    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 1593

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 20, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-51

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    34-176 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2007
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
    HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         LAMAR SMITH, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    JERROLD NADLER, New York                 Wisconsin
    ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MAXINE WATERS, California            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      CHRIS CANNON, Utah
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   RIC KELLER, Florida
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               DARRELL ISSA, California
    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                STEVE KING, Iowa
    LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California           JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    [Vacant]

                Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                     Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                      ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    MAXINE WATERS, California            J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                Wisconsin
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    [Vacant]

                          Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel

                        Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 MARCH 20, 2007

                                                                       Page

                                  TEXT OF BILL

    H.R. 1593, the ``Second Chance Act of 2007''.....................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENT

    The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security...............................     1
    The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................    33
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
      Judiciary......................................................    35

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Re-Entry Services,
      Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation,
      Rockville, MD
      Oral Testimony.................................................    36
      Prepared Statement.............................................    39
    Mr. Roger H. Peters, Ph.D., Chairman and Professor, Department of
      Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida,
      Tampa, FL
      Oral Testimony.................................................    48
      Prepared Statement.............................................    51
    Mr. Steve Lufburrow, President and CEO, Goodwill Industries of
      Houston, Houston, TX
      Oral Testimony.................................................    60
      Prepared Statement.............................................    61
    Mr. Jack G. Cowley, National Director, Alpha for Prisons and Re-
      Entry, Wichita Falls, TX
      Oral Testimony.................................................    63
      Prepared Statement.............................................    65
    Mr. George T. McDonald, President, Doe Fund, Inc., New York, NY
      Oral Testimony.................................................    66
      Prepared Statement.............................................    68

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
      Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary...........................    36

                                    APPENDIX

    Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................    86

                           SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                  and Homeland Security
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
    C. Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Nadler, Johnson, Jackson
    Lee, Conyers, Forbes, Gohmert, Coble, Chabot, and Lungren.
        Staff present: Keenan Kelly, Majority Counsel; Michael
    Volkov, Minority Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional
    Staff Member.
        Mr. Scott. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        And I want to apologize for the delay. We have votes on the
    floor. And hopefully we will have a little time without
    interruption.
        I am pleased to welcome you to the hearing on the Second
    Chance Act of 2007.
        [The text of the bill, H.R. 1593, follows:]

    HR 1593 IH  ___________________________________________________

                                                                          I
    110th CONGRESS
        1st Session

                                    H. R. 1593

    To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the
        community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
        1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation, and for other
        purposes.
                                   __________
                        IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                 March 20, 2007
    Mr. Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coble,
        Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
        Forbes, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Chabot, Ms. Jackson-Lee
        of Texas, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Ms. Clarke)
        introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
        on the Judiciary
                                   __________

                                     A BILL

    To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the
        community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
        1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation, and for other
        purposes.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Second Chance Act of 2007: Community
    Safety Through Recidivism Prevention'' or the ``Second Chance Act of
    2007''.

    SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

        The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

        Sec. 1. Short title.
        Sec. 2. Table of contents.
        Sec. 3. Findings.
        Sec. 4. Submission of reports to Congress.

       TITLE I--AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE
                              STREETS ACT OF 1968

                 Subtitle A--Improvements to Existing Programs

        Sec. 101. Reauthorization of adult and juvenile offender State and
    local reentry demonstration projects.
        Sec. 102. Improvement of the residential substance abuse treatment
    for State offenders program.

      Subtitle B--New and Innovative Programs to Improve Offender Reentry
                                    Services

        Sec. 111. State and local reentry courts.
        Sec. 112. Grants for comprehensive and continuous offender reentry
    task forces.
        Sec. 113. Prosecution drug treatment alternative to prison
    programs.
        Sec. 114. Grants for family substance abuse treatment alternatives
    to incarceration.
        Sec. 115. Prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated
    parents of minor children.
        Sec. 116. Grant programs relating to educational methods at
    prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.

                       Subtitle C--Conforming Amendments

        Sec. 121. Use of violent offender truth-in-sentencing grant funding
    for demonstration project activities.

         TITLE II--ENHANCED DRUG TREATMENT AND MENTORING GRANT PROGRAMS

                           Subtitle A--Drug Treatment

        Sec. 201. Grants for demonstration programs to reduce drug use and
    recidivism in long-term substance abusers.
        Sec. 202. Grants for demonstration programs by local partnerships
    to reduce illegal drug demand by providing drug treatment.
        Sec. 203. Offender drug treatment incentive grants.
        Sec. 204. Ensuring availability and delivery of new pharmacological
    drug treatment services.
        Sec. 205. Study of effectiveness of depot naltrexone for heroin
    addiction.

                            Subtitle B--Job Training

        Sec. 211. Technology careers training demonstration grants.

                             Subtitle C--Mentoring

        Sec. 221. Mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations.
        Sec. 222. Bureau of Prisons policy on mentoring contacts.

                 Subtitle D--Administration of Justice Reforms

                 Chapter 1--Improving Federal Offender Reentry

        Sec. 231. Federal prisoner reentry program.
        Sec. 232. Identification and release assistance for Federal
    prisoners.
        Sec. 233. Improved reentry procedures for Federal prisoners.
        Sec. 234. Duties of the Bureau of Prisons.
        Sec. 235. Authorization of appropriations for Bureau of Prisons.
        Sec. 236. Encouragement of employment of former prisoners.
        Sec. 237. Elderly nonviolent offender pilot program.

                          Chapter 2--Reentry Research

        Sec. 241. Offender reentry research.
        Sec. 242. Grants to study parole or post-incarceration supervision
    violations and revocations.
        Sec. 243. Addressing the needs of children of incarcerated parents.

                Chapter 3--Correctional Reforms to Existing Law

        Sec. 251. Clarification of authority to place prisoner in community
    corrections.
        Sec. 252. Residential drug abuse program in Federal prisons.
        Sec. 253. Medical care for prisoners.
        Sec. 254. Contracting for services for post-conviction supervision
    offenders.

    SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

        Congress finds the following:
                (1) In 2002, over 7,000,000 people were incarcerated in
            Federal, State, or local prisons or jails, or were under parole
            or court supervision. Nearly 650,000 people are released from
            Federal and State incarceration into communities nationwide
            each year.
                (2) There are over 3,200 jails throughout the United
            States, the vast majority of which are operated by county
            governments. Each year, these jails will release more than
            10,000,000 people back into the community.
                (3) Nearly \2/3\ of released State prisoners are expected
            to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3
            years after release.
                (4) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
            expenditures on corrections alone increased from $9,000,000,000
            in 1982 to $59,600,000,000 in 2002. These figures do not
            include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take
            into account the cost to victims.
                (5) The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
            provided $139,000,000 in funding for State governments to
            develop and implement education, job training, mental health
            treatment, and substance abuse treatment for serious and
            violent offenders. This Act seeks to build upon the innovative
            and successful State reentry programs developed under the
            Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which
            terminated after fiscal year 2005.
                (6) Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a
            parent in a Federal or State correctional facility increased by
            more than 100 percent, from approximately 900,000 to
            approximately 2,000,000. According to the Bureau of Prisons,
            there is evidence to suggest that inmates who are connected to
            their children and families are more likely to avoid negative
            incidents and have reduced sentences.
                (7) Released prisoners cite family support as the most
            important factor in helping them stay out of prison. Research
            suggests that families are an often underutilized resource in
            the reentry process.
                (8) Approximately 100,000 juveniles (ages 17 years and
            under) leave juvenile correctional facilities, State prison, or
            Federal prison each year. Juveniles released from secure
            confinement still have their likely prime crime years ahead of
            them. Juveniles released from secure confinement have a
            recidivism rate ranging from 55 to 75 percent. The chances that
            young people will successfully transition into society improve
            with effective reentry and aftercare programs.
                (9) Studies have shown that between 15 percent and 27
            percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon
            release from prison.
                (10) Fifty-seven percent of Federal and 70 percent of State
            inmates used drugs regularly before going to prison, and the
            Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled ``Trends in State
            Parole, 1990-2000'' estimates the use of drugs or alcohol
            around the time of the offense that resulted in the
            incarceration of the inmate at as high as 84 percent.
                (11) Family-based treatment programs have proven results
            for serving the special populations of female offenders and
            substance abusers with children. An evaluation by the Substance
            Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of family-based
            treatment for substance-abusing mothers and children found that
            6 months after such treatment, 60 percent of the mothers
            remained alcohol and drug free, and drug-related offenses
            declined from 28 percent to 7 percent. Additionally, a 2003
            evaluation of residential family-based treatment programs
            revealed that 60 percent of mothers remained clean and sober 6
            months after treatment, criminal arrests declined by 43
            percent, and 88 percent of the children treated in the program
            with their mothers remained stabilized.
                (12) A Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis indicated that
            only 33 percent of Federal inmates and 36 percent of State
            inmates had participated in residential in-patient treatment
            programs for alcohol and drug abuse 12 months before their
            release. Further, over \1/3\ of all jail inmates have some
            physical or mental disability and 25 percent of jail inmates
            have been treated at some time for a mental or emotional
            problem.
                (13) State Substance Abuse Agency Directors, also known as
            Single State Authorities (SSAs), manage the Nation's publicly
            funded substance abuse prevention and treatment systems. SSAs
            are responsible for planning and implementing State-wide
            systems of care that provide clinically appropriate substance
            abuse services. Given the high rate of substance use disorders
            among offenders reentering our communities, successful reentry
            programs require close interaction and collaboration with SSAs
            when planning, implementing, and evaluating reentry programs.
                (14) According to the National Institute of Literacy, 70
            percent of all prisoners function at the lowest literacy
            levels.
                (15) Less than 32 percent of State prison inmates have a
            high school diploma or a higher level of education, compared to
            82 percent of the general population.
                (16) Approximately 38 percent of inmates who completed 11
            years or less of school were not working before entry into
            prison.
                (17) The percentage of State prisoners participating in
            educational programs decreased by more than 8 percent between
            1991 and 1997, despite growing evidence of how educational
            programming while incarcerated reduces recidivism.
                (18) The National Institute of Justice has found that 1
            year after release, up to 60 percent of former inmates are not
            employed.
                (19) Transitional jobs programs have proven to help people
            with criminal records to successfully return to the workplace
            and to the community, and therefore can reduce recidivism.

