[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OFFENDER RE-ENTRY: WHAT IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS WITH A
SECOND CHANCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 3, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-372 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Michael Volkov, Acting Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 3, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security.......................................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
The Honorable Chris Van Hollen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland.......................................... 4
WITNESSES
Mr. David Hagy, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice,
substituting for Ms. Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs, United States
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement of Ms. Regina Schofield..................... 8
Mr. Pat Nolan, President of Justice Fellowship, Prison Fellowship
Ministries
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Mr. Arthur Wallenstein, Director, Montgomery County Department of
Correction & Rehabilitation
Oral Testimony................................................. 46
Prepared Statement............................................. 48
Ms. Carol Shapiro, President and Founder, Family Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 60
Prepared Statement............................................. 62
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 3
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........ 73
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter to the Subcommittee from Bill Hansell, President, National
Association of Counties (NACo), and Beverly O'Neill, President,
The Uniteed States Conference of Mayors (USCM)................. 80
Letter to the Subcommittee from Calvin Bass, President, and Kevin
Stout, Vice President, Lifer's Group, Inc...................... 81
Sample Questions submitted by Charlie Sullivan, Co-Director,
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.)....... 83
Revised Prepared Statement of Arthur Wallenstein, Director,
Montgomery County Department of Correction & Rehabilitation.... 84
OFFENDER RE-ENTRY: WHAT IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS WITH A
SECOND CHANCE?
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:21 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom
Feeney (acting Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Feeney [presiding]. The hearing will come to order.
This is an oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The topic is ``Offender
Reentry: What is Needed to Provide Offenders With a Real Second
Chance?'' We welcome our guests here today, and we will
administer an oath to them and introduce them in a second.
Chairman Coble is probably not going to be with us today,
but it is a great opportunity to sit in, in his stead. I want
to welcome everybody to this important oversight hearing to
examine the issues of prisoner reentry as a follow-up to the
earlier legislative hearing this morning on H.R. 1704, the
``Second Chance Act of 2005.'' This oversight hearing is
intended to provide the Subcommittee with a closer look at the
practical issues Federal, State, and local governments face
with offender reentry. More specifically, in my mind, we need
to examine carefully which strategies and programs work, which
do not, and how future resources should be directed to ensure
successful transitions for offenders.
The scope of this issue touches each and every community.
The financial burdens on Government of incarceration and
reincarceration of offenders are substantial, and the impact on
families and communities is huge. We need to ensure that
governments have in place appropriate programs to ease this
transition for offenders, to bring families together once
again, and to make sure that offenders get the necessary
support so that they can truly have a second chance to live a
law abiding life.
I recognize that reentry is a public safety issue, not just
a corrections issue. Community safety in promoting healthy and
productive families benefits everyone. This is a bipartisan
issue where innovative solutions are needed. We all know that
approximately 650,000 inmates will be released from State
prisons in the next year. Our challenge is to make sure that we
reduce significantly the rate of recidivism.
Let me cite a few facts which demonstrate the broad impact
of this problem. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
corrections expenditures increased from $60 billion in 1982 to
$90 billion in the year 2001. Between 1991 and 1999, the number
of children with a parent in a Federal or State correctional
facility increased by 60 percent from approximately 836,000 to
1.5 million.
Fifty-seven percent of Federal and 70 percent of State
inmates used drugs regularly before prison. We need to examine
the demand for education, job placement, health care, drug
abuse treatment, and related services needed to provide support
to offenders. There is no one size fits all solution to this
problem, but I expect we will hear about different approaches
to common problems today.
In my view, we need to know specifically what drug
treatment programs work, what do not, and how best we can
support providers of such services. The same series of
questions needs to be asked with respect to each and every
component of any full-scale reentry program. I'm anxious to
hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses, and I would now
yield to the Ranking minority Member of this Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling this oversight
hearing on the issue of what is needed to provide criminal
offenders with a real second chance. We heard this morning from
policy makers about what the problems are regarding prisoner
reentry, the need to provide them with a second chance to
develop and lead a law abiding lifestyle and the level of
bipartisan support to meet this goal. Now, we will hear from
experts as to how to get the job done.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, since this morning, we had a
brief interlude where we continued doing more of the
traditional same. I am delighted that we are back on track
actually trying to reduce crime in a cost-effective manner.
But our first step in that would be to pass H.R. 1704, the
``Second Chance Act of 2005.'' That is a bipartisan bill that
we heard about this morning that makes a significant step in
the right direction toward ensuring that those who leave
prisons have the assistance and support they need to avoid
returning. Problems we heard about included problems finding
work, substance abuse, other mental health treatment, other
disqualification for public benefits such as housing, TANF,
school loans, and other benefits due to substance abuse and the
enormous burden in overcoming societal stigmas associated with
being sent to prison, often for a long period of time.
These problems are not the only problems for offenders but
the problems for society and individual victims that result
from our failure to ensure a second chance for offenders. As we
heard this morning, the primary reason for us to develop this
legislation is not simply to assist offenders who are returning
to the community. It is to reduce the prospects that any law
abiding citizens will be victims of crime in the future and
also to reduce the costs of incarceration resulting from
recidivism.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my statement
from this morning be entered into the record at this point. It
has statistics about the incarceration rate and other problems
that we're addressing, and at that point, I understand my
colleague----
Mr. Feeney. Without objection, it is so ordered. We will
admit the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you for scheduling this oversight
hearing on the issue of what is needed to provide criminal offenders
with a real second chance. We heard this morning from policy makers
about what the problems are regarding prisoner reentry, the need to
provide them with a second chance to develop and lead a law-abiding
lifestyle, and the level of bi-partisan commitment there is to this
goal. Now we will hear from the experts on how to best get that job
done.
A first step is to pass H.R. 1704, the Second Chance Act. This is a
bi-partisan bill that makes a significant step in the right direction
toward ensuring that those who leave our prisons have the assistance
and support they need to avoid returning. The problems we heard about
include problems in finding work, help for their substance abuse and
other mental health treatment, disqualifications for public benefits,
such as housing, TANF, school loans and other benefits due to substance
abuse, and the enormous burden of overcoming societal stigmas and other
problems associated with being sent to prison, sometimes for a long
period. These problems are not only problems for offenders, but also
problems for society and the individual victims that result from our
failure to ensure a second chance for offenders. So, the primary reason
for us to develop this legislation is not simply to assist offenders
who are returning to the community. As we heard this morning, the
primary reason is to lower the prospects that any of us will be the
victim of recidivism. It would also lower the cost of taxpayers re-
incarcerating the offender.
We know have, on a daily basis, over 2.2 million locked up in our
nation's prisons and jails, a 5 fold increase over the past 20 years.
The federal prison population, alone, has increased more than 7-fold
over the past 20 years. In 1984, the daily lockup count for our prisons
and jails was just over 400,000 with about 25,000 federal prisoners.
Today, there are over 2 million state and local prisoners and almost
190,000 federal prisoners, and the population is growing.
All of this focus on incarceration has resulted in the U.S. being
the world's leading incarcerator, by far, with an incarceration rate of
725 inmates per 100,000 population. The U.S. locks up its citizens at a
rate 5-8 times that of the industrialized nations to which we are most
similar--Canada and western Europe. Thus, the rate per 100,000
population is 142 in England/Wales, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91
in Germany, and 85 in France. And despite all of our tough sentencing
for crimes, over 95% of inmates will be released at some point. Nearly
700,000 prisoners will leave state and federal prisons this year, and
the number will continue to grow. The question is whether they re-enter
society in a context that better prepares them and assists them to lead
law-abiding lives, or continue the cycle of 2/3 returning in 3 years?
If we are going to continue to send more and more people to prison with
longer and longer sentences, we should do as much as we reasonably can
to assure that when they do leave they don't come back due to new
crimes.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses
as to what we may be able to do to begin to seriously address this
growing societal problem, and to work with you to get it done. Thank
you.
Mr. Scott. And I understand my colleague will be
introducing one of the witnesses. I think you have been advised
of that.
Mr. Feeney. Yes, we are delighted to have Mr. Van Hollen
here, and after we swear them in and we introduce the three
other witnesses, we will recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Welcome.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Feeney. I thank the gentleman, and with that, it is our
practice in the Committee here to swear in all witnesses that
appear before us. If all of you would please stand and raise
your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, and please let the record show each
of the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and please have a
seat.
We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our
first witness is Mr. David Hagy. We are delighted to have you
today, especially given the fact that you are substituting, I
understand, and we are prepared to handle a lot of emergencies
in this Committee, but Ms. Schofield is now apparently
delivering a baby, or has she delivered?
Mr. Hagy. She is still there. She is working on it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Feeney. Well, that is one of the few things that we are
just simply not prepared for. So we are especially glad to see
you, Mr. Hagy, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the
Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice. Prior to serving at the
Justice Department, Mr. Hagy served as director for local
coordination in the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination at the Department of Homeland Security. For 5
years, he was the chief of staff and policy director for Harris
County Judge Echols, where he managed and promoted initiatives
in the area of emergency management, transportation, criminal
justice and environment. Mr. Hagy holds a bachelor of science
from Texas A&M University and a Ph.D. from Tulane University.
Welcome, and please pass on our best wishes to Ms. Schofield
and her family.
Mr. Hagy. I will. Thank you.
Mr. Feeney. Our second witness is Mr. Pat Nolan, president
of Justice Fellowship, the criminal justice reform arm of
Prison Fellowship Ministries. Mr. Nolan served in the
California State Assembly and is the author of When Prisons
Return. Mr. Nolan was appointed by Speaker Hastert to the nine-
member U.S. Prison Rape Elimination Commissions. He's a
graduate of the University of Southern California, where he
also received his Juris Doctorate. Mr. Nolan, welcome. We are
delighted to have you with us.
