<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:20377.wais]
CONFRONTING RECIDIVISM: PRISONER RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS AND A JUST FUTURE
FOR ALL AMERICANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-377 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ------
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania (Independent)
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 2, 2005................................. 1
Statement of:
Davis, Hon. Danny, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 32
Nolan, Pat, Prison Fellowship; Joseph Williams, Transition of
Prisoners; Chaplain Robert Toney, Angola Prison, Louisiana;
Frederick A. Davie, senior vice president of public policy,
Public/Private Ventures; and George A.H. Williams,
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities................ 88
Davie, Frederick A....................................... 112
Nolan, Pat............................................... 88
Williams, George A.H..................................... 117
Williams, Joseph......................................... 100
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 20
Wilkinson, Reginald A., Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and
Corrections Agency; Lorna Hogan, mother advocate, the
Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Washington, DC; Felix
Mata, Baltimore City's Ex-Offender Initiative, Mayor's
Office of Employment Development; Paul A. Quander, District
of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;
and Jim McNeil and David Russell, mentor and protege in the
Innerchange Freedom Initiate............................... 37
Hogan, Lorna............................................. 53
McNeil, Jim.............................................. 72
Mata, Felix.............................................. 58
Quander, Paul A., Jr..................................... 63
Russell, David........................................... 75
Wilkinson, Reginald A.................................... 37
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 8
Davie, Frederick A., senior vice president of public policy,
Public/Private Ventures, prepared statement of............. 114
Hogan, Lorna, mother advocate, the Rebecca Project for Human
Rights, Washington, DC, prepared statement of.............. 55
Mata, Felix, Baltimore City's Ex-Offender Initiative, Mayor's
Office of Employment Development, prepared statement of.... 60
McNeil, Jim, mentor and protege in the Innerchange Freedom
Initiate, prepared statement of............................ 73
Nolan, Pat, Prison Fellowship, prepared statement of......... 93
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 26
Quander, Paul A., District of Columbia Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of......... 66
Russell, David, mentor and protege in the Innerchange Freedom
Initiate, prepared statement of............................ 77
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
Toney, Chaplain Robert, Angola Prison, Louisiana, information
concerning Louisiana State Penitentiary.................... 111
Wilkinson, Reginald A., Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and
Corrections Agency, prepared statement of.................. 41
Williams, George A.H., Treatment Alternatives for Safe
Communities, prepared statement of......................... 119
Williams, Joseph, Transition of Prisoners, prepared statement
of......................................................... 103
CONFRONTING RECIDIVISM: PRISONER RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS AND A JUST FUTURE
FOR ALL AMERICANS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder
presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Shays, Harris, Porter,
Westmoreland, McHenry, Dent, Cummings, Davis of Illinois, Clay,
Watson, Ruppersberger and Norton.
Staff present: Marc Wheat, staff director and counsel;
Brandon Lerch, professional staff member; Nick Coleman,
professional staff member and counsel; Pat DeQuattro and Dave
Thomasson, congressional fellows; Malia Holst, clerk; Earley
Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant
clerk; and Tony Haywood, minority counsel.
Mr. Souder. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice will now
come to order. Actually, this is a full committee hearing.
Although this topic has been set up under the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, it is a full committee hearing; and I
appreciate Chairman Davis as well as Ranking Member Henry
Waxman allowing us to move ahead, even though our committee
hasn't been fully organized yet this year. So while I presume I
will continue to be chairman of this subcommittee, it is not
yet official.
So good afternoon. I thank all of you for being here.
Particular thanks to the many witnesses who have traveled great
distances to be here.
The impetus for this hearing is owed to the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Rob Portman, and the gentleman from Illinois, a long-
time member of this subcommittee, an active member, Danny
Davis. Their leadership has brought the issue of prisoner
reentry to the fore of domestic policy.
Many thanks as well to the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah
Cummings. With so much activity swirling around us at the
beginning of the 109th Congress, many schedules are quite full.
But Mr. Cummings' commitment to this issue has helped to bring
us together today, and for that I am grateful.
Crime statistics have been debated for decades, but not
until recently have these debates included the crisis of
recidivism. Thanks certainly is owed to the two Members of
Congress testifying today for raising the profile of this
issue, but much of the credit is owed to those who have been in
the recidivism trenches for years.
After more than a decade of tough crime policies, according
to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 2 million Americans
are held in Federal, State or county jails. Over 4 million
Americans are on parole or probation.
It should be surprising to no one that well over half a
million inmates are being released every year. Logical
questions arise: Where do these people go? What job skills do
they have? Who hires them? Are they rehabilitated? The answers
to these questions are not very encouraging.
Many of those paroled and released inmates will return to
prison within 3 years. According to the Government
Accountability Office, in 1998, the percentage of
reincarcerations among all admissions at State and Federal
prisons was 35 percent, up from 17 percent in 1980. Broader
surveys show recidivism rates of nearly two-thirds of all
inmates.
Representing a revolving door in the American justice
system, this recidivism rate indicates a massive failure of the
penal system to return law-abiding citizens to society. The
first failure is clearly inmates themselves, many of whom enjoy
few advantages and bear many burdens upon their release.
Second, however, the system also fails the American public.
Indeed, many released inmates will commit violent crimes on
innocent victims.
The government institutions and faith-based and community
organizations addressing recidivism are addressing one
question: How do we reform a system whose participants often
return to the same old behavior which the system was originally
designed to deter?
As more States and more community and faith-based groups
address recidivism, the need for a national strategy becomes
clearer. Moreover, the recent Booker Supreme Court decision on
sentencing guidelines may result in the release of many more
prisoners than otherwise expected.
The U.S. Department of Justice Young Offender Initiative,
for instance, provides grants for State and community
cooperation in parolee supervision and accountability. At the
State level, Texas is considering placing its inmate release
programs with the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, which already
runs numerous programs in cooperation with the State.
The witnesses assembled today have all brought down the
rate of recidivism by making better men and women of released
prisoners. All of them are heroes in our eyes.
Today we will learn more about national strategies from two
expert Members of Congress and a host of State, local and
private sector leaders. We will have policymakers on the same
panel with a current parolee and his mentor.
On another panel, we will have reentry program graduates
and reentry program leaders. We will also hear from a prison
chaplain
who leads this vital reentry work from the moment inmates began
their sentences.
Thank you again for being here today. I look forward to
hearing more about recidivism from our experts with us today.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.002
Mr. Souder. Now I would like to yield to Criminal Justice
Subcommittee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I
thank you for holding today's hearing on prisoner reentry, one
of the most profound challenges facing America today.
On any given day in America, as many as 2 million men and
women are incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and local
jails, more than 80 percent of whom are involved in substance
use. In 1996 alone, taxpayers spent over $30 billion to
incarcerate these individuals, who are the parents of 2.4
million children. A fourfold increase in incarceration rates
over the past 25 years, largely a result of efforts to protect
communities from drugs and violent crime, has spawned problems
and challenges of its own.
Each year, 630,000 individuals leave State and Federal
prisons and return home. All too often, they are ill-equipped
to fully participate and constructively as members of families
and communities to whom they return. The reentry or
reintegration into civil society of these individuals
represents an enormous challenge that requires the involvement
of multiple layers and sectors of society.
Inmates often leave prison with little preparation for life
on the outside or assistance in their reintegration, increasing
the likelihood they will be returned to prison for a new crime
or parole violation. This cycle of removal and return of large
numbers of young adults, mostly men, is especially pronounced
in communities that are already experiencing enormous social
and economic disadvantages.
The importance of prisoner reentry as a societal concern in
my State of Maryland cannot be overstated. In 2001, 9,448
people were released from Maryland prisons. That is nearly
twice the number released two decades ago. During 2001, 97
percent of all men and women released from Maryland prisons
returned to communities in Maryland. Of those prisoners who
returned to Maryland, well over 59 percent returned to one
jurisdiction in the State, Baltimore City. The flow of
prisoners was further concentrated in a small number of
communities within Baltimore City, many of them in my district.
A recent study showed that 30 percent of the 4,411 released
prisoners who returned to Baltimore City returned to just 6 of
55 communities. These high-concentration community areas in
Baltimore, which already face great social and economic
disadvantages, may experience reentry costs to a magnified
degree. In addition, while these numbers represent individuals
released from Maryland prisons after serving sentences of 1
year or more, it is important to note that approximately 5,000
additional inmates are released to Baltimore City each year
after having served jail time, typically less than 1 year.
Release presents offenders with a difficult transition from
the structured environment of the prison or jail. Many
prisoners after release have no place to live, no job, family
or social support. They often lack the knowledge and skills to
access available resources for adjustment to life on the
outside, all factors that significantly increase the risk of
relapse and recidivism. In addition, legal measures designed to
create disincentives for drug abuse and crime can complicate
efforts to reestablish a foothold in society.
In recent years, the high rate of recidivism has generated
broad-based interest in finding effective ways to address
prisoner reentry issues across many sectors of society. For its
part, Congress has authorized nearly $100 million for reentry
initiatives involving various agencies.
Our first two witnesses today are colleagues who have
worked on a bipartisan basis to produce legislation that will
renew and improve Federal reentry programs. I would like to
commend both Representative Rob Portman and Representative
Danny Davis for their attention and commitment to this very
serious issue of reentry and for your work on your legislation
that has garnered support from many quarters. It is encouraging
to see this problem, which affects my district so severely,
being recognized so broadly and addressed on a bipartisan
basis.
I supported H.R. 4676 as a cosponsor in the last Congress,
and I intend to do the same when it is reintroduced in this
Congress. I would be remiss not to say, however, that there are
serious impediments to successful reentry that are not
addressed in this bill. Some of them are of Congress' own
creation. The Federal student aid ban, which denies education
aid to applicants who have been convicted of a drug crime, is
but one of these. We have discussed it at length in this
committee. I hope that, as this bill moves forward, we can work
together to make it as comprehensive as we can. A comprehensive
approach to reentry will provide ex-offenders their best chance
to become full and constructive participants in our society,
while making our communities safer.
To help us understand the challenges of reentry and the
strategies that are being employed to address them, we have a
diverse panel of witnesses who include representatives of
government agencies, service providers, ex-offenders, mentors
and advocates. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
their participation in today's hearing and extend a particular
welcome to Mr. Felix Mata, who manages Baltimore City's Ex-
Offender Task Force on behalf of our mayor, Mayor O'Malley.
I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses,
Mr. Chairman, and, with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.009
Mr. Souder. Let me first, before I see if further Members
have opening statements, since it is our first hearing of the
year and we have, as I mentioned earlier, not organized and
won't be until next week officially, introduce a number of our
Republican Members, three of whom are new to Congress.
Congresswoman Harris has been a member of this committee
for some time. Welcome. Congressman McHenry from North
Carolina. Congressman Westmoreland from Georgia. Congressman
Porter, who has been a member of the committee before, from
Nevada. Congressman Dent from Pennsylvania. Welcome to our
committee.
On the Democratic side, these are our stalwarts on the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. In addition to Ranking Member
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland, our delegate and
honorable representative from the District of Columbia, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, who has been very active in this committee, and
Mr. Clay from Missouri. We thank you all for your leadership.
Congresswoman Harris, do you have any opening comments?
Ms. Harris. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and thank
you for scheduling this hearing on such an important issue.
Before I begin, I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and
the members of the committee on your vision and aggressiveness
concerning this issue, and I also want to applaud Congressman
Rob Portman for his outstanding leadership as well. Together,
we will produce safer communities and neighborhoods for our
families.
I had the opportunity to testify before Judiciary as a
witness with Congressman Portman in the last congressional
session, because criminals who have used society's second
chances to commit further crimes have an undeniable effect on
our communities, and tragically their actions often affect our
most vulnerable citizens, our children.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the more
than 272,000 persons released from prisons in 15 States in
1994, an estimated 67.5 percent were rearrested for felonies or
serious misdemeanors 3 years later. Almost one-half were
reconvicted. These numbers point to a deeply troubling trend in
our criminal justice system; and, more disturbing, a Department
of Justice study indicates that sex offenders are four times
more likely to be rearrested for sex crimes than non-sex
offenders.
Last year, in my congressional district, we experienced an
unspeakable tragedy that was allegedly caused by a repeat
offender. A young girl, an 11-year-old, Carlie Brucia, was
kidnapped, brutally raped and murdered. Following the arrest of
Carlie's accused murder, we learned that this man should have
been behind bars when the crime took place. He possessed a long
history of criminal activity, including conviction for
aggravated battery. He had been arrested 13 times and placed on
probation three times since 1993. In fact, he was in police
custody on an unrelated cause when he was linked to this crime.
In response to this tragedy, I introduced legislation
entitled Carlie's Law during the 108th Congress. This bill
would have expanded the grounds for mandatory revocation of
probation and supervised release, encompass violent felony
crimes or an offense intended to facilitate unlawful sexual
contact with a minor.
While we must ensure that dangerous criminals remain where
they belong, in prison, I also strongly believe we must offer
more opportunities for rehabilitation. Prisoners must have the
opportunity to do more than sit idly. That is why I support
giving prisoners the opportunity to learn a skill and achieve
their GED.
The bill that Congressman Portman introduced in the 108th
Congress proposed a comprehensive grant program consisting of
educational, vocational and rehabilitation opportunities for
individuals that are reentering society. This legislation
continues to create a meaningful effort to reduce criminal
recidivism.
We might also attack this crisis by learning from
outstanding successes in State and local programs. Sheriff
Charlie Wells in Manatee County, FL, has operated a successful
boot camp for juvenile repeat offenders since 1993. This
program includes a tough physical and academic regime that
focuses on rehabilitation, not abuse, and for over 10 years the
Camp has reformed 55 percent of its repeat juvenile offenders.
So as we focus on examples like this and programs across
the Nation, I think we can make tremendous progress in battling
criminal recidivism and focusing heavily on these issues
relating to security in the 109th Congress.
Let us remember that nothing is more fundamental to this
Nation than the ability of our children to walk and run and
play in our communities without fear. For this reason, I look
forward to this committee on the issue of criminal recidivism
and prisoner reentry programs to reduce the likelihood that
convicted offenders become repeat offenders.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing on a very important issue. Congressman Cummings, thank
you for your dedication.
I also want to acknowledge Congressmen Portman and Davis.
It is great to see a Republican and Democrat sitting together
at the table, working together to help resolve this issue.
Obviously we need to do something, because the current
system that we have right now just is not working. I was a
former prosecutor, and I understand the burden that recidivism
creates on local law enforcement and on all of our local
governments. In fact, all levels of government must increase
the priority of combating recidivism and create new and
innovative ways to help prisoners or people who have been
arrested before if we are to be successful.
As Baltimore County executive in the State of Maryland, I
would say, when I had that position, Elijah Cummings was one of
my Congressmen. We developed two programs that I would like to
just briefly talk about, because I think it is so important
when we have a hearing we talk about solutions, and I think
that is what you are here today to talk about.
The first program was the Police Athletic League. We made a
policy decision to put a Police Athletic League in every
precinct in our county. Our county has less than 800,000
people. As a result of having the police and our recreation and
parks working together in a non-combative way with police
officers, we were able, after the program got started, to get
5,000 juveniles off the street.
In order to be able to get the kids or children that we
really needed to get off the street, we developed a program
with karate, because then the tough guys would want to come and
learn karate. Once you get them in that program, you hook them,
you develop leadership skills, you work with them on all sorts
of problems that we needed to deal with.
It is important that we deal with an issue before it gets
to the point where someone is going to commit a murder, armed
robbery or whatever.
There was another program that was extremely successful
called the Juvenile Offenders in Need of Supervision. What we
found is there is such a burden on all of the people involved
in the criminal justice system, parole officers who might have
500 clients and all they can do is just check in, have them
check in and say what are you doing, there is no
rehabilitation, helping to get jobs, dealing with issues
involving drugs.
This Offenders in Need of Supervision Program was a program
where the police officers, as soon as an arrest would be made,
would jump on the case, would bring a teen in, if that
individual happened to be in school or work or whatever, bring
them in, bring the parents in, and work with them so that they
could get to them before they would get to the next level. That
program was extremely successful. Monitoring that program, that
made a tremendous difference in the rate of recidivism.
I bring up two programs like that, because whatever we need
to do, we have to have the right program, we need to hold the
people in the program accountable for the funding, and then we
need to move forward.
The other issue, if we are going to deal with the issue of
priorities, we have to fund priorities, and we cannot discount
the fact that drugs is an important issue. I think the
statistics say now between 75 and 80 percent of all violent
crime is drug-related. If we don't deal with the issue of drugs
and rehabilitation, we are going to continue to have this
problem.
Unfortunately, I have another hearing I have to go to, so I
look forward to hearing about this hearing. I really think this
is very important, and I again appreciate Congressmen Portman
and Davis being here, and I look forward to your involvement in
this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. I was afraid your phone call was from the
Intelligence Committee, but they would probably use a laser to
zap you.
Delegate Norton.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank you, Chairman Souder, because
you have begun this session with an issue of prime importance
to our country, a rising issue in the Congress, an issue that
has arisen and thundered into the States who have primary
jurisdiction over criminal matters.
I want to thank Mr. Cummings for his leadership. It has
been constant on these issues, because he lives so closely with
these issues and has thought innovatively about them.
The partnership between Mr. Portman and Mr. Davis is going
to be important for anything we are able to do on this issue in
the Congress, so I appreciate that, by working together, you
have started us in just the right way.
Mr. Chairman, this is the other side of the law and order
equation. As you know from elementary algebra, both sides of
the equation have to be in equipoise, and you keep working on
it until you get it right from the time you are in the 6th
grade. Well, we forgot about this side altogether. What this
side is about is that these men and women are going to come
here and live right alongside you and me in the communities
that have seen them incarcerated.
Everyone understands why the emphasis on law and order had
to take place and has to continue to take place, particularly
as this phase began in the early 1990's with a huge outbreak in
crime. Everybody, particularly those who live in the inner
city, were afraid of it. The first thing you do is try to get
those who are responsible for that. That will always be the
case.
In many ways, there was a pronounced overreaction,
especially in the Congress. The first results were irrational
mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines that are so extreme
that the Supreme Court of the United States has now thrown them
out. That happened after some of the most conservative justices
on the court began to speak openly about how the criminal
justice system was producing rank injustice, and here they were
talking about mandatory minimums in the Federal system.
Mr. Chairman, a felony conviction, deserved or not--and I
am the first to concede that most of these convictions are
deserved. It is too bad we haven't learned how to work as we
must before people get such convictions. But a felony
conviction is close to a death sentence in the job market, and
everything else falls in the wake of the member of the family
or the community that has that death sentence, those who would
be dependent upon him and, ultimately, the community in which
he lives.