    SEC. 4. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

        Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall
    submit all reports received under this Act and the amendments made by
    this Act during the preceding year to the Committee on the Judiciary of
    the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
    Representatives.

       TITLE I--AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE
                              STREETS ACT OF 1968

                 Subtitle A--Improvements to Existing Programs

    SEC. 101. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND
                        LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

        (a) Adult and Juvenile Offender Demonstration Projects
    Authorized.--Section 2976(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
    Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(b)) is amended by striking
    paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting the following:
                ``(1) establishing or improving the system or systems under
            which--
                        ``(A) correctional agencies and other criminal and
                    juvenile justice agencies of the grant recipient
                    develop and carry out plans to facilitate the reentry
                    into the community of each offender in the custody of
                    the jurisdiction involved;
                        ``(B) the supervision and services provided to
                    offenders in the custody of the jurisdiction involved
                    are coordinated with the supervision and services
                    provided to offenders after reentry into the community,
                    including coordination with Comprehensive and
                    Continuous Offender Reentry Task Forces under section
                    2902 or with similar planning groups;
                        ``(C) the efforts of various public and private
                    entities to provide supervision and services to
                    offenders after reentry into the community, and to
                    family members of such offenders, are coordinated; and
                        ``(D) offenders awaiting reentry into the community
                    are provided with documents (such as identification
                    papers, referrals to services, medical prescriptions,
                    job training certificates, apprenticeship papers, and
                    information on obtaining public assistance) useful in
                    achieving a successful transition from prison, jail, or
                    a juvenile facility;
                ``(2) carrying out programs and initiatives by units of
            local government to strengthen reentry services for individuals
            released from local jails, including coordination with
            Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Forces under
            section 2902 or with similar planning groups;
                ``(3) assessing the literacy, educational, and vocational
            needs of offenders in custody and identifying and providing
            services appropriate to meet those needs, including follow-up
            assessments and long-term services;
                ``(4) facilitating collaboration among corrections
            (including community corrections), technical schools, community
            colleges, businesses, nonprofit, and the workforce development
            and employment service sectors--
                        ``(A) to promote, where appropriate, the employment
                    of people released from prison, jail, or a juvenile
                    facility through efforts such as educating employers
                    about existing financial incentives;
                        ``(B) to facilitate the creation of job
                    opportunities, including transitional jobs and time-
                    limited subsidized work experience (where appropriate);
                        ``(C) to connect offenders to employment (including
                    supportive employment and employment services before
                    their release to the community), provide work supports
                    (including transportation and retention services), as
                    appropriate, and identify labor market needs to ensure
                    that education and training are appropriate; and
                        ``(D) to address obstacles to employment that are
                    not directly connected to the offense committed and the
                    risk that the offender presents to the community and
                    provide case management services as necessary to
                    prepare offenders for jobs that offer the potential for
                    advancement and growth;
                ``(5) providing offenders with education, job training,
            responsible parenting and healthy relationship skills training
            (designed specifically to address the needs of fathers and
            mothers in or transitioning from prison, jail, or a juvenile
            facility), English literacy education, work experience
            programs, self-respect and life skills training, and other
            skills useful in achieving a successful transition from prison,
            jail, or a juvenile facility;
                ``(6) providing structured post-release housing and
            transitional housing (including group homes for recovering
            substance abusers (with appropriate safeguards that may include
            single-gender housing)) through which offenders are provided
            supervision and services immediately following reentry into the
            community;
                ``(7) assisting offenders in securing permanent housing
            upon release or following a stay in transitional housing;
                ``(8) providing substance abuse treatment and services,
            including providing a full continuum of substance abuse
            treatment services that encompasses outpatient services,
            comprehensive residential services and recovery, and recovery
            home services to offenders reentering the community from
            prison, jail, or a juvenile facility;
                ``(9) expanding family-based drug treatment centers that
            offer family-based comprehensive treatment services for parents
            and their children as a complete family unit, as appropriate to
            the safety, security, and well-being of the family;
                ``(10) encouraging collaboration among juvenile and adult
            corrections, community corrections, and community health
            centers to allow access to affordable and quality primary
            health care for offenders during the period of transition from
            prison, jail, or a juvenile facility;
                ``(11) providing or facilitating health care services to
            offenders (including substance abuse screening, treatment, and
            aftercare, infectious disease screening and treatment, and
            screening, assessment, and aftercare for mental health
            services) to protect the communities in which offenders will
            live;
                ``(12) enabling prison, jail, or juvenile facility mentors
            of offenders to remain in contact with those offenders
            (including through the use of all available technology) while
            in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility and after reentry into
            the community, and encouraging the involvement of prison, jail,
            or a juvenile facility mentors in the reentry process;
                ``(13) systems under which family members of offenders are
            involved in facilitating the successful reentry of those
            offenders into the community (as appropriate to the safety,
            security, and well-being of the family), including removing
            obstacles to the maintenance of family relationships while the
            offender is in custody, strengthening the family's capacity to
            function as a stable living situation during reentry, and
            involving family members in the planning and implementation of
            the reentry process;
                ``(14) creating, developing, or enhancing offender and
            family assessments, curricula, policies, procedures, or
            programs (including mentoring programs)--
                        ``(A) to help offenders with a history or
                    identified risk of domestic violence, dating violence,
                    sexual assault, or stalking reconnect with their
                    families and communities (as appropriate to the safety,
                    security, and well-being of the family), and become
                    non-abusive parents or partners; and
                        ``(B) under which particular attention is paid to
                    the safety of children affected and the confidentiality
                    concerns of victims, and efforts are coordinated with
                    victim service providers;
                ``(15) maintaining the parent-child relationship, as
            appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being of the
            child as determined by the relevant corrections and child
            protective services agencies, including--
                        ``(A) implementing programs in correctional
                    agencies to include the collection of information
                    regarding any dependent children of an offender as part
                    of intake procedures, including the number, age, and
                    location or jurisdiction of such children;
                        ``(B) connecting those identified children with
                    services as appropriate and needed;
                        ``(C) carrying out programs (including mentoring)
                    that support children of incarcerated parents,
                    including those in foster care and those cared for by
                    grandparents or other relatives (which is commonly
                    referred to as kinship care);
                        ``(D) developing programs and activities (including
                    mentoring) that support parent-child relationships, as
                    appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being of
                    the family, including technology to promote the parent-
                    child relationship and to facilitate participation in
                    parent-teacher conferences, books on tape programs,
                    family days, and visitation areas for children while
                    visiting an incarcerated parent;
                        ``(E) helping incarcerated parents to learn
                    responsible parenting and healthy relationship skills;
                        ``(F) addressing visitation obstacles to children
                    of an incarcerated parent, such as the location of
                    facilities in remote areas, telephone costs, mail
                    restrictions, and visitation policies; and
                        ``(G) identifying and addressing obstacles to
                    collaborating with child welfare agencies in the
                    provision of services jointly to offenders in custody
                    and to the children of such offenders;
                ``(16) carrying out programs for the entire family unit,
            including the coordination of service delivery across agencies;
                ``(17) facilitating and encouraging timely and complete
            payment of restitution and fines by offenders to victims and
            the community;
                ``(18) providing services as necessary to victims upon
            release of offenders, including security services and
            counseling, and facilitating the inclusion of victims, on a
            voluntary basis, in the reentry process;
                ``(19) establishing or expanding the use of reentry courts
            and other programs to--
                        ``(A) monitor offenders returning to the community;
                        ``(B) provide returning offenders with--
                                ``(i) drug and alcohol testing and
                            treatment; and
                                ``(ii) mental and medical health assessment
                            and services;
                        ``(C) facilitate restorative justice practices and
                    convene family or community impact panels, family
                    impact educational classes, victim impact panels, or
                    victim impact educational classes;
                        ``(D) provide and coordinate the delivery of other
                    community services to offenders, including--
                                ``(i) employment training;
                                ``(ii) education;
                                ``(iii) housing assistance;
                                ``(iv) children and family support, to
                            include responsible parenting and healthy
                            relationship skill training designed
                            specifically to address the needs of
                            incarcerated and transitioning fathers and
                            mothers;
                                ``(v) conflict resolution skills training;
                                ``(vi) family violence intervention
                            programs; and
                                ``(vii) other appropriate services; and
                        ``(E) establish and implement graduated sanctions
                    and incentives;
                ``(20) developing a case management reentry program that--
                        ``(A) provides services to eligible veterans, as
                    defined by the Attorney General; and
                        ``(B) provides for a reentry service network solely
                    for such eligible veterans that coordinates community
                    services and veterans services for offenders who
                    qualify for such veterans services; and
                ``(21) protecting communities against dangerous offenders,
            including--
                        ``(A) conducting studies in collaboration with
                    Federal research initiatives in effect on the date of
                    enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007, to
                    determine which offenders are returning to prisons,
                    jails, and juvenile facilities and which of those
                    returning offenders represent the greatest risk to
                    community safety;
                        ``(B) developing and implementing procedures to
                    assist relevant authorities in determining when release
                    is appropriate and in the use of data to inform the
                    release decision;
                        ``(C) using validated assessment tools to assess
                    the risk factors of returning inmates, and developing
                    or adopting procedures to ensure that dangerous felons
                    are not released from prison prematurely; and
                        ``(D) developing and implementing procedures to
                    identify efficiently and effectively those violators of
                    probation, parole, or post-incarceration supervision
                    who represent the greatest risk to community safety.''.
        (b) Juvenile Offender Demonstration Projects Reauthorized.--Section
    2976(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
    U.S.C. 3797w(c)) is amended by striking ``may be expended for'' and all
    that follows through the period at the end and inserting ``may be
    expended for any activity referred to in subsection (b).''.
        (c) Applications; Requirements; Priorities; Performance
    Measurements.--Section 2976 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
    Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w) is further amended--
                (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (o); and
                (2) by striking subsections (d) through (g) and inserting
            the following:
        ``(d) Applications.--A State, unit of local government, territory,
    or Indian tribe, or combination thereof, desiring a grant under this
    section shall submit an application to the Attorney General that--
                ``(1) contains a reentry strategic plan, as described in
            subsection (h), which describes the long-term strategy and
            incorporates a detailed implementation schedule, including the
            plans of the applicant to pay for the program after the Federal
            funding is discontinued;
                ``(2) identifies the local government role and the role of
            governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that will be
            coordinated by, and that will collaborate on, the offender
            reentry strategy of the applicant and certifies their
            involvement; and
                ``(3) describes the evidence-based methodology and outcome
            measures that will be used to evaluate the program, and
            specifically explains how such measurements will provide valid
            measures of the program's impact.
        ``(e) Requirements.--The Attorney General may make a grant to an
    applicant under this section only if the application--
                ``(1) reflects explicit support of the chief executive
            officer of the State, unit of local government, territory, or
            Indian tribe applying for a grant under this section;
                ``(2) provides extensive discussion of the role of State
            corrections departments, community corrections agencies,
            juvenile justice systems, or local jail systems in ensuring
            successful reentry of offenders into their communities;
                ``(3) provides extensive evidence of collaboration with
            State and local government agencies overseeing health, housing,
            child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services,
            and employment services, and with local law enforcement;
                ``(4) provides a plan for analysis of the statutory,
            regulatory, rules-based, and practice-based hurdles to
            reintegration of offenders into the community; and
                ``(5) includes the use of a State, local, territorial, or
            tribal task force, described in subsection (i), to carry out
            the activities funded under the grant.
        ``(f) Priority Considerations.--The Attorney General shall give
