[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1707
__________
APRIL 29, 2003
__________
Serial No. 36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
86-706 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
TOM FEENEY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin MAXINE WATERS, California
RIC KELLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Counsel
Katy Crooks, Counsel
Patricia DeMarco, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 29, 2003
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Virginia.......................................... 6
WITNESSES
Ms. Tracy A. Henke, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Mr. Ashbel T. (A.T.) Wall, II, Director, Department of
Corrections, State of Rhode Island
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Mr. Charles J. Kehoe, President, American Correctional
Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Mr. Frank A. Hall, Director, The Eagle Group
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Letter from Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM) with coalition
signatures..................................................... 4
Prepared statement of the Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Virginia.......... 8
Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas............. 37
Letter from Charles W. Colson, Chairman, and Mark Early,
President, Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM).................. 42
Prepared statement of Pat Nolan, President, Justice Fellowship... 44
Letter from Glenn Goord, Commissioner, Department of Correctional
Services, State of New York.................................... 45
Letter from Robert Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, State of Louisiana..................... 47
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared statement of Michael J. Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson
Institute...................................................... 51
Letter from Harold W. Clarke, Director, Department of
Correctional Services, State of Nebraska, with attachments..... 53
Letter from Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Ph.D., in response to letter
from Harold W. Clarke, with attachments........................ 115
Letter from Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary, Department of Corrects,
State of Washington............................................ 141
Letter from Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., President, Association
of State Correctional Administrators and Director, Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.................... 144
Letter from Alida V. Merlo, Ph.D., Professor, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania................................................ 147
Letter from Martin D. Schwartz, Ph.D., Presidential Research
Scholar, Professor of Sociology, Ohio University............... 149
Letter from Leanne Fiftal Alarid, Ph.D., Associate Professor and
Progam Coordinator, Criminal Justice and Criminology,
University of Missouri-Kansas City............................. 151
PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security will come to order.
This hearing is to examine the issue of sexual assault
within Federal, State, and local correctional institutions and
actions that are to be taken to address the issue.
Correctional institutions must deal with many issues that
are unique to the population they house. H.R. 1707, the
``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003,'' which has been
introduced by my friends, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, is intended
to make prevention of sexual assault within correctional
facilities a priority for Federal, State, and local
institutions and require the development of national standards
for detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of these
incidents.
There were over two million individuals incarcerated in
this country by the end of 2001. Although most correctional
facilities have procedures in place to protect inmates against
violence from other inmates while they are incarcerated, often
these procedures are inadequate. We know violence occurs, but
there is very little data regarding the number of violent
incidences that occur in correctional facilities, and even less
data on the incidence of sexual assaults.
Estimates from different experts put the incidence of
sexual assaults of inmates as high as 13 percent. However, many
argue that these studies are not accurate and, in fact, the
incidence is much lower. Regardless of percentages, it is
difficult to--it is generally agreed that these incidents have
real consequences for the physical, emotional and psychological
well-being of the prisoners who may one day be released back
into society.
This legislation would require Federal, State and local
governments to work with the Federal Bureau of Justice
Statistics to study the number and effects of incidents of
sexual assault in correctional facilities and hopefully provide
accurate data for the first time on the actual number of
incidents. It would also mandate that the State and local
governments adopt and maintain compliance with the national
standards developed by the Attorney General to be eligible for
increases in grant funding.
For institutions that comply with the Federal Government
standards and requests for information, this legislation would
increase of amount of all grant funding a State or local
government receives by 10 percent at the expense of those
States who do not comply with such requests or adopt such
standards. Additionally, because this legislation requires that
the grant funds designated must aggregate a minimum of one
billion, affecting approximately one-third of all grants at the
Office of Justice Programs, many different grants for many
entities may be affected.
I am grateful to Mr. Wolf, author of the legislation, and
the other witnesses appearing here today, because I think this
is a problem that must be addressed. I want to assure Mr. Wolf
and Mr. Scott that our Subcommittee staff is prepared to work
in earnest with you and your staffs to address the concerns our
witnesses have raised in their testimony to craft a workable
and meaningful solution to this problem, which the gentleman's
bill has aptly highlighted.
I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on the Prison Rape Reduction Act.
Of over two million people incarcerated today, it is
estimated that one in ten, or roughly 200,000, have been raped.
A 1996 study of Nebraska prisoners reflected 22 percent had
been raped or pressured and intimidated into sexual activity
against their will. A 2001 report by the Human Rights Watch
documented ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse in U.S.
prisons.'' The research indicates that those subjected to
sexual abuse in prisons are not abused just once but, on the
average, nine more times during their incarceration. Youths in
adult prisons are five times more likely to be raped than
adults.
The effects of prison rape are devastating. The rape is
recognized as a contributing factor to prison homicide,
violence against staff, and institutional riots. Not only does
it cause severe physical and psychological trauma to victims,
it increases the transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually
transmitted diseases, tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C, all
of which exist at very high rates within U.S. prisons and
jails.
Society pays dearly for ignoring prison rape. It makes
victimized inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are
released, thus negating Federal programs designed to reduce the
incidence of crime. Inmates, often nonviolent, first-time
offenders, come out of prison rape experiences severely
traumatized and leave prison not only more likely to commit
crimes, but far more likely to commit violent crimes than when
they entered.
The high incidence of rape within prison also leads to
increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases
outside of prison, which in turn imposes threats and costs to
all of society.
The Supreme Court held, in Farmer v. Brennan, that
deliberate indifference to the risk of prison rape violates the
8th and 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. While
conditions may be restrictive and even harsh, prison and jail
officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety
of inmates.
Mr. Chairman, this bill requires prison accreditation
organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a
critical component of their accreditation reviews. The
legislation has been carefully drawn to ensure comprehensive
study and reporting of prison rape and reverse the perverse
prison administration incentives that often make it exceedingly
difficult for prison officials to engage in priority efforts to
abate prison rape.
Mr. Chairman, I ask at this point unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter on the letterhead of Prison
Fellowship Ministries, which includes the signatures of 35
organizations, diverse organizations such as the Religion
Action Center on Reform Judaism, the Christian Coalition, the
NAACP, the National Council of LaRaza, and many others. I ask
unanimous consent that this be entered into the record.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows:]
Mr. Scott. In the end, and perhaps more importantly, the
effort to combat prison rape is a moral imperative. Prison rape
is nothing short of torture, the infliction of severe emotional
and physical pain as punishment and coercion. Long after bodies
have healed, the emotional trauma, shame and stigma of brutal
and repeated prison rapes lasts and embitters the individual.
Thus, prison rape not only derails justice; it destroys human
dignity.
We can do better than this as a society, and this bill
ensures that we do. This is long overdue and I appreciate your
willingness, Mr. Chairman, to move this matter further at this
time.
I would also like to thank my colleague, Frank Wolf from
Virginia, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations Subcommittee, and chief sponsor of the bill, for
his leadership and diligence in moving this matter forward.
I would also like to thank Michael Horowitz and Vinnie
Sharaldi, leaders of an amazing coalition supporting this bill,
for their vision, leadership and dedication.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for working with this
coalition to move this bill forward.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Let me think aloud a minute, Frank, before I recognize you.
Several weeks ago I met with the former Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, who has since retired. I told her that this
issue very much concerns me. She, in fact, responded to me that
she felt pretty good in the Federal system, that they have a
pretty good handle on it, she said, that can detect prisoners
who may well be vulnerable to these sort of inhumane attacks. I
felt pretty good after having talked with her. I still know
it's a problem.
Another feature that bothers me--and I haven't even talked
to Mr. Scott or Mr. Sensenbrenner about it--is the overcrowding
conditions in prisons, and the two may well go hand in hand.
There may be a corollary. But the overcrowding conditions in
Federal and State prisons, folks, is a time bomb ticking,
particularly in State and local prisons.
I don't know, Frank, whether you plan to touch on that or
not, but that's just food for thought, two matters that have
plagued and troubled me for some time, and 50 State
legislatures and perhaps the Congress may have to address the
overcrowding which may well at least assuage some of the
problems involving assaults.
Mr. Wolf, we're delighted to have you with us, the
gentleman from the 10th District of Virginia. Mr. Scott and I
usually adhere to the 5-minute rule inflexibly, but we will cut
you a little slack, since you are a Virginia fellow and a
friend of Mr. Scott. It's good to have you with us, Frank.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the
hearings, and I thank my colleague, Bobby Scott, for his
support and effort and being a champion.
I think what Mr. Scott said, of this being a moral
imperative, is exactly what it is. I will be brief, and then
I'm going to read something and then leave.
A study in Nebraska found that 22 percent of prisoners in
that State were forced to have sex against their will while in
prison--forced. Think of your son, or think of your cousin, or
think of your brother, or think of your next door neighbor,
thing of somebody like that. Experts say that approximately 13
percent--and it's true, probably not as much in Federal prisons
as in State prisons, and quite frankly, the Congress ought to
look at this whole issue of sentencing guidelines, because we
are forcing people into prison many times who ought not really
be in prison. These numbers indicate the prison system has a
problem.
This bill would address the problem in five ways: First,
this legislation would allow officials to gather for the Bureau
of Justice Statistics information about the extent of the
problem of prison rape. There is probably not a lot of
disagreement as to percentages. If it's 12, that's still high.
If it's 22, that's absolutely high. If it's 1 percent, it's too
high. Prison officials and policymakers must know, though, how
pervasive prison rape is in our jails.
Secondly, the bill would make prison officials accountable
for rape through a public review process. This is so private,
there's nothing public, and therefore they can almost ignore it
like it's not a problem. Prison officials must understand that
what happens in prison to inmates matters. Containing prisoners
behind four walls is not sufficient. They must be protected
from violent rapes.
Third, a crediting agency would be required to examine the
issue of prison rape when reviewing prisons. This will make
prison officials further accountable for what happens in their
prisons.
Fourth, a commission will be established to study the
problems of prison rape and recommend national standards to
address the problem.
Finally, there would be modest grant programs to provide
funds for innovative ways to launch prison rape prevention and
prosecution programs.
It is important to mention that this bill deals with prison
rape in ways that respect the States' rights. There are many
awful stories, and I will close my testimony with paraphrasing.
I would urge all of you to read this--and I will get copies for
the Subcommittee. You will not be able to go through this
because it will literally make you sick. But I will paraphrase
one of the letters given, ``No Escape: Male Rape in U.S.
Prisons'', the Human Rights Watch.
This individual says, ``I've been sentenced for a DUI
offense, my third one. When I came to prison, I had no idea
what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall male, who
unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics.
And very shy. These characteristics have gotten me raped so
many times I have had no more feelings physically. I have been
raped at one time by seven men. I've had knives at my head and
throat. I have fought and been beat so hard that I didn't even
think I would see straight again.''
``One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally
attacked by staff and taken to segregation, though I had only
wanted to prevent the same and worse by not being locked up
with my cell mate.''
``There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a
conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the
issue was. He told me off the record, he suggested that I find
a man I would or could willingly have sex with to prevent these
things from happening. I requested protective custody, only to
be denied. It is not available here.''
He also said there was no where to turn, no where to turn,
no where to run, and it was best for me to just accept things.
He ends by saying, ``I probably have AIDS now. I have great
difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after
nightmares . . .'' and he goes on. A.H. in Indiana.
The other one is, when we had a hearing over on the Senate
side--and I'll end with this statement. A mother of a young
child, 16 years old in Texas, who was repeatedly raped in
prison, when her son reported the rapes, the prison officials
he was told, ``rape happens every day. Learn to deal with it.
It's no big deal.'' This 16-year-old, after repeatedly being
abused and left to suffer by prison officials, hung himself.
Why was he in prison? For setting a dumpster on fire.
This is a moral imperative. Mr. Scott is exactly right.
This legislation cannot be delayed. The Justice Department is
now on board, but they drug their heels on this. Each and every
day, someone will be raped in a prison somewhere. In fact, each
and every day many will be raped. We will get, the Members of
this Committee, these stories, and after you read about five or
six of them, you'll be sickened about what takes place. DUI,
and now look what takes place.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. I appreciate
the willingness of you to move them. I want to reiterate the
list of people that Mr. Scott said, from the Salvation Army to
the NAACP, to Chuck Colson, who has forgotten more about this
issue than anyone probably knows, the Southern Baptist
Convention, the Religious Action Center for Reform and Judaism,
and many others who are for this. So, with your good work and
moving this quickly, I think we can really make a difference in
wiping out this--I won't even call it a problem--this terrible
thing that takes place in prisons.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Frank Wolf, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Virginia
Thank you, Chairman Coble, for providing me with the opportunity to
speak before the subcommittee on a matter which impacts the national
prison system and our communities--prison rape.
I also thank the subcommittee's ranking member, my Virginia
colleague Bobby Scott, for introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of
2003 with me. Representative Scott has been a champion of this
legislation. I value his partnership on this bill.
The Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003 addresses the growing and
tragic problem of prison rape. In a 1996 study, an estimated 22 percent
of prisoners in Nebraska were pressured or forced to have sex against
their will while in prison. Experts have estimated that approximately
13 percent of inmates in the United States have been victims of a
sexual assault. Part of the problem with addressing the issue of prison
rape is that there is insufficient data and research into this problem
which experts claim is growing. This legislation would establish a
program to collect prison rape statistics and data in the Department of
Justice, providing prison officials and policymakers with a clearer
idea of how pervasive the horrific problem of prison rape has become.
