[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL OFFENDER REENTRY AND PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM CRIMINAL
RECIDIVISTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 2004
__________
Serial No. 116
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-288 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
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
Elizabeth Sokul, Counsel
Katy Crooks, Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 7, 2004
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 Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.................................................. 4
WITNESSES
The Honorable Rob Portman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
The Honorable Katherine Harris, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department of
Corrections
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Ms. Malika Saada Saar, Executive Director, Rebecca Project for
Human Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas............. 37
Prepared statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan.......... 42
Prepared statement of the Honorable Danny Davis, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Illinois......................... 45
Post-hearing questions from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee to
the hearing witnesses.......................................... 47
Response to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Rob Portman 49
Response to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Katherine
Harris......................................................... 52
Response to post-hearing questions from Ashbel T. Wall, II....... 53
FEDERAL OFFENDER REENTRY AND PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM CRIMINAL
RECIDIVISTS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble
(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Portman, the gentleman
from Ohio, is en route I am told.
As an aside before we get started, the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Portman have tenaciously badgered
me for a hearing for the past several weeks. When I say
``badger'' I don't mean that in the evil sense; rather, in the
persistent sense. And even though I think nothing's going to be
done regarding this issue legislatively this session, I
thought, Mr. Scott, this hearing might at least direct
attention to it and maybe we'll get a jump start when we come
back next year.
But today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security is conducting an oversight hearing to examine
current prisoner reentry programs and assess what if any
reforms should be made to more effectively address the high
recidivism rate of prisoners leaving Federal and State and
local jails and prisons and their impact on society as a whole.
I am pleased to welcome two of our colleagues--well, one of
our colleagues, the other one's on the way--to the panel who
have introduced legislation in this Congress that would
coordinate offender reentry programs and clarify and strengthen
notification and child protection laws.
I also welcome our other witnesses representing State
government officials and a nonprofit organization directly
involved in the implementation of prisoner reentry programs.
Data from the Department of Justice suggests that
approximately 95 percent of State prisoners will be released
from prison at some point, at a rate of 600,000 people per
year, perhaps as many as 750,000 if we include juvenile
offenders released from secure juvenile detention facilities,
and that does not include those released from short-term
detention in local jails. Unfortunately, it is expected that
two-thirds of these offenders released from prison will be
subsequently arrested again for a felony or serious misdemeanor
within 3 years.
Groups working with prisoner reentering society identify
specific obstacles from the transition back to normal life from
released criminal offenders. These problems include but are not
limited to locating adequate housing and job opportunities,
reuniting with their families, assessing appropriate
educational programs, and treating substance abuse. It is
estimated that 70 to 80 percent of offenders reentering the
community have histories of drug abuse or alcohol abuse.
Furthermore, an increasing number of offenders have mental
health problems, and those of you who closely follow the
actions of our Subcommittee and full Committee may be aware
that the bill addressing mentally ill offenders passed the
House Judiciary Committee last week and I believe passed the
full House yesterday.
My interest in the issue of prisoner recidivism and reentry
is twofold: First, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
regarding specific problems facing prisoners reentering
society, the role of the Federal Government in prisoner reentry
programs and what part it should play in reforming the current
programs to make them more effective. Second, I would like to
hear about the impact recidivism has on Federal, State, and
local crime rates and its cost to State and local communities.
During my tenure in Congress, I have consistently supported
policies that are tough on crime. I believe tough criminal
penalties deter crime, appropriately punish offenders, and
create a sober society for all Americans. I also believe,
however, that we should craft Federal policies that enable
States and localities to assist individuals leaving the prison
system and reentering society instead of inadvertently tying
the hands of these groups and people who want to help in that
transition and those ex-offenders who want to be successful
law-abiding citizens in society.
I also note that the Government does not have all the
answers and we need to seriously consider the success rate of
faith-based organizations in this area that often far exceed
the success rates of Government-run programs.
All of us here, Republicans, Democrats alike, have a united
goal of decreasing crime and encouraging growth and prosperity.
I hope this hearing gives us specific examples of how this goal
may be achieved and what may be done to control the growing
cost of crime on society.
And prior to recognizing the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, I want to say that yesterday I had the good fortune
of attending a breakfast along with Representative Danny Davis
from Illinois, Representative Mark Green from Wisconsin, Coach
Osborne from Nebraska was there, a very worthwhile breakfast, I
think Mr. Davis you'll agree, and good to have you with us
today.
I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, who has been
an outstanding leader in reentry organizations. Disappointed to
see him on your side of the aisle, but----
Mr. Coble. If the gentleman would yield, we would be glad
to keep him on our side of the aisle.
Mr. Scott. But he's welcome wherever he's sitting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for scheduling
this hearing for us examining the issue of prison reentry,
given the growing number of prisoners returning to our
communities every day, ill prepared to succeed in earning a
living and leading a law-abiding life.
While our national crime rates have fallen significantly
over the past decade, we've seen a continuing and unprecedented
explosion in our prison and jail populations. We now have on a
daily basis over 2 million people locked up in our Nation's
jails and prisons, a fivefold increase of just 20 years ago.
Prison population in the Federal prisons has increased more
than sevenfold in the past 20 years. In 1984 the daily lock-up
count for prisons and jails was approximately 400,000 with
about 25,000 prisoners in Federal prisons. Today there are more
than 175,000 Federal prisoners, and the population is growing.
Both the Sentencing Project and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons--according to the Sentencing Project and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, the primary reason for this tremendous
growth in jail and prison population has been the longer
sentences resulting from determinant sentencing schemes and
mandatory minimum sentences. Over 50 percent of the
incarcerated inmates are in prison on nonviolent crimes, with
the greatest percentage being those for drug violations.
And the United States is the world's leading incarcerator
by far, with an incarceration rate of 702 inmates per 100,000
population. The only close competitor is Russia with 632 per
100,000. And for comparative purposes, the United States now
locks up its citizens at a rate 5 to 8 times that of the
industrialized nations we're most familiar with. For example,
139 per 100,000 in England and Wales, 116 in Canada, 91 per
100,000 in Germany, 85 per 100,000 in France.
So as we consider our crime policy, we've got to consider
what cost-effective methods that we can use to reduce crime. If
we want to use additional incarceration, we've got to recognize
the cost. For example, if we want to increase sentences by 10
percent, that would be an additional 70 inmates per 100,000
population. In a city like Richmond Virginia, about 200,000
population, that would be a cost of about $4 million a year.
Now, a 10 percent increase in sentencing would be like
going from 5 years to 5\1/2\ years. We know just lengthening
the sentence does nothing to reduce recidivism and we know
there's no deterrent value in trying to scare somebody and
saying we're going to crack down on crime. Instead of 5 years
you might get 5\1/2\ years. You can just see people bolting
over to McDonald's to see if they're still hiring.
Longer sentences do not reduce recidivism. But when you
look at a city of Richmond, a $4 million cost, you can look at
what you could do with it. The entire Statewide reentry
program, Virginia Cares, is funded at just $2 million. So just
for what you'd have to do in Richmond, Virginia for nothing,
you could fund that entire program, to say nothing about summer
jobs, college scholarships, other reentry programs, education
and so forth.
So as we--as the numbers of inmates increase, also the
number of inmates returning to the community increase. During
the last 20 years, the annual number of prisoners returning to
our communities has increased severalfold. Currently about
650,000 prisoners leave Federal and State prisons every year,
and despite all our tough-on-crime rhetoric, 95 percent of the
inmates will be released at some point. The question is how
they leave prison and whether they will be better prepared to
lead law-abiding lives or whether they will be in a worse
position.
Having a Federal record and a prison stay does not in and
of itself help a person get a job or social development. And so
with no limited--with no or just limited education, limited
resources, few job skills, you've lost your family and
community support, it shouldn't surprise anybody that two-
thirds of released prisoners are rearrested for new crimes
within 3 years of their arrest--excuse me--3 years of their
release. So as a society we may breathe a sigh of relief when
the long sentence is issued.
But that does not end our responsibilities. With the number
of prisoner releases and reincarcerations growing
exponentially, we can no longer afford, financially or morally,
to allow ourselves the luxury of just tough-on-crime rhetoric,
tough-on-crime policies, with no attention to what happens
next. To continue to do so is unfair to unsuspecting crime
victims, including our children. It's shortsighted,
irresponsible, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses as we look to see what we can do to seriously
address the growing societal problem.
And I want to commend our colleagues, the full Committee
Ranking Member Mr. Conyers and--who is a sponsor of one of the
reentry bills--Representatives Portman and Danny Davis for
their legislation, and the gentlelady from Florida for her
support. I am a cosponsor on several of those bills and look
forward to seeing what we can do in a cost-effective manner to
actually reduce crime. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
It's the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in our
witnesses, so if you all would please stand and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Coble. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
We are pleased to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin
and the gentleman from Ohio with us today as well.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent to make
a very brief opening statement.
Mr. Coble. Well, I usually reserve that to Mr. Scott and
me, but since this is the last day, we'll be generous.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I'll be very very brief.
I just want to thank Congressman Portman and Congresswoman
Harris for being here today and their leadership on this issue.
I know Congressman Portman has been a leader both in our
community in Cincinnati. We share adjoining districts and share
the city of Cincinnati. He's been a leader in the area of
community-based drug proposals to fight against the scourge of
drugs in our community.
And I want to also thank Congressman Conyers, as well as
Congressman Scott, for their leadership in this area as well.
And as we all know, millions of offenders are released back
into communities each year, and more often than not they're not
getting the support that they need, and this results in
increased recidivism and it jeopardizes the safety of our
communities. And ultimately the cost, because of recidivism, is
very high.
And I'm obviously one of those who believes that we need to
be tough on crime. And I think the Members that I have
mentioned agree with that philosophy. We can be tough on crime,
but we can also make sure that the transition back into our
communities is as smooth as possible, and that will protect the
safety of our communities.
So I want to thank these particular Members that I have
mentioned for their leadership in this area. And I want to also
emphasize the success and the possibilities that faith-based
programs have. And I'm particularly pleased that Congressmen
Portman and Harris are interested in that area. And I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Scott, he praised you, Mr. Scott. But he
didn't praise me. But I guess I'll overlook that.
Mr. Chabot. We love you too, Howard.
Mr. Coble. All right. Mr. Green, good to have you with us
as well.
Before I start I too want to commend Mr. Portman and Mr.
Davis. They have been the lead players, at least on their bill,
and this is an issue that does indeed need serious attention.
We have four distinguished witnesses today.