Our third witness is Mr. Arthur Wallenstein--oh, I am
sorry. I thought that you were going to introduce Ms. Shapiro.
I would now like to recognize from Maryland, Congressman
Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, thank you very much.
I want to thank the Chairman today, Mr. Feeney, and Ranking
Member, Mr. Scott, and thank them first of all for allowing me
to participate in the Subcommittee hearing today and thank all
of you who are going to be testifying today.
It is a special privilege for me to be able to introduce
someone I have known for a long time and who has done such a
terrific job in this whole area of prisoner rehabilitation,
Arthur Wallenstein, who is the Director of the Department of
Corrections in Montgomery County, one of the counties in my
Congressional district, and we are very proud of the work he
has done.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, at the outset, it is important
to find out here what works and what doesn't work, because
obviously, as people return to the community after being in
prison, it is important that we make sure we provide those
opportunities and those services that work. That's obviously
the entire idea here. So I want to thank Mr. Wallenstein for
his leadership in this area.
Before he was in Montgomery County, he also served as the
Director of the King County Department of Adult Detention in
Seattle, Washington, and as the director of the Bucks County
Department of Corrections in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He is
a graduate of Georgetown University and the University of
Pennsylvania Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and we
welcome you here. Thanks for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feeney. Welcome, Mr. Wallenstein, and thank you, Mr.
Van Hollen.
Our final witness today is Carol Shapiro, founder and
president of Family Justice, a national nonprofit organization
that seeks to reduce recidivism and break the cycle of
involvement in the criminal justice system. Ms. Shapiro has
served as a consultant to the Department of Justice's Bureau of
Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Corrections.
Additionally, she previously served as assistant commissioner
for the New York City Department of Corrections. Ms. Shapiro is
a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University and the Bryn Mawr
Graduate School of Social Work and Research. Ms. Shapiro, I
guess is----
Ms. Shapiro. Philadelphia region.
Mr. Feeney. And believe it or not, I'm Philadelphia born
myself.
But with that, we are delighted to have all of you here,
and Mr. Hagy, we are going to ask you to observe our 5-minute
time limit, and then, the Members will each have 5 minutes to
question you. You will see the light system, which will give
you a yellow 1-minute warning, and then, when the red comes on,
we would ask you to sort of wrap up your thought.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID HAGY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, SUBSTITUTING FOR REGINA SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hagy. Okay; thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Again, I'm David Hagy, as you
know. I'm Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of
Justice Programs and substituting for Regina, and we wish her
the best of luck, and we're anxious to hear the news.
I'm honored to stand in for her this afternoon and discuss
efforts to reintegrate offenders successfully back into their
communities. Most offenders, including the most violent
offenders, will eventually return to their home communities.
OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that more than two-
thirds of all released offenders were rearrested within 3
years.
This cycle of crime and imprisonment takes obviously a
heavy toll. It is a threat to public safety and a drain on
resources. The Administration has been greatly concerned about
this issue since early in President Bush's first term. That's
why, in 2002, the Department of Justice, in a partnership with
other Federal agencies, launched Going Home: the Serious and
Violent Offender Reentry Initiative known as SVORI. This
initiative focuses on those offenders most likely to pose a
risk when they return to their communities.
In his 2004 State of the Union Address, the President
proposed a broad, new reentry initiative, the President's
Prisoner Reentry Initiative or PRI. This new Federal initiative
is led by the Department of Labor. It will harness the
resources and experience of faith-based and community
organizations in working with nonviolent offenders in 30 urban
communities across the nation. The Department of Labor expects
to announce these awards soon.
These two initiatives complement but do not duplicate each
other. Like SVORI, PRI will help communities provide services
to returning offenders, including mentoring and job training.
PRI will serve nonviolent offenders through local
organizations, while SVORI serves serious and violent offenders
through funding awarded primarily to Government agencies. PRI
is just beginning, while SVORI funding will end next year.
Under SVORI, we have awarded more than $120 million to 69
grantees, covering all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Virgin Islands. Awards have helped jurisdictions develop
and implement their own reentry strategies. Each strategy was
designed by States and local communities to meet their own
specific needs, but all strategies share a three-pronged
approach that covers every stage of the reentry process.
While the offenders are still behind bars, we assess their
needs, skills, and risk to public safety and develop individual
reentry plans. Upon their release, the offenders are closely
supervised and directed to follow their reentry plans. They are
often required to report to a judge or a corrections officer
and receive treatment and training. Finally, a network of
public and private agencies provides long-term support.
Cooperation and coordination across the community spectrum help
reentry sites make sure that efforts are both comprehensive and
coordinated.
The feedback from SVORI sites to date has been very
encouraging. Many SVORI-funded programs have been used to
bridge the gaps in existing State and local efforts. They are
providing much needed transition services, counseling,
mentoring and job training. What's just as positive is that the
SVORI programs have developed their own innovative strategies.
I have included a number of these examples in my written
testimony which, with your permission, I am submitting for the
record.
Determining what works and what doesn't work is critical to
our reentry efforts going forward. We are conducting a
comprehensive evaluation of SVORI to determine whether the
programs funded have met their goals, are cost-effective, and
most important, have reduced recidivism. We have already put
information from the SVORI evaluation on the Web and will
continue to share findings from the evaluation as soon as they
become available.
We can all agree that there is much work still to be done.
The Department will directly support PRI efforts through pre-
release services to prisoners who will be served in PRI
communities. We will also take what we have already learned
from SVORI and what we will learn from our evaluations and
share it with the field. We want to encourage more reentry
efforts throughout the country that are based on sound planning
and a thorough knowledge of what works.
This Administration believes that successfully
reintegrating offenders back into their communities is one of
the most pressing issues facing our nation. State and local
governments have shown that thoughtful policies and programs
can be developed to address this issue. The Federal partners,
including the Department of Justice, are committed to doing all
we can to support this continued good work. This commitment is
even reflected in the words of President Bush: ``America is the
land of second chances, and when the gates of prison open, the
path ahead should lead to a better life.''
We greatly appreciate your interest in this critical public
safety issue. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions
that you may have, and I thank you for having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schofield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Regina B. Schofield
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Hagy.
Mr. Nolan, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF PAT NOLAN, PRESIDENT OF JUSTICE FELLOWSHIP, PRISON
FELLOWSHIP MINISTRIES
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. It is an
honor to be here with you.
I bring a unique background to Prison Fellowship. In
addition to being a member of the legislature in California for
15 years and Republican leader of the Assembly for 4 years, I
was then prosecuted for acceptance of a campaign contribution.
That was part of an FBI sting. I pleaded guilty to one count of
racketeering and served for 26 months in Federal custody,
another four in a halfway house.
So I had a chance to see the system from both sides. As a
member of the legislature, I was reliably tough on crime. I
believed it would keep our public safer. As a prisoner, I saw
that the policies that I had so ardently supported were not
making the public safer, because the men and women with whom I
was housed for over 2 years weren't being prepared to return to
the streets. Nothing was being done to reform their character
or their hearts, and in fact, the skills that men and women
develop in prison to survive make them antisocial when they get
out.
This is a problem of huge magnitude, as we have
criminalized so many activities and filled the prisons with 2.2
million Americans now; that is one out of every 134 Americans
is incarcerated as we speak. As a legislator, I forgot about
the back end, that these men and women would be coming out. As
you have heard, there are over 650,000 men and women coming out
this year. That's over 1,600 per day released.
That 600,000 is more than three times the size of the
United States Marine Corps, and we all have grieved over the
last few weeks at the destruction and devastation and suffering
from the result of Katrina. We have seen those displaced
families placed into other communities desperate for food,
shelter, clothing and medical care, and we vehicle been
frustrated that Government has been overwhelmed as they
attempted to absorb these hundreds of thousands of families and
provide them with those necessities of life.
This time, our prisons will release three to four times the
number of families into communities from prison, families
desperate for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and
our communities are being overwhelmed by this. We have done so
little to prepare our communities for these people coming back.
But it won't just be coming back this year. More than that
number will be coming back the next year and more than that the
following year, and more than that the following year. We are
going to have three to four Katrinas every year visited on our
communities into the foreseeable future.
This bill is very important first of all, because it will
give the money to the States to begin coordinating their
efforts to respond to this. Reentry is not just a corrections
problem. Corrections is obviously central to this, because they
house the offenders. But it is a community problem. As the
International Association of Chiefs of Police has said in
support of this measure, the police are the first intake when
the system fails, when these people get back in trouble, and
unfortunately, that happens very quickly. Within 3 years, over
two-thirds are rearrested.
Within the first 6 months, over half of those that fail on
reentry will have failed already within 6 months. Those first
few days and weeks are so critical. Little is being done to
prepare the inmates for return. While 80 to 85 percent of the
inmates have a substance abuse problem in prison, less than 20
percent receive any treatment while they are in there. Only a
third have received any vocational or educational training.
There are several policies that the Government has that
impede our ability to help these men and women. Dr. Martin
Luther King said to change someone, you must first love them,
and they must know that you love them. We can't expect the
corrections staff to love these men and women, but we can
expect people from the community, especially the churches to
come in and love them, and they do.
And yet, corrections policies often make that very
difficult. The Bureau of Prisons currently prohibits a
religious volunteer that has been mentoring and coaching a
prisoner inside from maintaining contact with them when they
leave. Most States have the same prohibitions on their
religious volunteers. That makes no sense. I would urge all of
you to contact the Bureau of Prisons--they say they are
considering changing that--and ask them to change that policy,
because the studies show, and I will finish with this, Dr.