Victims of prison rape often suffer severe psychological trauma,
and are sometimes infected with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other
diseases. Treatment for these infectious diseases costs federal, state,
and local jurisdictions additional dollars in administering their
prison systems. Prison rape not only costs its victims their health and
dignity, society also pays a price. When we turn a blind eye to prison
rape, we say that we do not care that prisoners are treated inhumanely.
That is a position which portrays national and local leaders as callous
and uncaring.
This legislation would establish a National Prison Rape Reduction
Commission which would conduct hearings on prison rape and would issue
a final report. This commission is vital to provide national standards
to reduce prison rape. Such a commission would send the message that we
as a society will not accept prison rape.
Mr. Chairman, prison rape is not an abstract or theoretical
problem. It has a human face.
There are thousands of tragic stories from victims about prison
rape. I have attached to my remarks several stories of the toll prison
rape too often takes on its victims.
The Congress can act to make sure that these vile and violent acts
are reduced. The legislation before you today takes concrete steps
toward doing just that. I believe in being tough on crime. But this has
nothing to do with being tough on crime. It has everything to do with
human dignity and ending deliberate indifference toward prison rape,
maintaining order in prisons, and reducing social and economic costs to
a society left to deal with physically and psychologically damaged
former inmates.
Allow me to end my statement with the story of a mother who
testified on Capitol Hill last year. Her 16-year-old son was repeatedly
raped in a Texas prison. When the son reported the rapes to prison
officials, he was told ``(rape) happens everyday, learn to deal with
it. It is no big deal.'' This 16-year-old, after being repeatedly
abused and left to suffer by prison officials, hung himself.
Why was he in prison?
For setting a dumpster on fire.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I respectfully urge
you to move this bill and make sure that no mother ever has to live
with such a haunting story for the rest of her life.
I thank you for allowing me to speak before you today.
______
Excerpts from Inmates Testimony to Human Rights Watch
Stories from No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, Human Rights Watch,
2001.
New inmates are often treated like property by older and more violent
inmates. An inmate in New York writes . . .
When a man finally gets his victim, he protects him from everyone
else, buys him anything, the victim washes his clothes, his cell etc.
In return the entire prison knows that this guy has a ``BITCH'' or
``girl.'' Now I've seen this happen many times. The response from the
guards is ``the strong survive,'' ``who cares,'' or they join in the
teasing and tormenting. But someone who is not ``protected'' has other
problems. I've seen inmates attacked by two or three men at a time and
forced to the floor, while three men hold him down the fourth rapes
him. I've known two men who have hung themselves after this.
An inmate from Arkansas . . .
I had no choice but to submit to being Inmate B's prison wife. Out
of fear for my life, I submitted to sex, and performing other duties as
a woman, such as making his bed. In all reality, I was his slave, as
the Officials of the Arkansas Department of Corrections under the
'color of law' did absolutly nothing.
An inmate from Minnesota writes . . .
Most of the prisoners who rape are spending 5 to life. And are a
part of a gang. They look for a smaller weaker individual. And make
that person into a homosexual then sell him to other inmates of gangs.
Anywhere from a pack of cigarettes to 2 cartons. . . . No one cares
about you or anyone else. If they show kindness or are trying to be
helpful, it is only because they want something. And if they are
offering you protection you can guarantee that their going to seek
sexual favors. . . . When an inmate comes in for the first time and
doesn't know anyone. The clicks and gangs. Watch him like Wolves
readying there attacks. They see if he spends time alone, who he eats
with. Its like the Wild Kingdom. Then they start playing with him,
Checking the new guy out. (They call him fresh meat.)
An inmate who was put in jail for a DUI offense . . .
I've been sentenced for a D.U.I offense. When I first came to
prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a
tall white male, who unfortunatly has a small amount of feminine
characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped
so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by
up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my
head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever
think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell,
I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segregation though I had
only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my
cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a
conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was.
He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could
willingly have sex with to prevent those things from happening. I've
requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available
here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best
for me to accept things . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great
difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or
thinking to hard on all of this . . . I've laid down without physical
fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping
and tearing. Though in not fighting it caused my heart and spirit to be
raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.
One Florida inmate, serving less than one year in prison . . .
I was raped in prison from Feb 1991 through Nov 1991. From that it
left me H.I.V. positive.
Mr. Coble. I'll pledge to you and Mr. Scott publicly that I
will do all I can to help move this along, Frank. We thank you
for being with us.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. We will invite our panelists to come forward.
I'm going to read some background. I think you all in the
audience need to know some of the credentials that these
panelists bring to the table.
Our first witness today is Miss Tracy Henke, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs in the United States Department of Justice. Miss Henke
was designated to serve by Attorney General Ashcroft in June
2001. Her position requires her to advise and assist the
Assistant Attorney General to carry out all policy,
programmatic, legal and managerial matters.
Prior to joining the Justice Department, Miss Henke worked
in the Senate for Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri as a
senior policy advisor, and for Senator Jack Danforth. Miss
Henke received her degree in political science from the
University of Missouri at Columbia.
Our next witness, Mr. A.T. Wall, is Director of the
Department of Corrections for the State of Rhode Island. He
will be representing the Association of State Correctional
Administrators and the Council of State Governments.
Mr. Wall was awarded a bachelor of arts degree and juris
doctorate from Yale University. He has a distinguished career
in corrections, beginning his career in corrections in 1976 as
a probation officer. He subsequently served as Assistant
District Attorney in Manhattan, NY, and as a principal policy
analyst to the Governor of Rhode Island for issues related to
criminal, juvenile justice, corrections, child welfare, and
mental health and retardation. From 1987 to 1991, Mr. Wall
served as Assistant Director for Policy and Development in the
Rhode Island Department of Corrections.
In 1991, he became second in command in the Department as
Assistant Director of Administration, and in 2000 Mr. Wall was
appointed Director of the Department of Corrections, which
supervises over 3,600 pretrial and sentenced inmates in eight
institutions and 27,000 offenders in probation, parole and
community confinement. He also currently serves as chair of the
program and training committee for the Association of State
Correctional Administrators and is a member of the Board of
Directors for the Council of State Governments.
Our third witness is Mr. Charles Kehoe, President of the
American Correctional Association. Mr. Kehoe received a
bachelor of arts in psychology and sociology from Lewis
University, and a masters degree in social work from the
University of Illinois at Chicago.
He began his career as a social worker for the State of
Illinois, first counseling delinquent youth, and then working
in child protective services. Mr. Kehoe moved to Baltimore to
become Deputy Director of Juvenile Services for the State of
Maryland. In 1989, he became Director of the Department of
Youth and Family for the State of Virginia. Most recently, Mr.
Kehoe served as a consultant for juvenile and criminal justice
correctional facilities for a number of organizations,
including his current position as Vice President for Business
Development, New Century, which provides technical assistance
to adult and juvenile facilities.
Our final witness is Mr. Frank Hall, Director of the Eagle
Group. Mr. Hall received his bachelor of arts from the
University of North Carolina and a masters degree in public
administration from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of
Public Affairs.
Mr. Hall currently serves as a consultant on issues of
public safety and new technologies. He has also served as
Director of Special Projects for a private corrections company,
providing services to both adult and juvenile offenders in the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Great Britain.
Prior to that, Mr. Hall served as Commissioner of six State
and local corrections departments, including Director of
Juvenile Justice in New York, and most recently Commissioner of
Corrections in Philadelphia.
It's good to have you all with us. I apologize for the
lengthy introduction, but I think these panelists bring
impressive credentials to the table and I felt that you all
should know that.
We have written statements from each of you. I ask
unanimous consent to submit into the record their entirety. As
I said earlier, folks, Mr. Scott and I are sort of inflexible
about red lights shining into your faces. We will not
``keelhaul'' you, however. But when you see the red light
appear, that's a warning that your time is up.
Why don't we start with you, Miss Henke.
STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Ms. Henke. I will do my best, and I might speak fast, sir.
Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, my name is Tracy Henke,
and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, it is a
pleasure to be here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison
Rape Reduction Act of 2003.''
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of
sexual assaults, including rape and sodomy, that exists within
the Nation's prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and
Congressman Scott have been diligent in their efforts to
advance the discussions on prison rape, and have shown clear
leadership by introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act. The
Department of Justice is pleased to participate in this
hearing.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department
supports the principles of this legislation. At the Department,
we want to ensure that Federal prisons address, work to
prevent, and punish those that commit any type of sexual
assault in prison, and we want to encourage our colleagues who
manage State and local prisons to do the same. We are committed
to reaching a consensus which would comprehensively address and
support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing
sexual assault and rape within the Nation's prisons and jails.
By working with all interested parties, we are confident that
an agreement can be reached.
The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters
of this legislation to provide technical assistance and
information prior to its introduction. The Department remains
committed to an ongoing dialogue that we believe will result in
an effective and enforceable approach in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy for the Office of
Justice Programs, or OJP, it is important to discuss the impact
that H.R. 1707 will have on OJP's formula grant programs which
directly support State and local law enforcement and public
safety activities. This is the issue which will be the focus of
my comments.
As background, it is important to state that the Department
has been working on the issue of prison rape for over 2 years.
In the spring of 2001, the Department initiated the Prison Rape
Working Group, which worked with supporters of the legislation
and with organizations such as the American Correctional
Association, or ACA. The Department drafted a framework for the
new standards and worked with the ACA to have them adopted. The
new standards are now in effect. The Department believes that,
collectively, these new standards will assist in the prevention
of prison rape and the effective handling of rape and sexual
assaults that occurs in prisons and jails.
Without doubt, the Department's current efforts to address
prison rape and sexual assault will be enhanced by the $13
million provided by the Congress in the Department's fiscal
year 2003 appropriations act. Utilizing these funds, the
Department will conduct research and statistical analysis on
victims and victimization in correctional environments.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice
Department is supportive of the principles of the legislation.
However, some ambiguity and concern remains. We look forward to
working with the sponsors and supporters of the legislation to
craft a workable solution that achieves our common goal of
preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape
in our Nation's correctional facilities.
Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is
the effect the incentive provisions of the legislation would
have on existing grant programs, as well as the practical
implementation of the necessary augmentation that would be
required to underlying formulas.
As you are aware, under sections 8 and 11, States that
adopt national standards would receive up to a 10 percent
increase in their share of funding under any Federal formula
grant program designated by the Attorney General as having a
relationship to the failure to abate prison rape. This increase
in funding would be achieved by reducing the shares of those
States which do not comply. Programs that could potentially be
impacted include the Byrne Formula, the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant, the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for
Prisoners, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants,
and Grants to Combat Violence Against Women.
As an example, let's look at sections 8 and 11 and the
impact on the Byrne Formula as it relates to--let's use five
States. California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas are
in compliance with provisions of section 8, hypothetically.
These States would each receive a 10 percent increase over
their allocation. The total increase for these five States for
fiscal year 2003, if the bill were enacted, currently would
amount to $15.6 million. This represents a $15.6 million
reduction in funds available to remaining States and
territories. Under this hypothetical, Mr. Chairman, your State
of North Carolina would lose $694,000. Congressman Scott's,
Congressman Goodlatte's and Congressman Forbes' Commonwealth of
Virginia would lost $607,000.
These numbers reflect a 10 percent augmentation in the
formula, but the legislation provides for substantially greater
augmentation which could result in larger changes to the
underlying formulas.
This hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula Program
and doesn't take into account potential reductions in other
formula programs that the Office of Justice Programs
administers or elsewhere within the Federal Government. The
$497 million of the Byrne Program represents less than half,
less than half of the minimum required to be designated by the
Attorney General.
The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for
State and local law enforcement, including first responders
such as local police and sheriffs departments, for State
prisons and local jails, potentially for substance abuse
programs, and efforts to protect children from sexual
exploitation and kidnapping.
I know my time is up, but real quickly, sir, another
concern to the Department is that the Department believes that
the integrity of the statistical collection and analysis by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics be preserved. The legislation
currently requires BJS not only to collect but also to analyze
data and produce reports on that analysis in a very short
timeframe. We recognize the need for quick access to this
information, but it must be balanced by providing BJS the
opportunity to accurately and sufficiently analyze the data
collected.
Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from
gathering data for any use other than statistical or research
purposes. By requiring BJS to identify facilities ``where the
incidence of prison rape is significantly avoidable,'' the
legislation calls for BJS to make judgments about what level of
prison rape is ``significantly avoidable''. This responsibility
goes beyond BJS' authorized statistical role.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time afforded and I look
forward to any questions that you or Congressman Scott might
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy A. Henke
Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Tracy Henke, and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, it is a
pleasure to be here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape
Reduction Act of 2003.''
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of sexual
assault, including rape and sodomy, that exists within the nation's
prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and Congressman Scott have been
diligent in their efforts to advance the discussions on prison rape and
have shown clear leadership by introducing the ``Prison Rape Reduction
Act.'' The Department of Justice is pleased to participate in this
hearing.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department supports the
principles of this legislation. At the Department we want to ensure
that Federal prisons address, work to prevent, and punish those that
commit any type of sexual assault in prison, and we want to encourage
our colleagues who manage state and local prisons to do the same. We
are committed to reaching a consensus which would comprehensively
address and support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing
sexual assault and rape within the nation's prisons and jails. By
working with all interested parties we are confident that an agreement
can be reached.
The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters of this
legislation to provide technical assistance and information prior to
its introduction. In addition, the Department has provided information
regarding concerns with the proposed language of the legislation. The
Department remains committed to an ongoing dialogue that we believe
will result in an effective and enforceable legislative product in the
near future.
Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Justice Programs, it is important to discuss the
impact H.R. 1707 will have on OJP's formula grant programs which
directly support State and local law enforcement and public safety
activities. This issue will be the focus of my comments.
As background, it is important to state that the Department has
been working on the issue of prison rape for over two years. In the
spring of 2001, the Department initiated the Prison Rape Working Group
which worked with supporters of the legislation and with organizations
such as the American Correctional Association (ACA). The Department
approached the ACA and requested that they consider adopting national
standards to deal with prison rape. At the ACA's request, the
Department drafted a framework for the new standards and worked with
the ACA to have them adopted. The new standards have been adopted and
are now in effect. Some of the new standards are: 1) providing
mandatory training courses to corrections staff in handling rape and
sexual assault in both adult and juvenile facilities; 2) written
policies and procedures addressing the handling of potential offenders,
as well as intervention and treatment; 3) written policies and
procedures requiring documented investigations of assaults and threats;
4) written policies and procedures which ensure that sexual contact
between prison staff and inmates is prohibited and subject to
administrative and criminal sanctions; and 5) ensuring that victims of
sexual assault are referred to an appropriate treatment facility,
receive appropriate mental evaluation and counseling, and if necessary,
are referred for long-term follow-up care. The Department believes
that, collectively, these new standards will assist in the prevention
of prison rape and the effective handling of rape and sexual assault
that occurs in prisons and jails.
Without doubt, the Department's current efforts to address prison
rape and sexual assault will be enhanced by the $13 million provided by
the Congress in the Department's Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations act.
Utilizing these funds, the Department will conduct research and
statistical analysis on victims and victimization in correctional
environments.
Specifically, OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has
developed plans to conduct a statistical analysis on sexual assault
victims and victimization that measures the prevalence of that
victimization. OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will be
sponsoring research focusing on sexual assault offenders and offenses
in prisons and jails. This research will provide BJS with information
it will need to adjust their prevalence estimates to account for
outside factors influencing the incidence of sexual assault in
correctional environments. Working collaboratively, BJS and NIJ will
empanel a group of recognized subject matter experts from the research
and practitioner communities to assist both agencies in defining the
various characteristics and factors involved in sexual assault in ways
that will allow their objective measurement. We need solid research so
that we can determine what steps will be most effective to root this
horrible problem out of our prisons and jails.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department is
supportive of the principles of the legislation; however, ambiguity and
concern over just a few provisions still exist. For instance, we
believe that there are better ways to address compliance issues
associated with the abatement of prison rape than adjustments to
formula grant programs as they are proposed in the current bill. We
look forward to working with the sponsors and supporters of the
legislation to craft a workable solution that achieves our common goal
of preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape in
our nation's correctional facilities.
Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is the effect
the incentive provisions of the legislation would have on existing
grant programs as well as the practical implementation of the necessary
augmentation that would be required to underlying formulas.
As you are aware, under Sections 8 and 11, States that adopt
national standards would receive up to a ten percent increase in their
share of funding under any Federal formula grant program designated by
the Attorney General as having a relationship to the failure to abate
prison rape. This increase in funding would be achieved by reducing the
shares of those States which do not comply. We have already tentatively
identified twenty formula programs administered just by the Office of
Justice Programs which could be impacted by these provisions. These
programs include the Byrne Formula Grant Program, the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program, the Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment for State Prisoners Grant Program, the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, and Grants to Combat
Violence Against Women.
As an example, consider the impact of Sections 8 and 11 on State
allocations under the Byrne Formula Grant Program. As you know, under
the Byrne Program, the Office of Justice Programs, through its
component, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, makes awards directly to
States. These funds are used by States and also sub-awarded by States
to local governments. Byrne funds can be used by States and localities
for a broad array of public safety activities including funding police
and sheriff departments, correctional facilities, court systems, and
drug enforcement efforts. In Fiscal Year 2003, Congress appropriated
approximately $497 million in Byrne Formula funds. Assuming that H.R.
1707 was enacted into law as it is currently written, let's look, as a
hypothetical, at five States: if California, Florida, Illinois, New
York, and Texas were in compliance with the provisions of Section 8,
these States, under the incentive provisions of Sections 8 and 11,
would each receive a ten percent increase over their allocation. The
total increase for these five States would amount to $15.6 million, or
three percent of the entire Fiscal Year 2003 appropriation. This also
represents a $15.6 million reduction in funds available to the
remaining States and territories. Under this hypothetical Mr. Chairman,
your State of North Carolina would lose $694,000; Congressman Scott's,
Congressman Goodlatte's, and Congressman Forbes' Commonwealth of
Virginia would lose $607,000; Congressman Chabot's State of Ohio would
lose $952,000; Congressman Green's State of Wisconsin would lose
$454,000; Congressman Pence's State of Indiana would lose $513,000; and
Congressman Meehan's State of Massachusetts would lose $536,000. These
numbers reflect a ten percent augmentation in the formula, but the
legislation provides for substantially greater augmentation which would
obviously result in larger changes to the underlying formulas and to
the amounts each State would be entitled to.
Mr. Chairman, this hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula
Program, and does not take into account potential reductions in the
other nineteen formula programs the Office of Justice Programs
administers or any other formula grant program throughout the Federal
government. The $497 million of the Byrne Program represents less than
half of the minimum total Federal funds that the Attorney General must
identify under Section 11 for formula augmentation. Ultimately, the
actual reduction in funds that States could see would be substantially
more than just the Byrne program.
The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for State
and local law enforcement, including first responders such as local
police and sheriffs departments, for State prisons and local jails,
local narcotics task forces, shelters for battered and sexually abused
women, substance abuse programs, efforts to protect children from
sexual exploitation and kidnaping, and for numerous other State and
local efforts. We must remain cognizant of the financial demands on
State and local governments and the effects that unexpected changes in
the availability of formula funds would have.
The language of the legislation would present difficulties for the
Department in implementation because of ambiguities in allocating the
incentive funds. For instance, consider the example of both the State
of North Carolina and the City of Raleigh being eligible for incentive
awards. If the Byrne program is identified as a relevant program, OJP
can easily increase North Carolina's share of Byrne funds because the
formula funds are awarded directly to States. However, OJP does not
award Byrne funds directly to units of local governments. States are
responsible for making decisions on how to subaward Byrne funds to
local governments. It is unclear how OJP could increase Raleigh's share
of Byrne funds.
It is also important to note another concern the Department has
related to the statistical collection and analysis required by the
legislation. It is of the utmost importance to the Department that the
integrity of the statistical collection and analysis be preserved. The
legislation currently requires BJS not only to collect, but also to
analyze data and produce reports on that analysis in a very short time.
We recognize the need for quick access to this information, but it must
be balanced by providing BJS the opportunity to analyze accurately and
sufficiently the data collected.
Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from gathering data
for any use other than statistical or research purposes. By requiring
BJS to identify facilities ``where the incidence of prison rape is
significantly avoidable,'' the legislation calls for BJS to make
judgments about what level of prison rape is ``significantly
avoidable.'' This responsibility goes beyond BJS' authorized
statistical role.
Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department shares your interest in
reaching consensus upon an effective and enforceable approach to the
problem of prison rape. I personally commit to working with the
Committee, the sponsors, and supporters of this legislation to achieve
our shared goal of effective prevention, prosecution, and punishment of
prison rape. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today. I would be happy to answer any question the members
of the subcommittee might have.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Miss Henke.
I said Mr. Scott and I were inflexible. I'm going to
violate that now. We gave you 6 minutes, so I'll give the rest
of you six as well, if you need it.
Mr. Wall.
STATEMENT OF ASHBEL T. WALL, II, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, AND THE
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Wall. Thank you, Chairman Coble, Representative Scott,
Representative Jackson Lee, I am A.T. Wall. I'm the Director of
the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and I'm here on
behalf of the Council of State Governments, which represents
all elected and appointed State officials, and also the
Association of State Correctional Administrators, the
professional association for the 50 Directors of Corrections
and the Administrators of Nation's largest jail systems.
We appreciate very much the bipartisan concern regarding
sexual assault in correctional facilities. After all,
protecting inmates and staff, as well as the public safety, are
at the core of our correctional mission, a mission I have
upheld since I began in this profession some 29 years ago.
We in corrections know that sexual assault occurs. We
support the objectives of this bill. We want to prevent prison
rape, assess the extent to which it occurs, respond swiftly and
effectively, and we recognize this bill represents a moderate
approach to dealing with the issue. We also recognize that, as
corrections officials, we are accountable for the operations of
our systems, including the implementation of the initiatives
that come about as a result of this legislation.
There is some provisions that we, as directors of
corrections, believe would impede as opposed to assisting the
efforts to reduce prisoner rape. We are also concerned that the
bill not allocate significant resources to combat prison rape
while overlooking another major issue in corrections that has
widespread implications for the public safety.
Some particular changes that we would like to propose to
the bill: first, national statistics. The Department of Justice
is assigned to do a statistical report. We have two concerns.
One is definitional issues, what constitutes rape in a
correctional context. Sorting out consensual sex in a prison
context can be complicated. The bill is silent as to whether
sexual assault includes staff-on-inmate sexual assault, as well
as inmate-on-inmate sexual assault.
We are also concerned that the bill draw on a wide variety
of data sources beyond simply looking at self reports and
inmate surveys. So we would recommend that the bill direct the
Department of Justice to seek guidance from an advisory group
in working out definitions and survey techniques, the group to
include not only corrections administrators but prosecutors,
police, victim advocates and former inmates.
Second, the review panel. The review panel is charged with
holding public hearings, and administrators who are from the
random sample selected by BJS and whose rates of sexual assault
exceed the median will be brought forward to testify why their
facilities have high rates. The concern that we have is that
the panel should be charged with developing an approach to
analyzing the data by interviewing the victims, administrators
from a random sample of selected facilities surveyed and not
simply rely on the public hearing approach but, rather, take a
broader approach if the goal is to understand the context and
causes of the issue.
Third, the national standards. We would like to assure that
an accrediting organization such as ACA, that have done much
work in this area, are consulted as part of the reviewing of
the standards.
Fourth, the incentives to testify and comply. Those have
been covered by Miss Henke. We're concerned that, in fact, as
written, the language of the bill, which is intended to reward
jurisdictions that are taking serious steps to combat sexual
assault in prison and holding accountable those other systems,
won't achieve those objectives for some of the reasons that
Miss Henke identified.
We applaud the commitment to helping us protect inmates. We
are also deeply concerned that a Federal initiative not ignore
an emerging crisis in our field that has major implications for
the safety of staff, inmates, and the general public.
As you well know--in fact, Chairman Coble, you alluded to
it to some degree in your introductory remarks--nearly
unprecedented fiscal problems are prompting governors to look
at dramatic cuts to corrections' budgets. There are three ways
to cut correctional budgets. One is to eliminate programs. The
fact of the matter is, they're already thread-bear. There is
not a lot of money to be gained that way.
The second is in operations, looking at staffing and
security and making cuts there. The problem with that, of
course, is that will compromise the safety of inmates as well
as staff and, frankly, it will compromise the very objectives
that H.R. 1707 seeks to achieve.
The third way to get a handle on correctional costs is by
managing correctional populations differently, limiting the
rates of growth, taking a look at the sheer numbers of people
who are incarcerated in facilities. In managing growth in
corrections, we are engaging in high-stakes decisions as we
look at who's in there, how long they should stay, how well
prepared they are for release, who should be supervised in the
community as opposed to in custody, and how they should be
supervised. Those are very important decisions and the risk is
that they're going to be made without resources to determine
that they are informed decisions. Right now, there is the risk
that they will be made nearly blind, that States will be
playing Russian roulette with major public safety implications.
What we are looking for is legislation to address this
acute need for immediate targeted technical assistance in
managing correctional costs without compromising public safety.
We don't want to simply release hundreds of inmates as has been
done in other jurisdictions. We need data, we need expertise,
we need forms of technical assistance, such as the center that
is established and DOJ would provide.
So thank you for giving us the opportunity to present
specific, practical changes that will help correctional
administrators combat rape. We hope that modifying the
legislation will help us considerably to protect staff and
inmates and ensure that deep cuts don't jeopardize the safety
of the public as we look at correctional issues. We look
forward to working with a truly impressive coalition that is
organized so that we can incorporate our recommendations into
the bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ashbel T. Wall, II
Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott
for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 1707, The Prison Rape
Reduction Act of 2003.
My name is Ashbel T. Wall, and I am the Director of Corrections for
the State of Rhode Island. Our corrections system is unified, meaning
it includes both prisons and jails. Our average daily population is
3,500 inmates, housed in 8 institutions, and we receive about 17,000
commitments a year.
I am testifying today on behalf of the Council of State Governments
(CSG) and the (ASCA) Association of State Correctional Administrators.
CSG is a membership association serving all elected and appointed and
state government officials; ASCA represents the 50 state corrections
directors and the administrators of the largest jails systems.
Our organizations appreciate very much the bipartisan concern among
members in Congress about sexual assault in corrections facilities.
Protecting staff and inmates alike, in addition to maintaining
community safety, is the core of our mission.
We know sexual assault occurs in prisons and jails, including our
facilities in Rhode Island. We also know this is an issue that has been
difficult to measure in our state, as well as nationally, let alone to
compare rates among states and counties.