I first want to recognize Representative Rob Portman. Mr.
Portman has been representing the Ohio Second District in
southern Ohio for the past 10 years. He's a Member of the House
Ways and Means Committee and the Budget Committee. Since 2002,
Mr. Portman has served as chairman of the Republican
leadership, acting as a liaison between leadership and the Bush
White House. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Portman was a
partner in a Cincinnati law firm and also served in the first
Bush White House from 1989 to 1991. Mr. Portman keeps his home
in the Cincinnati area where he lives with his wife Jane and
their three children.
Our second witness today is Representative Katherine
Harris. Ms. Harris was sworn in on January 2, 2003 as the U.S.
Representative from the 13th District in Florida. She has since
been appointed to serve on the House Committee on Financial
Services, Government Reform, and International Relations. Prior
to running for Congress Ms. Harris served as Florida State
senator and as Florida's 23rd Secretary of State. She earned
her master's degree from Harvard University and her bachelor's
degree from Agnes Scott college.
Next we have Mr. Ashbel T. Wall, who is the Director of the
Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Mr. Wall began his
career in corrections as a probation officer in 1976. He
subsequently served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District
Attorney's Office and then joined Vera Institute of Justice. In
1987 Mr. Wall became Assistant Director in Rhode Island, prior
to becoming Director in 2000. Mr. Wall earned his bachelor's
degree from Yale University and his J.D. from the Yale School
of Law.
Our final witness today is Ms. Malika Saada Saar. Ms. Saada
Saar is the founder and Executive Director of the Rebecca
Project for Human Rights. She was also the founder and former
Director of Family Rights and Dignity, a civil rights project
for low-income and homeless families in the Bay Area of
California. Ms. Saada Saar received her bachelor's degree from
Brown University, her master's in education from Stanford
University, and her J.D. From Georgetown University.
It's good to have each of you with us. We have your written
statements which have been examined, and I ask unanimous
consent to submit your statements in their entirety in the
record.
Now, folks, we're easy dogs to hunt with around here, but
we like to impose the 5-minute rule. Now, when you all see that
red light illuminate in your face on the panel before you, that
tells you that the ice is becoming ever so thin. So it will be
time to wrap up, if you will.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Portman, you may kick it off.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Portman. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and it's an
honor to be here before your Subcommittee. Mr. Scott and Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Coble, I appreciate not only your having us here
today but your cosponsorship for the legislation I'll talk
about.
I also want to recognize my colleague and cosponsor,
original cosponsor Danny Davis, who is on the right side of the
stage, stage right. And I also, Mr. Chairman, if it's
appropriate, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Davis'
statement be entered into the record at this time.
Mr. Coble. Without objection, it'll be done.
Mr. Portman. Mr. Chairman, as you all know, and your
statement and Mr. Scott's statement made very clear, the
numbers tell a powerful story and make a clear case for Federal
and State innovation on this issue. Over 2 million people are
now incarcerated in State or Federal prisons. Ninety-seven
percent will eventually be released. This means about 650,000
people a year are now being released from incarceration into
our communities nationwide. These numbers also make it clear
that reentry affects each and every one of us.
Reentry success or failure has implications, of course, for
public safety, as Mr. Chabot just talked about, the welfare of
our children, family reunification, fiscal issues and community
health. By doing a better job on offender reentry, we can
prevent crime. We can also help restore communities and we can
save taxpayers money.
Unfortunately, based on the recent data from the Department
of Justice, we now know that two-thirds of those released from
prison will be rearrested within 3 years. And about 52 percent
of those, by the way, go back into the prison system. The scale
of this problem is huge and it makes a strong case for
congressional action, as Mr. Scott said.
Over the past year I've been working on a bill, as the
Chairman said, with this Committee as well as many of our other
colleagues, including Mr. Davis, to help our States and
communities better address returning offenders.
H.R. 4676, the legislation that I'm going to be talking
about today, called the ``Second Chance Act of 2004'' is a
product of actually over a year's worth of work. It's a
bipartisan effort. It doesn't do everything, but it takes a
very big first step in better coordinating Federal agencies and
policies on prisoner reentry.
It also increases support to States and community
organizations to address the growing problems and the growing
population of ex-offenders returning to communities.
The basic focus, Mr. Chairman, of the bill is jobs,
housing, substance abuse, and mental health and families. We
make a conscious decision, a choice, in order to better target
our resources on those issues.
Again, I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Mr.
Chairman, and Mr. Scott and Mr. Chabot and others, for helping
us put this legislation together and for your critical
cosponsorship of the bill. The only way it's going to get
through this process is if we work together.
First and foremost, offender reentry is about preventing
crime and keeping our communities safe. High rates of
recidivism do translate into thousands of new victims each
year. The social and economic cost of a 67 percent recidivism
rate, which is the latest data we've been able to get--that's
the national recividism rate--is astounding. The Second Chance
Act would make funds available to conduct studies to determine
who is returning to prison or jail and which is of these
prisoners presents the greatest risk to community safety.
One of the things I've found in this area is we need better
data, and that's one thing this legislation will provide us.
It'll also help in the development of procedures to assist
relevant authorities in determining when release is appropriate
and the use of data to inform the release decision. This would
include the use of proven assessment tools, what we consider
best practices around the country, to assess the risk factors
of returning inmates and use technology to advance post-release
supervision.
We need to be both tough and smart on crime; tough in
keeping dangerous felons from returning and committing new
crimes, but also smart in making sure that those who do come
home are given the basic chance to start a new life and turn
away from crime.
Mr. Chabot said the main reason I got involved in this
issue really is the link to substance abuse. It's work I've
done over the years in drug prevention and treatment that
really got me involved in it. The numbers here are staggering,
too; 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates use
drugs regularly before prison. We've got some Bureau of Justice
statistics that are unbelievable. The estimate of involvement
with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense is as high
as 84 percent. With better treatment services for ex-offenders,
clearly recidivism can be improved as well, and this is a
critical part of our legislation.
The burden on our citizens and taxpayers is also a serious
concern. The average cost now to house a Federal inmate, as you
know, is over $25,000 a year. State is a little bit less, about
$21,000 a year. These figures do not include, of course, the
cost of arrest and prosecution nor do they take into account
the cost to victims. On the other hand, a modest expenditure to
help transition offenders back into the community can save
taxpayers thousands of dollars.
I can't tell you much about this data because there isn't
very good data out there. And maybe that's one thing we want to
do with legislation, provide better data. But there's a
prominent 2001 study that was done by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy that I'll just quote from. And it
says the best reentry programs can expect to deliver 20 to 30
percent reductions in recidivism or crime rates, and if
programs can deliver reasonable program costs, even modest
reductions in future criminality can have an attractive
economic bottom line.
I've got some more data on that from another study; happy
to get into it in the Q&A. The bottom line is we all know just
from common sense this can save a lot of money to the
taxpayers, as well as helping our communities to be safer and
help victims of crime.
Beyond fiscal issues, of course, one of the significant
costs of prisoner reentry is the impact on kids, children, and
the weakened family ties among family members and destabilized
communities. The number of kids with a parent in a Federal or
State facility has gone up dramatically. As you know, it's gone
up more than 100 percent over the past decade. It's now about 2
million kids who have parents who are incarcerated. Now, this
is a huge concern. These children are at risk for drug abuse
and delinquency and they need our attention.
The bill does make it easier for grandparents to receive
support and services while caring for their children as a
result of their parents being incarcerated. It also provides
State and local governments with resources for family-based
drug treatment to treat parents and their families as a
complete unit.
Our communities and States have begun to work on reentry in
innovative ways. In Ohio we've got some innovations, I'm sure
in your States as well, and local communities. We've begun to
establish improved systems for reintegrating improved
prisoners, former prisoners, in our communities. Under such
systems, correction officials begin to plan for a prisoner's
release while the prisoner's still incarcerated, and then they
provide a transition in order to ensure that those services are
available that are needed.
Faith leaders and parishioners have played a huge role in
this. They have a long history, of course, of helping ex-
offenders transform their lives through prison ministries and
outreach in communities, and churches. Faith-based
organizations have pioneered reentry services to prisoners and
their families.
Successful reentry protects those who might otherwise be
crime victims. It also improves the likelihood that individuals
released from prison can pay their fines, their fees or their
restitution, or their family support.
By addressing the most basic needs of ex-offenders coming
home, Mr. Chairman, we can reduce their chances of reoffending.
As you know, President Bush has addressed this in his own
Second Chance Initiative. This legislation complements what
President Bush has talked about in his State of the Union.
Again I want to thank you for inviting me here today to
testify before the Committee. I look forward to answering any
questions or trying to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Portman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Rob Portman
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am honored to testify before you today regarding
offender reentry and child protection.
As you know, the numbers make a clear case for federal and state
innovation on this issue. Over two million people are incarcerated in
federal or state prisons, and over 97 percent of these prisoners will
eventually be released and will return to our communities. And nearly
650,000 people are released from incarceration to communities
nationwide each year. These numbers also make it clear that reentry
affects each one of us. Reentry success or failure has implications for
public safety, the welfare of children, family unification, growing
fiscal issues, and community health. By doing a better job on offender
reentry, we can prevent crime, prevent victimization, help restore
communities and save the taxpayers money.
Unfortunately, according to recent data from the Department of
Justice, two-thirds of those released from prison will be rearrested
within three years. The scale of this problem makes a strong case for
Congressional action.
I have been working on a bill with many colleagues to help our
states and communities better address returning offenders. H.R. 4676,
the Second Chance Act of 2004, is a bipartisan approach to this problem
that better coordinates federal agencies and policies on prisoner
reentry. The bill increases the support to states and community
organizations to address the growing population of ex-offenders
returning to communities. The main areas of focus within the bill are
jobs, housing, substance abuse and mental health treatment, and
strengthening families. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chairman
Coble and Ranking Member Scott for helping to put this legislation
together and cosponsoring the bill.
First and foremost, offender reentry is about preventing crime and
keeping our communities safe. High rates of recidivism translate into
thousands of new victims each year. The social and economic costs of a
67 percent recidivism rate nationally are astounding. The Second Chance
Act would make funds available to conduct studies to determine who is
returning to prison or jail and which of those prisoners represent the
greatest risk to community safety. The bill would also help in the
development of procedures to assist relevant authorities in determining
when release is appropriate and the use of data to inform the release
decision. This would include the use of proven assessment tools to
assess the risk factors of returning inmates and the use of technology
to advance post-release supervision.