    priority to grant applications under this section that best--
                ``(1) focus initiative on geographic areas with a
            disproportionate population of offenders released from prisons,
            jails, and juvenile facilities;
                ``(2) include--
                        ``(A) input from nonprofit organizations, in any
                    case where relevant input is available and appropriate
                    to the grant application;
                        ``(B) consultations with crime victims and
                    offenders who are released from prisons, jails, and
                    juvenile facilities; and
                        ``(C) coordination with families of offenders;
                ``(3) demonstrate effective case assessment and management
            abilities in order to provide comprehensive and continuous
            reentry, including--
                        ``(A) planning while offenders are in prison, jail,
                    or a juvenile facility, pre-release transition housing,
                    and community release;
                        ``(B) establishing pre-release planning procedures
                    to ensure that the eligibility of an offender for
                    Federal or State benefits upon release is established
                    prior to release, subject to any limitations in law,
                    and to ensure that offenders obtain all necessary
                    referrals for reentry services; and
                        ``(C) delivery of continuous and appropriate drug
                    treatment, medical care, job training and placement,
                    educational services, or any other service or support
                    needed for reentry;
                ``(4) review the process by which the applicant adjudicates
            violations of parole, probation, or supervision following
            release from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, taking into
            account public safety and the use of graduated, community-based
            sanctions for minor and technical violations of parole,
            probation, or supervision (specifically those violations that
            are not otherwise, and independently, a violation of law);
                ``(5) provide for an independent evaluation of reentry
            programs that include, to the maximum extent possible, random
            assignment and controlled studies to determine the
            effectiveness of such programs; and
                ``(6) target high-risk offenders for reentry programs
            through validated assessment tools.
        ``(g) Uses of Grant Funds.--
                ``(1) Federal share.--
                        ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in
                    subparagraph (B), the Federal share of a grant received
                    under this section may not exceed 75 percent of the
                    project funded under such grant in fiscal year 2008.
                        ``(B) Waiver.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if
                    the Attorney General--
                                ``(i) waives, in whole or in part, the
                            requirement of this paragraph; and
                                ``(ii) publishes in the Federal Register
                            the rationale for the waiver.
                ``(2) Supplement not supplant.--Federal funds received
            under this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant,
            non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for the
            activities funded under this section.
        ``(h) Reentry Strategic Plan.--
                ``(1) In general.--As a condition of receiving financial
            assistance under this section, each applicant shall develop a
            comprehensive strategic reentry plan that contains measurable
            annual and 5-year performance outcomes, and that uses, to the
            maximum extent possible, random assigned and controlled studies
            to determine the effectiveness of the program. One goal of the
            plan shall be to reduce the rate of recidivism (as defined by
            the Attorney General, consistent with the research on offender
            reentry undertaken by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) for
            offenders released from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility
            who are served with funds made available under this section.
                ``(2) Coordination.--In developing a reentry plan under
            this subsection, an applicant shall coordinate with communities
            and stakeholders, including persons in the fields of public
            safety, juvenile and adult corrections, housing, health,
            education, substance abuse, children and families, victims
            services, employment, and business and members of nonprofit
            organizations that can provide reentry services.
                ``(3) Measurements of progress.--Each reentry plan
            developed under this subsection shall measure the progress of
            the applicant toward increasing public safety by reducing rates
            of recidivism and enabling released offenders to transition
            successfully back into their communities.
        ``(i) Reentry Task Force.--
                ``(1) In general.--As a condition of receiving financial
            assistance under this section, each applicant shall establish
            or empower a Reentry Task Force, or other relevant convening
            authority, to--
                        ``(A) examine ways to pool resources and funding
                    streams to promote lower recidivism rates for returning
                    offenders and minimize the harmful effects of
                    offenders' time in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility
                    on families and communities of offenders by collecting
                    data and best practices in offender reentry from
                    demonstration grantees and other agencies and
                    organizations; and
                        ``(B) provide the analysis described in subsection
                    (e)(4).
                ``(2) Membership.--The task force or other authority under
            this subsection shall be comprised of--
                        ``(A) relevant State, tribal, territorial, or local
                    leaders; and
                        ``(B) representatives of relevant--
                                ``(i) agencies;
                                ``(ii) service providers;
                                ``(iii) nonprofit organizations; and
                                ``(iv) stakeholders.
        ``(j) Strategic Performance Outcomes.--
                ``(1) In general.--Each applicant shall identify in the
            reentry strategic plan developed under subsection (h), specific
            performance outcomes related to the long-term goals of
            increasing public safety and reducing recidivism.
                ``(2) Performance outcomes.--The performance outcomes
            identified under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to
            offenders released back into the community--
                        ``(A) reduction in recidivism rates, which shall be
                    reported in accordance with the measure selected by the
                    Director of the Bureau of Prisons under section
                    234(c)(2) of the Second Chance Act of 2007;
                        ``(B) reduction in crime;
                        ``(C) increased employment and education
                    opportunities;
                        ``(D) reduction in violations of conditions of
                    supervised release;
                        ``(E) increased child support;
                        ``(F) increased housing opportunities;
                        ``(G) reduction in drug and alcohol abuse; and
                        ``(H) increased participation in substance abuse
                    and mental health services.
                ``(3) Other outcomes.--A grantee under this section may
            include in their reentry strategic plan other performance
            outcomes that increase the success rates of offenders who
            transition from prison, jails, or juvenile facilities.
                ``(4) Coordination.--A grantee under this section shall
            coordinate with communities and stakeholders about the
            selection of performance outcomes identified by the applicant,
            and shall consult with the Attorney General for assistance with
            data collection and measurement activities as provided for in
            the grant application materials.
                ``(5) Report.--
                        ``(A) In general.--Each grantee under this section
                    shall submit an annual report to the Attorney General
                    that--
                                ``(i) identifies the progress of the
                            grantee toward achieving its strategic
                            performance outcomes; and
                                ``(ii) describes other activities conducted
                            by the grantee to increase the success rates of
                            the reentry population, such as programs that
                            foster effective risk management and treatment
                            programming, offender accountability, and
                            community and victim participation.
                        ``(B) Submission to congress.--On an annual basis,
                    the Attorney General shall submit all reports received
                    under this paragraph during the previous year to the
                    Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
                    Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
                    Representatives.
        ``(k) Performance Measurement.--
                ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation
            with grantees under this section, shall--
                        ``(A) identify primary and secondary sources of
                    information to support the measurement of the
                    performance indicators identified under this section;
                        ``(B) identify sources and methods of data
                    collection in support of performance measurement
                    required under this section;
                        ``(C) provide to all grantees technical assistance
                    and training on performance measures and data
                    collection for purposes of this section; and
                        ``(D) consult with the Substance Abuse and Mental
                    Health Services Administration and the National
                    Institute on Drug Abuse on strategic performance
                    outcome measures and data collection for purposes of
                    this section relating to substance abuse and mental
                    health.
                ``(2) Coordination.--The Attorney General shall coordinate
            with other Federal agencies to identify national and other
            sources of information to support performance measurement of
            grantees.
                ``(3) Standards for analysis.--Any statistical analysis of
            population data conducted pursuant to this section shall be
            conducted in accordance with the Federal Register Notice dated
            October 30, 1997, relating to classification standards.
        ``(l) Future Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
    this section in any fiscal year after the fiscal year in which a
    grantee receives a grant under this section, a grantee shall submit to
    the Attorney General such information as is necessary to demonstrate
    that--
                ``(1) the grantee has adopted a reentry plan that reflects
            input from nonprofit organizations, in any case where relevant
            input is available and appropriate to the grant application;
                ``(2) the reentry plan of the grantee includes performance
            measures to assess the progress of the grantee toward
            increasing public safety by reducing the rate at which
            individuals released from prisons, jails, or juvenile
            facilities who participate in the reentry system supported by
            Federal funds are recommitted to prisons, jails, or juvenile
            facilities; and
                ``(3) the grantee will coordinate with the Attorney
            General, nonprofit organizations (if relevant input from
            nonprofit organizations is available and appropriate), and
            other experts regarding the selection and implementation of the
            performance measures described in subsection (k).
        ``(m) National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource
    Center.--
                ``(1) Authority.--The Attorney General may, using amounts
            made available to carry out this subsection, make a grant to an
            eligible organization to provide for the establishment of a
            National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center.
                ``(2) Eligible organization.--An organization eligible for
            the grant under paragraph (1) is any national nonprofit
            organization approved by the Interagency Task Force on Federal
            Programs and Activities Relating to the Reentry of Offenders
            Into the Community, that provides technical assistance and
            training to, and has special expertise and broad, national-
            level experience in, offender reentry programs, training, and
            research.
                ``(3) Use of funds.--The organization receiving the grant
            under paragraph (1) shall establish a National Adult and
            Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center to--
                        ``(A) provide education, training, and technical
                    assistance for States, tribes, territories, local
                    governments, service providers, nonprofit
                    organizations, and corrections institutions;
                        ``(B) collect data and best practices in offender
                    reentry from demonstration grantees and others agencies
                    and organizations;
                        ``(C) develop and disseminate evaluation tools,
                    mechanisms, and measures to better assess and document
                    coalition performance measures and outcomes;
                        ``(D) disseminate information to States and other
                    relevant entities about best practices, policy
                    standards, and research findings;
                        ``(E) develop and implement procedures to assist
                    relevant authorities in determining when release is
                    appropriate and in the use of data to inform the
                    release decision;
                        ``(F) develop and implement procedures to identify
                    efficiently and effectively those violators of
                    probation, parole, or supervision following release
                    from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility who should be
                    returned to prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities and
                    those who should receive other penalties based on
                    defined, graduated sanctions;
                        ``(G) collaborate with the Interagency Task Force
                    on Federal Programs and Activities Relating to the
                    Reentry of Offenders Into the Community, and the
                    Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners;
                        ``(H) develop a national reentry research agenda;
                        ``(I) bridge the gap between reentry research and
                    practice by translating knowledge from research into
                    practical information; and
                        ``(J) establish a database to enhance the
                    availability of information that will assist offenders
                    in areas such as housing, employment, counseling,
                    mentoring, medical and mental health services,
                    substance abuse treatment, transportation, and daily
                    living skills.
                ``(4) Limit.--Of amounts made available to carry out this
            section, not more than 4 percent shall be available to carry
            out this subsection.
        ``(n) Administration.--Of amounts made available to carry out this
    section--
                ``(1) not more than 2 percent shall be available for
            administrative expenses in carrying out this section; and
                ``(2) not more than 2 percent shall be made available to
            the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness
            of the demonstration projects funded under this section, using
            a methodology that--
                        ``(A) includes, to the maximum extent feasible,
                    random assignment of offenders (or entities working
                    with such persons) to program delivery and control
                    groups; and
                        ``(B) generates evidence on which reentry
                    approaches and strategies are most effective.''.
        (d) Grant Authorization.--Section 2976(a) of the Omnibus Crime
    Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(a)) is amended by
    striking ``States, Territories'' and all that follows through the
    period at the end and inserting the following: ``States, local
    governments, territories, or Indian tribes, or any combination thereof,
    in partnership with stakeholders, service providers, and nonprofit
    organizations.''.
        (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2976(o) of the
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w),
    as so redesignated by subsection (c) of this section, is amended--
                (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$15,000,000 for fiscal
            year 2003'' and all that follows and inserting ``$65,000,000
            for fiscal year 2008, and $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.'';
            and
                (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
                ``(2) Limitation.--Of the amount made available to carry
            out this section in any fiscal year, not more than 3 percent or
            less than 2 percent may be used for technical assistance and
            training.''.