I say ``he,'' because while there is a growing number of
women incarcerated, something about the socialization of women
makes women less inclined to be in prison. So the rates have
grown largely with respect to men. And if I may just put on the
record who those men are, almost half of the men in prison are
African American men. The effects of their incarceration and
over-incarceration has been absolutely devastating to the
African American family.
Minimally, society that imposes employment death sentences
on people has an obligation, if they don't care about the men
and the women, to protect the rest of us. Even as you protected
us by putting them behind jail, for goodness sake, protect us
when they get out of jail. Because if indeed you get out of
jail with nothing and nobody to help you, the last thing you
knew how to do was the occupation that got you back in jail,
and I can assure you that men who don't have any other way to
live will find their way to that occupation if society does
what we do.
This is what we do. We say, you have a drug conviction and
you are a kid and you got it when you were 17 years old? No
Pell grants. Sorry. We know you were young. We know things may
be better. A life sentence on getting you even to a community
college with a Pell Grant. Out of jail, done your time. You
say, for goodness' sake, I never want to see the inside of that
again.
And if you have been in Federal prison, you may have even
learned a vocation. And what do you find? A whole set of
occupations from which you are barred. Some of those
occupations you trained for in prison.
You want to be a barber? Many States say, not here.
I am not sure what that has to do with most convictions.
Got out and said, I got to find some way to improve my
citizenship, and the first thing you find is you are a felon
and in one-third of the States of the United States we are
going to say to you, you will not be able to vote now, not in 5
years, not forever. And you wonder why there is great
bitterness and anger with people who served their time and just
want some way out of all of this and find society offering them
other kinds of sentences.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Norton, if you can kind of----
Ms. Norton. I feel this very deeply. You called a hearing.
I will go more rapidly.
Because the greatest impact and the reason I feel so
passionately, Mr. Chairman, is because of an issue I think we
share with you and with others across the aisle, and that is
the impact on the African American family.
I live in the communities Mr. Cummings does, where 70
percent of the children are being raised by African American
women alone, and these children go into the streets, no jobs,
only drugs and crime available as opportunities for employment,
and they go the way of their fathers. The over-incarceration of
a whole generation of black men has condemned millions of
American children, especially children of color, to poverty.
The States, Mr. Chairman, are rebelling, largely because
they are the ones that had to house most of these inmates, and
the high costs were such that they began to look for other ways
out. They have given us leadership on special diversion for
first-time drug offenders with drug courts, and we need to
follow suit for what the States are doing in this regard.
You have Mr. Paul Quander here from the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, which has jurisdiction in the
District of Columbia, because our inmates, our felon inmates,
are in Federal prisons, in the Federal prison system, and what
it does for inmates afterwards is the best in the United
States. I am very pleased you invited him here.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you have started something by the way
you have started off the 109th Congress. Thank you for your
indulgence.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
We are joined by Congressman Shays, the vice chairman of
the full committee, a subcommittee chair here. Thank you for
coming.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I know we need to get started. I want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Cummings for having this
hearing.
It would be nice to deal with what is really a scandalous
issue on a bipartisan basis, and I feel the passion that Ms.
Norton feels and I understand it, and it is deserved.
I just want to thank Danny Davis and Rob Portman for also
acting on a very bipartisan basis for something that truly is
scandalous. It is a solvable problem, and it is something we
should be able to do with a lot of heart, emotion and common
sense.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. I have a brief statement.
I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Cummings for
holding this hearing on an issue of critical importance, and
that is reducing the recidivism rate. I am hopeful that our
distinguished panelists will offer constructive and thoughtful
proposals on how the Federal Government can be an effective
partner in helping ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into
communities.
According to recent reports, over 630,000 people will
complete their sentences and be released into society this
year. It has been estimated that approximately two out of every
three people released from prison in the United States are
rearrested within 3 years of their release.
Given the record number of ex-inmates leaving prisons and
returning to communities, it is imperative that Congress focus
on ways to reintegrate ex-offenders and close the revolving
door of the American prison system. The billions spent on
corrections expenditures and the costs imposed on society make
it blatantly clear that successful reentry would ensure both
safer communities and a more efficient use of tax dollars.
I am hopeful that this hearing will provide Congress an
opportunity to reshape our policies and address issues such as
the lifetime ban from receiving welfare, food stamps, college
tuition assistance and public housing assistance. These
policies make it very difficult for prisoners to reintegrate
into society and make it more likely that they will return to a
life of crime.
We can genuinely give prisoners a second chance at
successful reintegration into society by rescinding
counterproductive laws. It is my hope that we can broaden the
discussion and address proposals that will lead to a more
effective system.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Before proceeding, I would like to take care of a couple of
procedural matters. I would ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions for the hearing record, that any answers to
written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in
the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents
and others materials referred to by the Members and the
witnesses may be included in the hearing record and that all
Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Our first panel is composed of our colleagues,
Representative Rob Portman and Representative Danny Davis. By
tradition, we do not administer an oath to Members of Congress,
because we just took one a month ago. As an oversight
committee, we generally swear in all of our witnesses. We are
exempt. We presume your other oath binds you here.
Mr. Portman, thank you for your long-time leadership on
this issue. Thank you for being patient this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Chairman Souder.
We are honored to be here to testify before you today on
prisoner reentry and also reducing recidivism, and we commend
you for raising the profile of this issue, for providing a
forum to discuss this issue.
I also have to comment that we also appreciate the
expertise of your subcommittee and full committee. Just looking
around the room, we have worked closely with Ranking Member
Cummings over the years on drug prevention, community
coalitions, some of the issues related, as Mr. Ruppersberger
pointed out, to this issue; and I appreciated hearing from him
again this afternoon, as well as other members of your
committee.
I will say, the legislation we are about to discuss does
not have the answers to all of our problems. It does not
include every provision that everyone on this panel or
certainly in this room would want, and you will hear probably
about that during the testimony from the experts who follow us.
But it is an important step in the right direction.
With the specific reference, Mr. Cummings, to the student
aid ban, I think you will be pleased with the way we address
it. We want to work with you on that. We plan on reintroducing
the bill, as you know, next week. We worked closely with you
and Mr. Souder last year on that, and I think we can address at
least most of your concern with regard to how the student aid
ban would operate, that the infraction would occur not prior to
but during the time Federal aid was being provided. So we can
talk about that. But I think, although this bill will not
address every concern raised today, that one I hope you will
find it to be satisfactory.
We appreciated working with Mrs. Harris last year on
Carlie's Law. We included some of those provisions. We are
working with her again this year.
Ms. Norton raised some great points that I think you will
find we address in this legislation with regard to recidivism
and families, and that is an important part of this
legislation.
Mr. Shays has been an expert on these issues and a leader,
and we appreciate the fact the vice chair of the full committee
is here, because that will help your committee deal with these
issues.
Mr. Clay talked about the partnership. That is really what
this bill is about, the Federal Government being a better
partner. It is not the Federal Government stepping in to our
local communities and solving our problems, but it is providing
that leverage, we hope, at the State and local level and with
community organizations, even faith-based groups, to be able to
better handle this problem.
Prisoner reentry is about reducing and preventing crime,
but it is also, as Ms. Norton said, about restoring lives. Our
view is we need to be both tough on crime but also smart on
crime. We think this legislation has that balance. We need to
be tough in keeping dangerous felons from returning and
committing new crimes, but we also need to be smart in making
sure that those who are coming home are given the most basic
chance to start a new life and turn away from crime.
You all talked about the numbers here this afternoon, and I
won't get into great detail on that, but just now over 2
million people being incarcerated, 97 percent of those people
are going to get out of prison, and that is whether or not the
Supreme Court changes what the sentencing guidelines are or
not. People are going to get out of prison.
As we talked about today, about 650,000 are being released
from incarceration into our communities every year. Think about
that, 650,000 people coming into our communities. So these
reentry into community--these reentry numbers mean that we are
all affected by it.
Its success or failure has incredible implications for
public safety, for the welfare of children, for family
reunification, for our growing fiscal issues, and for community
health. By doing a better job on offender reentry, we can
prevent crimes, we can help strengthen our communities, and we
can save taxpayer money.
Unfortunately, according to recent data from the Department
of Justice, as you have heard today, about two-thirds of those
released from prison will be rearrested within 3 years. First
and foremost, this offender reentry, then, is about preventing
crime and keeping our communities safe, to try to reduce the
high rates of recidivism. That will translate into, of course,
thousands of new victims each year if we don't do something
about it.
The social and economic costs of a 67 percent recidivism
rate is astounding. As Mr. Shays said, it is a crisis. It is
one we need to get our hands around.
Last session, we worked closely with colleagues on this
subcommittee to help our States and communities better address
the problem through this Second Chance Act. It is a bipartisan
approach. It helps to better coordinate at the Federal level
our Federal agencies and policies on prisoner reentry. It also
increases the support to States and to community organizations
to address this growing population of ex-offenders who are
returning to our communities.
The main focuses in the bill are four-fold: One, jobs; two,
housing; three, substance abuse and mental health treatment;
and, four, support for families.
I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Chairman,
for working with us closely last year and putting together some
good legislation and being an original cosponsor.
I also want to thank Representative Danny Davis, my partner
in this, who did a terrific job in helping to put together a
good, sensible, balanced bill, and also helped us to be able to
be sure that this bill had balance in terms of its bipartisan
cosponsorship.
Elijah Cummings was one of our cosponsors last year, which
was really critical in his role in our caucus and in the Black
Caucus to move this forward. I want to thank him again on this
subcommittee for his work.
Also, Representative Platts on this subcommittee,
Representative Cannon, Representative Owens and others who
cosponsored the Second Chance Act last year.
We plan to reintroduce the bill next week, and Danny Davis
may talk a little more about that. But we hope we can again
have a strong cosponsorship from this subcommittee and
committee working toward getting this marked up this year and
getting it to the President's desk for signature.
The primary goal, as I said, is public safety in this bill.
It makes funds available to conduct studies to determine who is
returning to jail or prison, why they are returning, which
present the greatest risk to community safety. This is data we
don't have, and we need it.
The bill also helps in development of procedures to assist
relevant authorities in determining when release is
appropriate, when it is not appropriate, and the use of data to
inform this released decision.
Again, that data is not there now. This would include the
use of proven assessment tools to assess the risk factors for
returning inmates and the use of technology to advance post-
release supervision.
The reason I first got involved in this, as Mr. Cummings
knows, is my involvement with treatment and prevention on
substance abuse. The more I learned about this issue, as
Representative Ruppersberger talked about, the more I saw this
direct connection between substance abuse and recidivism.
The numbers are just absolutely staggering. Fifty-seven
percent of Federal, 70 percent of State inmates use drugs
regularly before prison. The Bureau of Justice Statistics now
tells us that they estimate the involvement with drugs or
alcohol around the time of the offense is as high as 84
percent. We are just not going to get at this issue, as was
talked about earlier, without getting at this issue of
substance abuse. The continuum of care that links former
prisoners who receive treatment in prison to support in the
community, without that continuum of care, recidivism is going
to occur. We need to focus on that issue in particular. That is
one of our four priorities in this legislation.
There is lots of evidence that in-prison drug treatment
programs are effective, both pre-release and post-release. The
key, of course, is that this in-prison treatment is far more
effective when it is coupled with treatment in the community
after the prisoner is released. When there is not this
continuum of care, access to AA meetings immediately
afterwards, Al-Anon and so on, there is a higher failure rate.
That is why re-entry programs are so important.
Research shows, without post-release aftercare, results are
almost the same as those inmates who didn't receive treatment
in prison at all, which is interesting. So the need for post-
release continuity applies to every domain, including drug
treatment, employment services, mental health counseling and
parent training. It is critical to make sure the right
connections are made during the re-entry to the community.
There are several successful programs that serve many
different populations, from adult men and women to juveniles.
For example, NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse study
of a California Amity program, the California Amity program has
shown a 75 percent return to custody rate after 3 years for
offenders with no treatment. That return rate dropped to 27
percent with in-prison treatment and aftercare.
Return rates to prison of those offenders receiving
treatment in prison but not receiving aftercare or continuing
care were similar to those offenders receiving no treatment at
all in prison.
There are lots of other studies I was going to talk about.
I am not going to mention them here. I will have them in my
written remarks. I hope, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee will
have those as part of their report.
The bottom line is, State after State, in Delaware, 71
percent for new arrests, down to 31 percent. In Ohio, you will
hear from Reggie Wilkinson who is going to testify in the next
panel, the kind of success we have had there with our Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. We have some
great stories there where, by working with the communities in
aftercare, we have been able to see huge success in reducing
recidivism.
The key element in these promising programs is this
aftercare. Whether it be drug treatment, again, mental health,
job training, parenting skills, a combination of these support
services, successful completion and reduced recidivism depend
largely on the availability of these services during the
transition home, during the post-release period.
Of course, the burden on our citizens is also a major issue
here. Taxpayers are footing the bill for all of this. The
average cost to house a Federal inmate is over $25,000 a year,
so there is a big issue here with regard to the taxpayer, and
with our deficit, this is an issue that this Congress needs to
be focused on. The average cost at the State level is a little
less, about $21,170 annually. Of course, these don't include
the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take into
account the cost to victims.
A modest expenditure to help transition offenders back into
the community can save taxpayers thousands of dollars because
of all these costs.
There is a study in Washington State, a 2001 study, showing
the best re-entry programs can be expected to deliver 20 to 30
percent reductions in recidivism and crime rates. If that is
true, we will save billions of dollars, if we can just receive
that kind of benefit from this program, a reduction of
recidivism of 20 to 30 percent. We think we can do even better,
but certainly we can help at the Federal level to make this
happen.
Beyond these fiscal issues, one of the most significant
costs of prisoner reentry is the impact on children, the
weakened ties among family members talked about earlier, the
destabilization of our communities. As you all know, the number
of kids with a parent in a Federal or State correctional
institute has increased over the last decade dramatically. It
has increased 100 percent, to about 2 million kids. When
expanded to children with parents under some form of correction
supervision, it is closer to 10 million children now, we are
told.
This is one of my biggest concerns. The children at risk
for drug abuse and delinquency need our attention, and they are
more at risk when they are in this situation. This bill does
provide resources to grandparents and other kinship care and
foster care providers who care for children during parental
incarceration. It also provides State and local government with
resources for family based drug treatment to treat parents and
their children as a complete family unit.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, as you know, during the
President's State of the Union address, he made a case for the
need to address our reentering population. He put the issue in
perspective by saying, ``America is the land of the second
chance, and when the gates of prison open the path ahead should
lead to a better life.'' That is why we call our bill the
Second Chance bill.
During this address, he announced his reentry initiative
with a strong focus on job training, transitional housing and
prisoner mentoring from faith-based groups. This is an
important aspect of our Federal response to reentry. Our bill
would authorize a small component of this plan and complements
the President's larger reentry initiative.
Together, we think this provides for a comprehensive plan
to drastically change how we serve those men and women and how
we keep our communities safer. By addressing the most basic
needs of ex-offenders coming home, we can reduce the chances of
reoffending, and we can improve their success as productive,
contributing citizens.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to testify
before you today, and we look forward to trying to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Portman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.015
Mr. Souder. Before going to Mr. Davis, the best estimate is
that at 2 o'clock, in about 6 minutes, we are going to start a
series of four votes. What we will do after Mr. Davis'
statement is try to get the questions in so we don't have to
hold you so we can get to the second panel. We will go a little
bit into the first vote.
It is great to have on our subcommittee one of our most
active Members and a co-leader of this effort, Congressman
Davis. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Let me thank you, first of all, for your leadership and
sensitivity that you have displayed not only to this issue but
also the sensitivity in rescheduling the hearing so that those
Democrats who would have found it difficult to be here and at
the retreat can now do both.
I also want to commend the ranking member, Mr. Cummings,
for his upstanding leadership not only on this issue but many
others, especially those related to crime and justice in our
country.
Of course, it is good to be here with Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton and Representative Shays, two of the most
outstanding Members, along with Representative Clay.
One of the highlights of being a Member of Congress has
actually been working with Representative Portman on this
legislation. I want to commend him for his outstanding
leadership, for his sensitivity, his understanding and
awareness of what I consider to be one of the most difficult
challenges and problems facing urban America especially.
All of us are aware of the fact that rehabilitating and
reintegrating prisoners back into society continues to loom as
one of the great needs of our day. The high rates of
incarceration over the last decade have made this need all the
more urgent as large numbers of individuals with felony
convictions are coming to the end of their sentences.
During his State of the Union address last year, President
Bush said, ``600,000 inmates will be released from prison back
into society this year, and these Americans are in need of
help.''
We can expect on an annual basis that this large number of
released inmates from prison will continue for the next 5 years
at least and beyond.
Also, let us be mindful that local jails are releasing 7
million people each year. Many of these individuals, as you
have already heard, are never able to find a decent place to
live, cannot access various entitlement programs such as public
housing, financial assistance for college and, in some
instances, food stamps and are oftentimes denied employment
because of their past criminal convictions.
Statistics show that nearly 52 percent of all of these
individuals will end up back in jail. As these men and women
transition from incarceration to freedom, what they need most
are comprehensive reentry solutions. With implementation of the
Second Chance Act, Community Safety Through Recidivism
Prevention, it calls for improving and establishing an
effective reentry system to assess and change those barriers
that prevent ex-offenders from making a successful transition
from prison to normal community life.
The Second Chance Act contains demonstration projects that
will focus on providing ex-offenders with education, job
training, substance abuse and after-care treatment and assist
ex-offenders with employment and securing housing upon release
from prison.
In addition, it will create a Federal interagency task
force to identify programs and resources on reentry and ways
for improving and changing the barriers that prevent ex-
offenders from living a normal, responsible and productive life
in society.
Also, the Second Chance Act will establish a resource
center for States, local governments, service providers,
corrections and community organizations to collect and
disseminate best practices and provide training and support
around reentry.
The Second Chance Act is a good first step that will
provide a directional approach as to what works in trying to
increase public safety, reduce the cost of crime and lower the
recidivism rate. Prevention, treatment and rehabilitation are
just as important as incarceration. These men, women and
children still have to live in our communities.
Increasing public safety is a primary concern of our
communities and neighborhoods throughout the country. Although
we know it is going to be difficult, it can be done. For
example, in the State of Illinois last year there were 57 job
titles that an ex-offender could not hold by statute. The
legislature has removed 18 of those, and now there are 38
occupational categories where you can't work without some form
of waiver.