We need to be both tough and smart on crime. Tough in keeping
dangerous felons from returning and committing new crimes, but also
smart in making sure that those who are coming home are given the most
basic chance to start a new life and turn away from crime.
One of the reasons I became involved in this issue is the
connection between drug addiction and our prison population. The link
between substance abuse and the ex-offender population is important to
address. 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates used
drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates of involvement with
drugs/alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84% (BJS Trends
in State Parole, 1990-2000). Without continued treatment services for
ex-offenders, recidivism is likely.
The burden on our citizens and taxpayers is also a serious concern.
The average cost to house a federal inmate is over $25,000 a year. The
average cost on the state level in 2000 was only slightly less--$21,170
yearly. These figures do not include the cost of arrest and
prosecution, nor do they take into account the cost to victims. On the
other hand, a modest expenditure to help transition offenders back into
the community can save taxpayers thousands of dollars. A prominent 2001
study found that, ``the best [reentry] programs can be expected to
deliver 20% to 30% reductions in recidivism or crime rates'' and that
``programs that can deliver--at a reasonable program cost--even modest
reductions in future criminality can have an attractive economic bottom
line.''
Beyond fiscal issues, one of the most significant costs of prisoner
reentry is the impact on children, the weakened ties among family
members and destabilized communities. The number of children with a
parent in a federal or state correctional facility has increased over
the last decade by more than 100 percent to approximately 2,000,000
children. This is one of my biggest concerns. These children are at
risk for drug abuse and delinquency and need our attention. The bill
would make it easier for grandparents to receive support and services
while caring for their grandchildren as a result of parental
incarceration. It would also provide state and local governments with
resources for family-based drug treatment to treat parents and their
children as a complete family unit.
Our communities and states have begun to work on reentry in
innovative ways. In recent years, a number of state and local
governments have begun to establish improved systems for reintegrating
former prisoners. Under such systems, corrections officials begin to
plan for a prisoner's release while the prisoner is incarcerated and
provide a transition to needed services in the community. Faith leaders
and parishioners have a long history helping ex-offenders transform
their lives. Through prison ministries and outreach in communities,
churches and faith-based organizations have pioneered re-entry services
to prisoners and their families. Successful reentry protects those who
might otherwise be crime victims. It also improves the likelihood that
individuals released from prison or juvenile detention facilities can
pay fines, fees, restitution, and family support.
By addressing the most basic needs of ex-offenders coming home, we
can reduce their chances of re-offending and improve their success as
productive, contributing citizens.
President Bush made a case for the need to address our reentering
population in his state of the union address. He put this issue in
perspective, ``America is the land of the second chance, and when the
gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better
life.'' During his address, he announced his Re-Entry Initiative, with
a strong focus on job training, transitional housing, and prisoner
mentoring from faith-based groups. This is an important aspect of our
federal response to reentry. Our bill would authorize a small component
of this plan and complements the President's larger reentry initiative.
Together they mean a comprehensive plan to drastically change how we
serve these men and women and keep our communities safe.
I thank you for inviting me here today to testify before the
Committee. It will be my pleasure to answer any questions you may have
at the appropriate time.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady from Florida.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KATHERINE HARRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Coble and
Ranking Member Scott, thank you for the opportunity to testify
this morning regarding violent recidivism and the grave threat
they pose to our children.
On February 6, 2004, an 11-year-old girl was kidnapped,
brutally raped, and murdered in my home town of Sarasota,
Florida. The entire Nation mourned as news reports replayed the
tape of Carlie Brucie's abduction, which a car wash
surveillance camera had recorded. This tragedy delivered a
crushing blow to our community. Our hearts broke over the loss
of this precious child while we grappled with how to help her
family and friends cope with their unfathomable grief. We also
did so knowing that no volume of condolences can ever repair
the chasm that has opened in their lives.
Yet we can, and we must, insist upon swift and severe
justice for her killer. Moreover we can, and we must, do more
to honor Carlie's memory. We must act now to protect our
children from criminal repeat offenders who would use society's
second chances to commit more acts of violence.
Following the arrest of Joseph Smith, Carlie's accused
murderer, we learned that this man should have been behind
bars. He possessed a long history of criminal activity,
including a conviction for aggravated battery. He'd been
arrested 13 times and placed on probation three times since
1993. In fact, he was in police custody on an unrelated charge
when he was linked to this crime.
These facts point to a deeply troubling trend in our
judicial system. Career criminals continue to demonstrate their
menace to society, yet they remain free to roam our
neighborhoods and free to prey upon our children.
The continued exercise of judicial discretion remains
preferable in many cases. Nevertheless, we can't afford to
continue gambling the safety of our children on the forlorn
hope that clearly dangerous individuals have reformed their
behavior.
Thus I felt a moral duty to review the laws that govern how
the Federal justice system releases convicted criminals back
into society. What I discovered was both shocking and
dismaying. Currently, sections 3565 and 3583 of title 18 of the
United States Code mandate probation and supervised release as
the only means by which convicted criminals can be freed prior
to completing his or her sentence. These laws specify grounds,
four grounds, for mandatory revocation of probation or
supervised release. Three of the four deal with drug use. The
fourth arises from firearm possession.
Amazingly, a Federal felon may commit violent crimes or
sexual crimes against children and receive additional
probation. I believe that Carlie Brucia's memory implores us to
correct this travesty before it's too late for another child.
Thus, May 20, I introduced H.R. 4150, entitled ``Carlie's
Law,'' which expands the grounds for mandatory revocation of
probation or supervised release for felons convicted in a
Federal court.
This legislation requires the automatic revocation of
probation or supervised release when a Federal felon commits a
felony crime of violence or crime of violence against any child
under the age of 16.
It also imposes the mandatory revocation of probation or
supervised release when a Federal felon commits an offense
involving or facilitating sexual contact with a child of the
age of 16.
Admittedly, these provisions would not have prompted the
reincarceration of Carlie Brucia's accused murderer, but that
fact should not prevent us from reviewing our entire system of
probation and supervised release so that we can identify the
clearest risk to the safety of our children.
A recent study in 2002 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
measured the recidivism rate over 3 years for two-thirds of
prisoners released in the United States in 1994. It noted that
the commission of new crimes does not always result in new
prison sentences. Quote, ``not all of the reconvicted prisoners
were sentenced to another prison term for their crime. Some
were sentenced to confinement in their local jail, some were
sentenced to neither prison nor jail but to probation which
allowed them to remain free in their communities but under the
supervision of a probation officer,'' end quote.
For the more than 270,000 convicts that this study covered,
the average length of sentence was 5 years and the average time
served constituted 20 months, or 35 percent. Seventy percent of
these individuals had five or more arrests on their criminal
record; 50 percent had at least two convictions. While 22.5
percent were then serving a sentence for a violent crime such
as murder or sexual assault, almost 54 percent had a prior
record of violence.
Of course, reconviction should not always mean
reincarceration, particularly if the new crime is comparatively
minor. When career criminals commit acts of violence or sexual
abuse against a child, however, they do not belong on our
streets and in our communities. Our children simply cannot
afford that risk.
So, today, let us recommit ourselves to achieving an
America where we no longer dedicate laws to stolen young lives,
but instead name the laws as a tribute to their promise. Thank
you.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Katherine Harris
I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott
for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee today regarding
violent recidivists and the grave threat that they pose to our
children.
On February 6, 2004, an 11-year-old girl was kidnapped, brutally
raped and murdered in my hometown of Sarasota, Florida. The entire
nation mourned as news reports replayed the tape of Carlie Brucia's
abduction, which a car wash surveillance camera had recorded.
This tragedy delivered a crushing blow to our community. Our hearts
broke over the loss of a precious child, while we grappled with how to
help her family and friends cope with their unfathomable grief. We did
so knowing that no volume of condolences can ever repair the chasm that
has opened in their lives.
Yet, we can--and we must--insist upon swift and severe justice for
her killer. Moreover, we can--and we must--do more to honor Carlie's
memory. We must act now to protect our children from the criminal
repeat offenders who use society's second chances to commit more acts
of violence.
Following the arrest of Joseph Smith, Carlie's accused murderer, we
learned that this man should have been behind bars. He possessed a long
history of criminal activity, including a conviction for aggravated
battery. He had been arrested 13 times and placed on probation three
times since 1993. In fact, he was in police custody on an unrelated
charge when he was linked to this crime.
These facts point to a deeply troubling trend in our judicial
system. Career criminals continue to demonstrate their menace to
society, yet they remain free to roam our neighborhoods and free to
prey upon our children.
The continued exercise of judicial discretion remains preferable in
many cases. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to continue gambling the
safety of our children on the forlorn hope that clearly dangerous
individuals have reformed their behavior.
Thus, I felt a moral duty to review the laws that govern how the
federal justice system releases convicted criminals back into society.
What I discovered was both shocking and dismaying. Currently,
Sections 3565 and 3583 of Title 18 of the United States Code mandate
probation and supervised release as the only means by which a convicted
criminal can be freed prior to completing his or her sentence.
These laws specify just four grounds for the mandatory revocation
of probation or supervised release. Three out of the four deal with
drug use and possession. The fourth arises from firearm possession.
Amazingly, a federal felon may commit violent crimes or sexual crimes
against children and receive additional probation. I believe that
Carlie Brucia's memory implores us to correct this travesty before it
is too late for another child.
Thus, last May 20, I introduced H.R. 4150, entitled Carlie's Law,
which expands the grounds for the mandatory revocation of probation or
supervised release for felons convicted in federal court. This
legislation requires the automatic revocation of probation or
supervised release when a federal felon commits a felony crime of
violence or any crime of violence against a child under the age of 16.
It also imposes the mandatory revocation of probation or supervised
release when a federal felon commits an offense involving or
facilitating sexual contact with a child under the age of 16.
Admittedly, these provisions would not have prompted the re-
incarceration of Carlie Brucia's accused murderer. That fact should not
prevent us from reviewing our entire system of probation and supervised
release, so that we can identify the clearest risks to the safety of
our children.
A recent study issued in 2002 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
measured the recidivism rate over three years for two-thirds of the
prisoners released in the United States in 1994. It noted that the
commission of new crimes does not always result in new prison
sentences:
``Not all of the reconvicted prisoners were sentenced to another
prison term for their new crime. Some were sentenced to confinement in
a local jail. Some were sentenced to neither prison nor jail but to
probation, which allowed them to remain free in their communities but
under the supervision of a probation officer.''
