[Senate Hearing 109-1019]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1019
THE COST OF CRIME: UNDERSTANDING THE FINANCIAL AND HUMAN IMPACT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
__________
Serial No. J-109-110
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-938 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 HERB 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
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 2
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C................................................ 3
Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
of Crime, Washington, D.C...................................... 8
Ludwig, Jens, Professor, Georgetown Public Policy Institute,
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C......................... 7
Sedgwick, Jeffrey, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Washington, D.C................................................ 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Harley Lappin to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 19
Responses of Jens Ludwig to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 26
Responses of Jeffrey Sedgwick to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 29
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Dakota, statement.............................................. 33
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 36
Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
of Crime, Washington, D.C., statement.......................... 58
Ludwig, Jens, Professor, Georgetown Public Policy Institute,
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., statement............. 64
Sedgwick, Jeffrey, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 71
THE COST OF CRIME: UNDERSTANDING THE FINANCIAL AND HUMAN IMPACT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen
Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Specter and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Chairman Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Judiciary Committee will now proceed with our hearing on the
cost of crime. This has been a subject of keen interest to me
since my days as District Attorney of Philadelphia. My
experience there suggested to me that the criminal problems in
America could be dealt with by taking two positions: One on
career criminals to have life sentences, to separate them from
society on a permanent basis. Career criminals commit about 70
percent of our violent crimes. And, second, to provide for
realistic rehabilitation for first offenders, second offenders,
and especially juveniles, because they would return to society,
and that we would be well advised to have realistic
rehabilitation, notwithstanding the very extensive cost, from a
point of view of protecting society from recidivists and from
the dual point of view of giving individuals an opportunity to
beat the drug habit, beat the alcohol habit, have literacy
training, have job training to re-enter society.
Toward that end, I introduced legislation shortly after I
was elected in 1980. My views on career criminals were accepted
by the Congress and signed by the President on the armed career
criminal bill in 1984--robbery, burglary, rape, major offenses,
amended in 1986 to include drug sales. It had been
characterized by Attorney General Barr as one of the most
effective weapons in the arsenal of the prosecutor for law
enforcement.
In 1985, I introduced the National Violent Crime Program
Authorization Act, where I was seeking to reduce violent crime
with realistic rehabilitation. At that time I estimated the
cost of violent crime at $100 billion and up to $500 billion of
pain and suffering was included.
When I chaired the District of Columbia Appropriations
Subcommittee, I structured a program which cost some $22
million for literacy training and job training in the D.C.
prisons. And the OMB Director, David Stockman, made a
recommendation to President Reagan that he veto the bill.
Pretty unusual to have a document appropriations bill vetoed,
and it was, in fact, not vetoed. For many reasons, that program
did not succeed and was later abandoned because of cost.
We are now considering, among other legislative
initiatives, the so-called Second Chance Act, which is designed
to give recidivists a second chance--or violators a second
chance to try to avoid their becoming recidivists.
Interestingly, the Washington Post--interestingly, the--it
would not have been so interesting if the Washington Post had
commented. It was the Wall Street Journal that said people are
finally interested in rehabilitation because it will save
money. And saving money has more tangible benefits and seems to
attract more supporters than other reasons to rehabilitate and
avoid recidivism.
So that is a brief statement of a lot of years of focus on
this issue, and it is nice to be Chairman of this Committee to
put it on the agenda. And it is nice to have an experienced
Federal prosecutor, Senator Sessions, who knows these issues
and is very much on top of them, so I now yield to my
distinguished colleague from Alabama.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing. I think it is very important. Our witnesses have some
very interesting testimony, I believe, and I look forward to
hearing that.
The dream and hope and belief that we could find a cure for
recidivism is still worth great intensive effort and
consideration. But history tells us it is not so easy. I
believe it was Norm Carson who used to head the prison system,
and he said there is nobody, there is no area of the Government
in which more people do not think--more people think they know
the answer and how to fix it than in prisons. You know,
everybody says if you just do this, the prisoners will be
straight. But it has proven to be a grim thing, really, and so
I will not say any more. I look forward to hearing from the
panel.
Chairman Specter. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Sessions.
With Senator Sessions' comments about the prisons, so-
called correctional facilities, I made it a point when I was
D.A. of Philadelphia to visit all of Pennsylvania's
correctional facilities. I saw a lot of familiar faces there,
people that my office had convicted and sent to jail. And it is
a long neglected subject.
Well, I want to turn now to our distinguished panel. We
begin with Mr. Harley Lappin, Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, an expert in corrections, two decades in prison
management prior to being appointed to his current position;
recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in
Management; bachelor's degree from Indiana University, and a
master's degree in criminal justice and corrections
administration from Kent State University.
Thank you for joining us, Mr. Lappin, and we look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Lappin. Chairman Specter, Senator Sessions, it is a
pleasure to be here and have the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss a variety of issues regarding the cost of
crime as it pertains to the Bureau of Prisons.
The Federal prison system today encompasses 113
institutions with approximately 192,000 inmates and a staff of
35,000. When I began my career 21 years ago, we had about 45
institutions and just over 32,000 inmates. At the time, when
Norm Carlson was the Director, as you mentioned, this was after
many, many years of a pretty stable population up until that
point. Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing to the
present, the Federal Government has played a much more
substantial role in the criminal justice system. And with
increases in Federal sentences and law enforcement efforts, the
increase in the Federal inmate population has been staggering.