For these reasons, we support most of the objectives of H.R. 1707:
we want to prevent prisoner rape; we want to assess the extent to which
it occurs in our systems; and we want to respond swiftly and
effectively when inmates are sexually assaulted.
We appreciate efforts to date by sponsors of the bill to
incorporate in H.R. 1707 many changes that the corrections community
recommended to earlier versions of this bill. There are, however, still
some provisions remaining in H.R. 1707 that would impede--rather than
assist--corrections administrators' efforts to reduce sexual assault of
inmates and end it altogether. We also are concerned that the bill
allocates significant resources to combat prisoner rape while
overlooking those issues in corrections that represent the greatest
risk to the public in general.
My testimony will explain the concerns elected officials and
policymakers serving Republican and Democratic governors alike have
about the bill. I will also suggest changes to particular provisions in
the bill that we believe would improve the legislation and make it
state-friendly without compromising its purpose.
1. NATIONAL PRISON RAPE STATISTICS
Recommendation: Provide additional guidance to the authors of the
study to ensure it reflects an accurate, comprehensive
assessment of inmate sexual assault.
Like the supporters of the bill, we think a report prepared by the
Department of Justice that assesses the extent to which prisoner rape
occurs in prisons and jails across the country would be useful. The
study, as it is currently described in H.R. 1707, however, would
unlikely yield such a document.
The legislation overlooks important considerations that will need
to be made in developing and designing the study. First, the bill does
not sufficiently define what constitutes rape in a correctional
facility. Sorting out what is and is not consensual sex in a prison is
a complicated matter. Second, H.R. 1707 does not explicitly state
whether the study should capture information about staff-on-inmate
sexual assault, which, itself, is a complex issue. There is no such
thing as consensual sex between staff and an inmate; by statutes, such
incidents are a crime in nearly every state. The bill drafters need to
state explicitly whether these data should be included in the study.
Third, the legislation minimizes the importance of drawing upon data
sources other than inmate surveys only.
We recommend the bill instruct DOJ to seek guidance regarding each
of the above issues from an advisory group that would include
corrections administrators, prosecutors, police chiefs, victim
advocates, and former inmates. That way, we can be confident that the
BJS study reflects an accurate and comprehensive assessment of prisoner
rape in correctional facilities.
2. REVIEW PANEL ON PRISON RAPE
Recommendation: Request testimony or input from administrators who
represent a random selection of institutions
Like the supporters of H.R. 1707, we think it would be useful for
the Review Panel to hear from (and question) corrections administrators
with varying rates of sexual assault in their facilities; such
testimony should help to inform the annual report that DOJ issues.
Instead of generating a constructive exchange, however, the hearing
process that H.R. 1707 currently proposes would polarize discussion.
According to the legislation, corrections administrators summoned
to testify would represent facilities that appear to have high rates of
sexual assault. In fact, these corrections administrators would
represent only those facilities with a high rate of sexual assault
among the small group of institutions randomly selected for the survey.
Consequently, corrections directors would likely devote much of their
testimony to an explanation of why their participation in the hearing
inaccurately suggests that they operate the most dangerous institutions
in the country.
For these reasons, we recommend that the panel be charged with
developing an approach to analyzing the data captured through the study
and interviewing various experts and victims and administrators from a
random selection of facilities surveyed ensures that hearings will be
constructive and useful.
3. NATIONAL STANDARDS
Recommendation: Require the Commission to consult accrediting
organizations that currently have standards (or are in the
process of developing such standards) on sexual assault
The members and staff of accrediting organizations such as the
American Correctional Association have spent time and resources
preparing standards that address issues relating to sexual assault and
the conditions of a facility or system that facilitate sexual assault.
Nevertheless, the bill does not ensure that these accrediting
organizations will be consulted on the development of the Commission's
standards--or even recognize that these organizations already have, or
are in the process of revising or developing, such standards. The
National Prison Rape Reduction Commission (which is distinct from the
Panel that the bill also establishes) should be directed to consult
accrediting organizations that currently have standards on sexual
assault, and to review existing standards and standards under
development, before making its final report.
4. INCENTIVES TO TESTIFY AND COMPLY WITH COMMISSION STANDARDS
Recommendation: Limit the instances in which jurisdictions would be
eligible for an increase and narrow the definition of the
``source of funds for increases'' from which the 10 percent
reward will be drawn
We appreciate that the supporters of the bill would like to reward
corrections administrators who adopt the standards developed by the
National Commission. We also recognize that the members of Congress
want to see administrators of systems with seemingly high rates of
prisoner rape held accountable. Two examples illustrate, however,
however, that, as currently written, the bill would achieve neither of
these objectives effectively.
First, the bill provides an increase in federal grant funding to
jurisdictions represented at the hearing convened by the National
Review Panel. Because representatives of those jurisdictions that have
seemingly high rates of prisoner rape are asked to testify, the bill
appears to reward systems that do not necessarily merit an increase.
Furthermore, funds for this increase would be drawn from ``any [entity]
not entitled to increases under this act.'' Accordingly, it is
conceivable that a jurisdiction would lose federal funding only because
it had the ``misfortune'' of not being included in the random sample.
Second, the universe of DOJ grants that a jurisdiction could see
reduced includes funding support for a broad spectrum of issue-areas,
such as victim compensation and community policing, which are
completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators' authority.
As a result, the state and local government officials who would be held
accountable for reducing prisoner rape would be those who are powerless
to ensure compliance with the standards imposed by the legislation.
5. THE EMERGING CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS
Recommendation: Make available limited, immediate, assistance,
including peer-to-peer technical assistance, to jurisdictions
seeking to cut corrections costs without compromising the
safety of inmates, staff, or the public in general.
While we applaud Congress' commitment to helping us protect
inmates, we are deeply concerned that this federal initiative ignores
an emerging crisis in corrections that has major implications for
inmates and for the safety of staff and the general public. Nearly
unprecedented fiscal problems are prompting governors and legislatures
to recommend dramatic cuts to corrections budgets. Corrections
administrators trying to find such savings have three options. First,
we could reduce spending on institutional security, but that would
compromise the safety of inmates (not to mention staff)--which is
precisely what H.R. 1707 intends to increase. Second, we could cut
programming expenses. But prison and jail-based services are already
threadbare. They offer little or no potential for savings. And, given
that nearly every inmate will return to the community, further gutting
of these programs will impact public safety adversely.
Really, the only way savings of the scale that governors and
legislatures are looking for from our agencies can be achieved only by
managing our prison population differently. In some states, that may
mean limiting the rate of the system's growth. Accordingly, state
officials must soon make high-stakes decisions about their prison
population--who is in there, how long they should stay, how they are
prepared for release, and how they are supervised in the community. Yet
policymakers are without the resources to ensure their decisions are
informed ones. As a result, with budgetary pressures in the states as
acute as they are, state and local government officials will need to
make nearly blind decisions--Russian Roulette with major public safety
implications.
If Congress is to pass any legislation that addresses the safety of
inmates, the accountability of corrections administrators, and the
efficiency and effectiveness of federal expenditures through existing
programs (as H.R. 1707 does), it needs to address state and local
government officials' acute need for immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer
assistance that would assist them manage corrections costs effectively
without compromising public safety. We are aware of states, such as
Kentucky, that in recent months, have responded to extraordinary fiscal
pressures by releasing hundreds of offenders from prison, some of whom
subsequently committed high-profile crimes, generating a firestorm of
public criticism. There are other very recent developments in states
that we all hope to avoid: in California, legislators who voted for a
bill making certain felons eligible for release, later asked the
governor later to veto the legislation because they realized that it
could be applied to some serious and violent offenders. These are
experiences that other states could avert if they had the benefit of
data, expertise, other forms of technical assistance, and information
about what has worked in other jurisdictions across the country.
CONCLUSION
As this testimony reflects, we believe there are some specific,
very practical changes that can be made to this legislation that would
help corrections administrators across the country combat prisoner
rape. More importantly, modifying the legislation as we have suggested
would help us considerably with our efforts to protect staff and
inmates alike and ensure that deep cuts imposed on corrections agencies
do not jeopardize the safety of the general public. We look forward to
working with members of the Committee, your staff, and the impressive
coalition of organizations supporting the bill to incorporate these
recommendations in the bill. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Kehoe.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. KEHOE, PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kehoe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Charles Kehoe,
President of the American Correctional Association. I wish to
thank you and Ranking Member Scott for inviting us here today
to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act.''
I would like to begin by commending the work of
Representative Frank Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on
this issue. As a long-time Virginian, I have long admired their
dedicated service to the Commonwealth and to our Nation.
I am here today to represent the American Correctional
Association. ACA was founded in 1870 and is the Nation's only
professional association representing all facets of
corrections. It has nearly 19,000 members in all 50 States and
more than 40 foreign countries. We promote broad-based public
policies on crime and corrections, develop professional
standards, administer a national accreditation program, and
provide educational programs for corrections professionals at
all levels. In short, we are a multi-disciplinary organization
of corrections professionals.
In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of
2003, Representative Wolf said prison rape has nothing to do
with being tough on crime; it has to do with making our
communities safer, reducing recidivism, and controlling the
spread of communicable diseases. I agree completely with
Congressman Wolf. In fact, those are central tenants of the
American Correctional Association, and we wholeheartedly
support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, as well as all
others involved in their quest to reduce the incidence of
prison rape.
The ACA supports the objectives of H.R. 1707. We believe
that there should be a zero tolerance standard for the
incidence of prison rape. We believe that prison officials
should make the prevention of prison rape a priority. We want
to ensure that prison officials are accountable for what goes
on within their institutions. We thank the bill's sponsors for
incorporating into H.R. 1707 many changes that the corrections
profession recommended in earlier versions of the legislation.
However, there remain a few provisions of H.R. 1707 about which
we retain some reservations and would like to see clarified.
The strength of the ACA is in the fact that we are the only
organization that accredits total correctional facility
operations, including health care. We have in excess of 1,600
facilities and programs that are involved in the process.
Our profession has, within the past 3 years, adopted newer
and more meaningful performance-based standards, standards that
better define the value of what we do and how we do it.
The ACA Standards Committee, in January of 2003, finalized
the adoption of several specific standards that address sexual
misconduct and prison rape. First, we revise the intake
screening procedures that would require inmates to be
specifically identified who are vulnerable or have tendencies
to act out sexually aggressive behavior.
It would also require that investigations be conducted and
documented whenever there is an assault or threat of a sexual
assault. And it would require that offenders identified who
have histories of sexual assaultive behavior are assessed by
mental health or other professionals as such.
Those with a history of assaultive behavior would be
identified, monitored and counseled.
Lastly, the standards would require that offenders at risk
for victimization are identified, monitored and counseled.
H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape
Reduction Commission, established to study prison rape, report
findings to Congress, and propose national standards for
prevention. However, there is no guarantee that those,
including the ACA, who have unique experience in the
development and implementation of standards, will be consulted
in the course of the Commission's work.
We would like to see a requirement that the Commission
consult entities involved in accreditation in the development
of national standards for the reduction of prison rape.
H.R. 1707 also calls for States to seek re-accreditation
every 2 years. We have found it to be more economical and more
efficient to have a 3-year accreditation process and would so
recommend that for your consideration.
H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear
from correctional administrators whose departments are
experiencing high rates of prison rape. The goals of the panel
are no different than those of ACA accreditation--to ensure
that corrections is open and accountable for the implementation
of standards to prevent prison rape.
The legislation establishes this panel with three
individuals. However, the legislation provides little guidance
for this panel. We believe the panel should be structured in
such a way to ensure that the panel promotes a dialogue which
allows for a true understanding of the incidence of prison rape
and which aids in the study and determination of the true
impact of prison rape.
We, therefore, recommend that a majority of the members of
the Review Panel on Prison Rape be drawn from the law
enforcement community and have expertise in the operation of
correctional facilities.
H.R. 1707 also calls for a study of the incidence of prison
rape. However, it overlooks an important fact that needs to be
taken into account. First, the legislation as drafted does not
adequately identify what constitutes rape in a correctional
facility. Issues surrounding consensual sex are not addressed,
and further defining what is meant by prison rape is necessary.
Secondly, the legislation does not specifically address
whether prison rape would address staff-on-inmate sexual
assault, as Director Wall mentioned earlier. Thus, we would
recommend that the Department of Justice, in the development of
a study relating to the incidence of prison rape, consult
correctional administrators, prosecutors, victim advocates,
former inmates and others who have direct institutional
knowledge, in addition to the self-reporting by inmates.
As you well know, State and local correctional agencies
across the country are grappling with shrinking budgets. In
this environment, the efforts of the supporters of the bill to
reward correctional administrators for their efforts in meeting
the requirements of this bill are commendable. We appreciate
the extent to which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to
ensure that this bill does not place unfunded mandates upon the
States.
Specifically, we appreciate the inclusion of language that
says ``significant additional costs compared to the costs
presently expended by Federal, State, and local prison
authorities'' should be imposed. However, we believe that this
term needs to be further defined. Thus, we recommend that the
legislation be revised to define what, if any, further costs
the implementation of national standards can place upon States
and localities without providing Federal funding for the
implementation of the standards.
I'm going to skip ahead. Actually, I think I'm out of time.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, could he just read the
recommendations? Since you have a couple of sentences on each
one, if you can just read the recommendations, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Kehoe. All right.
