When lawyers through greed or hubris or desperation become white-collar criminals – sent to prison and disbarred – their stories often feel like car crashes. We gape at the wreckage of their lives and move on.
But what happens afterwards, once they’ve done their time? How do they pick up the pieces?
Jeffrey Grant found a path to redemption. Seventeen years after he pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining $247,000 through a 9/11 disaster relief loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York earlier this month reinstated his law license.
“I’m beyond excited, but I also take the responsibility very seriously,” he told me. “I’m really grateful for a second chance.”
His journey is extraordinary, from opioid-addicted real estate lawyer to federal prison inmate to seminary student to head of a criminal justice nonprofit. And now, at age 64, he has come full circle to practice law again.
But this time around, he intends to do it very differently.
A 1981 New York Law School grad, Grant, before everything fell apart, headed his own 20-employee firm, Jeffrey D. Grant & Associates, in Mamaroneck, New York, serving as outside general counsel to large real estate companies.
“I viewed life as a competition,” he said, describing himself as akin to “a paid assassin.”
“It was me against everyone else, or me and my client against everyone else.”
After a sports injury, he was prescribed the painkiller Demerol and over the course of a decade, he became addicted to prescription opioids.
When he couldn’t meet payroll for his firm, he borrowed money from client escrow accounts. With a New York state attorney grievance committee investigation pending, he surrendered his law license on July 28, 2002. That night, he attempted suicide by overdose, he told me.
He wound up in rehab, embracing recovery with three meetings a day. He’s been clean and sober ever since.
But his past caught up with him in 2004, when he learned there was a warrant for his arrest. “No one was more surprised than me,” Grant said. Once informed of the charges, though, it “all came rushing back.”
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, he had applied for federal financial aid and falsely claimed that his firm had an office in New York City. In reality, he merely had an arrangement to use a conference room on occasion in the city.
Did he somehow convince himself this qualified? I asked. “I was a lawyer who represented sophisticated businesspeople,” he said. “I knew better.”
“There’s no question drugs had a lot to do with it, but I can’t blame the drugs,” he continued. “I was desperate, clutching at anything I could.”
Grant served 14 months at a low security prison in White Deer, Pennsylvania – but it was a “real prison with bars,” he said, not one of the so-called Club Fed camps where white-collar offenders typically do their time.
As a “privileged kid from the suburbs,” he said, “I had to learn hard lessons there. But it was exactly what I needed to wipe the last smirk off my face.”
Released in 2007, he knew he wanted to use his experiences to help others. He’s Jewish, but a pastor he knew suggested he consider attending a seminary.
“I didn’t know what that meant,” Grant recalled. (His first reaction: Is that where you train to be a monk?) But he discovered that seminaries, at least the progressive ones, “are basically places where you learn about social justice and faith.”
In 2012, he earned a master of divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He’s been baptized, but he’s also still a Jew. “I’m a double-belonger,” he said.
Grant and his wife Lynn Springer went on to co-found Progressive Prison Ministries. Based in Greenwich, Connecticut, they say it’s the world’s first ministry focused on serving the white-collar justice community.
It includes a weekly white-collar online support group for people “who have a desire to take responsibility for our actions and the wreckage we caused, make amends, and move forward in new way of life centered on hope, care, compassion, tolerance and empathy.” More than 310 people around the country have participated, according to the group’s website.
From 2016 to 2019, Grant also served as the executive director of Family ReEntry, a criminal justice nonprofit with offices and programs in eight Connecticut cities.
Three years ago, he began the process of getting his law license back. The first step was taking the multi-state professional responsibility exam and completing CLE. He also submitted “about 12 inches of paperwork,” he said, including his personal story.
He wrote 14,000 words. “I wanted to tell them everything, the whole story, warts and all,” he said. “It didn’t make a difference to me if strategically it was the right thing to do.” He added, “I let go of the outcome.”
He had a hearing via videoconference last May. “I was scared,” Grant said, but he was surprised to find that the panel members questioning him were “kind.”
“They were thorough and probing, but they were not out to tank me. They were supportive,” he said. “It helped me remember the best parts of being a lawyer.”
On May 5, his license was officially reinstated, and he promptly launched GrantLaw PLLC. With an office on West 43rd Street in Manhattan, he’s offering his services as a private general counsel specializing in white-collar crisis management.
That might include helping a white-collar defendant interview defense lawyers and other specialized counsel, reviewing the lawyers’ work product and billing, and acting as a sounding board, all with the goal of achieving a better and more-cost-efficient outcome.
“Most white-collar defendants are very bright, who have a lot of professional experience and are highly educated,” Grant said. “They don’t realize they’re in trauma – and are making generally very bad decisions while in trauma.”
They need “someone who understands trauma,” he said, “and somebody to trust.”
Given his life experiences, it’s hard for me to imagine a lawyer more uniquely qualified.
Jenna Greene writes about legal business and culture, taking a broad look at trends in the profession, faces behind the cases, and quirky courtroom dramas. A longtime chronicler of the legal industry and high-profile litigation, she lives in Northern California. Reach Greene at [email protected].
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Congratulations to our friend Craig Stanland on the publishing of his first book, “Blank Canvas: How I Reinvented My Life After Prison“! Craig is a powerful example of how to come back from the depths of professional and personal destruction and despair, survive and evolve in prison, and become a better, more fulfilled person living the life God intends for him. These lessons are universal – I’ve read a review copy of Craig’s book and I highly recommend it for anyone navigating life’s difficulties. I guess that means everybody! Five stars! – Jeff
Craig is a member of our online White Collar Support Group that meets on Zoom on Monday evenings. He has been a guest on our White Collar Week podcast, links to YouTube (video) and podcast below.
_________________________
From Craig:
On September 30th, 2013, I had what many would call,
“It all.”
A successful career, multiple homes, nice cars, nice watches, I ate at the finest restaurants in Greenwich and Manhattan. I was married to an amazing and beautiful woman.
On October 1st, 2013, I lost it all.
Even though I had “it all,” I never thought I did, and what I did have, I didn’t feel worthy of.
I didn’t feel worthy of my success; I didn’t feel worthy of my beautiful wife.
I was chasing anything and everything outside of myself to feel whole. To feel complete. To be someone people would respect, like, and love.
I was desperately trying to become someone I would respect, like, and love.
Chasing, chasing, chasing.
I was on a treadmill, trying to catch the horizon.
The next purchase, the next high, the next extravagant dinner – all of them would make me feel worthy and complete.I would be someone.
Until the rush would inevitably fade, and I’d be off to the races, chasing the next thing. It was exhausting.
My self-worth and my identity were inextricably tied to the things I owned, the things I purchased, and my ability to purchase those things.
I was my BMW’s, my Panerai watches, my $300 bottle of Rioja, my Platinum Amex Card.
I had no idea what I was doing at the time. I had no idea of the absurdity of the task I was taking on. I was trying to fill a broken glass with my things and utterly blind to the fact that I never could.
The equipment I was selling was becoming more commoditized, the profit margins were shrinking, and so were my paychecks.
My job performance was also dwindling; I was too consumed with chasing.
My dwindling checks and performance were a direct threat to my very identity and sense of worth. I had to do something.
I could have been honest with myself and my wife. I could have told the truth that I couldn’t maintain our lifestyle.
I didn’t. I was too afraid; I was too scared to be seen as “less than.” I couldn’t find the courage to shed the facade I created.
I had to do something else to maintain this house of cards.
I discovered an opportunity to exploit our partner companies warranty policy for my financial gain. This would solve the problem; this would make everything ok.
For just under a year, I committed fraud against one of the largest technology companies in the world.
I committed this fraud in the face of my heart telling begging me not to.
With each click of the mouse, each time hit the enter button to perpetuate the fraud, my heart spoke,
“Don’t do this.”
“This is not the way.”
“You know this isn’t right.”
And I ignored it every time.
It came to a screeching halt on October 1st, 2013, when the FBI caught up with me.
I was arrested and charged with one count of mail fraud.
This was the first day on my long descent to rock bottom.
I pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years of federal prison.
I was consumed with shame. I destroyed for my life; I ruined my wife’s life.
I hated the man I had become; I hated the choices I made. I hated the crystal clear clarity that I did this.
That I was wrong. That I was responsible. That I could have avoided all this suffering if only I had been honest.
I had to make the pain stop; I begged the hand of death to kill me in my sleep, suicide became a viable option.
This was my rock bottom.
I was lucky; my best friend of over thirty years visited me in prison. It was from here that my life turned around.
This was the day I started to rebuild.
If you had told me that eight years later, I would experience one of the most emotional, transformational, joyful, transcendent experiences of my life resulting from that pain, I would have thought you were insane.
But that’s precisely what happened.
On May 13th, 2021, I carried three heavy cardboard boxes up four flights of stairs into my apartment in Brooklyn.
I carefully opened the boxes with a razor knife, removed the packing paper and saw, and held, for the first time, my experience in its physical manifestation.
I took all of that pain, all of the shame, all of the embarrassment, all of the guilt, all of the fear, and I alchemized it into a book.
“Blank Canvas, How I Reinvented My Life After Prison”
I wrote it because I had to.
I know that sharing my experience at rock bottom will help someone with theirs. They will see that they are not alone.
This book took over six years to write, spread across eight drafts and approximately one million words. I had to write those one million words to get to the fifty-two thousand in the book that capture the truth of my experience.
It’s the truth that will help someone who feels right now how I once felt.
Writing is a solitary practice. It’s me and the words.
But the emotions and the experiences I capture, that’s not only me.
That’s my family, friends, and the Progressive Prison Ministries. They guided me and supported me on my rapid descent to rock bottom and the slow journey out.
To know that you’re not alone when you feel most alone is one of the most powerful realizations we can have.
This is what our family and friends do; this is what a community does- they inform us that we are not alone.
Sometimes that’s all we need.
The Progressive Prison Ministries is that community.
After hitting rock bottom, Craig Stanland was forced to make a choice: give up or rebuild. He thought he had “it all” until he lost sight of what’s truly important and made the worst decision of his life, losing everything along the way, including his own self-worth. Through the painful, terrifying process of starting over, Craig ultimately discovered that when you have nothing, anything is possible.
Today, Craig is an author, speaker, and Reinvention Architect. He specializes in working with people whose lives have fallen apart, helping them reinvent themselves by showing them how to rebuild their self-worth and create the extraordinary lives they’ve always wanted.
Best of White Collar Week with Jeff Grant: From Sept. 2020
Podcast Ep. 11: Blank Canvas, with Guest: Craig Stanland
Today on the podcast, we have Craig Stanland. Not only does Craig have a great TED Talk out there, and a new book, Blank Canvas,to be published next year, but he is one of my very first ministees. It’s hard to believe that he first contacted me in 2013 after he was charged with fraud. He’s been a good friend and colleague ever since, and is a regular member of our online White Collar Support Group that meets on Monday evenings.
Craig actually led the discussion on the very first episode of White Collar Week, where we had sixteen of our support group members tell their stories. You can find the link to that episode here.
So, coming up. Craig Stanland. On White Collar Week. I hope you will join us. – Jeff
On Friday, June 4, 2021, 9 am ET, Babz Rawls Ivy interviewed Jeff Grant about his reinstatement as a lawyer after serving time in a Federal prison, on Criminal Justice Insider with Babz Rawls Ivy & Jeff Grant – The Voice of CT Criminal Justice. Live on WNHH 103.5 FM New Haven and live-streaming at newhavenindependent.org. Rebroadcast at 5 pm.Criminal Justice Insider is sponsored by the Community Foundation fror Greater New Haven and Progressive Prison Ministries.
Watch on YouTube:
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
Listen on SoundCloud:
Guests on this episode:
Jeffrey D. Grant, Esq.
After an addiction to prescription opioids and serving almost fourteen months in a Federal prison (2006 – 07) for a white-collar crime he committed in 2001, Jeff started his own reentry – earning a Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, majoring in Social Ethics. After graduating from divinity school, Jeff was called to serve at an inner city church in Bridgeport, CT as Associate Minister and Director of Prison Ministries. He then co-founded Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc. (Greenwich, CT), the world’s first ministry serving the white collar justice community.
On May 5, 2021, Jeff’s law license was reinstated by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Now again in private practice, Jeff is an attorney and counselor-at-law providing private general counsel, legal crisis management, and dispute strategy and management services to individuals and families, real estate organizations, family-owned and closely-held businesses, the white collar justice community, and special situation and pro bono clients.