Our increasing costs are being driven primarily by the
increasing number of inmates and the substantial amount of time
these individuals will be incarcerated. The Federal inmate
population increased by over 10,000 inmates per year between
1997 and 2001 and has been increasing by over 7,000 inmates per
year since then. We project the population to increase to over
220,000 inmates in the Federal prison system by 2011. The
current average sentence length for inmates in our custody is
about 9.6 years.
We realize that considerable taxpayer resources are devoted
to funding our agency, and we make every effort to use those
resources wisely. All of our operations, activities, and
initiatives are driven by our mission: protecting public safety
through the secure and safe confinement of inmates, as well as
returning productive and crime-free ex-offenders to their
communities.
We have undertaken a number of specific cost containment
initiatives over the past few years. Like many other Federal
agencies, we are under fiscal constraints and have been making
adjustments to our operations to allow us to continue to
operate safe and secure prisons at substantially reduced costs.
We undertook these initiatives to be able to continue to expand
capacity. We will continue to build and manage new Federal
prisons at the medium- and high-security level, where we are
experiencing the greatest level of crowding and where we expect
the greatest number of new admissions. And we will contract
with the private sector for the confinement of criminal aliens
in low-security facilities.
While we have 35 institutions that are more than 50 years
old, the majority are relatively new. However, even these
facilities have been taxed as a result of crowding, which has
increased from 26 percent above capacity in 1996 to 36 percent
above capacity today.
To counter the deleterious effects of crowding, we have
improved the architectural design of our newer facilities,
taken advantage of new and improved technologies and security
measures, and enhanced population management and inmate
supervision strategies. Through research we conducted over
several years and encompassing many institutions, we have
determined that there is a direct relationship between crowding
and violence in our institutions. It is imperative that we get
resources to increase bed space capacity and staffing in order
to reduce crowding to a more manageable level.
Full staffing of all institution positions is very
important for our agency. All of our employees in our
institutions are law enforcement officers, and we operate under
a ``correctional worker first'' philosophy. Both custody and
non-custody staff are responsible for inmate supervision and
institution security. This allows us to maintain a substantial
number of staff who provide inmate programs, giving offenders
the opportunity to gain the skills they need for successful re-
entry into society.
Virtually all Federal inmates will be released back into
our communities at some point in time. The vast majority of our
inmate programs and services are geared toward helping inmates
prepare for their eventual release. We provide many self-
improvement programs, including work in prison industries and
other institution jobs, vocational training, education,
substance abuse treatment, and other programs that impart
essential life skills.
Federal Prison Industries serves as a prime example of a
cost-savings program. Inmates who participate in the Federal
Industries Prison program are 24 percent less likely to
recidivate, thereby reducing costs to society, notably the cost
to the criminal justice system for rearrest, prosecution, and
incarceration, as well as the cost of victimization. They are
also more likely to maintain employment after release as a
result of FPI training. Without a program like FPI, our prisons
would be more costly to operate. Due to some recent changes in
law and policy, however, we see somewhat of a decline in the
opportunity for inmates to participate in this type of program.
Chairman Specter, Senator Sessions, this concludes my
opening statement. I would be more than happy to answer
questions that you have an interest in during this Committee
hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Well, thank you, Director Lappin. Thank
you for adhering to our time limits, and thank you for your
more comprehensive written testimony, all of which will be
included in the record, as will all the prepared statements.
We now turn to Dr. Jeffrey Sedgwick, Director of the Bureau
of Justice Statistics; had been Deputy Director in the Reagan
administration; has a bachelor's degree from Kenyon, a Ph.D.
from the University of Virginia; had been on the faculty of the
University of Massachusetts, Political Science Department,
where he is currently on leave.
Thank you for being with us today, Dr. Sedgwick, and the
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SEDGWICK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Sedgwick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions. As
you know, I currently serve as Director of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, and BJS is the official statistical agency
of the United States Department of Justice and a component of
the Office of Justice Programs. Our primary mission is to
collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information on
crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation
of justice systems at all levels of Government. I am pleased to
be here this morning to discuss the financial impact of crime
on victims and the criminal justice system.
I would like to divide my comments into three parts: first,
an overview of the National Crime Victimization Survey--one of
the Nation's two leading measures of crime; second, the costs
of crime to victims estimated by this source; and, finally, the
cost of crime in terms of the level of justice system
expenditures.
What we know of the financial impact of crime on victims is
largely based on the NCVS that was initiated in 1972 as the
National Crime Survey. Its purposes were to measure the ``dark
figure of unreported crime,'' obtain information on
characteristics of crime victims and crime events, and provide
estimates of year-to-year change. The NCVS Sample is a
nationally representative, stratified, multistage sample drawn
from the Decennial Census. It is a household- or address-based
survey and one of the largest ongoing Government surveys. The
sample is interviewed every 6 months and contains 76,050 people
and 42,000 households.