We have recommendations relating to the manner in which
funding will be distributed to States under the legislation,
and reservations relating to the designation of programs for
which funding for the implementation of this legislation be
drawn. The current writing provides for an increase in Federal
grant funding to jurisdictions represented at the hearings
convened by the Panel. The legislation calls for these
jurisdictions to be selected by among those included in a
random sample of jurisdictions. Thus, those jurisdictions that
are not a part of the random sample used to determine the
incidence of prison rape would be ineligible for funding under
the provisions of this legislation. In effect, this approach
effectively rewards jurisdictions that appear to have a high
incidence of rape, while reducing the funding available to
jurisdictions that are not a part of the random sample.
To simplify, if all 50 States are in compliance with the
provisions of H.R. 1707, it would reward the 10 States that are
chosen from the sample and at the same time 50 other States
would not be so designated. Under the legislation, the 10
States chosen may be eligible for a 10 percent increase in
funding from certain formula grant programs. Does this does
mean that the 40 States not chosen at random are not eligible
for an increase and could actually see decreased Federal
assistance?
Funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come from
the existing universe of formula grant programs, most of which
are completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators'
authority. In addition, relatively few DOJ grant programs are
designated to provide aid exclusively to corrections. thus,
other elements of State and local law enforcement could see
reduced funding as a result of this legislation.
I must ask whether the funding from victims' assistance
programs, community policing or drug treatment programs could
be used to fund the implementation of this act. Even more
alarming is that as the legislation is currently written, the
term ``formula grant programs'' could go beyond DOJ programs
that impact law enforcement and corrections. Given the billion
dollar minimum included in the legislation, it is likely that
you would have to go outside of the Department of Justice
programs. Thus, the Attorney General----
Mr. Coble. Mr. Kehoe, why don't you suspend.
Mr. Kehoe. All right, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kehoe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles J. Kehoe
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Charles Kehoe,
President of the American Correctional Association. I wish to thank
Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for inviting me here today to
discuss H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.
I would like to begin today by commending the work of
Representative Frank Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on this issue.
As a former Director of the Virginia Department of Youth and Family
Services, and a long-time citizen of Virginia, I have long admired
their dedicated service to the Commonwealth.
I am here today to represent the American Correctional Association
(ACA). ACA was founded in 1870 and is the nation's only professional
association representing all facets of corrections. ACA has nearly
19,000 individuals members from all 50 states and more than 40
countries. We promote broad-based public policies on crime and
corrections, develop professional standards, administer a national
accreditation program and provide educational programs for corrections
officials at all levels. In short, we are a multi-disciplinary
organization of professionals representing all facets of corrections
and criminal justice, including federal, state, and military
correctional facilities and prisons, county jails and detention
centers, probation/parole agencies, and community corrections/halfway
houses. ACA members bring a broad base of expertise that no other
organization in the world can offer to the field.
For more than 130 years, ACA has been the driving force in
establishing national and international correctional policies. ACA is
recognized as a worldwide leader on correctional policy and standards.
Our standards pertain to both adult and juvenile corrections, and
include guidelines designed to assist states and other agencies in
their efforts to implement correctional policy and procedure, which
provide safe, secure, and humane facilities for staff and offenders
alike.
In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003,
Representative Wolf said ``prison rape has nothing to do with being
tough on crime; it has to do with making our communities safer,
reducing recidivism, and controlling the spread of communicable
diseases.'' I agree completely with Congressman Wolf. In fact, those
are central tenants of the American Correctional Association, and we
whole-heartedly support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott as well
as all others involved in their quest to reduce the incidence of prison
rape.
The American Correctional Association supports the objectives of
H.R.1707. We believe that there should be a zero-tolerance standard for
the incidence of prison rape. We believe that prison officials should
make the prevention of prison rape a priority. We want to ensure that
prison officials are accountable for what goes on within their
institutions. We thank the bill's sponsors for incorporating into H.R.
1707 many changes that the corrections profession recommended to
earlier versions of the legislation. However, there remain a few
provisions of H.R. 1707 about which we retain some reservations or
which we would like to see clarified.
The strength of the American Correctional Association is in the
fact that we are the only organization that accredits total
correctional facility operations, including health care programs. We
have in excess of 1,600 facilities and programs that are involved in
the accreditation process, including prisons and jails, boot camps,
correctional industries, electronic monitoring, training academies, and
community-based programs, for both adults and juveniles. We currently
have accredited facilities or programs in 46 of the 50 states. Florida,
Louisiana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee have accredited 100% of their
correctional programs. And, approximately 95 percent of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons' facilities are also accredited.
Our profession has, within the past three years, adopted newer and
more meaningful Performance-based Standards--standards that better
define the value of what we do, how we do it, why we do it and how
successful we are through outcome measures. It is through the
implementation of these measures that ACA has positioned itself to more
closely collaborate with all elements within the criminal justice
system to address specific issues facing the correctional profession,
including those we are here to discuss today in relationship to the
Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.
ACA's Standards Committee, in January 2003, finalized the adoption
of several specific standards that are intended to significantly impact
sexual misconduct and prison rape. Working closely within and outside
the corrections profession, the Standards Committee adopted standards:
I. to revise the intake screening requirements for all
offenders to specifically identify those who are vulnerable or
have tendencies to act out with sexually aggressive behavior;
II. to require that an investigation be conducted and
documented whenever an assault or threat of assault is
reported;
III. to require that offenders identified with history of
sexually assaultive behavior are assessed by mental health or
other qualified professionals. Those with history of sexual
assaultive behavior are identified, monitored and counseled;
and,
IV. to require that offenders at risk for victimization are
identified, monitored and counseled.
H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape Reduction
Commission, established to study prison rape, report its findings to
Congress and propose national standards for the prevention of prison
rape to the Attorney General. However, there is no guarantee that
those, including the ACA, who have unique expertise and experience in
the development and implementation of standards for correctional
programs will be consulted in the course of the Commission's work. We
would like to see a requirement that the National Prison Rape Reduction
Commission consult entities involved in accreditation in the
development of national standards for the reduction of prison rape.
H.R. 1707 calls for states to seek reaccreditation every two years.
However, ACA's current accreditation program has established a three-
year cycle for the accreditation of correctional programs and we have
found this time frame to be cost-effective and to provide adequate
feedback relating to the state of operations within correctional
facilities and programs. We believe that requiring states to seek
accreditation every two years would result in a substantial increase in
the costs associated with accreditation. Therefore, we recommend that
the accreditation of correctional programs under any National Prison
Rape Reduction Commission standard occur every three years.
Openness and accountability are important qualities in the
administration of correctional systems. In fact, in ACA's accreditation
process, which I discussed, we actively seek the input of those both
inside and outside of the profession. We hold public hearings and we
invite diverse groups representing a wide variety of interests to
provide comments on our proposed standards. We want to ensure that the
public has confidence that corrections departments are doing their job
to the best of their abilities and that departments of corrections
conform to the highest guidelines of our profession.
H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear from
correctional administrators whose departments are experiencing high
rates of prison rape. The goals of the panel are no different from
those of the ACA accreditation process--to ensure that corrections is
open and accountable for the implementation of standards to prevent
prison rape. The legislation establishes that the panel consists of
three individuals with knowledge or expertise of the issues to be
studied by the panel. However, the legislation provides little guidance
for this panel. We believe that this panel should be structured in a
way to ensure that the panel promotes a dialogue which allows for a
true understanding of the incidence of prison rape and which aids in
the study determining the true impact of prison rape.
We recommend that a majority of the members of the Review Panel on
Prison Rape be drawn from the law enforcement community and have
expertise in the operation of correctional facilities. This would help
to ensure that the panel does not promote confrontation but rather
builds a dialogue allowing for a true understanding of the problems
those testifying face.
H.R. 1707 calls for a study of the incidence of prison rape;
however, it overlooks important factors that need to be taken into
account in the development and implementation of the study. First, the
legislation, as drafted, does not adequately identify what constitutes
rape in a correctional facility. Issues surrounding consensual sex are
not addressed, and further defining what is meant by prison rape is
necessary. Secondly, the legislation does not specify whether prison
rape would include staff-on-inmate sexual assault. While there is no
such thing as consensual sex between correctional employees and
inmates, incidents of staff and inmate sex constitutes a crime in
nearly every jurisdiction. Finally, the legislation places a great
emphasis on prisoner surveys for determining the incidence of prison
rape. However, in all surveys, not just those on issues as complex as
prison rape, individuals tend to over-report the incidence. Thus, we
recommend that the Department of Justice, in the development of a study
relating to the incidence of prison rape, consult correctional
administrators, prosecutors, victim advocates, former inmates and
others with direct institutional knowledge in the development of the
study.
As you well know, state and local correctional agencies across the
country are grappling with shrinking budgets and an expanding mandate.
In this environment, the efforts of the supporters of the bill to
reward correctional administrators for their efforts in meeting the
requirements of this bill are commendable. We appreciate the extent to
which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to ensure that this bill does
not place unfunded mandates upon the states. Specifically, we
appreciate the inclusion of language in H.R. 1707 preventing the
adoption of measures that would impose ``significant additional costs
compared to the costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local
prison authorities.'' However, we believe that this term needs to be
further defined. Thus, we recommend that the legislation be revised to
define what, if any, further costs the implementation of national
standards can place upon states and localities without providing
federal funding for the implementation of such standards.
Furthermore, we have reservations relating to the manner in which
funding will be distributed to states under this legislation and
reservations relating to the designation of programs from which funding
for the implementation of this legislation will be drawn. Currently,
H.R. 1707 provides for an increase in federal grant funding to
jurisdictions represented at hearings convened by the Review Panel on
Prison Rape. The legislation calls for these jurisdictions to be
selected from among those included in a random sample of jurisdictions.
Thus, those jurisdictions that are not a part of the random sample used
to determine the incidence of prison rape are ineligible for funding
under this provision of the legislation. In effect, this approach
effectively rewards those jurisdictions that appear to have a high
incidence of prison rape while reducing the funding available for those
jurisdictions that were not part of the random sample.
To simplify this concept, let's assume that all fifty states are in
compliance with the provisions of this legislation. Under the
provisions of H.R.1707, ten states are chosen at random to participate
in the sample. This means that forty states are not chosen. Under the
legislation, the ten states chosen may be eligible for a ten percent
increase in funding from certain ``formula grant programs.'' Does this
mean that the forty states not chosen at random are not eligible for an
increase and could actually see decreased federal assistance?
Furthermore, funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come
from the existing universe of ``formula grant programs,'' most which
are completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators'
authority. In addition, relatively few current DoJ grant programs are
designed to provide aid exclusively to corrections. Thus, other
elements of state and local law enforcement could see reduced funding
as a result of this legislation. I must ask whether funding from
victim's assistance programs, community policing or drug treatment
programs should be used to fund the implementation of this act. Even
more alarming is that as the legislation is currently written, the term
``formula grant programs'' goes beyond DoJ programs that impact law
enforcement and corrections. Given that the $1 billion minimum included
in the legislation, it is likely that you would have to go outside of
DoJ programs. Thus, the Attorney General could identify highway funds,
education funds, HUD funds--in theory, any federal formula grant
program, could be tapped into under the provisions of this legislation.
Thus, we recommend that the reward structure for the implementation
of H.R. 1707 be restructured in a manner that ensures that states do
not in any manner see a reduction in funding from any formula grant
program as a result of this legislation. Furthermore, the funding
mechanism of this legislation should be restructured to ensure that the
funding of the Prison Rape Reduction Act does not impact federal
programs of which corrections is not the primary beneficiary.
States across the nation are experiencing extraordinary fiscal
crises that are prompting governors and legislatures to recommend
dramatic cuts to all areas of state government. Correctional
departments have not been immune to these cuts, and, in fact, have been
among the hardest hit. While corrections appreciates the attention that
the issue of prison rape has received from the United States Congress,
we can not help but draw your attention to the larger issues currently
facing our profession. Thus, the American Correctional Association
joins the Council of State Government and the Association of State
Correctional Administrators in recommending that this legislation be
adapted to address state and local government officials' acute need for
immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer assistance that would assist in the
management of corrections in a cost-effective manner without impacting
the safety of correctional employees, inmates, or the community.
The primary mission of correctional departments across this country
is to protect the public. Our mission also includes assisting in the
prevention and control of delinquency and crime. Prison rape is a crime
and we will continue to do our duty to prevent it.
Mr. Wolf was absolutely correct when he said that the issue of
prison rape is not about being tough on crime. Prison rape is an issue
centered upon the human rights and the human dignity of those within
our nation's prisons and jails. Yet, if we are truly concerned with the
human rights and human dignity of offenders, we must, as a society,
ensure that all citizens receive access to health care, access to
education, and access to a living wage. This investment will go much
farther to making our communities safer, to reducing recidivism, and to
controlling the spread of communicable diseases than anything else that
we can do.
Prison rape is caused by larger, societal problems. It is a symptom
of a disease and not the disease itself. And, ultimately, the
prevention of criminal and delinquent behavior depends on the will of
the individual and the constructive qualities of society and its basic
entities: family, community, school, religion, and government. Without
a significant investment in research and in the development of our
communities, we will not be successful in achieving the admirable goals
of making our communities safer, reducing recidivism and controlling
the spread of communicable disease both inside and beyond our
correctional systems.
The corrections profession applauds the leadership of
Representatives Wolf and Scott on this issue. And, we feel that if
implemented properly, this legislation will have an impact on prison
rape. We hope that it will be cost effective. We hope that it will make
are communities safer. We hope that it will reduce recidivism. And we
hope that it will reduce the spread of communicable disease. ACA looks
forward to working with you on this noble pursuit. And, again, I wish
to thank you all for inviting me here today.