For example, ex-offenders were not allowed to be a barber,
to cut hair, a nail technician, cosmetologist, cannot be a
custodian in a hospital or cut the grass around a medical
center or watch dishes at a nursing home.
Many of these ex-offenders were convicted of nonviolent
offenses, mainly drug offenses, so it is extremely difficult
for ex-offenders to find housing and get a job after they have
paid their debt to society. We must ensure that everyone has
the opportunity to be productive citizens in this country.
Everyone deserves a second chance. The bill before us now
by my colleague Rob Portman and I will start the process when
it becomes law to give ex-offenders hope to transition
themselves back into community life.
Finally, in my district I work a great deal with people in
the community. I have 31 task groups and work groups. And one
of those is an ex-offenders task force which represents a broad
group of members from national, local civil rights
organizations, ex-offenders themselves, law enforcement
officials, elected officials, community actions, faith-based
organizations, block clubs, businesses.
The task force convened several focus meetings to explore
the problems and make recommendations, and in every instance
one of the basic needs that ex-offenders indicated that they
had was the need to find a place to stay, the need to have a
house, the need to have a place that they could go to once they
are released from prison.
Therefore, as a result of that, we introduced H.R. 2166,
the Public Safety Ex-offender Self-sufficiency Act, which is
designed to provide structured living arrangements for ex-
offenders by building 100,000 units of SRO-type housing
throughout the country, using a system of tax credits we call
an ex-offender tax credit, where States would receive credits
on the basis of the number of ex-offenders living in the State.
Finally, I agree with Representative Portman. There is no
way that you can seriously have a reentry program that works
without substance abuse treatment. The correlation between drug
use and crime commission is so high until, in many instances,
they are almost one and the same. So if we are going to
seriously rehabilitate ex-offenders and help them find their
way back, then we must provide resources for treatment. We call
it treatment on demand, where when a person decides that they
are ready for drug treatment they ought to be able to receive
it.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify. We put that initiative on the ballot in Cook County in
the last election. A group of community residents, ex-offenders
themselves, and 1.2 million people in Cook County voted to say
yes we want to put some more money into substance abuse
treatment, because we know it is a good investment.
I thank you very much and appreciate being here.
Mr. Souder. Let me start with a basic question here. I know
this was heavily debated when you drafted the bill, and a forum
like this is both to identify the problem and say, look, we
have a problem in this country. This hearing will hopefully
help make us aware of it, but then also look at the particular
legislation and say how are you addressing this. First off, we
understand; but I am not sure everybody who may be here or
watching--and this is an authorizing bill, not an
appropriations bill, so the money isn't real money, it is
guideline money.
Now, even with it in that context, the bill is $112
million. We have multiple different subsections, and this leads
to two different types of things that we are going to have to
deal with as we look at legislation like this: Can you really
make a difference with $112 million, and how do you see that
leveraged. And, second, given the budget pressures that we
have, do you think we can get $112 million through an
authorization? It's a challenge from both ends, and I know it's
what you have been struggling with.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I don't know about giving him the
money that I do.
Mr. Portman. And you say that I am responsible for getting
the money.
You have put your finger on it, Mr. Chairman. We initially
actually chose $100 million, and then we just liked that
mentoring program so much we couldn't find a way to cut it
back, so we are figuring $112 million this year. The reason we
tried to keep it at that level was because of the physical
situation we find ourselves in this country. We are cognizant
of the fact that it is going to be tough to get an
authorization bill done at much over 100. It has to do with how
we work our process in Congress and the Suspension Calendar and
so on.
But having said that, we also, you know, have been very
careful to keep within that bill, within that $112 million,
which is substantial resources, some real leverage points for
State and local governments to be able to take what we are
giving them and leverage it into something more.
The provision of the data I talked about earlier, just
providing data so that communities know where to better target
their resources; no one else is doing that. The Federal
Government really needs to provide that.
Danny talked about some other issues that we think will
encourage innovation at the State and local level by having a
little Federal seed money. We will get them to do some things
that are innovative and we will help the whole country, because
by funding something that works, then we can spread that
information, disseminate it, and we do, you know, we do have a
clearing house of information to go out around the country, of
best practices, what does work and doesn't work, you know.
Mr. Ruppersberger talked about a couple of programs that he
thought worked very well in his county in Maryland. We ought to
have a hearing about that nationally and get that information
out. So it is not all the money that, again, some folks would
like to hear, and maybe you will hear that in your testimony.
On the other hand, given the budget realities, we think
that, you know, it's adequate to make a big difference, and we
think it's doable in the context of our budget deficit. The
return on investment is incredible, too, as we talked about
earlier. If we can get this done, it will result in a
tremendous return on the investment to the taxpayer.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And I think that's really the key.
It's a minor investment in reality because the returns are so
great. I mean, just imagine, if you can redirect 100 ex-
offenders, some of whom might have committed a crime that could
have cost millions of dollars. I mean, one hit on the head,
when a person is trying to get a $10 fix on a nickel bag, can
put a person in the hospital that will run up a hospital bill
for maybe a half million dollars that would have been saved,
because had the individual not been in their state of need,
then this crime perhaps never would have occurred. And so in
addition to the return relative to the savings, also the return
in terms of the prevention of a crime and the prevention of a
trauma and a tragic situation that develops for someone else.
So I think as tough as it is, I think the American people
would appreciate that kind of expenditure because it's a great
investment.
Mr. Portman. Can I give you a back-of-the-envelope
estimate--not to spend too much on this question--but let's
assume that of the 650,000 State and Federal prisoners getting
released every year, about half go back to prison within 3
years. We have talked about two-thirds. Well let's be
conservative. That translates into about 240,000 ex-offenders
going in at about $25,000 a year at Federal level. Let's assume
we can reduce recidivism by about 20 percent, being
conservative. We believe there are incentives in here to be
able to achieve that over time. That is $6 billion in State and
Federal prison costs.
And so we think although this is a substantial amount of
money, it is money that will be well invested and the return to
the taxpayer will far exceed.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I just have one question, since we are
limited on time.
One of the things that, you know, as you all were talking,
I was thinking--we had some witnesses come here on another
issue, and they were talking about effective integration of
services and not reinventing the wheel, not necessarily on this
issue, but I was just wondering, in negotiation a lot of times
we come in with programs, and there are already mechanisms.
For example, in the city of Baltimore, we have job-finding
agencies. And sometimes folks are so busy trying to reinvent
the wheel that they go past these various entities instead of
trying to, you know, bring them all together.
I guess the thing I am concerned about is what the chairman
was just referring to. If I could spend, you know--if I had an
unlimited budget, I would like to have one for this because it
is just that important. But I am just being realistic, looking
at our fiscal restraints in this time that we are in.
I was just wondering whether you all had--is the program
aimed also at pulling in agencies, State and Federal, even
private, that might already have these things that are
important, and them being a part of the process, as opposed to
trying to reinvent the wheel, you come up with a nice new
wheel, but the effectiveness, because you have to spread the
money so far, is not as great as it could be when those pieces
are already out there.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I think it speaks to the issue
of coordination, and I would agree with you that there are many
disparate programs that exist. But I think this helps to bring
those programs and centralize them so that everybody, and if
not everybody, many people now know what is, in fact,
available.
But I think the other thing that it does, as we continue
the discussion, the big problem is you can have a program to
find jobs, but if companies won't hire anybody, you just got a
program.
And my point is that it helps raise the level of awareness
to the extent that potential employers begin to understand that
it is also in their best interest to find ways to help put some
of these individuals to work.
Mr. Cummings. One of the things I had established long
before I came to Congress, a volunteer program to help inmates
coming out of our boot camp. We found that they were very--the
boot camp seemed to be very effective. But once they got out of
the boot camp, they went back, as I think Congresswoman Norton
was saying, to the same neighborhood, hanging with the same
people, doing the same thing. So they went back.
One of the things that we discovered, though, was that if
we could redirect, you know, the people that they hung with and
the things that they did, and could find them jobs--and we also
had some volunteers that come in and do counseling, basically
the kinds of things you are talking about--it could be very
effective. But it was very effective. I was so glad to hear you
talk about jobs, both of you, because without a job you go
right back to the same old things.
On that note, Congressman Davis, one of the things that
happened is that as people began--companies began to hire
people from our little program, they did--the guys went out and
ladies went out there and did just such a great job, they
started asking us for the folks that were in the program,
because, you know--so one thing led to another. So there is a
rainbow out here, we just have to make sure we can reach it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Especially if we train them well.
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Work ethic. All of the things that
go with it. It is kind of a two-way street. You have to meet
the individual halfway if the individual is ready to do that.
That's what we have to attempt to do.
Mr. Souder. We only have 5 minutes left in the vote. I am
going to dismiss the first panel.
On the second panel, will anybody who is back start with
the questioning. Thank you very much for your participation.
This committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Souder. The committee will come back to order.
As you heard me refer to in the first panel, as an
oversight committee it's our standard practice to ask all of
our witnesses to testify under oath. So will you each stand,
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. My understanding is that Dr.
Wilkinson, Reginald Wilkinson of Ohio has a 3:30 flight. And so
are you still going to try to make that? But we are going to
put you--we are going to put you----
Mr. Wilkinson. I would still rather go first.
Mr. Souder. If you need to go first I understand that. This
vote, four votes, took a long time.
Thank you very much. Dr. Wilkinson.
STATEMENTS OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON, Ed.D., OHIO REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTIONS AGENCY; LORNA HOGAN, MOTHER ADVOCATE, THE
REBECCA PROJECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC; FELIX MATA,
BALTIMORE CITY'S EX-OFFENDER INITIATIVE, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT; PAUL A. QUANDER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; AND JIM McNEIL
AND DAVID RUSSELL, MENTOR AND PROTEGE IN THE INNERCHANGE
FREEDOM INITIATE
STATEMENT OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON
Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you.
Chairman Souder, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to provide testimony at this oversight hearing.
I am now in my 32nd year as a correctional administrator and my
14th as director. A more detailed account of my experience is
included in my written testimony for your review.
I would like to provide the committee with a general
overview of the importance of prisoner reentry to the field of
corrections. The field of corrections has embarked upon a major
reexamination of offender reentry. In a short span of time, an
impressive array of efforts has been launched at all levels of
government to build more effective and innovative responses to
the notion of offender reentry.
For instance, the Urban Institute has hosted a series of
reentry round tables to assess the state of knowledge and to
publish specialized reports on this topic.
The National Institute of Corrections in 2000 hosted two
national public hearings on a variety of correctional topics.
One such topic was offender reentry. As a result, the
Transitions from Prison to Community Project was launched.
The U.S. Department of Justice and other Federal agencies
forged a unique partnership by providing a total $100 million
in grant funding to all 50 States to address reentry for
violent offenders. This project is known as the Serious and
Violent Reentry Offender Initiative.
As this committee is well aware, and as you have heard from
the previous witnesses, President George W. Bush in his 2004
State of the Union address urged Congress to support the
reentry transition of offenders.
The President's statement that America is the land of
second chances will resonate with corrections professionals for
many years to come. We are pleased that Cleveland, OH hosted
the first Annual National Conference on Offender Reentry,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Council of
State Governments Reentry Policy Council has recently released
a landmark report that offers a comprehensive set of bipartisan
consensus-based recommendations for policymakers and
practitioners interested in improving the likelihood that
adults released from prison or jail will avoid crime and become
productive and healthy members of families in our communities.
The report of the reentry Policy Council reflects a broad
consensus achieved among diverse experts in these areas. The
Second Chance Act is consistent with those recommendations
enunciated in the council report, in that it recognizes the
many complex issues affecting individuals released from prison
or jail which must be addressed to reduce recidivism.
I have wrestled with the issue of reentry for much of my
professional life, and I have seen how our approach to reentry
can and should be reinvented to improve the safety and
stability of America's families and communities.
I would like to recognize the unprecedented leadership of
Ohio Congressman Rob Portman and Congressman Danny Davis and
other cosponsors of this vital legislation. This bill, when
adopted, will exert a substantial impact on reducing offender
recidivism, save precious taxpayer dollars, and provide tools
to address the myriad substance abuse, mental health, and other
problems. It will further strengthen families in communities
across the country. It is a bill that speaks to sound public
policy and effective correctional practice.
It is notable that approximately 650,000 persons, as you
heard earlier today, will be released annually from State and
Federal prisons to communities across this Nation.
Criminologist Dr. Joan Petersilia explained that the
problem of offender reentry remains quite serious. Her dismal
conclusion is that from available evidence, persons being
released from prison today are doing less well than their
counterparts released a decade ago. The cost of criminal
behavior, recidivism, are enormous. A total of $60 billion was
spent on corrections alone in 2002.
In many States, innovative reentry initiatives are under
way. A key is that these strategies and initiatives must be
developed in collaboration with community groups, service
providers, citizens, victims, as well as formerly incarcerated
persons.
In July 2002 the Department of Corrections in Ohio
published a comprehensive report entitled ``The Ohio Plan for
Productive Offender reentry and Recidivism Reduction.'' The
Ohio plan views reentry as a philosophy, not as a program. The
plan calls for broad systems approach to managing offenders
returning to the community.
Under the Ohio plan, the process of planning for reentry
begins immediately upon incarceration, not a few weeks, not a
few months before release from imprisonment. This effort
represents a holistic and seamless approach to transition from
the prison community. Ensuring that offenders receive
appropriate programming during confinement and while they are
under supervision in the community is an important component of
the reentry transition.
During the last decade, the total numbers of parents in
prison has increased sharply, from an estimated 452,000 in 1991
to 721,000 in 1997, an increase of 60 percent. These prisoners
are parents to millions of children, again as you heard earlier
today.
Policymakers need to pay more attention to how the
experience of incarceration and reentry affect families and
children.
The Second Chance Act recognizes the importance of family
involvement and reentry. The Ohio Department of Corrections has
taken steps to engage offenders and family in reentry. In March
2004 the Department hosted a conference focusing on prisoners
as parents and the changes associated with reentry.
Following the conference, I formed the Family Council,
composed of appropriate stakeholders. The Second Chance Act
recognizes the vital role that community-based organization and
local community members should play in returning offenders home
crime-free and drug-free. Communities and local citizens bring
expertise, knowledge of resources, and often a willingness to
assist offenders in making a successful transition back home.
Three Ohio cities have recently been involved in a program
called REIL, Reentry of Individuals and Enriching Lives. These
events have all been well received. Mayor Jane Campbell in
Cleveland probably has the most aggressive local government
reentry initiative in our State.
Finally, under the Ohio plan we have taken steps to engage
the faith community through the formation of a faith-based
council. Offenders released from prison experience a range of
barriers affecting their prospects for a successful return
home. Numerous laws have been passed restricting the kinds of
jobs for which prisoners can be hired. Again, you have heard
some testimony about this earlier.
Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York, called these ``invisible
punishments'' by which he means the extension of formal
criminal sanctions through the diminution of rights and
responsibilities of citizenship. They may carry serious,
adverse, and even unfair consequences for the individuals
affected.
Some offenders have the opportunity to live for a short
time in a halfway house or similar transitional housing. The
problem for many leaving prison or temporary housing continues
because there are collateral sanctions that prevent access to
public housing in many jurisdictions. Access to permanent and
affordable housing for the released offender needs to be
addressed.
I am optimistic about the future of reentry. The commitment
in the field of corrections remains strong and is growing.
Several States, including Ohio, Michigan, and others have
formed the equivalent of an interagency reentry steering
committee to guide their work. In my State, I chair the newly
formed State Agency Offender Reentry Agency Coalition.
I also want to acknowledge the formation of the
International Association of Reentry. Its mission is to foster
victim and community safety through correctional reform and
prison population management, cost containment, professional
development, and the successful reintegration of offenders. The
association is hosting its Inaugural Summit in Columbus, OH in
March 2005.
There is a pressing need for information to be shared and
disseminated regarding where reentry best practices may be
found. I strongly support the Second Chance Act's provision
calling for a national offender reentry resource center. The
Second Chance Act provides a sensible balance that recognizes
reentry is about public safety. At the same time, it is about
returning offenders home as taxpaying and productive citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.026
Mr. Souder. We have been joined by our colleague from
California, Congressman Diane Watson, and she has a statement
she would like to make.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
addressing issues that are very tragic not only to our Nation
as a whole, but specifically disastrous and devastating to the
African American community. At issue is the dubious trend
amongst African American males in the United States, criminal
justice system, to enter this system and be released with
nowhere to turn for support.
The tragic state of African American males and minority
males in general is, in fact, perpetuated by a lack of funding
and attention to our educational system and post-release
programs for those that have been incarcerated. The goal is not
to coddle criminals but to foster productive contributions to
society.
Our schools and our students are at war with themselves,
while our communities constantly get the negative ripple effect
of more people being in jail than in college. Researchers
constantly wonder why violence in American society has reached
pandemic levels. The answer is simple. We have forgotten about
those who will 1 day be released from prison and will be in the
same society we function in every day.
Our most urgent need is a national resolve to confront and
deal with the problems leading to violence before, during, and
after incarceration. The key to preventing our stemming
recidivism is to understand where and when it occurs, what
causes it, and which strategies for prevention and intervention
are most effective.
All too often we fail to effectively listen to those people
who are directly impacted by the justice system.
Mr. Chairman, I can speak firsthand on the plague of crime
caused in my congressional district and throughout the Nation.
Support, legislatively and financially, should be given to
pilot efforts that will help increase education and decrease
recidivism.
A man or woman when released from prison must have
direction and opportunity because they will be part of the
communities where most of us live. We must put greater focus on
this issue and remember that we must leave no one behind or our
Nation will fall.
And I just want to add this piece. We have been doing a
series of youth violence hearings in my district, because the
last police officer in Los Angeles who was killed was killed by
a young man coming out of prison and in a domestic violence
situation. And the whole community turned out mourning for the
death of this officer. So it comes home to all of us and
certainly to those who represent the inner cities.
And we must support the mission in our prisons for
rehabilitation. And as they leave these incarceration
provisions--or incarcerationsites, they must then have
provisions that will help them get back in society in a more
productive way.
So in closing, the National Foundation for Women's
Legislative Policy on Crime, Justice, Terrorism and Substance
Abuse has also been looking at the issue for several years now,
and I have a very important report issued through the NFWL last
year that shows that unresolved drug addiction is a $95 billion
a year problem. And NFWL also produced a second report
analyzing one safe and cost-effective option for addressing the
issue.
I would like these reports entered into the hearing record,
Mr. Chairman, and request that we conduct a future hearing
looking at this issue again.