Byron Johnson studied a prison fellowship program called the
Interchange Freedom Initiative, studied our program in Texas.
He found that those in a matched group recidivated within 2
years 20.3 percent of the time.
Those that went through our program and completed it,
stayed in touch with the mentor, stayed active in their church,
followed up with their probation officer, only 8 percent
recidivated. Now, you don't have to believe in religion to
think that has an impact, but you can believe in the science of
the study. It will save the public money. And the reason it
saves money, Dr. Johnson made clear, is the relationship
between that loving mentor and that person, to help them
through the difficult steps back to the community.
Thank you for handling this important issue in such a
wonderful way.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pat Nolan
Mr. Chairman and honorable members, I am grateful for this
opportunity to testify in support of the Second Chance Act. This
important legislation will help make our communities safer and reduce
the number of victims by helping offenders make a safe and successful
transition from prison to the community.
My name is Pat Nolan. I am a Vice President of Prison Fellowship
and serve as President of their criminal justice reform arm, Justice
Fellowship. I bring a unique background to Prison Fellowship. I served
for 15 years as a member of the California State Assembly, four of
those as the Assembly Republican Leader. I was a leader on crime
issues, particularly on behalf of victims' rights. I was one of the
original sponsors of the Victims' Bill of Rights (Proposition 15) and
was awarded the ``Victims Advocate Award'' by Parents of Murdered
Children.
I was prosecuted for a campaign contribution I accepted, which
turned out to be part of an FBI sting. I pleaded guilty to one count of
racketeering, and served 25 months in a federal prison and four months
in a halfway house. During my time in prison, I had an opportunity to
see the impact of the programs that I had so ardently supported while
in the legislature. What I saw troubled me, because I observed that
little was being done to prepare my fellow inmates for their release.
Now, God has placed me in a position that I can share these
observations with criminal justice officials, using my experiences as a
lawyer, legislator and prisoner to improve our justice system. Justice
Fellowship works with government officials at the federal and state
levels, helping them develop policies that repair the harm done to
victims, reform the hearts of offenders, and, in doing that, restore
peace to communities. For the last three years, my efforts have been
devoted largely to helping government leaders refocus their policies
and resources to better prepare inmates for their return to freedom.
Since January, I have been to 17 states, working with governors,
attorneys general, directors of corrections, judges, victims,
legislators, prosecutors and pastors to assist them in revamping their
prisoner reentry programs. I am honored to have this opportunity to
share my observations on what is being done, and not being done, to
prepare inmates to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives.
First, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing. The
importance of prisoner reentry is enormous. Nationally, more than
600,000 inmates will be released from America's prisons this year. To
put that in context, that is three times the size of the U.S. Marine
Corps. An average of over 1,600 offenders per day leave prison and
return to neighborhoods across the country. Their sentences are
completed, and these men and women are coming out. But our communities
are largely unprepared.
We all grieve at the devastation and suffering hurricane Katrina
visited upon the people of the Gulf Coast. We were all frustrated as we
watched governments overwhelmed trying to meet the needs of the
families, stripped of all their worldly possessions, searching for
food, shelter, clothing and medical care. This year our criminal
justice system will release the equivalent of two to three Katrinas to
our local communities, straining their ability to feed, clothe, house
and provide medical care to hundreds of thousands of families. And next
year an even greater number will return needing these services, and the
same the following year and each year into the foreseeable future.
What are we doing to prepare these communities to help these men
and women and their families when they are released? What has been done
to prepare these returning inmates to live healthy, productive, law-
abiding lives? What kind of neighbors will they be? Each of us has a
stake in seeing that these men and women make a safe and successful
return to their communities. Yet, very little is being done to help
them make that transition successfully. As President Bush said in his
2004 State of the Union address, ``We know from long experience that if
they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to
commit more crimes and return to prison.''
The fact of the matter is most of the inmates we have released do
commit more crimes. Over the last thirty years, the rate of rearrest
has hovered stubbornly around sixty-seven percent. If two-thirds of the
patients leaving a hospital had to be readmitted, we would quickly find
a new hospital. So also, we must find a better way to prepare inmates
for their release if we are to have safer communities. The Second
Chance Act will provide the states and our communities help in
developing better ways to do that.
Currently, most returning offenders spend years in overcrowded
prisons where they are exposed to the horrors of violence and isolated
from family and friends. Most are idle in prison, warehoused with
little preparation to make better choices when they return to the free
world. Just one-third of all released prisoners will have received
vocational or educational training in prison. While approximately three
of every four inmates have a substance abuse problem, less than 20
percent will have had any substance abuse treatment before they are
released. The number of returning inmates is now four times what it was
20 years ago, yet there are fewer programs to prepare them return to
their communities.
These men and women face additional barriers, often called
``invisible punishments:'' They are frequently denied parental rights,
driver's licenses, student loans, the right to vote, and residency in
public housing--which is often the only housing that they can afford.
Further, little is done to change the moral perspective of
offenders. Most inmates do not leave prison transformed into law-
abiding citizens; in fact, the very skills inmates develop to survive
inside prison make them anti-social when they are released. Most are
given a bus ticket to their hometown, gate money of between $10 and
$200, and infrequently a new set of clothes. Upon leaving prison
virtually all will have great difficulty finding employment.
If we do not prepare these inmates for their return to the
community, the odds are great that their first incarceration will not
be their last.
The moment offenders step off the bus they face several critical
decisions: Where will they live, where will they be able to find a
meal, where should they look for a job, how will they get to a job
interview, and where can they earn enough money to pay for necessities?
These returning inmates are also confronted with many details of
personal business, such as obtaining identification cards and
documents, making medical appointments, and working through the many
everyday bureaucratic problems that occur during any transition. These
choices prompt feelings of intense stress and worry over the logistics
of their return to the outside world. To someone who has had no control
over any aspect of their lives for many years, each of these problems
can be difficult. In accumulation, they can be overwhelming.
My own experience provides a good example. Shortly after my release
from prison to the halfway house, some friends took me to lunch at a
local deli. The waiter came over to take our orders. Everyone else told
him what they wanted, but I kept poring over the menu. My eyes raced
over the columns of choices. I knew that I was supposed to order, but
the number of options overwhelmed me. My friends sat in embarrassed
silence. I was paralyzed. The waiter looked at me impatiently. I began
to panic. How ridiculous that I wasn't able to do such a simple thing
as order lunch. Finally, in desperation I ordered the next item my eyes
landed on, a turkey sandwich. I didn't even want it, but at least it
put an end to this embarrassing incident.
For two years I hadn't been allowed to make any choices about what
I ate. Now I was having a hard time making a simple choice that most
people face every day. If I had this much difficulty after only a
couple of years in prison, think how hard it is for those inmates who
haven't made any choices for five, ten, or fifteen years. And what
about those who didn't have the wonderful home, the loving family, the
strong faith and the good education that I had? They face a baffling
array of options and little preparation. Is it any surprise that so
many newly released prisoners make some bad choices and end up back in
prison?
The choices offenders make immediately after release are extremely
important. Of the ex-prisoners who fail, over half will be arrested
within the first six months. That is not much time to turn their lives
around. One study of rearrests in New York City found that the rate was
especially high during the first hours and days following release. This
early window of time is the most intense period for ex-prisoners, when
they may be overwhelmed by the accumulation of large and small
decisions facing them. On average, ex-offenders have only a one-in-
three chance of getting through their first three years without being
arrested.
As the number of people released from prison and jail increases
steadily, we cannot afford to continue to send them home with little
preparation. These policies have harmed too many victims, destroyed too
many families, overwhelmed too many communities, and wasted too many
lives as they repeat the cycle of arrest, incarceration, release and
rearrest. The toll this system takes is not measured merely in human
lives: The strain on taxpayers has been tremendous. As jail and prison
populations have soared, so have corrections budgets, creating fiscal
crises in virtually every state and squeezing money for schools, health
care, and roads from state budgets.
It does not have to be this way. Fortunately, there are many things
that the government in partnership with the community, and in
particular our churches, can do that increase the likelihood that
inmates will return safely to our communities.
One of the most important provisions of the Second Chance Act will
provide grants to community and faith-based non-profits to link
offenders and their families with mentors. Let me tell you why this is
so important.
It is essential that returning inmates have a friend they can turn
to as they take their difficult first steps in freedom. A loving mentor
can help them think through their decisions and hold them accountable
for making the right moral choices.
The importance of mentors to returning prisoners was stressed by
Dr. Byron Johnson in his recent study of the Texas InnerChange Freedom
Initiative (IFI), the reentry program operated by Prison Fellowship
under contract with the state. Dr. Johnson's study found that IFI
graduates were two and a half times less likely to be reincarcerated
than inmates in a matched comparison group. The two-year post-release
reincarceration rate among IFI graduates in Texas was 8 percent,
compared with 20.3 percent of the matched group.
Dr. Johnson emphasized that mentors were ``absolutely critical'' to
the impressive results. The support and accountability provided by
mentors often make the difference between a successful return to
society and re-offending. As these offenders make the difficult
transition back into the community, they need relationships with
caring, moral adults. The greater the density of good people we pack
around them, the greater the chance that they will be successfully
replanted into the community.
