    [Senate Hearing 109-1059]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 109-1059

    OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY
                                 IN OUR STATES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

                                     of the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-109-114

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    34-118                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
    JON KYL, Arizona                     JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
               Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                                     ------

                 Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation

                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
                      Mary Chesser, Majority Chief Counsel
                      Mark Keam, Democratic Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma......     1
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Illinois.......................................................     3
    Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Wisconsin, prepard statement...................................    79

                                   WITNESSES

    Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and
      Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
      D.C............................................................     7
    Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community
      Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
      Washington, D.C................................................     9
    Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile
      Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S.
      Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.......    11
    Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of
      Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C..     5
    Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections,
      Topeka, Kansas.................................................    20
    Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer
      Foundation, Chicago, Illinois..................................    22

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    Responses of Mason M. Bishop to questions submitted by Senator
      Coburn.........................................................    33
    Responses of L. Carter Cormick III, for Robert J. Bogart to
      questions submitted by Senator Coburn..........................    43
    Responses of Cheri Nolan to questions submitted by Senator Coburn    49
    Responses of Roger Werholtz to questions submitted by Senator
      Coburn.........................................................    58
    Responses of B. Diane Williams to questions submitted by Senator
      Coburn.........................................................    62

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and
      Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
      D.C., statement................................................    64
    Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community
      Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
      Washington, D.C., statement....................................    75
    Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile
      Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S.
      Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.,
      statement......................................................    81
    Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of
      Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
      statement......................................................    88
    Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections,
      Topeka, Kansas, statement......................................   101
    Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer
      Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, statement.......................   108

    OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY
                                 IN OUR STATES

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
                Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
    room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Coburn, Sessions, Brownback, and Durbin.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                           STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Chairman Coburn. The Subcommittee on Corrections and
    Rehabilitation of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to
    order.
        First of all, I want to take this moment to thank each of
    you who are participating on our two panels today. This is an
    oversight hearing on Federal assistance for prisoner
    rehabilitation and reentry in our States.
        What we do know is whatever, positive or negative, that
    prisoners learn in prison will be reflected in their behavior
    outside of prison. The statistics are somewhere around 9
    million people go through our prisons in a year, and we have in
    excess of 2 million people incarcerated.
        The purpose of the hearing is to learn about every Federal
    tax dollar that has recently been spent on programs to aid
    State and local prisoner reentry initiatives. Since 2001, the
    Federal Government, through the Prisoner Reentry Initiative,
    the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, Byrne JAG
    grants, demonstration grants, and various research initiatives,
    has spent over $400 million to help States and local
    governments provide programs to assist in prisoner reentry.
    Additionally, there are grants, technical information, and best
    practices provided by various agencies to help prevent crime
    and provide alternatives to incarceration.
        We have a large job in front of us today because to date
    Congress has not reviewed some of its larger investments like
    the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative or some of
    the pilot programs, like the Transition from Prison to
    Community Initiative employed in eight States or the
    demonstration program employed through the National Governors
    Association in seven States.
        At the end of the hearing today, I hope we will, first of
    all, become more familiar with all the programs that are there,
    the funding opportunities available through the various
    agencies that assist in prisoner reentry, the goal of those
    programs, and the type of accountability that is built in to
    ensure that the tax dollars are well spent and meet the goals
    and the visions of those programs. Ninety-one-point-six percent
    of all inmates are held in State facilities for violating State
    laws. Additionally, we know that 16 States hold almost 71
    percent of all inmates. While incarceration generates high
    costs, we know that States this past year had $57 billion in
    excess revenues. Thirty-eight States' revenues exceeded their
    budget projections and 10 States' revenues were on target.
    Unexpended revenues probably can and should be focused on one
    of the critical areas in our country that needs addressing, and
    that is the effects of incarceration. How do we make good,
    productive citizens of people who have made a mistake, paid the
    price, and do not go back in?
        What we do know is that the recidivism rate is high, and we
    know that two-thirds of that recidivism, that reincarceration
    occurs within the first 6 months following--actually, it is
    half occurs within the first 6 months following release from
    incarceration. We need to do a better job as a Nation. The
    States need to do a better job.
        Eighty percent of State prisoners report a history of drug
    or alcohol use. In fact, 55 percent of State prisoners report
    using drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crime that
    resulted in their incarceration. I am a big proponent of drug
    treatment and addiction treatment, and when we fail to do that,
    we fail to offer a hope and a chance for many people who are
    incarcerated.
        A study in Texas found that an unemployed offender is 3
    times more likely to return to prison than one who is employed.
    Similarly, New York's Department of Labor reports that 83
    percent of offenders who violated probation or parole were
    unemployed.
        With the knowledge we have about the trends in recidivism
    and the commonalities among inmates, we can evaluate the
    programs we have to make sure they are targeting the right
    needs.
        I met with a number of groups and also a number of
    corrections staff. One program in particular that stands out to
    me as a phenomenal success is being executed by two U.S.
    probation officers--one in eastern Missouri and another in
    western North Carolina. These two officers are motivated to
    make a difference in the lives of inmates, and they have used
    their resources in very creative ways. They focus specifically
    on employment.
        Using job retention training, the Federal Bonding Program,
    employer tax credit, and job fairs for ex-offenders, they were
    able to reduce the unemployment statistics for the people in
    their charge from 12.1 percent in 2000 to 3.3 percent in 2006.
    The most amazing thing is that the unemployment rate for ex-
    offenders in their areas of coverage in 2006 was lower than the
    unemployment rate in their respective areas for all the
    citizens as a whole.
        As of this month, the unemployment rate is at an all-time
    low for ex-offenders in eastern Missouri at 2.54 percent, while
    the community's unemployment rate is 5.1 percent. This
    incredible success has had a significant effect on revocation.
    Even though the released offender caseload has increased over
    the years, the number of revocations has decreased. It is all
    related to employment, employing skills, getting out of an
    addictive habit and being employed and building self-esteem
    based on that.
        The success of the program is attributed to offender
    employment following release, offender education programs in
    prison, mandatory evening and weekend work for supervision
    officers, increased treatment options, search and surveillance
    team support, and credibility from the bench, passionate staff,
    and good press.
        After meeting these gentlemen, there is no doubt in my mind
    that the success of their program is because of the character
    of the men leading it. People make the difference in successful
    reentry, both the corrections officers and the incarcerated
    individuals.
        At the Judiciary Committee hearing this last Tuesday on the
    cost of crime, one Senator pointed out that the Residual Drug
    Treatment Program in Federal prisons is offered to all inmates
    who volunteer. In the followup question and answer period, the
    Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, agreed that
    if all inmates with a drug treatment need were forced to
    participate in the program, the success of the program might be
    reduced because the volunteer nature of the program makes it
    more successful. We all know that you have to recognize the
    need before you are going to take the help for the need. But
    the total numbers might, in fact--the total numbers of people
    employed and out of a drug-addicted or alcohol-addicted
    position might actually increase.
        Our second panel today includes witnesses who work in the
    field of corrections. Both have received Federal grants and can
    report back to us about interactions with various agencies.
    Senator Durbin and myself look forward to learning about the
    grant process, the role of nonprofits, associations, or lobbies
    play in helping identify and achieve available funds, how
    federally funded programs interact with State programs, and
    accountability measures built in to followup with the grantees
    and their programs.
        Finally, we will look forward to hearing from our second
    panel about how States are handling the problems associated
    with recidivism.
        I thank all our witnesses for being here today, and I look
    forward to your testimony. I want to specifically thank the
    witnesses on our second panel. We know that you and the
    750,000-plus Americans employed in corrections are making a
    difference in the lives of inmates. The work you do and your
    ability to impact inmates is tremendous.
        Senator Durbin.

    STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask
    that my entire statement be made part of the record.
        Chairman Coburn. Without objection.
        Senator Durbin. I will just echo your remarks. There are 9
    million people incarcerated today in the world. A fourth of
    them are in the United States, one out of four. We have seen a
    dramatic increase in incarcerations. Some 700,000 people are
    released from prison each year. On average, somewhere between
    55 and 65 percent of them will commit another crime.
        The obvious question is: What can we do to make people pay
    a price for those things that they have done wrong, but to make
    certain that we do not pay that price a second time as a
    society if those who are released from prison commit another
    crime?
        There are some things that are very obvious. Many people
    enter prison today with drug addictions and are never treated.
    We also know that many people enter prison with some vestige of
    a family life and see it disintegrate because of lack of
    opportunity to make a telephone call or to have a meaningful
    visit with a member of your family because of where your prison
    is located or what the prisoner visitation rights happen to be.
        We know that education is the single best thing that we can
    do to turn the life around of a prisoner, and yet we face this
    Faustian chance--I faced it as a Congressman--of what to do in
    a society where we have too few dollars for Pell grants to help
    low-income students go to college. So do you give the Pell
    grants to the kids who did not commit the drug crimes and want
    to go to college? Or do you give them to those youngsters who
    were incarcerated for committing a drug crime?
        A terrible choice. And we know if we do not provide this
    financial assistance, some of these inmates will never achieve
    the skills and education they need to turn their lives around.
        Too many people incarcerated today have a serious mental
    illness and get virtually no treatment for it while they are
    incarcerated. And that means that they leave prison perhaps in
    worse shape than they entered.
        We know that when it comes to returning to society, there
    are a lot of helping hands that can make a big difference,
    whether it is first a family or a church or a business or an
    organization. I have seen it all over my State of Illinois, and
    many people here have as well. We need to create incentives for
    that helping hand to give people a chance.
        I want to especially note before I close, Mr. Chairman,
    that we have one witness today, Diane Williams, who is
    President and CEO of the Safer Foundation, on our second panel.
    In my State of Illinois and perhaps regionally, maybe
    nationally, Safer Foundation is one of the most outstanding
    operations in terms of noting the nature of this problem and
    suggesting meaningful ways to address it.
        Thank you for this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you.
        I am going to introduce the witnesses and then we will
    swear you in. The first witness is Regina Schofield, Assistant
    Attorney General at the Office of Justice Programs. Ms.
    Schofield was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for OJP
    on June 8, 2005. She is responsible for providing overall
    management and oversight of OJP, whose mission is to enlarge
    the Nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the
    criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about
    crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. She also
    guides the development of that office's policy and priorities
    and coordinates the activities of its bureaus and offices.
        Next is Mr. Mason Bishop. He is Deputy Assistant Secretary
    for the Employment and Training Administration at the
    Department of Labor. He is responsible for overseeing key
    workforce investment programs, developing and implementing
    workforce policies and priorities, and assisting with
    congressional relations and legislative issues. He also plays a
    lead role in the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
    Act.
        Next is Robert Bogart. He is the Director of the White
    House Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives at the
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As the
    Director of the HUD Center, Mr. Bogart ensures that faith-based
    and community organizations have equal access to Federal
    dollars.
        Our final witness is Cheri Nolan. She is the senior policy
    advisor on criminal and juvenile justice issues to the
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, also
    known as SAMHSA. She assumed her current responsibilities in
    September of 2005. At SAMHSA, she manages and oversees all
    criminal, juvenile, and faith-based issues that confront the
    agency.
        If you would each stand and repeat after me: I swear that
    the testimony that I am about to give before the Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Rehabilitation and Corrections is the truth,
    the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?
        [Witnesses repeat oath.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you. You may be seated.
        Ms. Schofield, turn your mike on, if you would, please. You
    are recognized for 5 minutes

