvement inside facilities.
Independent Review and Findings
Independent analysis has shown that inmates who completed First Step Act (FSA)-approved programs are 37% less likely to reoffend than those who did not—an undeniable win for public safety. This isn't just a statistical footnote; it's real-world evidence that smart rehabilitation, when paired with structure and accountability, enhances community protection.
The data, highlighted in a report by the Council on Criminal Justice, also points to broader benefits: stronger family connections post-release, better mental health outcomes, and significant cost savings to the federal government. These aren't abstract policy points, they're tangible gains with measurable impact.
The message is clear: rehabilitation and public safety are not mutually exclusive. When done right, they reinforce one another. The First Step Act deserves not only to be preserved, but expanded.
Application to Federal Penology and Corrections Culture
From an applied criminology perspective, the First Step Act serves as a model for transforming the correctional environment from punitive warehousing into structured, rehabilitative containment. The shift is grounded in classical deterrence theory, social learning theory, and principles of risk-need-responsivity (RNR). By rewarding behavioral change and reducing exposure to criminogenic settings, the FSA aligns with what works in correctional intervention.
In practice, this means federal correctional officers and administrators have a clearer set of protocols and performance metrics. Inmates are held to higher standards of personal accountability. Officers become more than guards—they become facilitators of transformation. This culture shift is precisely the type of modernization needed to enhance staff morale, reduce workplace violence, and restore dignity to corrections as a profession.
Expanded Areas of Impact: Compassionate Release and Reentry Planning
One of the often-overlooked victories of the First Step Act is its reform of the compassionate release process. Historically, terminally ill or elderly inmates had to navigate a byzantine approval system that often resulted in delays beyond the point of medical relevance. The FSA streamlined this process by allowing inmates, not just the BOP, to petition courts directly for compassionate release. This democratized mechanism has led to a significant increase in approvals, especially for those with terminal illnesses or severe health conditions. From a law enforcement standpoint, this policy is not about leniency; it’s about operational efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and basic human dignity. Releasing non-violent, medically incapacitated inmates allows federal facilities to redirect medical resources and staff toward higher-risk populations, ultimately contributing to safer and more manageable institutions.
Equally important is the FSA’s requirement for individualized reentry plans. In the past, too many inmates exited prison without a roadmap, left to navigate housing, employment, and treatment needs with little support. Now, under the Act, federal inmates receive personalized reentry blueprints starting at the beginning of their incarceration. These plans include referrals for job training, substance abuse aftercare, transitional housing, and faith-based mentorship—factors proven to reduce recidivism. From the view of applied criminology, this is the 'responsivity' in the RNR model brought to life. When former offenders reenter society with tools, structure, and support, communities are safer, officers respond to fewer repeat calls, and public trust in the justice system improves. This is not merely policy on paper—it is progress in practice.
Concerns Raised by Law Enforcement
Limitations and Carve-Outs: Preserving Public Safety
While the First Step Act has proven successful in reducing recidivism and improving reentry outcomes, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are some important opportunities for improvement that should be considered. From a conservative-focused deterrence model and the perspective of applied criminology, there are categories of offenders whose risk profiles and offense histories warrant exclusion from the benefits of early release, earned time credits, or compassionate reentry. Failing to acknowledge these necessary limitations undermines both the credibility of the Act and public trust in the justice system.
To ensure the FSA maintains its integrity and prioritizes victim safety and community protection, and to consider the concerns of law enforcement the following carve-outs are recommended:
1. **Violent Career Offenders**: Those with repeated violent felony convictions, especially involving firearms, should remain ineligible due to their high propensity for reoffending.
2. **Gang-Affiliated Inmates**: Documented members of violent gangs, particularly those involved in prison or street violence, present continued threats to institutional and public safety.
3. **High-Risk Sex Offenders**: Individuals convicted of serious sex crimes, including child exploitation or serial sexual assault, demonstrate risk profiles that resist rehabilitation.
4. **Terrorism or Espionage Convictions**: These crimes transcend traditional criminality and pose ideological or national security threats incompatible with early reintegration.
5. **Habitual Drug Traffickers**: Major narcotics distributors, particularly those with transnational ties, should not benefit from reforms designed for non-violent, low-level offenders.
6. **Repeat Domestic Violence Offenders**: Chronic batterers often manipulate justice systems and pose persistent threats to partners and families.
7. **Prison-Based Institutional Threats**: Inmates with a record of violence, riot incitement, or possession of contraband weapons in custody should be excluded on conduct grounds.
8. **Convicted Murderers (Non-Mitigated)**: Individuals convicted of premeditated murder without mitigating factors present the highest public safety risks and should not benefit from time-credit acceleration or early release unless extraordinary circumstances apply.
