Does the ‘tough on crime’ approach to law and order actually work? 

Congress is now considering the Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2025, and the House Judiciary Committee recently examined the Bureau of Prisons in an oversight hearing. So this seems like the right moment to ask a basic question: Is our “tough on crime” approach actually tough on crime, or only tough on taxpayers and future victims?

There are two types of people we incarcerate. The first group is truly dangerous and must be removed from society. The second group broke laws and caused harm, but does not overlap with that category. These must be held accountable, but they are not inherently violent or beyond repair.

Here is the reality: At least 95 percent of people in state prison will return to our communities. Corrections does not decide who enters. Courts hand down sentences, corrections merely houses the people sent to them. Too often, we warehouse people rather than prepare them to return as law-abiding neighbors. Predictably, some come back angrier, harder and more dangerous.

Being "tough on crime" should mean fewer future crimes, not simply longer sentences. And we have tools that work. A large meta-analysis from RAND found that people who participate in education while incarcerated are 43 percent less likely to return to prison. States that invest in job training, mental health care and reentry supports report better public safety and lower long-term costs.

That is not softness, that is accountability with results.

A new nonprofit approach is challenging the old norms: An outcomes-based model can work in government corrections and in contract corrections. It aligns funding with results, reduces costs, prepares people for reentry and strengthens public safety. The goal is not more cells; the goal is fewer victims and safer communities. Leaders in tech and philanthropy have even floated nonprofit corrections concepts to realign incentives.  

Here is a practical federal plan that should appeal across the aisle. 

First, tie outcomes to dollars. In the Second Chance Reauthorization Act and in Byrne JAG guidance, prioritize grants that pay for measurable public safety results — for example, reductions in new felony reconvictions within 24 months, verified employment within 90 days of release, reductions in in custody violence and officer injuries, and total cost per successful outcome. Publish the metrics and the facility level results. Fund what works, and stop paying for what does not.  

Second, direct the Justice Department to run a time-limited pilot in three to five states. Make the rules simple. Any provider — public, private or nonprofit — can compete if they meet security standards and accept common metrics and independent evaluation. Require a public dashboard. Invite counties to join, since local leaders manage much of reentry. 

Third, back the people who carry the load every day. Corrections officers deserve safer posts and better training. Programs that reduce in-custody violence and post-release offending protect staff, residents and the public. The recent House oversight hearing underscored that point. 

"Tought on crime" should mean fewer victims next year than this year. It should mean fewer families hurt, fewer businesses broken into, and fewer officers injured. We can achieve these goals if we align funding with outcomes, open the door to innovation, and report results in public. 

The public is ready. The data are clear. Congress and the administration can prove that tough on crime means something real by piloting an outcomes-based model now and scaling the parts that work. 

Brian Koehn is CEO of Social Purpose Corrections and a former warden and security expert who has led cultural change in correctional facilities across the United States.