From 1982 – 2002, Jeff served as managing attorney of a 20+ employee law firm headquartered in New York City, and then Westchester County, NY. Among other practice areas, the firm engaged in representation of family-owned/closely held businesses and their owners, business and real estate transactions, trusts and estates, and litigation. Jeff also served as outside General Counsel to large family-owned real estate equities, management and brokerage organizations, in which role he retained, coordinated and oversaw the work of many specialty law firms, including white collar defense firms.
Criminal Justice Insider with Babz Rawls Ivy and Jeff Grant is broadcast live at 9 am (ET) on the first and third Friday of each month from the WNHH 103.5 FM studios in New Haven, live-streamed everywhere at newhavenindependent.org. It is also on live on Facebook Live (video) at https://www.facebook.com/wnhhradio. It is rebroadcast on WNHH at 5 pm the same day.
The Criminal Justice Insider Podcast with Babz Rawls Ivy and Jeff Grant is broadcast live at 9 am ET on the first and third Friday of each month from the WNHH 103.5 FM studios in New Haven. It is rebroadcast on WNHH at 5 pm ET the same day.
This article imagines a cohesive, integrated system that shepherds people through and beyond their criminal justice issues and incentivizes the community to assist them.
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Progressive Diversion & Reentry, “Problem-to-Pardon” Case Management
On an early turn playing the famous board game The Game of Life, you have a choice to make: go to college or start your career. While this decision sets the tone for the kind of game you’ll play, no matter which option you choose, these distinct paths ultimately merge back together allowing you to spearhead your career, start a family, buy a house, and eventually retire.
In our version of The Game of Life, you have two very different options: You go to prison or you don’t. But the penalties for going to prison are tantamount to playing the rest of the game with both arms tied behind your back.
This article explores ways in which all stakeholders in the criminal justice ecosystem can work together on common goals to help justice-impacted individuals navigate their ways through The Game of Life, provide resources for their incremental success, teach them to avoid and/or elegantly deal with obstacles that formerly resulted in recidivation, and provide a path to exit the game with more joyful, productive, and purposeful lives free of the stigma, shame, and barriers associated with having a felony. This reveals that the underlying purpose is to change The Game of Life into a way of life, one in which all stakeholders, and the community at large, will be lifted up, permanently disrupting the intergenerational cycle of incarceration.
Problem-to-Pardon Case Management
When you are admitted to a hospital, a hospital social worker begins to plan your discharge immediately upon your admission, often before a doctor even meets with you. Why? Because leaving better than you were upon entry is the ultimate goal of a hospital. This is the kind of framework in which legal case management must operate. People entering the criminal justice system are not given the tools and information required to reduce their sentence or prepare for reintegration into the community. Aside from a defense attorney’s guidance from trial to sentencing, justice-impacted people are largely on their own. Abandoning our most vulnerable people in their time of need should not be the standard. Case management should not begin and end in a courtroom or prison; reentry preparation should start immediately after a defendant enters the system and end when the client has completed their pardon application. We have coined the term for this process the “Problem-to-Pardon” case management system.
In our current system, punishment goes way beyond incarceration. American culture normatively accepts prison as a solution to violence and civil disobedience rather than a symptom. What we mean by this is that our collective consciousness and discourse in relation to the purpose of prisons have been limited by our tolerance to the cycle of violence. We must ask ourselves, “on an institutional level, what do prisons do to curb the reproduction of violence?” As it stands now, the answer is, unfortunately, “not much.”
Upon release, justice-impacted people are frequently subjected to visits from their parole officer. Without diving into the functional roles of a case manager versus a parole officer, their presences alone paint a stark contrast. Parole officers are able to show up unannounced, wielding a gun on their hip. They remind their client to find housing and/or a job, terms of their parole, seldom offering any assistance on achieving these requirements. What does this say about how we view justice-impacted people post reentry? A threatening, combative figure cannot be the default for all cases.
When someone is locked away for committing a crime, no matter if the crime is violent or nonviolent, that crime did not happen in an isolation chamber. Until attention is drawn to the root causes rather than the crime itself, rehabilitation and reconciliation remain anomalies. Simply displacing society’s “bad actors” does nothing to combat crime itself; we must engage with justice-impacted people and commit to rehabilitation through hands-on, personalized, evidence-based, and community-oriented casework.
Casework Models
There are several different models for conducting casework. In our opinion, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative launched by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in partnership with the Urban Institute in 2007 is the closest representation of a Problem-to-Pardon case management system. This model is based on a significant body of prisoner reentry research and evidence-based practices. The key five elements of the TJC Model are as follows:
Leadership, Vision, and Organizational Culture. Leaders from both the jail and the community must be actively engaged, articulate a clear vision, set expectations, identify important issues, and involve other key constituencies.
Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership. Effective transition strategies rely on collaboration and information-sharing among jail and community-based partners and joint ownership of the problem and solution.
Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentry. Regular analysis of objective data, including analysis of the jail population characteristics, informs and drives decision-making and policy formation.
Targeted Intervention Strategies The strategy to improve transition at the individual level involves introducing specific interventions at critical points along the jail-to-community continuum.
Self-Evaluation and Sustainability. Self-evaluation involves the use of objective data to guide operations, monitor progress, and inform decision-making. Sustainability involves planning to maintain initiative progress despite changes in leadership, policy, funding, and staffing. See Kevin Warwick, Hannah Dodd & S. Rebecca Neusteter, Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry, org (Sept. 2012), https://urbn.is/3sdEI4g.
This model draws on four main principles popularized by Canadians Paul Gendreau and Robert Ross: human service, risk, need, and responsivity.
Principles
The human service principle states that punishment alone cannot change an individual’s behavior or prevent the individual from recidivating. See Michael L. Prendergast et al., The Andrews’ Principles of Risk, Need, and Responsivity as Applied in Drug Abuse Treatment Programs: Meta-analysis of Crime and Drug Use Outcomes, 9 J. Experimental Criminology 275 (2013), https://bit.ly/39Bu1jJ. This not only includes incarceration itself, but also parole and additional post-sentence surveillance. Considerable research has supported this principle. In order to reduce recidivism, interventions such as treatment and supportive programming must be accessible. Clients’ improvements are linked more closely to positive reinforcement rather than negative. Interventions should be intensive; every client should be in case management for at least six months.
The risk principle refers to the importance of risk assessment before allocating treatment and additional resources. Seeid. Many studies have shown that high-risk individuals who receive relevant treatment experience lower rates of recidivism. See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra. Comparatively low-risk individuals may actually increase their chances of recidivism if treated similarly to high-risk individuals. See Christopher Tyson Lowenkamp, Correctional Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness: A Multi-Site, Program-Level Analysis (doctoral dissertation) (on file with University of Cincinnati) (2004), https://bit.ly/39f7PLK. It is important to note that this does not mean that low-risk individuals should not receive any assistance during incarceration and reentry; this means that case management’s focus must be on the individuals who are most likely to benefit from this work. A few examples of relevant areas of risk assessment include age, prior convictions, employment at arrest, and drug use history. Risk also included the type of crime committed; the most recent research has shown that “violent prior offenders were reconvicted at a higher rate (41.3%) than nonviolent offenders (23.3%).” See US Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders, ussc.gov (Jan. 2019), https://bit.ly/3q7NkYm. Risk should be assessed at multiple points along the case management process and be determined by classification instruments as opposed to clinical judgment. Standardized classification methods would combat rater bias and help support future research.
The need principle is fairly self-explanatory. This principle draws attention to the client’s specific traits, history, and, of course, needs. See Prendergast et al., supra. Research has shown that case management is more effective if the focus is solely or primarily on the client’s criminogenic needs (antisocial personality, pro-criminal attitudes, social supports for crime, substance abuse, family and marital relationships, school and/or work, and prosocial recreational activities). See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra. Focusing solely or primarily on the client’s non-criminogenic needs, such as stress and self-esteem, has been shown to have no effect or actually increase the client’s likelihood of recidivating. Seeid. It can be argued that many non-criminogenic needs are mere symptoms of more overarching needs. Figuratively speaking, focusing on non-criminogenic interventions would be like placing a bandage on an infected wound. By concentrating intervention strategies at the root of the client’s needs (their criminogenic needs), the client is more likely to experience positive change overall.
Finally, the responsivity principle can be broken down into two subcategories: the learning style of the client and traits that may affect treatment selection and response, such as mental health issues and/or cognitive disabilities. See Prendergast et al., supra. This principle has also proven to be relevant in constructing case management plans for other “special” populations, or populations that are considered a minority in prisons, such as female prisoners, sex offenders, and prisoners convicted of violent crimes. Seeid.
Pardons
According to many experts, the mark of successful reentry is when an individual stays out of prison for three to five years. In our opinion, we feel that five years should be the sole marker of success. After this five-year period, individuals are significantly less likely to recidivate compared to a three- or four-year marker. According to the proposed Problem-to-Pardon case management system, once the individual crosses this five-year threshold, they should have the opportunity to be pardoned for their crime. Adopting this model would actualize the criminal justice system’s original promise to serve justice and foster rehabilitation. (More on this below.) As it stands now, individuals can apply to be pardoned by the state or federal government, but only 17 states “regularly” approve (more than 30%) these applications. See Restoration of Rights Project, 50-State Comparison: Pardon Policy & Practice, ccresourcecenter.org (updated May 2020), https://bit.ly/2MQggWp.
The Problem-to-Pardon case management system looks to make pardons an attainable goal for the justice-impacted community. We believe that by adopting this incentive, individuals would be more likely to cooperate and be more engaged in case management and treatment. Learned helplessness may be an overlooked factor in client responsivity to treatment; if the client perceives their situation as irredeemable, how can we expect them to put in the work to change?
Caseworkers
Beyond shifting policies and framework, the foundation of case management is its caseworkers. Their treatment, pay, work-life balance, and physical and mental health directly influence their impact on their clients. Compared to correctional officers, caseworkers experience higher levels of burnout and, consequently, turnover. See Joseph R. Carlson & George Thomas, Burnout Among Prison Caseworkers and Correctional Officers, 43 J. Offender Rehab. 19 (2006), https://bit.ly/3nBPSfH. The three most common reasons for leaving the profession are inadequate payment, lack of support from management, and stress, also known as burnout. See id. Case managers do not want to be underpaid paper pushers; they want to believe their emotional labor and dedication are not only valuable but viable. Furthermore, these adverse working conditions hinder client progress and make case management, as a whole, unsustainable. Lack of support and stress ultimately obstruct interpersonal connections between clients and case managers. No amount of empirical methodology can substitute for rapport; clients need to trust their caseworkers in order for these methods to be successful.
Caseworkers should be selected with consideration of secondary trauma, interpersonal skills, cooperation, and collaboration. Support should always be available to caseworkers, as this job is highly intensive and emotionally draining. Feelings of isolation and an overwhelming workload can lead caseworkers to experience compassion fatigue, which can negatively impact their clients. Creating a work environment that maintains coworker support and promotes opportunities for personal development will make employment more sustainable. Investing in caseworkers is an investment in reentry success.
One of the ways case managers can receive much-needed support is through community ties. Case management should not solely reside in prisons; it is crucial that community-based organizations that are accessible and familiar with the justice-impacted community cosponsor reentry. Additionally, this unburdens caseworkers and ensures a smooth transition into reentry for the client. Depending on the client’s criminogenic tendencies and needs, caseworkers can connect clients to the relevant support systems. Establishing rapport between clients and the community before release is imperative, especially for high-risk clients who are more likely to recidivate. When community-based organizations collaborate with caseworkers and initiate “in-reach,” the transition from prison to freedom looks less like a leap of faith and more like a continuum of care. See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra.
Social Determinants of Health
Social and community context, access to quality health care, and neighborhood and built environment are three key areas of social determinants of health that are often overlooked during casework. See Ctrs for Disease Control & Prevention, What Are Social Determinants of Health, cdc.gov, https://bit.ly/2K5eS1f. As defined by the CDC, social determinants of health “are conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health risks and outcomes.” See id. One’s “cohesion within a community, civic participation, [experiences of] discrimination, and conditions in the workplace, and incarceration” as well as their “quality of housing, access to transportation, [. . .] and neighborhood crime and violence” should all be assessed and considered when planning reentry. See id. Access to affordable, quality physical and mental health care, including an individual’s health literacy, is also crucial to a successful reentry.