Mr. Coble. Let's get to Mr. Hall, and then we can come
back. Since just Bobby and I are here, we probably will have
two rounds of questioning.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF FRANK A. HALL, DIRECTOR,
THE EAGLE GROUP
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Hall. I am
currently a consultant in Washington, D.C. I spent 35 years in
the corrections business, starting my career, Mr. Chairman, in
your home State of North Carolina, where I spent 6 years and
learned a great deal from a lot of very bright and capable
people who were very committed to developing a humane and
effective corrections department.
I have had an opportunity to run three State correctional
systems over the last 35 years, two large local corrections
systems, as well as a juvenile justice system in the State of
New York. I am gratified by the comments of my colleagues, Mr.
Wall and Mr. Kehoe, who seem to be very supportive of the
intent of this legislation and seem to be very supportive of
the direction in which we're trying to move. I commend the
leadership of Representative Wolf and Representative Scott. I
think they've done a remarkable job focusing on an issue that I
think too often we have avoided and tends to sort of be in the
recesses of our institutions.
We don't tend to talk about this issue. There has been
almost a reluctance to talk about this issue throughout our
history. But I think it's a major problem. It is not only a
problem of public safety and safety in our institutions for
both staff and inmates, but I think it is, very frankly, a
public safety issue and a public health issue.
But I'm gratified by the comments, because I think these
two people represent what is best in the corrections
profession. There are a lot of very fine people working in this
business that would like to solve this problem and would like
to be able to come before this Committee or any other Committee
in Congress and say this problem has been solved, thanks to
your efforts and thanks to your help.
I think there are several concerns that have been raised
about the direction of the bill, most of which seem to address
issues of funding and resource allocation, compliance issues.
To me, these are relatively solvable problems. Congress deals
with these problems almost every day, and I'm confident that
these problems can be resolved.
But the reality of it is, you know, this problem of prison
rape affects people today. Probably in the last 20 years, a
million prisoners have been raped in the United States of
America. I think that's unacceptable to all of us, not just in
the corrections business but for every Member of Congress and
every person in the United States.
Unfortunately, in spite of efforts to accredit our
facilities in this country, a still relatively small percentage
of correctional institutions are accredited. The fact of it is
we operate thousands of jails in this country, police lockups,
and there are 630,000 people alone in the local jail system.
Just 2 years ago, if you counted the number of admissions and
discharges from the local jails and the prisons, we're talking
about 10 million people. Many people in the jail system haven't
even been found guilty of a crime. So it's a major issue and it
affects people, it affects the public health.
I think it requires Federal action for a very simple
reason: we haven't done it at the State level. I've been at the
State and local level all my life, but we haven't yet solved
this problem. In spite of mass resources and money and support,
we still haven't resolved this issue. In spite of much progress
in the corrections business, we still haven't resolved this
issue.
The other reality is--and I think it's one we have to
face--most prison staff are not adequately trained to prevent,
to report, to treat and to deal with the issue. This bill
provides some training, it provides opportunities for people to
get resources to help deal with some of these issues. So we're
not where we need to be, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
The bill doesn't attempt to solve all the world's problems,
but it does attempt to do some very basic things. It sets up a
program to gather the data, which we desperately need--we have
so little real data that it's an embarrassment that we don't
know more about the issue, that we don't have better data on
this issue--and Allen Beck is here from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, who I think is probably one of the best in the
business. I'm sure his people, with support from Congress, can
find out and get us much more information than we currently
have.
The other program would provide technical assistance and a
clearinghouse to help resolve some of these issues, and then
there's a program that the Attorney General would have which
would enable him to make grants up to a million dollars to
States and localities who are trying to grapple with the
problem.
So there is an honest effort to put some resources in this
program to draw attention to it, to establish standards over a
period of 2 years, and then I think recognizing that we have a
long ways to go, Mr. Chairman.
I think what we've also said is that it's not that
complicated. It's true that we have to work out some issues
around formula grants; it's true we have to work out some
issues around compliance. But basically, what the act is
requiring is really relatively simple, and as a former
corrections administrator in several States, and in local
governments, as well as in the juvenile system, I would not
find it impossible to carry this out, even with existing budget
constraints within which we all operate today. I mean, there's
always been a budget crisis as long as I've been in
corrections, Mr. Chairman. It didn't take this recession or
this economic downturn that we're having to create an economic
crisis in the correctional system.
We're only asking that correctional administrators
cooperate with the surveys and other efforts to measure
accurately the prevalence of prison rape in our existing
institutions, and be prepared to explain, in a public forum, if
an institution or system is far above the established norm.
It's an issue of accountability. What gets measured, Mr.
Chairman, is what gets done.
After years of hearings, discussion and debate, where all
the fine people you see here today, and others, would have a
chance to agree on a set of standards, and a set of standards
that do not require substantial new State and local resources.
And while we may debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is
imperative that we, at a minimum, take these three steps.
If the Congress decides to act, then all of you will have
the satisfaction of knowing your actions have enabled all of us
to taken a historical step forward. As Members of this
Committee can readily see, the Prison Rape Reduction Act is
comprehensive and designed to shed light on dark, violent
places. However, even more importantly, it provides prison and
jail staffs with ideas, resources and performance
accountability, all urgently needed if we are to lower the
level of violence that exists today.
Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in
establishing our commitment to real public safety. In this
great country, we sentence people to prison as punishment and
to protect our fellow citizens. We do not, and must no longer,
sentence them to be raped, murdered or exposed to dangerous
diseases. Those of us who have worked in our correctional
institutions, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we
applaud your efforts, your concern, and your humanity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank A. Hall
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub-committee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you
today. I am here to express my gratitude for your leadership in
reducing violence in our correctional institutions and to express my
support for the Prison Rape Reduction Act. I am also honored to be here
with two of my colleagues, Reggie Wilkinson and Chuck Kehoe. I have
known these two professionals for many years and they represent the
best of the fine women and men working in our jails, prisons, and
juvenile facilities throughout the country.
I have worked in the correction profession for more than thirty-
five years in a broad range of positions. I have served as director,
commissioner, or chief executive officer of the State corrections
systems of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Oregon, the jail systems of
Philadelphia and Santa Clara County, California and the New York
juvenile justice system. To me, prison rape is much more than an
academic issue. Prison rape impacts on human beings and on every jail,
prison, and juvenile facility in America. It is an issue of violence
and public health.
At the end of this century, over two million persons were
incarcerated in our Federal and State prisons and more than 630
thousand were locked up in local jails. In 1999, there were more than
ten million admissions to and discharges from these institutions.
Although the research is limited-another part of the problem which
would be remedied by the legislation- experts have conservatively
estimated that at least 13 percent of inmates in the United States have
been sexually assaulted while under our supervision. Many of these
individuals have suffered repeated assaults. The total number inmates
who have been sexually assaulted in the past twenty years could easily
exceed one million.
America's jails and prisons house more mentally ill individuals
than all the Nation's psychiatric hospitals combined and experienced
correctional professionals know that inmates with mental illness are at
increased risk of sexual assault. Young first offenders are also
vulnerable and those placed in adult rather than juvenile facilities
are five times more likely to be assaulted.
HIV and AIDS have become an increasingly major health problem in
corrections. More than 25,000 inmates in Federal and State prisons are
infected. In 2001, more than six percent of all deaths in these
institutions were attributable to these life-threatening illnesses.
Infection rates for other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis,
and hepatitis B and C are also far greater for prisoners than the
American population as a whole. Prison rape is often a death sentence
for the victim.
Prison rape is nothing less than brutalizing violence and an act of
rape or threat of rape in an institution increases the level of
homicide and other violence against inmates and staff. Victims suffer
severe physical and psychological effects that hinder their ability to
re-integrate into the community and maintain stable employment after
release. The result is higher recidivism, more homeless or at best
individuals requiring some form of government assistance.
Unfortunately, most prison and jail staff are not adequately
trained or prepared to prevent, report, or treat inmate sexual
assaults. As a result, prison rape often goes unreported and victims
often receive inadequate treatment if they receive treatment at all.
The Prison Rape Reduction Act is an historic bi-partisan effort to
mobilize our efforts to combat a problem that, as we have seen, impacts
far beyond the walls of the country's jails and prisons. The law would
establish a zero tolerance of rape in United States prisons and would
make its prevention a top priority. National standards for the
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment will be established.
Long needed data on the incidence of prison rape will become available
which will improve the management and administration of our
correctional institutions. It will increase the accountability of
prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish rape
and increase the visibility of officials who are innovative and
effective. The proposed legislation is designed to help jurisdictions
that seek to create a safer environment.
The Prison Rape Reduction Act establishes three programs in the
Department of Justice-the Statistics Program, the Prevention and
Prosecution Program, and the Grant Program.
The first of these, the Statistics Program, would conduct annual
studies of a significant sample of Federal, State, and county jails and
prisons on the in the incidence and prevalence of rape. The program
would then conduct an annual review of the performance of these systems
where the incidence of rape greatly exceeds the national average.
The Prevention and Prosecution Program will serve as a
clearinghouse for the provision of information and assistance to those
authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and
punishment of rape. This program would also provide training and
assistance to Federal, State, and local prison officials.
The third and last leg of this tripod would be the Grant Program,
which authorizes the Attorney General to make annual grants (up to $40
million each year) to State, and local programs that enhance the
prevention and punishment of prison rape.
In addition to the programs described above, the new legislation
would establish a National Prison Rape Reduction Commission which would
conduct comprehensive hearing and examine all penalogical, economic,
physical, mental, medical and social issues related to prison rape in
America. At the conclusion of its review the Commission will issue a
comprehensive report on the subject, including a recommended set of
national standards to reduce and eliminate prison rape.
The standards will address practices for the investigation and
elimination of prison rape including the training of correctional
officers; sexually transmitted disease prevention; identifying,
protecting, screening, isolating, and punishing vulnerable and
potentially offending inmates; and other related issues. The Commission
will be required to limit its proposals to those that do not impose
substantial additional costs on States and local governments. The
Commission's recommended national standards will be independently
reviewed by the Attorney General who may modify them before publishing
them for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Once the standards become final, they will be immediately
applicable to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. States then may adopt the
standards by statute and those that do will receive increased funds for
two years from certain Federal grant programs. States will continue to
receive increased funds thereafter if they receive certification from
an accreditation agency that they are in compliance with the standards.
The Act further requires that all prison accreditation
organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a critical
component of their accreditation reviews including, when and where
adopted, the national standards promulgated pursuant to the Act.
Failure to do so would make such organization ineligible for the
receipt of any Federal funds.
The problem today, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, is
that our focus has been on building institutions not on what goes on
inside. As administrators we are held accountable for the visible-
escapes and riots. These are the issues that result in blue ribbon
commissions, legislative hearings, and the firing of wardens and
commissioners and all too often line staff who shoulder the daily
burden of keeping our facilities safe. The legislation before this
committee requires a different level of accountability and it will
change the reality for those living and working in the system. As the
old adage states: ``What gets measured, get done.''
Ladies and Gentlemen of this committee, we are not asking too much
of my corrections colleagues, we are only asking them to take these
three modest actions:
Cooperate with the surveys and other efforts to
measure accurately the prevalence of prison rape in our
existing institutions.
Be prepared to explain in a public forum if an
institution or system is far above the established norm.
And after years of hearings, discussion, and debate,
agree to set of standards that do not require substantial new
State and local resources.
While we may debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is
imperative that we, at a minimum, take these three steps. If the
Congress decides to act, then all of you will have the satisfaction of
knowing your actions have enabled all of us to take an historical step
forward.
As members of this committee can readily see, the Prison Rape
Reduction Act is comprehensive and designed to shed light on dark
violent places. However, even more importantly it provides prison and
jail staffs with ideas, resources, and performance accountability-all
urgently needed if we to lower the level of violence that exists today.
Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in establishing
our commitment to real public safety. In this great county we sentence
people to prison as punishment and to protect our fellow citizens. We
do not and must no longer sentence them to be raped, murdered, or
exposed to dangerous disease.
Those of us who have worked in our correctional institutions
applaud your concern and your humanity.
Thank You.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I thank the panelists.
As I said, Mr. Scott and I are the only ones here and we'll
have two rounds of questioning.
Mr. Hall, I'm sure that probably one of the reasons why
there is very limited statistics available is probably fear of
retribution, I would suspect--Is that correct, that being one
reason?
Mr. Hall. I think that's one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman,
yes. I think the other is that--and this almost goes--it is
difficult to articulate, but I think there's been a reluctance
on the part of all of us in the business to really talk about
this issue and be frank about it.
Mr. Coble. Yeah.
Mr. Hall. I think that's part of the problem also.
Mr. Coble. In your testimony you indicate that most prison
and jail staff are inadequately trained or prepared to prevent,
treat or report. What sort of training or preparation would you
suggest?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I think you made a comment earlier
about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I think the Federal Bureau
has provided a lot of leadership in this area. I think, if you
look at the Federal regulations and policies, they very
specifically deal with this issue. That is not true in many of
the States; it's not true in some of the juvenile systems in
this country; and it's certainly not true in many of the local
jails.
I think the training that would be provided under this is a
relatively small grant, only five million dollars to the
National Institute of Corrections. It could go a long way,
since it's practically increasing the National Institute of
Corrections' budget by 50 percent. So it could go a long ways
to training staff, developing protocols--you have to have a
protocol. In a corrections system, you have to have policy. But
in training people in the policy, then giving them real tools
to actually do the work that has to be done and the ability to
investigate these things and protect the people that report.