The NCVS measures crimes both reported and not reported to
police. It is considered an omnibus crime survey that measures
crimes of violence and theft for household members age 12 and
older, provides national estimates with each household
interviewed seven times at 6-month intervals over a period of 3
years. The survey has a 92-percent response rate measured by
households. The crimes measured by NCVS include rape, sexual
assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, pocket
picking or purse snatching, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and
theft. The NCVS does not measure homicide.
In estimating the financial cost of crime to victims, the
NCVS largely relies on four measures:
In terms of injury, we ask the question: What was the total
amount of your medical expenses resulting from this incident,
including anything paid by insurance?
For theft, we ask the question: What was the value of the
property that was taken?
For damage, we ask the question: How much would it cost to
repair or replace the damaged items?
And for lost work, we ask the question: About how much pay
did you or other family members lose as a result of your
victimization?
Using these categories, we can derive estimates of the
financial cost of crime to victims over time by looking at NCVS
data from the past decade.
If we look at that data, for example, in 1994, we find that
there were 10.86 million violent crimes in the United States
that resulted in a gross loss to victims of $2.26 billion and
31.01 million property crimes that resulted in a gross loss to
victims of $22.59 billion, or a combined total of $24.85
billion measured in constant 2004 dollars.
By 2000, the number of violent crimes had fallen to 6.32
million with a resulting gross loss of $1.67 billion while the
number of property crimes had fallen to 19.3 million, resulting
in a gross loss of $12.96 billion, or a combined total of
$14.63 billion measured in 2004 constant dollars.
In 2004, the number of violent crimes was 5.18 million with
a resulting gross loss of $1.14 billion, while property crimes
totaled 18.65 million with a resulting gross loss of $14.71
billion, or a combined total of $15.85 billion.
Now, it is important to remember that these NCVS data
accurately track trends but yield significant underestimates of
the costs of crime. For example, intangible, or non-monetary,
costs include fear, pain, suffering, and lost quality of life.
These are currently not estimated by the NCVS.
Even on tangible costs that involve monetary payments, such
as medical costs, stolen or damaged property, wage losses, et
cetera, NCVS cost estimates are limited. Costs unreported by
victims are assumed to equal zero. Medical costs are limited to
short-term costs. And other costs not measured in the NCVS
include mental health care costs and the costs of economic or
white-collar crimes.
On this latter issue, in the second half of 2004, the NCVS
included a special supplement designed to estimate the
incidence and prevalence of identity theft, a form of
victimization not routinely estimated in the NCVS. Findings
from that supplement indicated the estimated loss as a result
of identity theft in the 6 months from July to December 2004
was about $3.2 billion.
Equally important are the tangible and intangible costs of
crime to non-victims including the costs of security devices or
services for the home, fear, behavior changes to avoid
anticipated victimization, and so on. None of these costs are
currently estimated by the NCVS.
In addition to the costs of crime to victims, there is the
expenditure of the criminal justice system, including policing,
prosecution and adjudication, and correction. Based on the most
recent figures from 2003, the United States spent an estimated
$185 billion. Expenditures for operating the Nation's criminal
justice system increased from almost $69 billion (in 2003
dollars) in 1982 to $185.5 billion in 2003. Of this amount,
local governments funded nearly half, with State governments
funding another third.
Chairman Specter. Dr. Sedgwick, how much more time will you
require?
Mr. Sedgwick. About 10 seconds.
Chairman Specter. OK.
Mr. Sedgwick. Thank you, sir.
One way to put these figures in context is to consider the
per capita expenditure on administration of justice. That
figure for 2003 was $638 for every person in the United States
population. This $638 purchased police protection, prosecution
and adjudication of criminal offenders, and incarceration of
all those found guilty.
I can stop there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sedgwick appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Dr. Sedgwick. We
will come back on the Q&A for amplification.
We now turn to Dr. Jens Ludwig, Associate Professor of
Public Policy at Georgetown University, faculty research fellow
of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a member of
the Steering Committee of the National Consortium on Violence
Research at Carnegie Mellon; B.A. from Rutgers and a Ph.D. in
economics from Duke.
Thank you for being with us today, Professor Ludwig, and we
turn the floor over to you.
STATEMENT OF JENS LUDWIG, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY
INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Ludwig. Chairman Specter, Senator Sessions, thank you
very much for inviting me to testify this morning. It is an
honor to appear before this Committee to discuss what is known
about the cost of crime to American society.
I believe the costs of crime to America are plausibly on
the order of $2 trillion per year. That is trillion with a T.
Around two-thirds of these costs are due to what are common
called ``street crimes,'' while the remaining one-third is due
to white-collar or economic crimes. There are, unavoidably,
some uncertainties associated with generating an estimate of
this sort. The costs of crime in the United States could be
somewhat higher or somewhat lower than my figure suggests, but
I believe the $2 trillion is a defensible best estimate for
what the costs of crime to American society might be each year.
My calculations suggest that the cost of crime are enormous
by any standard. By way of comparison, total gross domestic
product in the United States in 2004 was equal to $11.7
trillion. Put differently, the reduction in the quality of life
that Americans experienced due to crime, what one might call a
``crime tax,'' is the equivalent of around 17 percent of U.S.
GDP.
While gun violence accounts for just a small share of the
total number of crimes that occur that in the United States
each year, these are disproportionately costly crimes to
society that together account for at least $100 billion of
costs.