For the more than 270,000 convicts that this study covered, the
average length of sentence was 5 years and the average time served
constituted 20 months, or 35 percent. 70 percent of these individuals
had five or more arrests on their criminal record; 50 percent had at
least two convictions. While 22.5 percent were then serving a sentence
for a violent crime such as murder or sexual assault, almost 54 percent
had a prior record of violence.
Of course, re-conviction should not always mean re-incarceration,
particularly if the new crime is comparatively minor. When career
criminals commit acts of violence or sexually abuse a child, however,
they do not belong on our streets and in our communities. Our children
simply cannot afford the risk.
So today, let us recommit ourselves to achieving an America where
we no longer dedicate laws to stolen young lives but instead name laws
as tribute to their promise.
Thank you.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman, Mr. Wall, good to have you with
us.
TESTIMONY OF ASHBEL T. WALL, II, DIRECTOR,
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Mr. Wall. Thank you, Chairman Coble and Ranking Member
Scott, for inviting me to testify about prisoner reentry
legislation that is pending before the Committee.
My name is Ashbel T. Wall, the second, and I am Director of
Corrections for the State of Rhode Island. Last year some
17,000 prisoners were released into the community from prisons
and jails run by my own agency.
I am here today on behalf of the Council of State
Governments and the Association of State Correctional
Administrators. CSG serves all elected and appointed State
government officials. ASCA represents the 50 corrections
directors. We in corrections thank this Committee for its
leadership on matters of importance to the corrections
profession. Time and again you have demonstrated your
willingness to incorporate recommendations and expertise of
correctional administrators.
I also want to thank Congressman Portman for his leadership
on prisoner reentry. We appreciate the commitment of
Representative Davis and Congressman Conyers as well.
My remarks cover three main points: explaining why the
Federal Government must assist State and local governments in
dealing with the growing number of people released from
incarceration; highlighting the recommendations issued by the
Reentry Policy Council; and discussing legislation currently
pending before the Committee.
Experts report that next year's numbers will eclipse the
already staggering figures on inmate releases up to this point.
It is hard to overstate the implications of this trend for a
number of public policy issues. There are implications for
public safety. When policy decisions about prisoner release are
not carefully considered and implemented, the results can be
disastrous for protection of the public.
There are fiscal implications. Not only are high rates of
recidivism a threat to community safety, but almost every State
is confronting severe fiscal problems and lacks the funds to
sustain these rates of reincarceration.
There are implications for children and families. Children
of prisoners are five times as likely to be incarcerated in
their later lives as children without an incarcerated parent.
And there are implications for our communities. A large
percentage of prisoners return to just a few communities that
are already fragile, under great stress and ill equipped to
support this population.
Thankfully there is a basis from which Congress and the
Federal agencies can work. The Serious Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative, a partnership among the Departments of Justice,
Health and Human Services, and Labor, has made available
funding support that the States have used to develop
innovative, promising programs in the area of prisoner reentry.
Unfortunately, just as we have begun to get these initiatives
past the planning stage, SVORI funding has been exhausted.
In the absence of the legislation currently pending, the
prospects for additional funding are extremely limited. Key
components of our funds in my own State of Rhode Island will
run out on June 30, 2005. This is precisely the juncture at
which congressional action is needed.
To assist policymakers seeking to make the transition from
prison or jail to the community safe and successful, the
Council of State Governments partnered with 10 key
associations, including ASCA, to establish the Reentry Policy
Council. The Policy Council is composed of elected officials,
corrections and law enforcement, human services agencies and
providers, victim advocates and representatives of faith-based
institutions. Its comprehensive report, copies of which we have
here today, and hundreds of detailed recommendations embody the
bipartisan consensus achieved among this diverse group. Its
contents cover strategies for smart decisions about release and
community supervision, support of crime victims, safe housing,
treatment of substance abuse and physical and mental illness,
job training and development and strengthening of family ties.
The report also provides numerous examples from jurisdictions
across the country. In addition, it outlines principles that
are essential to the success of the entire reentry effort.
The bills introduced by Congressman Portman and Conyers are
consistent with a great many of the Reentry Policy Council's
recommendations. The discretionary grant programs established
under these bills encourage comprehensive action on the complex
needs of people released from prison and jail. They effectively
encourage joint ventures and the engagement of community-based
partners including faith-based institutions. They insist on
accountability, providing focused goals for grantees. Perhaps
most important, the guidelines and requirements are flexible,
encouraging innovation and recognizing that there is no one-
size-fits-all solution to prisoner reentry.
H.R. 5075 appears to take the additional step of rolling
back many of the legal barriers that offenders face upon their
return to the community. The council has not taken a position
on changes to some laws, such as felony voting rights, around
which we did not find a broad national consensus. The report
does, however, speak to the need for Government to conduct an
inventory of existing regulations and laws to clarify where
barriers to reentry exist.
H.R. 4150 addresses the Federal system and is therefore
beyond the scope of the council's work. We now stand at an
important crossroads. The existing system by which prisoners
are returned to families and communities is unsafe and terribly
cost ineffective. Initiatives begun through SVORI and the
report of the Reentry Policy Council demonstrate that the
system can be reengineered and reinvented. It is the role of
Federal Government to call attention to these emerging models
to stimulate additional innovation and to research and evaluate
these programs and policies.
The safety and stability of our communities and families
and the integrity of the justice system depend on Federal
leadership. The reentry legislation before this Committee puts
us on that path. We on the front line badly need its enactment
and we look forward to working with this Committee toward its
passage. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Wall.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ashbel T. Wall, II
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for
inviting me to testify about matters concerning prisoner re-entry and
three bills currently pending before this committee: The Second Chance
Act of 2004 (H.R. 4676), The Re-Entry Enhancement Act (H.R. 5075), and
Carlie's Law (H.R. 4150).
My name is Ashbel T. Wall, II, 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. We receive about
17,000 commitments annually; last year we released almost an equal
number of prisoners to the community. Their length of stay varied from
one day to over three decades of incarceration. As is true in many
other correctional systems, I am responsible not only for institutional
corrections, but also for the state's parole and probation services.
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.
On behalf of the men and women working in our nation's jails and
prisons, I want to thank this committee's for its leadership on matters
of particular importance to the corrections profession, such as the
recent hearing you convened regarding the increasing number of inmates
with mental illness and today's hearing about prisoner re-entry. On
each of these occasions, and in connection with legislation such as the
Prison Rape Elimination Act, you have demonstrated your commitment to
incorporating the recommendations and expertise of corrections
administrators, and we are extremely grateful to you for that.
I also want to thank Congressman Portman for his leadership on
prisoner re-entry; we appreciate very much the efforts he and his staff
have made to incorporate ideas presented by the Re-Entry Policy Council
into his legislation. We also are grateful to Congressman Conyers for
his commitment to this issue.
The purposes of my remarks today are the following: 1) to explain
why the federal government must assist state and local governments
grappling with the growing numbers of people released from prison and
jail; 2) to highlight bipartisan recommendations, which policymakers
and practitioners agree will increase public safety, issued by the Re-
Entry Policy Council; and 3) to discuss the legislation currently
pending before the Committee.
1. THE CASE FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Nationally, more than 600,000 people are released from prison each
year,\1\ while over 7 million different individuals are released from
jails.\2\ The number of people released from prison has increased 350
percent over the last 20 years, and experts report that next year's
numbers will eclipse the number of releases this year.\3\ It is hard to
overstate the implications of this trend for public safety, state and
local government spending, children and families, and the stability of
communities--among other public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SVORI website, www.ojp.esdoj.gov/reentry/learn.html
\2\ Theodore Hammett, ``Health Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry
to the Community'' (paper presented at The Urban Institute's Reentry
Roundtable, Washington, DC, October 2000).
\3\ James P. Lynch and William J. Sabol, Prisoner Re-Entry in
Perspective (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2001).
Public Safety. States and counties across the country are
considering changes to release policies to relieve themselves
of extraordinary budgetary pressure. When these policy
decisions are not carefully considered and implemented, the
results can be disastrous. In one state, for example, before
officials were able to establish careful, science-based parole
process, a governor facing severe fiscal pressure in his last
year in office released nearly 1,000 inmates, some of whom were
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
subsequently involved in high profile crimes.
Fiscal Implications. Recidivism rates of prisoners released
from jail or prison are high and show little sign of
decreasing. Many of the people admitted to prison were under
supervision of the criminal justice system at the time of their
commitment to the corrections facility. Nearly one-half of all
prison admissions are probation or parole violators. At least
half of these violations are technical-offenses for which
someone could not be sentenced to prison. California alone
spends close to one billion dollars a year re-incarcerating
parole violators. Not only are such rates of recidivism a
threat to community safety, but states confronting especially
severe fiscal problems (which is now just about every state) do
not have the funds to sustain these rates of re-incarceration.
Children and Families. Fifty-five percent of prisoners have
children under the age of 18; those kids often depend on them,
at least in part, for financial support, and almost always to
be a responsible parent.\4\ The problem is especially acute in
particular communities: for example, in some Brooklyn
neighborhoods, one out of eight parenting-age males is admitted
to jail or prison in single year. Lack of attention to the
children, spouses, and other kin of someone in prison
accelerates the deterioration of families in the U.S. It also
unwittingly raises the risk that another generation will cycle
in and out of prisons and jails. A recent study found that
children of prisoners are five times as likely to be
incarcerated later in their life as a child who has not had a
parent incarcerated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Jeremy Travis, Elizabeth Cincotta and Amy L. Solomon, Families
Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry, Washington,
DC (Urban Institute, October 2003).
Communities. For prison and jail systems across the country, an
increasing percentage of prisoners hail from just a few
communities in the corresponding state. In my state, for
example, almost 25 percent of released inmates return to just
four zip codes in the city of Providence. Fifteen percent of
the neighborhoods in Baltimore receive 56 percent of the people
released from Maryland state prisons. In Connecticut, almost
half of the prison and jail population is from just a handful
of neighborhoods in five cities, which have the most
concentrated levels of poverty and nonwhite populations in the
state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CSG, Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment, A
Proposal to Reinvest Corrections Savings in an Employment Initiative,
January 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communities receiving a disproportionately large share of
people released from prison and jail are fragile and typically
ill equipped to support this population: there is an absence of
services (such as health care and drug treatment), employment
opportunities, affordable housing, and supports in the
surrounding area.