And so I will submit them, without objection, to you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. At the very beginning of the
hearing, I got unanimous consent that any Member who asked for
inserts--so we will make sure that we put those documents into
the record.
If I can again make clear to each of the witnesses--which I
should have said a little bit ago--you will see the lights in
front of you. You basically have 5 minutes. When the yellow
comes on there is 1 to go. Your full statement will be in the
record. If there are additional materials you want to put in
after you hear the discussion today, we would be happy to do
that as well. We appreciate your patience.
We have another panel after this one as well. But I very
much appreciate also, I know Dr. Wilkinson, for example, moved
his schedule around to accommodate today as opposed to
tomorrow, and I am sure many others did as well.
At this point we are now going to go to Lorna Hogan,
Washington, DC.
STATEMENT OF LORNA HOGAN
Ms. Hogan. Good afternoon, members of the community. It is
my privilege to be here today.
My name is Lorna Hogan. I am the mother of four children
and at the age of 14, I began abusing marijuana and alcohol as
a way of coping with being physically, mentally, and verbally
abused.
I was afraid to tell anyone what was going on and self-
medicating was the only way that I knew that could ease the
pain. But after a while this combination was not working. I
needed something stronger to help me cope with the abuse. I
began using crack cocaine. This drug will take me to horrible
places I would never imagine I would even go. The once clean
police record I once had became stained with drug-related
crimes I committed in order to support my habit.
My children were definitely affected by my drug use. I
wasn't a mother to them. My grandmother was raising them, and
when she became ill, I began leaving them with other people. I
just couldn't stop using. I tried 28-day treatment programs,
but I was just detoxing. I was not getting help for the
emotional pain I kept suppressed by using drugs.
There were no services provided for me as a mother. There
were no services for my children. There were no opportunities
to heal as a family.
In December 2000 I was arrested on a drug-related charge,
and my children were placed with Child Protective Services. And
when I went before the judge in criminal court for sentencing,
I begged him for treatment. The judge refused my request. I
felt hopeless. I not only lost my children, I lost myself. I
didn't know where my children were or what was happening to
them. I felt I would never see them again.
In jail I received no treatment. I was surrounded by women
like myself. We were all mothers who were all there in jail
suffering from untreated addiction. But there were no treatment
services in jail for us. When I was released, there were no
referrals to after-care treatment programs. Instead, I was
released to the street at 10 p.m., with $4 in my pocket. I
still didn't know where my children were. I went back to doing
the only thing I knew how to do, use drugs. I felt myself
sinking back into a life of self-degradation.
Months later, by the grace of God, I finally found someone
to listen to me, a child welfare worker who was assigned to my
case. I disclosed to her that I had been using drugs for 26
years. I was referred to an 18-month family treatment program.
The family treatment groups helped me to heal from domestic
violence, helped me to understand that I was self-medicating to
the problem instead of getting help for it. I had a therapist
to help me address my childhood issues and my separation from
my children. I had a primary counselor I could talk to at any
time, and I still do. I also have parenting classes that gave
me insight on being a mother.
Today I am a graduate of the family treatment program. I
have 4 years' clean time from drugs and alcohol. My case with
Child Protective Services is closed. My children and I have
been unified for 3 years. We live in our own home in Montgomery
County. My children are succeeding academically in school, and
I recently watched with pride and joy as my children performed
in a concert at school where they all sang in English,
Japanese, and French. We are a whole and strong and loving
family today.
I would like to conclude my story by sharing with you how
critical it is for women to receive treatment while they are
incarcerated. Most incarcerated mothers are nonviolent drug
felons, and they are untreated drug addicts. Mothers behind
bars receive little or no opportunity to heal from the disease
of addiction. This lack of treatment and support services for
mothers is apparent in every point of their involvement with
the criminal justice system.
Pretrial diversion, release services, court-sentence
alternatives, and reentry programs for women offenders are
restricted in number, size, and effectiveness. Mothers behind
bars and mothers reentering the community need treatment.
Mothers need comprehensive family treatment so that they may
heal and break the cycle of addiction and the revolving door of
the criminal justice system. If treatment is made available to
mothers behind bars, to mothers returning to the community, so
many families will have a real chance to heal from the disease
of addiction. And, like my family, they will have a chance to
heal and not be lost to the criminal justice system.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.029
Mr. Souder. Our next witness was already kind of somewhat
introduced by a colleague from Maryland. Mr. Felix Mata,
Baltimore City's Ex-Offender Mayor's Initiative Office of
Employment Development. Thank you for your patience today.
STATEMENT OF FELIX MATA
Mr. Mata. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings,
and all the other honorable members of the subcommittee. My
name is Felix Mata and I manage Baltimore's Citywide Ex-
offender Initiative within Mayor Martin O'Malley's Office of
Employment Development. I would like to thank you for the
invitation to testify before you.
As you may know, over the last 5 years, we have witnessed a
surge in the public's interest to create new reentry
initiatives in the United States. Already along the East Coast,
there are several ex-offender initiatives occurring. Besides
the city of Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC,
and Chicago are a few areas where task forces aimed at
addressing this issue have started. However, the problem is not
only an urban problem.
In the Washington, DC, corridor, Prince George's County,
Montgomery County, and Fairfax County have all started a
reentry and/or gang task force to look at the problems of
reentry or to prevent youth from entering the prison system.
On the Federal level, a reentry Policy Council, a
collaboration of the U.S. Department of Justice and Labor and
Health and Human Services was created to further look at ways
that addressed the issue of reintegration.
With regards to the city of Baltimore, each year over 9,000
individuals returned to the city from Maryland prison
facilities, with over 1,000 returning from the Federal prison
facilities. Close to 20,000 individuals are under mandatory
supervision through the Division of Parole and Probation, and
over 60,000 individuals filtered through the local detention
center in Baltimore City. Our mayor, Martin O'Malley, and the
Mayor's Office of Employment Development, facilitated the
creation of the Baltimore City-wide Ex-offender Task Force in
October 2002.
With members representing more than 100 government
agencies, nonprofit and community-based service providers, the
task force worked in committees, including those addressing the
needs and engagement of employers; a survey of existing
services to support the needs of the population; the
development of a model program to assist ex-offenders re-enter
society; a review of relevant legislation; a focus on the
involvement of the faith community in reentry; and, last,
examination of transitional housing needs for ex-offenders.
Based on the work of the committee, the task force found
that the average ex-offender returning to Baltimore City is:
one, African American; two, male, ages between 20 to 40, with
an average age to 33; and has little more than a sixth grade
education.
A typical ex-inmate returning to the city of Baltimore
receives no more than $40 upon release. With very little
education and/or training, owes $8,000 in child support, has no
transportation, no medication, has no place to stay and cannot
find legitimate employment, but wants to turn his life around.
A myriad of services must be made available for this
population: housing assistance; physical and mental health aid;
substance abuse treatment; child support modification support;
access to identification; education and training; and
employment opportunities.
In March 2004, the mayor appointed the Baltimore Citywide
Reentry and Reintegration Steering Committee to carry out
selected recommendations of the task force. In the last 2
years, we have seen some significant progress in reintegrating
ex-offenders into Baltimore. One example is a collaborative
project between the Mayor's Office of Employment Development
and the Division of Parole and Probation, by placing one staff
member to handle P&P's clientele have made a big difference.
The result of this collaboration has linked over 1,200 ex-
offenders to services in the past year.
Through the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, funding
has been brought in to create another position in the east side
of Baltimore.
Last, encouraging more employers to hire ex-offenders has
been the aim of the three employer appreciation breakfasts
sponsored by the steering committees. These breakfasts allow
businesses in the community to recognize businesses that hire
ex-offenders. Due to the tremendous success of this event, at
our last breakfast on December 14, 2004, we had over 300 people
in attendance, over 100 business representatives from over 36
businesses. The event has even received sponsorship now, the
Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation.
Even though the city of Baltimore has done a tremendous
amount of work, we have a long way to go. The city is currently
looking at a new and bolder approach of reentry by setting up a
one-stop reentry center in northwest Baltimore. With the help
of both State and Federal Government, Baltimore will be able to
better assist the returning population.
Once again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
testify, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mata follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.032
Mr. Souder. Our next witness was also introduced earlier by
Delegate Norton.
Mr. Paul Quander is with the District of Columbia's Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency. He represents that
agency.
Thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.
Mr. Quander. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today. I also want to thank the committee for
scheduling this reentry hearing during Reentry Week here in the
District of Columbia. 2005 marks the 4th consecutive year that
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] has
collaborated with local faith institutions and the District of
Columbia Government to present a full week of events
highlighting the needs of returning offenders.
Tomorrow night our third annual Citywide Reentry Assembly
will be held at St. Luke's Center on East Capitol Street. We
will gather to thank our volunteers and to hear directly from
offenders who are receiving faith-based support. I invite all
of you to join us for an informative and inspirational evening.
I would also like to submit for the record a copy of the
comprehensive reentry strategy for adults in the District of
Columbia that was prepared in conjunction with the District of
Columbia government and faith institutions and members of the
community who are previously incarcerated individuals.
I would like to share with the committee a few of the
reentry strategies that we have in place. In 2001 we reached
out to the city's clergy and began our Faith/Community
Partnership. Our goal has been to connect returning offenders
with institutions and individuals who can support them both
during and after their term of supervision. Within our Faith/
Community Partnership, three lead institutions identify and
broker mentoring and other services for returning offenders and
their families. We currently have a network of 46 participating
faith institutions, as well as approximately 200 volunteer
mentors.
While faith-based support does not replace CSOSA's
treatment and education program, it supplements and augments
our supervision community officers, commonly referred to as
probation and parole officers, their capacity to provide after-
care and one-on-one interaction.
In 2003 we recognized the need to link returning offenders
with services well before they actually are released to the
community. Using teleconferencing and video technology, we took
the Faith/Community Partnership into Rivers Correctional
Institution, a Bureau of Prisons contract facility that houses
over 1,000 D.C. code offenders.
Here in the District of Columbia we are unique in that
every offender who is convicted of a crime in the District is
sentenced to a Bureau of Prisons facility. And the Bureau tries
to place these offenders within 500 miles, but oftentimes
offenders are all apart in different facilities throughout the
country. There are 1,000 individuals in Rivers, which is
located in North Carolina.
That outreach has developed into regular community
resource-based video conferences at which representatives from
the Faith/Community Partnership and a variety of District
social service agencies provide information to men nearing
release. Partnership with CSOSA has encouraged our lead faith
institutions to expand the range of services they provide.
For example, in response to the critical need for
transitional housing, East of the River Clergy-Police-Community
Partnership is converting a 14-unit apartment building into
transitional housing for returning offenders. We cannot over-
estimate the importance of stable housing to successful
reentry. About 25 percent of the release plans we investigate
prior to an individual being released do not contain a stable
housing placement.
While we can often arrange for a short-term placement such
as a public law placement in a halfway house, permanent
solutions are much more difficult to achieve.
According to the District of Columbia's Department of
Public Housing and Community Development, a household income of
$40,000 per year, or roughly $20 an hour, is necessary to rent
a two-bedroom apartment at market rate in this community.
Almost half of the District households report income below that
threshold. These are the households most likely to be impacted
by reentry, and the returning offenders compete directly with
other workers in these households for a limited supply of
viable jobs.
Approximately half the offenders under supervision are
unemployed at any given time. Unstable housing and precarious
employment undermine the individuals' chances for success. To
put it in the words of one of the offenders, ``To get a job you
need an address, but to get an address you need a job.''
We are working with District non-profits to identify
additional housing resources. We are also addressing the public
safety concerns that are integral to any discussion of offender
housing.
In 2004 we executed a memorandum of understanding with the
District of Columbia Housing Authority to share information
about offenders who are living in public housing similar to our
successful partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department.
For men and women with severe long-term substance abuse
problems, intensive intervention has to begin at the moment of
release. These offenders cannot negotiate reentry without
intensive support.
We have developed and implemented a program at our
Assessment and Orientation Center that takes offenders directly
upon release and puts them through 30 days of assessment,
counseling, and treatment to prepare them for reentry. And for
most, that means continued drug treatment as well.
This program has had a positive effect on recidivism. For
one cohort of the participants, arrest rates dropped 75
percent. Based upon the Assessment and Orientation Center's
proven success, we are expanding it into a Reentry and
Expansion Center that will serve approximately 1,200 high-risk
offenders and defendants each year. Our first two units are
scheduled to open in November 2005.
No matter how aggressively we supervise offenders in the
community, we cannot guarantee their success. Too many
variables influence reentry for the outcomes to rest solely on
enforcement. According to the Urban Institute, family support,
substance abuse treatment, and employment assistance are what
returning offenders need the most. These essentials can only be
provided through concerted, sustained collaborations in which
all partners contribute to the true goal of reentry
initiatives: the restoration of individuals, families, and our
communities.
I thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
this hearing, and I will respond to questions at the
appropriate time.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quander follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.038
Mr. Souder. Our next witnesses, Jim McNeil and David
Russell, mentor and protege of the InnerChange Freedom
Initiative.
It is good to see you again. I heard you at the breakfast
last fall with a lot of Senators and House Members. Thank you
for coming for an official government hearing here to give your
testimony today.
Mr. McNeil.
STATEMENT OF JIM McNEIL
Mr. McNeil. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is Jim McNeil, and I am from Richmond, a suburb of Houston, TX.
I am retired and a volunteer worker in InnerChange Freedom
Initiative Ministry, a branch of Prison Fellowship. I, along
with my wife, moved from west Texas to the Houston area 5 years
ago to be near our 5 children and watch our 11 grandchildren
grow up.
Shortly after moving, I was invited to a Church Missions
Meeting and was introduced to the InnerChange Ministry. After a
visit there, I signed on as a volunteer worker, counseling and
setting up the substance abuse curriculum.
For years I have been concerned about the prison population
explosion and offenders going to prison at an early age and
continuing to return. When they have reached their 40's, they
see a life slipping by, and by this time don't know how to
function in society.
There are many good prison ministries. But I saw the
InnerChange Ministry as one that worked with the offenders
after release. During this timeframe, my wife and I started
mentoring offenders who were enrolled in the ministry.
To date, we have mentored 12 fellows; 2 have returned to
prison, much to our disappointment, and 8 are out and doing
well, and 2 have yet to be released. All of these fellows and
their families are our extended families. They call us
regularly, visit with us at our home, take care of us, consult
us on living problems and family problems, and even help with
chores at our home.
Our home is their home, and our door is open to all of
them. They continue to bless my wife and me and give us a lot
of pleasure.
Let me close in commending you on your task in prison
reform. It must be addressed and dealt with. Rehabilitation has
to be brought off the back burner. These people must be
prepared to take their responsible places in our society and be
productive citizens and positive family members.
As a closing thought for you, more tax moneys are being
spent in our State on prisons than on public education.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNeil follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.040
Mr. Souder. Mr. Russell.
STATEMENT OF DAVID RUSSELL
Mr. Russell. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
name is David Russell. I was born in Abilene, TX. I am a
graduate of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative Ministry, and
now a volunteer of IFI.
I made a decision to transfer a few years after my second
incarceration from west Texas to the Houston area, believing
and trusting in God to provide a way for my transition into a
new surrounding.
Years into my second incarceration, I knew there had to be
a better way of life. I just didn't know where to begin, to
start it or even begin. But years had passed by. Things started
becoming clearer to me that the only way was to let God's will
for my life start to prevail.
Not knowing much as to what was in store for me and this
new way of life, of living, I started to see things a lot more
clearly than before, but still not sure where God was taking
me. I just started to trust and believe in God's word.
Then it happened. A program was being put into effect in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice system called the
InnerChange Freedom Initiative Program. It originated in the
Houston area, but there were still many hurdles I had to
overcome. It seemed as though I would never get there.
Another year passed by since I heard of the program, and it
happened. I was being transferred to another unit in the TDCJ
system. Not knowing which unit I would be transferred to, I
started wondering would I ever be able to get away from my
past.
A couple of days later I went for classification. I was
told my next unit to where I would be assigned would be the
Jester 2 Unit. The Jester 2 Unit, now the Carol S. Vance Unit,
was where the InnerChange Freedom Initiative Program was now in
process. I had gotten past another obstacle in my life, on my
way to a new life.
A year had gone by since transfer to the Jester 2 Unit. I
was still not in the program as of yet. But then it happened. A
couple of IFI members that I have been working with, and also
built a friendship with, asked me if I wanted to become a
member of the IFI program, and I said yes without any
hesitation. So they took me to see the program director, the
program manager, and I gave them my information.
Weeks later I was accepted into the program, and God
continued to move in my life. Doors began to open. My new way
of life began to flourish. There I met my mentor, Jim McNeil.
This was just one of many relationships that were built within
the IFI program. Other relationships would also form that were
still just as strong as my relationship with my mentor. Jim and
Joyce are my extended family, and I love them dearly. I am
blessed to have many Christian people in my life that will
guide me and encourage me as I continue my growth with Christ
Jesus.
Let me close my saying that other offenders will benefit
from the Prison Reform Act. The current rehabilitation process
must be addressed and dealt with. Not rehabilitation but
transformation. It has to be brought into the foreground of
offenders' incarceration. Offenders must be prepared to take
their responsible places in our society and be productive
citizens and provide for a family member; not to be the problem
of a society, but to be a part of the solution of the society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.042
Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your testimony.
Let me start first by thanking each of you for your work.
And this is an incredibly difficult area, and I think for those
in Congress and those listening to the testimony that it is
very easy to raise false expectations about what we can do.
Even Mr. McNeil, in intensive personal mentoring, has said
that several people have gone back into prison; that I know
many taxpayers look at these types of programs and say you are
spending all of this money on it and yet the recidivism rate
went up.
But this is not easy. Partly we come, and hear people come,
and they tell us their great results, and sometimes they are
short term, and we don't necessarily have longitudinal studies
because we look at the numbers and see it go up.
But some people go back in within months. Some people go
back 5 years later. And we have to develop a standard of
measurement that's realistic here. We are not going to get 100
percent by putting all of this money in. We are not going to
get that kind of rate of return; and then second, even if
somebody goes back in or they go in for a lower level of crime
than they went in the first time.
In other words, are we making some level of improvement? Is
it going to be easier to do the rehabilitation? Is there some
hope down the way here? Because if we hold up false hopes in
front of Congress and say throw $112 million at this and
recidivism goes up, we are going to have a huge problem.
A second part of this as we look at this legislation is the
numbers you are looking at far overwhelm anything the Federal
Government is going to be able to do. I mean, you are talking
thousands in each city, whereas this Federal initiative will
only touch thousands nationwide. Yet hopefully we will be able
to do that.