Street crime in the United States, particularly violent
crimes, are disproportionately concentrated among our Nation's
poorest residents, yet the costs of crime are much more evenly
distributed across society than these victimization statistics
would suggest.
Given the enormous toll that crime imposes on American
society, even costly new initiatives to reduce crime can
generate benefits to American taxpayers and citizens that
justify the increased Government expenditures. For example, one
of the most famous early childhood model programs in the United
States for poor 3- and 4-year-old children is called Perry
Preschool, which was implemented in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the
1960s. Perry participants have now been followed up to their
40th birthdays, and the program is estimated to generate around
$6 in benefits to society for each $1 spent on the program. The
costs of reduced crime alone account for more than half of the
benefits from the Perry Preschool program, which implies that
the value of crime reduction alone from this targeted preschool
intervention exceeds the overall costs of the entire program.
More generally, the cost-effectiveness of anti-crime
policies and programs can often be enhanced by targeting
resources at the highest-risk people, such as ex-offenders,
career criminals or gang members, or at particularly costly
aspects of the crime problem, such as crimes that involve guns.
Finally, if crime really is a $2 trillion per year problem
in the United States, then in my view we would benefit by
spending much more than we currently do on research and
development efforts to identify new and more effective ways to
prevent crime. It is my understanding that the National
Institute of Justice's current research budget annually is
substantially smaller than that of the National Institutes of
Health. I believe there would be great social returns to
increased R&D spending for NIJ and other activities of this
sort.
This concludes my opening statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ludwig appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Professor Ludwig.
Our final witness is Ms. Mary Lou Leary, Executive Director
of the National Center for Victims of Crime. She served as
Deputy Associate Attorney General and Chief of Staff for the
Office of Associate Attorney General, an Assistant U.S.
Attorney, and Acting Director of the Office of Community
Planning in the Department of Justice. She has a bachelor's
degree from Syracuse, a master's degree from Ohio State, and a
law degree from Northeastern.
Thank you very much for being with us, Ms. Leary, and we
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Leary. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Specter
and Senator Sessions. I want to thank the Committee for holding
this hearing to examine the costs of crime. Through our
testimony about the costs of crime, we hope to help you look
beyond the dollars that are associated with medical costs,
funeral costs, lost wages, and the like to see the intangible
but lasting impact on individual victims of crime and
communities.
On an individual level, victims and those who serve them
can tell you more about the true cost of crime, and it goes far
beyond dollars. At the National Center, we hear stories every
day from victims who call our National Crime Victim Helpline.
We see how victimization leads to increased substance abuse,
higher rates of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder,
increased risk of suicide, homelessness, higher rates of
unemployment and underemployment, and negative long-term
consequences. The impact can be physical, emotional, financial,
and social, and it reaches way beyond the individual victim to
encompass friends, family, communities, coworkers, and
schoolmates.
Victims of violent crime are at particularly high risk.
Almost 50 percent of rape victims, 37 percent of stalking
victims, and 32 percent of physical assault victims will
develop PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder. PTSD has a
profound effect on a victim's quality of life and just the
ability to function from day to day. People with PTSD often
suffer from very disturbing flashbacks. They can be jumpy,
irritable, very easily startled, constantly on guard. And they
may have difficulty concentrating or sleeping. If they do not
get treatment, many PTSD sufferers will suffer this way for 10
years or more after the event.
Moreover, we are just beginning to understand the cost of
crime to our Nation's youth. Victimization at this crucial
point in human development has far-reaching impact. Teenage
victims report more truancy, negative contact with teachers,
hostile conflict with other students. This disrupts their
academic performance and really impedes their ability to get a
career later on. The link between teen victimization and
substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and eating disorders is also
well established.
But one of the most alarming impacts of teen victimization
is the relationship between that victimization and their
becoming a perpetrator. Being a victim of crime has been
identified by researchers as the single most significant factor
that contributes to teens later becoming perpetrators of crime.
What about the impact of homicide? Nobody can really fully
understand what a homicide survivor goes through. Everybody in
this room can certainly understand a family's shock and grief
upon learning of a loved one's death by violent ways. But there
are other dramatic impacts that we have not even considered.
Time and time again, we hear about entire families who are
devastated when they lose a family member to homicide.
Marriages break up. Families no longer celebrate holidays
because they think it is just not right to do that after one of
the members has been the victim of murder. Survivors of
homicide struggle with maintaining careers. Many of them cannot
return to work on time to save their job. And in communities
where there has been a homicide, oftentimes the family members
and the rest of that community, if it is a homicide committed
on the street, have to walk by those blood-stained sidewalks
every single day, and oftentimes for years to come.
The impact of other violent crime is also far-reaching. We
know about the immediate aftermath when you have
hospitalization and treatment of an assault victim or battered
spouse. But after discharge, what about the scars, those
invisible scars, or even the visible ones for victims who are
unable to afford reconstructive surgeries so they can go out in
public or get a job?
People call our helpline every single day and tell us that
they are traumatized, unable to leave home; their marriages
have broken up; they have gained 100 pounds; they are terrified
to sleep in the room where they were attacked. We hear about
these intangible costs day in and day out, and not enough is
being done to address those intangible costs.