To address these issues, federal leadership is not only justified;
it is essential. The Department of Bureau of Justice Statistics reports
that expenditures on corrections alone have increased from $9 billion
in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. Yet, the likelihood of a former
prisoner succeeding in the community upon his or her release is no
better today than it was 30 years ago. By some measures, the process of
prisoner re-entry has become much worse than it once was: In 1984, 70
percent of parolees successfully completed their parole term. By 2002,
that number had dropped to 45 percent.\6\ Neighborhood residents and
families are no more prepared to support these individuals than they
were at the time of their incarceration, and the few assets that these
communities have available to assist them (such as faith-based
organizations) remain effectively untapped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Lauren E. Glaze, Probation and Parole in the United States,
2002, Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington,
DC: 2003), NCJ 201135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thankfully, there is a foundation from which Congress, the
Department of Justice, and its sister agencies, can work. The Serious,
Violent Offender Re-Entry Initiative, a grant program that represents a
partnership among the Departments of Justice, Health and Human
Services, and Labor, has made available valuable funding support which
states have paired with state and local resources to develop
innovative, promising programs and policies that address aspects of the
issues described above. The efforts that have emerged in states like
Rhode Island demonstrate how states can begin to reduce recidivism,
increase safety, and strengthen families and communities.
Unfortunately, as states just begin to get these initiatives past
the planning stage, and as they prepare for record numbers of releases
from prison and jail, SVORI funding has been exhausted. In the absence
of the legislation currently pending, the prospects for additional
federal funding are extremely limited. Authorizing language for the
trickle of funding that continues to flow toward this issue area
provides only a skeletal outline of what needs to be done in prisoner
re-entry. In sum, this is precisely the juncture at which Congressional
action is needed.
2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RE-ENTRY POLICY COUNCIL
To assist policymakers seeking to make men and women's transition
from prison or jail to the community safe and successful, the Council
of State Governments partnered with ten key associations, including
ASCA, to establish the Re-Entry Policy Council. The Policy Council
comprises key state and local leaders, including workforce development
officials; housing providers; state lawmakers; representatives of
health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems; criminal
justice and corrections policymakers and practitioners; victim
advocates; and ministers and others working in faith-based
institutions. The Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council reflects the
broad, bipartisan consensus achieved among this diverse group. Like the
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, the work of the Policy
Council was supported by the Departments of Justice, Health and Human
Services, and Labor.
The Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council identifies the programs
and policies that are essential to realizing the goal of ensuring that
people released from prison or jail will avoid crime and become
productive, healthy members of families and communities:
Make smart release and community supervision
decisions
Ensure support for crime victims
Offer safe places to live
Break bonds of addiction
Treat physical and mental illness
Foster meaningful relationships
Provide training, education, and jobs
The comprehensive Report includes hundreds of detailed
recommendations for implementing these programs and policies and
provides examples of jurisdictions from across the country that are
doing this work in interesting and innovative ways.
The Report further outlines several elements which are essential to
the success of these programs and policies:
Start thinking about and working towards re-entry as
soon as a person is admitted to corrections facility.
Partner with other government organizations and
nonprofits; corrections can't do it alone.
Never lose sight of the communities to which people
will return.
These are themes on which we have focused Rhode Island's re-entry
efforts. The Governor has brought the relevant players together and
we're collaborating. We have been fortunate in these efforts to receive
technical assistance from the National Governors' Association's Center
for Best Practices and from the National Institute of Corrections
through its Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative. We're
also working in partnership with community leaders in the neighborhoods
to which the majority of our state's prisoners are returning. Local
residents, religious leaders, and service providers have established
the Family Life Center, a one-stop community-based organization
dedicated exclusively to the successful re-entry of former inmates on
the south and west sides of Providence.
3. LEGISLATION PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
The bills introduced by Congressmen Portman and Conyers are
consistent with a great many of the recommendations of the Re-Entry
Policy Council. The discretionary grant programs established under
these bills encourage state and local governments to address
comprehensively the complex needs, from health and housing to
employment, of people released from prison or jail. They recognize the
importance of planning for re-entry upon a person's admission to the
corrections facility. And, they effectively encourage joint ventures
among government agencies and the engagement of community-based
partners, including faith-based institutions. They insist on
accountability, providing focused goals for grantees. Perhaps most
importantly, the guidelines and requirements are flexible, encouraging
innovation and recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all solution
to prisoner re-entry. In the end, the design of programs and policies
must be unique to each state.
H.R. 5075 appears to take the additional step of rolling back many
of the legal barriers that offenders face upon their return to the
community. The Re-Entry Policy Council is careful not to take a
position on changes to some laws, such as felony voting rights, around
which there is not a broad, national consensus. It does, however, speak
to the need for state and local governments (as well as federal
government officials) to conduct an inventory of existing regulations
and laws to clarify where legitimate barriers to re-entry exist. For
example, many federal, state and local government officials remain
unclear about what federal laws and regulations state about ex-
offenders' eligibility for publicly subsidized housing. The Portman
bill, H.R. 4676 provides for such an inventory, and we applaud that
appropriate first step.
Because H.R. 4150 addresses those under federal supervised release,
including probationers in the federal system (as opposed to state or
local probation), the Council of State Governments and the Association
of State Correctional Administrators have not taken a position on this
legislation. Certainly, the concept that underlies this legislation--
immediately reincarcerating those who commit violent crimes while they
are on conditional release--strikes me as sensible.
4. CONCLUSION
With his remarks in this year's State of the Union, the President
has called unprecedented attention to the issue of prisoner re-entry.
Thanks to the public interest and the leadership that has emerged in
Congress around this issue, we now stand at an important crossroads.
The parallels between the existing situation and welfare reform in
the mid-1990's are stunning. The existing system through which
prisoners are returned to families and communities is unsafe, and,
given the outcome, absurdly expensive. Initiatives in a handful of
states, and the comprehensive, bipartisan Report of the Re-Entry Policy
Council, demonstrate that this system can be re-engineered and
reinvented. It is the role of the federal government to call attention
to these emerging models, to stimulate additional innovation, and to
research and evaluate these programs and policies. Indeed, the safety
and stability of our communities and families, and integrity of the
justice system, depend on such federal leadership. The re-entry
legislation before this committee puts us on that path, and we look
forward to working with this committee toward its passage.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Saada Saar.
TESTIMONY OF MALIKA SAADA SAAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REBECCA
PROJECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Saada Saar. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it
is a privilege to be here with you today. Mr. Chairman, every
week women are released from the D.C. Jail. Many of the women
are released at night. They are wearing nothing but their
prison jumpers. They are released into the night, without
placement in a drug treatment program, without a referral to
mental health services, without knowledge of a job or housing
opportunity, without a bus token, and without any form of
identification. The story of incarcerated women who are
released without services and without community support is a
story that can be told all over this country.
It is critical, it is critical that in our discussions of
reentry the voices of these women, who are mostly mothers, be
heard. Twenty-five years ago, the presence of women, of
mothers, was an aberration in the criminal justice system. That
was before the war on drugs. Since the war on drugs, women have
been increased in their incarceration by 400 percent. The
majority of women behind bars are there for nonviolent drug
offenses and the majority of them are suffering from untreated
addiction. And most of these women offenders are mothers.
Sixty-five percent of women in State prison and 58 percent of
women in Federal prison are mothers to minor children. There
are more than 2000 pregnant women behind bars.
These mothers behind bars receive little or no opportunity
to heal from the disease of addiction. The lack of treatment
for mothers is apparent at every point in their involvement
with the criminal justice system. Pretrial diversion, release
services, court sentence alternatives, and reentry programs for
women offenders are restricted in number, size, and
effectiveness.
Mothers behind bars and mothers reentering the community
need treatment. They need comprehensive family-focused
treatment so that they may heal rather than continue to go in
and out of the criminal justice system.
Let me explain here what I mean by family treatment. Family
treatment is comprehensive treatment that serves the mother and
her children, that provides individual and family therapy,
parenting classes, and vocational training.
Family treatment is about healing the whole family, the
mother and her children. Family treatment is not the drive-by
programs that only last 90 days or that force parents to make a
selfish choice between treatment and their children. When
parents enter into these kinds of family treatment programs, we
know that they recover.
Research done by SAMHSA on family treatment demonstrates
sobriety rates of up to 60 percent. The research also
demonstrates that recidivism goes down by 43 percent, even
after 6 months after discharge from the treatment program. The
problem here is that we don't have enough family treatment
before prison, during prison, or after prison. Family treatment
represents less than 5 percent of the overall treatment that is
available. And we see the consequences of this every day in the
growing number of substance abusing mothers cycling in and out
of the criminal justice system because of untreated addiction.
Successful reentry for mother offenders--as well as for
other nonviolent offenders who are fathers--requires the
expanding of family treatment services. Family treatment
ensures lower recidivism rates, family stability, and child
well-being. Until this continuum of services is available,
substance-abusing mothers will remain ensnared in the criminal
justice system and our families will continue to be
destabilized.
Let me conclude with a story of Lorna Hogan. Lorna is a
mother of four children, a survivor of severe domestic and
sexual violence, and she's a recovering addict. During her
addiction, Lorna was arrested for a nonviolent drug felony. At
the time of her sentencing, Lorna begged the judge for
treatment, but her request was denied. She was placed in jail.
Her children were put into foster care. At the end of her
sentence, Lorna was released onto the streets. She had no idea
where her children were. She was not given any kind of referral
to treatment. Lorna returned to the streets and continued to
use for another 2 years. By the grace of God she finally found
a child welfare worker who placed her into a treatment program
where she achieved sobriety and where she reunited with her
children. Lorna and her children are now thriving. Lorna is a
PTA mom. She lives in her own home. She is employed, and her
children are excelling in school.
What if Lorna had been placed immediately into a family
treatment program? What if Lorna were placed in treatment
instead of jail? What about all the other mothers who go into
jails and prisons suffering from untreated addiction and who
never find their way for family treatment? How much unnecessary
suffering and criminal activity could we alleviate if family
treatment were made available to our mothers and to our
children? Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Saada Saar.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saada Saar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Malika Saada Saar
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be
here today. My name is Malika Saada Saar, I am the Executive Director
of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights. The Rebecca Project is a
national advocacy and policy organization for low income families
suffering with the intersecting issues of economic marginality,
substance abuse, access to family-based treatment, and the criminal
justice system.
Every week, women who have been incarcerated in the DC jail system
are released. Many of these women are released in the night, wearing
nothing but their blue prison jumpers. They are released into the night
without placement in a drug treatment program, without a referral to
mental health services, without knowledge of a job or housing
opportunity, without a bus token, and without any identification. The
story of incarcerated women who are released without services and
community supports is a story that can be extended out to women's jails
and prisons beyond Washington, DC.
It is critical that in our discussions of reentry, the voices of
these women--who are mostly mothers--be heard.
