The Disconnect Between Federal and State Reentry Policies: A Costly Burden on Taxpayers
Imagine moving from New York to Maryland with a credit score of 700, only to be told your history doesn’t count and your score is now 300—you have to start over. This is precisely what happens to federally incarcerated individuals who complete rehabilitation programs, only to face state-level barriers that ignore their progress under the First Step Act (FSA).
Each year, thousands of federal prisoners leave prison in hopes of a second chance, particularly those who are minimum and low security prisoners who participate in FSA, a sweeping law meant to return prisoners to the community sooner. However, much of the information gathered under the FSA could also be used to help those returning to society by providing a glimpse of the progress made while incarcerated. Many of those who receive FSA credits can demonstrate that they are not a threat to society and provide proof of the work they accomplished while incarcerated. It can also be used to overcome state regulations who seek to disqualify some just because of a felony.
The First Step Act and the Cost of Redundant State Regulations
The FSA, signed into law in 2018, was designed to reduce recidivism and support reintegration. A key component, the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN), evaluates inmates based on objective criteria, rewarding those at low risk of reoffending and violence with early release and reentry programs. PATTERN scores range from minimum, the lowest score meaning least likely for violence or recidivism, up to high (ineligible for FSA credits).
PATTERN uses a standardized, data-driven approach that evaluates an inmate’s history, behavior, and engagement in rehabilitative programs. Key factors include criminal history (age at first arrest, history of violence, prior incarcerations), institutional behavior** (disciplinary records, program participation), rehabilitative engagement** (education, vocational training, cognitive-behavioral therapy) and Demographics and socio-economic factors
This inefficiency wastes taxpayer money. Federal funding has already paid for rehabilitation and risk assessments, yet states impose additional hurdles—effectively making taxpayers foot the bill twice. Instead of leveraging federal efforts to reduce recidivism, state agencies reinvent the wheel, adding unnecessary costs and delaying economic reintegration. Often, the states impose restrictions on former felons without actually knowing little about the person other than they were in prison.
States Can Use The Information Gathered by the Federal Government
This contradiction highlights a broader issue: the disconnect between federal criminal justice reforms and state reentry laws. The economic argument is compelling. Taxpayers have funded hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for the cost of reducing recidivism and rehabilitation of offenders who have successfully participated in a federal program with objective measures of risk and public safety. Yet the taxpayer pays again at the state level for agencies to reinvent the wheel and use subjective measures to decide assess risk. The result is frustration for those who have gone to prison as they try to explain that they are a new person. The PATTERN score helps with this.
Case Study: Sreedhar Potarazu and Maryland’s Licensing Barriers
Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu, convicted of financial crimes in 2016, completed his sentence and engaged in federally approved rehabilitation programs. His crime was unrelated to medical practice, and under Maryland’s fair licensing laws, he should have been eligible to regain his medical license. Yet, despite Governor Wes Moore’s push for reform, Maryland’s licensing boards have ignored Potarazu’s rehabilitation, forcing him—and taxpayers—through costly bureaucratic obstacles instead of allowing him to contribute economically and fulfill restitution obligations.
Importantly, the idea is that Potarazu should get his life back in order to be in an economic position to pay the restitution. Since his crime was not related to the practice of medicine he is eligible under new fair licensing laws in Maryland to get his license back. Agencies, like Maryland Board Of Physicians and Administrative Judges however choose to charge the taxpayer more money by ignoring the rehabilitation and programs done in prison and turn the clock back despite Governor Moore’s direction for reform.
Potarazu told me in an interview, “I’m a good doctor who has always put my patients first. I made a mistake but I dedicated my life in prison to becoming a better person and the records show that if I could get someone to listen to me.”
Legal and Economic Implications
Denying individuals the benefits of federally recognized rehabilitation raises serious legal concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly regarding due process and equal protection. Case law supports the right to fair treatment in occupational licensing:
Beyond legal concerns, duplicating risk assessments and rehabilitation efforts is an expensive waste of taxpayer dollars. Instead of fostering successful reintegration, state agencies undermine federal programs, prolong unemployment, and increase the likelihood of recidivism—all at public expense.
A Path Forward
To reduce waste and improve reentry outcomes, states should recognize federal risk classifications in licensing and employment decisions and create a standardized rehabilitation record, akin to a credit score. This provides an updated assessment of recidivism risk and public safety. This would align state policies with the FSA to streamline reintegration and prevent redundant spending.
Governor Moore’s Government Efficiency Commission is a step in the right direction, but broader reform is needed. By acknowledging federally approved rehabilitation, states can save taxpayers millions while improving public safety and economic outcomes.
When people leave prison, they have a gap in their resume for their time away from society. How they behaved in prison and the risk they pose to society, represents information the federal government has accumulated. Rather than ditch all that information after prison, the data can be used by state agencies responsible for licensing to gauge the likelihood of future criminal acts. At least it is a start to helping people and allows states to save time/money associated with developing their own tool.
Read the full article here