     STATEMENT OF REGINA B. SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
        OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Schofield. Dr. Coburn, Senator Durbin, I am Regina B.
    Schofield, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
    Justice Programs. I am pleased to be here this afternoon on
    behalf of Attorney General Gonzales, the U.S. Department of
    Justice, and the Office of Justice Programs to discuss the
    Department's efforts to aid State and local reentry
    initiatives.
        I am also honored to be here not only with representatives
    from other Federal agencies, but also Diane Williams and Roger
    Werholtz. OJP has worked with both of them, and I know that
    they will contribute greatly to today's hearing.
        Most offenders, including the most violent offenders, will
    eventually return to their communities. A study from OJP's
    Bureau of Justice Statistics found that more than two-thirds of
    all released offenders were rearrested within 3 years. So, of
    the 650,000 people who are released from prison annually, over
    400,000 are likely to be rearrested.
        Between the harm caused by their original crimes, the
    injuries inflicted by their new offenses, and the collective
    damage they do to both their neighborhoods and their
    communities, the path of destruction recidivists leave is wide
    and long.
        The issue of prisoner reentry has been of great concern to
    this administration since early in President Bush's first term.
    In 2002, the Department of Justice, in an unprecedented
    partnership with other Federal agencies, launched ``Going Home:
    The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative,'' or
    SVORI.
        Under SVORI, we have awarded more than $120 million to 69
    grantees, covering all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
    the Virgin Islands. These grants helped to support States and
    communities as they developed and implemented their own reentry
    strategies. Although the strategies were designed by States and
    communities to meet their own specific needs, they all share a
    three-pronged approach that covers every stage of the reentry
    process. First, while participating offenders are still
    incarcerated, reentry partners assess their needs, their
    skills, and the risk they pose to public safety, and develop
    formal reentry plans. Second, as soon as these offenders are
    released, they are closely supervised, often with the
    requirement that they report to a judge or corrections officer,
    and receive treatment and training. Finally, a network of
    public and private agencies provides long-term support as the
    offenders reintegrate.
        The SVORI reentry plans also include participation by the
    faith-based community, neighborhood residents, local police,
    and close consultation with State and local government
    officials, corrections staff, probation and parole officers,
    treatment providers, and others.
        The feedback to date has been very encouraging. We have
    completed the first phase of a two-phase, multi-year evaluation
    of the SVORI programs. The evaluation shows that these programs
    have been successful in bridging the gaps in existing State and
    local efforts. They are providing much needed transition
    services, such as counseling, mentoring, and job training. And
    they are closely coordinating pre-release and post-release
    services.
        The next phase of the evaluation is a 4-year impact study
    that will measure program outcomes. It will tell us what impact
    SVORI programs have had on recidivism and whether they are
    cost-effective. We will continue to share these findings as
    they become available.
        The SVORI grants expired this year, but we are taking what
    we have learned from these programs and applying it to the
    President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, or PRI. PRI is a
    Federal partnership that is intended to help ex-offenders find
    and keep employment, obtain transitional housing, and receive
    mentoring. It also harnesses the resources and experience of
    faith-based and community organizations in helping returning
    inmates contribute to society.
        In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we awarded $12.9 million to
    States for pre-release planning and services for non-violent
    offenders, ages 18 and older. These grants were designed to
    complement the Department of Labor's portion of the initiative,
    under which 30 community and faith-based organizations in 20
    States received awards to provide post-release services such as
    mentoring, employment assistance, and housing assistance.
        As the Subcommittee requested, I am submitting for the
    record detailed information on our reentry program. The
    President, the Attorney General, and I believe that
    successfully reintegrating offenders back into their
    communities is one of the most pressing criminal justice issues
    facing our country today. State and local governments have
    demonstrated that thoughtful policies and programs can be
    developed to address this issue. We are committed to doing all
    that we can to continue to support their good work.
        We appreciate the interest that you and your colleagues
    have shown, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any
    questions you may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schofield appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop.