    SEC. 102. IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR
                        STATE OFFENDERS PROGRAM.

        (a) Requirement for Aftercare Component.--Section 1902(c) of the
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff-
    1(c)), is amended--
                (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting
            ``Requirement for Aftercare Component.--''; and
                (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
                ``(1) To be eligible for funding under this part, a State
            shall ensure that individuals who participate in the substance
            abuse treatment program established or implemented with
            assistance provided under this part will be provided with
            aftercare services, which may include case management services
            and a full continuum of support services that ensure providers
            furnishing services under the program are approved by the
            appropriate State or local agency, and licensed, if necessary,
            to provide medical treatment or other health services.''.
        (b) Definition.--Section 1904(d) of the Omnibus Crime Control and
    Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff-3(d)) is amended to read as
    follows:
        ``(d) Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program Defined.--In
    this part, the term `residential substance abuse treatment program'
    means a course of comprehensive individual and group substance abuse
    treatment services, lasting a period of at least 6 months, in
    residential treatment facilities set apart from the general population
    of a prison or jail, which may include the use of pharmacological
    treatment, where appropriate, that may extend beyond such period.''.
        (c) Requirement for Study and Report on Aftercare Services.--The
    Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, and in
    consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shall conduct a
    study on the use and effectiveness of funds used by the Department of
    Justice for aftercare services under section 1902(c) of the Omnibus
    Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by subsection
    (a) of this section, for offenders who reenter the community after
    completing a substance abuse program in prison or jail.

      Subtitle B--New and Innovative Programs to Improve Offender Reentry
                                    Services

    SEC. 111. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS.

        (a) In General.--Part FF of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
    and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w et seq.), as amended by
    section 101, is further amended by inserting at the end the following:

    ``SEC. 2978. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS.