Community Collaboration
Likely community collaborators would include support groups, 12-step programs, housing programs, job assistance, childcare, affordable therapy, psychoeducation programs, as well as many others. It is important to note that people working within these organizations endure similar challenges as caseworkers; these programs are largely underfunded and overworked. Compounded with finding programs that are within an accessible physical proximity to clients, partnering with quality community programs can be an insurmountable task.
While caseworkers and community advocates can develop a relationship of mutual aid, many of the obstacles they face cannot be overcome without adequate funding. The challenges of funding have haunted casework and community interventions since their inception, and by no means will we pretend to have any solution that has not already been proposed. However, we cannot simply ignore this problem. This is where intervention and activism intersect: No systematic change can occur without the backing of a mass movement.
Identity
This year, the Black Lives Matter movement held a spotlight on the institutional racism deeply embedded in our country and, by extension, our justice system. This hyperawareness and newly widespread discourse around systematic change make fertile soil for reevaluating and reshaping our case management system. Historically, the quality of case management heavily depends on the client’s race, socioeconomic status, and gender identity. Of course, no policy reflects this discrepancy. However, through self-reported data, we know that these systems favor white, affluent, cisgender, heterosexual clients. Interestingly, casework looks vastly different between mothers and fathers, especially when comparing white parents to Black parents. While childcare seems like an obvious procedure in case management for clients who are mothers, fathers are largely overlooked when it comes to discussing childcare. This oversight stems from gendered and racist stereotypes, particularly the myth of the “missing Black father.”
American case management has operated from a colorblind, heteronormative, ableist, and classist standpoint for too long. See Rose M. Brewer & Nancy A. Heitzeg, The Racialization of Crime and Punishment, Criminal Justice, Color-Blind Racism, and the Political Economy of the Prison Industrial Complex, 51 Am. Behav. Scientist 625 (2008), https://bit.ly/3seyEbE. According to the Sentencing Project, over 60% of people in prison are people of color. See The Sentencing Project, Racial Disparity, sentencingproject.org, https://bit.ly/2LkCIGI. Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated compared to white men, while Hispanic men are just over two times as likely. See id. While women only make up seven percent of the prison population, these racial discrepancies manifest similarly, as well. Seeid. It is difficult to estimate the percentage of transgender, genderfluid, nonbinary, and genderqueer people incarcerated given the binary nature of the prison system and its lack of data collection. However, thanks to the 2015 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, we know that Black transgender women were four and a half times more likely to be incarcerated compared to their white counterparts. See Nat’l Ctr. for Transgender Equality, The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, transequality.org (2016), https://bit.ly/2Xv99ov. Additionally, Native American transgender women were three times as likely to experience incarceration compared to white transgender women. Seeid.
While it is seemingly intuitive to treat all of your clients the same, this does nothing to combat systemic racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, and classism within our justice and case management systems. By adopting an intersectional framework that draws on critical race theory, multiple schools of feminist theory, and disability studies, caseworkers can begin to implement truly individualized casework and actively combat institutionalized bias. See Brewer & Heitzeg, supra. Integrating theory into practice once again highlights the importance of establishing rapport: How can a client trust their case manager and the process if the process is designed to actively erase, undermine, or overlook their identity?
Today, more and more Americans are viewing incarceration as a race and class issue rather than the previously accepted black and white, good versus bad narrative. The topic of incarceration has quickly become a dinner table conversation rather than a shameful taboo. Now more than ever, caseworkers and advocates alike have the opportunity to seize and hold the public’s attention. Case management and community interventions are a major component in the larger movement of dismantling unjust practices. The more engaged and educated the public is on these issues, the more likely they are to support and push for policies that will allocate adequate funding to these life-changing services.
Funding social services often elicits pushback from concerned politicians and citizens alike: How do we pay for this? When it comes to funding preventative services versus treatment services, prevention is almost always significantly cheaper and more effective than treatment. For example, when Vice President-elect Kamala Harris launched Back on Track in 2005, not only did recidivism reduce from 53% to less than 10%, but costs reduced, as well. The program costs “approximately $5,000 per participant, compared with $10,000 to adjudicate a case and nearly $50,000 per year to house a low-level offender in prison or jail.” See Jacquelyn L. Rivers & Lenore Anderson, Back on Track: A Problem-Solving Reentry Court, bja.ojp.gov (Sept. 2009), https://bit.ly/3oyBLcg. When surveying 45 states in 2015, the Vera Institute of Justice found that the United States spent over $42 billion on prison expenditures in a single year. See Vera Inst. of Just., Prison Spending in 2015, vera.org, https://bit.ly/3nDUBxf. When questioning costs, we should begin with this figure rather than picking apart programs that will likely decrease this immense spending.
Another way caseworkers can simultaneously lighten their caseload and connect the client with their community is by involving the client’s family, whether that is chosen family or blood relatives. As it stands now, families are overlooked in the case management process. Before the individual is released from prison, caseworkers or parole officers will assess the individual’s future residence, mainly checking for weapons and drugs. While this process is necessary, this method alone fails to see the client’s environment as both physical and interpersonal. A family’s role in reentry can be helpful or harmful depending on their relationship with the client as well as their own criminogenic tendencies and needs. Therefore, risk assessment should go beyond the client and include family members, as well. Autonomy is another integral component. What role does the client want their family to serve? The community at large? What are their goals? Their concerns? How do we address these notions realistically and prosocially? While caseworkers are experts on reentry, clients are experts on themselves. Without taking the client’s perceived social support network into account, caseworkers cannot see the full picture. We cannot stress this enough: A reciprocal relationship between client and caseworker is necessary to achieve advantageous outcomes.
Mental Health Support
Whether or not the caseworker deems the family fit to take a more active role in reentry, psychoeducation is crucial. Reentry is often overwhelming for justice-impacted people, and it may be easiest to turn to antisocial coping strategies such as alcohol use, drug use, and crime. This is especially important for families of individuals suffering from mental illness. As defined by Len and John Sperry, “psychoeducation is a broad treatment strategy of educating and training individuals experiencing psychological disturbance [and their families] to increase their knowledge, coping capacity, and skills required to solve their presenting problems.” See Len Sperry & Jon Sperry, Psychotherapy and Psychopathology: Cognitive-Behavioral and Adlerian Treatment Strategies and Interventions, in 2 Abnormal Psychology Across the Ages: Disorders and Treatments 191 (Thomas Plante ed., 2013).
Let’s imagine an actively involved mother who is participating in psychoeducation with her justice-impacted son struggling with schizophrenia. Let’s call this person Josh. Josh insists that the government is out to get him and wants to send him back to prison. This is a textbook example of a delusion, one of the major symptoms of schizophrenia. Before enrolling in psychoeducation, Josh’s mother would try to comfort Josh by telling him that the government could not find him in their home. Despite her good intentions, Josh’s mother learns that her response only validated Josh’s delusion and ultimately contributed to its persistent reoccurrence. Through psychoeducation, both Josh and his mother can learn strategies that soothe Josh when he is experiencing adverse symptoms, such as delusions, without affirming them.
Psychoeducation has been proven to be an effective tool in mitigating symptoms of most mental disorders, regardless of severity. However, like most individual interventions, psychoeducation works best in conjunction with other forms of therapy. By nature, psychoeducation is short-termed and goal-oriented. Other forms of therapy, such as group therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, help with maintenance. Therapeutic needs are highly individualized, which requires caseworkers to be well versed in psychiatric interventions as well as frequently risk assessing and consulting with the relevant mental health professionals.
Drug and Alcohol Support
Drug and alcohol addiction are common risk factors that contribute to recidivism. During risk assessment, it is absolutely crucial to accurately evaluate the type, severity, and history of the affected individual. The client’s immediate family and community may play an important role in risk assessment: Is the support system encouraging addictive behaviors? Are they encouraging sobriety? Are they ambivalent? What does that reaction look like? Is there a history of substance abuse in the client’s family or support system? If so, is that person sober or seeking treatment? Like therapy, treatment for substance abuse is highly individualized. If the treatment does not suit the client, the effects may be unsubstantial or, even worse, regressive. A 12-step, nonresidential program may be ineffective if the individual goes home to an alcoholic spouse. In this scenario, a rehabilitation facility may be the most appropriate intervention.
However, reconnecting with the individual’s immediate community is the ultimate goal of Problem-to-Pardon case management, and any program that requires additional separation must be chosen only out of absolute necessity for the well-being of the client.
A “Culture of Pardons”
Certainly, not every person who applies for a pardon will be granted one. But what if the real goal is not to obtain a pardon for any particular applicant, but for this tide to lift all boats in the entire community? In doing so, it will increase the opportunity to be granted a pardon for all applicants.
“It takes a village to raise a child” is an African proverb that means that an entire community of people must take responsibility for children in order for them to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. This phrase and concept were famously used by Hillary Rodham Clinton in writing and titling her book It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, in which she addresses the impact individuals and their community have on a child’s well-being and calls for a society that strives to meet all of a child’s needs. See Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us (1996).
The point is, if the entire community subscribes to this endeavor, the benefits will not only inure to the child, but also to the village as a whole. This wider community benefit is exactly what we intend by advocating for a “Culture of Pardons.”
As we mentioned earlier, only 17 states regularly (more than 30%) approve pardon applications from previously incarcerated people. See Restoration of Rights Project, supra. This process looks vastly different state-by-state, with varying degrees of roadblocks. The decision to grant an individual’s request can be decided by the state’s governor, high officials such as the attorney general or chief justice, an independent board, a parole board, or a combination of these powers. Of course, the president also has the ability to grant an individual’s request. The fact that the threshold for deeming a state a “frequent” pardoner is only 30% shows how rare pardoning is. While state legislation is crucial to combatting this anomaly, case management must also educate and prepare their clients for applying.
Case managers should be well versed in federal and state requirements for pardon applications. Eligibility varies state by state, but we recommend waiting five years post-reentry to apply. In the meantime, caseworkers should be tracking the client’s progress. This includes monitoring community engagement, employment status, sobriety (if relevant), and program attendance. Keeping track of progress is also paramount for reentry research. This domain of research is relatively new and has lacked alignment with practitioners. Collaboration with reputable researchers can only advance our understanding and success in reintegrating clients.
Case managers should explain how to apply for a pardon while the client is incarcerated so that they are well prepared upon reentry. We recommend presenting this information as a step-by-step roadmap. Putting together a well-organized and comprehensive application will and should take time. Clients should be encouraged to include as much information as possible, going beyond what is required. The more detailed the application, the better. When in doubt, the best response is “see attached.” Including an up-to-date résumé is always a plus if the client’s state does not already require it. Character letters should be written by reputable and trustworthy peers and family members. It is important to note that many states limit the number of blood relatives when asking for character letters. By including caseworkers in the process of applying for a pardon, the individual is less likely to make mistakes on their application and, therefore, reduces their chance of rejection.
At the writing of this article, we are experiencing a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic of historic proportions. While we are hopeful that a vaccine is soon to be approved, we are reminded that it is not the vaccine that saves lives, but the vaccination that saves lives. One suggestion to overcome public resistance to vaccinations is to create an incentive program. That is, to pay people to be vaccinated. The goal is to have enough people vaccinated so that the entire community benefits from herd immunity.
Similarly, creating a Culture of Pardons not only benefits the individual post-reentry but also motivates individuals entering the justice system to immerse themselves in their rehabilitation and reentry. Granting a pardon is a life-changing moment; it opens the doors so that an individual will not be barred from housing or rejected from a job. A Culture of Pardons would set the tone for a new era of criminal justice, one where reintegration prevails over punishment. We know that punishment does not reduce recidivism, so why must we continue to treat the justice-impacted community inhumanly? Our imagination must go beyond intervention and expand upon opportunity. A Culture of Pardons puts healing above all else; it gives people a second chance. It also breaks down the wall between the justice-impacted community and the community at large.