       STATEMENT OF MASON M. BISHOP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                        LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am
    pleased to have the opportunity to represent Secretary Chao and
    to discuss the Department of Labor's considerable work on
    prisoner reentry initiatives. My written testimony describes in
    detail the programs and funding sources currently available for
    reentry efforts.
        Each year, more than 650,000 inmates are released from
    Federal and State prisons. These released prisoners face
    difficult challenges as they reconnect to society. Unemployment
    among ex-prisoners can be as high as 40 percent, and
    joblessness among ex-prisoners has been linked to recidivism
    rates.
        Prisoners also demonstrate low levels of educational
    attainment. Forty percent of adult State prisoners are
    functionally illiterate, and over half of State parole entrants
    are not high school graduates.
        In contrast, the fastest-growing jobs on average require a
    high school diploma and a post-secondary credential such as a
    vocational certificate, an industry-recognized credential, or
    an associate's or higher degree. At the same time, the need for
    workers is increasing due to the retirement trends of the baby-
    boom generation and lower birth rates in recent years.
        To keep pace with the demand for skilled workers, every
    facet of the population, including ex-offenders, will be
    needed. Ex-offenders are an important supply pipeline for the
    unfilled high-growth jobs of today and for the jobs of the
    future and, therefore, must be actively engaged to take part in
    the labor force.
        Without intervention, many ex-prisoners will commit new
    crimes and be reincarcerated in the first 3 years after their
    release from prison. Research has also broadly documented the
    substance abuse and mental health issues of ex-prisoners--
    factors that are likely to contribute to poor education levels,
    lack of employability, and a return to criminal activity.
        In returning to criminal activity, ex-prisoners reduce
    their chances of living healthy and positive lives for both
    themselves and their families. On the other hand, ex-offenders
    who maintain strong family and community ties have greater
    success in reintegrating into the community and avoiding
    incarceration.
        Given these issues, the philosophical underpinnings of the
    Department of Labor's reentry efforts include: first, having
    employment be the goal and at the core of all reentry efforts;
    and, second, assuring the continued and strengthened role for
    faith-based and community-based organizations as primary
    partners since they often possess unique strengths and
    resources for delivering social services to ex-prisoners within
    their communities.
        A focal point of these reentry efforts is the President's
    Prisoner Reentry Initiative, as well as a series of other
    programs and initiatives under the Responsible Reintegration of
    Youthful Offenders appropriation. All together the Department
    of Labor has invested more than $372 million in prisoner
    reentry efforts of various types.
        Under the President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which he
    announced in the January 2004 State of the Union address, the
    Department of Labor has awarded 30 grants to strengthen urban
    communities characterized by large numbers of returning
    prisoners through an employment-centered program that
    incorporates mentoring, job training, and comprehensive
    transitional services.
        In implementing the grants, we have put much emphasis on
    job development, contacts with private sector employers, and
    high-growth employment. The goal is to serve 6,250 released
    prisoners during the first year of the initiative. Grantees
    began operating in March of 2006, and as of September 8th of
    2006, 2,874 participants had been enrolled and 1,469 have been
    placed in jobs.
        Under the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders
    appropriation, the Department has funded a variety of projects
    aimed at serving young offenders, at-risk youth, and youth in
    juvenile or adult justice systems. The projects focus on
    demand-driven strategies designed to move youth into high-
    growth occupations and provide education and training,
    employment, and community services to facilitate reentry. The
    funded programs also include State-operated juvenile justices
    aimed at improving the academic and work force preparation of
    youth in correctional facilities, among others.
        Much is being accomplished through these programs. Grants
    are serving large numbers of youth each year in high-crime
    communities. Local community grants have succeeded in placing
    youth in employment. State grants are increasing the reading
    and math achievement levels of youth, in large part because
    they can spend time while those youth are behind bars.
        The Department has also participated in the Department of
    Justice-led Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative,
    which reduces further criminal activity by violent ex-
    offenders, as was stated.
        Another program the Department initiated is the Ready4Work
    program, which uses community and faith-based organizations to
    help those returning from prison find jobs and assist their
    transition into society. Through this program, we have seen
    lower recidivism rates and success at placing participants in
    jobs.
        Finally, the Department manages other programs and
    initiatives that also contribute to the Prisoner Reentry
    Initiative, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the
    Federal Bonding Program, and the Incarcerated Veterans
    Transition Program, all of which are included in my written
    testimony.
        Finally, one of the unheralded efforts has been this
    administration's efforts to break down agency and system silos
    and work together as Federal agencies to solve this problem.
    During the past few years, the Department of Labor has worked
    closely with Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and
    HUD in support of the overall vision to ensure ex-offenders are
    integrated into communities and become productive members of
    society. This collaborative approach is reflected in all of our
    strategic investments whereby we leverage each other's
    resources and fully coordinate efforts. In addition, each of
    the agencies before you are breaking down system barriers at
    the State and local levels to foster a more integrated approach
    to serving ex-offenders.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks, and I have
    submitted written remarks for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bogart.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. BOGART, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FAITH BASED
    AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
                     DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Bogart. Thank you, Dr. Coburn.
        Dr. Coburn, Ranking Member Durbin, Senator Sessions, it is
    a pleasure to be here today on behalf of Secretary Alphonso
    Jackson, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    Federal assistance for prisoner reentry.
        Every year, more than 650,000 men and women are released
    from America's prisons, many of them without a place to go,
    without a place to call home. The result is that many of those
    who leave our prisons go directly to the streets where they are
    extremely vulnerable to the temptations that exist there. The
    challenges of reentry are great, especially for those without
    the safety and stability of a home.
        Dan Buck, the CEO of the St. Patrick Center in St. Louis,
    an exceptional organization that is the recipient of
    Departments of Justice and Labor prisoner reentry funds,
    explained the situation this way: You get a job interview. What
    address do you put down? What phone number do you list? You get
    kicked out of your transitional housing center at 6:30 in the
    morning. Your interview is at 11. Where do you go? What do you
    do? How do you stay clean? How do you stay out of trouble? And
    how do you succeed?
        The answer to the last question is very clear. Many don't,
    as approximately two-thirds of recently released men and women
    are rearrested within 3 years of their release. Dan Buck would
    say that the glaring hole in their reentry program is housing.
        The system needs to be broken, not only for the sake of
    those in the community victimized by crime, but also for the
    sake of the men and women who are reacclimating back to
    society. Only comprehensive solutions that provide
    opportunities for self-sufficiency and dignity will be an
    effective catalyst for change.
        Again, the St. Patrick Center is an exceptional example
    that provides these comprehensive, pragmatic, and dignified
    wrap-around services. With limited Government support, the
    center serves over 10,000 individuals and families annually and
    is Missouri's largest provider of homeless services. Nearly 60
    percent of the men and women St. Patrick Center serves have a
    criminal record, and those that participated in privately
    funded focus groups, receiving at least 2 months of clean,
    stable, dignified housing, experienced a 100-percent job
    placement rate. The rest of their client base experienced a 50-
    percent success rate, which is admirable but is still not 100
    percent.
        In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush
    proposed a 4-year, $300 million Prisoner Reentry Initiative to
    reduce recidivism and help ex-offenders contribute to their
    communities, rebuild their lives, stay out of trouble, and stay
    out of the many paths that lead to prison. The objective of
    this initiative would be achieved by harnessing the resources
    and the experience of faith-based and community organizations
    like the St. Patrick Center and providing newly released
    prisoners with comprehensive services, such as job training,
    mental health counseling, transitional housing, and mentoring
    support.
        Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development has requested PRI funding, it has yet not received
    any. A critical component of a successful Prisoner Reentry
    Initiative is providing housing because, as stated earlier,
    many newly released men and women need a place to reside
    immediately upon their release from prison, at a minimum on a
    temporary basis. If HUD were given PRI funding, it could then
    provide this very fundamental need to this at-risk population.
        HUD's budget request for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007
    called for the provision of transitional housing as part of PRI
    funding. PRI funding is needed because HUD lacks the requisite
    authority to use the funds for the discharge planning of
    individuals from institutions. Therefore, the advantage of
    funding for the PRI is that HUD would be given authority to
    fund grantees providing housing specifically for ex-offenders
    who are not defined as homeless.
        Given that adequate housing is an important component of
    successful reentry into society for these men and women, HUD
    respectfully urges Congress to appropriate $25 million for this
    important initiative, as requested in HUD's fiscal year 2007
    budget request. These funds would be made competitively
    available to faith-based and community organizations with
    established, proven success addressing the special needs of
    these men and women who have already struggled so much and have
    paid their debts to society. Organizations considered may
    already be involved with the Departments of Labor and Justice
    prisoner reentry efforts, thus building on their success.
        This is a landmark opportunity. The strategic partnerships
    will help these men and women know the meaning of
    accomplishment, rebuild their dignity, and become taxpayers and
    not tax burdens.
        Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak with you
    today, and I will look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bogart appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you.
        Ms. Nolan.