9. **Career Criminal Offenders**: Individuals with a sustained pattern of felony convictions across multiple jurisdictions and offense categories—often including a blend of property crime, drug trafficking, violence, and weapons charges. These are not 'one-time offenders' but chronic violators whose criminal history demonstrates a lifestyle of crime. The recidivism risk for career criminals is not theoretical—it is empirical. These offenders have repeatedly rejected rehabilitative opportunities and demonstrate a criminogenic trajectory inconsistent with reform-based programming. Allowing access to earned time credits or early release for these individuals undermines the First Step Act's legitimacy and erodes public safety. From a law enforcement standpoint, these are the offenders most frequently encountered in serial crimes, organized theft rings, and as instigators of community disorder. Their incarceration is not merely punitive—it is preventive. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s longitudinal study (1990–2005 cohort, followed for 8 years), Career offenders and armed career criminals (those with sustained high-level criminal histories) have a 69.5% rearrest rate within eight years of release. More broadly, recidivism correlates strongly with criminal history. Offenders with 10+ criminal history points—a typical marker of a career criminal—face an 81.5% rearrest rate within eight years. And those in the highest Criminal History Category (VI) show approximately 80.1% rearrest within eight years.
A proposed 'Red Zone Carve-Out Clause' should be legislatively added to clearly delineate ineligible categories for FSA benefits. This would preserve the Act's strategic goals while aligning it with traditional principles of justice and deterrence. From a law enforcement perspective, such exclusions are not merely practical—they are essential for legitimacy and long-term success.
Bridging the Gap: Integrating Modern Parole with the First Step Act
Equally essential to the future of effective federal penology is the re-introduction of a strong parole program—one that is adequately staffed, strategically focused, and technologically advanced. The abolition of federal parole in 1984 under the Sentencing Reform Act created a rigid system devoid of post-release supervision flexibility. A reformed parole system, integrated with the First Step Act’s principles, would provide tailored oversight, reinforce behavioral compliance, and offer scalable responses to offender risk. This includes personnel-based monitoring (parole officers with smaller caseloads, specialized in reentry support, mental health, or gang disengagement) as well as technology-based supervision such as GPS tracking, biometric check-ins, AI-driven risk analytics, digital curfews, encrypted communication audits, and geo-fencing capabilities.
A modern parole structure should not be viewed as leniency, but as an extension of structured accountability. Properly executed, parole enhances both deterrence and reintegration by giving the state a graduated response mechanism to violations while incentivizing good behavior. Reintroducing such a system would close the loop on the First Step Act by ensuring that the journey from incarceration to reentry includes sustained contact, professional guidance, and the credible threat of sanctions when conditions are breached.
Conclusion
As a former major county sheriff with decades of frontline experience, my endorsement of the original First Step Act in 2018 under President Trump was grounded not in ideological compromise, but in a realistic, operational understanding of criminal behavior and systemic reform. The Act has now proven that criminal justice policy can be both firm and fair—supporting rehabilitation for those willing to reform while upholding accountability for those who persist in criminal enterprise.
The principles of focused deterrence remind us that targeted enforcement works best when paired with proportional, evidence-based correctional strategies. The First Step Act provides the scaffolding for such a model at the federal level. It rightly invests in reducing recidivism through structured reentry programming, earned incentives, and dignified compassionate release. At the same time, public safety and community trust require that we maintain hard lines against those offenders whose actions and histories demonstrate a refusal to disengage from a life of crime.
This paper advocates for a continued implementation of the First Step Act with carve-outs and exclusions for those individuals who remain a demonstrable risk to public safety. The creation of a 'Red Zone Carve-Out Clause' would codify those exceptions while preserving the broader success of the policy. Applied criminology supports this dual-track model—one that encourages transformation while still holding the line on high-risk offenders.
With these needed additions, the First Step Act will continue to be a smarter, safer, and more strategically sound federal criminal justice system—one that law enforcement professionals can support without abandoning the foundational principles of deterrence, accountability, and justice.
The First Step Act is not the end of reform. It is the beginning of a smarter, safer, and more strategically sound federal criminal justice system—one that law enforcement professionals can support without abandoning the foundational principles of deterrence, accountability, and justice.
References
Bureau of Prisons. (2024). First Step Act directive and implementation. https://www.bop.gov/news/pdfs/20250618-fsa-directive-and-sca.pdf
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024). First Step Act: Implementation and impact. https://counciloncj.foleon.com/first-step-act/fsa/
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024). Federal priorities: Recommendations. https://counciloncj.foleon.com/taskforce/federal-priorities/recommendations
Right on Crime. (2018). America’s sheriffs should support the First Step Act. https://rightoncrime.com/americas-sheriffs-should-support-the-first-step-act/
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2016). Recidivism among federal offenders: A comprehensive overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/recidivism_overview.pdf
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2017). The past predicts the future: Criminal history and recidivism of federal offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170309_Recidivism-CH.pdf
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2022). Recidivism of federal violent offenders released in 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-violent-offenders-released-2010