Twenty-five years ago, the presence of women--especially mothers--
was an aberration in the criminal justice system. However, following
the introduction of mandatory sentencing to the federal drug laws in
the mid 1980s, the number of women in prison has risen 400%.\1\ The
percentage of females incarcerated for drug offenses now surpasses that
of males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics., U.S.Dep't of Justice, ncj
175688, Women Offenders 1(Lawrence A. Greenfield&Tracy L. Snell
eds.,1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And most of these women are mothers:
In State prison, 65.3 percent of incarcerated women
are mothers to minor children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ BUREAU OF JUSTICE STAT., U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, SOURCEBOOK OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STAT. 1998, at 488.
In Federal prison, 58.8 percent of the imprisoned
women are mothers to minor children.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
Many women enter jails and prisons pregnant. In 1997-
98, more than 2,200 pregnant women were imprisoned and more
than 1,300 babies were born in prisons.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Inmate Health Care, Part II, Corrections Compendium, 23, 11
(1998). The number is based on information provided by 35 state
correctional systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, some of which
provided only approximate data. The other states did not respond to the
survey at all or did not have information about pregnancies and
births..
The most recent statistics indicate that drugs are responsible for
the incarceration of 34 percent of state prisoners who are female and
72 percent of federal female prisoners.\5\ Indeed, drug related
offenses accounted for 65 percent of the increase in the female prison
population between 1996 and 1999.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bureau of Justice Statistics., U.S.Dep't of Justice, ncj
175688, Women Offenders 1(Lawrence A. Greenfield&Tracy L. Snell
eds.,1999) at 7.
\6\ Women in Prison, BJS, (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When mothers are placed behind bars for untreated addiction, their
children are either placed in foster care or kinship care. During the
period of incarceration, it is a struggle for incarcerated mothers to
maintain an abiding connection to their children. Women's prisons are
often located in rural areas far from the cities in which the majority
of inmates lived, making it difficult to maintain contact with their
children and jeopardizing the prospects of successful reunification. A
national study found that more than half of the children of women
prisoners did not visit their mothers while they were in prison. Over
60 percent of the children who did not visit lived more than 100 miles
from the prison where their mothers were incarcerated.\7\ Incarcerated
mothers with children in foster care are often unable to meet court-
mandated family reunification requirements for contact and visitation
with their children, and consequently lose their parental rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When these mothers are in prison, they receive little or no
opportunity for healing from the disease of addiction. Effective
programs for both male and female offenders are limited, but programs
explicitly designed and implemented for women are nearly non-existent.
Despite the growing numbers of female inmates, Morash and Byrnum found
in a nationwide study that few services addressed women's distinct
needs and experiences. Especially lacking were services for mothers and
pregnant women.\8\ The treatment programs that existed lacked
comprehensiveness, and so counselors did not focus on the women's
histories of physical and sexual victimization that led to their drug
abuse.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See generally, Merry Morash et al., Findings from the National
Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders 40-46
(Dec.1995).
\9\ Leslie Acoca, Natl. Council on Crime and Delinq. The Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, Barriers to the Adoption of Harm Reducing
Gender-Specific Substance Abuseand Parenting Programs for Incarcerated
Mother, spring 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its 1999 five-state study of the barriers to the provision of
effective substance abuse and parenting services to women in prisons
and jails, National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) identified
several core unmet needs.\10\ The women in the focus groups regarded
the paucity of substance abuse services as a fundamental problem. They
expressed a desire for more intensive and accessible programs. Many
complained of long waiting lists, and said that the available services
were administered by counselors who acted abusively and lacked adequate
training.\11\ None of the women reported on the availability of
programs that addressed drug addiction and co-occurring mental health
disorders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 7.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dearth of adequate services for women offenders is not limited
to incarceration settings, but impacts women at every point in their
involvement with the criminal justice system. Pre-trial diversion and
release services, court-sentenced alternatives and re-entry programs
for women offenders are restricted in number, size, and effectiveness.
A NCCD survey of promising community-based programs providing
supervision and treatment services for women offenders revealed the
extent of the problem.\13\ A broad national survey of effective women-
specific community corrections programs revealed that only 111
qualified as meeting the study criteria for offering community programs
for female inmates.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mothers behind bars and mothers reentering the community must be
afforded access to treatment in order to give families the opportunity
to heal together from the disease of addiction. Unfortunately, families
struggling with substance abuse issues are offered few opportunities to
find treatment that is family focused, where they and their children
may receive comprehensive services together. The Uniform Facility Data
Set found that only 6 percent of the treatment programs surveyed
included prenatal care and 11.5 percent provided childcare. Only 37
percent of mothers in need of drug treatment who are mothering children
under the age of eighteen receive any kind of treatment services.
While family-based treatment represents a small percentage of the
overall treatment available, family treatment programs enjoy
consistently high levels of success. In 2001, the Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment (CSAT) evaluated its Pregnant and Postpartum Women and
Their Infants Program, which provides comprehensive, family-based
treatment for substance abusing mothers and their children. Major
findings of this study, at 6 months post treatment, include:
60% of the mothers remained alcohol and drug-free.
Drug-related offenses declined from 28% to 7%.
38% obtained employment and 21% enrolled in
educational/vocational training.
75% of the mothers had physical custody of one or
more children.
In 2003 an additional cross-site evaluation of 24 residential
family-based treatment programs 6 months after post-treatment revealed
successful outcomes for mothers and their children:
60% of the mothers remained completely clean and
sober 6 months after discharge.
Criminal arrests declined by 43%.
44% of the children were returned from foster care.
88% of the children treated in the programs with
their mothers remained stabilized, 6 months after discharge.
Employment rose from 7% before treatment to 37% post-
treatment.
Enrollment in educational and vocational training
increased from 2% prior to treatment to 19% post-treatment.
Evaluation studies at the state level of family treatment programs
demonstrate similar findings of successful outcomes. For example,
Center Point's LifeLink Treatment Program for Women and Children, a
therapeutic communities treatment program in San Rafael, California
offers comprehensive services for mothers with children. LifeLink is a
model 40 bed residential program for substance abusing mothers and
their minor children. A 2000 evaluation of 160 women and their 378
children who completed the program found the following:
70% of the mothers were employed after completion of
the program
Involvement in the criminal justice system declined
from 67% to 33% of mothers reporting no further involvement in
the criminal justice system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Center Point LifeLink Evaluation, (2000).
The Women's Recovery Program of Gateway Community Services in
Jacksonville, Florida, offers comprehensive residential family-based
treatment programs. A 1997 study of 467 women and their 1,374 children
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
who completed the program found the following:
72% of mothers reported alcohol and drug abstinence
at one-year post discharge
64% of mothers attained education necessary for
employment
52% of mothers were employed at one-year post
discharge
92% of mothers reported no further involvement in the
criminal justice system
36% of the children who were not with their mothers
prior to treatment were reunified with their mothers post-
treatment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Gateway Community Services, Program materials (1997).
Successful reentry for mother offenders--as well as for non-violent
offenders who are fathers--requires the expanded capacity of family-
based treatment services. Until a continuum of family based treatment
services is available, substance abusing mothers will remain ensnared
in the criminal justice system and families will continue to be
destabilized. Family-based treatment ensures lower recidivism rates,
family stability, and child well-being.
Indeed, family treatment as a reentry policy must also be extended
out to a no-entry policy. Most parents convicted of non-violent drug
felonies who are suffering from the disease of addiction should be
placed in comprehensive treatment programs, and not correctional
facilities. Treatment alternatives to incarceration for mothers, as
well as fathers, suffering with untreated addiction should be pursued
in order for families to heal together.
Mr. Coble. Now, we impose the 5-minute rule against
ourselves as well, so if you all could keep your answers fairly
brief.
Mr. Wall, you view Federal involvement in this area as
critical even for State criminal offenders who are being
released. Will Federal legislation and appropriate programs
actually save money in the long run, A; and B, how can we
ensure that Federal funding will not result in a corresponding
decrease in State funding in this area?
Mr. Wall. Mr. Chair, first with respect to whether--I
believe your first portion of your question was whether Federal
funding was going to make a difference.
Mr. Coble. It could perhaps be a savings, even a savings.
Mr. Wall. I'm sorry?
Mr. Coble. Even a savings of money. Yeah, will it make a
difference?
Mr. Wall. I've been in corrections for 28 years, and I am
convinced that it will. The fact of the matter is that
recidivism and the recycling and churning of offenders back
through the corrections system is extraordinarily expensive.
When you consider the numbers that we have spoken about, and in
my own State, one-third of all released inmates are returned on
new sentences to prison within 12 months, you realize just what
the cost will be.
Now, clearly, there are some offenders who are committed to
a criminal lifestyle. They will go out and they will reoffend
again. But I think that when one-third return within 12 months,
that speaks to the failure of adequate preparation for release
and good supervision.
Mr. Coble. What do you say, Mr. Wall, about the possible
corresponding decrease in State funding?
Mr. Wall. I can't imagine it happening. The reason, of
course, is that corrections expenditures on institutions are
100 percent State dollars. Corrections is basically a State
function. And increasing percentages of our budgets are--of our
States' budgets are being devoted to bricks and mortar and
officers and locks and fences. That will always be the case.
There simply isn't money left over for the kind of work that
the Federal Government can support through reentry.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Ms. Harris, have you heard from groups or individuals who
oppose the revocation of parole provisions in your bill?
Ms. Harris. Originally when we first spoke of it, we heard
of some concerns via the Internet and others, just as a
reaction to some extent that they were concerned it was a knee-
jerk reaction. But as they further engaged and we had the
opportunity to delve further looking at revocation, mandatory
revocation of probation, certainly as it now involves firearm
possession or as it it's related to drugs, the understanding is
that where it will relate to children it's extremely important
to close that gap as well.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Portman, yours and Mr. Davis's bill, does it
create new Federal grant programs to assist States with
prisoner reentry programs and/or does it amend or expand on
already existing Government programs?
Mr. Portman. Mr. Chairman, as you know, it primarily
reauthorizes existing programs and that's the Reentry
Demonstration Grant Program that Mr. Wall talked about earlier.
It does, though, also create a new mentoring program for adult
and juvenile offenders and it also establishes a small pool of
funds for State research, which I said earlier I think is
critical to get better data.