Finally, we know that the impact of identify theft goes way
beyond just dollars. People can spend the rest of their lives
after that kind of victimization trying basically just to
restore their own identity and financial solid footing, or the
elderly who are stripped of their life savings and suddenly
face their old age living in poverty, and oftentimes betrayed
by their very caregivers. The emotional impact of that betrayal
is devastating in and of itself.
Even minor crimes can have a far-reaching impact. Victims
whose car is stolen, how then are they to get their kids to
daycare or to school? How are they to get to work to support
their families? Even these minor crimes can destroy a family's
life.
So it is very important when we talk about the cost of
crime to use dollar figures just as a starting point. The real
cost of crime includes the costs of the quality of an
individual life and of society's life at large, from substance
abuse, depression, PTSD, homelessness, loss of employment,
school dropouts, and other consequences to our social system at
large.
Chairman Specter. Ms. Leary, how much more time do you
require?
Ms. Leary. I am done. I thank you for this opportunity. The
National Center looks forward to working with this Committee to
address the costs of crime.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Leary, and
thank you all. The testimony and the prepared statements are
very profound. I am just sorry there are not more people here
to listen to them. The press table has all empty chairs, and
the television is internal only.
It is true that our colleagues have a great many matters,
especially in the last 2 weeks of a session before we adjourn
at the end of next week. But when you talk about
rehabilitation, you do not strike a very sexy note,
regrettably. And the testimony that is being given here today
is really very significant.
Professor Ludwig, how come you have such a low figure for
the cost of crime at $2 billion? Where did you get that figure?
Mr. Ludwig. The figure is $2 trillion per year.
Chairman Specter. I cannot hear you. Speak up.
Mr. Ludwig. The figure is $2 trillion per year.
Chairman Specter. I meant trillion. We get mixed up on
zeros around here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ludwig. It is easy to do, Senator.
Chairman Specter. Where did you get the figure? Come on.
Mr. Ludwig. The figure is so large because it is intended
to try and put a dollar value, as difficult as that might be,
on the profound intangible costs that Ms. Leary was describing
to the victims of crime.
Chairman Specter. Profound intangible costs.
Mr. Ludwig. Profound intangible costs.
Chairman Specter. OK. Now, where did you get the figure?
Mr. Ludwig. Sir, the figures come from--basically the
figures come from trying to find out how members of the public
are willing to pay to reduce the risk of crime victimization to
themselves and their loved ones.
Chairman Specter. How much the members of the public are
willing to pay to reduce--
Mr. Ludwig. Are willing to pay out of their own pocket in
order to reduce the costs of crime, the risks of crime.
Chairman Specter. How much are they willing to pay?
Mr. Ludwig. Well, I estimate that those costs alone account
for about $700 billion of my $2 trillion figure.
Chairman Specter. $700 billion they are prepared to pay?
Mr. Ludwig. $700 billion for the elimination--the figures
that we have imply that all together the public--
Chairman Specter. Where do you get that figure when cities
are not putting up any more money for their police forces? They
are looking for the Federal Government and the States to solve
their local crime problems. They are not taxing to put more
police on the street.
Mr. Ludwig. Well, I think that the evidence that we have
suggests that the value to citizens from increased spending on
things like additional law enforcement efforts would, in fact,
generate value to society that exceeds the costs.
Chairman Specter. Let me interrupt you. You are up to $700
billion. Now, you have got $1.3 trillion to account for on your
way to $2 trillion. Proceed.
Mr. Ludwig. Sir, we have got $700 billion in costs to
victims. We have $700 billion from white-collar economic
crimes. So I am up to one-point--
Chairman Specter. Where do you get that figure?
Mr. Ludwig. Sir, that comes from a variety of surveys of
small and large businesses across different industries in the
United States.
Chairman Specter. Who made the surveys?
Mr. Ludwig. There are a variety of different surveys of
firms in the insurance industry, one of the national--
Chairman Specter. Are those in your prepared text?
Mr. Ludwig. They are in my prepared text, Senator, yes,
sir. So that brings it up to $1.4 trillion, and then the
residual that gets us up to $2 trillion comes from things like
explicit Government expenditures, as Dr. Sedgwick was
mentioning, as well as costly private measures that individuals
and businesses undertake to protect themselves against the risk
of crime.
Chairman Specter. I am pressing you on the details because
if we can prove a $2 trillion figure, you would attract a lot
of attention.
Mr. Ludwig. My written testimony, Mr. Chairman, includes a
technical appendix that tries to spell out the methodology in
perhaps painfully gruesome detail.
Chairman Specter. I am not neglecting the other three
witnesses. I plan to come back for a second round here.
Director Lappin, you say that educational programs have a
benefit of nearly $6 for every $1 spent. How much does your
Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, spend on education?
Mr. Lappin. Well, let me just say for the record that the
numbers you are referencing are actually out of a piece of
research from the Washington State Institute of Public Policy
in 2001, where they compared the investment of dollars spent in
education and vocational training and their supposed impact on
reducing crime, that is, reducing prosecutions, incarcerations,
and so on. And as you indicate, a benefit of education is for
every dollar invested, about a $6 savings.
Chairman Specter. Well, how do they come to that
conclusion, if you know?