        ``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Attorney General shall award grants,
    in accordance with this section, of not more than $500,000 to--
                ``(1) State and local courts; and
                ``(2) State agencies, municipalities, public agencies,
            nonprofit organizations, territories, and Indian tribes that
            have agreements with courts to take the lead in establishing a
            reentry court (as described in section 2976(b)(19)).
        ``(b) Use of Grant Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
    shall be administered in accordance with such guidelines, regulations,
    and procedures as promulgated by the Attorney General, and may be used
    to--
                ``(1) monitor juvenile and adult offenders returning to the
            community;
                ``(2) provide juvenile and adult offenders returning to the
            community with coordinated and comprehensive reentry services
            and programs such as--
                        ``(A) drug and alcohol testing and assessment for
                    treatment;
                        ``(B) assessment for substance abuse from a
                    substance abuse professional who is approved by the
                    State and licensed by the appropriate entity to provide
                    alcohol and drug addiction treatment, as appropriate;
                        ``(C) substance abuse treatment from a provider
                    that is approved by the State, and licensed, if
                    necessary, to provide medical and other health
                    services;
                        ``(D) health (including mental health) services and
                    assessment;
                        ``(E) aftercare and case management services that--
                                ``(i) facilitate access to clinical care
                            and related health services; and
                                ``(ii) coordinate with such clinical care
                            and related health services; and
                        ``(F) any other services needed for reentry;
                ``(3) convene community impact panels, victim impact
            panels, or victim impact educational classes;
                ``(4) provide and coordinate the delivery of community
            services to juvenile and adult offenders, including--
                        ``(A) housing assistance;
                        ``(B) education;
                        ``(C) employment training;
                        ``(D) conflict resolution skills training;
                        ``(E) batterer intervention programs; and
                        ``(F) other appropriate social services; and
                ``(5) establish and implement graduated sanctions and
            incentives.
        ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
    construed as preventing a grantee that operates a drug court under part
    EE at the time a grant is awarded under this section from using funds
    from such grant to supplement the drug court under part EE in
    accordance with paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b).
        ``(d) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this section,
    an entity described in subsection (a) shall, in addition to any other
    requirements required by the Attorney General, submit to the Attorney
    General an application that--
                ``(1) describes the program to be assisted under this
            section and the need for such program;
                ``(2) describes a long-term strategy and detailed
            implementation plan for such program, including how the entity
            plans to pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
                ``(3) identifies the governmental and community agencies
            that will be coordinated by the project;
                ``(4) certifies that--
                        ``(A) all agencies affected by the program,
                    including existing community corrections and parole
                    entities, have been appropriately consulted in the
                    development of the program;
                        ``(B) there will be appropriate coordination with
                    all such agencies in the implementation of the program;
                    and
                        ``(C) there will be appropriate coordination and
                    consultation with the Single State Authority for
                    Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the
                    Second Chance Act of 2007) of the State; and
                ``(5) describes the methodology and outcome measures that
            will be used to evaluate the program.
        ``(e) Matching Requirements.--The Federal share of a grant under
    this section may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of the project
    assisted by such grant unless the Attorney General--
                ``(1) waives, wholly or in part, the matching requirement
            under this subsection; and
                ``(2) publicly delineates the rationale for the waiver.
        ``(f) Annual Report.--Each entity receiving a grant under this
    section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each fiscal year in
    which funds from the grant are expended, a report, at such time and in
    such manner as the Attorney General may reasonably require, that
    contains--
                ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
            program assisted by the grant;
                ``(2) an assessment of whether the activities are meeting
            the need for the program identified in the application
            submitted under subsection (d); and
                ``(3) such other information as the Attorney General may
            require.
        ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
                ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
            $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out
            this section.
                ``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry
            out this section in any fiscal year--
                        ``(A) not more than 2 percent may be used by the
                    Attorney General for salaries and administrative
                    expenses; and
                        ``(B) not more than 5 percent nor less than 2
                    percent may be used for technical assistance and
                    training.''.

    SEC. 112. GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY TASK
                        FORCES.

        Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
    (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is further amended by inserting after part BB
    the following new part:

      ``PART CC--GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY
                                  TASK FORCES

    ``SEC. 2901. AUTHORIZATION.

        ``The Attorney General shall carry out a grant program under which
    the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of local government,
    territories, Indian tribes, and other public and private entities for
    the purpose of establishing and administering task forces (to be known
    as `Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Forces'), in
    accordance with this part.

    ``SEC. 2902. COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY TASK FORCES.

        ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this part, a Comprehensive and
    Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force is a planning group of a State,
    unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe that--
                ``(1) develops a community reentry plan, described in
            section 2903, for each juvenile and adult offender to be
            released from a correctional facility in the applicable
            jurisdiction;
                ``(2) supervises and assesses the progress of each such
            offender, with respect to such plan, starting on a date before
            the offender is released from a correctional facility and
            ending on the date on which the court supervision of such
            offender ends;
                ``(3) conducts a detailed assessment of the needs of each
            offender to address employment training, medical care, drug
            treatment, education, and any other identified need of the
            offender to assist in the offender's reentry;
                ``(4) demonstrates affirmative steps to implement such a
            community reentry plan by consulting and coordinating with
            other public and nonprofit entities, as appropriate;
                ``(5) establishes appropriate measurements for determining
            the efficacy of such community reentry plans by monitoring
            offender performance under such reentry plans;
                ``(6) complies with applicable State, local, territorial,
            and tribal rules and regulations regarding the provision of
            applicable services and treatment in the applicable
            jurisdiction; and
                ``(7) consults and coordinates with the Single State
            Authority for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of
            the Second Chance Act of 2007) and the criminal justice
            agencies of the State to ensure that offender reentry plans are
            coordinated and delivered in the most cost-effective manner, as
            determined by the Attorney General, in consultation with the
            grantee.
        ``(b) Consultation Required.--A Comprehensive and Continuous
    Offender Reentry Task Force for a county or other defined geographic
    area shall perform the duties described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
    subsection (a) in consultation with representatives of--
                ``(1) the criminal and juvenile justice and correctional
            facilities within the county or area;
                ``(2) the community health care services of the county or
            area;
                ``(3) the drug treatment programs of the county or area;
                ``(4) the employment opportunities available in the county
            or area;
                ``(5) housing opportunities available in the county or
            area; and
                ``(6) any other appropriate community services available in
            the county or area.

    ``SEC. 2903. COMMUNITY REENTRY PLAN DESCRIBED.

        ``For purposes of section 2902(a)(1), a community reentry plan for
    an offender is a plan relating to the reentry of the offender into the
    community and, according to the needs of the offender, shall--
                ``(1) identify employment opportunities and goals;
                ``(2) identify housing opportunities;
                ``(3) provide for any needed drug treatment;
                ``(4) provide for any needed mental health services;
                ``(5) provide for any needed health care services;
                ``(6) provide for any needed family counseling;
                ``(7) provide for offender case management programs or
            services; and
                ``(8) provide for any other service specified by the
            Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force as
            necessary for the offender.

    ``SEC. 2904. APPLICATION.

        ``To be eligible for a grant under this part, a State or other
    relevant entity shall submit to the Attorney General an application in
    such form and manner and at such time as the Attorney General
    specifies. Such application shall contain such information as the
    Attorney General specifies.

    ``SEC. 2905. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

        ``Nothing in this part shall be construed as supplanting or
    modifying a sentence imposed by a court, including any terms of
    supervision.

    ``SEC. 2906. REPORTS.

        ``An entity that receives funds under this part for a Comprehensive
    and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force during a fiscal year shall
    submit to the Attorney General, not later than a date specified by the
    Attorney General, a report that describes and evaluates the
    effectiveness of such Task Force during such fiscal year.

    ``SEC. 2907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

        ``There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out
    this section for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.

    SEC. 113. PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS.

        (a) Authorization.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
    Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended by section 112
    of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 2907 the
    following new part:

      ``PART DD--PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS

    ``SEC. 2911. GRANT AUTHORITY.

        ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to State
    and local prosecutors to develop, implement, or expand qualified drug
    treatment programs that are alternatives to imprisonment, in accordance
    with this section.
        ``(b) Qualified Drug Treatment Programs Described.--For purposes of
    this part, a qualified drug treatment program is a program--
                ``(1) that is administered by a State or local prosecutor;
                ``(2) that requires an eligible offender who is sentenced
            to participate in the program (instead of incarceration) to
            participate in a comprehensive substance abuse treatment
            program that is approved by the State and licensed, if
            necessary, to provide medical and other health services;
                ``(3) that requires an eligible offender to receive the
            consent of the State or local prosecutor involved to
            participate in such program;
                ``(4) that, in the case of an eligible offender who is
            sentenced to participate in the program, requires the offender
            to serve a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the crime
            involved if the prosecutor, in conjunction with the treatment
            provider, determines that the offender has not successfully
            completed the relevant substance abuse treatment program
            described in paragraph (2);
                ``(5) that provides for the dismissal of the criminal
            charges involved in an eligible offender's participation in the
            program if the offender is determined to have successfully
            completed the program;
                ``(6) that requires each substance abuse provider treating
            an eligible offender under the program to--
                        ``(A) make periodic reports of the progress of the
                    treatment of that offender to the State or local
                    prosecutor involved and to the appropriate court in
                    which the defendant was convicted; and
                        ``(B) notify such prosecutor and such court if the
                    offender absconds from the facility of the treatment
                    provider or otherwise violates the terms and conditions
                    of the program, consistent with Federal and State
                    confidentiality requirements; and
                ``(7) that has an enforcement unit comprised of law
            enforcement officers under the supervision of the State or
            local prosecutor involved, the duties of which shall include
            verifying an offender's addresses and other contacts, and, if
            necessary, locating, apprehending, and arresting an offender
            who has absconded from the facility of a substance abuse
            treatment provider or otherwise violated the terms and
            conditions of the program, consistent with Federal and State
            confidentiality requirements, and returning such offender to
            court for sentencing for the crime involved.

    ``SEC. 2912. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

        ``(a) In General.--A State or local prosecutor who receives a grant
    under this part shall use such grant for expenses of a qualified drug
    treatment program, including for the following expenses:
                ``(1) Salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other
            costs directly related to the operation of the program,
            including the enforcement unit.
                ``(2) Payments for substance abuse treatment providers that
            are approved by the State and licensed, if necessary, to
            provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment to eligible
            offenders participating in the program, including aftercare
            supervision, vocational training, education, and job placement.
                ``(3) Payments to public and nonprofit private entities
            that are approved by the State and licensed, if necessary, to
            provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment to offenders
            participating in the program.
        ``(b) Supplement and Not Supplant.--Grants made under this part
    shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that
    would otherwise be available for programs described in such subsection.

    ``SEC. 2913. APPLICATIONS.

        ``To request a grant under this part, a State or local prosecutor
    shall submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and
    containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably
    require. Each such application shall contain the certification of the
    State or local prosecutor that the program for which the grant is
    requested is a qualified drug treatment program in accordance with this
    part.