So let me start with this question. Understanding that all
the parts are important--housing, jobs, drug treatment, all
these different parts--and understanding that in D.C. alone you
have 2,000--we heard 9,000 in Los Angeles, the number has to be
even higher--how would you best target these dollars, and how
do you figure out who should be eligible for the limited funds
you have? Should it be those who show the best opportunity to
rehabilitate; those who are the hardest cases; those who are
first in line? How are you going to allocate these funds and
how would we best target what we are doing? If you would like
to take that.
Mr. Quander. I will start.
As the director of CSOSA here in the District, we are also
faced with limited options, resources. And so what we have
decided to do, we have to tailor our approach and focus our
resources where the greatest impact is going to be, and that's
public safety and violent crime.
We have to target individuals who have the greatest
indicator that if you don't receive the treatment, they are
going out and they are going to create havoc in our
communities. And so that's why we have built this Reentry and
Sanction Center so that we target the greatest group.
Thirty percent of returning offenders who we have targeted
we believe will cause the greatest amount of harm in our city.
Now, if we can get those resources and if we can provide them
with the services that they need, we think we will have the
biggest impact on reducing crime and helping the city become
safer.
At the same time, we are reaching out to groups, churches
in particular, because a lot of the churches in our community
have faith-based organizations, have prison ministries, have
clothing ministries, have housing ministries, and they need
some assistance to help us do the work that we have.
When we hook up with existing church programs, we already
have a viable vehicle that is already out there, that has
substance in the community, and so we try to match that, the
community part of it and the government part, and it can work.
We realize that the resources are limited. But if they are
targeted in that way, we think that we will have the best
chance for having the greatest impact on the citizens of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Souder. I want to ask Mr. Mata a question with a
followup to that. But, for example, InnerChange Ministries,
it's self-selected. In other words, you have to choose to go
into that section of the prison, because it's a faith-based
ministry?
Mr. Russell. Yes, you have to volunteer.
Mr. Souder. And so that would be one way if it's a faith-
based question.
We heard from Ms. Hogan about the mothers with children.
Would that be another subtarget group because of the impact
potentially on the children in the family, and how do you
handle that, for example, in Baltimore?
Mr. Mata. The city of Baltimore actually looks at what
everyone is doing. One of the great things we do is see what
the city of Chicago is doing. The Shay Foundation actually
builds a triangle and says the top level group of ex-offenders
returning into the community, they don't really need our help.
They can come back. We have the bottom level of that triangle,
our ex-offenders, who no matter how much you can try to help
them, you can spend money and time on them. They are not going
to want to change their lives around. But you have that middle
tier who just need an extra push. They need to be put into a
training program, they need to get transitional housing. Those
are the groups that you can help.
You can't expect an ex-offender who is coming out of prison
to go through an 8 to 10-week training program to change their
life around. It's going to take a number of kinds of different
programs.
I look at the Baltimore Reentry Partnership Program. It's
an actual 2-year program with a 70 percent success rate, but
they also provide transitional housing. The case manager meets
the person at the prison door when they are released and says,
all right, let's go get you signed up. We are going to get you
your identification, get you food stamps, get you all these
other services that you need right now.
That's the type of dedication that it takes to get ex-
offenders involved and to help turn them around.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. McNeil. Mr. Chairman, there are two things I would like
to elaborate on.
One is the mentoring program. David's and my relationship
started 2 years before he got out of the penitentiary, and I
think that is very important. Some people are mistaken that
mentoring is picking up the guy when he gets out. If you don't
know him when he gets out, he by nature is very suspicious of
you.
The second is, Congressman Davis, I want to echo what you
were talking about in substance abuse. I am a recovering
alcoholic, so maybe I am a little bit more sensitive to that.
But the numbers run side by side.
In the State of Texas because of budget restraints and the
population explosion, TDCJ has cut back on their substance
abuse programs within the penitentiary. That's a mistake.
And so I am not versed on where your money should go, but
these are just two of the issues that I think are very
important. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Davis, if it's OK I will go to Ms. Norton
next, because she didn't get questioning on the first panel.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. OK.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry I didn't get to hear everyone's testimony. I just
want to congratulate those of you who have been involved in
delivering these services and those of you who have had the
benefit of them. Because to have the benefit of them is not
enough; you have to have a great deal of personal inner
strength to take advantage of those services.
There's been a lot of emphasis, I think correctly, on
services that join the community, such as mentoring services.
The bill, Mr. Portman's, Mr. Davis' bill, shows us how at the
beginning of this we all--when you talk about data collection
is necessary, and how much of faith-based programs.
I would like to hear more from Mr. Quander. He is from the
Federal system. It has a more developed system than any of the
States. And here I have been critical of the way we go at law
enforcement in the Federal system. At the same time, I want to
say that the Federal prison system and its after-services are
the best in the United States.
And I have some before and after, because Lorton, which is
the city prison, was closed. The Federal Government took over,
and it was night and day. Such an improvement. So there is the
Federal system out there can be a real example for the States.
Right after, Mr. Quander, right after the Federal
Government became involved with felons from the District of
Columbia, there was literally, almost immediately, within the
first few months, an immediate effect on recidivism. So much so
that I went around the District of Columbia with a chart,
showing people, because we were trying to get halfway houses
placed in places. I recognize that over time it may not have
been as great as it was then, but obviously you were having an
effect on recidivism.
When we had a hearing, when Mr. Davis had a hearing here,
we tried to learn more about what was happening. What impressed
us was not at that point the community services. The community
was still trying to get them to understand these were their
children, their numbers, residents of the District of Columbia.
They hadn't been dropped in from outer space. What impressed us
was the services that CSOSA offered. The chairman could not be
more correct: We are going to have to target whatever we are
talking about.
I notice that in the testimony here from Reginald
Wilkinson, he says that President Bush in his 2004 State of the
Union urged Congress to allocate $300 million over 4 years to
support reentry transition services. He named several kinds of
services that he indicated the President had named: job
training, placement services, transitional housing, community
faith-based services. Some of that is very expensive.
Let me ask you about the services that I think have made a
difference in the District of Columbia, which I think could be
less expensive, and hear your response.
One was anger management services. These are very angry
people. That's how they got there in the first place in some
sense, and when they see how society views them, including
their own neighbors, that builds up.
The other was inpatient and outpatient drug treatment, so
much so that you have some facilities here.
And then, as I recall, there was a step, everybody got
tested. So that if, in fact, you get tested dirty, you are one
step back to prison. I wish you would describe those services,
see if they are available, and the effect they have had.
Because a lot of your testimony, Mr. Quander, was about
things like community services, faith-based and the other
services we are all for, but very frankly, I don't think that's
what the difference is in the District of Columbia so far if we
are talking about the difference in recidivism rates.
I would just like you to lay out for us what--at least
these--I am not even into transitional housing. I mean, you may
have to bunk up with somebody for a long time. I am into what
it takes to get through every day without punching somebody in
the nose, maybe even your parole officer, and going back to
jail, because you are still on drugs, because you are not being
tested, because there are no incentives to stay out and stay
clean.
Mr. Quander. One of the first things that we were able to
accomplish with the help of this Congress was we were able to
reduce the caseloads of the men and women who supervise
offenders.
When we first started this agency, the average caseload was
well over 100. Today, for our general service units, it's less
than 50 to 1. Some of our specialized units, the sex offender
unit, the domestic violator unit, even traffic is down to 25 or
30 to 1. So it allows our men and women who have the training
and dedication to work with the men and women who are under
supervision, to provide services and to keep them focused and
accountable.
As far as anger management is concerned, we offer anger
management because people need to understand how to deal with
the day-to-day frustrations. Many of us have parents and
guardians and coaches that helped and taught us how to work and
to navigate and negotiate.
Many of the men and women that we see have never had
anyone. And so after a period of incarceration, after going
through the court services, people are angry, they are
frustrated, and they are easily dissuaded. So we try to build
in anger management and coping skills.
As far as substance abuse, we drug test. Everyone that
comes into the door has to drug test, and we have graduated
sanctions because we want to work with individuals. But our
offenders know that if you test positive there will be
immediate sanctions.
We don't have to go back to court. We don't have to go back
to the parole authorities. We have the authority to sanction
individuals. And those sanctions can be anywhere from going to
AA meetings to actually being under house arrest or actually
having a bracelet placed upon you for global positioning
satellite monitoring so we know what you are doing 24 hours, 7
days a week.
It is important that there is----
Ms. Norton. Now, if you continue to offend, are the next
steps back so that people know that they could end up back in
jail?
Mr. Quander. It's clear that if you continue to offend,
that's exactly where you are going. But we want to give people
the opportunity.
We have to be clear as to what the expectations are; that
if you reoffend, that if you have these technical violations,
you will definitely go back. Our mission is to try to get them
to turn their lives around, know what they are facing is to
correct that path so that we can keep them here in our
community.
Ms. Norton. It is a real carrot-stick.
Mr. Quander. It is but a major component is the substance
abuse treatment. If you don't give individuals time away from
this environment, it's sort of a like a man on a diet who lives
right above the Burger King Restaurant. He smells the hamburger
cooking, the food day in and day out, but our community is even
more pervasive than that.
The person doesn't have to smell it upstairs, the drugs are
right in the house. Grandmother has the drugs, sister has the
drugs. When you walk out on the street, all your partners and
friends have the drugs. They are all enticing you. They are all
saying come on, come back.
And so we need money and resources so that we can get
people out of that environment, get them away, get them where
people who have gone through this type of process say, hey, I
have made it.
It takes time, it takes effort, it takes money. On average,
it cost us $14,000 per individual that we put through
treatment. Three phases--detox, inpatient, and that outpatient
component is just so critical.
That's where that faith-based component also comes in,
because you need a mentor sometimes. You need someone that has
gone through that process to walk with you. When you are
feeling low and when you have that temptation and your partners
are calling you, you need someone on the pro-social side that
you can pick up the phone and you can look at for support.
That's where we start to make the change.
So my agency has been successful, but a lot of that has to
do with the good graces that this committee and others have
given us the resources to dig in to find out what it is that we
actually need to do, and the men and women who work with the
offenders day in and day out in some of that community support,
some of which is represented here in the audience today.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, the notion of--I think
the chairman has been clear, you know; no one is going to throw
some money out of there in front of you. Frankly, I don't think
they should.
I would look at CSOSA and what has worked there. It can't
be done on the cheap. We didn't do it on the cheap when we put
them in jail for $30,000 a year, bringing them out here in the
same condition. And therefore we've got to decide if you have a
limited amount of dollars, where to use them. And these record
numbers are in prison because of drugs, then it does seem to me
to make sense to somehow extricate that one part of the
problem, because it is such a large part of the problem.
I just want to say, finally, to Ms. Hogan, I am very
impressed to read your testimony and to hear your testimony,
because you are the story of virtually every woman in prison.
And here was a woman who was saying get me off these drugs and
I will be all right. She went to prison and could not--she
couldn't get them beforehand. And we are getting to the point
where it is easier to get them after you come out than
beforehand. She couldn't get any effective drug treatment
beforehand. The last place apparently you can get it at least
is in State prisons, and then she was on her way back out until
she found somebody who would help her after she got out of
prison.
So I just want to thank all of you for what you are doing.
And I do think, Mr. Quander, that you could be helpful to
the States, because it's really a State problem. Most people
are in State prison. If somehow what has happened here, which
is kind of a microcosm that is normally not available to
localities, should be shared so that they would have some sense
where to put their own limited dollars while we are trying to
get more dollars here, and I think that your experience is very
useful to us all.
And I am very grateful for what the Federal Government, the
Federal prison system and the Federal dollars that fund CSOSA
have done for the returning of felons in the District of
Columbia.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank each one of the witnesses for their testimony.
Listening to all of the things that we continued to hear,
my question really goes to Mr. Russell and to Ms. Hogan. Could
you project what your life might be like if you had not come
into contact with some help? I am saying we often look at the
statistic that 67 percent of the individuals would probably
reoffend within the 3-year period if they didn't find some kind
of help.
So would you just project what you think your life might be
like if you had not come in contact with some help?
Ms. Hogan. Yes. I could basically say that if I hadn't
gotten the help from a social worker, that, you know, my
children were in Child Protective Services, I can predict
pretty much if I had kept using and going in and out of jail
that my children would be gone. And because addiction is a
disease, once--you know, if it's left untreated, you get fatal
results.
So I don't think I would be here today if I was still using
and going in and out of jail. And I am thankful that I had
someone that took interest in me to help me.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell. I can honestly say that I wouldn't be sitting
here today either if it weren't for the InnerChange Freedom
Initiative Ministry. You have volunteers coming in and sharing
their lives with you, and not knowing you from Adam, and giving
you an opportunity to open yourself up to them, knowing that
they care about you.
You have someone walking beside you and not looking down on
you. You have someone giving you the tools and the instructions
so that you could have a structured life as well.
Being with Jim has been a blessing to me, because if he
wouldn't have been around, I would have gone back to the same
old ways. I would have been back to the old same community I
came out of. But having an opportunity to move out of that
community into a new community, into a new environment, opened
my eyes to where now I want to help, I want to give back.
So, having those volunteers there, having the mentors
there, having the program in place has opened my eyes a lot
more clearly than they had been before--not changed, not
rehabilitated me, but transforming me from that old man to the
new man.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Mata, Mr. Quander, both of you
are professionals in the field, in the business. As you do the
work that you do on a regular basis, what do you think can
really put the seal on and become a real breakthrough?
We know that there are many individual programs throughout
the country, but they are oftentimes so meager, so minor, so
small, and we are missing so many people who never come into
contact with the program, who never get touched.
What becomes a real breakthrough for this problem across
the Nation?
Mr. Quander. I will try to respond this way. I think you
actually need a movement, you need a concerted effort whereby
the focus of reentry and prisoners actually takes on the
character of the movement so that everyone is aware of the
issues and everyone is focused on what some of the solutions
are.
Some of the solutions are pretty straightforward. We
mentioned drug treatment, we have mentioned housing, we have
mentioned employment. There are certain areas in which certain
programs are very successful. We need to concentrate on those
areas. I think if we concentrate on those areas, we can produce
the results, and once we produce the results, you can't argue
with the numbers. I think that is where we need to go and that
is where we need to concentrate.
For offenders in the District of Columbia, housing is such
a big issue. They will tell you, I can't concentrate on my
substance abuse issues if I don't have a place to live. I want
to get back with my family. I want to go to the PTA meetings,
but I need to establish myself as a man and provide for my
family, and I am going to do it either by hustling or I am
going to do it the correct way.
So those are those real issues that we really need to focus
on. Some of the faith-based partners that we have done it with,
they have apartment buildings, and they are willing to convert
those and are doing that right now. We need to support those
efforts, because they have already taken the lead. We need to
support it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Mata.
Mr. Mata. Mr. Davis, I agree with what Mr. Quander just
said, but I also want to make a differentiation between the
city and the State. I actually have two positions. I work for
the city of Baltimore, but I also work for the State of
Maryland as the executive director for the Governor's Advisory
Council on Offender Employment.
The city and the State are two very different monsters. The
city is sort of an urban island, and then you have the State of
Maryland, which is western, eastern, southern Maryland that
thinks very differently from what the city of Baltimore does.
So it does take a movement in order to make these changes
happen.
There are some great things coming out of the Federal
Government that we could use in the State, but our State
representatives sometimes vote against things that can help
reentry in the State of Maryland.
The movement has started in Maryland. Like I said,
Montgomery County, Prince George's County, they have both
started reentry activities there. If you look at a county such
as Montgomery County, which is a very wealthy county in the
State of Maryland, they actually are having some problems with
reentry because when they connect their inmates to employment
after they are released, they may get a job offer from that
business, but then all of a sudden they don't show up to the
job anymore because after release the Division of Corrections
no longer has ahold of them, they can no longer assist them in
making that proper transition. So they are back out into the
free world, but they don't have the cognitive restructuring or
the mental capacity to deal with everyday living like you and I
do.
This is something else that needs to be brought in and
taught to these inmates and ex-offenders, and programs such as
CSOSA, programs like the REP program in Baltimore City, these
programs are doing great jobs in assisting these ex-offenders
in returning into the community.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Souder. What Mr. Mata just said is not widely talked
about, yet is a huge problem of the longer term followup if you
haven't had a substantive change. Because often as I have dealt
with the businessmen who are first willing to hire many of the
people going back into the community, they are themselves the
most outspoken leaders in the community trying to get other
business leaders to do that. And then if it doesn't work and
they are running a business that runs on a profit, and if the
people don't show up, they give up and it affects the entire
business community.
We have a stake in making these programs go, to make sure
that there is some kind of followup in that employment, for
literally it isn't that it just fails in one case, it spreads
to the employers, to other employers, and by word of mouth just
goes through the business community that this is too high a
risk, because you are already taking some risk in the
situation.
Before moving to the next panel, I wanted to raise one
other question that challenged me years ago, and I know it is
going to come up in the course of this debate.
Years ago, when I was a staffer for the House, a man named
Bob Woodson told me, when I went to talk to him, he said,
``Don't be a typical White guy who sits on your duff and
pronounces what is wrong with the urban centers. Go out and
meet some people.''
So I said, ``OK, introduce me to some.'' One of the men I
met was V.G. Ginnis, who over 20 years ago was working with
gang problems with the Bloods and the Crips in the city of Los
Angeles. We had done a number of antigang initiatives to
provide job training, housing assistance, counseling, drug
treatment to people and gangs. And he said, ``Here is the
problem with some of what you do.'' Guess what that program
did? More kids joined gangs because they couldn't get job
training, drug treatment, housing assistance if they didn't
belong to the gang, so gang membership went up.
When these services don't exist in the community for people
who are following the law, how do we best make the argument--
other than a pure cost question here, which you can, but it
doesn't get into the equity question--how do we make this
argument to sell a bill like this, when there is a shortage of
services across the board?
Mr. Mata. If I could just answer that, Mr. Chairman, with
the reentry center that we are trying to start in Baltimore,
that is actually one of the issues that we are looking at,
because if we put it in the northwest corridor, we are actually
replacing a center that assists all the population in that
northwest area of Baltimore City. But what we are looking at is
that it will be open to all Baltimore City residents, but with
specialists who focus on ex-offender issues.
The reason why you need that there is because those
specialists, they have the contacts who know what works
specifically for ex-offenders.
Going back to the business aspect, you don't only want to
put an ex-offender into a job, you want to put them into a
career pathway, and you want to do that for any resident.