     STATEMENT OF CHERI NOLAN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, CRIMINAL AND
          JUVENILE JUSTICE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH
     ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Nolan. Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, Senator Sessions,
    I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Substance Abuse and
    Mental Health Services Administration to discuss our efforts in
    support of the important national issue of prisoner reentry.
        During my tenure of Government service, I have seen
    firsthand the cycle of crime, arrest, incarceration, reentry,
    rearrest, and reincarceration, and the horrible costs this
    cycle has caused society, not only the direct costs of criminal
    behavior to law enforcement, prosecutors, and the jail and
    prison system, but the cost to victims of crime and the impact
    on the quality of life and communities all across the country.
        Recidivism is not just a statistic but an action that has a
    ripple effect across many individuals, families, and
    institutions. It is because of my expertise and commitment to
    this issue that I was brought to SAMHSA last year to facilitate
    the connection between public safety and public health.
        Studies have shown a significant number of these men and
    women have substance abuse and mental health treatment needs. A
    study recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    confirms that large numbers of inmates display symptoms of
    depression, mania, or psychotic disorder. In State prisons, 73
    percent of female inmates and 55 percent of male inmates had
    mental health problems. In local jails, the numbers are
    similar. More than one in three State prisoners, one in four
    Federal prisoners, and one in six jail inmates who had a mental
    health problem have received treatment since admission.
        The findings clearly indicate the tremendous need to
    connect released prisoners with mental health treatment in the
    community. The study also found that prisoners with mental
    health problems were more likely to have repeated periods of
    incarceration and substance abuse problems.
        In the area of substance abuse among the jail and prison
    population, studies over the past two decades have consistently
    found that 60 percent of offenders tested at the time of arrest
    have admitted to or been found to have used at least one
    illicit drug.
        SAMHSA is actively involved in a number of public safety/
    public health initiatives that deal with addressing individuals
    with substance abuse and/or mental health disorders who are
    involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. SAMHSA
    is also committed to partnering with other Federal agencies and
    to assisting the States and local communities through our
    criminal and juvenile justice grant programs.
        SAMHSA was an original partner with the Department of
    Justice surrounding the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
    Initiative that Assistant Attorney General Schofield discussed,
    contributing more than $16 million to the effort. In addition,
    we are providing criminal justice, substance abuse disorder
    cross-training to all the grantees to improve the delivery of
    substance abuse prevention and treatment services.
        We at SAMHSA are encouraged by the early measures of
    success of the initiative, and we anxiously await the findings
    of the impact evaluation. It is important to know what works
    surrounding prisoner reentry and the costs and benefits of
    various approaches. The most recent data on recidivism is
    almost 10 years old.
        In the last few months, an exciting new partnership with
    the Department of Labor-led Prisoner Reentry Initiative was
    formed by bringing together the grantees of our Access to
    Recovery Program with the Department of Labor grantees. As a
    result of this effort, clients under PRI who have substance
    abuse treatment needs are eligible for treatment and recovery
    support services provided by our Access to Recovery grantees.
    Ten of our 14 ATR grantees match with the Department of Labor,
    including Illinois. This is another example how Federal
    agencies are leveraging dollars to support reentry efforts.
        SAMHSA efforts also included funding 12 Young Offender
    Reentry Program grants in fiscal year 2004 and an additional 11
    grants were awarded in fiscal year 2005. YORP is designed to
    provide funds to expand and/or enhance substance abuse
    treatment and related reentry services to youth populations
    under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.
        SAMHSA also funds 16 adult and juvenile drug court programs
    and nine family drug treatment courts, which provide a
    successful alternative to incarceration for defendants who
    cycle between addiction leading to crime, incarceration,
    release, relapse, and recidivism. Close supervision, drug
    testing, and the use of sanctions and incentives help ensure
    that offenders stick with their treatment plans while public
    safety needs are met.
        Since fiscal year 2002, SAMHSA has funded jail diversion,
    targeted capacity expansion grants that divert persons with
    mental illness from the criminal justice system to community
    mental health and supportive services. At this point we have
    funded 32 such awards of up to $400,000. These programs must
    build service capacity using four areas known to yield
    sustainable results: evidence-based services, creating service
    linkages, community outreach, and engaging in program
    evaluation and dissemination of those findings.
        SAMHSA is committed to reducing recidivism by supporting
    recovery efforts. The connection between public health and
    public safety is a critical one, and we appreciate the interest
    of this Subcommittee in our efforts, and I will be happy to
    respond to any questions that you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Nolan appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Schofield, one of my questions is: Why are we using
    1994 data that took 3 years, 1997, and we get the data last
    year? And when are we going to see data that is more timely?
    Have we set up anything that says we are going to have a
    continuing monitoring of this that will be statistically valid
    so that we are not depending on, in essence, 12- or 13-year-old
    data?
        Ms. Schofield. Senator, that is a good question. I actually
    have it myself on several BJS studies, and the answer is it is
    human subject research and it takes a really long time to
    gather the data. The 3-year mark is a gold standard for
    recidivism. So what happens in a typical study is that after 3
    years of release, you ask the State for names. It takes about a
    year to compile the names, to find people, to locate them. You
    try to get enough of a sample size so you will have a correct
    sample size. It takes you another 3 years to monitor those
    individuals. So now you are 6 years out. It takes another 2
    years to evaluate that information, follow up. You know, if you
    have necessary--I think the last time we did a study of this
    magnitude, it started in 1994. In 1998, we got more funding. It
    took States 2 years to provide us with the additional
    information, and you are still, you know, hounding people and
    looking for that information. And so it was 2002 before we got
    the study out.
        I have to tell you that the same thing will happen in
    another study if you are following people, as you would the ex-
    offenders. If they do not have a house to stay in or consistent
    housing, that is going to be a problem.
        If we were to start a study today, 2006, it would be 3
    years before we had the information from the States, probably
    another year to gather that information, and another 3 years to
    study those individuals. So you are talking--I did go to
    college--2012 before you would even get the information that
    you need in order to do that evaluation and research.
        Chairman Coburn. Well, what would be wrong with all the
    grantees, all the States that get Federal money, saying you
    know this is going to happen, keep the data, knowing in
    anticipation we are going to be asking for it? In other words,
    there should be some strings--what I am getting to, and I am
    going to ask each of you this, is: What is the metric that we
    use to measure the grant programs that we are giving on whether
    or not they are successful? What is the metric and when will we
    know? And I would tell you on almost any scientific study, when
    the data is 9 or 10 years old, it does not really mean anything
    anymore. If we are talking about from 1994 to 1997 on
    recidivism rates--and rearrest rates really do not mean
    anything because if you have a criminal record and you are in
    the area, oftentimes you are rearrested for a short period of
    time until you are excluded, which says a whole other thing
    about some of our policing. But the point is that the rearrest
    record--it is the reincarceration or the reconviction record
    that we are really interested in. And why couldn't we make sure
    that signal goes out ahead of time with all these grants?
        One of the things we are going to be looking at as a
    condition of the grant is that you will keep track as a State,
    here is who is coming out, here are the ones that are on
    parole, here are the ones that are incarcerated. I mean, the
    States have the numbers. They have the names. It is
    anticipating what you are going to need. Why could we do that
    to shorten that period of time where we have good data?
        Ms. Schofield. We are trying to make sure that our National
    Criminal History Improvement Program has all of the funding
    that we have requested from Congress to make sure that States
    are able to build on that information. The system is not
    complete. I mean, I cannot sugarcoat it for you and tell you
    that. We work with grantees on a regular basis. You know, the
    Federal Government has gotten a lot better at evaluating
    programs and making sure that the funding goes toward the
    stream that we have asked it to go. The States are getting much
    better at keeping that sort of information. But we do have a
    lot of work to do in order to make sure that NCHIP is a
    sustainable program and that we have gotten the data that we
    get.
        The first answer I gave you was strictly about human
    subjects, so I misunderstood your question.
        Chairman Coburn. So of all the grants that DOJ makes, you
    all now have a metric attached to that, so you are going to be
    able to make a decision on those grants, on whether or not they
    are actually accomplishing what you want?
        Ms. Schofield. Every single grant that I have signed since
    I have been at the Department of Justice has performance
    measures, and, yes, sir, we are tracking and evaluating those
    programs.
        Chairman Coburn. And so how often do you release that data?
    How often do you come to a conclusion about that data?
        Ms. Schofield. Well, our Office of Comptroller, what we do
    in the Comptroller's Office or CFO's Office is, as we gather
    that information on the grantees on a regular basis, you know,
    they decide how many of the grantees they are going to evaluate
    and audit this year, and so we go through that process. You
    know, you have to go through like a rolling basis to make sure
    you are getting to all the grantees. But that is part of our
    evaluation program.
        Chairman Coburn. Well, will you supply to this Committee
    what you have seen thus far, here is what we have granted, here
    is what we have gotten back, here is how we evaluate that
    specifically?
        Ms. Schofield. Absolutely, yes.
        Chairman Coburn. All right. Thank you. My time has expired.
        We will go on the early-bird rule, if you do not mind,
         Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think we will all agree that if a person has a mental
    illness that is part of the burden they are carrying in life,
    and they also commit a crime and then leave a corrections
    facility, that is still a challenge. That is an issue that
    still has to be dealt with. The same thing is true with
    substance addiction, whether it is alcohol or drugs. These are
    things that have to be dealt with.
        Some people may have the will to cure themselves of certain
    addictions, and I pray to God more people will. But most of us
    need a helping hand.
        But I want to go to another issue, and that issue is
    education. I think everyone here in some way or another has
    said that if we will educate and train the people who are
    incarcerated, they are less likely to commit another crime. Is
    there anyone who disagrees with that premise? That is kind of
    an accepted--I think it has been proven out over and over
    again.
        Having said that, though, we have created some
    interesting--I call them ``Faustian choices,'' impossible
    choices, when it comes to policy, and let me give you a couple
    of examples. There was a time when a person incarcerated in my
    State, and most States, could go to a community college while
    incarcerated and pick up courses to prepare them for a job when
    they are released. But, of course, they do not have a regular
    income of any value, and so they had to borrow the money or
    apply for a Pell grant.
        And so years ago, we made a decision--and I was part of
    that decisionmaking--that since we have a limited pool of Pell
    grant funds and cannot take care of all the kids who have not
    committed a crime and want to go to college, we were not going
    to provide Pell grants for those who were in correctional
    institutions. And the same thing with student loans.
        Then we took it a step further and said if you have been
    convicted of any drug offense after you leave the correctional
    facility, you are still disqualified from receiving a Pell
    grant or a student loan.
        As I understand it--and my staff is running back and forth
    to double-check that this is still the case. I think it is. And
    so for any drug conviction, large or small, we are basically
    reducing the possibility or opportunity for additional
    education to avoid recidivism. So is it time to change this
    law?
        Mr. Bishop. I am from the Department of Labor. I will take
    a crack at addressing this.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. Even though Pell grants are out of the
    Department of Education. I cannot address the Pell grant issue
    specifically, but I can address the issue of access to
    employment and training.
        One of the things we have been working on--Senator Sessions
    knows this well because he sits on the Senate HELP Committee--
    is trying to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. Under
    the Workforce Investment Act, roughly $15 billion from various
    Federal agencies go to States and local communities to supply
    individuals, citizens, with employment training services. And
    one of the problems we have identified, the administration
    believes, is too much of that money goes to infrastructure and
    duplicative programs. And what we have essentially asked
    Congress to do is reform this act to allow for what are called
    career advancement accounts of up to $3,000 per year so that
    individuals like ex-offenders can get access to the education
    and training they need.
        Now, one of the issues we--
        Senator Durbin. If I can interrupt you, I am sorry. So we
    have a program that will offer some $3,000 to the ex-offender--
        Mr. Bishop. We are asking for that.
        Senator Durbin. Asking for that. And that would allow them