The bill also authorizes the Federal Resource Center for
Children of Prisoners, which has received Federal funding in
the past, by the way, but has never been authorized. So you
know, most of it is existing programs, reauthorizing them,
improving those programs, as we talked about earlier. Some
small new programs, including the mentoring program and the
Center for Children of Prisoners Program has been receiving
funding without authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I think this Federal role, further responding
to your question to Mr. Wall, is critical for a very important
reason; and that is we can bring best practices from around the
country to the States. I agree with Mr. Wall, and I thank him
for his great work and the Reentry Policy Council's work, that
the States are eager to get into this issue even more. I don't
think the States are going to pull back as they see a great
benefit in terms of reduction of crime and dealing with the
taxpayer issues.
But we can help at the Federal level to encourage
innovation in reentry, establish standards of performance
around the country and the standards of performance, you know,
will be based on, again, best practices, and be able to
disseminate to those communities simply what works and what
doesn't work. I think the Federal Government has a big role to
play here.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Ms. Saada Saar, let me beat the red light with you. Do you,
Ms. Saada Saar, see a role for faith-based organizations in
assisting prisoners reentering into society?
Ms. Saada Saar. There is absolutely a role for the faith-
based community, and we also have to give honor to the role
that they have played over these years. What is absolutely
critical, though, when we talk about family-based treatment is
that we make sure any faith-based organization that does
family-based treatment knows how to do it, is providing
comprehensive services to mothers and to their children, to the
family as a whole. But absolutely, as long as they are
comprehensive, as long as they are licensed to care for our
children, they absolutely have a role in the struggle.
Mr. Coble. I thank you. My time has expired. Gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I suggested in my remarks, we've got choices we can
make. And just doing a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic,
if you've got 2 million prisoners and increased incarceration
10 percent at $30,000 a year, you're talking about $6 billion.
Now, Mr. Wall, you've been in corrections 28 years.
Mr. Wall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. If you threaten someone, if you put a sign up
that the punishment might go up from 5 years to 5\1/2\ years,
would that have any impact on crime?
Mr. Wall. In my experience, crime is the product of a
complex web of factors and the population that is incarcerated
does not necessarily make rational choices about the punishment
associated with the offense.
Mr. Scott. And so it would have negligible effect?
Lengthening the--I've seen studies that said just lengthening
the time that someone is in jail, say, from 5 years to 5\1/2\
years, would not have any effect on recidivism.
Mr. Wall. There are studies that have focused on that area
and come to a variety of conclusions. To the best of my
knowledge, Representative Scott, as you know, there's quite a
bit of controversy about the effect of the higher incarceration
rates on the crime rate across the country, some arguing that
it has made a profound difference and some saying that it
hasn't.
My interest in reentry, of course, is the fact that
whatever the debate at the front end may be, you don't have to
like it. You don't have to agree with it. But you have to
accept that sooner or later virtually everybody is going to be
released and the rubber meets the road for public safety in the
community.
Mr. Scott. Well, I mean we have choices. If you had $6
billion on the table, would you want to increase punishment
from 5 years to 5\1/2\, or would you want to invest it in
reentry programs?
Mr. Wall. My own belief is that reentry is an investment
that will yield long-term savings in money and produce
healthier, safer communities.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Mr. Portman, one of the problems that we
have on your approach is that it appears to be soft on crime.
Now--because it's not mean on inmates. Now, on the education
programs, is there any evidence that if you have an education
program, that the recidivism rate will go down and therefore
fewer victims will have to suffer crime?
Mr. Portman. Absolutely. And I talked earlier about some
States that are doing innovative work in that, talking about
release before the prisoner's release, working with the
prisoner, working with the community, being sure that the
training or education that a prisoner is receiving in the
system is actually relevant to what's available in the
community, working with faith-based organizations, also working
with private employers so that when someone is released there's
a possibility of taking that education and applying it to
something that's meaningful and can help that person make the
transition.
Mr. Scott. And the reduction in crime is so much that the
program probably pays for itself.
Mr. Portman. Well, as I said earlier, I'm frustrated by the
data, and I know you are too, because we don't have the kind of
data that we should have.
But let me just give you one study that I mentioned
briefly. It's Allen County, Indiana. They did an intensive
reentry program which they found reduced recidivism and reduced
cost to the community. Their cost was about $635,000 per year
over a 2-year period. They said that their cost/benefit is
$1.95 million over the 2 years of the study. But they also
found out that the local community saw a reduction criminal
cost of $4.9 million during that same period of time.
Now what does this mean? You could say it's $635,000 bucks
a year and the benefit of 2 years. That might be a bit much.
But the fact is the cost/benefit analysis here is very clear. I
think you're absolutely right.
Mr. Scott. And certainly you would reduce crime a lot more
with that investment than merely increasing incarceration.
Mr. Portman. Well, yeah. I mean, you are someone who's
spent a lot of time on this over the years. And incarceration
is important. I mean there are lots of reasons for
incarceration.
Mr. Scott. Let me say this. We're not talking about
reducing incarceration. If you're going to put $6 billion into
the crime--the fight against crime, where should the money go?
Should it go in something that would be cost effective,
probably save more than its cost and reduce crime, or down a
rat hole increasing the incarceration where it probably
wouldn't make any difference at all?
Now, one is soft on crime and one is tough on crime. And
the studies that you've suggested, I mean, we've got--most of
the studies we do on crime are polls: How does the slogan test
in terms of our reelection? If it rhymes, it's a much better
program.
Mr. Portman. It has to fit on a bumper sticker too.
Mr. Scott. If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's a better
program. Those are the kind of studies we usually have. What
kind of study are you talking about?
Mr. Portman. Well, I'm talking about what your question
implies, which is that there are ways we could take relatively
limited Federal resources and apply them at the State level and
in the Federal system to reduce crime by reducing recidivism
and getting at the fundamental problem.
I will say also, Mr. Scott, as you know, we've got a lot of
groups who normally don't work together working on this issue.
And you have helped bring some of these groups together. We've
got the American Bar Association and the Family Research
Council and the Children's Defense Fund working together on
this issue. We also have the National Urban League taking a
prominent role in this as well as the Prison Fellowship Group,
which is a great faith-based group, the Salvation Army and the
Conference of Mayors. So there is a recognition I believe out
there, as I said earlier, among our States and local
communities that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,
and they're looking for our help.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. We'll have another round since it's just the
Ranking Member and I here.
I have expressed this in previous hearings and it does
relate to the issue before us, and that is overcrowding. I
think prison overcrowding conditions, particularly in State
institutions, is a bomb ready to explode. And I think that
needs obvious addressing, and of course, as I say, this can
indirectly apply to that as well.
Mr. Wall, let me ask you this, and this is a subjective
question perhaps. But how do you successfully balance the need
for reentry reform on the one hand with the need to protect
citizens from dangerous ex-offenders on the other?
Mr. Wall. Mr. Chair, as I had mentioned earlier, the
reality of incarceration is that with almost no exception,
everybody is released. Everybody is released. Whether they have
had treatment in prison or not, whether they are dangerous or
not, eventually they get out. And it is our job, if we really
care about public safety, to structure that release so that it
can be as effective as possible and as safe as possible.
The fact is that there needs to be a balance between the
kinds of supports and services which we know will assist
somebody in reintegrating into the community and also
thoughtful effective supervision for those who require close
monitoring.
Mr. Coble. I thank you. We have been joined by the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Good to have you with
us, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Saada Saar, you mentioned parents in prison. I've seen
studies that show a substantial number of children who have
parents in prison end up in prison themselves. What can be done
to sever that trend?
Ms. Saada Saar. I want to talk about how family treatment
can really break the cycle that we see. We know that when
mothers are substance abusing and they are the primary
caretakers of the children, we know that those children are
more vulnerable to the cradle-to-prison pipeline.
There's a psychiatrist that was interviewed for the
Children's Defense Fund study on the cradle-to-prison pipeline,
and he said, if you show me a mother who's substance abusing, I
can guarantee you that that child will wind up in the criminal
justice system.
If we create and expand family treatment so that that
mother who is substance abusing and her child can go into
treatment and achieve healing, then we know we've broken the
cycle. We know that child is no longer in the pipeline to
prison.
Many of the mothers who are in family treatment across the
country talk about how not only were they able to change their
lives, not only were they able to achieve transformation, but
that they see their children are in a very different place
because of treatment. Their children are not picking up drugs,
because they see the consequences of addiction on their
parents. And those children have had the chance to deal with
the impact of their parents' addiction so that their own
suffering stops, so that they can live a different life.
But, again, we have to do this correctly. Doing drive-by
treatment programs that are 90 days for our parents, that
doesn't work. Not having any kind of after-care treatment for
our parents when they're coming out of prison does not work. We
have to do it right by doing comprehensive family treatment,
not just for the parent coming out of prison, but we can stop
this so that we don't see our mothers going into prison, our
children going into the foster care system. And if we do it
before the families go into the prison, we know we can stop the
cycle of the children going into that pipeline to prison.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Representative Portman, are you familiar with the Prison
Industry Program? Does that reduce crime?
Mr. Portman. I think it does, Mr. Scott; again, which we
talked about earlier, by providing training in certain
industries. But maybe as important with most of these
industries is to provide a way for prisoners to use their time
more productively while incarcerated.
Mr. Scott. And in the end, reduces crime.
Mr. Portman. In the end, allows people to reenter more
successfully.
Mr. Scott, could I briefly touch on the children's issue
you mentioned, because I think it's critical, and as I said
earlier, this legislation doesn't do everything but it does
focus on children, for the simple reason Mrs. Saada Saar talked
about. It does in a number of ways. It helps Health and Human
Services do more in terms of the developing regs that helps
address family preservation. It also allows family members to
be more involved in the reentry process than they are not now.
In other words, the funds would be used that would be an
allowable source of the funds for State and local as well as
the mentoring program we talked about.
It also fosters the creation or development of prisoner and
family policies that help prisoners reconnect with their
families while they're in prison.
And then finally with--regarding being sure that when they
are out of prison, in treatment, that it's a family program.
And this family-based treatment program is controversial. I
will tell you, some people think you ought to be separated from
your family while you're being treated. But the recent data
indicates it's more successful if you can reenter with your
family and do it in a more holistic way. It's a win-win, and
the parents aren't separated from their kids, and they're more
encouraged to meet their obligations as parents.
So I mean, this is an important part of the legislation
that Mr. Davis and I are talking about.
[10:05 a.m.]
Mr. Scott. Let me ask a question about the faith-based
initiative. Are there constitutional problems with directly
funding faith-based organizations, and how can you pick which
faith will get funded.