Because the older you get or the more experienced you get, you
want to move up the career ladder, you want to be a better
taxpaying citizen and you want to help others do the same
thing. Those specialists that would be at that center would be
able to do that and better assist that population.
Mr. McNeil. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share something
with you. In Texas, after an offender has been out 2 years and
he can get permission from his parole officer, from the unit,
they can come back to that unit and be a volunteer in services.
David has just gone through the Texas Department of
Corrections, or TDCJ, security and safety training, and he is
becoming a mentor himself. We have several of our fellows who
are back in mentoring, and we find that they are the best
mentors. But we also find that it is real good for them. You
can't keep it if you don't give it away.
They really can work with the guys with their problems.
They understand them, they have been there. And we have fellows
that are really wanting to come back and work as volunteers.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Quander.
Mr. Quander. Sometimes I believe we just have to take small
steps. For certain individuals that are returning from periods
of incarceration, they have never held any type of job. So the
first step sometimes is just getting into a job, learning those
soft skills: How do you work with others? How do you resolve
disputes? How do you talk to people? It may not be a career
that a person is looking for, but it is a start.
There are jobs out here in our communities that we can get
people started. Sometimes, you know, a long journey begins with
that first step. So sometimes the first job, the first positive
experience that we can provide to men and women who are
returning can help them, along with other support, to make the
next steps in their lives.
So a job is a job when you have that support, and it can be
more than just that first job, it can be the first step. That
is the approach we have to take, because I know across the
country, there are limitations. But for individuals who are
just returning from prison that first step can be so important
and meaningful.
Mr. Souder. I thank you each for your testimony. If you
want to submit anything else into the record, if you hear
anything on the third panel or you have additional thoughts,
please get it to us in the next 5 legislative days, and thank
you for your patience.
If the third panel could now come forward: Pat Nolan,
Joseph Williams, Chaplain Robert Toney, Frederick Davie and
George Williams.
If you could each remain standing, I need to swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
The first witness on this panel--and thank you very much
for your patience; it has been a long afternoon--is Pat Nolan
from Prison Fellowship, from Justice Fellowship. Pat and I have
known each other longer than we want to admit. It is great to
see you here today, and thank you for your leadership in this
area.
STATEMENTS OF PAT NOLAN, PRISON FELLOWSHIP; JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
TRANSITION OF PRISONERS; CHAPLAIN ROBERT TONEY, ANGOLA PRISON,
LOUISIANA; FREDERICK A. DAVIE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC
POLICY, PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES; AND GEORGE A.H. WILLIAMS,
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SAFE COMMUNITIES
STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN
Mr. Nolan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
Members. It really is an honor to be here with you and discuss
with you this very important issue of public safety.
We are working to prepare prisoners to return to their
community, and we want them to do it safely and successfully so
they can become productive, law-abiding, contributing members
of the community.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted, I am the president of Justice
Fellowship, which is the criminal justice reform arm of Prison
Fellowship Ministries. Prison Fellowship for three decades now
has worked to change prisoners' lives by taking the gospel into
prisons; and part of that is, we can't take the gospel into
prisons if we also don't care about the circumstances in which
they live and to which they return and the circumstances that
got them there. So we work at dealing with the prisoner in all
of those circumstances from a biblical basis.
Scientific studies have shown that inmates who participate
in just 10 or more of our Bible studies are two-thirds less
likely to recidivate. And that is significant because, for many
of us, Joe and others, who have been incarcerated--I knocked
off 10 Bible studies in about 2 weeks. For those who are
interested, there are plenty of opportunities to do it. So just
10 or more having that impact is very significant.
I wrote a book, ``When Prisoners Return,'' to call the
church to become involved in preparing prisoners for their
return and then helping them after they return. It is based on
our experience as a ministry and my own personal experiences.
I bring a unique background to the ministry. I was for 15
years a member of the California State Assembly. I was
Republican leader of the Assembly for 4 of those years. I was a
leader on crime issues.
I was one of the original sponsors of the Victims' Bill of
Rights, Proposition 15. I was the author of the Death Penalty
Restoration Act and author of tough-on-crime measures,
including mandatory minimum sentences.
I pushed for the expansion of California's prison system as
the floor leader at a time when we built nine new prisons and
not one new university.
Then I was targeted for prosecution over a campaign
contribution that turned out to be part of an FBI sting
operation. I pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering and
went to prison for 25 months and spent another 4 months in a
halfway house.
I had a chance to see the impact of the policies that I had
so ardently advocated played out, and I saw how our system is
failing us. I saw that the prisons were not making the
community safer, that the atmosphere inside a prison was not
conducive toward reformation of character, and in fact the
skills you learn to survive inside prison make you antisocial
when you get out.
And while in good faith I had supported all those policies,
in fact they weren't keeping the public safer; they were making
the public more dangerous. Even low-risk or nonviolent
offenders that go to prison are more likely to commit offenses
when they get out. The RAND Corp. studies have shown that.
While I was in prison, I had plenty of time to think about
why that was, why those policies that I had strongly supported
weren't working. My testimony today reflects the conclusions
that I came to and that we have learned from our experience in
trying to minister to people.
First, let me tell you what it is like to be released from
prison. The moment you get off the bus, you are faced with
several critical decisions immediately: Where will you live?
Where are you going to find your next meal? Where will you look
for a job? How do you get to the job interview? How do you get
to where you hope to live? How can you earn enough money to
support yourself?
There are a million business details: How do you open a
bank account? How do you get an I.D. card? Most people are
released from prison without even identification, and these
days, after September 11, you can't get a hotel room, you can't
get on a train, you can't get on a plane, without I.D. What are
you going to do?
How do you make medical appointments? Inside prison you are
exposed to staph infections, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, HIV/
AIDS. How do you get a medical appointment? And how do you have
a doctor treat you when you don't have any of your records with
you?
These things put a lot of stress on an inmate coming out.
And the problem is, the pressure of these decisions hits you at
a point when you have been stripped for years of any control
over any aspect of your life. You are desensitized to making
decisions.
I will give you a perfect example. When I came out, a bunch
of my friends--it was the first day at the halfway house. A
bunch of my friends took me to lunch at the 8th Street Deli,
right near the Capitol. We all sat there. The waiter came and
they went around and ordered. And I sat there and stared at the
menu. And I looked at it--you know, on a deli menu there are
hundreds of choices. I stared and was paralyzed; I couldn't
make a choice. For 2 years I hadn't ordered anything for
myself. I hadn't decided what to eat. And here I was.
Finally, in embarrassment, I just ordered where my eyes
hit, but I didn't want it. I was just too embarrassed. I just
wanted to get that moment over with.
I come from a good background. I had a great education. I
was an attorney. I was a member of the legislature. If, after
just 2 years of incarceration, I couldn't order something from
a menu, think of a person that didn't have any of those
advantages going into prison, and they confront where to live,
where to sleep, how to get a job, what to do with their time.
It is a significant problem.
The first thing I want to say to you, mentors make all the
difference in the world. It is not programs that are as
important as relationships. Programs are important, but only if
they facilitate a relationship, or the real live human being
that loves you.
By the very statement of being a mentor, it is an act of
love. Just being there for the inmates is a powerful statement.
That somebody like Jim McNeil would come every week and visit
David Russell in prison and then walk through the gate with him
and help him, to be there as he confronted all those decisions,
is an act of love. Government programs can't love people, only
people can.
The second thing I want to say is where are those loving
people going to come from? Ninety-five-plus percent of them
come from churches. We can use euphemistic terms such as
``community-based,'' but it is churches that provide these
people. Willie Sutton was asked, ``Why do you rob banks?'' He
said, ``That is where the money is.''
If we are interested in finding loving people to start
these relationships with inmates, it is the churches where they
are going to come from, and that is just the reality. We can
play all around that, but going and speaking to a Kiwanis Club,
you are not going to have nearly the impact as you do going to
a church, saying, ``Will you come and join us in walking with
these men and women and helping prepare them for their return
and then walk through the gate with them as they make those
decisions?''
The church is also a healthy atmosphere. John Dilulio made
a very interesting observation: ``The last two institutions to
leave the inner-city are liquor stores and the churches.''
Think of the clusters of ill health, of pathology, around
liquor stores, the gambling, the vice, the drugs, versus the
clusters of health, healthy lives, around churches.
We want the people coming out of prisons to be healthy, not
just physically--mentally, morally--healthy, good people.
Churches are the place. If they are going to hang, if they are
going to spend time, the church is a lot healthier place for
them to hang out than the liquor store. So we need to
facilitate that. We need to encourage that.
But it is uncomfortable coming out of prison. You are not
sure if anybody will welcome you. The mentor helps them. They
introduce them to the church, they hopefully will have told
them ahead of time, this inmate is coming out that they have
that relationship with, introduce them to the church and get
them involved in healthy activities.
Not just Bible studies and worship services, but also just
helping around the church. Our parents told us that idle hands
are the devil's playground. There is plenty of idle time when
you get out of prison. You go from a period of control to a
period of total freedom with your time. It is better to channel
that to where healthy, loving people are in the churches.
The last point I will make is that the government has to
treat the faith community as a partner. Too many government
agencies treat it as an auxiliary that it is a cheap way to do
what we don't have enough money to do. That is wrong, because
it misses the power that the church has.
The church provides something that government never can,
and that is not only that love, but it is also that moral
outlook and direction. We don't want the government preaching
and giving moral direction. But crime at its root is a moral
problem. Bad moral choices were made. The decision was made to
harm somebody else. And we need to reform that attitude, that
world view, that helps get that person thinking right, thinking
in terms of living a good, healthy, productive life. The only
way that comes is from a world view.
We don't have enough cops in the world to stop people from
doing something bad that pops in their head. There has to be
self-restraint, and it is the church that can teach that self-
restraint, and the loving mentor that can help model that
behavior and help them when they stumble and make mistakes to
get back on their feet.
The last thing I will say is that Dr. Martin Luther King
said, ``To change someone, you must first love them, and they
must know that you love them.'' It is the faith-based community
that reaches out in love to people society would rather forget
and says, ``We love
you, we will walk with you, we are here to help you get back on
your feet.''
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.049
Mr. Souder. Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Williams,
Transition of Prisoners.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS
Mr. Joseph Williams. Thank you, and good evening.
First, let me start by saying what an honor it is for me to
be able to testify before this committee on an issue that is
very near and dear to my heart, prison aftercare and prison
reentry and the reduction of prison recidivism.
If we are going to have a significant impact on this whole
problem of prisoner recidivism, I think it is very important
for us to first understand the types of people who populate our
prisons, and if you would allow me to read just a few prisoner
demographics.
First of all, 50 percent were raised by a single parent,
usually the mother; 15 percent were raised by neither parent,
but were raised by another relative or in a foster care home or
in an institution; 25 percent were raised by a parent or a
guardian who was a substance abuser; 15 percent of male inmates
and 55 percent of female inmates were physically or sexually
abused as children, and the numbers are even higher for those
raised in foster care homes or institutions--44 percent for men
and 87 percent for women; 95 percent of the men had no loving
father figure in their life.
As far as educational achievement is concerned, 40 percent
did not have a high school diploma or its equivalent; 40 to 65
percent are functionally illiterate, meaning they lack the
skills necessary to read and understand a newspaper, balance a
checkbook or fill out an application for a job--on the average,
they read at a 7th grade level; 25 to 50 percent have symptoms
of a learning disability; on the average, their IQ score is 14
points below the national average, and about 15 percent score
low enough on an IQ test to be identified as mentally retarded.
As far as substance abuse is concerned, alcohol and other
drugs are implicated in the offenses of about 80 percent of
inmates. Drug offenses account for 20 to 60 percent of inmates;
60 to 80 percent have used drugs at some point in their lives;
70 to 85 percent of inmates need some level of drug treatment,
but only 13 percent receive treatment while in prison.
Then there are the effects of prison after a person ends up
in the prison for a number of years. They have a prison
mentality: Don't talk, don't trust, don't feel. They are
indecisive, distrustful, afraid of life beyond the walls. They
are out of touch--out of touch with family, out of touch with
society in general, and out of touch with the requirements of
today's workplace.
I think when we look at the characteristics of these
individuals who are in prison and are being released into the
community, we can see that this is not going to be a quick-fix
solution, that in order to have a significant impact on the
problem of prison recidivism, comprehensive and relatively
long-term measures are going to be required.
I can say that, like Pat, I feel that I am uniquely
qualified to speak to this issue. First of all, I am a former
inmate. I am a former career criminal and former drug addict.
For 13 years, between the ages of 15 and 28, I lived as a drug
addict and a drug dealer.
When I was 28 years old, God miraculously delivered me from
heroin addiction and from a life of crime, and within a year
after my deliverance and my transition from a life of crime to
a life of being productive in the community, I began to go back
into the jails and the prisons and help others who were in the
same situation that God had brought me out of. But I was not
involved in jail and prison ministry very long before I
realized that most of the people that I was ministering to in
the jails and the prison, once they were released from prison,
were back in prison within a short period of time.
For 23 years now, I have worked in some form of ministry to
prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families.
I was also blessed to be able to go back to school, and I
received a bachelor's degree in religious education with a
double major in urban studies and Bible; and I was also able to
attend Wayne State and to achieve a master of arts degree in
applied sociology.
While I was at Wayne State, I discovered the theory of
social integration. Basically what the theory of social
integration says is that those who have strong attachments to
positive social institutions, such as the church, family and
work, are far less likely to engage in antisocial behaviors.
I was employed by Prison Fellowship in 1992 and started the
Detroit Transition of Prisoners program in 1993. We used the
theory of social integration as a basis for our program model.
The way that we achieve social integration is through the
churches. We have about 80 churches working with us in Detroit,
and they provide 120 mentors who work with men and women who
transition from prison back into the community.
It has been referenced today during these hearings, but I
want to put more emphasis on it, that most of those, like I
was--those people who were in prison and coming out of prison--
have strong attachments to antisocial networks, and in order
for them to be successful, then we have to facilitate their
integration into pro-social networks.
A person can go through the finest program. We know that
drug treatment and housing and job placement and education and
all of those things are very much needed. But unless we are
able to facilitate their connection to pro-social support
networks, they are very likely to go back to old friends and
associates, as Mr. Cummings alluded to; and it is only a matter
of time before they end up back using drugs, back committing
crime and back in prison.
We have collected quite a bit of data on our program since
the time that we started. We have been in existence now for
about 12 years. Our program evaluator is Leon Wilson, who is
the Chair of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Wayne State
University, and he conducted a study in 2000. He found that
only 18 percent of those who graduated from a TOP program had
any further contact with the criminal justice system within 3
years, and of that 18 percent, only one person went back to
prison for the commission of a new crime.
I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the idea of
faith-based and community-based organizations working hand in
hand with the government to impact this problem, and our data
and my experience suggest that when we in the church and in the
community work hand in hand with the government, we can have a
significant impact on the problem of recidivism.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.054
Mr. Souder. Our next witness is Chaplain Robert Toney from
the Angola Prison in Louisiana.
Thank you for coming today.
Rev. Toney. Thank you.
I would like to thank this committee and Brandon Lerch for
the opportunity of a lifetime today for me to be here before
you distinguished gentlemen and ladies. I also would like to
thank my warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary for the
opportunity to represent him today, Warden Burl Cain, and the
5,108 inmates and the 1,800 employees of the Louisiana State
Penitentiary.
The Louisiana State Penitentiary is better known as simply
Angola. It was once the most violent prison in America. Today,
we are known as the safest prison in America. This change began
with a warden that believed that change could occur. He also
came with a dream that within these walls transformation could
take place within the lives of those inmates there and that
they could become productive people in our world.
The chaplain and the programs within a prison cannot make
this change. The only way that change is possible within
America inside the walls of our prison is through the warden,
the secretary of corrections and through the Governor's Office;
and our warden had that support. He was willing to do it,
Secretary of Corrections Richard Stalder was willing to do it,
and they had the support of the Governor.
Angola houses the most violent offenders with an average
sentence length of 88 years. We have only four types of inmates
within our facility: We have murderers, we have aggravated sex
offenders, we have habitual offenders, we have short-timers
that were so violent they could not be kept in another facility
so they sent them to us in Angola.
Warden Cain brought this moral change 10 years ago to
Angola.
Moral rehabilitation is the only rehabilitation that works.
If you just have education, what you have done is just created
a smarter criminal. The change must come from within.
The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, a 4-year,
accredited college, was started in 1997 within the walls of
Angola. This school exists today without any tax dollars. This
school is supported by the local churches, the Judson Baptist
Association of Churches.
In 1997, we had our first group of inmates graduate from
this school, and I want to remind you they are graduating with
a B.A. degree that is an accredited degree, that when they are
out of the system can be built upon with a master's degree or
doctoral degree.
We had our first group that graduated. We put these to work
as inmate ministers. We put them to work all over our prison.
It is their job to minister and serve others. Inmates put down
the knives and the weapons and they picked up the Bible.
I have a graph that I have given to you today that shows
that during this 10-year period of Warden Cain's
administration, the more rehabilitation has occurred, the
violence of inmates on inmates, inmates on staff, has gone down
to nearly nothing.
We had a culture change. We have no profanity. Profanity is
only one step away from violence. If we can keep it out of our
prisons, we are two steps away from violence.
We sent missionaries from Angola to the other prisons
within our State. A missionary, as we would call it, is one of
our inmates that graduated from our 4-year college. In 2005, we
will have 50 more graduates with a 4-year degree. We will have
a graduation like any other college. Moms and dads are going to
come. The president of the seminary, Dr. Chuck Kelley, from New
Orleans, LA, will be there, along with other professors. They
will be in their attire of their gowns and their caps. In many
inmates' lives, this will be the first positive accomplishment
in their entire life. Moms and dads will get to see their sons
accomplish a great goal.
The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is not just
Baptists, it is for all faiths. Within this seminary, within
this college, we have Pentecostal, Methodists, Episcopal,
Muslim, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Latter Day Saints--non-
religion.
It is non-religion. It is moral education. We want you to
have morality, because character counts.
All religious groups have grown as a result of this school
being inside our walls. The culture of the bloodiest prison in
America has changed. Morality exists, hope lives, men have been
rehabilitated. The men who have gone home after completing this
program have not returned to prison.
Angola, out of 5,108 inmates, has only 1,400 of our inmates
living in a cell. Most of our population live in a dormitory
setting, and I want you to know they live in peace. Tonight
they will be able to go to sleep and not have to worry about
someone taking their life.
We have church 7 nights a week, 7 days a week. We had
11,000 outside volunteers enter our prison in 2004 conducting
various types of ministry. Ms. America came to Angola in 2003.