Mr. Lappin. I think through--again, I am not an expert
specifically on how this research was done. Your staff, in
fact, asked for that research earlier today, and we have
provided a copy of that to them. Annually, we invest about--
just a moment and I will give you the exact number.
We spent about $102 million providing education, which
includes GED, English as a second language, parenting, and
other associated classes, as well as vocational training, to
the 192,000 inmates in this past year in the Bureau of Prisons,
so about $102.9 million a year goes toward education and
vocational training, about $53 million toward drug treatment,
and about $33 million or so toward religious programs. So that
is kind of an example of the investment we make in programs to
hopefully increase or enhance the skills of inmates.
And let me just say in general, we are thrilled, to be
honest with you--by ``we,'' I mean me as the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons and other directors of corrections around the
country--thrilled that the President, the Senators,
Congressmen, and State and local Congressional staff are
talking about re-entry and the impact of these programs on
inmates, because, one, we want to invest that money wisely, and
we want to make sure that that money we invest is being--the
impact is reducing recidivism, because at the end of the day,
that is what it is all about, is returning to the community
offenders who are more likely to be successful, less likely to
reoffend, less likely to victimize.
Chairman Specter. The red light went on in the middle of
your answer, and I am going to come back to you, Director
Lappin, to ask you in the next round how effective your
correctional programs are. You comment about people--you are
delighted to hear people talking about it. I do not hear nearly
enough talk. In fact, I do not hear much talk at all. But I am
glad to yield to Senator Sessions because he will talk about
it.
Senator Sessions. I have been observing this crime
situation for quite a number of years, from the time I was--in
the mid-1970s, I was a young prosecutor, and I tried to think
about it and ask myself what is happening.
Mr. Sedgwick, our murder rate today, the rate of murder, as
I recall, compared to the murder rate in the late 1970s or
early 1980s is about half of what it was.
Mr. Sedgwick. Substantially lower, that is correct.
Senator Sessions. I want to hear that. The murder rate in
America is one-half of what it was 25 years ago. When Ronald
Reagan got elected, a lot of people think he got elected to
fight the cold war. He really got elected because people were
shocked by the doubling of the crime rate in the mere 10 years,
surging 12-, 15-percent rate increases of crime, and there was
an article that came out--I do not know if you remember it,
Professor Ludwig or Dr. Sedgwick, by a study that rebutted and
debunked the idea that was afoot at the time that prisons are
of no value, that social programs and education would end
crime, and that this was the mantra of the 1980s--the 1970s.
And it said basically, after great intensive survey and study,
that these programs had little, if any, impact on crime, on
recidivism in prisons.
In fact, I would note, Mr. Lappin--and I am just looking at
your numbers here. Your drug treatment program--and you have
some good drug treatment program. We spend a lot of money on
that. You said that the recidivism rate was--16 percent less
likely to recidivate and 15 percent less likely to relapse in
drug use within just 3 years, in a 3-year period. So I am not
saying that is insignificant. And the numbers we are dealing
with, 15 percent is significant. But anybody that has this idea
that we can just have a drug treatment program in prisons and
they are all going to go out and not use drugs again are living
in a dream world. We have been trying this for 30 years.
You also suggest that those who participate in educational
or vocational training, in your numbers, Mr. Lappin, are 33
percent less likely to recidivate. But wouldn't you admit that
people who are sort of self-select--there are several prisoners
in a prison. Those who tend to take advantage of the education
programs already--and this is what the study that I referred to
in the late 1980s said. It was a moral, personal, intellectual
decision by a person who is incarcerated whether or not they
are going to continue a life of crime. They have to decide: Do
I want to be in and out of jail the rest of my life? Or do I
want to make something of my life? And how that occurs to them
comes from various different ways.
But, at any rate, wouldn't you admit that that is not to
say that if every prisoner in American Federal prisons
undertook an education program that all would reduce recidivism
by 33 percent?
Mr. Lappin. You are correct in that when you look at the
inmates in our custody, we have willing participants and we
have unwilling participants. I am confident to say that the
majority, 60 to 70 percent, of the inmates at least in our
custody are typically willing participants, and willing to get
involved in these programs.
But you are right, even for those willing participants,
only a portion of them are successful in the end. You are
absolutely correct in that just because you happen to
participate in a vocational training or an education program
you are going to be cured. We are certainly not seeing that. We
certainly see enhanced chances of success.
Senator Sessions. Yes, even at the margin, 10 percent, 15
percent.
Mr. Lappin. That is right.
Senator Sessions. That is worth considering.
Mr. Lappin. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. And it ought to be a factor in our
processes. I noticed that you said that--I noticed also that
the crime rate was up a little bit this past year, which was 2
percent. Is that what it was overall or something? That is not
a good--we have been having some good numbers.
But let me just say one more thing. You had a 10-percent
decline in the recidivism rate over 1983 to 1994, but it was
really from 44 percent to 40 percent.
All I would say, first of all, one of the most important
things for us to understand about crime, there is not a magic
bullet. There is not one program that--we have tried every kind
of program in prison, and we have invested all kinds of
experimental programs, and the numbers are not where we would
like them to be.