Restoring one’s dignity, autonomy, and sense of belonging should be the ultimate goal of reentry. To put it in one word, the Problem-to-Pardons case management system and a Culture of Pardons strive for reintegration. By adopting these ideas, players in The Game of Life can see the roads merge on the horizon. Our communities and our caseworkers build this intersection, brick by brick. With their help, the justice-impacted community can catch up with those who have never been affected by the justice system. Reintegration isn’t simply leaving prison; it’s walking side by side with the community, weaving a thread between the justice-impacted and the community at large until the two become indistinguishable.
JEFF GRANT, J.D., M.Div. is an ordained minister with over three decades of experience in crisis management, business, law (former), reentry, recovery, and executive and religious leadership. After an addiction to prescription opioids and serving almost 14 months in federal prison for a white-collar crime he committed when he was a lawyer, Jeff started his own reentry, earning a Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary and co-founding Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc, the world’s first ministry serving the white collar justice community in Connecticut and nationwide. He may be reached at [email protected].
CHLOE COPPOLA is an advocate at Progressive Prison Ministries, a liaison and navigator on behalf of our group members, organizes the podcasts White Collar Week and Criminal Justice Insider, and is a dedicated researcher and writer on mental illness, as well as criminal, racial, and women’s justice themes. Chloe can be reached at [email protected].
Additional Contributors:
Cathryn Lavery, Ph.D., Consultant, Integrated Justice Solutions, Inc.
John Hart, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Restoring Promise, Vera Institute of Justice
Seth Williams, J.D., former District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia, PA
This article imagines a cohesive, integrated system that shepherds people through and beyond their criminal justice issues and incentivizes the community to assist them.
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Progressive Diversion & Reentry, “Problem-to-Pardon” Case Management
On an early turn playing the famous board game The Game of Life, you have a choice to make: go to college or start your career. While this decision sets the tone for the kind of game you’ll play, no matter which option you choose, these distinct paths ultimately merge back together allowing you to spearhead your career, start a family, buy a house, and eventually retire.
In our version of The Game of Life, you have two very different options: You go to prison or you don’t. But the penalties for going to prison are tantamount to playing the rest of the game with both arms tied behind your back.
This article explores ways in which all stakeholders in the criminal justice ecosystem can work together on common goals to help justice-impacted individuals navigate their ways through The Game of Life, provide resources for their incremental success, teach them to avoid and/or elegantly deal with obstacles that formerly resulted in recidivation, and provide a path to exit the game with more joyful, productive, and purposeful lives free of the stigma, shame, and barriers associated with having a felony. This reveals that the underlying purpose is to change The Game of Life into a way of life, one in which all stakeholders, and the community at large, will be lifted up, permanently disrupting the intergenerational cycle of incarceration.
Problem-to-Pardon Case Management
When you are admitted to a hospital, a hospital social worker begins to plan your discharge immediately upon your admission, often before a doctor even meets with you. Why? Because leaving better than you were upon entry is the ultimate goal of a hospital. This is the kind of framework in which legal case management must operate. People entering the criminal justice system are not given the tools and information required to reduce their sentence or prepare for reintegration into the community. Aside from a defense attorney’s guidance from trial to sentencing, justice-impacted people are largely on their own. Abandoning our most vulnerable people in their time of need should not be the standard. Case management should not begin and end in a courtroom or prison; reentry preparation should start immediately after a defendant enters the system and end when the client has completed their pardon application. We have coined the term for this process the “Problem-to-Pardon” case management system.
In our current system, punishment goes way beyond incarceration. American culture normatively accepts prison as a solution to violence and civil disobedience rather than a symptom. What we mean by this is that our collective consciousness and discourse in relation to the purpose of prisons have been limited by our tolerance to the cycle of violence. We must ask ourselves, “on an institutional level, what do prisons do to curb the reproduction of violence?” As it stands now, the answer is, unfortunately, “not much.”
Upon release, justice-impacted people are frequently subjected to visits from their parole officer. Without diving into the functional roles of a case manager versus a parole officer, their presences alone paint a stark contrast. Parole officers are able to show up unannounced, wielding a gun on their hip. They remind their client to find housing and/or a job, terms of their parole, seldom offering any assistance on achieving these requirements. What does this say about how we view justice-impacted people post reentry? A threatening, combative figure cannot be the default for all cases.
When someone is locked away for committing a crime, no matter if the crime is violent or nonviolent, that crime did not happen in an isolation chamber. Until attention is drawn to the root causes rather than the crime itself, rehabilitation and reconciliation remain anomalies. Simply displacing society’s “bad actors” does nothing to combat crime itself; we must engage with justice-impacted people and commit to rehabilitation through hands-on, personalized, evidence-based, and community-oriented casework.
Casework Models
There are several different models for conducting casework. In our opinion, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative launched by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in partnership with the Urban Institute in 2007 is the closest representation of a Problem-to-Pardon case management system. This model is based on a significant body of prisoner reentry research and evidence-based practices. The key five elements of the TJC Model are as follows:
Leadership, Vision, and Organizational Culture. Leaders from both the jail and the community must be actively engaged, articulate a clear vision, set expectations, identify important issues, and involve other key constituencies.
Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership. Effective transition strategies rely on collaboration and information-sharing among jail and community-based partners and joint ownership of the problem and solution.
Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentry. Regular analysis of objective data, including analysis of the jail population characteristics, informs and drives decision-making and policy formation.
Targeted Intervention Strategies The strategy to improve transition at the individual level involves introducing specific interventions at critical points along the jail-to-community continuum.
Self-Evaluation and Sustainability. Self-evaluation involves the use of objective data to guide operations, monitor progress, and inform decision-making. Sustainability involves planning to maintain initiative progress despite changes in leadership, policy, funding, and staffing. See Kevin Warwick, Hannah Dodd & S. Rebecca Neusteter, Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry, org (Sept. 2012), https://urbn.is/3sdEI4g.
This model draws on four main principles popularized by Canadians Paul Gendreau and Robert Ross: human service, risk, need, and responsivity.
Principles
The human service principle states that punishment alone cannot change an individual’s behavior or prevent the individual from recidivating. See Michael L. Prendergast et al., The Andrews’ Principles of Risk, Need, and Responsivity as Applied in Drug Abuse Treatment Programs: Meta-analysis of Crime and Drug Use Outcomes, 9 J. Experimental Criminology 275 (2013), https://bit.ly/39Bu1jJ. This not only includes incarceration itself, but also parole and additional post-sentence surveillance. Considerable research has supported this principle. In order to reduce recidivism, interventions such as treatment and supportive programming must be accessible. Clients’ improvements are linked more closely to positive reinforcement rather than negative. Interventions should be intensive; every client should be in case management for at least six months.
The risk principle refers to the importance of risk assessment before allocating treatment and additional resources. Seeid. Many studies have shown that high-risk individuals who receive relevant treatment experience lower rates of recidivism. See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra. Comparatively low-risk individuals may actually increase their chances of recidivism if treated similarly to high-risk individuals. See Christopher Tyson Lowenkamp, Correctional Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness: A Multi-Site, Program-Level Analysis (doctoral dissertation) (on file with University of Cincinnati) (2004), https://bit.ly/39f7PLK. It is important to note that this does not mean that low-risk individuals should not receive any assistance during incarceration and reentry; this means that case management’s focus must be on the individuals who are most likely to benefit from this work. A few examples of relevant areas of risk assessment include age, prior convictions, employment at arrest, and drug use history. Risk also included the type of crime committed; the most recent research has shown that “violent prior offenders were reconvicted at a higher rate (41.3%) than nonviolent offenders (23.3%).” See US Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders, ussc.gov (Jan. 2019), https://bit.ly/3q7NkYm. Risk should be assessed at multiple points along the case management process and be determined by classification instruments as opposed to clinical judgment. Standardized classification methods would combat rater bias and help support future research.
The need principle is fairly self-explanatory. This principle draws attention to the client’s specific traits, history, and, of course, needs. See Prendergast et al., supra. Research has shown that case management is more effective if the focus is solely or primarily on the client’s criminogenic needs (antisocial personality, pro-criminal attitudes, social supports for crime, substance abuse, family and marital relationships, school and/or work, and prosocial recreational activities). See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra. Focusing solely or primarily on the client’s non-criminogenic needs, such as stress and self-esteem, has been shown to have no effect or actually increase the client’s likelihood of recidivating. Seeid. It can be argued that many non-criminogenic needs are mere symptoms of more overarching needs. Figuratively speaking, focusing on non-criminogenic interventions would be like placing a bandage on an infected wound. By concentrating intervention strategies at the root of the client’s needs (their criminogenic needs), the client is more likely to experience positive change overall.
Finally, the responsivity principle can be broken down into two subcategories: the learning style of the client and traits that may affect treatment selection and response, such as mental health issues and/or cognitive disabilities. See Prendergast et al., supra. This principle has also proven to be relevant in constructing case management plans for other “special” populations, or populations that are considered a minority in prisons, such as female prisoners, sex offenders, and prisoners convicted of violent crimes. Seeid.
Pardons
According to many experts, the mark of successful reentry is when an individual stays out of prison for three to five years. In our opinion, we feel that five years should be the sole marker of success. After this five-year period, individuals are significantly less likely to recidivate compared to a three- or four-year marker. According to the proposed Problem-to-Pardon case management system, once the individual crosses this five-year threshold, they should have the opportunity to be pardoned for their crime. Adopting this model would actualize the criminal justice system’s original promise to serve justice and foster rehabilitation. (More on this below.) As it stands now, individuals can apply to be pardoned by the state or federal government, but only 17 states “regularly” approve (more than 30%) these applications. See Restoration of Rights Project, 50-State Comparison: Pardon Policy & Practice, ccresourcecenter.org (updated May 2020), https://bit.ly/2MQggWp.
The Problem-to-Pardon case management system looks to make pardons an attainable goal for the justice-impacted community. We believe that by adopting this incentive, individuals would be more likely to cooperate and be more engaged in case management and treatment. Learned helplessness may be an overlooked factor in client responsivity to treatment; if the client perceives their situation as irredeemable, how can we expect them to put in the work to change?
Caseworkers
Beyond shifting policies and framework, the foundation of case management is its caseworkers. Their treatment, pay, work-life balance, and physical and mental health directly influence their impact on their clients. Compared to correctional officers, caseworkers experience higher levels of burnout and, consequently, turnover. See Joseph R. Carlson & George Thomas, Burnout Among Prison Caseworkers and Correctional Officers, 43 J. Offender Rehab. 19 (2006), https://bit.ly/3nBPSfH. The three most common reasons for leaving the profession are inadequate payment, lack of support from management, and stress, also known as burnout. See id. Case managers do not want to be underpaid paper pushers; they want to believe their emotional labor and dedication are not only valuable but viable. Furthermore, these adverse working conditions hinder client progress and make case management, as a whole, unsustainable. Lack of support and stress ultimately obstruct interpersonal connections between clients and case managers. No amount of empirical methodology can substitute for rapport; clients need to trust their caseworkers in order for these methods to be successful.
Caseworkers should be selected with consideration of secondary trauma, interpersonal skills, cooperation, and collaboration. Support should always be available to caseworkers, as this job is highly intensive and emotionally draining. Feelings of isolation and an overwhelming workload can lead caseworkers to experience compassion fatigue, which can negatively impact their clients. Creating a work environment that maintains coworker support and promotes opportunities for personal development will make employment more sustainable. Investing in caseworkers is an investment in reentry success.
One of the ways case managers can receive much-needed support is through community ties. Case management should not solely reside in prisons; it is crucial that community-based organizations that are accessible and familiar with the justice-impacted community cosponsor reentry. Additionally, this unburdens caseworkers and ensures a smooth transition into reentry for the client. Depending on the client’s criminogenic tendencies and needs, caseworkers can connect clients to the relevant support systems. Establishing rapport between clients and the community before release is imperative, especially for high-risk clients who are more likely to recidivate. When community-based organizations collaborate with caseworkers and initiate “in-reach,” the transition from prison to freedom looks less like a leap of faith and more like a continuum of care. See Warwick, Dodd & Neusteter, supra.
Social Determinants of Health
Social and community context, access to quality health care, and neighborhood and built environment are three key areas of social determinants of health that are often overlooked during casework. See Ctrs for Disease Control & Prevention, What Are Social Determinants of Health, cdc.gov, https://bit.ly/2K5eS1f. As defined by the CDC, social determinants of health “are conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health risks and outcomes.” See id. One’s “cohesion within a community, civic participation, [experiences of] discrimination, and conditions in the workplace, and incarceration” as well as their “quality of housing, access to transportation, [. . .] and neighborhood crime and violence” should all be assessed and considered when planning reentry. See id. Access to affordable, quality physical and mental health care, including an individual’s health literacy, is also crucial to a successful reentry.