She walked all over our prison without one whistle or catcall.
You are safer in Angola tonight than you are on the streets of
Washington, DC.
If you want the prison systems changed in America, it is
moral rehabilitation. Our Secretary Richard Stalder says,
``Faith in a prison makes our prisons safer.'' Faith doesn't
need to be a side street, but it needs to be the Main Street.
Warden Cain has said, even an atheist warden would want
faith within a prison, because faith within a prison system
makes a prison safer. People can change. Moral rehabilitation
works.
The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary began a 4-year
degree program in Mississippi this year at Parchman. Georgia is
looking next week at our system. Florida is looking. Alabama is
looking. Arkansas is looking. Moody Bible College is ready to
take on this same challenge in Illinois if the door will open.
Remember, no tax dollars. The church of America will pay
for this. It won't cost the government anything. The church of
America is waiting for a vehicle to drive. All you have to do
is put us in the driver's seat, give us an opportunity to
change it, and it can take place. You can watch recidivism go
down immediately.
This year, One Day With God occurred within our walls. We
brought in 300 children of our inmates to reconnect with their
father. This had never happened in the history of Angola. We
are a maximum security prison for the State. We are not a
medium security or minimum security. Because of a warden that
wants to make a difference, change has occurred.
Angola represents the true spirit of America. This is what
happens when you have true morality. I would like to invite
each one of you, on behalf of our Warden Burl Cain and our
Secretary Richard Stalder, to come and see the truth for
yourself.
Thank you today.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.055
Mr. Souder. Our next witness is Mr. Frederick Davie, senior
vice president of public policy, Public-Private Ventures. Thank
you for coming.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK A. DAVIE
Mr. Davie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Members,
and Ranking Member Cummings. Thank you very much. And thanks to
you for taking the time to examine this issue. I also want to
thank Congressman Davis and Congressman Portman for your work
on behalf of the returning offender population.
Public-Private Ventures is a national nonprofit
organization seeking to improve the effectiveness of social
policies and programs, with a particular emphasis on work force
development issues. Public-Private Ventures designs, tests and
studies initiatives that increase opportunities for the
residents of low-income communities.
As has been stated here already today, every year nearly
760,000 ex-prisoners threaten the already tenuous cohesion of
many of the country's most troubled communities. In response,
Public-Private Ventures developed and launched a $32\1/2\
million national reentry initiative. We call it Ready4Work, An
Ex-prisoner, Faith and Community Initiative. We have done it in
partnership with the U.S. Departments of Labor and Justice and
the Annie E. Casey and the Ford Foundation.
I want to thank Secretary Chow and her staff, especially
Brent Orrell, who is the DOL's Director of Faith and Community
Initiatives, as well as Robert Florez, who is an Administrative
OJDDP at the Justice Department and his staff, Gwendolyn
Dilworth, for creating this partnership with us.
Ready4Work operates in areas of high crime to strengthen
local networks of young adults and juveniles as they reenter
their communities following detention or incarceration. Our
primary mission is to connect ex-offenders with employment
opportunities and to help them find housing, transportation and
child care support they need to sustain that employment. Each
participant is also matched with a volunteer mentor recruited
through local faith-based and community organizations to
provide personal support and assistance.
There are 16 sites across the country, both secular and
faith-based. I have included a full list for the record, and
Public-Private Ventures would be happy to facilitate contact
between this committee or any other Members of Congress and any
other participating organizations.
Ready4Work is currently in its second year of operation.
The sites have so far recruited over 2,000 participants, all
nonviolent, nonsexual, except for prostitution felony
offenders. Eighty-five percent of the participants are male,
nearly 80 percent are African Americans.
Of the adult participants, nearly 100 percent are receiving
case management, 64 percent have been placed in jobs, and
nearly half have been matched with mentors.
In the juvenile sites, 64 percent are African American and
84 percent are male. Half are between the ages of 17 and 19.
Almost 100 percent of the juveniles are receiving case
management, 79 percent are being mentored, 60 percent are
receiving educational services, and 67 percent are receiving
employment services.
What sets Ready4Work apart from traditional reentry efforts
is its focus on placing local, faith-based and community
organizations at the heart of the network that greets folks
when they come out of prison. We believe that these
organizations are a unique source of accountability and support
for returning offenders. They are frequently located in the
most deeply affected neighborhoods, as we have heard, and they
have resources that can make a difference between success and
failure for a returnee.
Frankly, the compassion and commitment that these groups
bring to the work is irreplaceable.
We also benefit immeasurably from our partnership with the
business community and its willingness to employ Ready4Work
participants. We applaud those of you who have moved this issue
of reentry to the top of Congress' agenda. Public-Private
Ventures believes that the Second Chance Act provides a solid
basis for creating a national policy aimed at reducing crime
and recidivism. We also believe that the bill should be
strengthened to find ways to direct more assistance toward the
faith community and community institutions.
We further believe that Congress should look for ways to
match the program experience and technical capacity of
organizations like ours with the people power of smaller
groups. This has been the Ready4Work model, one that we believe
offers an excellent chance to break the cycle of crime and
imprisonment for the benefit of returning offenders and their
communities.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity, and we look
forward to continuing to work with the 109th Congress to enact
meaningful reentry legislation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.058
Mr. Souder. And now that Sammy Sosa apparently is heading
to Congressman Cummings' district, you will be our clean-up
person from Chicago.
Mr. George A.H. Williams, Treatment Alternatives for Safe
Communities, from Chicago, IL. Thank you for your patience
today.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE A.H. WILLIAMS
Mr. George Williams. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes,
as a matter of fact, we are going to miss Sammy very much.
To the chairman, thank you, sir. It is good seeing you
again. The last time I saw you was in Chicago on the West Side
at Congressman Davis' district when you had your committee
hearing there. I would like to thank you today for having this
process here.
And to the past president, Congressman Elijah Cummings, of
the Congressional Black Caucus, thank you, sir, for your tenure
in that process. I appreciate all the hard work you have done
and will do over the years.
And to my esteemed Congressman and my trusted leader, Mr.
Congressman Danny Davis--he is my Congressman, but most
importantly, he is a trusted leader, a man that has the trust
of his district, of the men that live in his district.
I am going to talk a little bit about my organization,
TSAC. Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities is a
statewide, not-for-profit organization that provides access to
recovery and other specialized services to individuals in
Illinois involved in the criminal justice systems, and the
corrections, juvenile justice, child welfare, public aid
systems also. TSAC programs reaches over 30,000 people across
the State each year, including correctional transition programs
that provide clinical case management for more than 4,000
adults annually who are reentering the community following
incarceration.
TSAC works with an array of service providers and community
partners, including treatment, recovery, support,
nontraditional, traditional organizations, faith-based
throughout the State of Illinois.
We at TSAC are in full support of the Second Chance Act to
help to reduce the numerous barriers facing men and women,
families and communities as well. The Second Chance Act is a
necessary step toward reducing the high recidivism rate and the
costs that accompany recidivism and repeat incarceration,
including the threat to public health, public safety.
This legislation begins the process of ensuring better
coordination and planning for relief, providing necessary drug
treatment and recovery support services, job training,
education, housing, family assistance upon release. TSAC
strongly urges Congress to support this legislation to provide
the health, justice, welfare and safety to all of our residents
and communities.
Thank you very much for this legislation and for this
discussion.
Now I want to spend a few seconds on a particular component
of our services that we call ``restoring citizenship.'' The
work that we do is primarily focused on how do you go into the
man and the woman to get them to look within themselves, as
well, with all of these external supports that are available.
Because if you keep in mind, most men and most women go into
the system because they have offended. They don't come out of
the system because they offended, they went into the system
because they offended. That means there was something there in
the beginning that attracted that type of lifestyle.
As a matter of fact, I was searching in my mind some time
ago about the first crime, and I started reading books and
trying to do some research. Somehow I was led to the Bible. In
the Bible there is a situation in there where God asks one of
the humans a question, where was his brother? And he responded
to God, why are you asking me? I mean, am I my brother's
keeper? And right then and there for me was probably reflective
of what we are up against.
When man lied to God about a crime that he committed, did
we inherit that consciousness and that spirit as we go forth
and try to look at and dismantle so many pieces to criminality.
It is just not the behavior; it is that men and women can
exist in communities where the behavior is validated, sometimes
within their family structure, within their community
structure. So how do we also begin to dismantle those
processes? And within the Seventh Congressional District, we
have processes in place in terms of where we are engaging
communities to dismantle some of the norms that exist, where
men can exist in those kinds of behaviors and don't get called
out.
We are trying to call them out and make them to be
accountable and to crush some of those support systems that
allow them to exist as well.
Behavior is an extremely difficult proposition sometimes,
and I know that the work we are doing right now, this is a
movement. This movement around reentry is very early, but this
is a real strong, powerful movement to look at men and women
and to help them think about establishing and restoring their
citizenship, their rights and responsibilities. Because all
over this country, in the urban areas, in the rural areas, in
the suburban areas, you have men and women crying out, asking
for a chance to be self-sufficient and asking this country for
a second chance. And at some point in time we as a people have
to answer the question, at what point in time do men and women
stop serving time?
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. George Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.060
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you all for your testimony.
I wanted to just ask Chaplain Toney again, did you say the
average was 88 years in the sentence?
Rev. Toney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. I just wanted to make sure I heard that right,
in case I quote that sometime. I am not used to that number.
One of the challenges that we face--just to be very open as
we try to work through this legislation, one of the great
things with today's hearing is, it suggests some possibilities
about how we address this.
There are several things that are happening, whether
anybody likes them or not, and that is State funding is flat at
best and not inflation-adjusted even, just flat funding.
Federal funding is tight, and the problems are not, overall,
going down. In fact, crime has gone down, but that is because
we lock so many people up.
Now they are about to come back out, and what does that
mean?
This is a huge challenge. That is why we have expanded
discussions about faith-based and community organizations and
business organizations, because it doesn't matter whether you
have a Republican or a Democratic Governor, it doesn't matter
who is in charge of the legislature, it doesn't matter who is
in charge, the money is not going up. So how do we deal with
this?
We also have another sociological, demographic problem that
was alluded to from the beginning today that is a huge
challenge politically, and that is that the most difficult
crime, if not all crime, is certainly skewed to inside the
black male community and in the minority community and in the
urban areas. It doesn't mean there isn't crime elsewhere, it
doesn't mean there are not addictions to pornography or other
types of problems in all sorts of suburbs, and it doesn't mean
that the majority, or close to the majority, of people in
prisons are not majority white population. But it does mean
that this disproportionately hits urban centers and
disproportionately hits the minority community.
It is also true that those population areas overall in the
United States have declined. So there are fewer Members of
Congress from those areas. And politically it becomes harder to
move legislation that focuses on those communities as they are
less representative of the whole of the United States.
And it isn't surprising necessarily that the Congressmen at
our hearing today that were most interested were from Los
Angeles and Baltimore and Kansas City and Chicago and
Washington, DC, and major metropolitan areas, because they have
the most stake in it.
The problem is, to pass this legislation, how do we broaden
our base? How does this base reach the majority community, as
some of you have reached out and said you have obligations
here?
One is a cost question, which is cheaper? But, quite
frankly, it is not absolutely clear which is cheaper. At some
point, because of the difficulty of this, it is cheaper, but it
is not guaranteed cheaper based on the housing questions, job
training questions and all of the other kinds of things that we
need to do.
There is a moral obligation with it, and I think what is
interesting and what I believe is a potential breakthrough
opportunity with this is that as you hear people like Pat, and
we have known each other for at least 35 years, like you know
Congressman Doolittle and Congressman Royce and Congressman
Dana Rohrabacher, because we all grew up together in the
conservative movement, that having people who have gone through
this, not that I want to or recommend other Members of Congress
go to prison for 24 months to figure out the difficulty of it,
but to try to figure out and hear from people who share our
ideology make a passionate appeal of both the need to mentor,
the time, the obligation to spend the time, and the need for
services and how we address the follow-through, and the
difficulty, given some of the laws that we passed, that our
constituents support and polls show they still support and even
want them to be tougher. This is a huge dilemma as we work this
through in Congress.
But when we hear--and one of the things the American people
are desperate for is hope. They see recidivism rates go up.
They see the problems seem to be there. We battle on this drug
issue all the time. This is a drug policy committee.
But when we hear in Angola prison a story like that, or we
hear individual cases like we heard today, or cases that this
is going on in Detroit, not known as an easy city necessarily
to work in, or in Washington, DC, which has been the murder
capital of the United States 7 of the last 8 years, that to
listen to those kind of programs offers hope. And I hope that
today's hearing can advance that, that in fact--because if this
is viewed as just a traditional way to transfer more money into
urban communities and gets an ``us against them'' type of
mentality in battling for dollars, which is often where the
rubber meets the road here in Congress, it isn't going to go
anywhere.
This has been a very difficult process, to even get this
bill launched. It sounds great, it is very moving, but in the
reality of how bills become law, it is hard. I think you have
suggested a number of things today, and it has been great to
hear all of your testimonies about different things that have
worked well.
I may have a particular question here to wrap up the
hearing, but let me yield to Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
What you were just saying, as I sit here, I couldn't help
but say to myself that trying to get the public to realize that
people can do their time and then go out into the world and be
productive is so very, very hard; and that, as testimony, has
been stated over and over again in this hearing here today,
that a prison sentence--or not necessarily a sentence, a
conviction dooms a person for a lifetime.
Mr. Williams, I just want to go to something that you said,
and I am so glad you brought this out. I actually in my law
practice and when I was a State delegate, hired former inmates
to give them a chance. One of the things that I realized early
on is that prison does take more away from a person than their
freedom. I noticed just the whole being on schedule, time,
coming to work on time was a problem. It is like they had to
readjust.
I noticed another very interesting thing that came up not
long ago. We had a fellow in Maryland who was wrongfully
accused and served 27 years and got out, and his fiance said
that even after he got out, he would stay in the basement and
wouldn't come out. She said she could hardly get him to come
out of the basement, and he would just sit there.
I think a lot of people don't realize. They think about
just the physical incarceration. They don't think about the
fact that it really does something to a person. It takes them
out of society. And that reintegration thing is so significant.
I was talking a little bit earlier about the program that
we had in Baltimore. When you talk about integration and you
talk about family, I think you said church.
Mr. Joseph Williams. And employment.
Mr. Cummings. And employment. One of the things that we
noticed--take for example with family, fellows, the volunteers
who had done pretty well in life would come on Saturdays, and
we would have like a 12-step program where people sit around
and talk about their lives or whatever. But they would open up
into social activities with folk who had been in prison and
want their families together, and it made a world of
difference, because then they became more attached to the
family.
We also had a fatherhood piece, where fathers could
reconnect with their children. So that gave them something to
hold onto as opposed to the streets. It gave them somebody kind
of looking over their shoulder, and somebody else to disappoint
if anything went wrong.
The same thing with work. I think a lot of people don't
realize how significant work is. A lot of jobs create a whole
new set of family members, because they found they begin to
socialize with these folks, they became a team at work,
depending on what kind of job it was, a team at work, and had
new people, new people getting up at 6 a.m., maybe getting off
at 5 p.m., and talking about things other than committing a
crime; and they had something else, they had hope.
Because a lot of these jobs had opportunities for them to
move up in life. Things that are very basic to those who may
not have gone through the system, but we take them for granted.
But the fact is that all of that I think is needed to make a
person whole. And certainly church.
As the son of two preachers, I found a lot of the people in
our church will come. They will have, again, a reintegration, a
whole other family to connect with, and a family that is not
dealing with drugs, a family not committing crime, a family
where the norm is to do the right thing.
So it is just a whole lot. But I am glad you brought that
aspect. And I didn't hear your testimony, Mr. Nolan. Maybe you
hit on that, too, and others. But I just think that is a part,
no matter what we have to do, we have to deal with that piece.
Any comments, sir?
Mr. Joseph Williams. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Back in 1981, when I was making the transition from a life
of crime to one of being productive in the community, the
greatest challenge I faced--many times people ask me what was
the greatest challenge I faced, was it struggling with the
addiction issue or the lifestyle issue? But it was loneliness.
Because for 13 years, most of my teenage years and all of my
adult years up to that point, all of my associations and
friendships were with criminals and drug addicts.
And so, now, I was drug free. I wanted to do the right
thing, but I was very lonely. And I heard that Mother Teresa
was quoted as citing--she was asked, what was the greatest
disease that she had ever seen, the most devastating disease
she had ever seen? And she cited it was loneliness. And that
loneliness, because I didn't have the kinds of people, the pro-
social types of people to fellowship with and to direct me in
the right way, was a danger of driving me back to my old
associates and back to the old behaviors. And I wonder, with
the other two former inmates who testified earlier, that had I
not been able to, through my church, make all those new
associations through friendships and through school and through
employment, that I would not be here today.
Mr. Cummings. How does government--and this is my last
question--how does a program like the one we are talking about,
how do we in government--we can only do but so much. But what
do you see us doing, or you all see us doing, and I assume we
pretty much all agree that's a big part of it, to get people
more socially integrated?
I mean, what do you see government's role in that, if any?
Mr. Joseph Williams. Yes, and I don't think that it is
something that the government can do per se, but I think the
greatest role that government can take on is to build the
capacity of organizations such as Transition of Prisoners and
these organizations who have been committed to this cause for a
number of years.
And unfortunately, what happens is, you know, we have
thrown around some figures of some $300 million and $100
million, and so a lot of nonprofits will develop a desire to go
into re-entry because of that. But there's been a lot of
organizations that have been out here for years and have been
committed to it, and they are going to do it whether the
funding is there or not. But they don't have the capacity to
really do it at a large scale.
So I think that the best thing that government could do is
to build the capacity of community-based and faith-based
organizations as we build the capacity of the churches. And
that way, I believe that we will be able to sustain our
programs. And we know that the funding will not be there
forever, but we need a way to build our capacity so that we
could continue to do this work after the funding is gone.
Mr. Nolan. If I could answer, too, the government could
also view churches as a partner. Justice Fellowship sponsored a
conference and the head of transition services from New Mexico
attended it, and he said it never occurred to him to look to
the churches for mentors.
He was in charge of finding mentors, and he was going to
all of these community groups and not having much success. And
it never occurred to him to go to churches. And so he called me
when he got home, and he said, half of the folks in New Mexico
are Catholics. And I am not a Catholic. What do I do?
And I knew the bishop there, and the Catholic Church
provided a nun full-time to organize parishes to recruit
mentors. And the Protestants, several churches got together and
hired somebody half-time. And all he had to do was just be open
to that. And, frankly, a lot of government officials aren't
open to that.
