[Senate Hearing 109-1059] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-1059 OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY IN OUR STATES ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 __________ Serial No. J-109-114 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34-118 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Mary Chesser, Majority Chief Counsel Mark Keam, Democratic Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 1 Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....................................................... 3 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepard statement................................... 79 WITNESSES Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C............................................................ 7 Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C................................................ 9 Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C....... 11 Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.. 5 Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas................................................. 20 Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois.................................. 22 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Mason M. Bishop to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 33 Responses of L. Carter Cormick III, for Robert J. Bogart to questions submitted by Senator Coburn.......................... 43 Responses of Cheri Nolan to questions submitted by Senator Coburn 49 Responses of Roger Werholtz to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 58 Responses of B. Diane Williams to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 62 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., statement................................................ 64 Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 75 Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., statement...................................................... 81 Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement...................................................... 88 Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas, statement...................................... 101 Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, statement....................... 108 OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY IN OUR STATES ---------- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Coburn, Sessions, Brownback, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Chairman Coburn. The Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. First of all, I want to take this moment to thank each of you who are participating on our two panels today. This is an oversight hearing on Federal assistance for prisoner rehabilitation and reentry in our States. What we do know is whatever, positive or negative, that prisoners learn in prison will be reflected in their behavior outside of prison. The statistics are somewhere around 9 million people go through our prisons in a year, and we have in excess of 2 million people incarcerated. The purpose of the hearing is to learn about every Federal tax dollar that has recently been spent on programs to aid State and local prisoner reentry initiatives. Since 2001, the Federal Government, through the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, Byrne JAG grants, demonstration grants, and various research initiatives, has spent over $400 million to help States and local governments provide programs to assist in prisoner reentry. Additionally, there are grants, technical information, and best practices provided by various agencies to help prevent crime and provide alternatives to incarceration. We have a large job in front of us today because to date Congress has not reviewed some of its larger investments like the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative or some of the pilot programs, like the Transition from Prison to Community Initiative employed in eight States or the demonstration program employed through the National Governors Association in seven States. At the end of the hearing today, I hope we will, first of all, become more familiar with all the programs that are there, the funding opportunities available through the various agencies that assist in prisoner reentry, the goal of those programs, and the type of accountability that is built in to ensure that the tax dollars are well spent and meet the goals and the visions of those programs. Ninety-one-point-six percent of all inmates are held in State facilities for violating State laws. Additionally, we know that 16 States hold almost 71 percent of all inmates. While incarceration generates high costs, we know that States this past year had $57 billion in excess revenues. Thirty-eight States' revenues exceeded their budget projections and 10 States' revenues were on target. Unexpended revenues probably can and should be focused on one of the critical areas in our country that needs addressing, and that is the effects of incarceration. How do we make good, productive citizens of people who have made a mistake, paid the price, and do not go back in? What we do know is that the recidivism rate is high, and we know that two-thirds of that recidivism, that reincarceration occurs within the first 6 months following--actually, it is half occurs within the first 6 months following release from incarceration. We need to do a better job as a Nation. The States need to do a better job. Eighty percent of State prisoners report a history of drug or alcohol use. In fact, 55 percent of State prisoners report using drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crime that resulted in their incarceration. I am a big proponent of drug treatment and addiction treatment, and when we fail to do that, we fail to offer a hope and a chance for many people who are incarcerated. A study in Texas found that an unemployed offender is 3 times more likely to return to prison than one who is employed. Similarly, New York's Department of Labor reports that 83 percent of offenders who violated probation or parole were unemployed. With the knowledge we have about the trends in recidivism and the commonalities among inmates, we can evaluate the programs we have to make sure they are targeting the right needs. I met with a number of groups and also a number of corrections staff. One program in particular that stands out to me as a phenomenal success is being executed by two U.S. probation officers--one in eastern Missouri and another in western North Carolina. These two officers are motivated to make a difference in the lives of inmates, and they have used their resources in very creative ways. They focus specifically on employment. Using job retention training, the Federal Bonding Program, employer tax credit, and job fairs for ex-offenders, they were able to reduce the unemployment statistics for the people in their charge from 12.1 percent in 2000 to 3.3 percent in 2006. The most amazing thing is that the unemployment rate for ex- offenders in their areas of coverage in 2006 was lower than the unemployment rate in their respective areas for all the citizens as a whole. As of this month, the unemployment rate is at an all-time low for ex-offenders in eastern Missouri at 2.54 percent, while the community's unemployment rate is 5.1 percent. This incredible success has had a significant effect on revocation. Even though the released offender caseload has increased over the years, the number of revocations has decreased. It is all related to employment, employing skills, getting out of an addictive habit and being employed and building self-esteem based on that. The success of the program is attributed to offender employment following release, offender education programs in prison, mandatory evening and weekend work for supervision officers, increased treatment options, search and surveillance team support, and credibility from the bench, passionate staff, and good press. After meeting these gentlemen, there is no doubt in my mind that the success of their program is because of the character of the men leading it. People make the difference in successful reentry, both the corrections officers and the incarcerated individuals. At the Judiciary Committee hearing this last Tuesday on the cost of crime, one Senator pointed out that the Residual Drug Treatment Program in Federal prisons is offered to all inmates who volunteer. In the followup question and answer period, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, agreed that if all inmates with a drug treatment need were forced to participate in the program, the success of the program might be reduced because the volunteer nature of the program makes it more successful. We all know that you have to recognize the need before you are going to take the help for the need. But the total numbers might, in fact--the total numbers of people employed and out of a drug-addicted or alcohol-addicted position might actually increase. Our second panel today includes witnesses who work in the field of corrections. Both have received Federal grants and can report back to us about interactions with various agencies. Senator Durbin and myself look forward to learning about the grant process, the role of nonprofits, associations, or lobbies play in helping identify and achieve available funds, how federally funded programs interact with State programs, and accountability measures built in to followup with the grantees and their programs. Finally, we will look forward to hearing from our second panel about how States are handling the problems associated with recidivism. I thank all our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. I want to specifically thank the witnesses on our second panel. We know that you and the 750,000-plus Americans employed in corrections are making a difference in the lives of inmates. The work you do and your ability to impact inmates is tremendous. Senator Durbin. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask that my entire statement be made part of the record. Chairman Coburn. Without objection. Senator Durbin. I will just echo your remarks. There are 9 million people incarcerated today in the world. A fourth of them are in the United States, one out of four. We have seen a dramatic increase in incarcerations. Some 700,000 people are released from prison each year. On average, somewhere between 55 and 65 percent of them will commit another crime. The obvious question is: What can we do to make people pay a price for those things that they have done wrong, but to make certain that we do not pay that price a second time as a society if those who are released from prison commit another crime? There are some things that are very obvious. Many people enter prison today with drug addictions and are never treated. We also know that many people enter prison with some vestige of a family life and see it disintegrate because of lack of opportunity to make a telephone call or to have a meaningful visit with a member of your family because of where your prison is located or what the prisoner visitation rights happen to be. We know that education is the single best thing that we can do to turn the life around of a prisoner, and yet we face this Faustian chance--I faced it as a Congressman--of what to do in a society where we have too few dollars for Pell grants to help low-income students go to college. So do you give the Pell grants to the kids who did not commit the drug crimes and want to go to college? Or do you give them to those youngsters who were incarcerated for committing a drug crime? A terrible choice. And we know if we do not provide this financial assistance, some of these inmates will never achieve the skills and education they need to turn their lives around. Too many people incarcerated today have a serious mental illness and get virtually no treatment for it while they are incarcerated. And that means that they leave prison perhaps in worse shape than they entered. We know that when it comes to returning to