Mr. Portman. The way we decided to go, there has been a lot
of discussion on this, as you know. Only States and local
governments would be eligible for the demonstration program, so
we don't change that. The community-based organizations or
nonprofits can apply for the new funds, and that would be
through the Department of Labor. Faith-based groups like
Catholic Charities, Volunteers of America have been involved in
reentry and very successful.
Mr. Scott. Would this bill allow discrimination in
employment with Federal money?
Mr. Portman. We stayed away from that issue. We are not
including charitable choice language in the legislation. We
were not able to get a consensus on that. As important as those
questions are, I know your Committee has been struggling with
them, it says that faith-based entities can receive funding
just as other organizations can. And I will say the legislation
is supported by a number of faith-based organizations including
Salvation Army, National Black Church Task Force and others.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlewoman from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
I can't reinforce enough the crucialness of this hearing,
and I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the
interest. If we come back in a lame duck session, I hope that
we will be able to continue this and maybe even before the
complete end of this session have some legislation passed. Many
of us have variations of this legislation, and I think it is
important to bring some resolution to it primarily because we
see we are, one, both overcrowded in our Federal system, but
certainly we are overcrowded in our State system, and we are
overburdened by our lack of response to those reentering or
seeking to work with their families.
Let me thank the panelists. I want to say a few words and
ask a question. At the same time, I would like to have
submitted into the record H.R. 3575. I ask unanimous consent to
submit into the record H.R. 3575, ``Federal Prison Bureau
Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2003 and 2004.''
Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be received.
[The bill, H.R. 3575, follows:]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Both Texas--well Texas, a State that I
come from, experimented with two sides of the coin, and that
was in the 1990's, late 1980's, overbuilt or built prisons.
That was their solution to crime, and we could find a prison on
every corner. We find ourselves--and then of course, with our
own sentencing guidelines, sometimes overcrowded to the point
where they had to release persons. It is a different system
than the Federal Government. But releasing them to what? How do
you strengthen families, help to collaborate, get people where
they need to be?
Many of you may know the name Whitney Phipps, who has a
program where he has documented the fact that the children of
the incarcerated wind up in the same cycle, so we are doing
something wrong. And he has the Dream Program that interfaces
children with computers and works with the families.
I have a program--not a program, but a thought that we are
not doing anything to keep nonviolent offenders incarcerated
under mandatory Federal sentencing, and I believe that that is
one side of the coin that we have to look on is that we are
warehousing individuals, and are they really functioning; are
they being rehabilitated.
Let me say, if I could ask Mr. Portman, Mr. Wall and Ms.
Saada Saar, clearly, let's talk about cost. And, Congressman,
forgive me, do we have any documentation on how much we would
save in our criminal justice system if we invested in programs
on your legislative--and you may have said this--your
legislative aspect, if you would do that?
And both--Mr. Wall, you are a correction person. Your
responsibility is to incarcerate, but in your movement through
the criminal justice system and population, what would you see
the definitive cost-benefit--what could you do better in your
prison if you didn't have excess persons or recycled persons?
And again to Ms. Saada Saar, which I think is an important
movement, let me congratulate you, on women, the kind of
investment, success we would have if we invested in women who
will invest in their children.
There are faith-based persons in the room. I recognize the
United Methodist Church, and I think there are great ways of
avoiding the discriminatory aspects of we may consider very
crucial, very great ways of encouraging and increasing the
church, parish, synagogue, et cetera. They have already been
partners in many instances in prison ministries. So I think
this is an excellent way to do this without some of the
concerns we have earlier expressed.
I yield to Mr. Portman on that question.
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. It is a tough
question, we talked about it earlier, because the data is not
out there. One of my frustrations is we have been looking into
this, working with you all in the last year to put through the
legislation. We don't have the data we need. That is why in the
legislation we provide for Federal funding to do better
research on the entire issue of reentry.
But in particular, this issue of what is the cost-benefit,
I did, in response to Mr. Scott's earlier question, list one
example in Indiana where we have some pretty good data there
showing that they had an aggressive reentry program over 2
years. They believed it saved them considerable amounts,
$635,000 cost, benefit of up to 6 million, depending on how you
add the cost of the study.
Let me go back to Texas. You are familiar with this
program, I know. The Texas project, the Reintegration of
Offenders Program, found that 69 percent of their participants
found employment rather than the 36 percent of a controlled
group; it also found that after release, 23 percent of
participants returned to prisons versus 38 percent. That
evaluation concluded that by reducing recidivism and
reincarceration, RIO saved the State $15 million. That is more
than the entire $8 million annual budget.
We have good data from around the country and we are trying
to pull that together as best we can. Your data from Texas is
one example. The Indiana data is another. We have some
information from Washington State that is helpful in this
category.
It is common sense when you think about it. You talk about
the costs over $25,000 per year of incarcerating someone. We
talked about if you could even reduce that by 5, 10, 15, 20
percent--Mr. Scott had some back-of-the-envelope calculations
on that, what kind of costs you save. The savings to society in
terms of reduction of crime could be enormous.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall. Representative Jackson Lee, I have experienced a
severe overcrowding in our system during the course of my
career, overcrowding so severe that the Federal Court
interceded and ordered the release of both awaiting trial and
sentenced inmates prior to the terms in which they might
otherwise have been discharged. And I can speak from experience
and say that when there are large number of inmates in
institutions that weren't designed to hold them, it strains
every aspect, and the priority becomes the maintenance of
order.
It is very difficult to conduct meaningful programming in
that kind of setting, and I have been distressed that over the
years we paid insufficient attention to the fact that one of
the reasons our institutions have so many inmates is because of
this churning repeat cycle of people who are released and
return within short order. And I firmly believe, and I am sure
I speak for my colleagues, that if we had the ability to
adequately prepare people for release and to sustain those
supports and provide good supervision after they are out, we
would then have fewer numbers returning and could do an even
better job with the ones that are incarcerated.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, if you would, ask unanimous consent for
additional time for her to respond.
Mr. Coble. And we will recognize the Ranking Member of the
full Committee.
Ms. Saada Saar.
Ms. Saada Saar. A few numbers to put out there in looking
at a cost-benefit analysis. It is 17,000 a year to treat a
mother and her children. It is 17,000 a year to do family
treatment. It is 39,000 a year to incarcerate a mother. We need
even better research than that, because we don't know how to
look at the costs of putting our children into the child
welfare system as a result of a parent's incarceration. We have
not talked about the costs of a child going into juvenile hall
as a result of a mother substance abusing and not receiving
treatment. So I already will present the idea of 17,000 for
treatment versus 39,000 for incarceration. But we need to do
better in terms of looking at the costs to the entire family
when we do cost-benefit analysis research.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the witnesses.
Just on the record, Mr. Chairman, just this sentence on the
record. One of our death row inmates who committed a crime as a
teenager, mother was a crack addict and father was murdered, he
ultimately murdered and sitting on death row and been sitting
there for 17 years. It was a perfect example of what I think
you are talking about and what an amazing cost to society that
that family presented. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can move on
that legislation particularly dealing with the good Federal
Prison Nonviolent Offender Relief Act, which I hope to discuss
with this Committee.
Mr. Coble. Thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I
welcome the witnesses here.
First a cause for celebration. We are all looking at
reentry and recidivist problems together. I want to thank
Chairman Coble for that. The only problem is that the Ds are
working on their bills, and the Rs are working on theirs, and
my goal is to get us together so we are all looking at the same
thing. There are two bills out here, and this is a very good
beginning.
First of all, I congratulate you for picking up a matter
that some of us have been working on. I know the Ranking Member
of this Subcommittee and the gentlelady from Texas have been on
this prison reentry problem for many years, because the
Congressional Black Caucus has been dealing with this in
workshops over the years. And so what we are doing now is
looking at both pieces of legislation. I think it is fair to
say that neither of these are going to be reported very far
before the end of the 108th session. And so, this gives us a
chance with our minority witness who is here and us to review
some of the things that I think we could come to some agreement
on.
Mr. Coble. Would the gentleman yield just a moment? You, in
effect are tracking what I said at the outset. I said this will
go nowhere legislatively this session, but I think this may
provide a springboard to maybe get a jump start, and I
appreciate you yielding.
Mr. Conyers. And then I wanted to ask Ms. Harris, who I am
happy to see working on this subject, about Carlie's Law, H.R.
4150, because it figures into this, too, and I would assume
that you are also a cosponsor of Rob's measure as well; is that
correct?
Mr. Harrison. I am not certain we are cosponsors yet. We
support Mr. Portman's bill, and we see this as complementary as
we so applaud his efforts for reentry, training, support
education. And our law doesn't want to preclude that in any
measure. Certainly, just the aspect that it affects the child
mandatory revocation would occur.
Mr. Conyers. Would you do me the honor of looking at my
bill on this same subject? Rob and I haven't talked yet. So if
we send you over our bill, let's look at all of these together,
because this is how it starts. And I'm happy that all of us are
here and that even in the last few days of the Congress, this
Subcommittee saw it important enough to take this under
advisement.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. And I thank----
Mr. Portman. Could I have a moment to respond to Mr.
Conyers?
Mr. Coble. If you could do it quickly, because I was
supposed to be at another meeting 5 minutes ago.
Mr. Portman. I want to thank Mr. Conyers for his work on
this issue and not just over the last year, but over the many,
many years, and tell him I look forward to talking with him
further about it. We appreciate the input you have given to
this legislation, H.R. 4676, which is the new kid on the block.
We have got now 47 cosponsors, 28 Democrats, 17 Democrats.
Danny Davis was here earlier and his statement was put into the
record first. I know you have some different provisions than
our legislation. Yours has more funding. But I do think, as you
said at the outset, we need to do what is doable and get
something started, and that is what this legislation is meant
to do.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, without trying to predict the
outcome 26 days from now, if you want us to carry on the
hearing for you, we would be happy to do that.
Mr. Coble. I thank you all for being here, and I thank the
witnesses here as well and those in the audience. You are
interested in this issue, and you have hung tough with us as
well. The Subcommittee appreciates the contribution of the four
panelists.
This concludes the oversight hearing on Federal offender
reentry and protecting children from recidivists. The file will
remain open for 5 days. If you all come across information that
has not been submitted, the file will be open.
We thank you for your cooperation, and the Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
Prepared statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress From the State of Michigan
Prepared statement of the Honorable Danny Davis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Post-hearing questions from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee to the
hearing witnesses \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the time this hearing was printed, the Committee had not
received a response from Ms. Malika Saada Saar to the questions posed
by Ms. Jackson Lee.
Response to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Rob Portman
Response to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Katherine Harris
Response to post-hearing questions from Ashbel T. Wall, II