Community Collaboration
Likely community collaborators would include support groups, 12-step programs, housing programs, job assistance, childcare, affordable therapy, psychoeducation programs, as well as many others. It is important to note that people working within these organizations endure similar challenges as caseworkers; these programs are largely underfunded and overworked. Compounded with finding programs that are within an accessible physical proximity to clients, partnering with quality community programs can be an insurmountable task.
While caseworkers and community advocates can develop a relationship of mutual aid, many of the obstacles they face cannot be overcome without adequate funding. The challenges of funding have haunted casework and community interventions since their inception, and by no means will we pretend to have any solution that has not already been proposed. However, we cannot simply ignore this problem. This is where intervention and activism intersect: No systematic change can occur without the backing of a mass movement.
Identity
This year, the Black Lives Matter movement held a spotlight on the institutional racism deeply embedded in our country and, by extension, our justice system. This hyperawareness and newly widespread discourse around systematic change make fertile soil for reevaluating and reshaping our case management system. Historically, the quality of case management heavily depends on the client’s race, socioeconomic status, and gender identity. Of course, no policy reflects this discrepancy. However, through self-reported data, we know that these systems favor white, affluent, cisgender, heterosexual clients. Interestingly, casework looks vastly different between mothers and fathers, especially when comparing white parents to Black parents. While childcare seems like an obvious procedure in case management for clients who are mothers, fathers are largely overlooked when it comes to discussing childcare. This oversight stems from gendered and racist stereotypes, particularly the myth of the “missing Black father.”
American case management has operated from a colorblind, heteronormative, ableist, and classist standpoint for too long. See Rose M. Brewer & Nancy A. Heitzeg, The Racialization of Crime and Punishment, Criminal Justice, Color-Blind Racism, and the Political Economy of the Prison Industrial Complex, 51 Am. Behav. Scientist 625 (2008), https://bit.ly/3seyEbE. According to the Sentencing Project, over 60% of people in prison are people of color. See The Sentencing Project, Racial Disparity, sentencingproject.org, https://bit.ly/2LkCIGI. Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated compared to white men, while Hispanic men are just over two times as likely. See id. While women only make up seven percent of the prison population, these racial discrepancies manifest similarly, as well. Seeid. It is difficult to estimate the percentage of transgender, genderfluid, nonbinary, and genderqueer people incarcerated given the binary nature of the prison system and its lack of data collection. However, thanks to the 2015 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, we know that Black transgender women were four and a half times more likely to be incarcerated compared to their white counterparts. See Nat’l Ctr. for Transgender Equality, The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, transequality.org (2016), https://bit.ly/2Xv99ov. Additionally, Native American transgender women were three times as likely to experience incarceration compared to white transgender women. Seeid.
While it is seemingly intuitive to treat all of your clients the same, this does nothing to combat systemic racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, and classism within our justice and case management systems. By adopting an intersectional framework that draws on critical race theory, multiple schools of feminist theory, and disability studies, caseworkers can begin to implement truly individualized casework and actively combat institutionalized bias. See Brewer & Heitzeg, supra. Integrating theory into practice once again highlights the importance of establishing rapport: How can a client trust their case manager and the process if the process is designed to actively erase, undermine, or overlook their identity?
Today, more and more Americans are viewing incarceration as a race and class issue rather than the previously accepted black and white, good versus bad narrative. The topic of incarceration has quickly become a dinner table conversation rather than a shameful taboo. Now more than ever, caseworkers and advocates alike have the opportunity to seize and hold the public’s attention. Case management and community interventions are a major component in the larger movement of dismantling unjust practices. The more engaged and educated the public is on these issues, the more likely they are to support and push for policies that will allocate adequate funding to these life-changing services.
Funding social services often elicits pushback from concerned politicians and citizens alike: How do we pay for this? When it comes to funding preventative services versus treatment services, prevention is almost always significantly cheaper and more effective than treatment. For example, when Vice President-elect Kamala Harris launched Back on Track in 2005, not only did recidivism reduce from 53% to less than 10%, but costs reduced, as well. The program costs “approximately $5,000 per participant, compared with $10,000 to adjudicate a case and nearly $50,000 per year to house a low-level offender in prison or jail.” See Jacquelyn L. Rivers & Lenore Anderson, Back on Track: A Problem-Solving Reentry Court, bja.ojp.gov (Sept. 2009), https://bit.ly/3oyBLcg. When surveying 45 states in 2015, the Vera Institute of Justice found that the United States spent over $42 billion on prison expenditures in a single year. See Vera Inst. of Just., Prison Spending in 2015, vera.org, https://bit.ly/3nDUBxf. When questioning costs, we should begin with this figure rather than picking apart programs that will likely decrease this immense spending.
Another way caseworkers can simultaneously lighten their caseload and connect the client with their community is by involving the client’s family, whether that is chosen family or blood relatives. As it stands now, families are overlooked in the case management process. Before the individual is released from prison, caseworkers or parole officers will assess the individual’s future residence, mainly checking for weapons and drugs. While this process is necessary, this method alone fails to see the client’s environment as both physical and interpersonal. A family’s role in reentry can be helpful or harmful depending on their relationship with the client as well as their own criminogenic tendencies and needs. Therefore, risk assessment should go beyond the client and include family members, as well. Autonomy is another integral component. What role does the client want their family to serve? The community at large? What are their goals? Their concerns? How do we address these notions realistically and prosocially? While caseworkers are experts on reentry, clients are experts on themselves. Without taking the client’s perceived social support network into account, caseworkers cannot see the full picture. We cannot stress this enough: A reciprocal relationship between client and caseworker is necessary to achieve advantageous outcomes.
Mental Health Support
Whether or not the caseworker deems the family fit to take a more active role in reentry, psychoeducation is crucial. Reentry is often overwhelming for justice-impacted people, and it may be easiest to turn to antisocial coping strategies such as alcohol use, drug use, and crime. This is especially important for families of individuals suffering from mental illness. As defined by Len and John Sperry, “psychoeducation is a broad treatment strategy of educating and training individuals experiencing psychological disturbance [and their families] to increase their knowledge, coping capacity, and skills required to solve their presenting problems.” See Len Sperry & Jon Sperry, Psychotherapy and Psychopathology: Cognitive-Behavioral and Adlerian Treatment Strategies and Interventions, in 2 Abnormal Psychology Across the Ages: Disorders and Treatments 191 (Thomas Plante ed., 2013).
Let’s imagine an actively involved mother who is participating in psychoeducation with her justice-impacted son struggling with schizophrenia. Let’s call this person Josh. Josh insists that the government is out to get him and wants to send him back to prison. This is a textbook example of a delusion, one of the major symptoms of schizophrenia. Before enrolling in psychoeducation, Josh’s mother would try to comfort Josh by telling him that the government could not find him in their home. Despite her good intentions, Josh’s mother learns that her response only validated Josh’s delusion and ultimately contributed to its persistent reoccurrence. Through psychoeducation, both Josh and his mother can learn strategies that soothe Josh when he is experiencing adverse symptoms, such as delusions, without affirming them.
Psychoeducation has been proven to be an effective tool in mitigating symptoms of most mental disorders, regardless of severity. However, like most individual interventions, psychoeducation works best in conjunction with other forms of therapy. By nature, psychoeducation is short-termed and goal-oriented. Other forms of therapy, such as group therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, help with maintenance. Therapeutic needs are highly individualized, which requires caseworkers to be well versed in psychiatric interventions as well as frequently risk assessing and consulting with the relevant mental health professionals.
Drug and Alcohol Support
Drug and alcohol addiction are common risk factors that contribute to recidivism. During risk assessment, it is absolutely crucial to accurately evaluate the type, severity, and history of the affected individual. The client’s immediate family and community may play an important role in risk assessment: Is the support system encouraging addictive behaviors? Are they encouraging sobriety? Are they ambivalent? What does that reaction look like? Is there a history of substance abuse in the client’s family or support system? If so, is that person sober or seeking treatment? Like therapy, treatment for substance abuse is highly individualized. If the treatment does not suit the client, the effects may be unsubstantial or, even worse, regressive. A 12-step, nonresidential program may be ineffective if the individual goes home to an alcoholic spouse. In this scenario, a rehabilitation facility may be the most appropriate intervention.
However, reconnecting with the individual’s immediate community is the ultimate goal of Problem-to-Pardon case management, and any program that requires additional separation must be chosen only out of absolute necessity for the well-being of the client.
A “Culture of Pardons”
Certainly, not every person who applies for a pardon will be granted one. But what if the real goal is not to obtain a pardon for any particular applicant, but for this tide to lift all boats in the entire community? In doing so, it will increase the opportunity to be granted a pardon for all applicants.
“It takes a village to raise a child” is an African proverb that means that an entire community of people must take responsibility for children in order for them to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. This phrase and concept were famously used by Hillary Rodham Clinton in writing and titling her book It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, in which she addresses the impact individuals and their community have on a child’s well-being and calls for a society that strives to meet all of a child’s needs. See Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us (1996).
The point is, if the entire community subscribes to this endeavor, the benefits will not only inure to the child, but also to the village as a whole. This wider community benefit is exactly what we intend by advocating for a “Culture of Pardons.”
As we mentioned earlier, only 17 states regularly (more than 30%) approve pardon applications from previously incarcerated people. See Restoration of Rights Project, supra. This process looks vastly different state-by-state, with varying degrees of roadblocks. The decision to grant an individual’s request can be decided by the state’s governor, high officials such as the attorney general or chief justice, an independent board, a parole board, or a combination of these powers. Of course, the president also has the ability to grant an individual’s request. The fact that the threshold for deeming a state a “frequent” pardoner is only 30% shows how rare pardoning is. While state legislation is crucial to combatting this anomaly, case management must also educate and prepare their clients for applying.
Case managers should be well versed in federal and state requirements for pardon applications. Eligibility varies state by state, but we recommend waiting five years post-reentry to apply. In the meantime, caseworkers should be tracking the client’s progress. This includes monitoring community engagement, employment status, sobriety (if relevant), and program attendance. Keeping track of progress is also paramount for reentry research. This domain of research is relatively new and has lacked alignment with practitioners. Collaboration with reputable researchers can only advance our understanding and success in reintegrating clients.
Case managers should explain how to apply for a pardon while the client is incarcerated so that they are well prepared upon reentry. We recommend presenting this information as a step-by-step roadmap. Putting together a well-organized and comprehensive application will and should take time. Clients should be encouraged to include as much information as possible, going beyond what is required. The more detailed the application, the better. When in doubt, the best response is “see attached.” Including an up-to-date résumé is always a plus if the client’s state does not already require it. Character letters should be written by reputable and trustworthy peers and family members. It is important to note that many states limit the number of blood relatives when asking for character letters. By including caseworkers in the process of applying for a pardon, the individual is less likely to make mistakes on their application and, therefore, reduces their chance of rejection.
At the writing of this article, we are experiencing a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic of historic proportions. While we are hopeful that a vaccine is soon to be approved, we are reminded that it is not the vaccine that saves lives, but the vaccination that saves lives. One suggestion to overcome public resistance to vaccinations is to create an incentive program. That is, to pay people to be vaccinated. The goal is to have enough people vaccinated so that the entire community benefits from herd immunity.
Similarly, creating a Culture of Pardons not only benefits the individual post-reentry but also motivates individuals entering the justice system to immerse themselves in their rehabilitation and reentry. Granting a pardon is a life-changing moment; it opens the doors so that an individual will not be barred from housing or rejected from a job. A Culture of Pardons would set the tone for a new era of criminal justice, one where reintegration prevails over punishment. We know that punishment does not reduce recidivism, so why must we continue to treat the justice-impacted community inhumanly? Our imagination must go beyond intervention and expand upon opportunity. A Culture of Pardons puts healing above all else; it gives people a second chance. It also breaks down the wall between the justice-impacted community and the community at large.