    ``SEC. 2914. FEDERAL SHARE.

        ``The Federal share of a grant made under this part shall not
    exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the qualified drug treatment
    program funded by such grant for the fiscal year for which the program
    receives assistance under this part.

    ``SEC. 2915. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

        ``The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent
    practicable, the distribution of grants under this part is equitable
    and includes State or local prosecutors--
                ``(1) in each State; and
                ``(2) in rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions.

    ``SEC. 2916. REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS.

        ``For each fiscal year, each recipient of a grant under this part
    during such fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney General a report
    with respect to the effectiveness of activities carried out using that
    grant. Each report shall include an evaluation in such form and
    containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably
    require. The Attorney General shall specify the dates on which such
    reports shall be submitted.

    ``SEC. 2917. DEFINITIONS.

        ``In this part:
                ``(1) State or local prosecutor.--The term `State or local
            prosecutor' means any district attorney, State attorney
            general, county attorney, or corporation counsel who has
            authority to prosecute criminal offenses under State or local
            law.
                ``(2) Eligible offender.--The term `eligible offender'
            means an individual who--
                        ``(A) has been convicted, pled guilty, or admitted
                    guilt with respect to a crime for which a sentence of
                    imprisonment is required and has not completed such
                    sentence;
                        ``(B) has never been charged with or convicted of
                    an offense, during the course of which--
                                ``(i) the person carried, possessed, or
                            used a firearm or dangerous weapon; or
                                ``(ii) there occurred the use of force
                            against the person of another, without regard
                            to whether any of the behavior described in
                            clause (i) or (ii) is an element of the offense
                            or for which the person is charged or
                            convicted;
                        ``(C) does not have one or more prior convictions
                    for a felony crime of violence involving the use or
                    attempted use of force against a person with the intent
                    to cause death or serious bodily harm; and
                        ``(D)(i) has received an assessment for alcohol or
                    drug addiction from a substance abuse professional who
                    is approved by the State and licensed by the
                    appropriate entity to provide alcohol and drug
                    addiction treatment, as appropriate; and
                        ``(ii) has been found to be in need of substance
                    abuse treatment because that offender has a history of
                    substance abuse that is a significant contributing
                    factor to that offender's criminal conduct.''.
        (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of title I of
    the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
    3793(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
                ``(26) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
            part DD such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
            2008 and 2009.''.

    SEC. 114. GRANTS FOR FAMILY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
                        INCARCERATION.

        Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (42
    U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is further amended by inserting after Part II the
    following new part:

    ``PART JJ--GRANTS FOR FAMILY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
                                 INCARCERATION

    ``SEC. 3001. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

        ``The Attorney General may make grants to States, units of local
    government, territories, and Indian tribes to develop, implement, and
    expand comprehensive and clinically-appropriate family-based substance
    abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for
    nonviolent parent drug offenders.

    ``SEC. 3002. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

        ``Grants made to an entity under section 3001 for a program
    described in such section may be used for the following:
                ``(1) Salaries, personnel costs, facility costs, and other
            costs directly related to the operation of the program.
                ``(2) Payments to providers of substance abuse treatment
            for providing treatment and case management to nonviolent
            parent drug offenders participating in the program, including
            comprehensive treatment for mental health disorders, parenting
            classes, educational classes, vocational training, and job
            placement.
                ``(3) Payments to public and nonprofit private entities to
            provide substance abuse treatment to nonviolent parent drug
            offenders participating in the program.

    ``SEC. 3003. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

        ``A program for which a grant is made under section 3001 shall
    comply with the following requirements:
                ``(1) The program shall ensure that all providers of
            substance abuse treatment are approved by the State and are
            licensed, if necessary, to provide medical and other health
            services.
                ``(2) The program shall provide for appropriate
            coordination and consultation with the Single State Authority
            for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the Second
            Chance Act of 2007) of the State in which the program is
            located.
                ``(3) The program shall consist of clinically-appropriate,
            comprehensive, and long-term family treatment, including the
            treatment of the nonviolent parent drug offender, the child of
            such offender, and any other appropriate member of the family
            of the offender.
                ``(4) The program shall be provided in a residential
            setting that is not a hospital setting or an intensive
            outpatient setting.
                ``(5) The program shall provide that if a nonviolent parent
            drug offender who participates in the program does not
            successfully complete the program the offender shall serve an
            appropriate sentence of imprisonment with respect to the
            underlying crime involved.
                ``(6) The program shall ensure that a determination is made
            as to whether or not a nonviolent drug offender has completed
            the substance abuse treatment program.
                ``(7) The program shall include the implementation of a
            system of graduated sanctions (including incentives) that are
            applied based on the accountability of the nonviolent parent
            drug offender involved throughout the course of the program to
            encourage compliance with the program.
                ``(8) The program shall develop and implement a reentry
            plan for each nonviolent parent drug offender that shall
            include reinforcement strategies for family involvement as
            appropriate, relapse strategies, support groups, placement in
            transitional housing, and continued substance abuse treatment,
            as needed.

    ``SEC. 3004. DEFINITIONS.

        ``In this part:
                ``(1) Nonviolent parent drug offenders.--The term
            `nonviolent parent drug offender' means an offender who is a
            parent of a minor and who is convicted of a drug (or drug-
            related) felony that is a nonviolent offense.
                ``(2) Nonviolent offense.--The term `nonviolent offense'
            has the meaning given such term under section 2991(a).

    ``SEC. 3005. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

        ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part
    $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.

    SEC. 115. PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR INCARCERATED
                        PARENTS OF MINOR CHILDREN.

        Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (42
    U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), is further amended--
                (1) by redesignating Part X at the end (relating to grants
            for sex offender apprehension and juvenile sex offender
            treatment) as Part KK; and
                (2) by adding at the end the following new part:

      ``PART LL--PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR INCARCERATED
                           PARENTS OF MINOR CHILDREN

    ``SEC. 3021. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

        ``The Attorney General may make grants to States, units of local
    government, territories, and Indian tribes to provide prison-based
    family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children.

    ``SEC. 3022. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

        ``An entity that receives a grant under this part shall use amounts
    provided under the grant to--
                ``(1) develop, implement, and expand prison-based family
            treatment programs in correctional facilities for incarcerated
            parents with minor children, excluding from the programs those
            parents with respect to whom there is reasonable evidence of
            domestic violence or child abuse;
                ``(2) coordinate the design and implementation of such
            programs between appropriate correctional facility
            representatives, the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse
            (as defined in section 201(e) of the Second Chance Act of
            2007), and other appropriate governmental agencies; and
                ``(3) develop and implement a pre-release assessment and a
            reentry plan for each incarcerated parent scheduled to be
            released to the community, and such plan shall include--
                        ``(A) a treatment program for the incarcerated
                    parent to receive continuous substance abuse treatment
                    services and related support services, as needed;
                        ``(B) a housing plan during transition from
                    incarceration to reentry, as needed;
                        ``(C) a vocational or employment plan, including
                    training and job placement services; and
                        ``(D) any other services necessary to provide
                    successful reentry into the community.

    ``SEC. 3023. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

        ``A prison-based family treatment program for incarcerated parents
    with respect to which a grant is made shall comply with the following
    requirements:
                ``(1) The program shall integrate techniques to assess the
            strengths and needs of immediate and extended family of the
            incarcerated parent to support a treatment plan of the
            incarcerated parent.
                ``(2) The program shall ensure that each participant in the
            program has access to consistent and uninterrupted care if
            transferred to a different correctional facility within the
            State or other relevant entity.
                ``(3) The program shall be located in an area separate from
            the general population of the prison or jail.

    ``SEC. 3024. APPLICATIONS.

        ``To be eligible for a grant under this part for a prison-based
    family treatment program, an entity described in section 3021 shall, in
    addition to any other requirement specified by the Attorney General,
    submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and manner
    and at such time as specified by the Attorney General. Such application
    shall include a description of the methods and measurements the entity
    will use for purposes of evaluating the program involved and such other
    information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.

    ``SEC. 3025. REPORTS.

        ``An entity that receives a grant under this part for a prison-
    based family treatment program during a fiscal year shall submit to the
    Attorney General, not later than a date specified by the Attorney
    General, a report that describes and evaluates the effectiveness of
    such program during such fiscal year. Such evaluation shall be based on
    evidence-based data and shall use the methods and measurements
    described in the application of the entity for purposes of evaluating
    the program.

    ``SEC. 3026. PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAM DEFINED.

        ``In this part, the term `prison-based family treatment program'
    means a program for incarcerated parents in a correctional facility
    that provides a comprehensive response to offender needs, including
    substance abuse treatment, child early intervention services, family
    counseling, legal services, medical care, mental health services,
    nursery and preschool, parenting skills training, pediatric care,
    physical therapy, prenatal care, sexual abuse therapy, relapse
    prevention, transportation, and vocational or GED training.

    ``SEC. 3027. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

        ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part
    $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.

    SEC. 116. GRANT PROGRAMS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS,
                        JAILS, AND JUVENILE FACILITIES.

        Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
    (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended by section 115 of this Act, is
    further amended by adding at the end the following new part:

     ``PART MM--GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS,
                         JAILS, AND JUVENILE FACILITIES

    ``SEC. 3031. GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS,
                        JAILS, AND JUVENILE FACILITIES.