IFI recruits members of local churches to give at least one hour a
week to mentor the IFI inmates, both while they are still incarcerated
and after they return to their community. In his interviews with the
IFI participants, Dr. Johnson found that the mentors' weekly visits
were very important to the inmates. ``Without exception, IFI
participants have indicated the critical impact volunteers have made in
their lives. The sincerity and time commitment of volunteers has simply
overwhelmed program participants.'' The benefit of these relationships
with their mentors derives not only from the things discussed, but also
for the love conveyed. By faithfully keeping their commitment to the
weekly mentoring sessions, the mentors show a commitment to the inmates
that many have never experienced before in their lives. As Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., said, ``To change someone, you must first love them,
and they must know that you love them.''
While many people would never associate the word ``love'' with
prisoners, love is precisely what has been lacking in the lives of many
of these men and women. They have gone through life without anyone
caring about them or what they do, nor caring enough about them to
coach them as they confront life. Many inmates are emotionally
overdrawn checkbooks. We must make deposit, after deposit, after
deposit before we will see any positive balance.
A mentor can help the ex-offenders think through employment options
and tell them what their employer will expect of them on the job. Many
offenders have never had someone in their lives who has held a steady
job. They have no model for being a good employee. A mentor can teach
them that they need to get up on time, go to work each day, and call
their supervisor if they must be late or absent. Offenders may find it
difficult to take direction or may lack skills to cope with a difficult
boss or fellow employees. A mentor can help them with these and other
everyday difficulties of the workplace and teach them the importance of
punctuality, politeness, and diplomacy on the job.
Mentors help returning inmates deal with many of the personal
problems they typically encounter upon leaving prison: no reliable
friends outside their former gang network, marital problems, and no
easy way to get on with life.
Mentors can also help the offenders learn decision-making skills
and teach them how to keep track of bills and pay them on time. In
prison, inmates do not have to deal with any of this. On the street
such details may quickly overwhelm them. In short, offenders need to be
taught how to make good choices, handle responsibility, and be
accountable--to make the right choice even when no one is looking.
Corrections staff can't make this kind of commitment to help each
individual prisoner. But volunteer mentors can, and, in fact are,
making this commitment in programs throughout the country.
Most of us can remember a teacher, coach, or neighbor who believed
in us and helped us believe in ourselves. That is exactly what
returning offenders need, yet most have never had someone like that in
their lives. Mentors can fill that void. A loving mentor lets returning
inmates know that the community is invested in their success. And the
Second Chance Act will provide concrete assistance to community and
faith-based groups to recruit and train mentors for this essential
work.
As you work to improve our criminal justice programs, I suggest you
keep several concepts in mind:
The purpose of our criminal justice system is to create safer
communities and reduce the number of victims. There is a tendency to
focus on institutional safety, rather than community safety. Under this
narrow, institutional focus, the surest way to avoid escapes and riots
would be to keep prisoners in their cells 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. However, the public would be in far greater danger after those
prisoners were released. Instead of focusing on institutional
convenience, correctional policy must be judged by whether it makes the
public safer.
Reentry planning should start at intake. Planning for the release
of inmates should start as soon as they are sentenced. Assignment to a
prison should include factors such as the proximity of the prison to
the inmate's family and the availability of needed programs.
Prison policies should strengthen families. Crime not only has a
devastating impact on the direct victims, but also on the families of
offenders. Incarceration puts tremendous stress on the spouses and
children of offenders. These family members have committed no crime.
The stress on the family is exacerbated by policies such as placing
inmates far from their families, frequently treating visiting families
with disrespect, and charging exorbitant fees for telephone calls.
In addition, there are often preexisting issues of drug abuse,
physical abuse, and marital conflict. If these issues are not resolved
during incarceration, reentry will be much more difficult. Programs
such as La Bodega de la Familia in New York, work with the entire
family to strengthen their relationships. A healthy, functioning family
is one of the most important predictors for successful reentry. Our
prison policies must be changed to strengthen families rather than
destabilize them.
Prisons are for people we're afraid of, but many of those filling
our prisons are there because we are merely mad at them. The response
to a technical violation should not automatically result in return to
prison. Obviously, it is important for offenders to learn to live by
the rules. However, if an offender is making good progress it makes
little sense to throw that all away because he didn't file his
paperwork on time or missed a meeting with his probation officer. One
judge told me, ``Right now, I can either send him back to prison or let
him go to the beach. Give me something in between.''
Inmates should be encouraged to participate in faith based
programs. To deal effectively with crime, we must first understand it.
At its root, crime is a moral problem. Offenders make bad moral choices
that result in harm to their victims. To break the cycle of crime, we
must address this immoral behavior. There aren't enough police officers
to stop everyone tempted to do something bad from doing it; inmates
must rely on inner restraint to keep from harming others.
Job training and education alone won't transform an inmate from a
criminal into a law-abiding citizen. For some inmates such programs
merely make them smarter, more sophisticated criminals. It is a changed
heart that can transform a prisoner. Unfortunately, many prison
programs ignore the moral aspect of crime and avoid all discussion of
faith and morality. In doing so, they are missing a significant factor
that has proven very effective at changing criminals' behavior: faith.
If inmates are to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives when they
return to their communities, we must equip them with moral standards to
live up to and a worldview that explains why they should do so.
The community should ``own'' reentry. There is a tendency to view
reentry as a program of corrections departments. While our prison
systems are certainly central to the reentry process, it is the
community that has the most at stake. Many corrections policies make it
difficult for community and church groups to be involved in preparing
inmates for release. Many systems ``keep their options open'' on
release dates, often right up to the day of release, making it
impossible to recruit, match and train mentors, locate appropriate
housing, arrange for jobs or welcome the inmates at the bus. For
reentry programs to be a success, community groups and churches should
be viewed as important partners with the state, not as mere
auxiliaries.
An important example of a corrections policy that makes reentry
much more difficult is the so-called ``non-fraternization'' rule. I am
sure you will be shocked to learn that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and many states DOC's prohibit religious volunteers from being in
contact with inmates after they are released. This policy cuts the
inmates off from the very people most likely to be able to help them
make a successful transition. Corrections policies must be rewritten to
encourage mentoring relationships to begin inside prison and continue
after release. These healthy relationships should be encouraged, not
prohibited. I am told the BOP is considering changes to this policy,
but I would urge each of you to press them to eliminate this barrier to
effective mentoring without further delay.
Programs are important, but healthy relationships are even more
important. The support and accountability provided by mentors often
make the difference between a successful return to society and re-
offending. As offenders make the difficult transition back into the
community, they need relationships with caring, moral adults. The
greater the density of good people we pack around them, the greater the
chance that they will be successfully replanted back into the
community.
I have written a book, When Prisoners Return, which covers all
these issues and is being used by departments of corrections, churches
and community organizations to coordinate their efforts to help
offenders during the difficult transition from prison to the community.
If you and your staff would like copies, I will gladly provide them to
you.
As a state legislator I made the mistake of thinking that locking
people up ended our worries about them. Only when I was in prison did I
realize that most inmates will be released someday, and that doing
nothing to prepare them for their release is very dangerous for our
communities. By passing the Second Chance Act you will avoid making the
same mistake I made in the legislature. I commend the committee members
and your excellent staff for developing this important bill.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Nolan, for your personal story,
which is quite compelling.
Mr. Wallenstein, you've got 5 minutes to address us.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR M. WALLENSTEIN, DIRECTOR, MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION & REHABILITATION
Mr. Wallenstein. Very good. Pat is sitting next to me, and
I want to commend him. I didn't know him a year and a half ago.
I've come to know him very well. He visited our correctional
system in Montgomery County and brought his board with him. I
think a great deal of credit for his moxy and discussing his
personal situation and continuing as a driving advocate for
improvement in this field.
I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member. I would
also like to thank Mr. Vassar for the courteous way that he
engaged me to participate. I want to thank very specifically
Congressman Chris Van Hollen for his support in me being here
today. This is not the kind of thing where--I've thought about
it; I would have fought my way to get this chamber today.
You're hitting on issues that touch a major nerve of public
policy in this country, and while you deal with important
public policy issues every day, it is doubtful that since 1973,
any public policy issue has so touched every last community in
the United States than has criminal justice and incarceration.
So I think you are right smack in the middle of a major issue,
and I commend you very, very much for engaging it.
Don Murray is also here today from NACO, and Don has been
their senior criminal justice legislative mentor, really, for
years and started working with me 28 years ago, when I became a
warden for the first time in Bucks County, and I owe Don a
great deal for keeping me focused and teaching me a great deal
about the county aspect of this entire problem.
This is great legislation. This is not just average
legislation. And I noted this morning that Members from
California and Massachusetts noted this was an issue, a time
we're able to engage something that has gone untouched for far
too long, and it's reasonable, and it's bipartisan, and it
doesn't focus on liberal versus conservative or harsh versus
soft. They're going home, all right? Whatever got them there,
they're going home, and it's measurable, so we should have some
idea of whether we're showing some success in diminishing the
potential for people to come back to incarceration. That alone
makes this a problem certainly worthy of our attention.
A national voice is needed. This morning, it was very
appropriately suggested maybe the States should deal with this.
Maybe the local jurisdictions should deal with this. But every
single community in America has seen vastly expanded
incarceration, which means in terms of this legislation, a vast
increase in the number of people going home to every district,
every Congressional district, every State district, every
neighborhood in this county, in this country, so it's certainly
worthy of a national voice.
It's also appropriate that a national exposure be given to
the issue, because it's going to require significant
engagement, collaborative engagements of a vast array of
organizations, and I think the Federal Government bears not
only a special responsibility but a special ability to bring
people together who are not used to talking, may have to be
herded into the same room to begin this discussion to diminish
the potential for return to correctional institutions.
