[Senate Hearing 111-975] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 111-975 HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: MENTAL ILLNESS IN U.S. PRISONS AND JAILS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 ---------- Serial No. J-111-45 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: MENTAL ILLNESS IN U.S. PRISONS AND JAILS S. Hrg. 111-975 HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: MENTAL ILLNESS IN U.S. PRISONS AND JAILS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 __________ Serial No. J-111-45 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66-207 WASHINGTON : 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Matthew S. Miner, Republican Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel Brooke Bacak, Republican 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...... 3 prepared statement........................................... 140 Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....................................................... 1 prepared statement........................................... 142 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 185 Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 5 prepared statement........................................... 187 WITNESSES Bagenstos, Samuel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.... 8 Fuller, David L., Outreach and Housing Coordinator, Manhattan Outreach Consortium, Brooklyn, New York........................ 31 Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC................................................. 5 Leary, Mary Lou, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC... 10 Maynard, Gary D., Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Towson, Maryland.................... 25 Randle, Michael P., Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Springfield, Illinois.......................................... 27 Zenoff, Kathryn E., Presiding Justice, Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, Rockford, Illinois............................ 29 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Samuel Bagenstos to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 44 Responses of Harley Lappin to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 46 Responses of Mary Lou Leary to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 54 Responses of Gary D. Maynard to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 58 Responses of Michael P. Randle to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 61 Responses of Kathryn E. Zenoff to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 63 Questions submitted by Senator Coburn to David Fuller (Note: Responses to questions were not received as of the time of printing, May 10, 2011) SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Civil Liberties Union, Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Acting Director, Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel, Washington, DC, statement...................................................... 68 American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, statement.... 79 Amnesty International, New York, New York, statement............. 84 Bagenstos, Samuel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement...................................................... 87 Burr, Richard, Attorney, Houston, Texas, prepared statement...... 93 Byrne/JAG Appropriations, grant.................................. 98 Campaign for Youth & Justice, Liz Ryan, President and Chief Executive Office, Washington, DC, statement.................... 100 Council of State Governments, Justice Center, Fred C. Osher, Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, New York, New York, statement................................................ 128 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, Washington, DC.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report................. 145 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin....................... 157 Federal Grant Programs Available for Treatment of Mentally Ill Offenders...................................................... 183 Fuller, David L., Outreach and Housing Coordinator, Manhattan Outreach Consortium, Brooklyn, New York, statement............. 193 Griffin, Gene, J.D., Mental Health Services and Policy Program, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, statement............................................ 206 Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, statement............................................ 208 Human Rights Watch, New York, New York, statement................ 214 Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC., statement..................................... 228 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, President & Chief Executive Office, Washington, DC, statement............ 236 Leary, Mary Lou, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC., statement...................................................... 241 Maynard, Gary D., Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Towson, Maryland, statement......... 329 Mental Health America, Alexandria, Virginia, statement........... 334 National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, Linda Rosenberg, President & CEO, Washington, DC, statement.......... 339 National Council on Disability, John R. Vaughn, Chairperson, Washington, DC, letter and attachment.......................... 344 National Disability Rights Network, Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities, Washington, DC, statement....... 349 New Yorker.com, Atul Gawande, March 30, 2009, article............ 357 Randle, Michael P., Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Springfield, Illinois, statement............................... 368 Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Malika Saada Saar, Executive Director, Kathleen Shakire Washington, Policy Director, Washington, DC, joint statement................................ 372 Rights Working Group, Washington, DC, statement.................. 382 Rohr, Gretchen, Director, DC Jail Advocacy Project, University Legal Services, Washington, DC, statement...................... 383 SAVE Coalition, statement........................................ 401 VERA Institute of Justice, Alex Busansky, Director, Washington, DC, statement.................................................. 403 Witness Justice, Helga Luest, President & CEO, Frederick, Maryland, statement............................................ 405 Zenoff, Kathryn E., Presiding Justice, Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, Rockford, Illinois, statement................. 437 HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: MENTAL ILLNESS IN U.S. PRISONS AND JAILS ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Durbin, Franken, and Coburn. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee will come to order. The subject at today's hearing is ``Human Rights at Home: Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons and Jails.'' At the outset, I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy for reestablishing this Subcommittee. This is another measure of his commitment to human rights. I also want to thank Jeff Sessions, the Committee's Ranking Member, for his support of the re-creation of this Subcommittee. I want to express personal appreciation to my colleague Senator Tom Coburn, who not only is serving again as Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, but spoke up and said, ``Why would you not have this Subcommittee? '' That is a nice thing to hear from your colleague, and I think we proved in the first 2 years of our existence as a team on this Subcommittee that we could accomplish some good things. In the 110th Congress, this Subcommittee focused and reflected on issues like genocide in Darfur, Internet censorship in China, and rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But, in all honesty, we must also reflect on ourselves. Today in the United States, more than 2.3 million people are imprisoned. This is, by far, the most prisoners of any country in the world and, by far, the highest per capita rate of prisoners in the world. African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white citizens. And many of these prisoners are non-violent drug offenders and individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. Now, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has introduced legislation creating a commission to examine our criminal justice system and make recommendations for reform. This comprehensive review is really needed. But there are critical reforms needed right now and we should not wait to address them. Earlier this year, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and I held a hearing on the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, which leads to excessive prison sentences for many non-violent drug offenders. We are working with all the members of the Committee to try to come up with legislation to address this problem. Today, we are going to address another aspect of the criminal justice system that raises important human rights issues: the treatment of mental illness in U.S. prisons and jails. My late friend and mentor, former Senator Paul Simon, brought this issue to my attention many years ago. The problem has only grown worse since then. In 2006, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that more than half of all prison and jail inmates, including 45 percent of Federal prisoners, 56 percent of State prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates suffer from a mental health problem. In fact, the three largest mental health facilities in the United States of America are the Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island Jail, and the Cook County Jail. Women and children are especially vulnerable. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 61 percent of females in Federal prisons have mental health problems, compared to 44 percent of males. In a recent survey, two-thirds of boys and three-fourths of girls detained in juvenile facilities in Cook County, Illinois, have at least one mental illness. Juvenile offenders with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be abused by other juvenile offenders and have their incarceration extended because of conduct related to their mental illness. By allowing our prisons and jails to become one of our Nation's primary providers of mental health services, we have taken a step backward in time. Two hundred years ago, people with mental illness were incarcerated in jails and prisons. By the beginning of the 20th century, we transitioned from that model to State mental institutions and hospitals. Growing public revulsion about conditions in mental hospitals led to a movement for deinstitutionalization around 40 or 50 years ago. Community mental health services were supposed to step in to replace State mental hospitals, but that did not happen. It is stunning to read that 8 years ago the GAO found that 9,000 children were surrendered by their families to the juvenile justice system so that they could receive basic mental health services. As a result of all this, many people with mental illness cycle in and out of correctional institutions, presenting a danger to themselves, correctional officers, and the public. We have returned to the loathsome, indefensible practice of incarcerating the mentally ill. While in prison, many mentally ill prisoners have limited or no access to mental health services, and their conditions frequently deteriorate. They often have difficulty complying with prison rules and, as a result, are disproportionately represented in solitary confinement, which only makes their mental illness worse. I am deeply troubled by reports about conditions for persons with mental illness at Tamms Correctional Center, a super-maximum security facility in my own home State of Illinois. Governor Pat Quinn recently ordered a review of Tamms, and I look forward to discussing this issue with one of our witnesses, Michael Randle, who heads the Illinois Department of Corrections. I want to salute Gary Marx of the Chicago Tribune and especially George Pawlaczyk and Beth Hundsdorfer of the Belleville News-Democrat for their provocative and thorough articles on the Tamms Correctional Center. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the best practices for dealing with people with mental illness in the criminal justice system, including mental health courts to divert appropriate individuals into treatment and a continuum of care for individuals from entry screening to discharge planning. Our country was founded on the principle that all people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. This was, and still is, the promise of America. For generations, this singular idea has inspired freedom fighters, toppled ruthless dictators, and given hope to the disempowered and disenfranchised around the world. We must keep faith with our Founders by working to keep America's promises not only abroad but at home. That is true even for, in fact especially for, the least among us--whether it is a crack addict serving a mandatory minimum sentence or a person with mental illness who cycles endlessly through shelters, hospitals, jails, and prisons. This is the right thing for us to do, but it is also the smart thing to do because it will keep police and corrections officers and the public safer and dramatically reduce costs for incarceration at a time of fiscal crisis. Senator Coburn. STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Coburn. Well, thank you, Senator Durbin, and I thank our witnesses for being here. I do apologize to you in advance. I am conflicted with two other ongoing committees at the same time, and so I will be leaving in a short period of time. As a practicing physician, I have seen over the last 25 years a significant increase in how the stressors in our country and in our lives have impacted mental health, and there is no question the greatest factor, I believe, happens to be addiction to drugs and what that does to us. And the Chairman and I both have a desire at some point in time to see a different system of incarceration for those that are addicted. We think we can do it more economically. We know we can do it more successfully, and we know that good drug treatment programs make big differences in people's lives to the tune of about 60 to 70 percent of them never walk that path again. In terms of our hearing today, the key is recognition and prevention. If we have some incarcerated that we have not recognized a significant illness, we are asking for problems for us as well as for them. And so intake screening and thorough evaluation is a must. We understand that. Treatment also is a must, especially in some of our more significant psychoses and tougher illnesses. The point that Senator Durbin made--I almost called you ``doctor,'' ``Dr. Durbin.'' The point that Senator Durbin makes about developing mental illness in prison, it is easy to see. Depression, psychotic depression, which oftentimes those who work in our system are not prepared to understand that a psychosis is ongoing that is not the individual's normal behavior, but it is a result of psychotic depression, which I could imagine very easily anyone could fall into. Where Senator Durbin and I differ is that, number one, I look for a constitutional role within the enumerated powers that we have the authority to fix it at the States. I am not sure we do, but the one thing I am in agreement with him on is we ought to model the absolute best practices at the Federal level, and that if we do that, lots can be learned from that, and that example can be utilized. Oklahoma is high in its incarceration rate. We have a pretty tough justice system, and this is a problem that we experience as well. The answer is not just more money. The answer is a great plan and set an example and let us see if we cannot markedly improve. The final point I would make--and I appreciated the testimony from Mr. Maynard in terms of his three suggestions, which I thought were very cogent in terms of the things that we need to do: Ensure a specific methodology at intake so that we know what we have got, know what we are doing, and make sure it is thorough. Second, technology improvement to identification ongoing while at intake; and cross-checking data bases with past history. You know, one of the biggest problems is we do not get thorough past medical histories. I will take just a little bit of liberty. I have a gentleman that is incarcerated today that had true manic- depressive disease, and all of his convictions are on the basis of when he was in a manic state, uncontrolled, undiagnosed, and he is now serving the minimum mandatory 15-year sentence simply because we failed. We failed to diagnose him. We failed to treat him, both inpatient and outpatient, in incarceration as well as outpatient. And so now he finds himself in a long-term situation, and he is a model prisoner because he is being controlled. His medicines are being given. He no longer has the disease. So it is a real problem, and we do not deny that. Then, finally, appropriate staffing levels in terms of mental health professionals and counseling that would go along with that. So I am very pleased we are having--I think it is a human right to have your health care diagnosed when we are going to incarcerate you, and I think we ought to set that example at the Federal Government, and I look forward to the witnesses' testimony. I thank you all for being here. Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coburn. Without objection, a statement by Senator Feingold will be entered in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. I yield to Senator Franken, if you would like to make an opening comment or statement. STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make just a short statement and submit a fuller statement for the record, if that is okay. Mr. Chairman, Senator/Dr. Coburn, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing which touches on two issues that are of utmost importance to me: caring for those with mental illness and working to reform our country's deeply flawed prison system. The sheer volume of people that we imprison in this country is a crime in itself, and as a society, we are most guilty of failing the thousands of young people who, instead of receiving education, support, and treatment, are growing into adulthood behind bars, a fate which virtually dooms these children from ever becoming productive citizens. I was very happy to hear Senator Coburn's remarks on treatment and am very encouraged by that, and I am in complete agreement with him. So I would like to hear from the witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Coburn. Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Franken, and your opening statement will be admitted into the record at this point, without objection, and Senator Coburn's as well. [The prepared statement of Senator Franken appears as a submission for the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Coburn appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Now we turn to the first panel of witnesses for opening statements. They will each have 5 minutes. Their entire written testimony will be part of the record. I am going to ask them to stand, and as is the custom of the Committee, we swear in our witnesses. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Lappin. I do. Mr. Bagenstos. I do. Ms. Leary. I do. Chairman Durbin. Let the record indicate that all three have answered in the affirmative and, therefore, may proceed. Our first witness is Harley Lappin, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He has served at BOP for 24 years, and has been the Director since 2003. Mr. Lappin is responsible for the Bureau's 114 institutions and the safety and security of over 208,000 Federal inmates. He holds a B.A. in forensic studies from Indiana University in Bloomington and an M.A. in criminal justice and correctional administration from Kent State University. Thanks for joining us today and please proceed. STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Lappin. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Coburn, and members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to testify on the very important topic of mental illness in correctional facilities. Inmates with mental health problems present a host of challenges. I am well aware that the challenges we face in the Bureau of Prisons are not unique to the Federal prison system. State and local corrections systems have similar issues and often fewer resources at their disposal. I am committed to ensuring the Bureau of the Prisons does all it can to attend to this vulnerable population, but I know there are cases where individuals leave prisons with their mental illnesses untreated. We must do more if we want to prevent further criminal behavior and victimization in our communities. Since early 2000, the National Institute of Corrections has provided support to State and local corrections in the area of mental health, including holding public hearings, sponsoring Web-based forums, and providing technical assistance both directly and through a third party. We estimate that 19 percent of the inmates admitted to the Bureau of Prisons suffer from some mental illness. As in the community, the vast majority of these inmates are treated on an outpatient basis at the institution by Psychology Services staff working in collaboration with other staff, including therapists, counselors, social workers, and either a full-time or consultant psychiatrist, as indicated. Our staff also conduct an array of forensic evaluations for the courts. Group counseling is a very effective method for the delivery of mental health services to inmates in the Bureau of Prisons. Individual counseling is also provided at every institution to inmates with a need for more intensive services. Inpatient psychiatric services are provided for chronic and acutely mentally ill cases, as well as for court-ordered placements. These services are provided at the Bureau of Prisons medical referral centers, each of which is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care organizations. The chronically mentally ill remain at the centers for the duration of their sentence, but acute cases are treated, stabilized, and then returned to our mainstream institutions. All inmates coming in to the Federal prison system are screened for mental illnesses, and subsequent screenings are done during reviews of inmates in special housing units, as indicated. Treatment plans are developed for inmates found to be in need of treatment, and when necessary, inmates are transferred to different institutions. We offer a variety of residential or intensive treatment programs for mentally ill inmates of both genders at all security levels. My written statement describes these programs in some detail. We also operate a dual diagnosis residential drug abuse treatment program for inmates suffering from both a substance abuse disorder and a serious mental illness, and we offer this program to both male and female offenders. The Bureau of Prisons currently has more than 450 full-time psychology treatment staff, the majority of whom are psychologists, with some psychology technicians and treatment specialists. This figure does not include the drug treatment staff. We also have 30 full-time psychiatrists within the system. These psychiatrists are able to treat inmates at all of our institutions through the use of video technology, which is much less costly than relying on contract psychiatrist and also ensures continuity of care. Many individuals who suffer from mental illnesses are at the risk of committing suicide. All Bureau of Prisons staff are trained to recognize signs indicative of potential suicide, to prevent suicides, and to understand and make appropriate use of the referral process. The Bureau of Prisons uses well-trained staff, skilled clinicians, frequent referrals, prevention techniques, and extended follow-up services to manage the suicide risk by Federal inmates. While any suicide is tragic, over the past 10 years, the Bureau's suicide rate has been less than the rate for the general U.S. population. The Bureau of Prisons works hard to ensure the smooth transition of mentally ill inmates from prison to the community through the close communication with other authorities--the United States Probation Services, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, as well as treatment providers in the community, through our network of residential reentry centers. The majority of the inmates transition through residential reentry centers--also known as community corrections centers or halfway houses--to help them to adjust to life in the community, to acquire post-release employment, and in many cases find suitable housing. The BOP's Transitional Services staff coordinate and oversee treatment of inmates housed in residential reentry centers. Thank you for holding this hearing and bringing attention to this important topic. The mentally ill in prison are a unique population that poses real challenges for our agency. We are doing a lot, particularly given the budget restrictions we have experienced. But more can be done, particularly through collaborating with our partners around the country, State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies, mental health agencies, and community organizations. I think it is critically important, as Senator Coburn mentioned, that we work together to identify the presence of mental illness in offenders as early as possible in the criminal justice system, such as at arrest, and that there be a mechanism in place for that information to be passed on to those who will incarcerate that person or hold that person in the future. This will often avert harm to the offender and to others. We should provide the resources to meet the needs of mentally ill offenders during incarceration and support them upon release as they face the challenges of reentering communities. Finally, we should encourage jails, prisons, lock-ups, community corrections centers to seek accreditation from outside entities, thereby establishing a set of standards and expectations for staff to follow. Chairman Durbin, this concludes my formal statement. I am pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Lappin. Our next witness, Samuel Bagenstos, is Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, an expert in disability law, taught at the University of Michigan Law School, the UCLA School of Law, Washington University School of Law, and Harvard. He has a B.A. from the University of North Carolina and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Mr. Bagenstos, thank you for joining us, and the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL BAGENSTOS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Coburn and members of the Committee. I am honored and pleased to be here today to testify about the enforcement of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and its application to protect the rights of individuals who have mental illness in prisons and jails. My name is Samuel Bagenstos, as the Chairman said, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, among my duties is supervising the Special Litigation Section, which has the responsibility for enforcing the CRIPA statute. In the nearly three decades since the enactment of the statute, the Division has investigated more than 430 facilities across the country and has been able to improve conditions for tens of thousands of individuals in those facilities. We currently has 24 ongoing CRIPA investigations involving jails and prisons, and we are enforcing compliance with consent decrees and other agreements covering 21 correctional facilities nationwide. And I should point out that those numbers do not include our investigations of juvenile justice facilities, of which we have 17 ongoing, about three-quarters of which raise issues of mental illness and treatment of people with mental illness. And those figures also don't include our enforcement, which is a significant part of our duties, of the Supreme Court's landmark Olmstead case, which we are applying to ensure that people with mental disabilities are served in appropriate settings in the community. Inadequate mental health care in the Nation's jails and prisons, which is the subject of this hearing, poses a critical problem for inmate safety and can stand in the way of real rehabilitation for those who are incarcerated and do not have access to treatment. In our CRIPA enforcement, we have uncovered systematic deficiencies in mental health care in jails and prisons across the Nation, and we have aggressively pursued reforms to ensure that inmates are afforded their constitutional rights. I will just talk about a couple of examples, a couple of the key areas in my oral testimony, and maybe we can have questions about others. Probably the most urgent issue that we encounter in our investigations is the lack of adequate procedures for the detection of suicide risk and the lack of measures for suicide prevention. So in our investigations, we often find that jails and prisons process and house inmates without regard to their suicidal history or their mental health history. One example was a jail that failed to take precautions even when warned by a family that an inmate was suicidal, and the inmate committed suicide within hours of his arrest. We have found problems including the failure to remove features in jail cells that have proven conducive to suicide, like protuberances that people can hang themselves from and other situations where individuals who are suicidal have not been adequately supervised. Another example of our enforcement, we detected in a facility where an inmate attempted to commit suicide by cutting himself had hoarded 30 razors in his cell. Yet 4 months later, another inmate committed suicide by cutting himself with a razor. In other facilities we have found a lack of adequate safety equipment, such as cut-down tools, to quickly respond to suicide attempts. Suicide is a major part of the problems we find in the treatment of people with mental illness in prison, as Director Lappin testified. We also frequently find that jail and prison staff use harmful methods of isolation, seclusion, or restraint as a substitute for mental health treatment, often in response to behaviors that inmates cannot control because of their mental disabilities. In one facility we investigated, because of a lack of staff detainees were regularly placed on suicide watch, which meant they were isolated for 23 hours a day, sometimes for days or weeks at a time. They did not receive adequate assessment or treatment. They sometimes waited days for an initial evaluation, initial psychiatric evaluation, and several times detainees placed in isolation injured themselves due to psychosis-related behavior. In one instance, an individual was slamming himself against the wall of his cell while wrapped in a blanket, which protected his body somewhat. Correctional staff removed the blanket. That was their response. We have also found that inmates with mental disabilities are subject to attack by other inmates, and jail and prison officials fail to provide proper protection. We have some examples of that in the written testimony. And we find generally that the deficiencies that we uncover stem from two basic problems: first of all, the failure to commit sufficient resources to provide adequate care to people who are put in prison and kept away from their own opportunity to get medical care; and, second, the failure to provide adequate training to jail and prison staff. We found one facility that had 217 detainees who received psychotropic medications, and yet there were only two part-time psychiatrists at that facility. In other instances, when we find that staff are not trained to deal with people with mental disabilities in the prisons, they respond by using force appropriately. We have examples of people who were beat up by prison guards for engaging in conduct that was a result of their mental illness. We have been successful in resolving the vast majority of the violations we discover through voluntary agreements, without contested litigation. We have some examples in the testimony of working cooperatively with, for example, the State of Wisconsin, with their only women's correction facility where we found significant issues relating to the constitutional rights of inmates with mental illness, but we have worked cooperatively to lay out a set of specific remedies, a detailed action plan that the State of Wisconsin has followed and that has at this point been successful. That agreement, as with all of our agreements under CRIPA, is one that we closely monitor to ensure compliance. And we find that access to mental health care is a critical need in jails and prisons across the Nation, so we are committed to ensuring inmates with mental illness receive adequate treatment in safe conditions. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this Committee, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bagenstos appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much. Our next witness, Mary Lou Leary, is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs. Previously, she served as the Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, Acting Assistant Attorney General of OJP, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. She has a bachelor's degree from Syracuse University, a master's degree in education from Ohio State University, and a law degree from Northeastern University School of Law. Ms. Leary, thank you for being here. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Ms. Leary. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, and Senator Franken. I am very happy to be here to discuss the Department of Justice's efforts to improve the response of State and local criminal justice systems to people with mental illnesses. We are very pleased that the Subcommittee is interested in this issue. As you all are very well aware, many people entering the criminal justice system in this country have problems with mental illness. According to a report from the Council of State Governments that was funded in part by the Office of Justice Programs, 16.9 percent of the adults in a sample of local jails had mental illness, a serious mental illness. That is three to six times the rate for the general population. And also troubling is that while the rate was 14 percent for men, it was 31 percent for women. If you applied these rates to the 13 million jail admissions in 2007, the study suggests that more than 2 million bookings of persons with serious mental illness take place every year. So to help address this issue, OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance administers a program called the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, bringing together the mental health system and the criminal justice system to work collaboratively to address these needs. And the program helps State and local governments and tribes design and implement collaborative efforts between the criminal justice system and the mental health systems. The goal is to improve access to effective treatment for people with mental illness. That improves public safety, prevents recidivism, and provides effective treatment for those who need it. From fiscal year 2006 through 2008, BJA awarded 76 of these grants--that is a total of about $12 million--to 32 States, D.C., and Guam. Many of these programs support--many of the grants support programs for adults, but some also go to juveniles, and there are a number of grantees who are addressing both of those populations. Also, projects have been targeted, through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to the National Institute of Corrections, and Council of State Governments to jointly to provide training and technical assistance to communities across this country regardless of whether they have received funding. Training and technical assistance is really critical when we talk about replicating good practices. In just a very short period of time, we have already seen significant progress. We know that the majority of women inside prisons have mental health problems, and yet only a very few of them receive treatment while they are incarcerated. In New Jersey, their Department of Corrections received a grant in 2008 to provide trauma-informed care and reentry life skills to women in the New Jersey State prison. This program teaches basic life skills--health, nutrition, job applications, things of that nature--but they also take part in something called ``Seeking Safety,'' and that is a trauma-informed therapeutic program that gets at the roots of trauma and provides treatment and an outlet for women who are in this program. In Cass County, North Dakota, in 2005 only 191 detainees were even referred for a psychological assessment, and out of these, only 92 of them actually got treatment because there just were not enough resources to provide that treatment. They received grant funding in 2008 to address these issues, and in just the first 5 months of 2009, 550 detainees received an assessment; 373 of them were referred for treatment and services, and 10 of them were actually taken for hospitalization or inpatient evaluation. Encounters with law enforcement we know often play a very critical role in whether or not people with mental illness end up recycling in and out of the criminal justice system. In order to address this, there are many law enforcement departments that are partnering with mental health specialists around this country to make it easier from the get-go, from the first encounter with law enforcement, to refer the appropriate people for mental health services. These programs are often called ``co-responder teams'' or ``crisis intervention teams,'' and these kinds of models are eligible to receive funding under the program at BJA. Seven jurisdictions in the country have used BJA funds to start or enhance law enforcement response programs that link people with mental illness to treatment and services, and this is the best kind of diversion from the criminal justice system for people with these problems. BJA has also partnered with the Council of State Governments and the National Association of Counties on a number of publications to help other communities learn about best practices and how to implement these models. Those publications address things like law enforcement response, mental health courts, effective reentry practices for people with mental illness, and I have included copies of these publications with my testimony, so I hope you will have a chance to look at those. Please be assured that the Department of Justice will continue with its work and its commitment to addressing this issue. In fiscal year 2009, we will be awarding 43 grants, a total of nearly $8 million. These grants include projects in Illinois, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Additional funding will support training and technical assistance efforts. Also, there are many grants under the Second Chance Prisoner Reentry Act that will specifically address mental illness and pre-release services and treatment as part of a comprehensive reentry effort. This concludes my statement, and I am really grateful for the opportunity to testify today. I will take any questions that you have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thanks, Ms. Leary. Mr. Lappin, you testified that 19 percent of incoming offenders into the Federal correctional system in 2002 and 2003 suffered from mental illness. That translates to well over 30,000, maybe 40,000 in your total population with mental illness. You testified that Bureau of Prisons psychologists conducted 37,263 individual counseling sessions in fiscal year 2008, which sounds like a large number until you consider that somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 inmates are mentally ill. How many inmates received individual counseling sessions during fiscal year 2008? And how frequently did these sessions take place? Mr. Lappin. I am not sure that I have the actual number of individual counseling sessions that took place. I can try to gather that and provide it for the record, but it is all determined on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, as well staffed as we are--and I have to state we are probably much better staffed in the area of mental health needs than many States and locals--it is still a huge challenge to address the needs of that many individuals. And just so you know, our definition of ``mental health'' is meeting the criteria of the Axis I Disorder and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It does not include--as part of that Axis I, it does not include folks diagnosed with antisocial behavior or drug abuse disorders. So we have not included those in that category even though they fall within the Axis I. If we add those folks in, it would be a much higher number. Chairman Durbin. How many Bureau of Prisons inmates receive psychotropic medication? Mr. Lappin. In excess of 16,000, and we are working on--it is a little confusing because psychotropic medication is actually provided for some disorders other than mental health issues, so we are sorting through that. We will be able to provide a more accurate number in the not too distant future. But we spent $61 million last year on medications, and $11.5 million was spent on psychotropic medication. So you can see it is a large portion of that medication that we do provide. Chairman Durbin. $11.5 million? Mr. Lappin. $11.5 million. We only provide medications for those that have a clinical need for medication. So not all folks who suffer from mental illness get medication. Chairman Durbin. With 30 full-time psychiatrists at the Bureau of Prisons located primarily at your medical referral centers and other BOP facilities receiving psychiatric services via video or contract psychiatrist, this translates to roughly one psychiatrist for every 1,000 inmates with mental illness, and apparently one psychiatrist for every 530 inmates who are currently on psychotropic medication. That is an incredible caseload. Mr. Lappin. There are also a number of contract psychiatrists--I can get that number--that support those 30 psychiatrists. But you are right, it is a large number. We are able to do it more efficiently because of the use of telepsychiatry in lieu of people having to travel to assess and determine appropriate medications and utilization of psychotropic medication. But it is, it is a large number. We struggle in some locations recruiting and retaining not only psychiatrists but psychologists as well, in part because of the rural nature of some of our facilities on the one side, and, two, high cost-of- living areas. Those are our two most challenging areas. To our benefit, which unlike States, we have the flexibility of moving those inmates to locations that have more of those staff and services available. And so I sympathize with some States that are very rural and struggle across the board, whereas we do have the ability to move the inmates who have the needs to other locations where those services can be provided. Chairman Durbin. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals at the Federal level is not known as a liberal court of appeals. They characterize the lack of an onsite psychiatrist in the Indiana State prison system as ``a serious system deficiency, contributing to a finding of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.'' That is a standard established by our court system, which Mr. Bagenstos has spoken to. I would like to ask, of the inmates who are currently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, how many are being held in segregation or isolation? Mr. Lappin. Well, that varies. There are two types of segregation: disciplinary segregation and administrative detention. And we can get an actual--it varies from day to day to day. But I know at our highest-level institution, administrative maximum security facility in Florence, of the 208,000 there are about 450 inmates there who are in controlled housing. We do not call it ``solitary confinement,'' but they are in controlled housing. Then every facility has a segregation unit for inmates who are either misbehaving or are fearful to be on a compound or just need to be removed from the general population. So the number varies, but we can get an actual number on a given day and provide it for the record. Chairman Durbin. What do you think is the impact of segregation and isolation on a mentally ill prisoner? Mr. Lappin. We have not seen as a consequence of conditions of confinement of that nature a result being an increase in mental illness. So at, for example, ADX Florence, we have not seen an increase in mental illness, we believe, driven by the fact they are confined in that nature. Now, realize although isolated or controlled, they are seen by staff daily. They interact daily. They are removed for recreation. So it is not like they are locked in a cell and there is no external contact. We have a pretty heavy presence of medical and mental health professionals there who do ongoing assessments. There are no unstable mentally ill inmates. If they become unstable, we remove them from there. We put them in a hospital until we gain their stability, at which time they would be returned to those conditions. So there are inmates there who have mental illnesses, who came there with mental illnesses, but they are controlled and they are stable during the period of time they are there, and they are monitored very closely. Chairman Durbin. I am not an expert in this field. I am trying to learn. Mr. Lappin. Yes. Chairman Durbin. In June of 2006, a bipartisan national task force, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, released its recommendations after a year-long investigation. It called for ending long-term isolation of prisoners. ``Beyond about 10 days, the report noted, practically no benefits can be found and the harm is clear--not just for inmates but for the public as well. Most prisoners in long-term isolation are returned to society, after all. And evidence from a number of studies has shown that supermax conditions--in which prisoners have virtually no social interaction and are given no programmatic support--make it highly likely they will commit more crimes when they are released. Instead, the report said, we should follow preventive approaches used in [other] countries.'' What I just quoted was an article entitled ``Hellhole'' by Dr. Atul Gawande. I do not know if you have seen it. It was published in The New Yorker on March 30, 2009. Without objection, I will enter it into the record. [The article appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Do you disagree with the conclusion of that task force? Mr. Lappin. I am going to speak to the supermax issue, and I disagree with that there is no benefit there. Let's realize there has got to be a balance here. Without question, the inmates that are housed at that supermax--and I cannot speak to the States, but my guess is they are similar. These are very violent, aggressive, challenging, difficult inmates who have decided they are not going to listen to the rules in prisons, they are not going to adhere to the direction of staff. You cannot run safe prisons with folks like that out in the general population. Chairman Durbin. Is there a middle ground between isolation--23 hours in a cell, for example--and general population? Mr. Lappin. I think there is, and that is when it comes to how those supermaxes are run. Is there contact with staff? Are there assessments that are done? Are there ongoing reviews? Is there a way for those folks to work their way out of those conditions of confinement? And, in fact, there are, as long as they agree to participate and abide by those rules. So our supermaxes, I am sure like many others, have a phased program that people can work their way through and eventually work their way out. But they have got to follow the rules. And the dilemma we have is if you look at this array of inmates that happen to be housed currently, the majority of them at ADX Florence--and I am sure other supermaxes similarly--are folks that have routinely and frequently assaulted staff and inmates in our institutions, killed inmates, sometimes killed staff. And, again, although it is tragic and unfortunate, you cannot protect the other inmates, nor can you protect the other staff, without managing these inmates in a more controlled, more structured environment. If people have other suggestions as to how that can be done and we still protect the other inmates and the staff who work in those facilities, I assure you that myself and the other directors of corrections around this country will be listening. Chairman Durbin. I will return to this, but, in fairness, Senator Franken has waited patiently. I have gone over my time. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lappin, how many Federal prisons are there under the Federal Bureau? Mr. Lappin. We own and operate 115 Federal prisons. We contract privately with 14 large private contract facilities. They house primarily low-security criminal aliens. And then there are about 8,000 to 9,000 inmates on any given day in 250 to 300 contract residential reentry centers. These are inmates who are transitioning from prison to the community. So we contract those services with companies and organizations in local communities--for a total of 208,000 inmates. Senator Franken. Thank you. You mentioned the dual diagnosis residential drug abuse treatment program, which seems like a very worthwhile investment for prisoners who have a dual diagnosis of mental illness and chemical dependency. At how many sites does the Bureau have this program? Mr. Lappin. We have this at three locations, and it is all driven on the number of inmates we see who have that dual diagnosis. If there are more inmates than we have room for, we would add more programs of that nature. But to give you an idea, 40 percent of our inmates have a diagnosis of drug or alcohol abuse in the Federal prison system; 92 percent of those inmates are volunteering for treatment. A portion of them have been diagnosed with a dual diagnosis condition, and we place them in these three programs to deal with both their addiction to drug or alcohol as well as their mental health issues. Senator Franken. It just seems like out of all the prisons that you have, to have only three prisons with that program seems inadequate. Mr. Lappin. Well, I will check and return for the record, I will tell you how many folks are in that program, how many have been diagnosed--they have to volunteer for treatment--and how long the waiting lists are, because what we do is monitor that waiting list. And if we saw the waiting list was such that we could not treat the number of folks who have that need, we would add programs. But we will provide that information for the record. We will tell you how many folks are on the waiting list and whether or not we are able to get to everybody that we diagnose with that need who volunteer for treatment. Senator Franken. Thank you. Mr. Bagenstos, in your testimony you describe the methods of isolation that Chairman Durbin referred to that are used to control prisoners with mental illnesses. Are these tactics used with juvenile prisoners? Mr. Bagenstos. Yes, they are. So we have found in some of our juvenile investigations isolation and seclusion used as a replacement for mental health treatment in some of our investigations, even more shockingly than in some of our jail and prison investigations. So in an investigation of one set of juvenile facilities, there were individuals who violated prison rules or facility rules, were locked in a darkened room for 23 hours a day, was our finding. And so we have definitely found those sorts of problems in many juvenile facilities across the country. Senator Franken. Are there other tools that are better than putting a juvenile in isolation in a darkened room for 23 hours? Mr. Bagenstos. We certainly think so. Our experts who we take on our tours certainly think so and who suggest minimum remedial measures to come into compliance with the Constitution. Often the problem in juvenile facilities is you are dealing with a population that has often undiagnosed mental illness problems, and for a variety of reasons, institutions do not provide the sorts of treatment or appropriate behavioral responses. And instead we have found in many cases seclusion restraint abuse as responses instead. Senator Franken. Let me ask you, what percentage, in your opinion or your research, are dual diagnosis, people with mental illness and substance abuse problems? Mr. Bagenstos. In what class of facilities? In the juvenile facilities? Senator Franken. Just in our Federal prison system. Mr. Bagenstos. Well, you know, our CRIPA enforcement authority does not extend to the Federal prison system, so I do not know that I am the best person to answer that question. Senator Franken. Okay. Let me ask you this: What type of training do prison officials receive to help them identify mental illness and defuse conflicts with mentally ill prisoners? And do you think there should be a Federal requirement for this kind of training? Mr. Bagenstos. Well, it is an interesting question whether there ought to be a Federal requirement for this kind of training. We enforce the constitutional rights of inmates at facilities or residents at juvenile facilities, and what we have found contributing to violations of the Eighth Amendment and 14th Amendment is a lack of training. So the example that I give in the written testimony of the Wisconsin State prison for women, the Taycheedah Correctional Institution, is an example where systemic deficiencies in the treatment of inmates with mental illness was related directly to a lack of training, and the remedy that we negotiated with and adopted and worked cooperatively with the State to implement includes requirements for training of the people who work at that facility, both when they come into service and then in-service training. The lack of training is one of the essential problems that we have found contributing to constitutional violations around the country. Senator Franken. Ms. Leary, just a general question. Do you think there are just too many people in prison in this country? Ms. Leary. I think there are too many people in prison in this country, Senator Franken, and part of the reason is that we are not addressing appropriately the needs of many people who do end up in prison--for instance, those with mental illness. Oftentimes, they are creating a disturbance, police are called to the scene, and they just lock them up. Then they end up in prison, and it starts a cycle, and they recidivate and they never get the treatment that they need. It just becomes a lifelong process in and out. That is just one example of the type of person who is in prison who should not be there. Senator Franken. You know, I liked your testimony about the Bureau of Justice grantee program in New York City that combines mental health treatment with community service as an alternative to traditional incarceration. How much does it cost to run a program like that? And do you think that alternative programs to incarceration for the mentally ill save taxpayers money in the long run? Ms. Leary. I can get you the figures on the costs for actually running a program like that. I do not have them with me. But we have seen an evaluation of several of these kinds of programs; we have seen that it does save the taxpayer money because you prevent recidivism and you can reduce the costs of incarceration. It is simply really beyond the capacity of the States to incarcerate all our problems. There are better and more cost- effective investments that we can and should be making in such things as diversion programs, mental health courts, drug courts, better reentry so that once you leave you will not be coming back. There are many ways to save taxpayer dollars and actually improve public safety outcomes. That is a lot of what we do at the Office of Justice Programs. Senator Franken. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Franken. Mr. Lappin, returning to the one example you cited, when I asked you about isolation, you used the example of Florence, where you thought there were perhaps 450 inmates in isolation. Is there a resident psychiatrist at Florence? Mr. Lappin. Yes. Chairman Durbin. One or two? Mr. Lappin. There is one psychiatrist at Florence. There are about 3,000 inmates there, but he spends a great deal of his time at the administrative maximum security facility. There are also seven or eight psychologists. Chairman Durbin. And you indicated that if an inmate is put in isolation and there is a detection of a deteriorating mental condition, they are removed from isolation. Mr. Lappin. Well, we remove them to a hospital. Chairman Durbin. To a hospital. Mr. Lappin. To return them to a stable condition. Chairman Durbin. And who would make that observation of a deteriorating condition? Mr. Lappin. Well, yearly we train all of our staff as to what to look for. Now, granted, our experts--our psychiatrists, our psychologists, our treatment staff--are the ones that do the diagnosis and the assessment. But an alert can come from a correctional officer, from a unit staff, from an education person, because as part of our training we train our staff what to look for and who to inform if they see an inmate acting in a certain manner. And so that report can come from anyone, and then a mental health professional would intervene and make an assessment. Chairman Durbin. And what is the range of isolation, in terms of days, months, years, in the Federal Bureau of Prisons? Mr. Lappin. Typically very short. If you look at all the people who are in segregation as a whole, and on average, the amount of time they are there, typically their stays are short. That is our objective, to make that stay as short as possible and return them to a general population facility. So these supermaxes are the extreme only because these folks resist and they are not going to comply. And as a consequence, they end up in segregation or isolation for longer periods of time than what most inmates find themselves in those conditions that confine them. Chairman Durbin. There was an editorial in the Washington Post this morning about sexual violence in American prisons and sexual exploitation. What is your experience or your knowledge of the connection between mental illness and sexual exploitation in our Federal Bureau of Prisons? Mr. Lappin. In general, that is a more vulnerable population, those that have mental illnesses--not only those that have mental illnesses, but the folks who come in who are young, inexperienced, do not have the wherewithal to manage in that social environment. So without a doubt, there are higher- risk groups who fall into the category of being manipulated or being taken advantage of. The mentally ill fall into that group. And it is unfortunate when, in this case, an employee violates the public trust in their capacity as a law enforcement officer and takes advantage of someone. It is unfortunate. Our policy is zero tolerance of that, and we try to aggressively identify that, investigate those incidents, and remove those folks if we have the evidence to do so. But, without a doubt, the mentally ill are more susceptible, more risky, and more vulnerable, as are some other unique groups of inmates within our population. Chairman Durbin. Also, with the Bureau of Prisons, do you have a juvenile population? Mr. Lappin. Very small, 141, and we contract out with local communities typically to house those offenders, unless they are of a very violent nature, and then we have a few special locations around the country where we house them. But on that issue, our challenge is finding locations that have the adequate services and support for the juveniles because, I do not disagree, a higher incidence of mental illness and emotional concerns with the juveniles. We have limited locations because when we go--we just do not dump these folks in there. We go out and we visit them. We have a contract with them. We set expectations. And it is very difficult sometimes for us to find appropriate facilities to house even as small a number as 141. Chairman Durbin. So, Mr. Bagenstos, now that you have heard this discussion here and have told us that you are trying to put this in the context of the constitutional rights and legal rights of prisoners in these circumstances, what is your view of segregation and isolation, the treatment of the mentally ill in our prison system, the treatment of juveniles? Do you have a view as to whether or not there is work to be done here? Mr. Bagenstos. I think there is a great deal of work to be done in the treatment of inmates with mental disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, in State jails, State prisons, juvenile facilities. You know, we do a lot of that work, and I have to---- Chairman Durbin. Can you speak to the Federal system? Mr. Bagenstos. Well, it is difficult for me to speak to the Federal system because that is not within our CRIPA enforcement responsibilities, so we have not done investigations of that. You know, when I speak to this Committee---- Chairman Durbin. Who does? Mr. Bagenstos. Well, I think Mr. Lappin could talk about that. Mr. Lappin. First of all, let me just say we believe that isolation should be used very seldom for folks who are mentally ill. And so if you look at our inpatient cohort, you are going to find that we use isolation as seldom as possible for that group who have been diagnosed with that mental illness and who are exhibiting behavior that needs to be managed and controlled. So there is a combination of things, if you talk to our treatment specialists, besides isolation. There is medication in appropriate cases. There is more counseling, there are more, other ways of controlling that. So isolation is the one that we try to use the least. However, there are some cases where it is necessary. If there are complaints about treatment of inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons--and those complaints can come from staff, from inmates, from the public, from whomever--all of those complaints work their way to the Office of the Inspector General, who would make a determination as to whether or not they would investigate, and they may reach out to Civil in some cases and ask them to jointly investigate a concern or a complaint that has been made. But the Office of the Inspector General takes the lead on how and where and in what fashion a complaint will be investigated and dealt with. Chairman Durbin. So, in addition to the court system, which is, of course, going to have the last word here, the internal mechanism is through the Inspector General's office? Mr. Lappin. Yes. Chairman Durbin. Which we probably should have invited to this hearing, but thank you very much. Mr. Bagenstos, we are going to hear later about the Tamms Correctional Facility in my State, a supermax facility. Have you received any complaints about Tamms? Mr. Bagenstos. I cannot tell you the answer to that. I do not know whether we have received complaints about Tamms. I will certainly look into that, and, you know, we can provide that information to the Committee. Chairman Durbin. Ms. Leary, one of the things that you said struck me as interesting. The first intake officer for someone mentally ill about to enter our system is usually a policeman, and the obvious question is what skills do they have to recognize mental illness and its manifestations in contrast to simple criminal misconduct. Ms. Leary. I think that is a very difficult situation, and I would say probably most police officers really do not have the kind of training that they would need to recognize that this is a person with a mental disability, not just someone who is committing a criminal act. That is where these teams come into play where you pair law enforcement officers with mental health professionals. They train as a team, and they respond as a team so that each has knowledge of the other's role at the scene, and they can assess the situation appropriately, and then if the right thing to do is to get that person some mental health treatment, instead of throwing them in jail, that should be the outcome. When I was a prosecutor here with the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. in the 1980's, police officers who would encounter people with mental disabilities would just lock them up and drop them off at St. Elizabeths, and that was the end of it, or else in the D.C. Jail. And that situation is the wrong thing for everybody, and, frankly, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to the offender, and it is dangerous to the police. Chairman Durbin. The second intake officer, the second level of intake, is likely to be our profession: lawyers, criminal defense lawyers who interview these patients. I cannot recall a moment in law school when anyone took the time to talk to me about what you should look for to recognize mental illness. What do you think about that? Ms. Leary. I do not think it is taught at law schools, although I think it certainly should be taught in places like law schools, especially if you are working in a clinic. Say you are doing a prosecution clinic or a defense clinic, or any kind of clinical work, you really should have that training, and that should be encouraged. I think attitudes about mental illness have improved in general, in the general public in the last few years, but we still have a long, long way to go. Chairman Durbin. What is your opinion of the impact of segregation and isolation on the mentally ill? Ms. Leary. I do not have any knowledge of that. I have not, you know, researched that. Common sense would tell you that if that isolation and segregation means that the person truly is isolated from human contact, that is an aggravating circumstance that I would think has great potential to aggravate a mental illness. Chairman Durbin. I have many more questions, but I know we have another panel and will not be able to go much longer. It is possible that some of these will be touched on in follow-up written questions, if it would be convenient for you, if you could respond. I would like to turn now to Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just am going to do a few questions. First of all, it seems to me, Mr. Lappin, that you are saying that when mentally ill patients are put in isolation, it is really because they have acted out in a way that really affects the safety of other prisoners and of the guards at the prison, right? Mr. Lappin. Or themselves. Senator Franken. Or themselves, okay. And you are talking about--I hear about a ratio of psychiatrists to prisoners of one to a thousand. Is it fair to say that psychiatrists at the prisons sometimes feel a little overwhelmed? Mr. Lappin. Well, let me clarify a little bit. For those that would end up in isolation, they are at medical centers. So our ratio of mental health professionals to staff is much smaller. There is going to be an abundance of---- Senator Franken. You are saying that there are not mentally ill prisoners who end up in isolation in prison? Mr. Lappin. In our general population facilities, it can happen. If someone becomes unstable during their period of incarceration at a general population facility, we are going to move them---- Senator Franken. Are you confident that everyone---- Mr. Lappin.