I would contend that there still remains in this country a
limited number of people who will rob, rape, shoot, and kill
you. There are not that many. And if you identify those and
they serve longer periods of time, you will have a reduction in
crime in America. And that is what happened. The Federal
Government adopted a tough mandatory sentencing policy, without
parole. States have followed with repeat offender laws, and we
have surged the number of people in prison, and we have had a
significant drop in the crime rate when the American people in
the 1980s would not have thought it was possible that we were
going to be reducing by half the murder rate in America.
My time is up, and maybe we will get into some of these
solutions as we go forward, but I think we should not
underestimate the fact that if you look up a group of violent
criminals, 100,000 of them, and keep them in jail, that 100,000
will not commit violent crimes. And if they are released, you
are going to have a high recidivist rate among a lot of those,
and if we are smarter about who we release, smarter about who
stays in jail, we can reduce the pressure on our prisons
without increasing the threat to the public. And I do not know
how to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Director Lappin, do you track the people you release to see
the percentage of recidivism?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, we do. We do research to assess our
programs, and in doing so we do tracking of offenders.
Chairman Specter. Do you track them all?
Mr. Lappin. We do a sampling. We do a representative sample
of those who are released. We do not track all of them. We
release about 41,000 offenders a year back into this country,
and about 20,000 get released to other countries.
Chairman Specter. Would you provide in writing for the
Committee how many you track and what your findings are by way
of recidivism?
Mr. Lappin. Yes. We actually have--
Chairman Specter. And would you give me your best estimate
as to how many of these 192,000 inmates you have you think are
susceptible to rehabilitation? And would you give us the
figures as to what it would cost on education, literacy
training, detoxification, job training, and re-entry so that we
can make quantification as to what appropriations we would have
to deal with those issues?
Dr. Sedgwick, does your role in crime statistics give you
insights into the list of questions I just posed to Director
Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. We have a very strong interest in recidivism
and re-entry studies. We find them enormously difficult to
conduct. They are very expensive.
Chairman Specter. We do not have a whole lot of time, and
we are going to have just a second round. Would you respond to
the same question as to what it would cost to trace them? You
find out from Director Lappin how many he traces and find out
what it would cost to trace them.
Mr. Sedgwick. Sure.
Chairman Specter. And what statistical program you would
recommend to make a determination as to how many recidivists
there are and see if you can shed some light on what should be
done to avoid recidivism.
Mr. Sedgwick. Right.
Chairman Specter. You are sitting on a gigantic statistical
cumulation of information.
Mr. Sedgwick. Yes, we are.
Chairman Specter. When you have the techniques and
procedures to response to those questions, we would like to
know that.
Mr. Sedgwick. OK.
Chairman Specter. Ms. Leary, your statement is really
fascinating when you talk about the impact on the victims, and
particularly at risk of developing post stress disorder,
symptoms up to 10 years, a negative impact on truancy for those
12 to 19, your conclusion that the victims of crime are likely
to commit further criminal offenses, marriages broken up in the
aftermath of homicide involving the loss of a child.
I would be interested, the Committee would be interested in
how you might list all of these factors and how you would go
about quantifying the cost. That is a pretty hard thing to do,
but jurors are asked to do that all the time on pain and
suffering. That is the category.
How would you approach that, Ms. Leary?
Ms. Leary. Well, it is a really difficult research
question, and, you know, one of the problems that we have in
really quantifying these things is that there is not enough
research being done on the intangible costs of crime.
Chairman Specter. Would you give us your ideas as to how
the research ought to be conducted? Take your statement to the
next steps so we can try to quantify it.
Professor Ludwig, we are going to be contacting you for
more specification on the $2 trillion.
Mr. Ludwig. Certainly. That would be terrific.
Chairman Specter. OK. My light is on.
Ms. Leary. Yes, I am not a researcher, but I could say that
one idea that comes to mind is an addendum to the National
Crime Victimization Survey that BJS does, which is a pretty
good tool for finding out about crime that actually doesn't
even get reported to the FBI. Because, you know, when the FBI
says rape is down this year and, you know, where there are only
so many reported rapes during 2005 or 2006, people assume, Oh,
gee, that is terrific, there are not as many rapes as there
used to be.
Well, all that means is not as many rapes were reported,
but it does not mean that not as many rapes are actually being
committed.
So I would say that probably a survey that goes to that
crime which is not reported necessarily to authorities would be
the way to start, and I can talk with Mr. Sedgwick about that.
I would be happy to do that and to respond to this Committee.
Chairman Specter. Well, that is--my red light went on, and
if you would also deal with the question about unreported crime
and try to quantify the costs of unreported crime, that is
pretty tricky.
We have a vote coming up at noon that we have to get ready
for, so we are not able to go into as much detail as we would
like to at the hearing. But the issues which I have posed will
be very helpful as a followup.
Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Ms. Leary, it is good to see you again, and thank you for
your leadership and service in the Department of Justice. I
have a staff person that still--just now, after, I think, 5
years getting through, you know, an identity theft problem. I
know a young lady that was assaulted, knocked down, her
backpack stolen, had to have knee surgery because she was
twisted so badly when she was knocked down by a criminal. So
you are right that things are significant.
Mr. Sedgwick, you remember the Rand Study on California
prisons that showed quite number of prisoners committed
hundreds of crimes, and, in fact, a certain percentage, a
significant percentage, said they committed as many as 200-plus
crimes a year.