They think it's improper to have a relationship. Again,
they view churches as maybe providing an education program, or
it's programmatic as opposed to a partner. Then a lot of States
have policies that put up barriers. Many States have a policy
that says, if you mentor someone in prison, the prisoner is
prohibited from being in a relationship with you when you get
out of prison. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has that policy.
If a volunteer comes in and mentors you in prison, you are
prohibited from being in touch with them when they get out.
Texas had that policy. IFI had----
Mr. Souder. Would you elaborate on that? I don't
understand.
Mr. Nolan. Yes. The idea is that the inmates are all cons
and, therefore, will take advantage of these volunteers when
they get out; that the volunteers would be victims of the
offenders when they get out, and so they have to sever that
relationship.
Most States have that policy, and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons has that policy. Texas had that policy, and IFI had to
have an exemption. Texas still has that policy. And IFI is
exempted from that policy.
Let me say one last thing. Now, Director Wilkinson is
definitely an exception to this. But most prison systems are
built on or structured around what is convenient for the
system. If nobody riots and nobody escapes, they are a good
warden. If somebody riots and somebody escapes, they are bad.
Therefore, volunteers, religious volunteers and mentors are
a threat to their careers, because every time a volunteer comes
in, there might be contraband there; there might be something
there, and so it's easier to exclude those volunteers. They are
a pain in the neck. They are more work to the people with that
attitude.
Institutional security is more important than--and, in
fact, one warden said to me that the way he was trained--now
he's different in this. But the way he was trained in Oklahoma
was that, if nobody rioted and nobody escaped, he was a good
warden. If that prisoner walked out of prison 1 block and raped
or murdered somebody, that was still OK because they hadn't
done it on his watch.
And we need to change that attitude to where corrections
people view public safety as their role.
And that whole mindset--if public safety is a role, then
you welcome religious volunteers and mentors. And Burl Cain--
you know, I have been to Angola. It is a different atmosphere.
The inmates look you in the eye. They have hope even. The
reason that 88 years is the average sentence is because most of
them are going to die in prison there. And Warden Cain has
changed it so they are buried with dignity. The choir sings.
They can make their own casket or another inmate can.
They have created a carriage with horses to draw it. They
have a ceremony to bear them. They used to be just buried in
cardboard boxes in paupers' graves. Now there's a ceremony to
honor their life with their friends. They are treated like
human beings whose lives matter.
And you see it in the way that the inmates talk--outsiders
the way they talk to each other, the respect with which they
treat each other and are treated by the staff.
Mr. Cummings. I just have one other thing.
Mr. Nolan, as I listened to you talk, I have to tell you, I
became a little bit depressed when you talked about them, you
know, the caskets and everything.
I guess one of the things that I am--and maybe nobody else
will say this, but I am going to say it--you know, there are so
many people in my community who come upon the Earth, and
because of circumstances, a lot of times, and some poor
decisions sometimes, they don't believe that they can live the
kind of life that other people live.
And I will never forget one time when I went to speak at a
prison, and I looked around, and I was speaking at a
graduation. And if you did not see the guards in the room, I
would have sworn you were at a church.
I guess my point is that, you know, some kind of way--I
want to see people believe that they don't have to--the prison
doesn't have to be a part of their lives.
Mr. Nolan. Right.
Mr. Cummings. And I don't want to get to a point where--and
I am not knocking anybody who has gone through that process--
but, I tell you, I want people to have hope. I don't
necessarily talk about coping skills; I talk about hoping
skills. Because I think when you lose hope--and that my hope is
to have a nice funeral in a prison, and a fellow inmate is
making me a casket, to me that ain't no hope. That's not hope
to me. That does not excite me.
What does excite me is trying to--although some of these
gentlemen and women, perhaps, may not ever get out, but for
them to know that, every day, they can be better than they were
the day before, that's hope under those circumstances. It's
hope knowing that they can perhaps counsel a younger inmate and
try to show him or her the path to that, when they get out, to
how you have things that they want to consider, things of that
nature.
And I don't want--I tell you, I don't want us to adopt a
philosophy--you know, one of the things I say all the time is,
we have one life to live, and this is no dress rehearsal, and
this is the life.
And sometimes I think that when we get into scenarios like
that, like, you know, the big deal is to be able to make a
casket, and what that reminds me of, one of the guys in my
neighborhood, because I live in the inner city, Baltimore, who
believe they are going to die before they are 18.
So what is their, I mean, so--committing a crime is not as
big of a deal because they don't expect to be here.
What I am saying to you is that we have to, no matter what
we do in our prison systems, I think we have to create a sense
of hope.
And I know, I am not sitting here trying to sound like
somebody who is some flaming liberal who thinks he is supposed
to be paying for people who commit crimes. I know what it is to
be a victim of a crime. I know what it is to have a gun, sawed-
off shot gun, two of them, pointed at my head at 2 a.m. I
understand it.
But at the same time I don't want us to move to that point
where we think that it's nice that somebody can make a casket
for me in prison and bury me on prison ground. I don't think
that sends a very powerful message at all, to be frank with
you.
Mr. Nolan. I didn't want to send that message. I wanted to
say they are treated with dignity so they can live a life of
consequence even if we are never going to let them out. That is
what Warden Cain has done and the seminary where they can do
exactly what you said, spread hope to the other prisoners. They
even have a culinary class. They even have the chefs from New
Orleans come up and teach them to create terrific, you know,
high-level cuisine for the other inmates.
Mr. Cummings. But, see, the thing is that I know for a
fact, once, one little decision in my life could have put me in
the same position as a lot of those folks that find themselves
in prison.
Mr. Nolan. And one of the things we want to work with you
on is sentencing, because these long sentences are horribly
cruel in many cases.
Mr. Cummings. Right, there you go.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Let me again
commend you and Ranking Member Cummings for holding this
hearing.
I also want to thank this group of witnesses especially for
coming to testify.
I agree with you when you talk about the difficulty of
passing legislation, and especially when you talk about the
differences that exist in different geographic areas, big
cities versus smaller towns, urban areas versus rural areas,
where the impact of certain issues are not felt as great.
Pat, it is always good to be where you are, talking about
your experiences, and what you have seen and what you have
done. And I thank you for continuing to do that.
Mr. Williams, it's--I think the kind of light that you
shared and the kind of inspiration that you give and the kind
of hope that you convey to others who may be in the same
circumstances and situations that you have once been in.
Chaplain Toney, I grew up about 10 miles from what we used
to call the Louisiana line. And so I knew about Angola when I
was a child growing up in Arkansas.
And, of course, our parents would admonish us, whenever we
went to Louisiana, that we better not get into any trouble
because, if we did, we might end up in Angola.
And, of course, that spoke to the reputation that Angola
had at that time. And to see how it's changing--as a matter of
fact, I have an invitation from some inmates in Angola to visit
that I have been trying to figure out when I could work that
out, if I could work it out, in terms of my schedule.
Mr. Toney. Any time.
Mr. Davis. And I am going to put more effort on to it to
try to work it out from hearing your testimony today and what
you have conveyed.
George, it is always good to hear you talk about the work
of TASC and what it does, and coming from your own experiences.
And I also want to thank you not only for changing your
schedule to come and to be here, but also for serving as co-
chairman of our ex-offender task force in the 7th Congressional
District back in Illinois. And the work that task does to help
raise the level of understanding about these issues.
When I look at the panel knowing, for example, that three
of you, at least, are what people would call ex-offenders, that
there are three of you on the panel who are dignified citizens,
who are self-sufficient, who are professional at what you do. I
think that conveys a kind of hope in and of itself.
Because what it really says is that there are thousands and
perhaps hundreds of thousands of others who find themselves in
a position that you once were in.
And if given assistance, if given the opportunities, if
provided the resources, they, too, become productive citizens.
They, too, become self-sufficient. They, too, become
contributing members of society, and that's exactly what I
think we are trying to do is to indeed provide hope for those
who have become hopeless, to provide help for those who think
that they might be helpless and to help individuals know that
it's not always a matter of where you have been, but it's also
a matter of where you are going.
And I believe that our criminal justice system can, in
fact, change.
Mr. George Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. That it can, in fact, be different.
What I think government can provide is the impetus. But as
others have already said, it does take a movement. And the only
way there is a movement, there has to be the people. And I
mean, you have given me so much hope.
Mr. Davis, organizations like yours that are really looking
and searching--I think we know that it's not going to be easy.
Mr. George Williams. No, yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. I mean, I grew up listening to my folks tell us,
you know the Langston Hughes stuff, that life ain't been no
crystal stair, had a lot of tacks and a lot of holes in it. But
we have just got to keep trying.
And that's what the Second Chance Act attempts to do.
That's what the Public Safety Self-Sufficiency Act tries to do,
is provide the hope that tells us that we got to keep trying.
And so I thank you gentlemen so very much.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for this hearing.
And I believe that we are on the right track, and that the
American people will respond and life does not have to be, for
individuals who are incarcerated, one dark, gloomy picture.
So I thank you.
Mr. George Williams. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. As we move forward--and it was
important that we get the year started out right in this 2-year
session of Congress--a couple of thoughts here at the end: One
is, it's very easy to be critical of those who commit crimes,
and that those of us who haven't been to jail, it's hard--and
since the population that hasn't had to vote the tax money with
which to do this.
In communicating, I have been trying to think of analogies
of every January, I and most Americans commit to lose weight.
And yet, we don't; that we fail. And yet we criticize those,
and they even have physical addictions, without any of the
resources that we have to follow through, if they fail in what
their goal is.
And how to get in a way that the average person can
understand the difficulty without being condemning. Because at
root, I believe, as Mr. Williams suggested and others, that the
root cause is sin. And that we are in a constant battle, and
that those of us who have extra resources with which to battle
it are blessed.
And then the question comes, how do we reach out to those
who don't have those and what is our obligation to do so and
what is the individual's obligation then to change because,
there is accountability there, too.
And trying to communicate this message is of critical
importance as we move through this. Really, what are three
stages for those who follow this bill and are going to be
active and trying to promote this?
As Pat knows, from being in the Assembly, there's really
three ways to do this. One is the bill directly, which is an
authorizing bill that says this is allowed to fund these types
of programs, and it's--Congressman Davis has a housing bill
that we have supported before, and that is arguably the most
difficult, because you have to go through the House, you have
to go through the Senate, and the President has to reconcile
and support it, too.
The second thing is that, in the appropriations process, to
try to get little pieces here and there where we fund things in
the appropriations process that are parts of the overall bill,
and the general question of prison re-entry.
And the third is through the executive branch where they
make decisions every day on how to allocate funding.
For example, in my home area in Ft. Wayne, IN, which is a
city of 200,000, not as big as most of the cities you are
dealing with for the most part today, the fact is that the
Justice Department has a re-entry program because in Ft.
Wayne--which has been bragging now for 5 years that they have
had these great crime reductions. Now their people or many
could go out of prison, 3,000 of them, in some neighborhoods
that only have 10,000 people in front of them.
Now what happens, you know, the housing situation is
stressed. The job situation is stressed. There aren't jobs in
that section of the city that other sections of the city say,
why should they come back there?
It is a problem all across America, as we as politicians
and government leaders have bragged about the government
reduction in crime. Many of those sentences were 3, 5, 7 years,
and now we have the re-entry questions that we are going to
have to deal with this, or what we have bragged about and run
on, in areas outside the urban areas as well as inside the
urban areas we are faced with. So I think there are multiple
ways to try to tackle this.
I wanted to make sure that we started right at the
beginning of the 2-year term to try to raise this, and you have
helped. I would also like if you can work with Brandon Lerch on
our staff, for example, in the Ready-to-Work Program, to
identify youth listed in your testimony, all these different
sites across the country, to give us a little more feedback in
what government funds were in, how that has worked in the
capacity building, so we can see. And if you have any data, any
of the rest of you.
Mr. George Williams. OK.
Mr. Souder. In Chicago and Detroit, and I know Justice
Fellowship can do that, too.
So as we move into this hearing record, as it moves into
the different authorizing committees, that we can try to,
whether it's through floor statements, through different
meetings, that we bring people in. The more information we
have, the better armed we will be to try to tackle these
difficult questions.
This committee does authorizing and oversight on drug
policy, so there are a number of things here--for example in
the treatment program, when I have talked to--when I say about
the appropriations process, Chairman Wolf and I have talked to
Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations about, should drug
treatment be more precisely targeted in a higher percentage
toward prisons?
Because if we can't get to it early on, or if, in fact, it
becomes a greater problem in prison or they are introduced to
it in prison, it is a huge question, how do we best target
these funds?
So any kind of information you can give us for this hearing
record will not only be in the official record, but then we can
use it as we debate it in multiple forms, including additional
hearings in this subcommittee.
Would any of you like to make any closing comments?
Mr. Davie. I would, Mr. Chairman.
You asked earlier sort of what could Congress do. And I
would like to suggest that one of the areas where we have not
paid enough attention to garnering resources and partnerships
is with the philanthropic community.
I mentioned the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey
Foundation in my testimony. I used to work for Ford. So I know
that world pretty well, but I think if Congress and the
President were to reach out to the heads of the major
foundations and suggest they could play a role in this area, a
bigger role as well in terms of helping to support local
community and faith-based organizations, in the delivery of
these services, you would find a good partner there. But I
think they need to cover--I think if the legislation somehow
required a match from philanthropic and private sources in the
implementation of these programs, that would be another sort of
incentive and method to get the philanthropic community
involved. There are billions and billions of dollars there, and
this is an issue that the philanthropic community has not paid
a lot of attention to.
I, frankly, think they are scared of it in some ways for
obvious reasons. But with the support and cover of government,
in pursuing this as a national policy and a national issue, I
do think a number of those philanthropic institutions will come
along.
I would just encourage you--if you see your way so clear--
to reach out to that community, because I think they can be a
valuable resource.
Mr. Souder. We will followup directly on that question. If
I can make an editorial comment here that, as we work this
through--the President's faith-based initiative, when he first
took office, somehow became mostly focused on the public
funding portion that was going to go to faith-based. It really
had multiple pieces, including capacity building, which we
talked about. How do we get people setting up 501c3s? How do we
train them in accounting methods so they can have credibility
when they go to philanthropic institutions, and then the tax
credit, which would give incentive to individuals when they
give these 501c3s and to philanthropic organizations? The
public fight became over the funding portion. And we kind of
lost the other two, where we might have been able to move
forward.
Steve Goldsmith was originally hired. And as he has pointed
out repeatedly, there's far more dollars in the philanthropic
area right now than there are in government. Somehow this got
second, the back burner. Trying to reconstruct some of how that
happened is important as we move forward.
Second, one of the things that appeared to have happened is
that the philanthropic organizations themselves backed away--if
government didn't put the money in, because government money
was like a good-housekeeping seal, that we believe this group
is good.
And so much like what is happening in pharmaceutical prices
and Medicare is, as we were trying to go cheap on the drug
prices, that every private insurance company standard emulated
the government price. And if the philanthropic organizations
merely mimic what we do, we are right back to the first place.
So as we move multiple faith-based pieces through, which we
will probably be starting within 4 weeks, everything from
welfare reform, social services block grant and other types of
things, in addition to the regular bill and regular
implementation, we will try to figure out how to do that, with
suggestions of specifically how to do that, with regional
conferences where the government brings philanthropic
organizations in and lets groups come to present that. That was
one of the things that was raised to me. We do this, for
example, in small business centers around the United States.
We have small business centers where the secretary is
shared. The phone lines are shared. The fax machines are
shared. Students can come and volunteer. Could that be done in
a social services way? And would philanthropic organizations
pay for some of that, which would then build the capacity of
small organizations, much who have no idea to whom you fill out
a grant--fill out a grant to the Federal Government or a
philanthropic organization, don't have time to hire somebody
even to figure out the bid process of a small foundation, let
alone the Federal Government when you don't know which 10 days
it will be in the middle of the month and have some inside
information.
This, on the surface, sounds really good, but how to
implement it in some very practical things. They have done some
of this around the country. Clearly, the Faith-based Office is
trying to figure out how to do it. But we have missed this
philanthropic piece, and the question is, how to jar them.
There's lots of money there, and you are absolutely right, but
it's a challenge. So any input you have on that.
Mr. Toney. Just one statement to you, that position has
power, and each person who sits on this committee and everyone
who serves in Congress and across the board, just by you taking
notice of this and just by taking visits, you have the power to
make a difference. One man can make a difference.
Warden Cain is just one man. He has only had 10 years in
the maximum security prison, the bloodiest prison in America.
Today, it's the safest. That's one man in the right position.
Government officials have power. Put that one man in the right
places in the prisons.
Education is powerful. We have seminaries across the United
States. Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. They are a
prestigious university. There are other universities that are
ready to take on the process of putting education within the
prison system, no tax dollars, supported by the Church of
America. So position has power, and I thank you for what you
are doing; 88 years, do I agree with that. No, I do not.
There is one man we have at Angola, Bishop Eugene
Tannerhill, he is 70 years old, he has been behind bars for 50
years. Would he be a detriment to society? No, sir. I would
love for him to be my next-door neighbor.
There are many guys within our system. We can't help the 88
years. We just have to do the best we can with where we are,
and that's what we have done in regards to the caskets and
those things being done.
That means a lot to Eugene Tannerhill, who has no one to be
his emergency contact and to pick his body up when he dies.
That means a lot to him, that he will have a decent burial,
that he will have grace and dignity in those last days of his
life. That means a lot to him.
You would only have to be in their position to see the hope
these guys have; hope with no hope; 88 years alive, but they
still have hope. And they have changed their culture. And the
society that they live in is a great world, even within the
walls of a prison. But you have power, and thank you for the
power that you are using today to change our prisons in
America.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Joseph Williams. I would say that I agree with others
who have testified that there is a movement, re-entry and
after-care. It's a very young movement, and it reminds me in
many ways of the yearly substance-abuse treatment movement that
started back in the 1960's, when people were looking at, you
know, the validity of funding substance-abuse treatment.
And I think one of the major things that occurred in that
movement was leadership of those who had formerly been addicted
to drugs and alcohol. And somehow, I think, if a way could be
found to encourage the leadership of those who have served time
in prison and have successfully made that transition and assure
that they have a prominent place in this movement, I think that
is the best way to perpetuate it years into the future.
Mr. Souder. Thank you all very much for your testimony and
participating in this hearing. We look forward to having a
continuing dialog with you.
Thank you, Congressman Davis, again for your leadership.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.068
<all>