society, there are a lot of helping hands that can make a big difference, whether it is first a family or a church or a business or an organization. I have seen it all over my State of Illinois, and many people here have as well. We need to create incentives for that helping hand to give people a chance. I want to especially note before I close, Mr. Chairman, that we have one witness today, Diane Williams, who is President and CEO of the Safer Foundation, on our second panel. In my State of Illinois and perhaps regionally, maybe nationally, Safer Foundation is one of the most outstanding operations in terms of noting the nature of this problem and suggesting meaningful ways to address it. Thank you for this hearing. [The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you. I am going to introduce the witnesses and then we will swear you in. The first witness is Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Justice Programs. Ms. Schofield was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for OJP on June 8, 2005. She is responsible for providing overall management and oversight of OJP, whose mission is to enlarge the Nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. She also guides the development of that office's policy and priorities and coordinates the activities of its bureaus and offices. Next is Mr. Mason Bishop. He is Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Employment and Training Administration at the Department of Labor. He is responsible for overseeing key workforce investment programs, developing and implementing workforce policies and priorities, and assisting with congressional relations and legislative issues. He also plays a lead role in the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. Next is Robert Bogart. He is the Director of the White House Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As the Director of the HUD Center, Mr. Bogart ensures that faith-based and community organizations have equal access to Federal dollars. Our final witness is Cheri Nolan. She is the senior policy advisor on criminal and juvenile justice issues to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, also known as SAMHSA. She assumed her current responsibilities in September of 2005. At SAMHSA, she manages and oversees all criminal, juvenile, and faith-based issues that confront the agency. If you would each stand and repeat after me: I swear that the testimony that I am about to give before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Rehabilitation and Corrections is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God? [Witnesses repeat oath.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you. You may be seated. Ms. Schofield, turn your mike on, if you would, please. You are recognized for 5 minutes STATEMENT OF REGINA B. SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Ms. Schofield. Dr. Coburn, Senator Durbin, I am Regina B. Schofield, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of Attorney General Gonzales, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Office of Justice Programs to discuss the Department's efforts to aid State and local reentry initiatives. I am also honored to be here not only with representatives from other Federal agencies, but also Diane Williams and Roger Werholtz. OJP has worked with both of them, and I know that they will contribute greatly to today's hearing. Most offenders, including the most violent offenders, will eventually return to their communities. A study from OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that more than two-thirds of all released offenders were rearrested within 3 years. So, of the 650,000 people who are released from prison annually, over 400,000 are likely to be rearrested. Between the harm caused by their original crimes, the injuries inflicted by their new offenses, and the collective damage they do to both their neighborhoods and their communities, the path of destruction recidivists leave is wide and long. The issue of prisoner reentry has been of great concern to this administration since early in President Bush's first term. In 2002, the Department of Justice, in an unprecedented partnership with other Federal agencies, launched ``Going Home: The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative,'' or SVORI. Under SVORI, we have awarded more than $120 million to 69 grantees, covering all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. These grants helped to support States and communities as they developed and implemented their own reentry strategies. Although the strategies were designed by States and communities to meet their own specific needs, they all share a three-pronged approach that covers every stage of the reentry process. First, while participating offenders are still incarcerated, reentry partners assess their needs, their skills, and the risk they pose to public safety, and develop formal reentry plans. Second, as soon as these offenders are released, they are closely supervised, often with the requirement that they report to a judge or corrections officer, and receive treatment and training. Finally, a network of public and private agencies provides long-term support as the offenders reintegrate. The SVORI reentry plans also include participation by the faith-based community, neighborhood residents, local police, and close consultation with State and local government officials, corrections staff, probation and parole officers, treatment providers, and others. The feedback to date has been very encouraging. We have completed the first phase of a two-phase, multi-year evaluation of the SVORI programs. The evaluation shows that these programs have been successful in bridging the gaps in existing State and local efforts. They are providing much needed transition services, such as counseling, mentoring, and job training. And they are closely coordinating pre-release and post-release services. The next phase of the evaluation is a 4-year impact study that will measure program outcomes. It will tell us what impact SVORI programs have had on recidivism and whether they are cost-effective. We will continue to share these findings as they become available. The SVORI grants expired this year, but we are taking what we have learned from these programs and applying it to the President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, or PRI. PRI is a Federal partnership that is intended to help ex-offenders find and keep employment, obtain transitional housing, and receive mentoring. It also harnesses the resources and experience of faith-based and community organizations in helping returning inmates contribute to society. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we awarded $12.9 million to States for pre-release planning and services for non-violent offenders, ages 18 and older. These grants were designed to complement the Department of Labor's portion of the initiative, under which 30 community and faith-based organizations in 20 States received awards to provide post-release services such as mentoring, employment assistance, and housing assistance. As the Subcommittee requested, I am submitting for the record detailed information on our reentry program. The President, the Attorney General, and I believe that successfully reintegrating offenders back into their communities is one of the most pressing criminal justice issues facing our country today. State and local governments have demonstrated that thoughtful policies and programs can be developed to address this issue. We are committed to doing all that we can to continue to support their good work. We appreciate the interest that you and your colleagues have shown, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Schofield appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. STATEMENT OF MASON M. BISHOP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent Secretary Chao and to discuss the Department of Labor's considerable work on prisoner reentry initiatives. My written testimony describes in detail the programs and funding sources currently available for reentry efforts. Each year, more than 650,000 inmates are released from Federal and State prisons. These released prisoners face difficult challenges as they reconnect to society. Unemployment among ex-prisoners can be as high as 40 percent, and joblessness among ex-prisoners has been linked to recidivism rates. Prisoners also demonstrate low levels of educational attainment. Forty percent of adult State prisoners are functionally illiterate, and over half of State parole entrants are not high school graduates. In contrast, the fastest-growing jobs on average require a high school diploma and a post-secondary credential such as a vocational certificate, an industry-recognized credential, or an associate's or higher degree. At the same time, the need for workers is increasing due to the retirement trends of the baby- boom generation and lower birth rates in recent years. To keep pace with the demand for skilled workers, every facet of the population, including ex-offenders, will be needed. Ex-offenders are an important supply pipeline for the unfilled high-growth jobs of today and for the jobs of the future and, therefore, must be actively engaged to take part in the labor force. Without intervention, many ex-prisoners will commit new crimes and be reincarcerated in the first 3 years after their release from prison. Research has also broadly documented the substance abuse and mental health issues of ex-prisoners-- factors that are likely to contribute to poor education levels, lack of employability, and a return to criminal activity. In returning to criminal activity, ex-prisoners reduce their chances of living healthy and positive lives for both themselves and their families. On the other hand, ex-offenders who maintain strong family and community ties have greater success in reintegrating into the community and avoiding incarceration. Given these issues, the philosophical underpinnings of the Department of Labor's reentry efforts include: first, having employment be the goal and at the core of all reentry efforts; and, second, assuring the continued and strengthened role for faith-based and community-based organizations as primary partners since they often possess unique strengths and resources for delivering social services to ex-prisoners within their communities. A focal point of these reentry efforts is the President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, as well as a series of other programs and initiatives under the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders appropriation. All together the Department of Labor has invested more than $372 million in prisoner reentry efforts of various types. Under the President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which he announced in the January 2004 State of the Union address, the Department of Labor has awarded 30 grants to strengthen urban communities characterized by large numbers of returning prisoners through an employment-centered program that incorporates mentoring, job training, and comprehensive transitional services. In implementing the grants, we have put much emphasis on job development, contacts with private sector employers, and high-growth employment. The goal is to serve 6,250 released prisoners during the first year of the initiative. Grantees began operating in March of 2006, and as of September 8th of 2006, 2,874 participants had been enrolled and 1,469 have been placed in jobs. Under the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders appropriation, the Department has funded a variety of projects aimed at serving young offenders, at-risk youth, and youth in juvenile or adult justice systems. The projects focus on demand-driven strategies designed to move youth into high- growth occupations and provide education and training, employment, and community services to facilitate reentry. The funded programs also include State-operated juvenile justices aimed at improving the academic and work force preparation of youth in correctional