Mr. Sedgwick. Right. I remember that study very well.
Senator Sessions. They would knock in your car window and
do two or three a night, break in your house, break in your
business, and those kinds of things, and leave a trail of
debris and broken people who had to put in burglar alarms, and
all of these things that occur. It is a big deal.
Let me ask you, Mr. Lappin, I understand we have a
substantial number, maybe 27 percent of our Federal prison
system involved non-citizens.
Mr. Lappin. That is correct. About 26, 27 percent are non-
U.S. citizens. That is about 48,000 inmates in our custody are
non-U.S. citizens.
Senator Sessions. Now, does that include the people that
are detained at the border until they are released through ICE
agents?
Mr. Lappin. It does not. That is--
Senator Sessions. It does not include the people that they
are detaining for release and deportation?
Mr. Lappin. That is a portion of those who are detained at
the border. Those who are convicted and sentenced to Federal
prison. So there is another group who are in detention status,
either pending return or pending trial, that is typically the
responsibility of ICE, Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, or the Marshals or some other temporary holding
group until a decision is made about their return or--
Senator Sessions. Let me say, I think overwhelmingly people
who come to our country are not criminals, even if they come
illegally to work here, but I do believe there is a trend out
there that I sense that people who are in trouble in their own
countries for criminal activities might find that the best
thing to do is skip town and come into the United States,
because everybody knows them back in their home country. So I
think we need to do a better job of managing that, and that
would have a substantial effect.
Mr. Sedgwick, your Crime Victimization Study is designed to
go beyond police reports.
Mr. Sedgwick. Correct.
Senator Sessions. They do have some potentials for
manipulation. If a police chief wants to say he is making
progress in fighting crime, he will report that crime rates are
down. If the police department got cut in its budget for 2 or 3
years, he will report that police crime is up.
Now, that is the cynical view, but police do have some
ability to make the numbers up here higher by reporting more
arrests or lower if they choose.
Mr. Sedgwick. Correct, and that is--
Senator Sessions. The Crime Victimization Study, briefly,
some believe it is more accurate than the police reports.
Mr. Sedgwick. Certainly, it is better measure of the
victim's experience with crime. Ultimately, the UCR numbers are
a good measure of a police department's experience with crime.
Senator Sessions. Right.
Mr. Sedgwick. But if you want to get beyond that and say
what is an American citizen's experience with crime and
victimization, the NCVS is a better measure of that. It was
designed to do that and complement--
Senator Sessions. Because that surveys people to see if
they have been affected by crime.
Mr. Sedgwick. Correct.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Lappin, 9 years you say is the
average sentence served in the Federal prison?
Mr. Lappin. 9.6 years.
Senator Sessions. And that is without parole.
Mr. Lappin. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. It used to be in the old days you would
get 15 years, you would probably serve about 3. Now in the
Federal system, you get 15 years, you probably serve 13 of
those.
Mr. Lappin. Pretty close.
Senator Sessions. Something like that. In your view--and I
will ask each of you this briefly, because my time is up--could
we reach a higher level of sophistication in identifying those
who deserve the longer periods of time and those who we could
take a chance on to allow shorter periods of sentencing? Mr.
Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. I believe we could. In fact, there are some
systems in place today that identify some individuals who we
think are going to be more successful in the community and as a
result can have some time off of their sentence. These are
typically nonviolent offenders, and I will use the drug
legislation that was passed a few years ago as an example.
Senator Sessions. The crack dealer who has got 9 years or
15 years, you are not going to be able to let him out in 7 if
you think there is going to be a good chance--
Mr. Lappin. Not if they have violence in their background.
Again, this is primarily for nonviolent offenders. This is the
only program that we have that really gives the inmate an
opportunity to serve less time given their performance in
prison and their background.
Senator Sessions. All right.
Mr. Lappin. So I think we could do a better job of that.
Senator Sessions. And at the front end and at the back end.
Mr. Lappin. Yes, we could.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Sedgwick?
Mr. Sedgwick. I think the Bureau of Justice Statistics can
improve on our ability to provide benchmarks on re-entry
success and recidivism avoidance.
Senator Sessions. And I would agree. I believe it was Ms.
Leary that said--or somebody. Research is important. We need
the best information we can get. Mr. Ludwig, briefly? My time
is over.
Mr. Ludwig. I agree with my fellow panelists.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Ms. Leary?
Ms. Leary. I do as well, and when I was at OJP, I saw the
benefit of the research and the studies that were done. And if
we want to base what we do on what we know, we have to fund
research and development.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing. I think it is very valuable.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions and thank you
all. The topic is an extraordinarily complex one, and we have
started the process of trying to analyze how to cope with it.
And if we had some handle as to the specifics on recidivism to
measure what education, job training, and literacy training, et
cetera, would prevent recidivism, we would be able to move
ahead. And we ought to see if we cannot get a handle on the
unreported crimes, which is hard. We ought to try to get a
handle on the intangible costs. And if you can document your $2
trillion figure, Professor Ludwig, we might have a lot of
support from casualty insurance companies and businesses which
lose hard dollars.
Thank you all, and that concludes our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.058