I want to devote some time, as I have in my testimony that
I ask be made part of the record, on counties. And I will try
to be very short and very direct on this. Almost all of the
discussion has centered on States. We all commend the President
for mentioning 600,000 prisoners returning home in the State of
the Union speech in 2004, that really got this ball rolling.
But the fact is it's not 600,000. It's 10,600,000. Counties
must be added to the equation, and I'm not here as an apologist
for the counties or simply to put the county agenda before the
Committee; it's real: 3,320 jails in this country return
between 7 and 10 million prisoners a year to local
jurisdictions. This is serious business. And the counties need
to be brought to the table.
This legislation, thanks to the efforts of people like
Richard Hurtling from the Justice Department and others who
have seen the county relevance, all right, have brought us to
the table. So I would ask the Committee in its discussions to
continue to represent the counties, and again, not 650,000;
10,650,000.
And it isn't all violent crime impacting public safety.
Many of us have read, for example, the broken windows approach
in New York, where minor crime, quote, minor, misdemeanor
crime, drives public safety enormously in this country. Almost
all domestic violence offenses are misdemeanors. They're
handled at the county level. So people who smack their wives
around and are going home often directly back into that same
home are county based, and counties need to be considered and
need to be urged, directed, cajoled, pushed, to address this
whole issue of offender reentry, because the potential impact
is enormous.
I actually believe that this legislation could have the
same impact of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1975, that radically
changed how we look at youth ending up in adult correctional
institutions. While the dollar figure is modest, the public
policy, the philosophical implications behind it are enormous,
all right? That you're there, we can argue about how you got
there and the whys and the lengths of sentences, but you're
going home, and there, I think we have a chance to do something
of enormous significance.
Mr. Feeney. Mr. Wallenstein, we can tell your passions and
capabilities and experience would allow you to go on for quite
some time. Would you wrap up, because we want to get into
questions.
Mr. Wallenstein. Correct.
I would like to invite the Committee and its Members to
come to Montgomery County at any time of your choice, see what
we do on the floor, so you can see these issues in operation,
and I urge you again: stay with us on this issue and don't let
it slip. You've discovered something significant.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallenstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Wallenstein
Mr. Feeney. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And Ms. Shapiro, again, thank you for coming today.
Ms. Shapiro. Thank you.
Mr. Feeney. And you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF CAROL SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, FAMILY
JUSTICE
Ms. Shapiro. Thank you very much, Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, it really is a privilege. Like my colleagues
here, I'm equally passionate and enthusiastic about this bill.
My testimony, I hope, will reflect shifting the lens to think
about the impact on families. It goes to the county issue, the
State issue, and the Federal.
I'd like to take you to Rikers Island, where I was about 10
years ago, little longer, and introduce you to Mrs. Rodriguez.
She came because there was a graduation at the boot camp. Her
son Jose, was graduating, and she talked to me. She said, you
know, when Jose comes home, he steals from me. I take care of
his children. He's been in and out of drug treatment. But I
love Jose, and I'm proud of Jose.
And this light bulb flickered to think okay, what about the
families? What kinds of supports can we do? What can we be
doing to improve the outcomes for drug treatment or people
struggling with mental illness? And I think the importance of
this bill, which as others have stated, has, you know, broad
bipartisan support does a few things that get to some of the
complexities--you just have to think about your own families--
of some of the issues that people coming home from jail and
prison are facing.
One, I think this bill really will enhance State and local
reentry programs by rewarding partnerships, by really focusing
on accountable types of partnerships, not just for the person
coming home, but looking at issues of child support, housing,
the confluence of those issues. Secondly, I think it inspires
some cost-effective strategies to address recidivism, you know,
the Jose that was going in and out of jail and prison and
reentry challenges for family members by looking at measuring
very concretely outcome measures tied to, you know, whatever
the intervention is doing.
And thirdly, I really think a way that this bill enhances
public safety is by looking at the context in which people are
coming home from jail or prison. You can see that Ms.
Rodriguez, and there are many Ms. Rodriguezes in the country,
want to do well by their children. I think this bill is a
really important step for hope to their families, but it also
recognizes that the sheer numbers, the 2 million children
affected, there's also caregivers. Many caregivers step up to
the plate when someone is arrested, whether it's short time for
a jail sentence or longer time from prison.
Here's why I think it's important we consider families: one
is they are a natural resource that can be tapped into, and
they're existing. They're there. They don't cost a lot of
money. Think about your own families. Families are also--the
families that we're talking about are also connected to
multiple governmental systems such as TANF, such as housing,
such as welfare, such as, you know, a variety of things.
But they're also connected to informal social networks, be
it faith community, be it clinics, be it AA. Secondly, families
want their sons and daughters, their loved ones, to succeed.
They don't want them going in and out of jail and prison.
Families are also there 24 hours, and families are there when
Government leaves.
The Urban Institute study suggests that most people do go
home to their families, and most were living with their
families after getting out and getting financial support. At
our direct storefront in New York, La Bodega de la Familia, we
tested the notion of improving drug treatment just by
supporting families. For some, outpatient drug treatment is
wonderful; for others, longer term residential treatment is
really needed. How we match the treatment, how we think about
the family, the kids, the seniors that are affected makes a
difference whether somebody stays in treatment or leaves
treatment.
We found that we were able to reduce drug use from 80 to 42
percent just after 6 months of coming home from prison, but
equally significant is family well-being improved. Housing was
stabilized. Employment was stabilized. Kids were staying in
school. Those are family measures which I think this bill is
really supporting.
I think there are examples, creative examples around the
country where partnerships between public housing and
supportive housing are actually working with the local fabric
of communities. I think there are a number of States where
there is leadership saying we have to use science, we have to
measure, and we have to look at outcomes that are not just
related to someone coming home from prison such as recidivism
but looking at all the family indicators.
We have developed and tested some of these initiatives with
a number of Federal and State and local partners, and in
closing, I just want to say that this Second Chance Act is for
the many Mrs. Rodriguezes in this country, but it's also for
the many Joses, and the idea of doing both together, I think,
is really exemplary.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shapiro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carol Shapiro
Mr. Feeney. Thank you very much, Ms. Shapiro.
And now, we are going to commence a series of questions of
the panelists. I am going to start and take 5 minutes. Mr.
Hagy, first to you in terms of what the Justice Department has
done so far under SVORI, obviously, as each individual needs a
slightly different tailored approach, because some have
families, some have support groups, some have peer pressure
that's going to be very challenging to overcome if they go back
to their communities. Just like each individual needs a
tailored approach, there are some 30 different experiments that
you have underway.
You've talked about some of the common, the three common
things with respect to each of these approaches, but what you
have you found about the differences, and what, if anything,
are your statistics on recidivism showing at this point?
Mr. Hagy. The way the program is set up is obviously, we
give a lot of flexibility to each State to set up their program
based on the needs that they know probably better than we do on
the individual basis. What we're finding is that they're each
trying something different or focusing on something a little
bit different.
We're seeing, like, for instance, we talked about the
importance of family and how important that was; if you look in
Mississippi, they're having the families come into the pre-
release and talk to the prisoners and discuss things with them
and have them to start moving back out into the post-release
stage and working with them there. Maine uses
videoteleconferencing if the families are at a distance, to
work with those families so that when they are released, they
can connect better with those families.
A lot of programs are using faith based post-release
counseling and mentoring, one-on-one mentoring. I think about
54 percent of the programs are using some kind of that. So each
State is doing something just a little bit different and
focusing a little bit different area on how they are
approaching the problem.
Mr. Feeney. And are you evaluating the relative successes?
Mr. Hagy. Yes, and the national portrait just came out, and
I think the way they're evaluating it through the Research
Triangle Institute is a great way of doing it. The way they
started was the national portrait of the SVORI program, which
really was descriptive, going out saying all right, who's set
up? How are they setting up? And then, it has a profile of the
States and what they're doing, some of those being described as
I do now.
They are in the early stages; obviously, it's going to be
over a period of time where we evaluate this program. I was
reading something last night: the first 12 months, obviously, a
lot of the recidivism occurs in that, so what you are going to
see now is a lot of that, but as we go on in the second and the
third and the fourth year, some say up to 7 years to evaluate
these programs, but we're looking at a 4-year time frame, we
will be better able to say what is working and what is not.
The great thing about it is on this Website, I think, that
I mentioned, they are releasing reports and studies about the
effectiveness of parts of that program as we go along which are
publicly available. So, you don't have to wait for the 4 years.
The best results will come 4 years down the road when we have
time to look at people, but right now, we looked at one study
on faith-based programs; again, the national portrait described
them. The faith-based study talks about what faith-based
institutions are doing. There's a juvenile report that was just
released. So we're releasing that information as we go along to
inform you and our constituents on how that's working as we go
along.
Mr. Feeney. Has the Justice Department taken a position on
Mr. Nolan's suggestion that there's no sense to a policy that
will not allow a mentor to have contact with a prisoner once
released?
Mr. Hagy. He said he was working with the Bureau of
Prisons. I will have to check with them on that and where they
are in their decision making process. I don't know if any final
decision has been----
Mr. Feeney. Well, maybe I'll ask Mr. Nolan, then, again,
thank you for your testimony. And you talked about the
importance of mentoring, and is there any reason given at all
for why contact with the mentor after release is a problem?
Mr. Nolan. First, I forgot to ask that--I have a full
written statement, if that could be incorporated into the
record.
Mr. Feeney. All of the written statements will be entered
into the record.