facilities, among others. Much is being accomplished through these programs. Grants are serving large numbers of youth each year in high-crime communities. Local community grants have succeeded in placing youth in employment. State grants are increasing the reading and math achievement levels of youth, in large part because they can spend time while those youth are behind bars. The Department has also participated in the Department of Justice-led Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which reduces further criminal activity by violent ex- offenders, as was stated. Another program the Department initiated is the Ready4Work program, which uses community and faith-based organizations to help those returning from prison find jobs and assist their transition into society. Through this program, we have seen lower recidivism rates and success at placing participants in jobs. Finally, the Department manages other programs and initiatives that also contribute to the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the Federal Bonding Program, and the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program, all of which are included in my written testimony. Finally, one of the unheralded efforts has been this administration's efforts to break down agency and system silos and work together as Federal agencies to solve this problem. During the past few years, the Department of Labor has worked closely with Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and HUD in support of the overall vision to ensure ex-offenders are integrated into communities and become productive members of society. This collaborative approach is reflected in all of our strategic investments whereby we leverage each other's resources and fully coordinate efforts. In addition, each of the agencies before you are breaking down system barriers at the State and local levels to foster a more integrated approach to serving ex-offenders. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks, and I have submitted written remarks for the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you very much. Mr. Bogart. STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. BOGART, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FAITH BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Bogart. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. Dr. Coburn, Ranking Member Durbin, Senator Sessions, it is a pleasure to be here today on behalf of Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on Federal assistance for prisoner reentry. Every year, more than 650,000 men and women are released from America's prisons, many of them without a place to go, without a place to call home. The result is that many of those who leave our prisons go directly to the streets where they are extremely vulnerable to the temptations that exist there. The challenges of reentry are great, especially for those without the safety and stability of a home. Dan Buck, the CEO of the St. Patrick Center in St. Louis, an exceptional organization that is the recipient of Departments of Justice and Labor prisoner reentry funds, explained the situation this way: You get a job interview. What address do you put down? What phone number do you list? You get kicked out of your transitional housing center at 6:30 in the morning. Your interview is at 11. Where do you go? What do you do? How do you stay clean? How do you stay out of trouble? And how do you succeed? The answer to the last question is very clear. Many don't, as approximately two-thirds of recently released men and women are rearrested within 3 years of their release. Dan Buck would say that the glaring hole in their reentry program is housing. The system needs to be broken, not only for the sake of those in the community victimized by crime, but also for the sake of the men and women who are reacclimating back to society. Only comprehensive solutions that provide opportunities for self-sufficiency and dignity will be an effective catalyst for change. Again, the St. Patrick Center is an exceptional example that provides these comprehensive, pragmatic, and dignified wrap-around services. With limited Government support, the center serves over 10,000 individuals and families annually and is Missouri's largest provider of homeless services. Nearly 60 percent of the men and women St. Patrick Center serves have a criminal record, and those that participated in privately funded focus groups, receiving at least 2 months of clean, stable, dignified housing, experienced a 100-percent job placement rate. The rest of their client base experienced a 50- percent success rate, which is admirable but is still not 100 percent. In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush proposed a 4-year, $300 million Prisoner Reentry Initiative to reduce recidivism and help ex-offenders contribute to their communities, rebuild their lives, stay out of trouble, and stay out of the many paths that lead to prison. The objective of this initiative would be achieved by harnessing the resources and the experience of faith-based and community organizations like the St. Patrick Center and providing newly released prisoners with comprehensive services, such as job training, mental health counseling, transitional housing, and mentoring support. Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has requested PRI funding, it has yet not received any. A critical component of a successful Prisoner Reentry Initiative is providing housing because, as stated earlier, many newly released men and women need a place to reside immediately upon their release from prison, at a minimum on a temporary basis. If HUD were given PRI funding, it could then provide this very fundamental need to this at-risk population. HUD's budget request for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 called for the provision of transitional housing as part of PRI funding. PRI funding is needed because HUD lacks the requisite authority to use the funds for the discharge planning of individuals from institutions. Therefore, the advantage of funding for the PRI is that HUD would be given authority to fund grantees providing housing specifically for ex-offenders who are not defined as homeless. Given that adequate housing is an important component of successful reentry into society for these men and women, HUD respectfully urges Congress to appropriate $25 million for this important initiative, as requested in HUD's fiscal year 2007 budget request. These funds would be made competitively available to faith-based and community organizations with established, proven success addressing the special needs of these men and women who have already struggled so much and have paid their debts to society. Organizations considered may already be involved with the Departments of Labor and Justice prisoner reentry efforts, thus building on their success. This is a landmark opportunity. The strategic partnerships will help these men and women know the meaning of accomplishment, rebuild their dignity, and become taxpayers and not tax burdens. Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I will look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bogart appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you. Ms. Nolan. STATEMENT OF CHERI NOLAN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. Ms. Nolan. Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, Senator Sessions, I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to discuss our efforts in support of the important national issue of prisoner reentry. During my tenure of Government service, I have seen firsthand the cycle of crime, arrest, incarceration, reentry, rearrest, and reincarceration, and the horrible costs this cycle has caused society, not only the direct costs of criminal behavior to law enforcement, prosecutors, and the jail and prison system, but the cost to victims of crime and the impact on the quality of life and communities all across the country. Recidivism is not just a statistic but an action that has a ripple effect across many individuals, families, and institutions. It is because of my expertise and commitment to this issue that I was brought to SAMHSA last year to facilitate the connection between public safety and public health. Studies have shown a significant number of these men and women have substance abuse and mental health treatment needs. A study recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms that large numbers of inmates display symptoms of depression, mania, or psychotic disorder. In State prisons, 73 percent of female inmates and 55 percent of male inmates had mental health problems. In local jails, the numbers are similar. More than one in three State prisoners, one in four Federal prisoners, and one in six jail inmates who had a mental health problem have received treatment since admission. The findings clearly indicate the tremendous need to connect released prisoners with mental health treatment in the community. The study also found that prisoners with mental health problems were more likely to have repeated periods of incarceration and substance abuse problems. In the area of substance abuse among the jail and prison population, studies over the past two decades have consistently found that 60 percent of offenders tested at the time of arrest have admitted to or been found to have used at least one illicit drug. SAMHSA is actively involved in a number of public safety/ public health initiatives that deal with addressing individuals with substance abuse and/or mental health disorders who are involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. SAMHSA is also committed to partnering with other Federal agencies and to assisting the States and local communities through our criminal and juvenile justice grant programs. SAMHSA was an original partner with the Department of Justice surrounding the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative that Assistant Attorney General Schofield discussed, contributing more than $16 million to the effort. In addition, we are providing criminal justice, substance abuse disorder cross-training to all the grantees to improve the delivery of substance abuse prevention and treatment services. We at SAMHSA are encouraged by the early measures of success of the initiative, and we anxiously await the findings of the impact evaluation. It is important to know what works surrounding prisoner reentry and the costs and benefits of various approaches. The most recent data on recidivism is almost 10 years old. In the last few months, an exciting new partnership with the Department of Labor-led Prisoner Reentry Initiative was formed by bringing together the grantees of our Access to Recovery Program with the Department of Labor grantees. As a result of this effort, clients under PRI who have substance abuse treatment needs are eligible for treatment and recovery support services provided by our Access to Recovery grantees. Ten of our 14 ATR grantees match with the Department of Labor, including Illinois. This is another example how Federal agencies are leveraging dollars to support reentry efforts. SAMHSA efforts also included funding 12 Young Offender Reentry Program grants in fiscal year 2004 and an additional 11 grants were awarded in fiscal year 2005. YORP is designed to provide funds to expand and/or enhance substance abuse treatment and related reentry services to youth populations under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. SAMHSA also funds 16 adult and juvenile drug court programs and nine family drug treatment courts, which provide a successful alternative to incarceration for defendants who cycle between addiction leading to crime, incarceration, release, relapse, and recidivism. Close supervision, drug testing, and the use of sanctions and incentives help ensure that offenders stick with their treatment plans while public safety needs are met. Since fiscal year 2002, SAMHSA has funded jail diversion, targeted capacity expansion grants that divert persons with mental illness from the criminal justice system to community