Because it's dangerous to report, Mr. Chairman, very dangerous.
No one wants to report being raped if they're going to get
killed within 24 hours after making the report.
Mr. Coble. Miss Henke, your testimony indicates that there
could be as many as 20 Federal formula grant programs at the
Office of Justice Programs affected by the increases/reductions
under this legislation.
What criteria will be used to choose which programs are
affected?
Ms. Henke. Sir, the underlying legislation specifically
says programs that are related to the failure to abate prison
rape. That is the guidance that would be provided in the
legislation.
Specific criteria that would be used by the Attorney
General to select the programs within OJP, others within the
Department of Justice, or other programs throughout the
Administration, is undetermined at this time.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Kehoe, what are the benefits--Let me put a
two part question to you.
What are the benefits to a State or institution of
accreditation, (a), and (b), why do some States or institutions
choose not to be accredited?
Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of accreditation are
that it provides a State and a facility a program with an
outside independent assessment of that facility's strengths and
weaknesses. It also helps to measure their compliance with
attainable goals, and it implements in the implementation
requirement for state-of-the-art policies to be achieved
through the accreditation process.
In some cases, it has actually aided in the defense in
lawsuits. Federal courts have sometimes lifted their
involvement with States because States have come into
compliance with standards and accreditation. It also raises
staff morale and professionalism because of the standards that
specifically address training and qualifications.
I would say probably that the most important thing is that
it helps you develop a road map for daily operations. That's
the thing that we see most often, that you have a consistent
way of managing these facilities from day to day.
I would say probably that, more often than not, what causes
States, I think you asked, not to become involved----
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Mr. Kehoe.--is probably a lack of understanding and
knowledge, and certainly the cost factor for some States is, to
some extent, a deterrent. They just simply don't know whether
they have the money and the resources to do that. But I would
say those would be the two major issues.
Mr. Coble. I have a question for Mr. Wall, but I will wait
until the second round. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think what we have heard is general support for the
legislation, if we can work out the details. So let me ask you
all a couple of questions.
Mr. Kehoe, what portion of prisons today are, in fact,
accredited?
Mr. Kehoe. About 10 percent of the adult corrections in the
country are--actually, it's more than that. In the U.S., about
30 percent of adult prisons and jails are accredited, and about
10 percent of the juvenile programs are accredited. There's
about 1,600 facilities in numbers.
Mr. Scott. Both you and Mr. Wall have suggested that we
make sure that we contact those who do the accreditation. Does
anybody else, other than ACA, do accreditations?
Mr. Kehoe. Yes. The National Commission on Correctional
Health Care does accreditation specific to health care, but
doesn't go into the operations and beyond the health care.
Mr. Scott. So if we wanted to contact a group that did
accreditations, it would be ACA?
Mr. Kehoe. Yes.
Mr. Scott. I don't remember which one it was, but somebody
mentioned the composition of the panel. Other than corrections
officials, who else ought to be on the panel?
Mr. Kehoe. Certainly I would think, Mr. Scott, people with
law enforcement background, who have some experience in
investigative skills, who have experience in dealing with
sexual assaults in a free society would also bring a lot of
strength to that composition as well.
Mr. Scott. Does somebody else want to respond to either of
those questions?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, I would also urge that, if such a
panel be appointed, that it also include some folks that
represent the people that have come through the system. You
know, we haven't heard from those folks today. But those
stories are compelling. I know these people personally, many of
them, and they're absolutely true. We have to have people on a
panel like that who represent some other points of view.
I would like to think that those of us in corrections are
smart and sensitive and thoughtful about these issues, but it's
important to have other people there with us I think.
Mr. Scott. You're talking about a broad cross-section. The
problems we have with that is the way we have them appointed,
three by this person, two by that person, one by this person,
so that you don't get to appoint a group. You have to appoint
one and that's it. Then you look and see what you've got.
That's how we generally do it. We might have to tinker with
that to make sure that, when all is said and done, we have a
cross-section of the various disciplines.
Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall. Yes, Representative Scott, if I may. There are
really three components here, as I understand it. One is the
BJS component, the second is this review panel to take the BJS
statistics and help to present a profile of who the victims
are, who the perpetrators are, and what the context is. The
third is the commission that will promulgate standards for
States to adhere to.
I had suggested that, with regard to the first prong, the
BJS study, that there be an advisory group that would be
broadly representative, that would help with definitional
questions and identifying the appropriate ways to gather
information. That would absolutely include victims' advocates
as well as former inmates, as well as corrections
professionals, law enforcement personnel and prosecutors.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned definitional questions. Several
have indicated a question about the definition of rape,
including whether or not staff-in-inmate rapes would be
included.
Are there places that have already dealt with that question
that we could find a definition?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, I would suggest, even if
you look at the state of current law on sexual assaults, it
pretty well covers it. When you're in a correctional facility,
the mere threat of an assault in itself is a criminal act for
all intents and purposes. When someone is threatened with rape
or threatened with some sexual act, and if they don't cooperate
they're going to be killed or maimed or whatever, I think the
law pretty much covers most of these issues.
Ms. Henke. Sir, just one more thing, if I may. Congress did
provide $13 million to the Office of Justice Programs in the
fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the National Institute of Justice. Both of these
entities, working collaboratively, are prepared to empanel a
group of experts, practitioners, researchers, et cetera,
individuals from the field that can address these issues. So
the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of
Justice can get a head start on identifying some of these
issues.
Mr. Wall. And, Representative Scott, with regard to the
issue of staff on inmate sexual assault, that is a crime, a
violation of the criminal code in 48 of the 50 States at the
present time. Consent is not a defense in those instances. The
mere fact of sexual misconduct between a staff member and an
inmate is defined as a felony.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Bobby.
Mr. Wall, I don't think this has been touched on. We talk
frequently and consistently about the lack of statistical data.
How important, Mr. Wall, is it to reducing the incidence of
sexual assault to obtain accurate statistics?
Mr. Wall. I think that it is very important to obtain
accurate statistics, and that's why, Chairman Coble, I have
recommended that there be an advisory group put together to
assist the Bureau of Justice Statistics in assembling that data
and also that it draw on a variety of surveys.
Let me give you an example of one of the challenges that
can be presented here. It is conceivable that a State which has
good supervision, close supervision by staff, and good
reporting mechanisms, could show up as having a high incidence
of sexual assault on inmates, because in my experience over the
years, if inmates have reason to believe that they will be
believed and protected, they will report misconduct, whether it
be by staff or other inmates. If inmates do not think they will
be believed or protected, they will remain silent. That's why
the issue of collecting data and collecting accurate data is
going to be a very important and challenging piece.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what Mr.
Wall has said. I think one of the reasons we've heard less
about this issue over the years is because people have remained
silent. I think many people who have been assaulted remain
silent.
I think the interest of Congress and the interest of the
Federal Government in this problem I think will change that
silence. I think it will have a very positive impact.
Mr. Coble. I hope so.
Miss Henke, pardon my raspy voice. I have already
apologized to others. I know this sounds terrible.
Miss Henke, are the standards that have been adopted by the
ACA also the standards that are required by the Federal
correctional facilities?
Mr. Henke. Sir, to my knowledge, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons has had their own standards in place since about 1997.
However, the Bureau of Prisons also works to adopt the
standards identified and used by the ACA.
Mr. Coble. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Wall, you indicated there may be some things we're
overlooking. What were you referring to?
Mr. Wall. My concern is this, Representative Scott, that
there is another emerging crisis in the corrections field that
has to do with the fact that our systems continue to grow but
that we are facing nearly unprecedented fiscal constraints.
In the late 1980's and 1990's, the philosophy really was to
build more prisons and staff them up. We are now some 10-plus
years, 10 to 15 years later from the beginning, from the onset
of that philosophical approach, the coffers are exhausted,
governors and legislators are not willing to spend additional
capital monies, are not willing to continue to staff up and
operate expensive correctional institutions, but our numbers
have not abated. As a result, governors are forced to consider
how to manage the population and whether the populations of
correctional facilities can be allowed to continue to grow,
notwithstanding the fiscal constraints. In virtually every
jurisdiction, steps are underway and serious discussion is
occurring about how to deal with that problem.
My point would be that this is an occasion where the States
really could benefit from targeted, technical assistance, so
that we don't make those decisions unwisely and in
contravention of the public safety. I would argue, as Mr. Hall
has, that just as sexual assault in prisons can be looked at as
a threat to public safety, through public health and through
the consequences of people behaving on the street who have been
abused that way, we also, of course, care deeply about the
public safety associated with releasing inmates who might
otherwise be incarcerated and want to be sure that those
decisions are made soundly and wisely. We would appreciate the
Federal Government's assistance in providing us with the means
to do that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Several questions have been raised about the funding
formula. Does anyone have any concern, or are we confident that
there is common ground that we can solve this? Let me ask that
of Miss Henke.
Ms. Henke. Sir, it is the Department of Justice's hope that
yes, there is common ground. In discussions with individuals at
the table, as well as other supporters of the legislation, it
is the Department's hope that this issue can be addressed and
that common ground exists for us to build from.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, all the members of the coalition that
support this legislation left their agenda at the door and are
focused on this issue and this issue alone. I am relatively
certain, as long as there is some form of compliance in the
legislation, that some formula and some understanding can be
worked out.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Wall and Mr. Kehoe, do you have any concern
that we might not be able to find a common ground to get past
the funding questions?
Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Scott, I think we are in agreement with the
Department of Justice on what has been said so far. People
working collectively toward a unified cause, with a goal in
mind, can achieve anything. I think we would be supportive of
that.
Our greatest concern is that we not end up in a situation
where no good deed goes unpunished.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I guess a final question. A couple of people have used the
phrase ``integrity'' in conjunction with the numbers that we
get. What can we do to ensure--I think Mr. Wall kind of touched
on this a little bit--that the numbers we get as a result of
the surveys are accurate?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, I think that with Mr. Beck's
involvement from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
involvement of a lot of people that understand how to gather
this data in a way that protects the people that give up the
information, I'm convinced we can get the data. I mean, there
are ways of doing these studies. I may be looking at people
that have already been released, that are already off parole,
that we have to look at some of those folks. But I think
there's ways of gathering this data without compromising it,
and I'm convinced that can be done. I think people are smart
enough to figure that one out.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Miss Henke?
Ms. Henke. Sir, if I may, once again under the $13 million
that was provided in the BJS appropriations bill, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics is prepared--we have worked over the past
month, maybe 2 months, to develop a proposal that we have
discussed with many individuals. What the Bureau of Justice
Statistics is going to do is they're going to pilot something
they call the Audio Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing
technique--it's called the Audio CASI, is what we call it--to
improve the reliability of numbers.
One of the things the expert statisticians at the Bureau of
Justice Statistics have said is currently there are pretty much
two ways to gather the numbers: you provide a survey and let
them fill it out whenever they fill it out, and turn it in
whenever they turn it in; or there is a personal interview.
Personal interviews often sometimes subdues what an
individual will discuss. By using this audio computer system,
one, it's a more controlled environment, and two, it is not a
person that you're sitting there talking with. So the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, at OJP, is going to be moving forward on
that technique to pilot it relatively quickly.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, one other comment.
I think, quite frankly, based on the studies that have been
done, and the information that we currently have, it is still
my opinion that we have underestimated the full extent of the
problem.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does the gentlelady from Texas have questions?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
submit my opening statement into the record.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for
convening this very important hearing today to hear testimony and
discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.''
This important bill will help to bring an end to the deplorable
rapes, molestations, and sexual assaults that occur in our prisons.
The negative impacts of prison rapes go beyond the physical trauma
of the attack itself. The victims suffer psychological trauma,
emotional scarring, shame, the stigma of being victimized, and the
destruction of their dignity.
H.R. 1707 is a moderate bill that seeks to address the scourge of
prison rapes. The bill does not infringe on state and local governments
role in administering their correctional institutions. Likewise the
bill does not impose mandates on correctional facilities without
providing funding.
A critically important element of the bill is empowering the
Department of Justice to conduct extensive research so that we can have
a better understanding of the scope and character of the prison rape
problem. The DOJ's research will also enable us to educate and train
correctional facility officers to prevent prison rapes, to investigate
and punish those responsible for the attacks, and to establish a
funding system does not conflict with state funding initiatives.
By eliminating or significantly reducing prison rapes we will also
benefit the general public. The psychological trauma of a prison rape
has the potential to turn a person who was a non-violent offender when
first incarcerated, into a violent offender when the person is
released. Prison rape also increases the probability that prisoner
rehabilitation efforts will be ineffective. Eliminating prison rapes
will also reduce the incidence of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and
hepatitis.
As the Chair of the Children's Caucus, I am particularly troubled
by the impact that prison rapes have on minors who have been
incarcerated. Imprisoned youths are five times more likely to be raped
or sexually abused than incarcerated adults. Furthermore, the
psychological trauma of a rape is far more serious to a child.
We must do everything in our power to eliminate prison rapes. It is
far too common for prison officials and members of the public to ignore
the crimes that occur in our prisons, and the problems facing our
prisoners. To neglect our prisoners is a violation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled in Farmer v. Brennan, that deliberate,
indifference to prison rape violates the 8th Amendment's cruel and
unusual punishment provisions.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, and I look forward
to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses to learn about
how to eliminate prison rapes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me applaud, first of all, the Chairman
for holding this hearing, and applaud both the Ranking Member
of this Subcommittee for his initiative in this legislation,
along with Congressman Wolf.