    to take, let's say, a community college court. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bishop. Correct. And that is about the average of a
    community college education for 1 year.
        Senator Durbin. While at the same time we are saying in the
    law no Pell grants, no student loans, this program would say
    $3,000 to ex-offenders for that purpose. Since I do not have a
    lot of time, if you will allow some others to comment. I think,
    Ms. Schofield, you were going to respond to my question about
    Pell grants and student loans.
        Ms. Schofield. Actually, sir, what I was going to say is
    that I believe that by the time offenders come out of jails and
    prisons, we have failed them already as far as the educational
    system is concerned, because a lot of them do not have high
    school diplomas, which is why, you know, most people still, for
    robberies--I mean, the highest numbers of crime that are
    committed by people are people that steal for money, whether it
    is motor vehicle thefts or robberies or simple assaults or
    other types of things like that. And they do that because they
    do not have a way of obtaining money.
        So I think by the time people get to a point where they are
    in a community college, we may have failed them at an earlier
    age.
        Senator Durbin. I went into Englewood, which is a pretty
    tough section of Chicago, because a local group called
    CeaseFire brought together gang members for me to meet with.
    And I sat down with 10 African-American males all under the age
    of 20, all high school dropouts, all who had been incarcerated.
    And I asked them, ``How do you get by? '' And they say, ``We
    hustle.'' I said, ``Well, what does that mean? '' ``It means we
    live off the street.'' ``Well, how do you live off the street?
    Do you sell drugs? '' ``Oh, that has been exaggerated.'' I am
    sure.
        You know, but the point is no marketable skills, 20 years
    of age, already incarcerated, dropped out of school. Some of
    these will never put their lives on the right track. I am
    thinking of some others, though, given a chance with a GED and
    perhaps some college courses or training courses of value, can
    come out of the prison experience ready to really step forward
    in life. And I worry because I think we have cross-purposes
    here. I think you have a good idea, Mr. Bishop, some of the
    things you are talking about. But I think some of the laws we
    pass make it more difficult.
        Now, we get back--and I will end, Mr. Chairman, very
    quickly by saying we get back to the ultimate moral dilemma
    here. There is not enough money for the kids who did not commit
    crime. Okay? It has been stuck at $4,015 a year for 6 years.
    The cost of higher education has gone up 44 percent in the last
    6 years. We have just raised student loan interest rates by 2
    percent on every student in America. We will not let them
    renegotiate lower interest rates on their loans. They are piled
    up with debt. That is the other side of this equation.
        So we are playing less than a zero sum game here, but we
    understand if we are serious about recidivism, some of these
    things have to be addressed honestly.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Coburn. Just one note of clarification. The
    Workforce Investment Act has in excess of $1 billion that is
    not spent every year now. So we have the money to do this, and
    I will pledge to you I will work with you to try to get this
    money redirected in that direction for education.
        Senator Durbin. Good.
        Chairman Coburn. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
    hearing. I think it is very, very valuable.
        My experience, having seen it up close for quite a number
    of years, is that we have an incredible amount of money being
    spent that is relevant to dealing with crime but is not spent
    in a coherent fashion.
        Now, my housing man here, I am not sure he is talking to
    the probation officer for the guy who just got released from
    prison. The job man, I am not sure who knows what is available.
    We have got the Office of Justice Programs here that is running
    programs, but I guess the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, do
    they run the tests? Do they run the studies for accuracy and
    completeness?
        Ms. Schofield. Actually, it is our National Institute of
    Justice that runs the programs and evaluates them.
        Senator Sessions. NIJ runs them. Well, there we go with a
    lot of different studies. And so then we have got mental
    health.
        Now, the one program--and I know Senator Durbin also is
    interested in all of this, but the one program that seems to me
    to come closest to a workable model is the drug court program.
    You mentioned that, Ms. Nolan, and this is what happens: They
    come in and, for the most part, they plead guilty, if they are
    guilty of a drug offense. In some programs they do not enter a
    plea. They enter a conditional plea. And they go into this
    voluntary program in which they are, as you said, supervised,
    drug testing--and I forgot your third one, but that--
        Ms. Nolan. They are held accountable, sir.
        Senator Sessions. Held accountable. They are held
    accountable. So the person is now released.
        Now, somebody is monitoring that person by name. They know
    that person. The judge has released him. He knows that person
    by the name. The person has been called before that judge, and
    he is told, ``We will release you. You are out, but you have
    got to be accountable to these standards, and you are not going
    to get back on drugs, and you are going to have a curfew.''
        They did this a bit in Boston and had this incredible drop
    in teenage murders in Boston. The probation officers went out
    at night to make sure they were complying with curfew, not just
    the way it really works is you have got a curfew, you have to
    be in at 10 o'clock, and nobody ever goes to check if they are
    in at 10 o'clock.
        They say do not use drugs, but many places still do not
    test to see if they are using drugs. If they are using drugs,
    they are getting into trouble. Sooner or later they are going
    to be arrested.
        So you have got all these mental health moneys that we are
    spending, a lot of housing moneys we are spending, a lot of
    Education and Labor money we are spending. If that is all
    available to the parole officer or probation officer who
    supervises the individual, then something can happen, because
    the judge now is looking right at it, and if they do not comply
    with the probation officer's requirements and the judge's
    requirements, really, then he puts them in jail for a weekend
    or 2 weeks or gives them one more chance, or a month or throws
    them back in the slammer to serve their full time, whatever he
    decides is the appropriate response.
        I see some nods. Ms. Nolan, do you think--and mental
    health, I mean, we know people have got mental problems, and
    that probation officer should be able to call on mental health,
    shouldn't he, and develop a post-incarceration plan that fits
    the needs and capacities of this individual?
        Ms. Nolan. Yes, sir. And one of the things that we are
    doing--
        Senator Sessions. Well, would you agree that one of our
    problems is a lack of coordination and application of all these
    resources in a coherent way? And wouldn't the best person to be
    able to handle that would be the person like a parole officer
    who is assigned to this individual when they are released?
        Ms. Nolan. Yes, sir. We have seen tremendous success with
    the case management approach with our programs at SAMHSA that
    are not only--they work with these individuals that need
    substance abuse treatment or mental health services. They work
    with them. They are able to help counsel them. They are able to
    help refer them to treatment when needed. And it is very
    important, and we do hold our grantees accountable for making
    sure that they are linking with the criminal justice side of
    the operation.
        Senator Sessions. Some mental health programs, they get
    State money and Federal money.
        Ms. Nolan. Right.
        Senator Sessions. Sometimes they say they are too busy,
    they have got a waiting list, they do not have time for this
    new prisoner that just got released, come back in 6 months and
    we will put you on the list, are some of the things that
    happens. Isn't that correct?
        Ms. Nolan. Yes.
        Senator Sessions. Now, in housing, just briefly, because my
    time has already gone over.
        Mr. Bogart. Absolutely, sir. One of the constraints that we
    have at HUD is we do not have specific funding for prisoner
    reentry. So as a result, because of statutory reasons, we do
    not have funds to spend on this particular issue, and that is
    why we are asking Congress to appropriate the $25 million to do
    that, because if you talk about coordination, you know, when we
    go out and do--
        Senator Sessions. Well, how do you start this program? Do
    you pick out $25 million, do you pick out 30 cities in America
    and run this program?
        Mr. Bogart. Well, sir, that was one of the things I was
    going to get to. The Departments of Labor and Justice have
    already done a lot of the heavy lifting. They have identified
    30 organizations in a number of cities where they are combining
    their resources. So here we have a situation where, with the
    right funding, it is feasible that we could partner with them.
    They are already three-quarters of the way there or halfway
    there. We come in and provide the transitional housing services
    that these men and women who have just come out of prison
    desperately need.
        Senator Sessions. You are coordinating that with the
    Department of Labor?
        Mr. Bogart. I am sorry?
        Senator Sessions. You are coordinating with who, the
    Department of Labor?
        Mr. Bogart. We would take that--
        Senator Sessions. That is not the person to coordinate
    because he does not know the name of the person that got out of
    jail. I mean, that--
        Mr. Bogart. But the--
        Senator Sessions. My time is over, and I hate to--I know,
    Mr. Bishop, if you could point out, am I on to something here?
        Mr. Bishop. You are. I think the premise of your question,
    as I understand it, is each of us funds, to the tune of
    billions of dollars, various systems. I fund a work force
    investment system--
        Senator Sessions. Fifteen billion on--
        Mr. Bishop. Out of agency it is about 9.5, but under the
    one-stop career centers, HHS has moneys, the Department of
    Education has moneys that are all supposed to be accessible by
    individuals through the one-stop systems, and it is to the tune
    of about $15 billion per year. HUD has its system of housing
    authorities that it helps fund, and HHS and Justice.
        So what we have been trying to work on at the Federal level
    is--and many of us meet on a continual basis, and our career
    staffs are meeting on a continual basis, to try to
    institutionalize this notion that we have to break down these
    system barriers from Federal to State to local to
    institutionalize change, because I think you are exactly right,
    that the issue isn't always do we or do we not have enough
    money. The question becomes how is the money currently being
    used that we fund at the Federal and State and local level.
        Senator Sessions. Exactly. I hate to run, and I have
    something I have got to go do at this moment. But, Mr.
    Chairman, the only person, I think, that can handle this is the
    parole officer whose responsibility is for post-incarceration
    supervision. And the way this system is so simple that it
    should work is that person should evaluate the person being
    released before they are released. If they have got a mental
    health problem, they deal with it. If they do not have a house,
    they deal with it. If they need job training, they deal with
    it. They call these agencies, and they should respond to them
    and put them high on their list because these are at-risk
    people, and existing moneys out there ought to be enough. To
    create one more program is difficult.
        Chairman Coburn. Senator Sessions, you missed my opening
    statement where I praised western North Carolina and eastern
    Missouri because the parole officers have done exactly that.
    Their unemployment rates are less than the community as a whole
    and the recidivism rate is down, and so you point is well
    taken.
        I also would put in for the record what Minnesota is doing
    through MinnCorps because they have coordinated everyone, and
    their recidivism rate is half the national average because they
    are coordinating everything. So I am just going to ask--I am
    going to submit some written questions to you because of our
    time constraints today, but one of them that is coming to you:
    What are the programs? What are you measuring? And what are you
    finding? And the second question that is going to go to each of
    you is: How are you coordinating with every other agency in the
    Federal Government to make sure those grants go to the same
    people so that it can be coordinated?
        Let me thank you. We could go on for hours. I have got a
    list of questions, and you will get all of those questions as
    well. And if you would be as timely as you can, somewhat more
    timely than OMB in terms of screening your testimonies today, I
    would very much appreciate it. This is not something that we
    are going to give up on. If we want to make an impact on our
    society, a major impact, the way we are going to do that is the
    care and treatment of prisoners. What they learn in prison they
    are going to apply on the outside. And so we have to make sure
    that that is a positive experience rather than a negative
    experience.
        Thank you for your testimony.
        Chairman Coburn. I call up our next group of witnesses.
        Our second panel, we have Mr. Roger Werholtz. He is the
    Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections. Mr.
    Werholtz was appointed Acting Secretary of Corrections by
    Governor Bill Graves on September 30, 2002, and was appointed
    Secretary of Corrections by Governor Kathleen Sebelius on
    January 13, 2003. He served as Deputy Secretary of Corrections
    since 1987 and has supervised all three divisions of the Kansas
    Department of Corrections: Community and Field Services;
    Programs and Staff Development; as well as Facilities
    Management. Thank you for traveling all the way here to do
    this.
        Next, and not least, is B. Dianne Williams, President and
    Chief Executive Officer of the Safer Foundation. She was named
    President of the Safer Foundation in February 1996. The Safer
    Foundation is one of the Nation's largest private, nonprofit
    providers of social services, education programs, and
    employment training and placement exclusively targeting people
    with criminal records. Under her leadership the Safer
    Foundation has incorporated the ``What Works'' principles
    adopting evidence-based program designs and evaluations. Under
    contract with the Illinois Department of Corrections, Safer
    manages two large adult transition centers with a total of 550
    beds.
        If you would both stand and be sworn in, and I will do it
    the short form: I swear that the testimony I am about to give
    before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help me God.
        [Witnesses repeat oath.]
        Chairman Coburn. Or you can say ``I do.''
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Coburn. Mr. Werholtz, please give us your
    testimony.