--to a location where---- Senator Franken.--with a mental illness has been diagnosed? Mr. Lappin. I am sorry? Senator Franken. Are you confident that everyone with mental illness has been properly diagnosed? Mr. Lappin. Well, I think there is always--with that many inmates, there is always a chance there would be a missed diagnosis. I go back to the key, and that is, early diagnosis. In our intake screening, it is not only a case manager who interviews the inmate. Within 24 hours there is a psychological assessment as well as a medical assessment, and then a follow- up within 7 days. We also have a history, the pre-sentence report if there are indications there. So our psychology staff are alerted to that. So they can begin tracking whether or not a person has a mental health condition sometimes in advance of the inmate even arriving at the institution, because in advance of the inmate, we get all the court documents. And if those court documents reflect that, they are aware of that before the offender even arrives. But once they arrive, within 24 hours there is an assessment. And if the person is displaying that behavior upon intake, there is an alert made to our psychology staff who will then respond to them immediately--their highest priority is to respond to those who are displaying behavior consistent with a mental illness. So although it is not impossible for us to miss it, with thorough screening and competent staff and trained staff at all levels, we have a better chance of identifying those folks in advance. So if they become unstable and they end up in segregation at an institution and the psychologist there determines that I do not think this is the appropriate place for us to treat this person--sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot--they would refer them to a medical referral center. We would move that person to a location where there are more psychiatrists, more psychologists, more treatment staff. And typically that is where isolation occurs. And, again, isolation is the last resort, and we try to do it for the minimal amount of time to restore that person to the point that they are no longer a danger to themselves or somebody else. So that is how it works in our system. Senator Franken. I understand. There was one phrase you used, which was ``with that many prisoners.'' And I had asked Ms. Leary before, Do we have too many prisoners in prison in this country? And I believe we do. And I believe that it puts a burden on everyone, including the psychiatrists in these prisons. Mr. Lappin. Well, here is an example. We are going to add-- just to give you an idea how it works in this system, which is probably similar to your systems. Not only are there 208,000 inmates, but we release 60,000 inmates a year. But we are going to admit this year 67,000 inmates. So we are going to add a 7,000 increment to the base, and you can assume that within that 7,000 there are 1,500 who have a mental illness. So the number continues to grow, which puts an increased burden on those in institutions. So I go back to my original comment that early diagnosis, adequate resources in the institutions, and, as importantly, an issue we have not touched on is our inability--you are correct, most of these folks are going to release into our communities-- is the inability to find contract support facilities for reentry that provide the level of services for this unique group. So there are three groups of folks, to give you a idea: 42,000 inmates in our system released back into the streets of the United States every year; 85 percent of those released through a halfway house. We believe the most appropriate manner in which to move someone from prison to the community is through a halfway house. The three most difficult groups to place, the 15 percent we are not getting, the vast majority of them are mentally ill inmates, sex offenders, and inmates who are very violent and disruptive even toward the end of their sentence. Let us just focus on the mentally ill. Why is it difficult? Again, because many of them are going to rural locations, where there may be a halfway house, but they do not have the wherewithal, they do not have the resources available in that halfway house to care for that individual who has unique mental health concerns, as well as the challenges we face in our more urban areas where it is very expensive. They struggle getting the resources necessary, because our contracts require that. So here we are, we have this mentally ill inmate who is going to release, and we prefer to put them into a halfway house to transition out, acquire the services they need, whether it is for medication, whether it is for treatment or ongoing therapy, before they go to the street. But we lack the services in many of those locations. And, consequently, the inmate goes to the community. One last issue: too many communities that continue to resist the fact that their citizens who happen to be offenders are going to return home. In some cases, we actually have to litigate to convince them to put a residential reentry center in their communities. And a consequence is these folks go directly to the street. Now, again, I think that common sense would tell you that it is much wiser of us to transition especially these more challenging folks out through halfway houses than for us to give them $100 and a new suit and throw them on the street corner. I can tell you, in my community I prefer to have more supervision than that. But, again, we have many communities out there that continue to resist and say not here, not in my back yard, and it is kind of like out of sight, out of mind, I do not want them here. And that is reality. That is tragic, but it is the truth. And it is even more complicated when you have the mentally ill, the sex offenders, and the more violent offenders who are going to go directly into our communities. I did not mean to get off track, but that is an area we really have not touched on. But I think it is critically important, because as we have all said, most of these folks in local, State, and Federal prisons, they are going to go home at some point in the future. Senator Franken. They almost all go home. Now, just one last thing to wrap up. Ms. Leary, the Office of Justice Programs' mission is to provide leadership and services and grant administration and criminal justice policy development to support local, State, and tribal justice strategies to achieve safer communities. That is in your testimony. Ms. Leary. Yes, sir. Senator Franken. So you have an overview of the whole prison system, right? Ms. Leary. We work with the State and the local prison systems, that is right. And we also work with the National Institute of Corrections. Senator Franken. Okay. So I am going back to this deal where we are talking--Mr. Lappin says eventually most of them get out, right? Ms. Leary. Right. Senator Franken. So we have got people we are putting in the system, and then they come out. In your opinion, do they come out better than they went in? And this goes, again, to my opinion that we have too many people in prison in this country. And I was struck with your talking about drug courts and mental health courts, which I was not aware of. So I guess it is--can you just respond to what you think I am getting at? [Laughter.] Ms. Leary. Sure, I would be happy to. I think that there are many far better alternatives than incarceration for those who should not be incarcerated, so we are not talking about the most serious, violent offenders and those who really are big risks to public safety. One of the things that the Office of Justice Programs works on is helping communities figure out what these alternatives are and how can we improve public safety in our communities without locking everybody up. And it runs the gamut, and you have to look at the whole spectrum from prevention to alternatives which include all the problem-solving courts that we work on, like drug courts and veterans' courts and mental health courts and so on, to provide people with the resources and the treatment they need so that they will not end up in prison, because the chances of them getting what they need while they are in prison are much slimmer than they are if you have a really effective community-based program to deal with people's issues. Then, again, as I said, you have to look at the whole spectrum, and that is where I think reentry is so important for those who do end up incarcerated. Reentry planning has to start right from the time of sentencing and follow all the way through your term of incarceration and back out into the community. Senator Franken. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lappin. May I add to that? There are some people that belong in prison. Senator Franken. Absolutely. Mr. Lappin. And we will send you some research for the record that reflects the availability of programs to focus on skills they lack result in fewer of them coming back to prison. So for those that need to be in prison, the availability of programs and opportunities to improve on the skills they lack, it is shown, results in fewer of them returning to prison-- better educated, have a vocational skill, learn work skills, learn to manage this mental illness that they sometimes come to prison with, because that is probably, in part, part of the problem for this unique group. We try to put programs in place that teach them how to manage their mental illness, and there is an array of other skills they lack. And we will send the research for the record that reflects that the availability of those programs and the willingness of those to volunteer and participate typically results in fewer of them returning to prison. And that is why we have a little bit lower recidivism rate than what you are seeing on the average. Thank you. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Lappin, let me thank you for that last comment and add what probably does not need to be said but will be said. The safety and security of the people who are working in our prisons is the highest priority, and I do not think anything we have said today should diminish from that commitment, which we all have, to that end. And for those correctional officers who literally risk their lives in this business, that is the first thing: to make certain that they are safe. And the safety of America at large, of course, is an equally important priority. I think we have raised some interesting and challenging questions about those who are released from prison and the likelihood that they will commit another crime, find another victim. We certainly want to diminish that as much as possible. You mentioned during the course of your testimony that you are open to ideas. The Gawande article talks about things that are being done in Britain today as an alternative to our incarceration model. I do not know if you have had a chance to look into that, but it is at least worth a discussion, probably at another time in another setting. But I want to thank this panel, an excellent panel, for the testimony given. I am told it is extraordinary for the Department of Justice to make this kind of commitment, for several people to come forward for this kind of a hearing, and I appreciate it very much. You will receive some written questions, which I hope you can respond to in a timely fashion. Thank you all. Chairman Durbin. We are now going to welcome our second panel, four distinguished witnesses, who will now come to the table. If you would just remain standing for a moment, I will not have to ask you to stand up again. If you would please raise your right hand, do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Maynard. I do. Mr. Randle. I do. Justice Zenoff. I do. Mr. Fuller. I do. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all four witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our first witness Gary Maynard, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, has over 30 years of experience in the field, having served as Director of Corrections in three other States--Iowa, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. He was also the President of the American Correctional Association and a member for 32 years of the Army National Guard, having served as the Adjutant General to the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard. Mr. Maynard is a native of Oklahoma, holds a master's degree from Oklahoma State, a bachelor's degree from East Central University in Ada. Mr. Maynard, thanks for being here. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF GARY D. MAYNARD, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, TOWSON, MARYLAND Mr. Maynard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Franken. My name is Gary Maynard. I serve as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. I have been involved in corrections for 39 years, working in five States and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Early in my career, I served as a prison psychologist. I rose through the ranks of management, serving as warden on two occasions, and eventually serving as the head of corrections in four States. I am the Immediate Past President of the American Correctional Association, an active member of the Association of State Correctional Administrators, and have worked closely with the American Jail Association over the past several years. All three of these national recognized organizations have provided data for the testimony I will offer today. Correctional administrators across the country have an obligation to provide effective programming for all offenders. Over the past three decades, we have witnessed an increase in the number of inmates possessing mental health issues entering the criminal justice system. Many researchers point to the depopulation of the State-operated mental hospitals in the late 1960's as one of the contributing factors to this trend. In 1959, there were over 550,000 mentally ill patients residing in State-operated mental hospitals. This number is now less than 80,000. During this same period of time, we have seen the number of incarcerated individuals quadruple to close to 2.5 million annually. Corrections certainly does not dispute the concept of offering comprehensive community-based services to individuals with mental health needs. However, insufficient resources have led to an increase in the incarceration of these individuals, and the resources available to us are lacking. The American Jail Association estimates that there were over 650,000 bookings of persons with some type of mental illness in 2008. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that more than half of the prison population has mental health issues. This population is at higher risk of incarceration due to a number of factors, including substance abuse. Law enforcement and correctional staff lack the training and education necessary to work with this population effectively. A study of Washington State prisons found that while only 18 percent of their inmate population was classified as mentally ill, they accounted for 41 percent of the reported infractions. Lack of training and sufficient staff to work with the population leads many correctional agencies to use disciplinary segregation as a tool to manage the population. This type of isolation sometimes proves destructive to certain members of this population. Please understand that corrections professionals do not believe in abandoning this population and do not feel that segregation by itself is a useful practice. Though we believe strongly that the mental health system should hold the primary responsibility for this group, we understand that many of these become sentenced to our prisons and jails. We must make solid investments in working with this population. Leadership has come from our national associations who have developed policies and standards to guide correctional administrators in the treatment of mentally ill offenders. State and local corrections have adopted a number of methods to identify and provide appropriate treatment for this population. In Maryland, the Montgomery County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has served as a model in the use of a comprehensive screening and referral process that is overseen by public mental health professionals. In our department in Maryland at the State level, we have improved our methods to identify these inmates at intake. We have developed a system to share information with the Baltimore Mental Health System in order to protect our staff and prescribe appropriate treatment. Corrections agencies across the country have invested in services to carry the inmates from incarceration to reentry back into the community. In Cook County, Illinois, the Adult Probation Department's Mental Health Unit employs officers with a mental health background to assist clients in accessing disability benefits upon release. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections works with community advocates to assist inmates in filing applications for Medicaid benefits before release. In Pennsylvania and Minnesota, reentry staff work with their psychologists and community providers to ensure that there is support available to returning offenders. In Maryland, our department partnered with the Mental Health Association to pass legislation at the State level to provide 30 days' worth of medication for offenders being released in the community. Local health departments across the country have joined in release planning, staking a claim in the future of these individuals. Each of us in the corrections profession does what we can given our respective resources, but we know that more is needed. Work has been done at the Federal level to assist us. In 2004, the Mentally Ill Offender Act was signed into law to provide agencies with the necessary resources to care for this population. However, due to limited funding, many corrections applications have been denied. In the period of 2006-08, only 11 percent of all applicants received funding. Corrections agencies need funding and technical assistance to continue building collaborative relationships to properly care for this population. The corrections field needs the Federal Government to define a clear role on behalf of this population. Specifically, we would benefit from supplemental funding for medication in prison, enhanced protocols, and proper training for our staff. We know these things exist, but working to provide a coordinated approach would greatly strengthen to serve this population. We would encourage the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to take the lead in working with corrections and public health agencies. We understand the complexity of this population, but we know that funding, coordination, and Federal support will be a great step forward. I know corrections leaders across the country are ready to continue to identify effective practices to support the needs of this population. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Maynard appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Maynard. The next witness is Michael Randle, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, operates 28 adult correctional centers, responsible for 46,000 adult inmates; previously served for 19 years in the Ohio Corrections System, most recently as Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections; a bachelor's degree from The Ohio State University and a master's degree from Ashland University. Mr. Randle, thanks for coming from Illinois to be with us today, and please proceed. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. RANDLE, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS Mr. Randle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak with you. Thank you, Senator Franken. Prior to my appointment in Illinois, I served as Assistant Director in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. In conjunction with the Ohio Department of Mental Health, I had oversight responsibility over a Community Linkage Program, which was charged with providing continuity of mental health care to mentally ill persons entering and leaving the prison system. The issue of mental illness in our prisons and jails is both complex and pervasive. In fact, a recent study conducted by the Bureau of Justice reported that up to 16 percent of the prison and jail populations are afflicted with mental illness, which is approximately four times higher for men and eight times higher for women than in the population at large. This disproportionate representation is primarily a result of policies that have shifted the emphasis from community-based treatment of the at-risk populations and priorities that have diverted resources away from treatment providers. In recognition of these problems, Congress enacted the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act in 2004. The act required collaboration between justice and mental health program providers to help States and counties to design and implement collaborative programs within their communities regarding mental health treatment. While the Act authorized $50 million to be granted toward these efforts, only $21.5 million has been appropriated between fiscal years 2006 and 2009. Due in part to this lack of funding, coupled with record deficits, States and counties have found themselves in dire circumstances with respect to treatment and management of the mentally ill. In 1995, the State of Ohio created the Community Linkage Program, which was designed to facilitate mental health care for persons entering or leaving the prison system by assisting in policy development, providing information sharing, monitoring outcomes, and providing assistance. In essence, this program was created as a result of recognized and demonstrated need and out of legal necessity. At its core, the program is designed to bridge the gap between State and local criminal justice and mental health services; it provides a consistent, sustained link between these entities from the moment offenders enter the criminal justice system to the time that they are released into the community. Like other States, Illinois prisons and jails are facing crisis levels with regards to mentally ill offenders. Recent figures indicate that between 20 to 25 percent of the inmate population in Illinois are carried on the mental health caseload, with 12 percent requiring psychotropic medication. This large caseload, along with fiscal challenges and inadequate community resources, has created difficulties with managing these offenders while incarcerated, as well as difficulty in providing reentry services. The Illinois Department of Corrections has historically issued a 14-day supply of psychotropic drugs to offenders upon release. Unfortunately, it usually takes a few months for such offenders to acquire access to the mental health services that they need; this gap from access to services can and does lead to decompensation and often recidivism. In light of this, the department has begun to initiate a linkage program similar to that of the Ohio Linkage Program. As director, I recognize that the challenges of providing proper care for mentally ill offenders while protecting them from themselves and the community will be ongoing. At both the national and State levels, we have made significant progress in recognizing and dealing with this issue. However, more needs to be done. With the passage of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, we have a vehicle to help provide these resources. I respectfully ask that you fuel this vehicle and fully fund the program. Thank you very much for allowing me to come before the Committee, and I will be obliged to answer any questions that the Committee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Randle appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Director Randle. Kathryn Zenoff is a Second District Appellate Court Judge in Illinois. She served as presiding judge of the Criminal Division and Mental Health Court in the 17th Circuit. She is the national co-chair of the Judges Leadership Initiative for Criminal Justice and Mental Health Issues. Justice Zenoff has a bachelor's degree from Stanford University and a law degree from Columbia University Law School. Thanks for coming from Illinois. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF KATHRYN E. ZENOFF, PRESIDING JUSTICE, ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT, SECOND DISTRICT, ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS Justice Zenoff. Chairman Durbin, Senator Franken, I am grateful for opportunity to share my perspective. I hope that my experience is valuable to you. It may be somewhat unique as I can speak from the vantage points of having organized a 70- person community task force in Rockford, Illinois, to address the revolving-door syndrome of persons with mental illness being incarcerated in our jail in disproportionate numbers; of having presided for 2-plus years over a mental health court, which Senator Durbin visited a couple of years ago; of having collaborated with the Illinois Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health on a statewide mapping project to identify gaps in services for criminal justice-involved persons with mental illnesses; and of having the privilege of serving as the national co-chair of JLI. Mental health courts--that is, specialized dockets based on therapeutic justice or approaches that address an offender's behavior and root causes--are relatively new. Long-term data on the effects of these courts on recidivism and public safety are not yet available, but the short-term reports reinforce their value and I think warrant continued, even increased, funding. Participants seem to be positively motivated to take responsibility for their own recovery. Jail and hospital days are greatly reduced, resulting in cost savings. I recall one 50-year-old man released from jail to our therapeutic intervention program, or TIP court, who was diagnosed as schizophrenic. He believed himself to be a retired army general and barked orders at me when he came into court. In a regular courtroom, he would have been held in contempt. But in this therapeutic setting, our team of legal and mental health professionals worked with him until he steadily took his prescribed medication, participated in therapy, and was able to assume more responsibility for his own life and recovery. He is now living semi-independently and is no longer delusional. He has not had any contact with the criminal justice system in 2\1/2\ years. This story can be repeated numbers of times in the now over 175 mental health courts in the country. Yet recent statistics still show disproportionate numbers of persons with mental illnesses in our jails. Stigma is still attached to mental illness. We all know more needs to be done. How do we move forward? What should be our focus for study and action? We must continue to look for new ways to reverse the criminalization of mental illness and to improve public safety. Aware of that challenge, we have just established the Mental Health Court Association in Illinois to improve our coordination of statewide efforts. This is the first organization of its kind in the country. We know that our jails and prisons have become the so- called ``safety nets'' of our unfunded and underfunded system of community mental health care in this country. Now is the time to focus our attention and our resources on continuity of care, establishing key linkages, and in funding the gaps in services. A few of my recommendations are: First, in expanding funding for mental health courts and diversion programs, which do provide the structure for integrated treatment outside of our jails and prisons, we should focus on wrapping our returning veterans into these programs as their mental illnesses and substance abuse problems put them at risk for entering the revolving door in and out of our jails. Second, we must improve the screening and mental health services in our jails. We know how expensive it is to house prisoners, especially those who are mentally ill. Using screening tools at booking may more readily identify those inmates. Needed medication and treatment can then be provided, resulting in earlier releases. What often happens, as we have heard today, is that inmates with mental illnesses act out due to their symptomatology and threaten guards and other inmates. Any good time they may have accumulated is taken away. Additional training for staff and separate pods may help. Sharing information between departments of human services and corrections, such as the Illinois Data Link Project, can help identify those prisoners who have a mental illness. Best practices, SAMHSA's best practices--that is, a blend of the best research and clinical experience in the area-- suggest an integrated approach to treatment of persons with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. That includes not only medication and therapy but supported employment, supported housing, and trauma-informed services. To my knowledge, Medicaid does not cover these costs or covers them in a very fragmented way. A fresh look at this situation would be in order, along with allowing reimbursement for the case management linkage piece of release planning and diversion from our jails. Also, funding for Centers of Excellence on a statewide or even a regional basis would be important. These centers could facilitate necessary research and examination of best practices, help coordinate efforts at cross-disciplinary training for professionals, including police officers working in the field. They could involve consumers and NAMI. My other recommendations have been submitted to the Subcommittee in my full statement and include funding for technical staff assistance to JLI, our judges organization that has made significant contributions all across the country. Resources may be more limited than we would like, but we must persevere. In closing, I would like to share with you some sage advice by retired Illinois Chief Justice Mary Ann McMorrow to a group of new judges. These words describe very well why I as a judge feel compelled to be involved and committed. Justice McMorrow offered this: ``As judges, we look beyond the legal formalities of a particular dispute, to remain aware of the human dilemma that underlies almost every case brought before us, and always within the bounds of our authority try to resolve the problems presented to us in a manner that satisfies both the legal and the human aspects of the case. Let us not forget that the law is first and foremost about human beings and their problems.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Franken, for the honor and the privilege of being here today and assisting in this important work. [The prepared statement of Justice Zenoff appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Justice Zenoff, thank you for being with us. Our last witness, David Fuller, is an outreach and housing coordinator for the Manhattan Outreach Consortium. Previously, he worked as the Director of the Supportive Housing Program for Community Access and a peer specialist for Bellevue Hospital's psychiatric inpatient service. Mr. Fuller is a consumer in recovery from psychiatric disability and substance abuse who spent about 20 years cycling in and out of jail. Mr. Fuller now works to improve access to services for people with mental illness. He is a member of the National Leadership Forum on Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice. Mr. Fuller, the topic of today's hearing has affected your life like it has no other witness. Thank you for being here today and having the courage to tell your story. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF DAVID L. FULLER, OUTREACH AND HOUSING COORDINATOR, MANHATTAN OUTREACH CONSORTIUM, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Mr. Fuller. Mr. Chairman, Senator Franken, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today, and other distinguished members of the Committee that are not here today. I submitted written testimony, but there are some things I would like to talk about that are not in the written testimony. In my trip down here, I was thinking about an occasion when I was in the Suffolk County Jail in the early 1990's, and I suffer with major depression, or I used to suffer with major depression. Today I manage it and live a very full life. But back then, things were not going so well, and I was homeless. I got arrested for petty larceny. I had stolen something to eat and some baby formula for my child at the time. I was arrested, put in Yaphank Jail, been up 3 or 4 days. I was also abusing substances at the time, wasn't very clean, depressed, preoccupied with my own death, most of the time. I viewed it as not having enough courage to actually take it out at that time. When I got to Yaphank Jail, all through this time no one asked me did I have a mental illness or a substance abuse problem. I saw no opportunity to reach out for help to a medical professional. While I was in the holding cell going through the intake process, an officer yelled out something at me, and I was hearing voices, too. Isolation back then used to create psychotic episodes for me, especially when I was sent to the box. And I think he had told a group of us to get up, stand up from the bench, and I didn't stand up fast enough. And one of them punched me in the head, threw me to the ground. I was handcuffed behind my back, and then one of the officers saw fit to jump off the bench into my rib cage and broke two of my ribs. I was put in the box after this and left there. In my mind, not to be too dramatic, but I felt I was left there to die. I had no visitors. The medical personnel were not allowed to see me. I could hear them talking at the door. The officers would not let them in. I later found out when my family was looking for me, I was told, they were told I was not in the jail. What saved me was I had a warrant for petty larceny in New York City at the time. The officers came to get me because my name was in the system. I come to find out later those New York City police officers had a hard time getting me out of Yaphank Jail. When I was finally produced, they basically looked at me and asked the Suffolk County officers, ``What is this? What happened to him? '' And I really do not remember what they said. All I know is they laid me down in the back seat of their car, took me to the next county, Nassau County, and I stayed in Nassau County Medical Center for another 10 days. The first 3 days, the doctors were going back and forth of whether they would have to put a tube in my chest because my lung was collapsing at the time. Luckily, that did not happen. The sad thing is this was not a unique experience in my time in jail. I spent 6 to 8 years cumulatively in city jails in New York City. The sad thing is that there are a lot of my peers that are not able to testify before you because they are no longer with us. They either committed suicide in jail or after they got discharged out of jail. It is difficult to talk about this topic without thinking about the other more complicated, overlapping issues of racism, social and economic disability, cultural incompetence when it comes to getting services within the jail system. And I think that is like a sarcastic statement when I say ``getting services within the jail system,'' because you really do not. There is no HIPAA inside a jail. There is no privacy in your care. I put in my written testimony, I remember the first time that I got the courage up, you know, to tell people about what was going on with me, my suicidal thoughts, my complete engulfment in hopelessness, that I would put in a pen with 30 other guys, you know, officers would yell out, ``Fuller, are you here to see the psychiatrist or the medical doctor? '' If I wanted to see the psychiatrist, I would have to acknowledge in front of 30 or 40 people that I did not know that that is what I was doing. When I met with the psychiatrist, it was in a little cubicle, you know, like in an office pool or something, no solid walls, no door, expected to talk about the most personal aspects of my life. I could hear other so-called medical professionals talking about previous patients and their personal information, and it scared me. I said, ``Well, when I leave, are they going to be talking about my information the same way they are talking about others? '' So I would kindly shut my mouth and not really discuss the issues that were going on with me. A few times I took medication in jail. It is a very embarrassing situation. In Rikers Island, when you go to medication, you are standing on a line with--I do not know--50 to 100 other inmates, other inmates going on the other side of the hall. You are taking your medication right there in front of everybody at a window. Everybody knows what you get. There are other illicit activities that go on in the medication line, you know, the selling of illicit drugs, selling of medication, things like that. I really, you know, have to reiterate my experiences are not the worst experiences. I have been in the box three or four times. I became psychotic in the box twice. My diagnosis does not carry psychosis with it. I have not been psychotic since I have been in jail. But the isolation, combined with the depression, did create a couple of episodes for me. I did attempt suicide in jail one time. An inmate found me and untied my neck. He did not tell the officers because just like I knew, to tell them what happened would just exacerbate the problem. I would have been put on suicide watch, which was basically the box, and isolated and probably would have felt worse, if possible, than I already did. I do not know him name today, but I always thank him for that. What helped me was the last time I was in jail I was asked by someone did I consider treatment, and I told the person directly that if I couldn't go to some place that would address my psychiatric disability and my substance abuse, it was really a waste of time. I had graduated three long-term drug treatment programs at this time, countless rehabs and detoxes. I really can't remember how many-20, 30, 40. It is painful. Every failed treatment episode is very painful for a person, and at this point I just could not endure another failed treatment episode. I knew what I needed. The services just were not out there for me. This person actually said, well, we have something called a MICA program--and a MICA program stands for Mentally Ill Chemically Addicted residential program--would I be interested in that. I said yes. I sat in jail for another 2 months on a misdemeanor waiting for the service. But the good thing is when I got out, got engaged, I was able to get around people like me with similar experiences, got support, saw a doctor, got medication, got stable, decided I wanted a job, decided I wanted a family, became a father, a husband, a citizen, a man again, regained my role in the community. For many years, the State, city, and Federal Government have been wasting their money incarcerating and paying for inadequate services for me. Through my lifetime I easily have spent a million dollars of the Government's money that did absolutely no good for me. I think it is a travesty, you know. Today, you know, I pay taxes instead of taking out of the tax coffers. I try to help people with similar experiences that I do. But I think what is needed is, like I heard some of the other panelists talking about it, it is really about supportive housing, employment, adequate community services. Yes, there are too many people in jail. There are too many people in jail, and I do agree that there are a small number of people that thank God there are jails. You know, I met these people. Some people really need to be in jail. But 80 percent do not. Seventy to 80 percent of the people in prisons today are either there for drug offenses or committed the offenses while under the influence of drug and alcohol. A majority of these people have underlying childhood trauma, physical and/or sexual abuse. I think one of the things that allowed me to recover to the extent I did is that my trauma was not experienced in the home. I had great parents, loving parents. I have three siblings. All of them have post-graduate degrees, live very successful lives. I did not respond to the violence and the racism in the 1960's as well as my siblings did. You know, I watched people beaten and killed when I was 6 and 7 years old because of the color of their skin. I went to all-white schools through elementary and high school because my parents wanted a better public education for me. I did not have the courage to tell them what names I was being called there, that, you know, I was attacked pretty regularly there and suffered injuries behind those attacks. I wanted to be a man. I wanted to stand up for myself, even as a boy. I can recall suffering with depression ever since 10 or 11 years old because I was very hopeless in things ever changing for me. I distinctly remember when they killed Martin Luther King that I lost hope in the country, I lost hope in having a different future. And I am not saying everybody responded to things the same way. This is the way that I responded. I think, you know, I am a sensitive person by nature. I would just like to say that we really need to focus on alternative to incarceration programs. I went through one. It changed my life. I went to MICA treatment, got around people that understood me, got on medication, went to therapy. The reason I was able to go there was because I went through a drug court that allowed me to finish my time in there, and if successfully completed, dismissed the case against me. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Fuller, I have given you---- Mr. Fuller. I am sorry. Chairman Durbin. I have given you more time than others-- intentionally. Mr. Fuller. Right. No problem. Chairman Durbin. You deserved it because you have a perspective on this none of us have. But I want to have a chance to ask some questions and ask you to react and others to react to your life experience. Mr. Fuller. Sure. Chairman Durbin. But I really appreciate your coming. I seriously do, and I want to make sure we get everything done here before we have to wrap it up today. But thank you for coming, and sit tight, we have got some questions for you. Okay? Mr. Fuller. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fuller appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. The first question I am going to have is one that I have asked some of the experts, and you are the only one at the table in either panel that can speak from firsthand experience. It is a real basic, open-ended question. What is the impact of isolation on the mentally ill? Mr. Fuller. It is cruel and unusual punishment. I was shocked to hear some of the replies that the other panelists gave. Almost invariably people with mental illness in isolation get worse. I do not know many who stay stable. Chairman Durbin. Should there be a limit? I mean, you understand why they do it in some cases. Mr. Fuller. I do. Chairman Durbin. Should there be a limit? Mr. Fuller. I do not think it is a simple answer. I think they should never be there in the first place. Isolation does serve a purpose, a safety purpose for inmates and officers. I think the problem is that these people are being punished because they are sick, and they are in a jail that they should not have ever been in in the first place. Mental illness is highly underreported within inmates because inmates understand the consequences by going public. So I guess my question is that--I do not have an answer to limits, but I will say it is cruel and unusual punishment, and I have not been psychotic since I got out of isolation. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Maynard, you were on the 2006 commission I talked about earlier that said that there should be a limit to this. Mr. Maynard. Yes, sir. Chairman Durbin. I would like to ask you to react to the same basic question. What is the impact of isolation on the mentally ill? Mr. Maynard. I think it causes deterioration with mentally ill inmates. I think it makes their conditions worse. I agree with a lot of the testimony that we in the prison system, as a need to deal with violence, inmates who would be dangerous to staff or to other inmates or to themselves and who misbehave, we put them in isolation. I think as a rule we typically keep people longer than they should be on isolation. In some cases, they need to stay a long time just for everybody's protection. In other cases, they need to move more quickly through disciplinary and administrative segregation. But, again, I do not think there is any question about the impact of isolation on the mentally ill. I think that is something that most corrections directors would say is something that we need some solutions in order to move away from that. Chairman Durbin. For the record, Mr. Randle is new to his position with a new Governor in our State, and he has been assigned a pretty tough assignment to take a look at the Tamms Correctional Facility, our supermax State facility. According to the Belleville News-Democrat--and you can correct this report if it is wrong--54 inmates at Tamms have been held in solitary confinement for more than 10 years, including 39 who have been there since 1998 when the prison opened. George Wellborn, the first warden at Tamms, said, ``I think they should have been given an opportunity to go back to a reduced security facility. It was not intended to be a place where guys would be there for 8 to 10 years.'' Mr. Randle, should there be a limit on how long an inmate can be held in isolation in Tamms? Mr. Randle. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I think there should be a limit in terms of how long a person could be held in isolation. I would also add the number of 54 inmates being held at Tamms since--I believe it was 1998, that is an accurate number that comports with my review. Chairman Durbin. Accurate or inaccurate? Mr. Randle. It is accurate. One of the first things that Government Quinn asked me to do is do a comprehensive review of the conditions at the Tamms Correctional Facility. Even prior to my formal start as director, I began to gather information. In fact, my second day on the job, I spent about 9 hours at Tamms, walked through every cell block, talked to over 50 inmates at Tamms, spent an entire day looking at the operations in Tamms. From that, and other research over the past 2-1/2 months of my tenure as director, I have recently submitted--in fact, just last week--a report to the Governor with a second of ten recommendations for reforms at the Tamms supermax facility. One of those recommendations involves the release or the beginnings of a step-down process for approximately 48 inmates who have been in Tamms between the 1998 and 2004 period. So, indeed, I did have a concern about the extended stay of offenders, among several other operational things that I discovered at Tamms. Chairman Durbin. How many of those inmates at Tamms or any other part of the Illinois correctional system who have been held in isolation for extended periods of time--let us say beyond 1 month, for example--would you classify as mentally ill, for example, using as an objective criterion, whether they are receiving psychotropic medication? Mr. Randle. On any given day, there are about 4,500 offenders in the Illinois correctional system that have a diagnosis of a mental illness. Of that population, about 12 percent of the--I am sorry, about 12 percent of the entire population, 45,000 are on psychotropic medications. There is and continues to be times where those inmates wind up in isolation for various periods of time. I think the key for me as a director is to ensure a couple things: Number one, that we have clinicians making decisions about whether or not an offender is appropriate for isolation. I think one of the things that sometimes gets overlooked is that there are various degrees of mental illness. Chairman Durbin. Well, how many staff psychiatrists do you have in the Illinois Department of Corrections? Mr. Randle. There are no State-employed psychiatrists. We have a contract provider that provides psychiatric services to our entire system. Those ratios, there is at least one full- time psychiatrist assigned to every facility. Some facilities have more than one full-time psychiatrist assigned to them. It is based on full-time equivalents rather than a specific number, Chairman. Chairman Durbin. I am just looking here to make sure I find out how many--you have 28 facilities. Mr. Randle. Yes, sir. Chairman Durbin. So you are saying there are 28 full-time psychiatrists under contract to the Department of Corrections? Mr. Randle. There are 28 full-time equivalent psychiatrists, yes. Chairman Durbin. That is what I meant, under contract. Mr. Randle. Yes. Chairman Durbin. The same thing. I hope that is the same thing. And so that roughly means that you have--let me try to do some math here quickly -1,500 patients for every psychiatrist? Mr. Randle. That potentially could sound about right. Chairman Durbin. It sounds like a heavy caseload. Mr. Randle. Yes, it does. Chairman Durbin. And so let me ask you this: What is your opinion of the impact of isolation on the mentally ill? Mr. Randle. I think it can cause decompensation in offenders. Chairman Durbin. You might define that term for us, please. Mr. Randle. It can cause your mental health condition to worsen. In some cases, it could lead to suicidal tendencies. It could lead to exacerbate your mental health condition, or make it worse. I think, though, the key, at least from my perspective, again, is to ensure that access to clinicians is available whether you are in segregation or whether you are in general population, and that does not always just mean a psychiatrist. I want to emphasize that. There are psychologists, there are licenses clinical counselors. There is an array of mental health clinicians that all provide services to the population. Chairman Durbin. My last question in this round, and if you do not mind, I will come back and perhaps want to ask Judge Zenoff and others some questions. The Belleville News-Democrat found that of the over 250 inmates transferred to the Tamms Correctional Facility in the last 10 years since 1999--of the over 250 inmates--only 6 of those went through mental health screening and were placed in the prison's special treatment unit for mentally ill prisoners. That figure seems extremely low based on the 12 percent figure that you mentioned earlier for those who are receiving psychotropic medication. Mr. Randle. Mr. Chairman, specifically at the Tamms Correctional Facility, historically there was a file review that would take place as part of the placement process. One of the recommendations, as part of my plan to the Governor, requires a full mental health evaluation to take place for every placement into the Tamms Correctional Facility. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Randle, you talked about a disinvestment in community mental health services. Do you think that if we fully funded these services that we can better manage the mentally ill, incarcerate fewer of them, and end up actually saving money for the taxpayers while also making our communities safer? Mr. Randle. Senator Franken, that is absolutely correct. I do believe that one of the key things, especially with our population in the State of Illinois that have a mental illness, is as part of their release process we give them about a 14-day supply of psychotropic medication. Unfortunately, we do not do as good of a job linking them with a community mental health provider, so in a lot of cases, these offenders, while we may do a referral, sometimes it often takes weeks or months before they are actually in to see a psychiatrist to have that medication continued. Unfortunately, by then they have run out of medication. They have decompensated and, unfortunately, they wind up in jail and ultimately back in prison. Traditionally, these are low-level, non-violent offenders who often are accused of theft crimes and those sorts of things, but often wind up back in the prison system. So I think part of this charge is working collaboratively with community mental health providers and also the State Department of Mental Health in Illinois to recognize that in a lot of cases we are dealing with the same individual at different points in their life, and work together to share information and provide that sustainable linkage when they leave. Senator Franken. Thank you. Judge Zenoff, you talked about mental health courts and they are relatively new, and that the research is new, but that you have seen real trends. And I am wondering if those correspond to results you have seen and research you have seen about drug courts. Justice Zenoff. I am not as familiar really with the research on drug courts. I think drug courts have been found certainly to have made a significant difference. I think one area that the researchers are looking at with respect to mental health courts is whether or not to change some of the treatment to mirror in some ways what the treatment is in drug courts-- that is, to address some of the criminogenic factors that have to do with recidivism and why people commit crimes. And I think they would like to see if that will, in addition to treatment for the mental illness, help reduce recidivism and allow people to stay out of the criminal justice system. Senator Franken. Thank you. Mr. Fuller, thank you for co ming in today and for your testimony. I am curious about this MICA program, because you said that you had been in and out of rehab, right? Mr. Fuller. Yes. Senator Franken. What was it about the MICA program that worked for you? Was it that you were just ready at that point? Or was there something about the design of the program that made it work for you? Mr. Fuller. Well, I think being ready is part of it, but a MICA program is a place where you can address substance abuse and traditional mental illness in the same physical setting basically at the same time. You are connected with peers that have similar experiences as you do because you can even find discrimination with ``straight substance abusers'' or ``straight mental illness,'' believe it or not. That is the unique part of it, that you are able to address the whole person. It is usually a treatment failure when you try to separate mental illness from substance abuse. Substance abuse is an Axis I diagnosis, and if you do not think it is a thought disorder, you have never known an addict before. They should be treated the same. They should be in the same category. But at this present time, I guess for funding reasons, they are separated and have historically been separated. Senator Franken. Excuse me, but what worked for you is that the MICA program combined the discipline of mental illness treatment and drug or chemical dependency treatment? Mr. Fuller. Yes. Senator Franken. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Maynard, you talked about collaboration and collaborating relationships. Could you talk about the potential opportunities for collaboration between the corrections system and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration? Mr. Maynard. Yes, sir. I think, Senator Franken, that if somebody works in corrections, runs a corrections agency and they are not accustomed to collaboration, they better get used to it, because we are big agencies in the States, but we have-- we have custody resources, but we have little other resources. So I think it is incumbent on us to reach out to substance abuse agencies, like in Maryland, the judge mentioned NAMI, another group that in all the States I have worked in have been an active partner in working with the mentally ill. I think SAMHSA is an organization that has the technical credibility. I think the more we can get involved with them, the more funding that might be available, the more leadership they could provide, the more protocol, I think it would be good for our organization, for our system. I think they have the expertise. We did not come working in prisons to be mental health experts. We run the security part of it. We looked at education at the Federal level to provide educational services. They do an excellent job reaching into the prisons. I think that is a model for SAMHSA. They could do the same thing. We provide---- Senator Franken. SAMHSA, once again, addresses both substance abuse and mental health at the same time. Mr. Maynard. Yes, sir. And I did want to, if I might, Mr. Chairman, in talking about the segregation, the Vera Institute of Justice is doing some pilot projects with reducing segregation, and they did a pilot in the State of Mississippi and their segregation population was pretty extensive. I think they reduced it probably by one-fourth of what it was. In Maryland, we have made a request to Vera to come look at our population, because I think we have a large number on segregation. I think it just happens, if you do not go back and study it and try to figure out ways to reduce it, that it will grow. So I think that is something, if we can do some models, that might go across the country. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Maynard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Randle, if I understand the calculation, we estimate that each prisoner at Tamms costs us $64,000 a year. Is that a rough calculation based on the budget for Tamms? Mr. Randle. Mr. Chairman, that is a number that is used to describe the cost. Chairman Durbin. Do you think that is close? Does it sound close? Mr. Randle. I think you have to look at the entire operation and the impact that just Tamms has on our entire prison system. So, yes, if you look at Tamms in an isolated fashion, also if you look at--there are two parts to Tamms. There is a 200-bed minimum security camp that provides that support. I think that $64,000 figure is just looking at inside the C-MAX portion of that facility. Chairman Durbin. I see. Mr. Fuller, you can see where you can get to $1 million in a hurry with that kind of expenditure. Judge Zenoff, to go back to an earlier question here, I do not remember the course in law school on psychology and psychiatry---- Justice Zenoff. Nor I. Chairman Durbin [continuing]. And psychiatric disorders and your clients, civil and criminal. But it appears that the intake in this process of justice starts with the law enforcement officer, the attorneys, the judges, social workers, and ultimately the correctional officers. And I guess the issue, I think, Mr. Maynard just referred to was that most correctional officers focus on security. And yet if they are going to play the role that we expect them to, we need them to be more observant of other things that relate to a prisoner's well-being that may have a direct impact on security. So when you get into this drug court atmosphere--I do not know if your background is in psychology, psychiatry, or just-- -- Justice Zenoff. Not at all. Chairman Durbin. Do you feel that our system of justice is really equipped to deal with what we have decided as America will be our future when it comes to mental health? I can recall, just as an aside, that in 1970, then- Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon took me, a young lawyer fresh out of law school, on an onsite visit at the Lincoln State School, 30 miles from Springfield--it was a day I will never forget as long as I live. It was in the bitter winter, and we went up to a building which housed 150 profoundly retarded adult males. It was bedlam, pure bedlam. There were two supervisors there for 150 people. There were people jumping out of the windows in their hospital gowns, people running outside in the bitter cold. It is an image I cannot forget, and now I think we have decided to replace that horrible image with one which is in many respects just as horrible: A corrections system which has decided that it will become the largest provider of mental health ``services,'' if you can put that in quotes, in the Nation. Is this the right thing for our system of justice? Is this a fair outcome? Justice Zenoff. You know, Senator Durbin, I agree with you in terms of lawyers and judges not being educated in this field. But I do think, given the problem we have before us and the job of lawyers and judges to solve human problems, we are becoming educated. We are learning to use the resources that we have to be able to address the problems. I think Mr. Fuller's story and really all of the testimony we heard here today is the reason and are the reasons that judges are out front, that judges have become leaders in communities around the country to address this very human problem. I think that the job of judges in this particular area is actually to become educated, as I myself did. I did not have any background in psychology or psychiatry. I had a mother who had Alzheimer's, and at that point I learned a little bit about that illness at that time. But actually, to digress 1 minute, it was because of a community mental health leader in Rockford, Illinois, who walked over to the courthouse and said, ``Open your eyes. See what is happening in the Winnebago County Jail. See who is cycling in and out of your jail. See why you have an overabundance of persons with mental illnesses in jail; why your jail is overpopulated,'' that we started to become educated. And I think the reason that judges have learned about this problem is, as I said, it is a very human problem. I think what we do need to do is need to use our abilities to convene stakeholders in our communities and in the country to address the problem and to bring others together to actually keep persons with mental illness, with serious mental illnesses, out of the criminal justice system so that in the end they do not end up in our prisons. We would then have at least fewer people with mental illnesses in prison. Thank you. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Fuller, I am going to ask the last question of you. In the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, on the west side around the United Center where the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan had all their glory, we have more ex-offenders than any other section of our State. They are primarily African American, and they come to this community, this area for a variety of reasons. One of them is that many of the churches there have decided to give a helping hand to ex-offenders; and, I might add, they have a Congressman, Danny Davis, who has made this his passion and his dedicated purpose for serving in Congress to deal with this whole question of ex-offenders. And I have met with him and with some of the people at the churches there, and I know what you are doing today, and I want to give you the last word on this. What do we need to do to make sure those ex-offenders do not commit another crime, do not end up back in jail? I know the list is very long, but give me the top two or three things that your work will make a significant difference. Mr. Fuller. Okay. First, I will say in my written testimony I included a document, ``A Call to Action.'' Chairman Durbin. I read it. Mr. Fuller. Please do. Supportive housing, supportive employment. Chairman Durbin. Now, do you get help when it comes from our Government in terms of that housing? I mean, there have been questions as to whether Medicaid and Medicare are there for ex-offenders, this question about housing. Mr. Fuller. Well, the third one is mutual support, peer support, and Medicaid does not pay for those services--peer-run centers, peer support. Sixty-four thousand for jail, 23,000 for supportive housing and a beautiful apartment with onsite case managers providing services. You just do the numbers, and it makes a whole lot more sense to provide services in the community than to send people to jail. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. I am going to place into the record a long list of written statements, and since there is nobody to object, it is going in. [Laughter.] [The information referred to appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. And if there are no further comments, I want to thank this panel in particular. This Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee was created as a kind of a special and risky undertaking, and they said do not step on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and be careful that you do not intrude on others' jurisdiction. As best we can tell, there have not been too many hearings on this subject before Congress in the last few years, and I think that, as I mentioned earlier, Senator Webb's idea of a reform commission, which I have cosponsored, is a step in the right direction. But this really is a human rights issue in our country, that we have reached this point where this is where the mentally ill find themselves more often than not, that you would have three jails as the facilities where more mental health services are offered than any place in America. We have got to open our eyes. If we were ashamed as a Nation over 100 years ago about the status of the mentally ill, what can we say today? What about our generation? What are we doing? What is the honest and effective way to give these people a chance and to keep our society safe? I urge everyone to reflect on the question that Mr. Fuller asked in his testimony: Why do they have to be punished so severely for so long for being sick? Mr. Fuller's experience highlights the failures to provide many persons with mental illness who enter our criminal justice system with a meaningful opportunity to get well. These failures are costly in terms of lost human potential, lost years, the expense of incarceration, and the threat to public safety. But Mr. Fuller's experience also shows that it is possible to design and implement programs that allow people to turn their lives around, and thank goodness you are here as proof of that today. I appreciate that so much. Making available the opportunities that you had to finally turn your life around has to be our goal as a Nation. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.395 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.396 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.397 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.398 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.399 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.400 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.401 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.402 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.403 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.404 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.405 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.406 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.407 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6207.408