mental health and supportive services. At this point we have funded 32 such awards of up to $400,000. These programs must build service capacity using four areas known to yield sustainable results: evidence-based services, creating service linkages, community outreach, and engaging in program evaluation and dissemination of those findings. SAMHSA is committed to reducing recidivism by supporting recovery efforts. The connection between public health and public safety is a critical one, and we appreciate the interest of this Subcommittee in our efforts, and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Nolan appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you very much. Ms. Schofield, one of my questions is: Why are we using 1994 data that took 3 years, 1997, and we get the data last year? And when are we going to see data that is more timely? Have we set up anything that says we are going to have a continuing monitoring of this that will be statistically valid so that we are not depending on, in essence, 12- or 13-year-old data? Ms. Schofield. Senator, that is a good question. I actually have it myself on several BJS studies, and the answer is it is human subject research and it takes a really long time to gather the data. The 3-year mark is a gold standard for recidivism. So what happens in a typical study is that after 3 years of release, you ask the State for names. It takes about a year to compile the names, to find people, to locate them. You try to get enough of a sample size so you will have a correct sample size. It takes you another 3 years to monitor those individuals. So now you are 6 years out. It takes another 2 years to evaluate that information, follow up. You know, if you have necessary--I think the last time we did a study of this magnitude, it started in 1994. In 1998, we got more funding. It took States 2 years to provide us with the additional information, and you are still, you know, hounding people and looking for that information. And so it was 2002 before we got the study out. I have to tell you that the same thing will happen in another study if you are following people, as you would the ex- offenders. If they do not have a house to stay in or consistent housing, that is going to be a problem. If we were to start a study today, 2006, it would be 3 years before we had the information from the States, probably another year to gather that information, and another 3 years to study those individuals. So you are talking--I did go to college--2012 before you would even get the information that you need in order to do that evaluation and research. Chairman Coburn. Well, what would be wrong with all the grantees, all the States that get Federal money, saying you know this is going to happen, keep the data, knowing in anticipation we are going to be asking for it? In other words, there should be some strings--what I am getting to, and I am going to ask each of you this, is: What is the metric that we use to measure the grant programs that we are giving on whether or not they are successful? What is the metric and when will we know? And I would tell you on almost any scientific study, when the data is 9 or 10 years old, it does not really mean anything anymore. If we are talking about from 1994 to 1997 on recidivism rates--and rearrest rates really do not mean anything because if you have a criminal record and you are in the area, oftentimes you are rearrested for a short period of time until you are excluded, which says a whole other thing about some of our policing. But the point is that the rearrest record--it is the reincarceration or the reconviction record that we are really interested in. And why couldn't we make sure that signal goes out ahead of time with all these grants? One of the things we are going to be looking at as a condition of the grant is that you will keep track as a State, here is who is coming out, here are the ones that are on parole, here are the ones that are incarcerated. I mean, the States have the numbers. They have the names. It is anticipating what you are going to need. Why could we do that to shorten that period of time where we have good data? Ms. Schofield. We are trying to make sure that our National Criminal History Improvement Program has all of the funding that we have requested from Congress to make sure that States are able to build on that information. The system is not complete. I mean, I cannot sugarcoat it for you and tell you that. We work with grantees on a regular basis. You know, the Federal Government has gotten a lot better at evaluating programs and making sure that the funding goes toward the stream that we have asked it to go. The States are getting much better at keeping that sort of information. But we do have a lot of work to do in order to make sure that NCHIP is a sustainable program and that we have gotten the data that we get. The first answer I gave you was strictly about human subjects, so I misunderstood your question. Chairman Coburn. So of all the grants that DOJ makes, you all now have a metric attached to that, so you are going to be able to make a decision on those grants, on whether or not they are actually accomplishing what you want? Ms. Schofield. Every single grant that I have signed since I have been at the Department of Justice has performance measures, and, yes, sir, we are tracking and evaluating those programs. Chairman Coburn. And so how often do you release that data? How often do you come to a conclusion about that data? Ms. Schofield. Well, our Office of Comptroller, what we do in the Comptroller's Office or CFO's Office is, as we gather that information on the grantees on a regular basis, you know, they decide how many of the grantees they are going to evaluate and audit this year, and so we go through that process. You know, you have to go through like a rolling basis to make sure you are getting to all the grantees. But that is part of our evaluation program. Chairman Coburn. Well, will you supply to this Committee what you have seen thus far, here is what we have granted, here is what we have gotten back, here is how we evaluate that specifically? Ms. Schofield. Absolutely, yes. Chairman Coburn. All right. Thank you. My time has expired. We will go on the early-bird rule, if you do not mind, Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we will all agree that if a person has a mental illness that is part of the burden they are carrying in life, and they also commit a crime and then leave a corrections facility, that is still a challenge. That is an issue that still has to be dealt with. The same thing is true with substance addiction, whether it is alcohol or drugs. These are things that have to be dealt with. Some people may have the will to cure themselves of certain addictions, and I pray to God more people will. But most of us need a helping hand. But I want to go to another issue, and that issue is education. I think everyone here in some way or another has said that if we will educate and train the people who are incarcerated, they are less likely to commit another crime. Is there anyone who disagrees with that premise? That is kind of an accepted--I think it has been proven out over and over again. Having said that, though, we have created some interesting--I call them ``Faustian choices,'' impossible choices, when it comes to policy, and let me give you a couple of examples. There was a time when a person incarcerated in my State, and most States, could go to a community college while incarcerated and pick up courses to prepare them for a job when they are released. But, of course, they do not have a regular income of any value, and so they had to borrow the money or apply for a Pell grant. And so years ago, we made a decision--and I was part of that decisionmaking--that since we have a limited pool of Pell grant funds and cannot take care of all the kids who have not committed a crime and want to go to college, we were not going to provide Pell grants for those who were in correctional institutions. And the same thing with student loans. Then we took it a step further and said if you have been convicted of any drug offense after you leave the correctional facility, you are still disqualified from receiving a Pell grant or a student loan. As I understand it--and my staff is running back and forth to double-check that this is still the case. I think it is. And so for any drug conviction, large or small, we are basically reducing the possibility or opportunity for additional education to avoid recidivism. So is it time to change this law? Mr. Bishop. I am from the Department of Labor. I will take a crack at addressing this. [Laughter.] Mr. Bishop. Even though Pell grants are out of the Department of Education. I cannot address the Pell grant issue specifically, but I can address the issue of access to employment and training. One of the things we have been working on--Senator Sessions knows this well because he sits on the Senate HELP Committee-- is trying to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. Under the Workforce Investment Act, roughly $15 billion from various Federal agencies go to States and local communities to supply individuals, citizens, with employment training services. And one of the problems we have identified, the administration believes, is too much of that money goes to infrastructure and duplicative programs. And what we have essentially asked Congress to do is reform this act to allow for what are called career advancement accounts of up to $3,000 per year so that individuals like ex-offenders can get access to the education and training they need. Now, one of the issues we-- Senator Durbin. If I can interrupt you, I am sorry. So we have a program that will offer some $3,000 to the ex-offender-- Mr. Bishop. We are asking for that. Senator Durbin. Asking for that. And that would allow them to take, let's say, a community college court. Is that correct? Mr. Bishop. Correct. And that is about the average of a community college education for 1 year. Senator Durbin. While at the same time we are saying in the law no Pell grants, no student loans, this program would say $3,000 to ex-offenders for that purpose. Since I do not have a lot of time, if you will allow some others to comment. I think, Ms. Schofield, you were going to respond to my question about Pell grants and student loans. Ms. Schofield. Actually, sir, what I was going to say is that I believe that by the time offenders come out of jails and prisons, we have failed them already as far as the educational system is concerned, because a lot of them do not have high school diplomas, which is why, you know, most people still, for robberies--I mean, the highest numbers of crime that are committed by people are people that steal for money, whether it is motor vehicle thefts or robberies or simple assaults or other types of things like that. And they do that because they do not have a way of obtaining money. So I think by the time people get to a point where they are in a community college, we may have failed them at an earlier age. Senator Durbin. I went into Englewood, which is a pretty tough section of Chicago, because a local group called CeaseFire brought together gang members for me to meet with. And I sat down with 10 African-American males all under the age of 20, all high school dropouts, all who had been incarcerated. And I asked them, ``How do you get by? '' And they say, ``We hustle.'' I said, ``Well, what does that mean? '' ``It means we live off the street.'' ``Well, how do you live off the street? Do you sell drugs? '' ``Oh, that has been exaggerated.'' I am sure. You know, but the point is no marketable skills, 20 years of age, already incarcerated, dropped out of school. Some of these will never put their lives on the right track. I am thinking of some others, though, given a chance with a GED and perhaps some college courses or training courses of value, can come out of the prison experience ready to really step forward in life. And I worry because I think we have cross-purposes here. I think you have a good idea, Mr. Bishop, some of the things you are talking about. But I think some of the laws we pass make it more difficult. Now, we get back--and I will end, Mr. Chairman, very quickly by saying we get back to the ultimate moral dilemma here. There is not enough money for the kids who did not commit crime. Okay? It has been stuck at $4,015 a year for 6 years. The cost of higher education has gone up 44 percent in the last 6 years. We have just raised student loan interest rates by 2 percent on every student in America. We will not let them renegotiate lower interest rates on their loans. They are piled up with debt. That is the other side of this equation. So we are playing less than a zero sum game here, but we understand if we are serious about recidivism, some of these things have to be addressed honestly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Coburn. Just one note of clarification. The Workforce Investment Act has in excess of $1 billion that is not spent every year now. So we have the money to do this, and I will pledge to you I will work with you to try to get this money redirected in that direction for education. Senator Durbin. Good. Chairman Coburn. Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. I think it is very, very valuable. My experience, having seen it up close for quite a number of years, is that we have an incredible amount of money being spent that is relevant to dealing with crime but is not spent in a coherent fashion. Now, my housing man here, I am not sure he is talking to the probation officer for the guy who just got released from prison. The job man, I am not sure who knows what is available. We have got the Office of Justice Programs here that is running programs, but I guess the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, do they run the tests? Do they run the studies for accuracy and completeness? Ms. Schofield. Actually, it is our National Institute of Justice that runs the programs and evaluates them. Senator Sessions. NIJ runs them. Well, there we go with a lot of different studies. And so then we have got mental health. Now, the one program--and I know Senator Durbin also is interested in all of this, but the one program that seems to me to come closest to a workable model is the drug court program. You mentioned that, Ms. Nolan, and this is what happens: They come in and, for the most part, they plead guilty, if they are guilty of a drug offense. In some programs they do not enter a plea. They enter a conditional plea. And they go into this voluntary program in which they are, as you said, supervised, drug testing--and I forgot your third one, but that-- Ms. Nolan. They are held accountable, sir. Senator Sessions. Held accountable. They are held accountable. So the person is now released. Now, somebody is monitoring that person by name. They know that person. The judge has released him. He knows that person by the name. The person has been called before that judge, and he is told, ``We will release you. You are out, but you have got to be accountable to these standards, and you are not going to get back on drugs, and you are going to have a curfew.'' They did this a bit in Boston and had this incredible drop in teenage murders in Boston. The probation officers went out at night to make sure they were complying with curfew, not just the way it really works is you have got a curfew, you have to be in at 10 o'clock, and nobody ever goes to check if they are in at 10 o'clock. They say do not use drugs, but many places still do not test to see if they are using drugs. If they are using drugs, they are getting into trouble. Sooner or later they are going to be arrested. So you have got all these mental health moneys that we are spending, a lot of housing moneys we are spending, a lot of Education and Labor money we are spending. If that is all available to the parole officer or probation officer who supervises the individual, then something can happen, because the judge now is looking right at it, and if they do not comply with the probation officer's requirements and the judge's requirements, really, then he puts them in jail for a weekend or 2 weeks or gives them one more chance, or a month or throws them back in the slammer to serve their full time, whatever he decides is the appropriate response. I see some nods. Ms. Nolan, do you think--and mental health, I mean, we know people have got mental problems, and that probation officer should be able to call on mental health, shouldn't he, and develop a post-incarceration plan that fits the needs and capacities of this individual? Ms. Nolan. Yes, sir. And one of the things that we are doing-- Senator Sessions. Well, would you agree that one of our problems is a lack of coordination and application of all these resources in a coherent way? And wouldn't the best person to be able to handle that would be the person like a parole officer who is assigned to this individual when they are released? Ms. Nolan. Yes, sir. We have seen tremendous success with the case management approach with our programs at SAMHSA that are not only--they work with these individuals that need substance abuse treatment or mental health services. They work with them. They are able to help counsel them. They are able to help refer them to treatment when needed. And it is very important, and we do hold our grantees accountable for making sure that they are linking with the criminal justice side of the operation. Senator Sessions. Some mental health programs, they get State money and Federal money. Ms. Nolan. Right. Senator Sessions. Sometimes they say they are too busy, they have got a waiting list, they do not have time for this new prisoner that just got released, come back in 6 months and we will put you on the list, are some of the things that happens. Isn't that correct? Ms. Nolan. Yes. Senator Sessions. Now, in housing, just briefly, because my time has already gone over. Mr. Bogart. Absolutely, sir. One of the constraints that we have at HUD is we do not have specific funding for prisoner reentry. So as a result, because of statutory reasons, we do not have funds to spend on this particular issue, and that is why we are asking Congress to appropriate the $25 million to do that, because if you talk about coordination, you know, when we go out and do-- Senator Sessions. Well, how do you start this program? Do you pick out $25 million, do you pick out 30 cities in America and run this program? Mr. Bogart. Well, sir, that was one of the things I was going to get to. The Departments of Labor and Justice have already done a lot of the heavy lifting. They have identified 30 organizations in a number of cities where they are combining their resources. So here we have a situation where, with the right funding, it is feasible that we could partner with them. They are already three-quarters of the way there or halfway there. We come in and provide the transitional housing services that these men and women who have just come out of prison desperately need. Senator Sessions. You are coordinating that with the Department of Labor? Mr. Bogart. I am sorry? Senator Sessions. You are coordinating with who, the Department of Labor? Mr. Bogart. We would take that-- Senator Sessions. That is not the person to coordinate because he does not know the name of the person that got out of jail. I mean, that-- Mr. Bogart. But the-- Senator Sessions. My time is over, and I hate to--I know, Mr. Bishop, if you could point out, am I on to something here? Mr. Bishop. You are. I think the premise of your question, as I understand it, is each of us funds, to the tune of billions of dollars, various systems. I fund a work force investment system-- Senator Sessions. Fifteen billion on-- Mr. Bishop. Out of agency it is about 9.5, but under the one-stop career centers, HHS has moneys, the Department of Education has moneys that are all supposed to be accessible by individuals through the one-stop systems, and it is to the tune of about $15 billion per year. HUD has its system of housing authorities that it helps fund, and HHS and Justice. So what we have been trying to work on at the Federal level is--and many of us meet on a continual basis, and our career staffs are meeting on a continual basis, to try to institutionalize this notion that we have to break down these system barriers from Federal to State to local to institutionalize change, because I think you are exactly right, that the issue isn't always do we or do we not have enough money. The question becomes how is the money currently being used that we fund at the Federal and State and local level. Senator Sessions. Exactly. I hate to run, and I have something I have got to go do at this moment. But, Mr. Chairman, the only person, I think, that can handle this is the parole officer whose responsibility is for post-incarceration supervision. And the way this system is so simple that it should work is that person should evaluate the person being released before they are released. If they have got a mental health problem, they deal with it. If they do not have a house, they deal with it. If they need job training, they deal with it. They call these agencies, and they should respond to them and put them high on their list because these are at-risk people, and existing moneys out there ought to be enough. To create one more program is difficult. Chairman Coburn. Senator Sessions, you missed my opening statement where I praised western North Carolina and eastern Missouri because the parole officers have done exactly that. Their unemployment rates are less than the community as a whole and the recidivism rate is down, and so you point is well taken. I also would put in for the record what Minnesota is doing through MinnCorps because they have coordinated everyone, and their recidivism rate is half the national average because they are coordinating everything. So I am just going to ask--I am going to submit some written questions to you because of our time constraints today, but one of them that is coming to you: What are the programs? What are you measuring? And what are you finding? And the second question that is going to go to each of you is: How are you coordinating with every other agency in the Federal Government to make sure those grants go to the same people so that it can be coordinated? Let me thank you. We could go on for hours. I have got a list of questions, and you will get all of those questions as well. And if you would be as timely as you can, somewhat more timely than OMB in terms of screening your testimonies today, I would very much appreciate it. This is not something that we are going to give up on. If we want to make an impact on our society, a major impact, the way we are going to do that is the care and treatment of prisoners. What they learn in prison they are going to apply on the outside. And so we have to make sure that that is a positive experience rather than a negative experience. Thank you for your testimony. Chairman Coburn. I call up our next group of witnesses. Our second panel, we have Mr. Roger Werholtz. He is the Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections. Mr. Werholtz was appointed Acting Secretary of Corrections by Governor Bill Graves on September 30, 2002, and was appointed Secretary of Corrections by Governor Kathleen Sebelius on January 13, 2003. He served as Deputy Secretary of Corrections since 1987 and has supervised all three divisions of the Kansas Department of Corrections: Community and Field Services; Programs and Staff Development; as well as Facilities Management. Thank you for traveling all the way here to do this. Next, and not least, is B. Dianne Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Safer Foundation. She was named President of the Safer Foundation in February 1996. The Safer Foundation is one of the Nation's largest private, nonprofit providers of social services, education programs, and employment training and placement exclusively targeting people with criminal records. Under her leadership the Safer Foundation has incorporated the ``What Works'' principles adopting