     STATEMENT OF ROGER WERHOLTZ, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
                      CORRECTIONS, TOPEKA, KANSAS

        Mr. Werholtz. Thank you, Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member
    Durbin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name
    is Roger Werholtz, and I currently serve as the Secretary of
    the Kansas Department of Corrections. I appreciate the chance
    to comment on funding for prisoner reentry and the
    relationships between Federal agencies and the State
    Departments of Corrections.
        Every year more and more people are coming out of prison
    and jail, and the way we have traditionally released and
    returned them to the community is making neighborhoods less
    safe, less healthy, and less stable. Prisoner reentry also
    impacts our State and Federal budgets. Spending on prisons and
    jails has soared from $9 billion to $60 billion over the past
    20 years, and despite all of this spending, recidivism rates
    are as high as ever.
        When such a large percentage of people released from prison
    fail, it places a greater financial burden on taxpayers without
    substantially increasing public safety. Corrections officials
    face the challenge of reinventing our corrections system to
    drastically reduce recidivism rates, and together we can
    improve public safety, generate savings, and strengthen
    neighborhoods.
        Federal agencies providing funding to organizations such as
    mine that allows us to pursue innovations or put in place
    resources that would otherwise be beyond our reach. In the
    current State fiscal year, my State of Kansas will expend $1.9
    million in Federal grant funding. Now, that comprises only 0.71
    percent of the Kansas Department of Corrections' annual budget,
    but for that less than 1 percent of our budget, the impact on
    our agency and the citizens of our State is huge. With these
    Federal funds and a blend of State, local, and private
    revenues, we will be able to provide a variety of services to
    crime victims and assist in the successful reintegration of
    offenders into their families.
        Grant programs such as the Serious and Violent Offender
    Reentry Initiative and the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth
    in Sentencing Program have significantly influenced State-level
    correctional practice and State sentencing policies. In Kansas,
    the small reentry program initiated with SVORI funding has
    served as a model that has heavily influenced the training of
    KDOC parole and facility employees regarding effective
    strategies for offender supervision. It has helped us to
    dramatically reduce the number of parolees being revoked and
    returned to prison. Our SVORI-funded program is being evaluated
    by the University of Kansas and is also part of a larger
    national evaluation funded by a separate Federal grant. Our
    results to date are so encouraging that the State and one of
    our largest counties have invested significant amounts of money
    to replicate the strategies in other cities in Kansas, but I
    must caution that these numbers are still preliminary and we
    will need to observe the impact over time to accurately judge
    the effectiveness of these efforts.
        Eighteen months ago, Senator Brownback challenged a
    bipartisan group of elected officials and community members
    gathered in Wichita by saying, ``I want to see recidivism in
    this Nation cut in half in the next 5 years, and I want it to
    start in Kansas.''
        Using the model developed with SVORI resources, the
    Department of Justice technical assistance and technical
    assistance from National Institute of Corrections and research
    and technical assistance from the Council of State Governments,
    we are well into that initiative. We have made significant
    progress over the last year. We have reentry programs underway
    or being established in our three largest metropolitan
    counties, and the Shawnee County reentry program is receiving
    national recognition.
        The State has established the Kansas Reentry Policy
    Council, an interagency and intergovernmental branch
    coordinating body, and the State's efforts are achieving
    measurable results. The number of parolees who failed to meet
    conditions of supervision and were returned to prison dropped
    significantly, by 26 percent in the last 2 years, and in the
    last 4 months those numbers have been cut in half. As a result,
    the overall prison population shrank rather than increased, and
    Kansas has been able to avoid spending revenues on increasing
    prison capacity.
        I also appreciate the Committee's interest in our
    interaction with Federal agencies around reentry. Federal
    agencies such as the National Institute of Corrections, the
    Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    and the Office of Justice Programs regularly provide
    opportunities to improve correctional practices through very
    modest investments. These agencies provide technical assistance
    and training opportunities in which State and local leaders can
    have direct access to the most current research and thinking on
    current correctional practice. The research and analysis
    performed and disseminated by Federal groups such as the Bureau
    of Justice Statistics are invaluable in assisting us and
    informing our own Governors, legislators, the media, and the
    public about the true nature of the problems we face and the
    most effective responses to those problems.
        Recently, the Association of State Correctional
    Administrators and the Bureau of Justice Assistance entered
    into a joint project to establish a clearinghouse that would
    assist State corrections agencies to track Federal funding
    opportunities and compete more successfully for those
    resources.
        In summary, I would like to characterize our overall
    relationship with our Federal agency partners as highly
    collaborative, productive, active, and respectful. We are
    actively engaged with many of those Federal agencies with whom
    we most closely associate, to further enhance our ability to
    carry out our respective missions. I am grateful for the
    opportunity to brief the Committee and would be pleased to
    answer any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Werholtz appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Williams.