Mr. Nolan. The reason I'm given, and this is true in many
States; it's not just the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is that
somehow the inmates might pull the wool over the eyes or take
advantage of that mentor outside, and that's always the risk.
And that's why training is important.
On the other hand, what it does is sacrifice the ability of
a healthy, good relationship that started in prison from
continuing. It cuts them off from the person other than the
family, and Carol has done such a good job describing the
importance of healing families and----
Mr. Feeney. Well, Mr. Nolan, do a lot of these mentors have
some training before they go into prisons?
Mr. Nolan. Absolutely. We recruit them. We match them
specifically with that prisoner, and we train them. And I don't
know of any instance--there probably have been some--of an
inmate taking advantage. You've got to understand, too, it's
more work for the prison to keep track of it, but public safety
should trump institutional convenience.
And it's really important that we remember that prisons
don't exist for their own sake. They exist to keep us safer.
And if their policies inhibit keeping us safer, we ought to
change the policies. The Bureau of Prisons says they're
reviewing it, but they're slow. With the money in this bill
going out to mentoring programs, those relationships should
start in prison.
I brought up one of our mentees and his mentor to meet with
several of the Members, and Mark Souder asked him well, what
would happen if you hadn't had this relationship while you were
in prison? And David said I would have seen this funny little
man in a bow tie with a fedora hat, and what angle does he
have? Why is he interested in me? And blown right past him,
because he stood between me and freedom.
He said it was only because Jim came faithfully every week
for over a year to see him, to work with him, to work on a life
plan, to tell him what it mean to be a good employee, how to
heal relationships with his family, to work on all those
issues. David said it was probably three or 4 months before he
began to take Jim seriously, because he always kept thinking,
well, what's his angle? What's he trying to get up on me?
David had been so abused by so many people in his life that
he wasn't able to trust anybody. And it was only that love of
week after week, just showing up, just being there, caring
about him that broke down that barrier and had David say this
person really does care about me so that he could stay with him
when he got out.
Now, to show the other side of the relationship, Jim, a
wonderful guy, retired Quaker Oats executive, said I told David
if he goes back, they better have two beds, because I'm in for
attempted murder. [Laughter.]
But there's wisdom in that, because he's holding David
accountable. He's not only there to help him, but he's saying
David, you've got to keep your nose clean.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you.
My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Nolan, just following up on that
in terms of the contact after prison, that's for all
volunteers, not just----
Mr. Nolan. Right, it's not just religious. It's all
volunteers are prohibited from that. Now, 95 percent of
volunteers in prison are religious, but yes, it applies across
the board to all volunteers.
Mr. Scott. And these are volunteers.
Mr. Nolan. Correct.
Mr. Scott. So we don't get into who's paying what money to
who.
Mr. Nolan. Right, right.
Mr. Scott. Okay; Mr. Hagy, SVORI, do you have a study on
which programs work and which do not work?
Mr. Hagy. Well, and that's what I'm talking about, that
longitudinal study. We have some descriptive stuff now, the
first national portrait that came out. We really haven't had
time to complete a study. Most of these programs that were
basically funded in 2002 and 2003, didn't really ramp up
immediately. In fact, I think the last study, about 75 percent
of the programs, this just came out, are actually fully
functioning with the rest on some kind of variation of that. So
we don't have it; we have some good anecdotal evidence of,
again, some of the family reentry using the faith-based and
what they're actually doing, but the effectiveness will come
along as we move along.
Mr. Scott. Well, based on the information and studies that
you have, is it fair to say that education helps reduce
recidivism?
Mr. Hagy. Yes, a lot of the different programs are using
education within the pre-release programs to prepare them to
leave. Again, I think that's an important part of it and using
the mentoring after they leave.
Mr. Scott. Now, along those lines, would it be helpful to
fund college education for prisoners, or would it be more
helpful to deny them college education?
Mr. Hagy. I can't speak to that issue. I have no evidence
one way or the other on that one at this point from the
Department on this issue.
Mr. Scott. You don't know whether helping people get a
college education would be helpful or not?
Mr. Hagy. I mean, that is a priority for Congress, but
obviously, how they fund that, but obviously, a college
education does help you get a job after--in any case helps you
be more employable. But, how that's funded and what a priority
that is for Congress, I can't speak to.
Mr. Scott. Well, I'm not talking about priorities. I'm just
saying if your goal is to reduce crime, helping prisoners get a
college education would be helpful if your goal is to reduce
crime.
Mr. Hagy. I can agree that education does improve your
opportunities.
Mr. Scott. Okay; what about employment opportunities in
prison? Would that be helpful to reducing recidivism?
Mr. Hagy. I do know they start talking about that in the
pre-release stage, and obviously, on the post-release stage----
Mr. Scott. I'm talking about jobs in prison, like the
Prison Industries program. Has that been studied?
Mr. Hagy. I think there are some Federal programs, the
UNICOR program that seems to have done a pretty good job at
doing some job training.
Mr. Scott. And UNICOR participants have a lower incidence
of recidivism.
Mr. Hagy. That is being shown.
Mr. Scott. Okay; Ms. Shapiro, you're working with families;
many of the prisoners have children within their families.
Ms. Shapiro. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. Have you found that to be a high risk group for
future criminal activity?
Ms. Shapiro. Well, the research suggests there is a very
high correlation, so the answer is yes. And it's why I think
it's important, and I think this bill recognizes how you do
successful transition home that includes interventions for
children and helping kids stay in school and helping their
father or mother get the drug treatment they need so that it
stabilizes the family. I think it is very intertwined. And many
families have more than one person involved in the criminal
justice system, not only children at high risk.
Mr. Scott. And has intervention with the children been able
to reduce the likelihood that they may get in trouble?
Ms. Shapiro. I can't speak to the full research on this. I
think it has been very promising. There are studies, for
example, from some of the drug courts where for women, I know,
who have had children, the kids have remained drug free and
healthier for a long period of time. And it's relatively new in
this field to actually look at somebody, and to see the family
as the unit of analysis and measure outcomes for others in that
household.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And Mr. Wallenstein, you indicated that it's not 600,000
but 10 million. One of the problems with funding programs for
those in jail is that they're there often for a short period of
time. So by the time they're processed in and processed out,
you don't really have a lot of time. Are you suggesting that
there is an opportunity here to reduce recidivism for those
even though you may have them for a short period of time?
Mr. Wallenstein. There is a dramatic opportunity to
diminish recidivism. First of all, jail sentences can be for up
to 18 months and in a few States even longer. But take the
smaller group of 12 months. You can engage people in very short
periods of time. In fact, our whole treatment, substance abuse
treatment system in this country is based on increasingly short
periods of time.
Remember, what works, we have to challenge traditional ways
of looking at programs, so if you're going to prepare someone
to go out to work, there are work force development factors
that the one-stops have done dramatic work with all across this
country: role-playing with people, rehearsing them, practicing
with them, real world applications; you don't need years. In
fact, I would argue years can be counterproductive. Months can
be very valuable, because what you teach and what we teach in
Montgomery County on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday, you may practice out on the streets the following
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, because we
won't let you sit. Get out there and get a job. The counties
have got to be involved in this because of the size and scope
of this population.
Mr. Scott. And how can we help them get a job after they
get out?
Mr. Wallenstein. The one-stop movement in this country to
me is one of the most valuable undertakings. Department of
Labor has implemented it through grants to States. One-stops
exist in almost every county in America. Insisting, I mean,
dramatically insisting what are you doing to help the local
criminal justice population should be part of the guidelines to
every work force board and every one-stop in the United States.
You can use volunteers, faith community individuals, get
them thinking about a job and get the work force to intervene
inside of the jails. We're opening a one-stop center inside the
Montgomery County Correctional Facility in Clarksburg,
Maryland. It's a new step forward. We welcome you to come and
take a look. It's a work in progress. Use every hour of the day
that we have these people.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Without objection, we'd like to give Mr. Van Hollen, who is
not a Member of the Committee, 5 minutes to engage in
questions.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Nolan, thank you for
sharing your experiences and what you've done as a result and
are doing as a result of those experiences. You point out in
your testimony the number of people who go into prison with
substance abuse problems, almost 75 percent according to your
testimony that very few of them, maybe one-fifth of those
people get any substance abuse treatment while they're in
prison.
I mean, do we have pilot programs? I mean, I know Mr. Hagy
suggested that we're waiting for these longitudinal studies.
There must have been, must have been lots of pilot programs out
there that have been done at the various levels to see what
works and doesn't work with respect to substance abuse, because
common sense will tell you someone goes into prison and has
substance abuse and doesn't get treated and comes out with
substance abuse problems, you know, you haven't really gotten
anywhere.
Mr. Nolan. Right, what have we accomplished?
Mr. Van Hollen. So what works? What doesn't work? Tell us
about some models you know of.
Mr. Nolan. Well, first of all, a great resource on this is
CASA at Columbia University, Council on Alcohol and Substance
Abuse; I think that's the title. Joe Califano heads it up,
former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. There are
plenty of studies that show what works. There are some great
faith-based programs, one called Celebrate Recovery, which is
part of, you know, the--an overall transformation of the
person. They have a great success rate.
But the key thing is doing nothing is so irresponsible. To
lock somebody up for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years with an
addiction problem but do nothing about the underlying addiction
and then release them back on the street, you know, it's a
fraud on the public, and it's a fraud on them. We've done
nothing about the underlying problems, and we've released
somebody who is very likely to commit another crime, so create
more victims as well.