evidence-based program designs and evaluations. Under contract with the Illinois Department of Corrections, Safer manages two large adult transition centers with a total of 550 beds. If you would both stand and be sworn in, and I will do it the short form: I swear that the testimony I am about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. [Witnesses repeat oath.] Chairman Coburn. Or you can say ``I do.'' [Laughter.] Chairman Coburn. Mr. Werholtz, please give us your testimony. STATEMENT OF ROGER WERHOLTZ, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TOPEKA, KANSAS Mr. Werholtz. Thank you, Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member Durbin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Roger Werholtz, and I currently serve as the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections. I appreciate the chance to comment on funding for prisoner reentry and the relationships between Federal agencies and the State Departments of Corrections. Every year more and more people are coming out of prison and jail, and the way we have traditionally released and returned them to the community is making neighborhoods less safe, less healthy, and less stable. Prisoner reentry also impacts our State and Federal budgets. Spending on prisons and jails has soared from $9 billion to $60 billion over the past 20 years, and despite all of this spending, recidivism rates are as high as ever. When such a large percentage of people released from prison fail, it places a greater financial burden on taxpayers without substantially increasing public safety. Corrections officials face the challenge of reinventing our corrections system to drastically reduce recidivism rates, and together we can improve public safety, generate savings, and strengthen neighborhoods. Federal agencies providing funding to organizations such as mine that allows us to pursue innovations or put in place resources that would otherwise be beyond our reach. In the current State fiscal year, my State of Kansas will expend $1.9 million in Federal grant funding. Now, that comprises only 0.71 percent of the Kansas Department of Corrections' annual budget, but for that less than 1 percent of our budget, the impact on our agency and the citizens of our State is huge. With these Federal funds and a blend of State, local, and private revenues, we will be able to provide a variety of services to crime victims and assist in the successful reintegration of offenders into their families. Grant programs such as the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Program have significantly influenced State-level correctional practice and State sentencing policies. In Kansas, the small reentry program initiated with SVORI funding has served as a model that has heavily influenced the training of KDOC parole and facility employees regarding effective strategies for offender supervision. It has helped us to dramatically reduce the number of parolees being revoked and returned to prison. Our SVORI-funded program is being evaluated by the University of Kansas and is also part of a larger national evaluation funded by a separate Federal grant. Our results to date are so encouraging that the State and one of our largest counties have invested significant amounts of money to replicate the strategies in other cities in Kansas, but I must caution that these numbers are still preliminary and we will need to observe the impact over time to accurately judge the effectiveness of these efforts. Eighteen months ago, Senator Brownback challenged a bipartisan group of elected officials and community members gathered in Wichita by saying, ``I want to see recidivism in this Nation cut in half in the next 5 years, and I want it to start in Kansas.'' Using the model developed with SVORI resources, the Department of Justice technical assistance and technical assistance from National Institute of Corrections and research and technical assistance from the Council of State Governments, we are well into that initiative. We have made significant progress over the last year. We have reentry programs underway or being established in our three largest metropolitan counties, and the Shawnee County reentry program is receiving national recognition. The State has established the Kansas Reentry Policy Council, an interagency and intergovernmental branch coordinating body, and the State's efforts are achieving measurable results. The number of parolees who failed to meet conditions of supervision and were returned to prison dropped significantly, by 26 percent in the last 2 years, and in the last 4 months those numbers have been cut in half. As a result, the overall prison population shrank rather than increased, and Kansas has been able to avoid spending revenues on increasing prison capacity. I also appreciate the Committee's interest in our interaction with Federal agencies around reentry. Federal agencies such as the National Institute of Corrections, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Office of Justice Programs regularly provide opportunities to improve correctional practices through very modest investments. These agencies provide technical assistance and training opportunities in which State and local leaders can have direct access to the most current research and thinking on current correctional practice. The research and analysis performed and disseminated by Federal groups such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics are invaluable in assisting us and informing our own Governors, legislators, the media, and the public about the true nature of the problems we face and the most effective responses to those problems. Recently, the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Bureau of Justice Assistance entered into a joint project to establish a clearinghouse that would assist State corrections agencies to track Federal funding opportunities and compete more successfully for those resources. In summary, I would like to characterize our overall relationship with our Federal agency partners as highly collaborative, productive, active, and respectful. We are actively engaged with many of those Federal agencies with whom we most closely associate, to further enhance our ability to carry out our respective missions. I am grateful for the opportunity to brief the Committee and would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Werholtz appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you, sir. Ms. Williams. STATEMENT OF B. DIANE WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAFER FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Ms. Williams. Good afternoon, Senator Coburn, and my great Senator Durbin. I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the community-based organizations that are on the front line. They are addressing the needs of former prisoners as they return to their communities. I thought I would start by sharing a story about one of our clients. After all, reentry is about real people with real families and from real communities. Joshua Hodges is one of our stars. He is almost 21 years old and is attending Chicago State University, with a goal of going on to earn his MBA so he will be able to support himself, a future family, and help others in the community. Joshua believes he is an entrepreneur. Joshua had been living at Aunt Martha's House, a homeless shelter that accepts teens, and working for some time when something happened that changed his whole life. He got arrested and spent 3 months in the Cook County Jail. Josh had no previous record and received 2 years' probation. While he was incarcerated, one of his cellmates told him that Safer helped ex-offenders obtain a GED and find employment. When he was released, he immediately enrolled in our Harvey Employment and Learning Center, which is a federally funded program, and embraced the program and the staff with a fury. At the end of the 2-month GED session, Josh passed with a score of 2,780. He only needed 2,250. So he did not pass by the skin of his teeth. He did a great job. Working with our staff, he completed his individual service plan, college financial aid forms, enrolled at Chicago State, and at the end of his first semester had achieved a GPA of 4.0. At Safer, we have been working to reduce recidivism for 34 years by supporting the efforts of people like Josh with criminal records to become productive, law-abiding members of their communities. I am pleased the Subcommittee is taking up the issue of Federal support of prisoner reentry today. In the past, reentry has often been considered a State or local issue, and most national public policy decisions have been made out of the concern of supporting people with criminal records sends the wrong message. But I am encouraged that Washington is beginning to think differently, to recognize that we cannot continue to utilize incarceration as the answer to public safety. To truly impact the growing numbers of people going to prison, education, vocational training, and employment options that allow for a living wage must top the list. They are critical, but cannot be offered in a vacuum. Treatment, housing, and case management must be a part of the solution given the complex and multifaceted issues surrounding former prisoners. For example, Chicago has benefited from the importance the Ready4Work Program and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative both place on partnerships. These Department of Labor funds have enabled Safer to formally partner with nine smaller community and faith-based organizations and thereby support their capacity to provide mentoring and wrap-around supports to those returning from prison. We have been free to do what we do best, which is to specialize in job placement and retention. Our partners are also free to do what they do best: ensuring that the returnee's more personal needs were being met. We believe that this unique partnership has been critical to the significant decline in recidivism for our Ready4Work and PRI clients. At the end of year three of Ready4Work, we have served over 430 returning prisoners with less than a 10-percent recidivism rate. Congress must continue to provide leadership and the Federal Government must continue to fund experts to provide technical assistance and capacity building. Only then will States and local jurisdictions have the ability to implement program models that work and bring them to scale rather than spending precious resources reinventing the wheel and/or developing their own expertise. Legislation such as the Second Chance Act, authored by Senators Specter, Biden, and Brownback of the Subcommittee, begins to enable communities to have planned and coordinated support for people returning from prison. In closing, let me just underscore that no single intervention will solve the reentry problem, but the research findings are clear. Education and employment have the greatest impact on recidivism. The other reality is that the majority of individuals leaving prison and returning home or returning to communities that are disproportionately low-income, crime-ridden, home to racial minorities, and lacking in the needed social services and supports that are going to enable returnees to succeed. As a result, the majority commit a new crime or violate the conditions of their release and return to prisons to begin the process all over again, leaving our Nation to confront the highest recidivism rate in its history. While the success or failure of return falls most heavily on the returning individual, the decisions that lead to success or failure lie with that person. As a society, we must equip the individual. On behalf of Josh, the communities in which Josh and his colleagues live, and people like Safer's employees who work so hard on behalf of those returning from prison, I will leave you with six brief recommendations. One, ensure that Federal funds are used to support comprehensive reentry initiatives. Direct funds toward community-based groups that are in a position to provide coordinated services, with a focus on hard outcomes. Two, continue supporting what we know works via the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, with an added transitional employment component. And I hope you will ask me about that transitional employment component. Three, encourage innovative statewide solutions that utilize a justice intermediary to coordinate city, State, and county efforts under a coordinated umbrella. Four, reinstate access to Pell grants or Pell grant-like funding during prison so that prison time can be used for educational and vocational preparation. Make sure those efforts are tied to the labor market. Five, encourage the Department of Labor and Department- funded State agencies that review labor shortage projections to coordinate efforts of targeted training with prison systems. And, six, increase the Work Opportunity Tax Credit from $2,400 to $10,000 so that employers are more interested in hiring people. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify this afternoon. [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Coburn. Thank you, Ms. Williams. A lot of what you said, Ms. Williams, and what I think you all are doing is a coordinated, comprehensive approach. And what we see--we actually talked yesterday to Michigan, Minnesota, and Montana, which are seeing some successes, much like what I think you are about to see in Kansas. Recognizing we live in a limited budget area--I mean, it is coming. It is going to get worse. It is not going to get better. What is your advice to us on how we make what we do-- the limited amount of money that we put out there, how do we make it effective? Some of it was what you suggested, but how do we use that money to leverage that to get other States to do what you are doing? Because this is really an investment. In Kansas, every person you do not have incarcerated is a win-win. Mr. Werholtz. That is correct. Chairman Coburn. It is a double win. So what would be both of your advice to us in terms of Senator Durbin and myself? How do we stimulate, with the limited amount of dollars that are going to come from the Federal Government? And it is going to be limited. You should not have any expectation that it is going to increase. It is not. What should we do? Ms. Williams. I will offer you two suggestions. And if you would let me, I would probably give you 40. Chairman Coburn. Well, I probably might even let you. We have a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and some of the Defense Department here in a minute, but I am willing to listen up until that time. Ms. Williams. One of the things we need to do is we need to make sure that those partnerships are not just limited, quite frankly, to the Federal Government, to State government, and even to not-for-profits. We need to include the for-profit sector in those partnerships. The transitional jobs program that I mentioned to you earlier is one in which we have actually formed a staffing company. We formed a limited liability corporation under our not-for-profit, and we actually have a contract with a for- profit company to staff 220 entry-level positions and the related supervisors for that staff, for that not-for-profit. We structured it just like a staffing company, and the for-profit sector would do that. So that as we get better at it and as we are able to grow, we will have dollars to reinvest on the program side, because what we know is that just finding somebody a job and sending them there for the first day is not all that is needed to make it successful. And so we do surround that person that we place in those transitional jobs with the services that they need: access to GED classes, what we call retention specialists and what other people might call case managers. And we actually provide that support onsite of the workplace for those clients. Chairman Coburn. Could we also not change the rules for housing through HUD to say that if you are coming out of a prison you can have access to HUD housing? Ms. Williams. That would be-- Chairman Coburn. Why couldn't we do that? Ms. Williams. That would be tremendous to have that shift occur. Chairman Coburn. I can tell you, in Oklahoma we have a lot of empty HUD housing. Why should we say you are ineligible for that? Ms. Williams. I do not think we should say that. And just as you talk about Oklahoma, you can certainly imagine the communities in Chicago where there is housing that could be rehabbed. People could move into those houses. They could have, if you will, support to learn how to operate as perhaps a condo association. Some of that money that they are paying for rent could be used or held, if you will, in escrow as part of a downpayment. They could ultimately buy those units, and then they could build other housing to have the same sort of thing occur. Housing is critical, and you are absolutely right that we need to move from that. Chairman Coburn. Mr. Werholtz. Mr. Werholtz. Let me make three suggestions and run through them quickly. I know your time is limited. One is funding innovations. The second would be improving States' data systems. I know there was a discussion with the earlier panel about frustration with information. Part of that is because States like mine are working with extremely archaic data systems where there is a lot of information in there that is very difficult to get back out. And then the third piece is one that I do not think costs anything, but that is delivering a message. One of the reasons why we have been successful in what we have done over the last 2 years in Kansas is because it is a bipartisan effort. My Governor is a Democrat, Senator Brownback obviously a conservative Republican, and both of them are saying the same message. And that has gone a long way to lower the temperature about the issue offender reentry and how to manage crime and corrections. I think oftentimes we get wrapped up in the issue, which Senator Durbin had alluded to, about what the men and women incarcerated in our system deserve. Well, we are mad as hell at them. They may not deserve anything. But I think we are asking the wrong question. It is what we deserve as taxpayers and law- abiding citizens, and what we deserve is for them to stop hurting us and stop victimizing us. And when we reframe the debate that way, I think it leads to a whole different set of answers that otherwise cannot be considered. The innovation funding that I mentioned, going back to the SVORI program, relatively small amount of investment in Kansas that allowed us to experiment with a new program which, as a result of what we learned in that, we retrained all of our parole staff and are in the process of retraining our facility staff and community corrections programs, which are county- funded programs, redefining the role of a parole officer to a case management kind of model, so that their primary responsibility is helping the offender succeed and comply with conditions of release in the first place, rather than catching them violating those conditions and reacting to that. But that is a large leap that takes some political cover for line staff to feel safe in doing that, because when there is a tragedy, people are going to sweep down, second-guess the decisions that were made, and it is that line officer that bears the brunt of the criticism oftentimes. Chairman Coburn. But the measurement of that is what do we expect, and what we expect is to have a correction take place during corrections and create opportunities so that it is not there again. Mr. Werholtz. Precisely. Chairman Coburn. Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of throwing raw meat your way, Mr. Werholtz did not read his entire statement, and I want you to be sure to get to page 5. My colleague here is a watchdog on earmarks, and since I am on the Appropriations Committee, I view this issue a little differently than he does. But I have argued that there are earmarks that have nothing to do with money but end up having a lot to do with money. And Mr. Werholtz gives an example of an effective lobbyist in Washington who stuck a word in a bill and--well, why don't you explain it? Mr. Werholtz. That is in my written testimony, and I am referring there--at least the piece I think you are referring to is in the VOI/TIS funding. One of the major frustrations that we experienced when we received our VOI/TIS grants and wanted to purchase prison capacity because we were over capacity at the time and were trying to expand our system, we learned that we could only purchase that prison capacity from a private vendor. We could not purchase it from another Government entity. What that meant was that we had to ship inmates out of State further away from their families, where it was more difficult for us to monitor their care and confinement, because we could not use VOI/TIS funds to lease jail space from our local sheriffs who had available and adequate jail space to provide-- Senator Durbin. Which put a strain on families and cost a lot more. Mr. Werholtz. Absolutely. Chairman Coburn. Which increases recidivism. Mr. Werholtz. Correct. Senator Durbin. Maybe I can join my watchdog on this effort here and maybe look at-- Chairman Coburn. I have got a whole lot more for you to join. [Laughter.] Senator Durbin. Ms. Williams, thank you for being here. Thank you for Safer. Ms. Williams. Thank you. Senator Durbin. You are the best, and you have such a great reputation for what you do. I am going to open a subject which, sadly, we ought to devote more than one hearing to. But I think it is part of the reality of this conversation about recidivism. One in three black men in America with only a high school diploma will go to prison before the age of 40. In the city of New York, two out of five black men are jobless, and a key factor in this low rate of employment among black men is the high percentage of those with felony convictions. The statistics are grim, and I have used them in this room many times. African-Americans representing about 15 percent of our population and about 15 percent of the violations of drug laws are arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated at much higher percentage rates. I think the figure is more than half of those who go to prison for drug crimes are African-American men. Ms. Williams. That is correct. Senator Durbin. Now, the analysis--and this comes out of New York, a man named David Jones from the Community Service Society. Are you familiar with Mr. Jones? Ms. Williams. Yes. Senator Durbin. This is something I want to read to you because I think it is worth your comment, and maybe Mr. Werholtz as well. An experiment was conducted where black men and white men with equivalent resumes of education and experience posed as applicants for entry-level jobs. The white men admitted to having a criminal record. The blacks had no record. The result? White men with criminal records had a better chance of getting a job offer or a call back after an initial interview than did black men without records. And black men with criminal records were only about one-third as likely to get a job offer as were white men with criminal records. Talk to me about the issue of race and recidivism. Ms. Williams. There is absolutely a correlation. If we look at the whole issue of the kinds of communities the people who are going to prison come from, if we look at the poverty level, the education level, we look at, if you will, every aspect of that community, they are clearly inner-city communities populated with African-American men who have grown up in many cases not going outside of a four- to six-block radius and having no expectation that their lives would look anything like anything outside of that four- to six-block radius, which means that they have an expectation that the only way they are going to have an opportunity for, if you will, wealth or some status is that they are going to be part of the drug trade or they are going to be part of some other sort of criminal activity. That is the only one that shows up that way in their community. When we come to actually looking at the kinds of crimes that are committed, to your point, they