Change and Disruption
A lot can happen 8 weeks before Inauguration Day 2025, especially with this incoming administration, given the unique dynamics on display so far. That said, it's clear that business as usual and the status quo will find hard sledding ahead as the expression goes. Change and disruption are in the air (dah, such a trite understatement, but what else to say?). At a minimum, we can expect a hands-off, business-friendly approach to government policy, regulation, and initiatives to cut federal spending significantly. More to the point, look for anything that doesn't align with private sector profit, growth, and wealth creation (read this: most things "social") to be on the outs.
Self-interest seems to be another trend that is shamelessly in vogue. What a perfect time to reintroduce my perspective on reentry, a mix of free-enterprise tactics and strategies and social service principles. It's not without a measure of self-interest but just enough to keep things accurate and moving forward, or so I like to think of it. I'll leave this determination to others.
Okay, so let's get straight to the point about what might be coming for reentry programs regardless of type: new/novel scrutiny, possible funding cuts, and an emphasis on business-like metrics; think KPIs and OKRs (key performance indicators and objectives and key results). Will these changes and disruptions come all at once? Certainly not. It takes time for aircraft carriers or institutions to adjust course. But the status quo in the social service world (where, in the binary comparison of for-profit vs. not, reentry lands) must change, given the realities of the federal budget deficient, via this next administration or (hopefully) others to come.
Given the expected change in wind direction, here are three consideration questions for reentry planners, near and longer-term:
Is the goal for those reentering to become independent, self-sufficient citizens in good standing?
Does the program move individuals from the expense to the asset side of the ledger?
With the governmental (and perhaps societal) changes coming, is the program structure (all-in) sustainable?
Let's put these three points in a proper context, as it's essential to start seeing things from the other side of the campus. So, picture the assessment (judgment, if you will) of your program done by someone with no social service education, training, or background. Someone with no interest or "feel" for the social sciences. A cardboard cutout-type capitalist who lives and breathes P&Ls, ROIs, and profit growth opportunities—only.
As repugnant for some of you as it will be, see things from this person's perspective without regard for current funding mandates, staffing, social good, or intention, see results just in terms of dollars spent—period. To do this right, be this person AND the person reporting to this person. Turn your entire perspective 180 degrees. Remove everything you "know" to be accurate and true about people and how things work in your world. Ask yourself things like:
Why is money spent on efforts that don't have positive and continuing results (recidivism)?
Why should we support individuals who take resources (expenses) vs. creating or producing resourcing (assets)?
Why should existing non-performing programs with unsustainable metrics (think KPI/OKR/ROI/etc.) be continued?
To integrate this perspective, if not the persona, force yourself to accept humans' value in stark capitalistic terms; people must create, produce, or consume to have value. If they don't, why should resources be directed to them? Furthermore, people can have negative values from this point of view. The most straightforward example of this is incarceration, where the average annual "cost" for all types of institutions is estimated to be around $30k—cost, an expense on the asset/liability society ledger.
Not fun. Hard to do.
"Hey John, you don't get it."
Here's what I do get.
The quickest way to the finish line for reentry program success is through employment, now and based on what I imagine to be coming. Getting, keeping, and moving ahead by working is the one size that fits all when it comes to becoming an independent, self-sufficient citizen in good standing in the US. What's more, it is something both the conservative (up by your bootstraps) and liberal (everyone deserves a shot) can agree on. And know this: The further a program's focus strays from employment-based "real" results, the greater the chances for disagreement, resulting in less support and more justification.
The tsunami might just be coming.
Start adjusting NOW!
If your reentry approach does not produce results that everyone can agree on and buy into, it's time for you to perform a brutal 180-degree assessment before the person outlined above shows up at your door.
Onward.