        ``(a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General shall carry
    out a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to
    States, units of local government, territories, Indian tribes, and
    other public and private entities to--
                ``(1) evaluate methods to improve academic and vocational
            education for offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile
            facilities; and
                ``(2) identify, and make recommendations to the Attorney
            General regarding, best practices relating to academic and
            vocational education for offenders in prisons, jails, and
            juvenile facilities, based on the evaluation under paragraph
            (1).
        ``(b) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this section,
    a State or other entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the
    Attorney General an application in such form and manner and at such
    time as the Attorney General specifies. Such application shall contain
    such information as the Attorney General specifies.
        ``(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the last day of the
    final fiscal year for which an entity described in subsection (a)
    receives a grant under such subsection, such an entity shall submit to
    the Attorney General a detailed report of the aggregate findings and
    conclusions of the evaluation described in subsection (a)(1), and the
    recommendations to the Attorney General described in subsection (a)(2).
        ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated--
                ``(1) to carry out subsection (a)(1), $5,000,000 for each
            of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009; and
                ``(2) to carry out subsection (a)(2), $5,000,000 for each
            of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    ``SEC. 3032. GRANTS TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN PRISONS, JAILS,
                        AND JUVENILE FACILITIES.

        ``(a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General shall carry
    out a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to
    States, units of local government, territories, and Indian tribes for
    the purpose of improving the academic and vocational education programs
    available to offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.
        ``(b) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this section,
    an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney
    General an application in such form and manner and at such time as the
    Attorney General specifies. Such application shall contain such
    information as the Attorney General specifies.
        ``(c) Reports.--An entity that receives a grant under subsection
    (a) during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the
    following fiscal year, submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant.
        ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.''.

                       Subtitle C--Conforming Amendments

    SEC. 121. USE OF VIOLENT OFFENDER TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANT FUNDING FOR
                        DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES.

         Section 20102(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
    Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13702(a)) is amended--
                (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                (2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and
            inserting ``; and''; and
                (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
                ``(4) to carry out any activity referred to in section
            2976(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
            1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(b)).''.

         TITLE II--ENHANCED DRUG TREATMENT AND MENTORING GRANT PROGRAMS

                           Subtitle A--Drug Treatment

    SEC. 201. GRANTS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO REDUCE DRUG USE AND
                        RECIDIVISM IN LONG-TERM SUBSTANCE ABUSERS.

        (a) Awards Required.--The Attorney General shall make competitive
    grants to eligible partnerships, in accordance with this section, for
    the purpose of establishing demonstration programs to reduce the use of
    alcohol and other drugs by supervised long-term substance abusers
    during the period in which each such long-term substance abuser is in
    prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, and until the completion of
    parole or court supervision of such abuser.
        (b) Use of Grant Funds.--A grant made under subsection (a) to an
    eligible partnership for a demonstration program, shall be used--
                (1) to support the efforts of the agencies, organizations,
            and researchers included in the eligible partnership, with
            respect to the program;
                (2) to develop and implement a program for supervised long-
            term substance abusers during the period described in
            subsection (a), which shall include--
                        (A) alcohol and drug abuse assessments that--
                                (i) are provided by a State-approved
                            program; and
                                (ii) provide adequate incentives for
                            completion of a comprehensive alcohol or drug
                            abuse treatment program, including through the
                            use of graduated sanctions; and
                        (B) coordinated and continuous delivery of drug
                    treatment and case management services during such
                    period; and
                (3) to provide addiction recovery support services (such as
            job training and placement, peer support, mentoring, education,
            and other related services) to strengthen rehabilitation
            efforts for long-term substance abusers.
        (c) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under subsection (a)
    for a demonstration program, an eligible partnership shall submit to
    the Attorney General an application that--
                (1) identifies the role, and certifies the involvement, of
            each agency or organization involved in such partnership, with
            respect to the program;
                (2) includes a plan for using judicial or other criminal or
            juvenile justice authority to supervise the long-term substance
            abusers who are participating in a demonstration program under
            this section, including for--
                        (A) administering drug tests for such abusers on a
                    regular basis; and
                        (B) swiftly and certainly imposing an established
                    set of graduated sanctions for non-compliance with
                    conditions for reentry into the community relating to
                    drug abstinence (whether imposed as a pre-trial,
                    probation, or parole condition, or otherwise);
                (3) includes a plan to provide supervised long-term
            substance abusers with coordinated and continuous services that
            are based on evidence-based strategies that assist such abusers
            by providing such abusers with--
                        (A) drug treatment while in prison, jail, or a
                    juvenile facility;
                        (B) continued treatment during the period in which
                    each such long-term substance abuser is in prison,
                    jail, or a juvenile facility, and until the completion
                    of parole or court supervision of such abuser;
                        (C) addiction recovery support services;
                        (D) employment training and placement;
                        (E) family-based therapies;
                        (F) structured post-release housing and
                    transitional housing, including housing for recovering
                    substance abusers; and
                        (G) other services coordinated by appropriate case
                    management services;
                (4) includes a plan for coordinating the data
            infrastructures among the entities included in the eligible
            partnership and between such entities and the providers of
            services under the demonstration program involved (including
            providers of technical assistance) to assist in monitoring and
            measuring the effectiveness of demonstration programs under
            this section; and
                (5) includes a plan to monitor and measure the number of
            long-term substance abusers--
                        (A) located in each community involved; and
                        (B) who improve the status of their employment,
                    housing, health, and family life.
        (d) Reports to Congress.--
                (1) Interim report.--Not later than September 30, 2008, the
            Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report that
            identifies the best practices relating to the comprehensive and
            coordinated treatment of long-term substance abusers, including
            the best practices identified through the activities funded
            under this section.
                (2) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2009, the
            Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on the
            demonstration programs funded under this section, including on
            the matters specified in paragraph (1).
        (e) Definitions.--In this section:
                (1) Eligible partnership.--The term ``eligible
            partnership'' means a partnership that includes--
                        (A) the applicable Single State Authority for
                    Substance Abuse;
                        (B) the State, local, territorial, or tribal
                    criminal or juvenile justice authority involved;
                        (C) a researcher who has experience in evidence-
                    based studies that measure the effectiveness of
                    treating long-term substance abusers during the period
                    in which such abusers are under the supervision of the
                    criminal or juvenile justice system involved;
                        (D) community-based organizations that provide drug
                    treatment, related recovery services, job training and
                    placement, educational services, housing assistance,
                    mentoring, or medical services; and
                        (E) Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement
                    Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
                    Explosives, and United States Attorney's offices).
                (2) Long-term substance abuser.--The term ``long-term
            substance abuser'' means an offender, who--
                        (A) is in a prison, jail, or juvenile facility;
                        (B) has abused illegal drugs or alcohol for a
                    significant number of years; and
                        (C) is scheduled to be released from prison, jail,
                    or a juvenile facility within the next 24 months.
                (3) Single state authority for substance abuse.--The term
            ``Single State Authority for Substance Abuse'' means an entity
            designated by the Governor or chief executive officer of a
            State as the single State administrative authority responsible
            for the planning, development, implementation, monitoring,
            regulation, and evaluation of substance abuse services.
        (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO
                        REDUCE ILLEGAL DRUG DEMAND BY PROVIDING DRUG
                        TREATMENT.

        (a) Grant Awards Required.--The Attorney General shall make
    competitive awards for demonstration programs by eligible partnerships
    for the purpose of reducing illegal drug demand by providing for drug
    treatment upon request programs through evidence-based models of such
    programs that--
                (1) increase the accessibility of such a program to any
            individual who requests to participate in such program;
                (2) increase public awareness of the availability of such
            programs; and
                (3) decrease the cost of drug treatment.
        (b) Use of Award Amounts.--Grant amounts received under this
    section shall be used--
                (1) to support the efforts of the agencies, organizations,
            and researchers included in the eligible partnership;
                (2) to develop a program that provides drug treatment upon
            request--
                        (A) at no cost to an individual who participates in
                    the program; and
                        (B) within a reasonable period to any individual
                    that requests such treatment;
                (3) to increase awareness of the availability of such a
            program to any individual that may be interested in
            participating in such a program; and
                (4) to record the outcomes of the program developed.
        (c) Reports to Congress.--
                (1) Interim report.--Not later than September 30, 2008 the
            Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report that
            identifies the best practices in providing for drug treatment
            upon request programs, including the best practices identified
            through the activities funded under this section.
                (2) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2009, the
            Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on the
            demonstration programs funded under this section, including on
            the matters specified in paragraph (1).
        (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
                (1) Drug treatment upon request.--The term ``drug treatment
            upon request'' means a drug treatment program that provides to
            any individual who requests to participate in such program full
            availability and accessibility to such program without delay.
                (2) Eligible partnership.--The term ``eligible
            partnership'' means a working group whose application to the
            Attorney General--
                        (A) identifies the roles played, and certifies the
                    involvement of, two or more agencies or organizations,
                    which may include--
                                (i) State or local agencies (such as those
                            carrying out police, probation, prosecution,
                            courts, corrections, parole, or treatment
                            functions);
                                (ii) Federal agencies (such as the Drug
                            Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol,
                            Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and United
                            States Attorney offices); and
                                (iii) community-based organizations;
                        (B) includes a qualified researcher;
                        (C) includes a plan for identifying, with respect
                    to the date of the enactment of this Act--
                                (i) the availability, as of such date, of
                            each drug treatment upon request program;
                                (ii) the demand, as of such date, for drug
                            treatment that has not been met through
                            programs in existence before such date;
                                (iii) the ease and quality of access to
                            drug treatment, as of such date; and
                                (iv) the criteria that have influenced the
                            outcome of drug treatment upon request
                            programs; and
                        (D) includes a plan that describes the methodology
                    and outcome measures proposed for evaluating the impact
                    of each model used for a drug treatment upon request
                    program.
        (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 203. OFFENDER DRUG TREATMENT INCENTIVE GRANTS.