Restoring one’s dignity, autonomy, and sense of belonging should be the ultimate goal of reentry. To put it in one word, the Problem-to-Pardons case management system and a Culture of Pardons strive for reintegration. By adopting these ideas, players in The Game of Life can see the roads merge on the horizon. Our communities and our caseworkers build this intersection, brick by brick. With their help, the justice-impacted community can catch up with those who have never been affected by the justice system. Reintegration isn’t simply leaving prison; it’s walking side by side with the community, weaving a thread between the justice-impacted and the community at large until the two become indistinguishable.
JEFF GRANT, J.D., M.Div. is an ordained minister with over three decades of experience in crisis management, business, law (former), reentry, recovery, and executive and religious leadership. After an addiction to prescription opioids and serving almost 14 months in federal prison for a white-collar crime he committed when he was a lawyer, Jeff started his own reentry, earning a Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary and co-founding Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc, the world’s first ministry serving the white collar justice community in Connecticut and nationwide. He may be reached at [email protected].
CHLOE COPPOLA is an advocate at Progressive Prison Ministries, a liaison and navigator on behalf of our group members, organizes the podcasts White Collar Week and Criminal Justice Insider, and is a dedicated researcher and writer on mental illness, as well as criminal, racial, and women’s justice themes. Chloe can be reached at [email protected].
Additional Contributors:
Cathryn Lavery, Ph.D., Consultant, Integrated Justice Solutions, Inc.
John Hart, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Restoring Promise, Vera Institute of Justice
Seth Williams, J.D., former District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia, PA
On Sun., May 2, 2021, my friend and Union Theological Seminary classmate Rev. Angela Wells-Bean discussed our ministry in her sermon at Naples United Christ of Church, Naples, Florida. Thank you Angela for the honor of being a part of your worship service.
It’s the Isolation that Destroys Us. The Solution is in Community.
_______________________
Podcast Ep. 30, Guest: Barry Bekkedam Sets the Record Straight
Today on the podcast we have Barry Bekkedam. This is Barry’s first interview since returning from Federal prison last year.
What I like most about Barry was his openness and candor as he painstakingly takes us through his remarkable story from immigrant, to the Villanova basketball team (he’s 6’10” tall!), to real estate investor, to multi-billion dollar Main Line investment manager – and then to his problems when some of his clients lost money in the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and then as former Chairman of a bank accused of TARP fraud.
Barry took his case to trial and was partially vindicated, but ultimately was sentenced to serve 11 months in a Federal prison camp. Barry’s is an incredible story of resilience through over a decade of issues.
So, coming up, Barry Bekkedam sets the record straight. On White Collar Week. I hope you will join us. – Jeff
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
Listen on Spotify:
Listen on SoundCloud:
Watch on YouTube:
______________________________
If you have a friend, family member, colleague or client with a white collar justice issue, please forward this post; they can reach us anytime – day or night! Our contact info:http://prisonist.org/contact-us.
You can find all episodes of our podcast “White Collar Week with Jeff Grant” on our websiteprisonist.org,our Facebook page, Podbean, YouTube (video), SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter.
Entrepreneur’s #4 Most Viewed Article of 2020: I Went to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud – 7 Things to Know When Taking COVID-19 Relief Money: by Jeff Grant, J.D., M.Div.. Link to article here.
The Philadelphia Inquirer: Steal Money from the Feds? First, Meet Jeff Grant, an Ex-Con who Committed Loan Fraud, by Erin Arvedlund: Link to article here.
Clara CFO Smolinski YouTube: Thinking About PPP Fraud?: Hannah Smolinski Interviews Jeff Grant About Going to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud. Sponsored by Upside Financial. Link to article and YouTube video here.
CFO Dive: After Serving Time, Fraudster Cautions Against PPP, Other Emergency Loans, by Robert Freedman. Link to article here.
Fraud Stories Podcast with Mark Lurie: SBA/PPP Loan Fraud with Guest: Jeff Grant. Link to podcast here.
Forbes: As Law Enforcement Pursues SBA Loan Fraud, Jeff Grant Talks Redemption, by Kelly Phillips Erb. Link to article here.
Taxgirl Podcast: Jeff Grant talks Desperation and Loans in a Time of Crisis with Kelly Phillips Erb on Her Podcast. Link to article and podcast here.
Business Talk with Jim Campbell: Jeff Grant Talks with Jim About Going to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud and What to Know When Taking Coronavirus Relief Money, Biz Talk Radio Network, Broadcast from 1490 AM WGCH Greenwich, CT. Listen on YouTube here.
Babz Rawls Ivy Show: Babz Rawls Ivy & Jeff Grant Talk SBA / PPP Loan Fraud and 7 Things to Know Before You Take Coronavirus Relief Money, WNHH 103.5 FM New Haven. Watch on YouTube here.
White Collar Week with Jeff Grant, Podcast Ep. 21: All Things SBA, PPP & EIDL, with Guest: Hannah Smolinski, CPA, Virtual CFO: Link here.
White Collar Week with Jeff Grant, Podcast Episode 09: Small Business Edition, with Guest Kelly Phillips Erb. Link here.
______________________________
Louis Reed/Babz Rawls Ivy PSA:
Some very kind words from my dear friends Louis L. Reed and Babz Rawls Ivy in this brief PSA. Thank you Louis and Babz! – Jeff
______________________________
All Episodes:
Link here to Podcast Ep. 30, Guests: Barry Bekkedam Sets the Record Straight
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 29, Guests: The Entrepreneurs, David Israel & Spencer Oberg
Link here to Podcast Ep. 28, Guests: The Investigators, Kelly Paxton & Brian Willingham
Link here to Podcast Ep. 27, The Addicted Lawyer, Guest: Brian Cuban
Link here to Podcast Ep. 26, Oppression & Identity, Guests: Jaco & Leslie Theron
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 25, Ex-Philadelphia D.A., Seth Williams, Part Two
Link here to Podcast Ep. 24, Ex-Philadelphia D.A., Seth Williams, Part One
Link here to Podcast Ep. 23, The Vanishing Trial, Robert Katzberg
Link here to Podcast Ep. 22: The Goddess, with Guest: Babz Rawls Ivy
Link here to Podcast Ep. 21: All Things SBA, PPP & EIDL, with Guest: Hannah Smolinski, CPA, Virtual CFO
Link here to Podcast Ep. 20: Reinventing Yourself After Prison, with Guests: Glenn E. Martin & Richard Bronson
Link here to Podcast Ep. 19: Insider Trading Charges Dismissed, with Guest: Richard Lee
Link here to Podcast Ep. 18: Is Your Life a Movie? The Producers, with Guests: Lydia B. Smith, Bethany Jones & Will Nix
Link here to Podcast Ep. 17: #TruthHeals, Systemic Abuse & Institutional Reform with Guest: Vanessa Osage, feat. Guest Co-Host Chloe Coppola
Link here to Podcast Ep. 16: Politicians, Prison & Penitence, with Guest: Bridgeport, CT Mayor Joseph Ganim
Link here to Podcast Ep. 15: A Brave Talk About Suicide, with Guests Bob Flanagan, Elizabeth Kelley, & Meredith Atwood
Link here to Podcast Ep. 14: Recovery & Neighborhood, with Guest: TNP’s Tom Scott
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 13: Everything but Bridgegate, with Guest: Bill Baroni
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 12: The Truth Tellers, with Guests: Holli Coulman & Larry Levine
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 11: Blank Canvas, with Guest: Craig Stanland
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 10: The Ministers, with Guests: Father Joe Ciccone & Father Rix Thorsell
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 09: Small Business Edition, with Guest: Taxgirl Kelly Phillips Erb
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 08: The Academics, with Guests: Cathryn Lavery, Jessica Henry, Jay Kennedy & Erin Harbinson
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 07: White Collar Wives. with Guests: Lynn Springer, Cassie Monaco & Julie Bennett. Special Guest: Skylar Cluett
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 06: Madoff Talks, with Guest: Jim Campbell
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 05: Trauma and Healing when Mom goes to Prison, with Guests: Jacqueline Polverari and Her Daughters, Alexa & Maria
Link here to Podcast Ep. 04: One-on-One with Tipper X, with Guest: Tom Hardin
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 03: Compassionate Lawyering, with Guests: Chris Poulos, Corey Brinson, Bob Herbst & George Hritz
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 02: Substance Abuse & Recovery During COVID-19, with Guests: Trevor Shevin & Joshua Cagney
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 01: An Evening with Our White Collar Support Group, with Guests: 16 Members of Our White Collar Support Group
Linkhereto Podcast Ep. 00: White Collar Week with Jeff Grant: What is White Collar Week?
______________________________
Jeff Grant
What is the White Collar Justice Community?
Welcome to White Collar Week with Jeff Grant, a podcast serving the white collar justice community. It’s the isolation that destroys us. The solution is in community.
If you are interested in this podcast, then you are probably already a member of the white collar justice community – even if you don’t quite know it yet. Our community is certainly made up of people being prosecuted, or who have already been prosecuted, for white collar crimes. But it is also made up of the spouses, children and families of those prosecuted for white collar crimes – these are the first victims of white collar crime. And the community also consists of the other victims, both direct and indirect, and those in the wider white collar ecosystem like friends, colleagues, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, academics, researchers. Investigators, mitigation experts, corrections officers, parole & probation officers, reentry professionals, mental health care professionals, drug and alcohol counselors – and ministers, chaplains and advocates for criminal and social justice reform. The list goes on and on…
Our mission is to introduce you to other members of the white collar justice community, to hear their very personal stories, and hopefully gain a broader perspective of what this is really all about. Maybe this will inspire some deeper thoughts and introspection? Maybe it will inspire some empathy and compassion for people you might otherwise resent or dismiss? And maybe it will help lift us all out of our own isolation and into community, so we can learn to live again in the sunshine of the spirit.
Along the way, I’ll share with you some of the things I’ve learned in my own journey from successful lawyer, to prescription opioid addict, white collar crime, suicide attempt, disbarment, destruction of my marriage, and the almost 14 months I served in a Federal prison. And also my recovery, love story I share with my wife Lynn Springer, after prison earning a Master of Divinity from Union Theological Seminary in NYC, pastoring in an inner city church in Bridgeport CT, and then co-founding with Lynn in Greenwich CT, Progressive Prison Ministries, the world’s first ministry serving the white collar justice community. It’s been quite a ride, but I firmly believe that the best is yet to come.
So I invite you to come along with me as we experience something new, and bold, and different – a podcast that serves the entire white collar justice community. I hope you will join me.
It’s the Isolation that Destroys Us. The Solution is in Community.
Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc. is the world’s first ministry supporting the white collar justice community. Founded by husband and wife,Jeff Grantand Lynn Springerin Greenwich CT in 2012, we incorporated as a nonprofit in Connecticut in 2014, and received 501(c)(3) status in 2015. Jeff has over three decades of experience in crisis management, business, law (former), reentry, recovery (clean & sober 17+ years), and executive and religious leadership. As Jeff was incarcerated for a white-collar crime he committed in 2001, he and Lynn have a first-hand perspective on the trials and tribulations that white-collar families have to endure as they navigate the criminal justice system and life beyond.
Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc. is nonsectarian, serving those of all faiths, or no faith whatsoever. To date we have helped over three hundred fifty (350) individuals, and their families, to accept responsibility for their actions and to acknowledge the pain they have caused to others. In accordance with our commitment to restorative justice, we counsel our members to make amends as a first step in changing their lives and moving towards a new spiritual way of living centered on hope, care, compassion, tolerance, empathy and service to others. Our team has grown to over ten people, most with advanced degrees, all of whom are currently volunteering their time and resources.
Progressive Prison Ministries’ goal is to provide spiritual solutions and emotional support to those who are feeling alone, isolated, and hopeless. We have found that these individuals are suffering from a void but are stuck, and don’t know what to do about it. Our objective is to help them find a path to a healthy, spirit-filled place on the other side of what may seem like insurmountable problems. Many of those we counsel are in a place where their previous lives have come to an end due to their transgressions. In many cases their legal problems have led to divorce, estrangement from their children, families, friends and support communities, and loss of a career. The toll this takes on individuals and families is emotionally devastating. White-collar crimes are often precipitated by other issues in the offenders’ lives such as alcohol or drug abuse, and/or a physical or mental illness that lead to financial issues that overwhelms their ability to be present for themselves and their families and cause poor decision making. We recognize that life often presents us with such circumstances, sometimes which lead us to make mistakes in violation of the law.