are no different in Chicago than they, quite frankly, are in Highland Park. How they get treated is what is different. What happens to a person once they have been identified as having drugs in their possession is different. So the arrest rate is different for those who are caught with drugs. Lots of studies have shown that the incarceration rate, as you are saying, is different for those who are convicted of having those drugs. And then we still have that population of people in the world of corporate America or employment that have with them prejudices that they were raised with, so they see a black person, they think they are not going to work. They see a black person--not only will they not work, they will not come to work. There are all of those stereotypes that are still sitting out there from many years ago that have not been cleaned up. And what we all know is that that is not necessarily true. Do you want to hear my personal story? I started out in public housing in the city of Chicago. I since that time have gone on to school. I have a master's degree in business from Northwestern University. It has nothing to do with intelligence or capability. It has everything to do with belief that you can do it, that there is an opportunity for you to do it, and then to have the space to do it. Senator Durbin. Thank you. I see Senator Brownback is here, and I know he has a witness he would like to ask a question of, so I am going to end at this point. Thank you. Chairman Coburn. Senator Brownback. Senator Brownback. Thanks very much, and thanks, Senator Durbin, for recognizing and passing this on to me. Secretary Werholtz, thanks for being here. I stayed in one of your facilities a couple months ago at my own volition. I was not convicted. And I came out at my own volition. [Laughter.] Senator Brownback. I want to hasten to add that. As I was taken off and I stayed there overnight in the facility, as I was leaving home with a bag packed, my 8-year- old daughter said, ``Bye, Daddy who is going to prison.'' And I unfortunately then told that story in the prison, which was a story that a lot of the men there could identify with, and they were not laughing about it. So I did not know my audience well in saying that, because a number of them have children on the outside. It is a very painful and very difficult thing. I want to compliment you on what you are doing, and I want to compliment those around the country that are doing these innovative type of programs and really working on mentoring with the individuals before they leave prison and then staying in that relationship once they get out of prison. It strikes me that the guys I have met, both in the facilities there, in homeless shelters here in D.C. and other places, that one of the big things that happens to them is they get separated. They get isolated. Something happens. They start using drugs or alcohol. They break away from their family. They break away from their friends or they get separated, and then they start more criminal activity and it just goes down. And they need connections. They need people to invest in their lives. That is what I saw in your facility. We have these people coming in from outside, investing in their lives, investing not only when they are there but also just before they are leaving, and then after they leave the facility. And I think, Chairman, what the whole thing really requires is us to just say that these people have worth. Yes, they have committed a horrific crime. They have done a very bad thing. They owe a debt to society. They have got to pay that debt to society. We have got too many people in prisons, and at some point in time, most are going to come out. And we do not want them to do it again. And we have not, I think, answered that question adequately. So that is why, you know, I compliment some of the work. I do not think we are doing enough of it that we are going on to see that they do not go back in and do it again. And one sure way as well is saying, you know, if you did the crime, you have a debt you will pay to this society, you should not do that, it is wrong, and you are going to pay a debt to that. But now once you have paid it, we want to work with you to make sure you do not go back into this system again. That is what the Second Chance Act is that you and a number of other people have been strong supporters of and helping the system, and I want to encourage you on continuing to do that and providing that model, building a relationship on both the left and on the right, because we can all identify this is a problem. Getting to the right solution is going to be somewhat difficult to do. Do you have numbers on the recidivism rates that have occurred in the programs where you have worked on building these relationships and job skills of what it has done to recidivism rates? Mr. Werholtz. We do. I need to caution you that they are very preliminary numbers because the history of the programs is so short. But what we have been able to do in the last 2 years is cut recidivism for parolees, those people being released from prison, by about 25 percent, and over the last 4 months we have actually met the challenge that you gave in Wichita in April of 2005, and our recidivism rates have been cut in half. The question that I think remains is whether we can sustain those numbers over time, because a lot of what we have achieved, we have achieved through relationships, either through the retraining of our staff to perform a new function or through the relationships that you described in the program that you visited, whereby people from the community--in this instance, a faith-based program, but we also have police officers, we have treatment program people, folks from our community mental health centers and our employment centers who actually begin working with the prisoners while they are still incarcerated, typically 12 to 14 months prior to release. And so, in fact, at this point the majority of the people that they are working with are still incarcerated and preparing for release. But I think you hit a critical point, and that is that we have got to understand that the problem is larger than our own system. One of the things that is unique about what has happened in Wichita is that the county and the city were so impressed with what was going on and the leaders there believed so strongly that this was important that they appropriated funds and in-kind services to match our State general fund budget to replicate the Topeka program in Wichita. One other set of numbers that I might be able to share with you is the Topeka program, which is Shawnee County, the one that has the longest history, it targets the most serious, highest-risk offenders who are exiting our prisons and going back to our capital city. We would expect those individuals, because they are at such high risk, to return to prison somewhere at the rate of about 70 or 80 percent within the first 3 years. Now, we have only got a little over 12 months of history for those folks in the community, but they are returning at the rate of about 20 percent instead of the 70 to 80 that we would predict, or the standard 50-percent number that-- Chairman Coburn. Yes, the national average is 50 percent in the first 6 months. Mr. Werholtz. Correct. So, again, I would not want to hang my hat on those numbers and say we have proved our case yet, but they are hopeful enough that the State and some local units of government are investing money and trying to expand this effort. Senator Brownback. I am glad they are doing that. This is-- Chairman Coburn. Senator, can I interrupt? I am going to ask Senator Brownback to close out our hearing for me and take over the gavel. We have unanimous consent that the statements by Senators Biden and Feingold be placed in the record, which will be done. And we will announce a week before closing for questions for the members of this Committee to be submitted, and I would appreciate it if you would close out this hearing for me. Senator Brownback. I would be happy to do that. Chairman Coburn. Thank you. I thank our witnesses. Senator Brownback [Presiding.] Thank you very much. And I will not be long on this. I do want to point out that the program that I visited was with a faith community, and what I am very pleased to see is that people are willing to integrate that, and the facility I visited in Ellsworth, it was a Christian faith community, but there was also a Native American faith community that was involved, and there were a couple of others. I am not sure what all else was there, if there was an Islamic community and a Jewish community or not, but I saw the Native American one that was there as well. So it was not anything that is exclusive to any one, but it did have to be reputable, it did have to be based in the prisoner's belief system. And I think that is important to be able to integrate in with this as well. The other thing, I just want to comment on this as I close because I need to get over to the floor as well. I saw an article yesterday or the day before about the militant radicals in Europe penetrating the prison system and recruiting radical terrorists out of the prison system. I think that is something we should be aware of, A. B, if we do not want that to happen, I think we need to really go in our own system and work with men--men in particular, women, too, but men in particular--in a positive fashion to really try to give them some hope back in their lives if we do not want to see our prison system turn as well into some recruitment ground for real radical terrorist type elements to be able to come out of in a homegrown fashion. So I think it is good also for our security and our future. Thank you for these efforts. I hope you can continue to support our Second Chance Act. It is my hope and will be prayer that we would get it across the line this legislative session. It is not going to be a big bucket of money, but it is going to be some, and we hope to incentivize these types of programs, with the target of cutting recidivism rates in half in 5 years. I want us to have a hard number on this thing so that people, when they go into it, you know what you have got to hit, and this is what we are after. And also it says to the rest of society at large, this is not a soft-headed program. This is not us just kind of being mushy on crime. This is being very realistic and this is being very hard-nosed, and bottom line, we do not want these guys coming back to prison. We want them out, productive members of society, and if your program can produce that, God bless you. We are going to help support it. If you do not, we are not going to fund it, period. We have got to hit the number, and it is important. It is important to society, and it is important to these individuals. And I hope as well we can work with their families, too. The numbers on family members of people that are incarcerated that then end up going to jail is way too high. I think it is 5 times the likelihood if your parent is in jail that you will go to jail. I had personal experience of that as an attorney in Manhattan, Kansas, when I was representing criminal indigents, and I would go to my senior partners, and I would say the name. They would say, ``Oh, yes, I represented his Dad''--or his uncle or something. And you would say, ``Well, why is that?'' Well, I am not sure why. But it does happen, and I think we need to really work with these families. I have seen some pretty innovative programs of starting to work with the family members, too, to prevent this from continuing to happen. So I appreciate your work. God bless you for doing it, and I hope we can get this bill across the line and we can continue to show those good results. Thanks for shining my State. The record will remain open the requisite number of days. I believe they did say there were some questions that were going to be submitted for the record, and these will be within a week's period of time. I do appreciate your willingness to testify and to look and to answer these. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.080