     STATEMENT OF B. DIANE WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
              OFFICER, SAFER FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Ms. Williams. Good afternoon, Senator Coburn, and my great
    Senator Durbin. I thank you for this opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the community-based organizations that are on the
    front line. They are addressing the needs of former prisoners
    as they return to their communities.
        I thought I would start by sharing a story about one of our
    clients. After all, reentry is about real people with real
    families and from real communities.
        Joshua Hodges is one of our stars. He is almost 21 years
    old and is attending Chicago State University, with a goal of
    going on to earn his MBA so he will be able to support himself,
    a future family, and help others in the community. Joshua
    believes he is an entrepreneur.
        Joshua had been living at Aunt Martha's House, a homeless
    shelter that accepts teens, and working for some time when
    something happened that changed his whole life. He got arrested
    and spent 3 months in the Cook County Jail. Josh had no
    previous record and received 2 years' probation.
        While he was incarcerated, one of his cellmates told him
    that Safer helped ex-offenders obtain a GED and find
    employment. When he was released, he immediately enrolled in
    our Harvey Employment and Learning Center, which is a federally
    funded program, and embraced the program and the staff with a
    fury. At the end of the 2-month GED session, Josh passed with a
    score of 2,780. He only needed 2,250. So he did not pass by the
    skin of his teeth. He did a great job.
        Working with our staff, he completed his individual service
    plan, college financial aid forms, enrolled at Chicago State,
    and at the end of his first semester had achieved a GPA of 4.0.
    At Safer, we have been working to reduce recidivism for 34
    years by supporting the efforts of people like Josh with
    criminal records to become productive, law-abiding members of
    their communities.
        I am pleased the Subcommittee is taking up the issue of
    Federal support of prisoner reentry today. In the past, reentry
    has often been considered a State or local issue, and most
    national public policy decisions have been made out of the
    concern of supporting people with criminal records sends the
    wrong message. But I am encouraged that Washington is beginning
    to think differently, to recognize that we cannot continue to
    utilize incarceration as the answer to public safety.
        To truly impact the growing numbers of people going to
    prison, education, vocational training, and employment options
    that allow for a living wage must top the list. They are
    critical, but cannot be offered in a vacuum. Treatment,
    housing, and case management must be a part of the solution
    given the complex and multifaceted issues surrounding former
    prisoners.
        For example, Chicago has benefited from the importance the
    Ready4Work Program and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative both
    place on partnerships. These Department of Labor funds have
    enabled Safer to formally partner with nine smaller community
    and faith-based organizations and thereby support their
    capacity to provide mentoring and wrap-around supports to those
    returning from prison. We have been free to do what we do best,
    which is to specialize in job placement and retention. Our
    partners are also free to do what they do best: ensuring that
    the returnee's more personal needs were being met. We believe
    that this unique partnership has been critical to the
    significant decline in recidivism for our Ready4Work and PRI
    clients.
        At the end of year three of Ready4Work, we have served over
    430 returning prisoners with less than a 10-percent recidivism
    rate. Congress must continue to provide leadership and the
    Federal Government must continue to fund experts to provide
    technical assistance and capacity building. Only then will
    States and local jurisdictions have the ability to implement
    program models that work and bring them to scale rather than
    spending precious resources reinventing the wheel and/or
    developing their own expertise.
        Legislation such as the Second Chance Act, authored by
    Senators Specter, Biden, and Brownback of the Subcommittee,
    begins to enable communities to have planned and coordinated
    support for people returning from prison.
        In closing, let me just underscore that no single
    intervention will solve the reentry problem, but the research
    findings are clear. Education and employment have the greatest
    impact on recidivism.
        The other reality is that the majority of individuals
    leaving prison and returning home or returning to communities
    that are disproportionately low-income, crime-ridden, home to
    racial minorities, and lacking in the needed social services
    and supports that are going to enable returnees to succeed. As
    a result, the majority commit a new crime or violate the
    conditions of their release and return to prisons to begin the
    process all over again, leaving our Nation to confront the
    highest recidivism rate in its history.
        While the success or failure of return falls most heavily
    on the returning individual, the decisions that lead to success
    or failure lie with that person. As a society, we must equip
    the individual.
        On behalf of Josh, the communities in which Josh and his
    colleagues live, and people like Safer's employees who work so
    hard on behalf of those returning from prison, I will leave you
    with six brief recommendations.
        One, ensure that Federal funds are used to support
    comprehensive reentry initiatives. Direct funds toward
    community-based groups that are in a position to provide
    coordinated services, with a focus on hard outcomes.
        Two, continue supporting what we know works via the
    Prisoner Reentry Initiative, with an added transitional
    employment component. And I hope you will ask me about that
    transitional employment component.
        Three, encourage innovative statewide solutions that
    utilize a justice intermediary to coordinate city, State, and
    county efforts under a coordinated umbrella.
        Four, reinstate access to Pell grants or Pell grant-like
    funding during prison so that prison time can be used for
    educational and vocational preparation. Make sure those efforts
    are tied to the labor market.
        Five, encourage the Department of Labor and Department-
    funded State agencies that review labor shortage projections to
    coordinate efforts of targeted training with prison systems.
        And, six, increase the Work Opportunity Tax Credit from
    $2,400 to $10,000 so that employers are more interested in
    hiring people.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify this
    afternoon.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
        A lot of what you said, Ms. Williams, and what I think you
    all are doing is a coordinated, comprehensive approach. And
    what we see--we actually talked yesterday to Michigan,
    Minnesota, and Montana, which are seeing some successes, much
    like what I think you are about to see in Kansas.
        Recognizing we live in a limited budget area--I mean, it is
    coming. It is going to get worse. It is not going to get
    better. What is your advice to us on how we make what we do--
    the limited amount of money that we put out there, how do we
    make it effective? Some of it was what you suggested, but how
    do we use that money to leverage that to get other States to do
    what you are doing? Because this is really an investment. In
    Kansas, every person you do not have incarcerated is a win-win.
        Mr. Werholtz. That is correct.
        Chairman Coburn. It is a double win. So what would be both
    of your advice to us in terms of Senator Durbin and myself? How
    do we stimulate, with the limited amount of dollars that are
    going to come from the Federal Government? And it is going to
    be limited. You should not have any expectation that it is
    going to increase. It is not. What should we do?
        Ms. Williams. I will offer you two suggestions. And if you
    would let me, I would probably give you 40.
        Chairman Coburn. Well, I probably might even let you. We
    have a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and some of the Defense
    Department here in a minute, but I am willing to listen up
    until that time.
        Ms. Williams. One of the things we need to do is we need to
    make sure that those partnerships are not just limited, quite
    frankly, to the Federal Government, to State government, and
    even to not-for-profits. We need to include the for-profit
    sector in those partnerships.
        The transitional jobs program that I mentioned to you
    earlier is one in which we have actually formed a staffing
    company. We formed a limited liability corporation under our
    not-for-profit, and we actually have a contract with a for-
    profit company to staff 220 entry-level positions and the
    related supervisors for that staff, for that not-for-profit. We
    structured it just like a staffing company, and the for-profit
    sector would do that. So that as we get better at it and as we
    are able to grow, we will have dollars to reinvest on the
    program side, because what we know is that just finding
    somebody a job and sending them there for the first day is not
    all that is needed to make it successful.
        And so we do surround that person that we place in those
    transitional jobs with the services that they need: access to
    GED classes, what we call retention specialists and what other
    people might call case managers. And we actually provide that
    support onsite of the workplace for those clients.
        Chairman Coburn. Could we also not change the rules for
    housing through HUD to say that if you are coming out of a
    prison you can have access to HUD housing?
        Ms. Williams. That would be--
        Chairman Coburn. Why couldn't we do that?
        Ms. Williams. That would be tremendous to have that shift
    occur.
        Chairman Coburn. I can tell you, in Oklahoma we have a lot
    of empty HUD housing. Why should we say you are ineligible for
    that?
        Ms. Williams. I do not think we should say that. And just
    as you talk about Oklahoma, you can certainly imagine the
    communities in Chicago where there is housing that could be
    rehabbed. People could move into those houses. They could have,
    if you will, support to learn how to operate as perhaps a condo
    association. Some of that money that they are paying for rent
    could be used or held, if you will, in escrow as part of a
    downpayment. They could ultimately buy those units, and then
    they could build other housing to have the same sort of thing
    occur.
        Housing is critical, and you are absolutely right that we
    need to move from that.
        Chairman Coburn. Mr. Werholtz.
        Mr. Werholtz. Let me make three suggestions and run through
    them quickly. I know your time is limited.
        One is funding innovations. The second would be improving
    States' data systems. I know there was a discussion with the
    earlier panel about frustration with information. Part of that
    is because States like mine are working with extremely archaic
    data systems where there is a lot of information in there that
    is very difficult to get back out. And then the third piece is
    one that I do not think costs anything, but that is delivering
    a message. One of the reasons why we have been successful in
    what we have done over the last 2 years in Kansas is because it
    is a bipartisan effort. My Governor is a Democrat, Senator
    Brownback obviously a conservative Republican, and both of them
    are saying the same message. And that has gone a long way to
    lower the temperature about the issue offender reentry and how
    to manage crime and corrections.
        I think oftentimes we get wrapped up in the issue, which
    Senator Durbin had alluded to, about what the men and women
    incarcerated in our system deserve. Well, we are mad as hell at
    them. They may not deserve anything. But I think we are asking
    the wrong question. It is what we deserve as taxpayers and law-
    abiding citizens, and what we deserve is for them to stop
    hurting us and stop victimizing us. And when we reframe the
    debate that way, I think it leads to a whole different set of
    answers that otherwise cannot be considered.
        The innovation funding that I mentioned, going back to the
    SVORI program, relatively small amount of investment in Kansas
    that allowed us to experiment with a new program which, as a
    result of what we learned in that, we retrained all of our
    parole staff and are in the process of retraining our facility
    staff and community corrections programs, which are county-
    funded programs, redefining the role of a parole officer to a
    case management kind of model, so that their primary
    responsibility is helping the offender succeed and comply with
    conditions of release in the first place, rather than catching
    them violating those conditions and reacting to that.
        But that is a large leap that takes some political cover
    for line staff to feel safe in doing that, because when there
    is a tragedy, people are going to sweep down, second-guess the
    decisions that were made, and it is that line officer that
    bears the brunt of the criticism oftentimes.
        Chairman Coburn. But the measurement of that is what do we
    expect, and what we expect is to have a correction take place
    during corrections and create opportunities so that it is not
    there again.
        Mr. Werholtz. Precisely.
        Chairman Coburn. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman,
    at the risk of throwing raw meat your way, Mr. Werholtz did not
    read his entire statement, and I want you to be sure to get to
    page 5.
        My colleague here is a watchdog on earmarks, and since I am
    on the Appropriations Committee, I view this issue a little
    differently than he does. But I have argued that there are
    earmarks that have nothing to do with money but end up having a
    lot to do with money. And Mr. Werholtz gives an example of an
    effective lobbyist in Washington who stuck a word in a bill
    and--well, why don't you explain it?
        Mr. Werholtz. That is in my written testimony, and I am
    referring there--at least the piece I think you are referring
    to is in the VOI/TIS funding. One of the major frustrations
    that we experienced when we received our VOI/TIS grants and
    wanted to purchase prison capacity because we were over
    capacity at the time and were trying to expand our system, we
    learned that we could only purchase that prison capacity from a
    private vendor. We could not purchase it from another
    Government entity.
        What that meant was that we had to ship inmates out of
    State further away from their families, where it was more
    difficult for us to monitor their care and confinement, because
    we could not use VOI/TIS funds to lease jail space from our
    local sheriffs who had available and adequate jail space to
    provide--
        Senator Durbin. Which put a strain on families and cost a
    lot more.
        Mr. Werholtz. Absolutely.
        Chairman Coburn. Which increases recidivism.
        Mr. Werholtz. Correct.
        Senator Durbin. Maybe I can join my watchdog on this effort
    here and maybe look at--
        Chairman Coburn. I have got a whole lot more for you to
    join.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. Ms. Williams, thank you for being here.
    Thank you for Safer.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. You are the best, and you have such a great