All conversations and communications between our ordained ministry, and licensed clinical relationships, and those we serve fall under state privilege laws. This is one reason that attorneys often allow and encourage their clients to maintain relationships with us while in active prosecution or litigation situations.
If you, a friend, family member, colleague or client are suffering from a white collar criminal justice issue or are experiencing some other traumatic or life-altering event, and would like to find a path to a healthy, spirit-filled place on the other side of what seems like insurmountable problems, please contact us to schedule an initial call or appointment.
Copyright 2021, All Rights Reserved, Progressive Prison Ministries, Inc.,
This article by David Bouchard is one of the most thorough and incisive pieces I have read about the potential scale of SBA Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud prosecutions over the next few years. I reached out to David and he gave us permission to republish it. This is a must-read for professionals and anyone concerned about this subject. – Jeff
David Bouchard
David is a partner at Finch McCranie, LLP, where he defends individuals and businesses facing investigation and prosecution. You can contact David at[email protected].
By last August, just four months after the first Paycheck Protection Program loans were disbursed, federal prosecutors had filed 41 criminal complaints charging nearly 60 people with PPP fraud in cases involving alleged losses totaling approximately $62 million.[1]
Without skipping a beat, Hannibal Ware, inspector general of the Small Business Administration, cautioned that such prosecutions amounted to “the smallest, tiniest piece of the tip of the iceberg.”[2]
A few weeks later, the U.S. Department of Justice‘s Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Rabbit warned would-be fraudsters: “You will be identified. You will be held accountable. You will face the severest of consequences for trying to exploit your fellow Americans’ suffering for your own personal gain.”[3]
In December, the DOJ announced that since the inception of the program it had secured charges of PPP fraud against more than 90 individuals in cases involving alleged losses totaling more than $250 million.[4] By all indications, the DOJ plans to continue prioritizing PPP fraud prosecutions in 2021 and beyond.[5]
Federal prosecutions of PPP fraud to date have targeted clear-cut, egregious wrongdoing — forgeries, falsified borrower information and demonstrably false certifications on PPP loan applications. Such fact patterns will no doubt remain federal prosecutors’ focus and priority in future PPP fraud cases.
Will DOJ prosecutors only pursue the low-hanging fruit of PPP fraud? If not, what else might draw their attention in the future? The unprecedented, historic nature of the program makes it difficult to predict how the DOJ will allocate prosecutorial resources and which cases it will prioritize in the future.
But over time, federal prosecutors will almost certainly turn their eyes to more complicated fraud schemes, including legitimate small businesses’ use of PPP loans on unauthorized expenses that are difficult to detect, loan recipients’ misrepresentation of their eligibility for the program in nonobvious ways, and employers’ exploitation of the program over the long run by, for example, asking their employees to repay compensation received under a PPP loan or to work for free.
The DOJ is also likely to investigate whether certain loan recipients committed fraud by certifying a PPP loan was necessary, a key component of the PPP loan application that has generated debate and confusion since the advent of the program.
If federal prosecutors begin targeting more complex PPP fraud schemes along the lines discussed above, there will likely be difficult questions about criminal intent. It may be challenging, for example, to distinguish between borrowers that intended to commit fraud and those that were well-intentioned but nonetheless failed to comply with a quickly developed, complex federal relief program subject to an evolving patchwork of rules that many lawyers struggled to keep straight.
There may also be contested questions about the materiality of violations of eligibility rules, e.g., inaccurate representations of employee headcount, or of rules regarding authorized uses of loan funds, e.g., if most funds were used for authorized purposes.
Further, there are likely to be disputes over loss to the government given that, at least arguably, there may not be a loss until a borrower’s loan forgiveness application has been approved and the SBA transmits funds to the lender, eliminating the recipient’s repayment obligation.
While forecasting future PPP fraud prosecutions may feel hypothetical, it is not an idle exercise. The DOJ’s tenacious prosecution of PPP fraud is likely here to stay and is unlikely to be reserved for low-hanging frauds.
A Look Back: PPP Fraud Prosecutions in 2020
The first round of PPP funding, which closed in August 2020, was defined by its scope and speed — SBA-approved lenders disbursed more than 5 million loans totaling over $500 billion in just four months to small businesses nationwide.
In response to widespread fear that the pandemic would cause an economic disaster, U.S. Department of the Treasury officials encouraged lenders to prioritize efficient loan disbursement over extensive preloan due diligence — borrower representations on the PPP loan application were to effectively replace conventional loan underwriting.
As Ware found, federal emphasis on running a high-velocity crisis relief program led to “lower[ing] the guardrails” and “relax[ing] internal controls, which significantly increased the risk of program fraud.”[6]
That risk was exploited by fraudsters enticed by historic stimulus funds to be distributed after minimal lender review. Just weeks after the initial round of PPP loans began flowing, federal prosecutors filed the first charges of PPP fraud, alleging the accused had attempted to fraudulently obtain PPP funds through falsely certifying “to have dozens of employees earning wages at four different business entities when, in fact, there were no employees working for any of the businesses.”[7]
By November, DOJ prosecutors had secured charges against 73 people concerning similarly egregious frauds, many of which involved using PPP funds for unauthorized purposes: Lamborghinis, a Rolls-Royce, a diamond-studded $52,000 Rolex watch, a gambling spree in Las Vegas.[8]
And in December, the DOJ announced that to date more than 90 people had been charged with PPP fraud. In one of those cases, United States v. Ameet Goyal, the accused is scheduled to stand trial in March 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on various charges, including lying on PPP loan applications to circumvent the rules that each borrower is limited to one loan and that applicants with pending criminal charges are ineligible to participate in the program.
While the fact patterns in the early cases varied, most can be fairly described as the low-hanging fruit of PPP fraud. They involve what is alleged to be obvious abuse of the stimulus program, often for the borrowers’ self-enrichment.
Looking Ahead: Future PPP Fraud Prosecutions
With many businesses hamstrung by the ongoing pandemic, the second round of PPP loans is expected to generate another frenzy of applications from cash-starved businesses. Bad actors are certain to try to exploit the fast-moving relief program by filing fraudulent loan applications, just like they did last year. And there is no reason to believe that the DOJ will call off its hunt for egregious cases of PPP fraud — whether it occurred in round one or two of the program.
After federal prosecutors have targeted the most obvious, straightforward frauds, they will almost certainly turn their attention to investigating and prosecuting more complex cases. While there are no certain answers as to what types of cases the DOJ will pursue going forward, the DOJ is likely to prioritize the following issues, among others.
First, the DOJ will likely continue targeting loan recipients that misused PPP funds. PPP loan recipients are authorized to use loan funds for specified purposes, such as payroll expenses, rent, mortgages and utilities. When applying for loan forgiveness, recipients must document and certify their use of PPP funds for valid purposes.
The DOJ may prosecute a loan recipient for misrepresenting its use of PPP funds and for improper use of such funds. Among other potential charges, such conduct may give rise to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 1341 for mail fraud; Section 1343 for wire fraud; and Section 1344 for bank fraud.
Second, the DOJ is likely to continue pursuing loan recipients that were ineligible for PPP relief under applicable rules. Both rounds of PPP funding were limited to businesses with a certain number of employees — in the first round, 500 employees; in the second round, 300 employees — including employees of affiliate businesses.
Accurately calculating employees under the applicable guidance is a challenge for most lawyers, let alone small businesses trying to navigate a pandemic. The eligibility requirements are even more complex when considering that businesses also may have been eligible for PPP funding if they otherwise qualified as a small business concern under SBA standards or met the alternative size standard.
DOJ prosecutors may decide that PPP loan recipients that were ineligible for PPP funds should be prosecuted for, among other things, misrepresentations on loan applications. Considering the many landmines that even well-meaning loan recipients might inadvertently step on in certifying eligibility for a PPP loan, such cases would likely generate contested questions regarding intent.
Third, future DOJ criminal investigations will likely focus on an issue picked up in anonymous complaints appearing in news reporting — employers that received PPP loans asking employees who received compensation because of a PPP loan to provide free work for the employer in the future or to pay the employer back for payments provided as a result of a PPP loan.[9]
For example, The New York Times reported that owners of a Pilates studio that received a PPP loan told instructors running virtual classes during the pandemic that the instructors would receive short-term extra payments out of the studio’s PPP loan but that the instructors’ future wages would be garnished when the pandemic subsided.[10]
Similarly, the Times reported that an owner of a dermatology clinic began garnishing a worker’s wages after the worker was paid more than usual thanks to a PPP loan the owner received.[11]
Ware said the SBA is aware of these more complicated schemes, and it stands to reason that the DOJ is too.[12]
Fourth, the DOJ is likely to investigate whether certain loan recipients falsely attested their PPP loans were necessary and, in doing so, committed a crime. To be eligible for a loan, borrowers must certify on the PPP loan application under threat of potential civil and criminal penalties: “Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”[13]
If anything, that proposition is ambiguous. The Department of Treasury’s relevant guidance is hardly clarifying that:
Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.[14]
In short, the Treasury’s oblique advice has done little to resolve confusion and uncertainty arising from the thorny necessity certification.
If PPP loan recipients took comfort in the necessity certification’s focus on then-existing economic conditions, i.e., “current economic uncertainty,” the SBA’s recently released loan necessity questionnaire may be cause for concern.[15] The questionnaire features a series of questions about a loan recipient’s financial performance after receiving a PPP loan. It asks, in part, that recipients provide information on:
Gross revenues compared to the prior year;
Capital improvement projects;
Dividends or capital distributions to owners;
Prepayment of outstanding debts;
Employees or owners receiving annualized compensation of more than $250,000 during the covered loan period.
These and other data points solicited by the questionnaire were not in the round one PPP application, which simply asked whether “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
Nonetheless, the SBA says it will use the questionnaire to evaluate whether loan recipients properly certified that economic uncertainty made their loan requests necessary.[16]
Thus, the SBA plans to evaluate whether loan recipients completed the necessity certification in good faith based at least in part on their financial performance after receipt of a PPP loan — i.e., based on metrics that were neither known nor knowable when recipients completed the necessity certification and submitted their applications.
The SBA has been cryptic about how the questionnaire data will be weighed against other relevant factors, saying that its “assessment of a borrower’s certification will be based on the totality of the borrower’s circumstances through a multi-factor analysis.”[17]
Even so, the questionnaire increases the risk that when federal investigators make decisions about the propriety of a loan recipient’s necessity certification, they will rely on 20-20 hindsight and minimize the “current economic uncertainty” that motivated a PPP loan application.
The SBA has promised that it will not refer any perceived violations of the necessity certification to other agencies, e.g., the DOJ, if the borrower simply repays the PPP loan at issue.[18] But that assurance is unlikely to give much confidence to concerned borrowers. Some may not be able to repay at all or may not be able to meet whatever repayment deadline the SBA dictates. In either case, the SBA would presumably feel free to proceed as it chooses.
And even if the SBA’s conditional promise were enforceable, it has not been adopted by other federal agencies. There appears to be nothing stopping the DOJ, for example, from learning through other means that a borrower allegedly improperly executed the necessity certification and then proceeding as it deems fit. Based on the stern warnings from DOJ officials about PPP fraud, that seems reasonably likely to occur.
Further, the SBA’s prefatory language to the loan necessity questionnaire could be read to conflict with its previous promise to extend grace to noncompliant borrowers that simply repay their loans:
Failure to complete the form and provide the required supporting documents may result in SBA’s determination that you were ineligible for either the PPP loan, the PPP loan amount, or any forgiveness amount claimed, and SBA may seek repayment of the loan or pursue other available remedies.[19]
Even if the SBA does not intend such language to modify its earlier promise, there are good reasons discussed above why that promise may provide cold comfort.
Takeaways
Federal prosecutors will almost certainly continue pursuing PPP fraud cases with zeal, and the highest priority cases will likely remain those that involve egregious wrongdoing. Such cases are easiest to identify and prosecute. They are also politically popular; they provide easier, faster wins for the DOJ and eye-catching headlines that may help to deter other would-be fraudsters from trying to exploit a crisis relief program.
Only time will tell what types of PPP fraud cases the DOJ will prioritize in the future, but it is likely that federal prosecutors will eventually set their sights on more complicated schemes, such as those discussed above. In the meantime, warnings from regulatory and prosecutorial authorities make clear that PPP fraud prosecutions have only just begun. To date we have seen “the smallest, tiniest piece of the tip of the iceberg.”