Just for the record--and I know that these numbers have
already been stated, but I guess it provides a chilling effect
of this hearing to indicate that about two million inmates in
the United States today--approximately two-thirds in Federal
and State prisons and one-third in local jails--that of these
two million inmates, it is conservatively estimated that one in
ten has been raped, over or more than 200,000 inmates, and as I
was listening to the testimony, there may be even more.
According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in
Nebraska have been either pressured or forced to engage in
sexual activity against their will while incarcerated, and a
2001 report by the Human Rights Watch documented shockingly
high rates of sexual abuse in U.S. prisons.
The interesting thing, of course, is that, because of the
age of majority, we have youngsters as young as 17 in adult
prisons who may be victimized in this category. I am told by my
interaction, my sad interaction with victims of sexual abuse,
that it is a tragically life-changing experience.
Then I would finally note that by increasing the
transmission of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted
diseases, tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C, all of which
exist at a very high rate within U.S. prisons and jails, prison
rape has serious health consequences. So I know that all of you
are facing a very high and critical question and this
legislation is very important.
I would like to ask Miss Henke, right at this very moment,
even without this legislation, knowing that this crisis or very
severe problem exists, what are the Federal prisons doing, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons doing, right as we speak to address
this issue?
Ms. Henke. Congresswoman, I can tell you a little bit about
what they're doing, because I'm with the Office of Justice
Programs and not with the Bureau of Prisons. But what I can
tell you, as the Chairman stated early on, is that it has been
noted that the Federal system has been working on this issue.
The Bureau of Prisons has had policy in place since 1997, to my
knowledge.
In addition to that, they work to adopt the same standards
that ACA adopts for State and local prisons. So yes, the
Federal system has had a policy and practice in place since at
least 1997.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Kehoe--and she is not with the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, and I'm going to find out later why they're
not present. But in any event, Mr. Kehoe, can you assess
whether there's been any work that has been legitimate and
substantial on this question, beyond obviously the movement of
this legislation, which I think will be of great help, but what
has been done and what has been noted about this crisis so that
something could be done, even in the interim of passing this
legislation?
Mr. Kehoe. Let me ask a question. Are you specifically
speaking to the Bureau or globally, corrections-wise?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Why don't you speak both specifically and
generally. If you have more information generally, I'll accept
that.
Mr. Kehoe. Okay. I don't have specific information about
the Bureau, other than to say that 95 percent of the Bureau's
programs are involved in our accreditation process. To that
extent, there are standards that address issues of assault.
Most recently, in January of this year, the ACA standards
committee passed four standards that specifically address the
issue of sexual assault in institutions. They begin with the
classification and intake process, to identify those
perpetrators who may be the aggressor, and those who may be
victims of possible sexual assault.
The second issue addresses the need for prompt
investigation when a threat or an assault actually happens, and
the culmination of that investigation.
The third and fourth standards really deal with the profile
of an aggressive perpetrator, a sexually aggressive offender in
prison, streamlining that person into the right program so that
they get the appropriate level of custody as well as treatment.
The last standard deals with those that might be considered
potential victims in institutions, identifying them and
properly--having standards that properly classify them so
they're not put in harm's way.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you have been using standards to assess
whether or not there have been any fix in the particular
institutions that you've been dealing with, standards,
reporting, et cetera?
Mr. Kehoe. The standards that we have addressed
specifically to sexual assault were just passed this past
January, so there really hasn't been a period of time yet to
collect any meaningful data of that.
Mr. Hall. Representative Lee, could I make one comment on
that?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Hall. The accreditation process that was instituted by
the American Correctional Association is a very positive
process, and I think it's been of enormous help in corrections.
But as I pointed out earlier, the problem is there is just
so few institutions that are accredited. When you get into the
issues of local jails as well as juvenile correctional
facilities, then you have a major problem area.
Unfortunately, as good as the process is, and even though
these standards were adopted rather late in the process, the
reality of it is most institutions don't go through an
accreditation process. It's not like your school system or your
colleges and universities. You can run your prison without
accreditation. It's not like where if you have a college that
doesn't get accredited, they'll probably end up closing their
doors. That is certainly not true in this business.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, is there a second round?
Mr. Coble. No, just this.
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I have an additional minute?
Mr. Coble. One additional minute.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate the response that you gave. I
want to get the one representative State unfunded mandates, but
I would like to know, one, what you're doing in your State, but
more importantly, how this legislation will be helpful to you.
I think I heard the funding issue, if you want to repeat that
again, but how would it relate in terms of helping you be
successful in the cure of this crisis and the very bad actions
that are going on?
Mr. Wall. Certainly, Representative Jackson Lee, there are
a number of ways in which this legislation would be of use to
jurisdictions that are seeking to prevent the incidence of
sexual assault in prison, to deal with the aftermath, and to
prosecute as a result.
One is that the legislation includes a clearinghouse. As
you know, corrections is, by and large, a State and local
function, and that means we are sometimes in isolation from one
another, a point I was making in regard to the issue of
managing correctional populations, and there is a real benefit
to having access to information about best practices that are
occurring in other States. That's one way.
Another way in which I would be helpful is that there are
demonstration programs provided in the legislation, and at
least in my experience over the years, when those succeed, they
have a real effect on the profession and become the touchstone
for changes in practice across the field. So that's still
another way.
Third--and I think this is very important--the fact is that
I speak from my own 29 years in corrections, and I speak on
behalf of all the directors of corrections. We do know that
sexual assault occurs in our prisons; we abhor it. It is
difficult for us to measure it, and we would appreciate some
opportunity for the kind of analysis that this legislation
affords, identifying the characteristics of likely
perpetrators, of likely victims, and also the situations,
context, locations in the institution, times of day, that these
things take place, so that we have data and tools to use in
attacking the problem.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. Thanks you, Miss Jackson Lee.
We thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Subcommittee
very much appreciates your contribution.
This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1707. Do you
have one more thing, Bobby?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
enter into the record letters from the Prison Fellowship
Ministry, signed by Charles Colson and Mark Early, and from the
Justice Fellowship from a statement by Pat Nolan, President of
Justice Fellowship.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pat Nolan
``The opposite of compassion is not hatred, it's indifference''.
These words were written by a prisoner who was severely beaten after
refusing demands for sex from another inmate.
While often the subject of jokes on late-night TV, prison rape is
no laughing matter. It has terrible consequences, not just for the
inmates who are brutalized, but for our communities as well. The rate
of HIV in prisons today is ten times higher than in the general
population. Every rape in prison can turn a sentence for a non-violent
crime into a death sentence.
Prison rape leads to other types of death, also. Rodney Hulin set a
dumpster on fire in his neighborhood. Despite being only sixteen years
old, he was sentenced to eight years in an adult prison where he was
repeatedly beaten and raped. Despite his pleas for help, no one in
authority intervened to help him; he was told to fend for himself.
Depressed and unwilling to face the remainder of his sentence at the
mercy of sexual predators, Rodney committed suicide. Similar suicides
have occurred in jails and prisons across the United States.
Experts estimate that at least one in ten inmates is raped in
prison. Because 95 percent of prisoners will eventually be released
back into our communities, the horrors that occur inside prison have
consequences for the rest of us, too.
Some who suffer through brutal rapes become predators themselves,
both in prison and after their release, subjecting other innocent
victims to the same degradation that they experienced. Or they vent
their rage in other acts of violence, often racially motivated. One
example is the tragic story of James Byrd, the African-American who was
picked up by three white supremacists, beaten, chained to the back of
their pickup truck and dragged for three miles to his death. One of his
assailants was John William King, a burglar who had recently been
released after serving a three year sentence in one of Texas' toughest
prisons.
When John arrived at the prison, a group of white supremacists
reportedly conspired with the guards to place John in the ``black''
section of the prison. At just 140 pounds, John was unable to defend
himself against a group of African American prisoners who repeatedly
gang-raped him. This was exactly what the white power gang wanted.
Filled with hatred, John was easily recruited into their group for
protection. Over the remainder of his sentence, they filled John's head
full of hatred for blacks. When he was released, John King unleashed
that pent-up hatred on James Byrd. The gang-rapes he endured in prison
are no excuse for his murder of James Byrd, but they certainly help us
understand what could lead him to hate so much.
As troubling as the incidence of rape is, equally disturbing is the
attitude of many government officials who are indifferent to it. When
asked about prison rape, Massachusetts Department of Correction
spokesman Anthony Carnevales said, ``Well, that's prison . . . I don't
know what to tell you.'' In that offhand remark, he was expressing what
many feel in their hearts but are loathe to admit--``they deserve it.''
But they don't deserve it. Regardless of the crimes they have
committed, no offender's sentence includes being raped while in the
custody of government. By its very nature, imprisonment means a loss of
control over the circumstances in which inmates live. They cannot
choose their ``neighbors'' i.e. their cellmates, nor arm themselves,
nor take other steps to protect themselves. Because the government has
total control over where and how inmates live, it is their
responsibility to make sure they aren't harmed while in custody.
That is why Justice Fellowship strongly supports HR 1707, the
Prison Rape Reduction Act, which would establish standards for
investigating and eliminating rape, and hold the states accountable if
they fail to do so.
Winston Churchill said that the manner in which a society treats
criminals ``is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of
any country.'' It is important that Congress deal with the scandal of
prison rape, for in doing so, you will lead our nation in meeting
Churchill's test of a civilized society.
Mr. Coble. Without objection, I would like to introduce
into the record as well correspondence from Mr. Glenn Goord,
the Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services for New
York, and the Department of Public Safety Corrections from
Louisiana, Mr. Richard Stalder, as secretary.
[The material referred to follows:]
Mr. Coble. This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R.
1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.'' The record
will remain open for 1 week.
Thank you for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Horowitz
Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee:
I submit this statement in the hope that it will be of value to the
Subcommittee in its consideration of H.R. 1707, the Wolf-Scott-
Sessions-Kennedy Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. Having been
involved from the start with the extraordinary right-left, bipartisan
coalition engaged in the effort to enact it, I hope that the following
comments will shed light on the context and character of the effort and
the bill.
The first and most critical fact about the bill is its modest,
moderate and federalism-friendly nature. The coalition supporting the
bill, whose strong letter of support of April 18, 2003 is attached to
this statement, has steadfastly resisted calls to deal with massive and
epidemic prison rape through major federal spending initiatives, major
federal spending mandates, significant amendments of existing laws or
expansions of the right to bring lawsuits in the courts. The coalition
is therefore pleased that H.R. 1707, which has the committed, indeed
passionate support of such groups as the NAACP and Focus on the Family;
La Raza and the Salvation Army; Prison Fellowship and Human Rights
Watch; the Southern Baptist Convention and the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations; the National Association of Evangelicals, the
Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the American Probation and Parole
Association, Physicians for Human Rights, the Christian Coalition and
Amnesty International, U.S.A. only calls for limited but strategic
steps to be taken.
Insofar as penal systems are concerned, H.R. 1707 only calls for
three simple reform steps--all of them highly moderate in light of the
fact that:
Between 10 and 15% of the nation's two million
prisoners are now estimated to be victims of sexual assault
each year and, when victimized, to be repetitively assaulted--a
violent outcome that, by far, hits first-time offenders,
juveniles and the mentally handicapped hardest of all.
Today's systematic indifference to prison rape not
only represents grievous and unacceptable penal and social
policy; Congressional action is further in order because the
Supreme Court's Farmer v. Brennan decision makes deliberate
indifference to prison rape a direct violation of the 8th
Amendment of the Constitution.
The three actions called for by H.R. 1707 are these:
Penal systems are called upon to cooperate with
annual Justice Department prison surveys of prison rape;
Heads of prison systems whose incidence of prison
rape is found by the Justice surveys to exceed the national
norm by 30% or more are called upon to publicly explain and
defend their prison rape abatement policies; and
Prison systems are called upon to comply with rape
abatement standards established after years of study by a
National Commission and by the Attorney General, and after full
notice and comment rulemaking--under circumstances where the
standards cannot impose significant spending mandates.
H.R. 1707 seeks to enforce the three above reforms through limited
adjustments in formula entitlements for federal grant programs whose
purposes are most undermined by the failure to abate prison rape. I
know that there has been discussion over this means of achieving
compliance with H.R. 1707's three reforms, and believe that careful
scrutiny of this approach will establish its moderate and non-intrusive
character. Whatever one's views of H.R. 1707's grant formula adjustment
approach, however, it is fair to say that the coalition's singular
determination is that jurisdictions should not be free to ignore the
three reforms, or be unaffected if they do so.
Thus, the coalition's position may be summarized as follows:
That meaningful mechanisms should be established to
ensure that prison systems can be surveyed to determine the
incidence of prison rape;
That the heads of systems where the incidence of rape
significantly exceeds national norms should publicly defend
their rape abatement practices; and
That prison systems should comply with carefully
established, no-spending-mandate rape abatement practices.
As long as these three, limited objectives are achieved, Mr.
Chairman, I believe that Congress will enact historic legislation that
will be a credit to it, to our Constitution and to the decency of the
American people.
Letter from Harold W. Clarke, with attachments
Letter from Cindy Struckman-Johnson, with attachments
Letter from Joseph D. Lehman
Letter from Reginald A. Wilkinson
Letter from Alida V. Merlo
Letter from Martin D. Schwartz
Letter from Leanne Fiftal Alarid