    reputation for what you do.
        I am going to open a subject which, sadly, we ought to
    devote more than one hearing to. But I think it is part of the
    reality of this conversation about recidivism.
        One in three black men in America with only a high school
    diploma will go to prison before the age of 40. In the city of
    New York, two out of five black men are jobless, and a key
    factor in this low rate of employment among black men is the
    high percentage of those with felony convictions. The
    statistics are grim, and I have used them in this room many
    times. African-Americans representing about 15 percent of our
    population and about 15 percent of the violations of drug laws
    are arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated at much higher
    percentage rates. I think the figure is more than half of those
    who go to prison for drug crimes are African-American men.
        Ms. Williams. That is correct.
        Senator Durbin. Now, the analysis--and this comes out of
    New York, a man named David Jones from the Community Service
    Society. Are you familiar with Mr. Jones?
        Ms. Williams. Yes.
        Senator Durbin. This is something I want to read to you
    because I think it is worth your comment, and maybe Mr.
    Werholtz as well.
        An experiment was conducted where black men and white men
    with equivalent resumes of education and experience posed as
    applicants for entry-level jobs. The white men admitted to
    having a criminal record. The blacks had no record. The result?
    White men with criminal records had a better chance of getting
    a job offer or a call back after an initial interview than did
    black men without records. And black men with criminal records
    were only about one-third as likely to get a job offer as were
    white men with criminal records.
        Talk to me about the issue of race and recidivism.
        Ms. Williams. There is absolutely a correlation. If we look
    at the whole issue of the kinds of communities the people who
    are going to prison come from, if we look at the poverty level,
    the education level, we look at, if you will, every aspect of
    that community, they are clearly inner-city communities
    populated with African-American men who have grown up in many
    cases not going outside of a four- to six-block radius and
    having no expectation that their lives would look anything like
    anything outside of that four- to six-block radius, which means
    that they have an expectation that the only way they are going
    to have an opportunity for, if you will, wealth or some status
    is that they are going to be part of the drug trade or they are
    going to be part of some other sort of criminal activity. That
    is the only one that shows up that way in their community.
        When we come to actually looking at the kinds of crimes
    that are committed, to your point, they are no different in
    Chicago than they, quite frankly, are in Highland Park. How
    they get treated is what is different. What happens to a person
    once they have been identified as having drugs in their
    possession is different. So the arrest rate is different for
    those who are caught with drugs. Lots of studies have shown
    that the incarceration rate, as you are saying, is different
    for those who are convicted of having those drugs. And then we
    still have that population of people in the world of corporate
    America or employment that have with them prejudices that they
    were raised with, so they see a black person, they think they
    are not going to work. They see a black person--not only will
    they not work, they will not come to work. There are all of
    those stereotypes that are still sitting out there from many
    years ago that have not been cleaned up. And what we all know
    is that that is not necessarily true.
        Do you want to hear my personal story? I started out in
    public housing in the city of Chicago. I since that time have
    gone on to school. I have a master's degree in business from
    Northwestern University. It has nothing to do with intelligence
    or capability. It has everything to do with belief that you can
    do it, that there is an opportunity for you to do it, and then
    to have the space to do it.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        I see Senator Brownback is here, and I know he has a
    witness he would like to ask a question of, so I am going to
    end at this point. Thank you.
        Chairman Coburn. Senator Brownback.
        Senator Brownback. Thanks very much, and thanks, Senator
    Durbin, for recognizing and passing this on to me.
        Secretary Werholtz, thanks for being here. I stayed in one
    of your facilities a couple months ago at my own volition. I
    was not convicted. And I came out at my own volition.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Brownback. I want to hasten to add that.
        As I was taken off and I stayed there overnight in the
    facility, as I was leaving home with a bag packed, my 8-year-
    old daughter said, ``Bye, Daddy who is going to prison.'' And I
    unfortunately then told that story in the prison, which was a
    story that a lot of the men there could identify with, and they
    were not laughing about it. So I did not know my audience well
    in saying that, because a number of them have children on the
    outside. It is a very painful and very difficult thing.
        I want to compliment you on what you are doing, and I want
    to compliment those around the country that are doing these
    innovative type of programs and really working on mentoring
    with the individuals before they leave prison and then staying
    in that relationship once they get out of prison.
        It strikes me that the guys I have met, both in the
    facilities there, in homeless shelters here in D.C. and other
    places, that one of the big things that happens to them is they
    get separated. They get isolated. Something happens. They start
    using drugs or alcohol. They break away from their family. They
    break away from their friends or they get separated, and then
    they start more criminal activity and it just goes down. And
    they need connections. They need people to invest in their
    lives.
        That is what I saw in your facility. We have these people
    coming in from outside, investing in their lives, investing not
    only when they are there but also just before they are leaving,
    and then after they leave the facility. And I think, Chairman,
    what the whole thing really requires is us to just say that
    these people have worth. Yes, they have committed a horrific
    crime. They have done a very bad thing. They owe a debt to
    society. They have got to pay that debt to society. We have got
    too many people in prisons, and at some point in time, most are
    going to come out. And we do not want them to do it again. And
    we have not, I think, answered that question adequately.
        So that is why, you know, I compliment some of the work. I
    do not think we are doing enough of it that we are going on to
    see that they do not go back in and do it again. And one sure
    way as well is saying, you know, if you did the crime, you have
    a debt you will pay to this society, you should not do that, it
    is wrong, and you are going to pay a debt to that. But now once
    you have paid it, we want to work with you to make sure you do
    not go back into this system again.
        That is what the Second Chance Act is that you and a number
    of other people have been strong supporters of and helping the
    system, and I want to encourage you on continuing to do that
    and providing that model, building a relationship on both the
    left and on the right, because we can all identify this is a
    problem. Getting to the right solution is going to be somewhat
    difficult to do.
        Do you have numbers on the recidivism rates that have
    occurred in the programs where you have worked on building
    these relationships and job skills of what it has done to
    recidivism rates?
        Mr. Werholtz. We do. I need to caution you that they are
    very preliminary numbers because the history of the programs is
    so short. But what we have been able to do in the last 2 years
    is cut recidivism for parolees, those people being released
    from prison, by about 25 percent, and over the last 4 months we
    have actually met the challenge that you gave in Wichita in
    April of 2005, and our recidivism rates have been cut in half.
        The question that I think remains is whether we can sustain
    those numbers over time, because a lot of what we have
    achieved, we have achieved through relationships, either
    through the retraining of our staff to perform a new function
    or through the relationships that you described in the program
    that you visited, whereby people from the community--in this
    instance, a faith-based program, but we also have police
    officers, we have treatment program people, folks from our
    community mental health centers and our employment centers who
    actually begin working with the prisoners while they are still
    incarcerated, typically 12 to 14 months prior to release. And
    so, in fact, at this point the majority of the people that they
    are working with are still incarcerated and preparing for
    release.
        But I think you hit a critical point, and that is that we
    have got to understand that the problem is larger than our own
    system. One of the things that is unique about what has
    happened in Wichita is that the county and the city were so
    impressed with what was going on and the leaders there believed
    so strongly that this was important that they appropriated
    funds and in-kind services to match our State general fund
    budget to replicate the Topeka program in Wichita.
        One other set of numbers that I might be able to share with
    you is the Topeka program, which is Shawnee County, the one
    that has the longest history, it targets the most serious,
    highest-risk offenders who are exiting our prisons and going
    back to our capital city. We would expect those individuals,
    because they are at such high risk, to return to prison
    somewhere at the rate of about 70 or 80 percent within the
    first 3 years.
        Now, we have only got a little over 12 months of history
    for those folks in the community, but they are returning at the
    rate of about 20 percent instead of the 70 to 80 that we would
    predict, or the standard 50-percent number that--
        Chairman Coburn. Yes, the national average is 50 percent in
    the first 6 months.
        Mr. Werholtz. Correct. So, again, I would not want to hang
    my hat on those numbers and say we have proved our case yet,
    but they are hopeful enough that the State and some local units
    of government are investing money and trying to expand this
    effort.
        Senator Brownback. I am glad they are doing that. This is--
        Chairman Coburn. Senator, can I interrupt?
        I am going to ask Senator Brownback to close out our
    hearing for me and take over the gavel. We have unanimous
    consent that the statements by Senators Biden and Feingold be
    placed in the record, which will be done. And we will announce
    a week before closing for questions for the members of this
    Committee to be submitted, and I would appreciate it if you
    would close out this hearing for me.
        Senator Brownback. I would be happy to do that.
        Chairman Coburn. Thank you. I thank our witnesses.
        Senator Brownback [Presiding.] Thank you very much. And I
    will not be long on this.
        I do want to point out that the program that I visited was
    with a faith community, and what I am very pleased to see is
    that people are willing to integrate that, and the facility I
    visited in Ellsworth, it was a Christian faith community, but
    there was also a Native American faith community that was
    involved, and there were a couple of others. I am not sure what
    all else was there, if there was an Islamic community and a
    Jewish community or not, but I saw the Native American one that
    was there as well. So it was not anything that is exclusive to
    any one, but it did have to be reputable, it did have to be
    based in the prisoner's belief system. And I think that is
    important to be able to integrate in with this as well.
        The other thing, I just want to comment on this as I close
    because I need to get over to the floor as well. I saw an
    article yesterday or the day before about the militant radicals
    in Europe penetrating the prison system and recruiting radical
    terrorists out of the prison system. I think that is something
    we should be aware of, A.
        B, if we do not want that to happen, I think we need to
    really go in our own system and work with men--men in
    particular, women, too, but men in particular--in a positive
    fashion to really try to give them some hope back in their
    lives if we do not want to see our prison system turn as well
    into some recruitment ground for real radical terrorist type
    elements to be able to come out of in a homegrown fashion. So I
    think it is good also for our security and our future.
        Thank you for these efforts. I hope you can continue to
    support our Second Chance Act. It is my hope and will be prayer
    that we would get it across the line this legislative session.
    It is not going to be a big bucket of money, but it is going to
    be some, and we hope to incentivize these types of programs,
    with the target of cutting recidivism rates in half in 5 years.
    I want us to have a hard number on this thing so that people,
    when they go into it, you know what you have got to hit, and
    this is what we are after.
        And also it says to the rest of society at large, this is
    not a soft-headed program. This is not us just kind of being
    mushy on crime. This is being very realistic and this is being
    very hard-nosed, and bottom line, we do not want these guys
    coming back to prison. We want them out, productive members of
    society, and if your program can produce that, God bless you.
    We are going to help support it. If you do not, we are not
    going to fund it, period. We have got to hit the number, and it
    is important. It is important to society, and it is important
    to these individuals.
        And I hope as well we can work with their families, too.
    The numbers on family members of people that are incarcerated
    that then end up going to jail is way too high. I think it is 5
    times the likelihood if your parent is in jail that you will go
    to jail. I had personal experience of that as an attorney in
    Manhattan, Kansas, when I was representing criminal indigents,
    and I would go to my senior partners, and I would say the name.
    They would say, ``Oh, yes, I represented his Dad''--or his
    uncle or something. And you would say, ``Well, why is that?''
    Well, I am not sure why. But it does happen, and I think we
    need to really work with these families. I have seen some
    pretty innovative programs of starting to work with the family
    members, too, to prevent this from continuing to happen.
        So I appreciate your work. God bless you for doing it, and
    I hope we can get this bill across the line and we can continue
    to show those good results. Thanks for shining my State.
        The record will remain open the requisite number of days. I
    believe they did say there were some questions that were going
    to be submitted for the record, and these will be within a
    week's period of time. I do appreciate your willingness to
    testify and to look and to answer these.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Questions and answers and submissions for the record
    follows.]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.080