For decades, the esteemed lawyers of Finch McCranie, LLP have successfully defended individuals and businesses in criminal investigations and prosecutions nationwide. The firm boasts a deep bench of white-collar criminal defense lawyers, including former federal prosecutors, a former Federal Defender, and alumni of white-collar groups at top international law firms.
Previously, “SBA, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, [] determined that the following safe harbor will apply to SBA’s review of PPP loans with respect to [the necessity certification]: Any borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Final%20PPP%20FAQs%20%28December%209%202020%29-508.pdf (FAQ 46).
SBA cited to conservation of “finite audit resources” and the desire to “focus its reviews on larger loans, where the compliance effort may yield higher returns,” as some reasons for the safe harbor. Id. Yet SBA has also stated that PPP loans smaller than $2 million will be subject to review by SBA “as appropriate” to evaluate “compliance with program requirements set forth in the PPP Interim Final Rules and in the Borrower Application Form.” Id. For these reasons, and those stated in the above article, the safe harbor for loans under $2 million may do little to quell concerns about criminal and civil inquiries.
Entrepreneur’s #4 Most Viewed Article of 2020: I Went to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud, by Jeff Grant, Link to article here.
Clara CFO YouTube Channel: Thinking About PPP Fraud?: Hannah Smolinski interviews Jeff Grant About Going to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud. Interview sponsored by Upside Financial. Link to article and YouTube video here.
The Philadelphia Inquirer: Steal Money from the Feds? First, Meet Jeff Grant, an Ex-Con who Committed Loan Fraud, by Erin Arvedlund: Link to article here.
CFO Dive: After Serving Time, Fraudster Cautions Against PPP, Other Emergency Loans, by Robert Freedman. Link to article here.
Fraud Stories Podcast with Mark Lurie: SBA/PPP Loan Fraud with Guest: Jeff Grant. Link to podcast here.
Forbes: As Law Enforcement Pursues SBA Loan Fraud, Jeff Grant Talks Redemption, by Kelly Phillips Erb. Link to article here.
Taxgirl Podcast: Jeff Grant talks Desperation and Loans in a Time of Crisis with Kelly Phillips Erb on Her Podcast. Link to article and podcast here.
Business Talk with Jim Campbell: Jeff Grant Talks with Jim About Going to Prison for SBA Loan Fraud and What to Know When Taking Coronavirus Relief Money, Biz Talk Radio Network, Broadcast from 1490 AM WGCH Greenwich, CT. Listen on YouTube here.
Babz Rawls Ivy Show: Babz Rawls Ivy & Jeff Grant Talk SBA / PPP Loan Fraud and 7 Things to Know Before You Take Coronavirus Relief Money, WNHH 103.5 FM New Haven. Watch on YouTube here.
Jim Campbell has been an incredible friend to the white collar justice community, bringing unbiased and non-sensationalized truth and light to complicated subject matter. He has brought compassion and empathy to people going through the most difficult times of their lives – without ever compromising his journalistic integrity. I have had the grace and good fortune of being interviewed by Jim for his nationally syndicated business radio shows, and on his local newscasts at WGCH, his home radio station in Greenwich, CT. Jim has also been a guest on our White Collar Week podcast, links to YouTube (video) and podcast below.
I have read a review copy of his new book, Madoff Talks: Uncovering the Untold Story Behind the Most Notorious Ponzi Scheme in History (available for pre-order now) and it is an absolute must-read for those of us in the white collar justice community – and for everyone else who wants to truly understand not only Bernie Madoff the man, his crimes and his pathology, but also the systematic breakdown of every safeguard the government and Wall Street were supposed to have in place to protect us. Five stars! – Jeff
In the twelve years from gaining the most extensive media access to Bernie, Ruth and Andrew Madoff, in “Madoff Talks,” I uncovered a seeming endless stream of often shocking, little-known, revelations in the largely untold story behind the most notorious Ponzi scheme in history. “Madoff Talks” for the first time reveals whether Ruth, Andrew, or Mark Madoff were complicit in any way in the Ponzi scheme. It delves into: why Bernie got on the path to Ponzi; how Bernie did it for so long; how his crimes were uncovered; and includes the systemic failure on Wall Street and among the regulators. It puts Bernie on the couch and examines how he could be have built legitimate and criminal businesses side-by-side; and how he was more complex than just a sociopath. – Jim Campbell
Jim, this certainly sounds strange coming from me, but I was a constant critic of Wall Street. I was a product of the corrupt culture of Wall Street.” – Bernie Madoff, in an email to Jim Campbell
Longtime Wall Street sales maven Frank Casey, blessed with an Irish flair for anecdotes, coupled with an ability to reduce financial complexities to simple common sense, was the first to uncover that Bernard L. Madoff was not who he seemed to be. It was November of 1999, a full decade before the fall of Madoff. Frank was making a sales call to gather assets for a hedge fund at the New York City office of the aristocratic French money manager René-Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet. René was an old-style gentleman. His word was his bond. Trust was his currency. He invested that trust with Bernie Madoff.
Rene’s mellifluous name and bearing was only outdone by the upper-crust and royal families of Europe he counted among his trusting customers. René ran what was to become known as one of the first Madoff “feeder funds,” money managers who would funnel investors’ assets into the hands of Bernie Madoff and his secretive hedge fund. At the time, it was still largely unknown that Madoff was even in the hedge fund business, much less that he was running one of the biggest operations in the world behind locked doors on the seventeenth floor of the distinctive, oval-shaped “Lipstick Building” in midtown Manhattan, home to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. The secrecy and security on the seventeenth floor was so extensive that even Madoff ’s sons, Mark and Andrew, who ran the big market making and proprietary trading operation up on the nineteenth floor – where Madoff made his name as a market maker executing trades for the likes of Charles Schwab & Company—lacked electronic key-card access.
Frank Casey’s Boston-based hedge fund, Rampart Investment Management, was, without his knowledge, a competitor of Madoff ’s invisible investment advisory business. The Frenchman demurred to Casey’s sales pitch. He wasn’t interested in working with a different fund manager, as he had found one with a seemingly uniquely reliable performance record. He had already put all his clients’ assets into just that one fund, an unusual risk for a fund of funds manager, as it left his investors undiversified. Unusually, René was not allowed to reveal the identity of the fund manager, or he would be thrown out of the fund, along with his investors’ money.
There was a compelling reason René found it unnecessary to diversify funds, though it was not related to the benefit of his investors. Inexplicably in the world of hedge funds, the secretive hedge fund manager had opted to forgo taking any of the lucrative management fees that made “hedgies” some of the richest guys on earth. Rather, he passed them on to the feeder funds. This decision was an unimaginably good deal for René. Hedge funds normally charged exorbitant fees, referred to as “2 and 20”—meaning 2 percent of assets under management, plus 20 percent of the gains (while suffering none of the losses).
Passing all that on to the feeders was tantamount to kickbacks. This book tells the full story of the feeder fund corruption for the first time. After listening to René describe the strategy and investment performance of the hidden fund, to Frank, it immediately reeked of “too good to be true.” Frank smelled a financial rat. He intuitively sensed implausible results. René remained adamant. He implicitly trusted this apparent Wizard of Wall Street operating behind a curtain of anonymity.
Then, as fate would have it, René was distracted by a phone call a few minutes later. Frank surreptitiously turned over one of the papers on a clerk’s desk revealing a financial statement with the name “Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.” Frank hadn’t heard of Bernard L. Madoff at the time. All Frank sensed was that this guy’s investment returns could “not be market-driven.” That’s Wall Street speak for fraud.
Casey proceeded to share his findings with his boss, Harry Markopolos, the quant savant who managed the fund at Rampart and would go on to notoriety as the whistleblower whom the SEC chose not to listen to. Harry did a deep dive into the statistical likelihood whether Madoff ’s strategy could produce the returns René was convinced he could trust.
The chase for Madoff and the truth was on. For Harry, it would become an obsession. For René, the results would be tragic. Less than two weeks after Madoff ’s arrest, he would commit suicide in his New York office. It was a matter of honor after his investors lost $1.8 billion with his “trusted friend.” Readers will be surprised just how much they don’t know about the complete Madoff story…
Contact: Herb Schaffner / Big Fish Media / [email protected] / 973-715-5922
New York, New York – April 2021. “Jim, this certainly sounds strange coming from me, but I was a constant critic of Wall Street. I was a product of the corrupt culture of Wall Street.”– Bernie Madoff, in an email to Jim Campbell
No name is more synonymous with the evil side of Wall Street than Bernie Madoff. Arrested for fraud in 2008—during the depths of the financial crisis—the 70-year old market maker, investment advisor and former chairman of the NASDAQ had
orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in world history, fleecing thousands of investors across the globe to the tune of $65 billion. To this day, questions remain: Why did he do it? How did he get away with it for so long? What did his family know? Who is the elusive Bernie Madoff?
For the first time, Madoff has gone on the record to explain why and how he orchestrated the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. In over 400 pages of handwritten letters and emails between him and author Jim Campbell, Madoff shares never-before-heard details about his business and family and how he got away with committing fraud for so long.
Also, for the first time, Ruth Madoff, Andrew Madoff and Madoff’s lawyer, Ira Sorkin, reveal what they knew and if they were complicit.
“The question behind every fraud is why? For all the coverage of Bernie Madoff, the question still hangs in the air. Read Jim Campbell’s wonderfully reported book and you’ll finally get some answers.” – Bethany McLean, author of the best seller The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron.
Even though we know how the story ends, Madoff Talks’ fast-paced, suspenseful narrative shows Madoff at his manipulative best: explaining, justifying and rationalizing his actions and behaviors. All the while, Campbell’s investigative work challenges and refutes Madoff’s claims. From his exhaustive research, Campbell offers more than 30 recommendations to individual investors to be smart with their money and to the SEC, SIPC, FINRA and feeder funds.
About the Author
Jim Campbell is the host of the nationally syndicated radio show Business Talk with Jim Campbell and his crime show Forensic Talk with Jim Campbell. He is known for his hard-hitting interviews of leading figures from the worlds of business, politics and sports. Known for “firsts,” Campbell snagged the first extensive interview with former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer after his resignation; the first interview with former Tyco CEO Denis Kozlowski after his release from prison; and the first broadcast interview with former stock analyst Roomy Kahn, a government informant in one of the biggest insider trading busts in American history.
Campbell’s extensive corporate, consulting and entrepreneurial business background includes roles at KPMG Consulting, Dean Witter Financial Services (now Morgan Stanley) and IBM. He is founder and president at JC Ventures, Inc., a management consulting business.
Best of White Collar Week with Jeff Grant: From July 2020
Podcast Ep. 06: Madoff Talks, with Guest: Jim Campbell
Today on the podcast we have Jim Campbell, a radio host and journalist based in Greenwich, Connecticut, who hosts a nationally syndicated business affairs show, Business Talk with Jim Campbell. He also hosts another show, Forensic Talk, that dives into the world of financial crimes. It’s probably not surprising that Jim and I are friends, and that he has interviewed me on both of his shows.
Today we turn the tables and Jim the interviewer becomes Jim the guest, as we talk about his upcoming book, Madoff Talks: Uncovering the Untold Story Behind the Most Notorious Ponzi Scheme in History. Jim’s book will be published April 2021 (McGraw Hill). He is now putting the finishing touches on his multi-year dialogue with Bernie Madoff in prison, Bernie’s wife Ruth Madoff, and Bernie’s late son Andrew Madoff, as well as government investigators, lawyers, witnesses, and most importantly, the victims. While Jim has culled over 400 pages of actual emails with Bernie Madoff – and presents Madoff’s words verbatim – he never accepts any of it at face value. Jim investigates the truth behind the man, the family, the fraud, and the systemic breakdown of the SEC, big banks, and every watchdog that had the obligation and opportunity to stop the fraud before more people got hurt. But failed.
The Bernie Madoff story was, and remains, one of the biggest tales of grandiosity and greed that Wall Street has ever known, and certainly the largest Ponzi scheme in history. And we have an inside, up-close look on today’s podcast.
So, coming up, Madoff Talks, with our guest Jim Campbell. On White Collar Week. I hope you will join us. – Jeff