And to show how the bureaucracy plays okey-doke, I appeared
before the Virginia Reentry Commission, and I talked about
this. And a representative of one of the Virginia programs
said, well, I want to reassure the members of the Commission
that every Virginia prison has drug treatment programs. Well,
that's technically correct. Every one does. It's just not
available for most of their prisoners. Only a tiny percentage
get it. But here she is telling the legislators, oh, every--you
know, and only if you knew that only a few were getting it
would you realize she's essentially misleading that committee.
And we've got to decide if we're spending all this money,
more than a Harvard education, to lock somebody up, shouldn't
we do something to change their heart and their habits to leave
them better than when they came in? I would also say we need to
look at even sending somebody with a drug abuse problem to
prison. Prisons are for people we're afraid of. It's
essentially a quarantine. It's segregating them from us so we
can live safely.
We've filled them with a lot of people that we're mad at,
and then, we do nothing about the reason that we're mad at
them. And they come out, do it again, and we're still mad at
them.
And one last thing: as a legislator, I said, well, at least
they don't have access to drugs while they're in prison. Wrong.
There were more drugs available to me in prison than there were
when I was in college, and most of them didn't come in through
the visitation room. They came in in the guards' lunchpails in
return for money and sex and everything else.
That's the reality of prison life. Chuck and I have said,
Chuck Colson and I, we went to bed every night with the smell
of marijuana in the air every night. There were plenty of drugs
available in prison. So the idea that as a legislator that
somehow, well, at least they're abstaining from drugs while
they're in prison is just not true.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Nolan.
And on that point, I was in the Maryland State Legislature
and asked the same questions and got the response, which is
that there are these drugs in prison. I am still confounded by
the fact that we can't do more about it. I realize the
difficulties, and I realize the current reality, but I also
believe that we can do more to change that reality, and drug
abuse programs should be part of that. But we also, to the
extent that there is all this corruption going on, which is
always what you hear about, we should be able to do more about
that as well.
Mr. Wallenstein, if you could comment on that.
Mr. Wallenstein. The vast number of correctional officers
in this country are totally and completely honest and wouldn't
condone drugs in their prison for a second, as I know Pat would
support.
Mr. Nolan. Yes.
Mr. Wallenstein. The few that are there and do it should be
prosecuted and put in the prison. It's a very, very small
amount.
The issue is we must engage, but it needs to be done
intelligently. And I think the Committee can help. Not a dime
of Federal money should go to any program that doesn't present
an evaluation and research template, not 2 years after you
funded them but prior to any monies flowing. And groups like
NIJ and BJS, who are excellent, should help develop the right
questions to be asked and the methodologies to be used to
measure up front, so we go into the programs with an idea of
how we can gauge our success.
Mr. Feeney. The gentleman's time has expired.
We have time for part of another round if you're
interested. Mr. Hagy, is that what we're doing in terms of
requiring a template, what Mr. Wallenstein just suggested with
SVORI?
Mr. Hagy. Again, it's a little bit broader than that, but
we do provide the pre-release evaluation. That's one of the
things that we're looking at is that you have to evaluate the
person and then carry them through the entire process. So yes,
there is an evaluation of each prisoner's situation and what
they need to make them more successful, whether it be drugs or
other issues.
Mr. Feeney. Well, I misunderstood. I thought what Mr.
Wallenstein was saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.
Wallenstein, is that there has got to be some demonstration
that the process has some positive results before the process
gets any Federal funding. Is that basically what you were
telling us?
Mr. Wallenstein. Correct.
Mr. Hagy. Yes, and then, I think I can speak to your sort
of issue as well as these longitudinal studies. What we're
studying with the SVORI program is the compilation of these
programs and how do they work over time. Obviously, in any
program, any facility, any State, some of those drug treatment
programs may be very, very successful; others are not. In fact,
one of the questions I ask our evaluators was when you do come
out with a SVORI program, and you tell me 4 years down the road
it's working, how do you isolate whether it was the individual
programs for that prison or that facility or it was actually
the combination of the efforts?
So the longitudinal studies actually speaks to the
combination of efforts and are we doing a good job at making
them coordinate all those efforts and focus on the many
different problems that may confront a prisoner. And again, in
each one of those, there are successes. We have the RSAT
program that has proven to be very successful, residential
substance abuse program, and our drug courts. So we have seen
programs individually that work. It's the analysis of the SVORI
as a combination we're going to try to look at.
Mr. Feeney. Okay; and because I've got to be done by 1:30,
the gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'll ask unanimous consent to put my
statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, today's legislative hearing was of
extreme importance, and this oversight hearing is just as important.
The Second Chance Act, H.R. 1704, responds to the fact that, for
example, in 2003, over 2,000,000 people were incarcerated in Federal or
State prisons or in local jails. During 2003, more than 650,000 people
were released from State and Federal prisons to communities nationwide.
This nation is in desperate need of high quality and well-thought-out
programs for the reentry of criminal offenders.
One of my great concerns over the years has been the need for
legislation to facilitate the early release of nonviolent offenders,
and today's hearings go hand in hand with that principle. My
legislation, the ``Federal Good Time Release for Non-Violent Offenders
Act,'' or the ``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of
2005,'' H.R. 256, provides for the release of federal prisoners who
have served one-half or more of their term of imprisonment if that
individual has attained the age of forty-five (45) years and has never
been convicted of a crime of violence.
Passage of this legislation will confer both economic and social
benefits--just as would the Second Chance Act. Some of those who are
incarcerated face excessive sentences, and my provisions would mitigate
this problem. Non-violent offenders can provide important community
service to the public, reduce taxpayer burdens, and restore a sense of
self-worth, accomplishment, and duty to these persons.
The number of federal inmates has grown from just over 24,000 in
1980 to 173,739 in 2004. The cost to incarcerate these individuals has
risen from $330 million to $4.6 billion since 2004. At a time when
tight budgets have forced many states to consider the early release of
hundreds of inmates to conserve tax revenue and when our nation's
Social Security system is in danger of being totally privatized, early
release is a common-sense option to raise capital.
The rate of incarceration and the length of sentence for first-
time, non-violent offenders have become excessive. Over the past two
decades, no area of state government expenditures has increased as
rapidly as prisons and jails. Justice Department data released on March
15, 1999 show that the number of prisoners in America has more than
tripled over the last two decades from 500,000 to 1.8 million, with
states like California and Texas experiencing eightfold prison
population increases during that time. America's overall prison
population now exceeds the combined populations of Alaska, North
Dakota, and Wyoming.
Over one million people have been warehoused for nonviolent, often
petty crimes. In addition, the European Union, a political entity of
370 million, has a prison population, including violent and nonviolent
offenders, of roughly 300,000. This is one third the number of
prisoners which America, a country of 274 million, has incarcerated for
only nonviolent offenses.
The 1,185,458 nonviolent offenders we currently lock up represents
five times the number of people held in India's entire prison system,
even though it is a country with roughly four times our population.
As the number of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent offenses
has steadily risen, African-Americans and Latinos have comprised a
growing percentage of the overall number incarcerated.
In the 1930s, 75% of the people entering state and federal prison
were white (roughly reflecting the demographics of the nation). Today,
minority communities represent 70% of all new admissions--and more than
half of all Americans behind bars.
The Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2005 would address these
disparities and the detrimental impacts that are caused by keeping
nonviolent offenders behind bars. I will work with the Gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Portman, and my colleagues Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Tubbs-
Jones of Ohio, as well as the Gentlemen from Indiana, Ohio, and Utah--
Messrs. Souder, Steve, and Cannon respectively to explore the
possibility of incorporating my provisions with those of the Second
Chance Act--of course after making appropriate changes to make H.R. 256
apply to the states.
In addition, I would like to recognize the hard work that the
Gentleman from Michigan, our distinguished Ranking Member John Conyers,
has done in introducing his ``Rebuild Lives and Families Re-Entry
Enhancement Act of 2005''--legislation of which I am an original co-
sponsor. His proposal seeks to re-authorize adult and juvenile offender
State and local reentry demonstration projects that are already public
law. This proposal really makes sense and requires much less by way of
legislative draftsmanship to implement. Furthermore, that bill contains
very substantive provisions that will remove some of the barriers to
re-entry. I will work with that Gentleman to combine our legislative
efforts as well.
I hope that as we move the Second Chance Act--with the enhancements
to be offered by the Ranking Member and me, forward toward the House
floor so that this critical issue can be expeditiously addressed. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, and I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, gentlemen. It's good to see
you, Mr. Hagy.
Simply, I want to acknowledge that this is a very
instructive bill and one that's overdue. I think there is
sentiment on both sides of the aisle as well as in the House
and the Senate. A number of Senators have spoken about the
issue dealing with Second Chance, and I visited a number of
Federal prisons, including the Federal prison in Beaumont, low,
medium, and maximum security as well as the prisons in
California, some of the most stark conditions; some of them are
Federal prisons.
But my question would be if you could, just for my
edification, emphasize the value that you would see or could
see in tying this legislation to what we call good time
release. What does that mean? We have over the years done an
excellent job with the numbers of crime coming down, and I
think we can attribute that to the past Administration
continuing with Attorneys General that have been consistent on
the issue of crime and communities have appreciated.
Although this bill ties itself to State programs and faith
based groups working locally, let me ask you this: about the
numbers of individuals languishing in prison, nonviolent, have
had a record of 10, 15, 20 years of good time, meaning well
behaved, having the opportunity tied to this bill, meaning that
they would be released to a program, and that means that they
would be released before the time that was set, because under
these sentencings that are enormous, be released to programs
like this, so it's called good time; the concept is good time,
early release. You are a prisoner, and there's also the factor
of maybe age. Maybe they would be 40, 45 years old, people who
have been in 20 years.
