[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