I would like--hopefully, these are gentlemen who believe
this bill has some merit and ladies. How would you view that
issue?
Mr. Hagy. I'll go first and then maybe let our issues--how
that works. Obviously, there is some idea that these people
have good behavior. I don't see anything in our legislation
that prevents someone from taking advantage of our programs;
again, I can't speak to the Department's policy. Obviously,
that is an idea that's come up, and I can take that back to our
leg team and see how they feel about it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Hagy. I will certainly do that for you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Shapiro?
Ms. Shapiro. Well, obviously, anything that will get people
out of prison into a structured support system is preferable
than, you know, maintaining their lives in prison, again,
because it affects their whole network and whole neighborhoods.
I think the challenge is always for the seamlessness, and
as much as there may be great drug treatment, for example, or
programming in prisons, what's the connective tissue when
they're coming home? And how do we really think about
programming that is conscious of that at the time? And I think
the supports we give at the community level is also recognizing
that purpose. The research suggests the more people are watched
when they're coming back from jail or prison, the more they go
back to jail and prison for technical violations.
So I think the truth in what we want to accomplish can
happen with this bill, particularly if we are building an
accountability for the individual but also measurement for some
of the other indicators that I think are so critical for
healthy families and healthy neighborhoods.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, with this kind of infrastructure
in place, if we can move this along in a bipartisan manner, the
terminology I'm using, because maybe the microphone, early
release. So what I am suggesting is that you would have early
release of individuals who have documented evident good time,
meaning they have been models, good behavior, whatever
positions, you know, whatever they are because of their
behavior, because of also their age----
Ms. Shapiro. Right.
Ms. Jackson Lee.--that they could be released; they still
have some work life in them, and they could be released to
these--and so, you would get early release before the
traditional time, because if you take statistical analysis, you
have beds loaded up in both State and Federal prisons with
individuals who really are nonviolent--again, I say that; their
crime was nonviolent, and who are able to come out into this
system.
Is that something that you could see being a good, as you
said, seam that would lead itself into a positive return?
Ms. Shapiro. Well, I can't speak to the particular State or
local systems and how that might work institutionally. I don't
know if my colleagues can do----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you can speak, is that something that
would be a good fit into a structure?
Ms. Shapiro. Absolutely, particularly as you think about
case management and how it flows from an institutional setting
to a community setting, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Nolan.
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we definitely need something like that. As
a legislator, I supported abolition of parole. I wasn't
thinking, because----
Mr. Scott. You supported or opposed?
Mr. Nolan. I supported it, and it was a mistake. And the
reason that it was a mistake was that it took away all
incentive to be involved in any programming that bettered
themselves. And I have a perfect example: within the Federal
Bureau of Prisons right now, if you serve out your time, you
have no tail. You finish your time; you walk out the gate----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And no support.
Mr. Nolan.--with no restrictions and no support, exactly.
On the other hand, and I know guys that turn down halfway
houses because it's stricter, it's more accountable. They have
more choices, more options, but they're also held accountable
for it. They didn't want that. They just beat the clock. They'd
serve their time watching TV, lying in the rack, and then walk
out the gate a free man; literally, in their terminology,
cutting their tail.
It is more important to introduce to men and women inside
choices, options, give them an incentive for preparing
themselves, coming up with a plan, work with them on the
support systems that Carol talked about. And right now, that
isn't done in most cases.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And if I may, and thank you, that means
whatever we call it, but if we did the early release, which is
not necessarily parole; it means that you look at a category of
personalities, you look that they've been good time for this
period, and you say you know what? You're out, but you put that
seam, and therefore----
Mr. Nolan. There's got to be that follow-through.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Income producers but out and take those
beds away from all that we're paying for people who are just
sitting there.
Mr. Feeney. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Nolan,
you can answer that, and then, we're going to have five more
minutes----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Nolan. Parole did it the wrong way. They just said,
okay, who's the next few to get out; we'll let them loose. No
preparation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right.
Mr. Nolan. Opened the gate, pushed them out. That's the
wrong early release. Instead, you do it intelligently. You
prepare them and say you, we've given you responsibility;
you've shown you can handle it. You have a life plan. You're
going out, and here's the support system to help you make it.
That's the right way to do early release.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you to the Ranking Member and the
Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you.
And I'm going to recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes. He can either use it; he can yield it; or he can lose
it. That will be his discretion. He can have the last 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nolan, are you aware of any studies that would suggest
that simply lengthening the time that someone is incarcerated
without anything else, no education, no job training, you just
lengthen the time, that that would reduce recidivism?
Mr. Nolan. No; on the contrary, I think experience has
shown the opposite. Mr. Wallenstein alluded to this. Sometimes,
doing more time actually makes--institutionalizes someone,
makes them less able to make choices. Let me just give you an
example personally. For 2 years, I was locked up. That's not a
long time compared to a lot of folks in prison.
I got out and went to the halfway house. A bunch of my
buddies took me to the Eighth Street Deli near the Capitol in
Sacramento. We sat there, and they all ordered. The waiter was
there. And I looked at the menu, and I looked at it, and I knew
what I was supposed to do, but I was paralyzed. I couldn't
choose what to eat. For 2 years, I hadn't chosen what I ate.
And here I was unable to do that.
Finally, out of embarrassment, my eyes lighted on a turkey
sandwich, and I ordered it. I didn't want a turkey sandwich.
But I didn't want this long, agonizing moment when I couldn't
make a decision to go on. Now, think of somebody who didn't
have my education, my faith, my family, my position of
responsibility. Think of them: they get off the bus in the
middle of the night, and they've got to choose where they're
going to sleep that night, where they're going to eat the next
day, how do they get a job? How do they get to a job interview;
all those decisions stretching before them.
The longer they're institutionalized--again, I'd only been
locked up 2 years, and I couldn't order from a menu. Think of
all those options. They go from a position where every minute
of their day is accounted for. They're told what to do, when to
get up, who they're with, where they go, what they can do, and
then, we're told, okay, you're free. Make all these choices.
And the longer you're locked up, the less chance you have of
being able to make intelligent choices, because you've been
deprived of that, unless there is some transition, unless there
is some support group for you, helping you, walking with you,
thinking those things through.
Mr. Scott. And a parole system helps that? I think I'd
heard from your testimony that someone developing, having an
incentive to put a parole plan together so that they convince
the parole board that they're ready; they've got somewhere to
go, something to do; they've gotten some education, and they've
got an incentive to do that, because they've got to convince
the parole board before they can get out that that makes more
sense than ready or not, here I come.
Mr. Wallenstein. Right, far more.
Mr. Scott. I yield the balance of my time to the Gentleman
from Maryland.
Mr. Van Hollen. I thank my colleague, and again, thank the
Chairman and the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, for allowing me to
participate here.
Mr. Wallenstein, the core of your testimony was don't
forget about the guys in the county jails, because there are 10
million of those individuals. Is there a correlation between
the people who have gone to jail and gone to prison? In other
words, of the 650,000 people in prison, do most of them begin
at some point or another in the county jails? And is that,
therefore, an opportunity to get to them earlier? Is there not
much of a correlation? Or is that data just not available?
Mr. Wallenstein. No, it's there. It's a perfect
correlation. Almost no one goes directly to a State prison. And
even in serious offenses, there will be county jail time spent.
The time is enormously productive, because it's right there in
the community; the community based groups are there. That's why
this legislation is so important, because as you push the
collaborative potential between community based organizations,
intergovernmental cooperation, and work at the local level, it
isn't taking a bus, a train, or a plane. It's walking down the
street. And the potential has not even begun to be tapped,
which is really why I was pushing the county agenda so hard,
because not only is it numerical in size and scope; it's right
there in front of us.
Mr. Van Hollen. Good. If there are any statistics, because
I think you make a very good point; if there are any statistics
showing that all the individuals, the 650,000 people we're
talking about ending up in State and Federal prisons have
earlier served time in local jails, any data you've got on
that, because I think your point is a very good one: if you can
catch people early and provide them the resources in the
community and divert them out of, you know, the prison system
at that point, it obviously would be money and time well spent.
Mr. Wallenstein. The person in this country on this issue
is Alan Beck, the chief of correctional statistics within the
Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice.
He is respected from one end of the country to the other. If
you engage Alan on this issue, there is no better person in the
country.
Mr. Wallenstein. Thank you.
Mr. Hagy. And I think that was some of our significance on
the Prisoner Reentry Initiative on the nonviolent offenders:
get there before it become a bigger and bigger problem.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Feeney. The gentleman yields back, and thank you, Mr.
Van Hollen and Mr. Scott. We want to thank all of our witnesses
for your testimony. The Subcommittee very much appreciates your
contribution. All of it will be part of the record. In order to
assure a full record and adequate consideration for this
important issue, the record will be left open for additional
submissions for 7 days. Also, any written question a Member
wants to submit should be submitted within the same 7-day
period.
This concludes the oversight hearing on ``Offender Reentry:
What is Needed to Provide Offenders with a Real Second
Chance?'' Again, thank you for your cooperation. The
Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter to the Subcommittee from Bill Hansell, President, National
Association of Counties (NACo), and Beverly O'Neill, President, The
United States Conference of Mayors (USCM)
Letter to the Subcommittee from Calvin Bass, President, and Kevin
Stout, Vice President, Lifer's Group, Inc.
Sample Questions submitted by Charlie Sullivan, Co-Director, Citizens
United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.)
Revised Prepared Statement of Arthur Wallenstein, Director, Montgomery
County Department of Correction & Rehabilitation