        (a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General shall carry out
    a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to
    States, units of local government, territories, and Indian tribes in an
    amount described in subsection (c) to improve the provision of drug
    treatment to offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.
        (b) Requirements for Application.--To be eligible to receive a
    grant under subsection (a) for a given fiscal year, an entity described
    in such subsection shall, in addition to any other requirements
    specified by the Attorney General, submit to the Attorney General an
    application that demonstrates that, with respect to offenders in
    prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities who require drug treatment and
    who are in the custody of the jurisdiction involved, during the
    previous fiscal year the entity provided drug treatment meeting
    standards set forth by the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse
    (as defined in section 201(e)) to a number of such offenders that is
    two times the number of such offenders to whom the entity provided such
    drug treatment in the fiscal year that was two years before such given
    fiscal year. Such application shall be submitted in such form and
    manner and at such time as specified by the Attorney General.
        (c) Allocation of Grant Amounts Based on Drug Treatment Percent
    Demonstrated.--In allocating grant amounts under this part, the
    Attorney General shall base the amount allocated to an entity for a
    fiscal year on the percent of offenders described in subsection (b) to
    whom the entity provided drug treatment in the previous fiscal year, as
    demonstrated by the entity in its application under such subsection.
        (d) Uses of Grants.--A grant awarded to an entity under subsection
    (a) shall be used--
                (1) for continuing and improving drug treatment programs
            provided at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities of such
            entity; and
                (2) to strengthen rehabilitation efforts for offenders by
            providing addiction recovery support services, such as job
            training and placement, education, peer support, mentoring, and
            other similar services.
        (e) Technical Assistance.--The Attorney General may provide
    technical assistance to any entity awarded a grant under this section
    to establish or expand drug treatment services under this section if
    such entity does not have any (or has only a few) prisons, jails, or
    juvenile facilities that offer such services.
        (f) Reports.--An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a)
    during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the
    following fiscal year, submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant.
        (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 204. ENSURING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY OF NEW PHARMACOLOGICAL
                        DRUG TREATMENT SERVICES.

        (a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General, through the
    National Institute of Justice, and in consultation with the National
    Institute on Drug Abuse and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration, shall carry out a grant program under which
    the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of local government,
    territories, Indian tribes, and public and private organizations to
    establish pharmacological drug treatment services as part of the
    available drug treatment programs being offered by such grantees to
    offenders who are in prison or jail.
        (b) Consideration of Pharmacological Treatments.--In awarding
    grants under this section to eligible entities, the Attorney General
    shall consider--
                (1) the number and availability of pharmacological
            treatments offered under the proposed or existing program
            involved; and
                (2) the participation of researchers who are familiar with
            evidence-based studies and are able to measure the
            effectiveness of such treatments using randomized trials.
        (c) Applications.--
                (1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant under this
            section, an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to
            the Attorney General an application in such form and manner and
            at such time as the Attorney General specifies.
                (2) Information required.--An application submitted under
            paragraph (1) shall--
                        (A) provide assurances that grant funds will be
                    used only toward a program that is created in
                    coordination with (or approved by) the Single State
                    Authority for Substance Abuse, as defined in section
                    201(e), of the State involved to ensure pharmacological
                    drug treatment services provided under such program are
                    clinically appropriate;
                        (B) demonstrate how pharmacological drug treatment
                    services offered under the proposed or existing program
                    are part of a clinically-appropriate and comprehensive
                    treatment plan; and
                        (C) contain such other information as the Attorney
                    General specifies.
        (d) Reports.--An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a)
    during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the
    following fiscal year, submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant.
        (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 205. STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPOT NALTREXONE FOR HEROIN
                        ADDICTION.

        (a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General, through the
    National Institute of Justice, and in consultation with the National
    Institute on Drug Abuse, shall carry out a grant program under which
    the Attorney General makes grants to public and private research
    entities (including consortia, single private research entities, and
    individual institutions of higher education) to evaluate the
    effectiveness of depot naltrexone for the treatment of heroin
    addiction.
        (b) Evaluation Program.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
    this section, an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the
    Attorney General an application that--
                (1) contains such information as the Attorney General
            specifies, including information that demonstrates that--
                        (A) the applicant conducts research at a private or
                    public institution of higher education;
                        (B) the applicant has an established or proposed
                    plan to work with parole officers or probation officers
                    for offenders who are under court supervision; and
                        (C) the evaluation described in subsection (a) will
                    measure the effectiveness of such treatments using
                    randomized trials; and
                (2) is in such form and manner and at such time as the
            Attorney General specifies.
        (c) Reports.--An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a)
    during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the
    following fiscal year, submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant.
        (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

                            Subtitle B--Job Training

    SEC. 211. TECHNOLOGY CAREERS TRAINING DEMONSTRATION GRANTS.

        (a) Authority To Make Grants.--From amounts made available to carry
    out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to States,
    units of local government, territories, and Indian tribes to provide
    technology career training to prisoners.
        (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) may be used
    for establishing a technology careers training program to train
    prisoners during the 3-year period before release from prison, jail, or
    a juvenile facility for technology-based jobs and careers.
        (c) Reports.--Not later than the last day of each fiscal year, an
    entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during the preceding
    fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant during the preceding
    fiscal year.
        (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

                             Subtitle C--Mentoring

    SEC. 221. MENTORING GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

        (a) Authority To Make Grants.--From amounts made available to carry
    out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to nonprofit
    organizations for the purpose of providing mentoring and other
    transitional services essential to reintegrating offenders into the
    community.
        (b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under subsection (a) may be
    used for--
                (1) mentoring adult and juvenile offenders during
            incarceration, through transition back to the community, and
            post-release;
                (2) transitional services to assist in the reintegration of
            offenders into the community; and
                (3) training regarding offender and victims issues.
        (c) Application; Priority Consideration.--
                (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
            this section, a nonprofit organization shall submit an
            application to the Attorney General based on criteria developed
            by the Attorney General.
                (2) Priority consideration.--Priority consideration shall
            be given to any application that--
                        (A) includes a plan to implement activities that
                    have been demonstrated effective in facilitating the
                    successful reentry of offenders; and
                        (B) provides for an independent evaluation that
                    includes, to the maximum extent feasible, random
                    assignment of offenders to program delivery and control
                    groups.
        (d) Strategic Performance Outcomes.--The Attorney General shall
    require each applicant under this section to identify specific
    performance outcomes related to the long-term goal of stabilizing
    communities by reducing recidivism (using a measure that is consistent
    with the research undertaken by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    pursuant to section 241(b)(6)), and reintegrating offenders into
    society.
        (e) Reports.--Not later than the last day of each fiscal year, an
    entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during the preceding
    fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney General a report that
    describes and assesses the uses of such grant during the preceding
    fiscal year and that identifies the progress of the grantee toward
    achieving its strategic performance outcomes.
        (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section
    $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 222. BUREAU OF PRISONS POLICY ON MENTORING CONTACTS.

        (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
    of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, in order to
    promote stability and continued assistance to offenders after release
    from prison, adopt and implement a policy to ensure that persons who
    provide mentoring services to incarcerated offenders are permitted to
    continue such services after the offender is released from prison. The
    policy shall permit the continuation of such mentoring services unless
    the Director can demonstrate that such services would be a significant
    security risk to the offender, incarcerated offenders, persons who
    provide such services, or any other person.
        (b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2008, the Director of the
    Bureau of Prisons shall submit to Congress a report on the extent to
    which the policy described in subsection (a) has been implemented and
    followed.

                 Subtitle D--Administration of Justice Reforms

                 CHAPTER 1--IMPROVING FEDERAL OFFENDER REENTRY

    SEC. 231. FEDERAL PRISONER REENTRY PROGRAM.

        (a) Establishment.--The Director of the Bureau of Prisons
    (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the ``Director'') shall
    establish a prisoner reentry program (referred to in this section as
    the ``Program'') to prepare prisoners for release and successful
    reentry into the community.
        (b) Program Elements.--The Program shall provide for the following,
    in accordance with this section:
                (1) Voluntary enrollment.--Voluntary enrollment for
            prisoners meeting enrollment criteria established by the
            Director, provided such criteria provides that a prisoner may
            not enroll in the Program any earlier than the first day of the
            two-year period preceding the prisoner's expected release date.
                (2) Program phases.--An initial institutional phase, a
            transitional institution phase, and a transitional community
            phase under subsection (c), during each of which each prisoner
            enrolled in the Program receives reentry education (as
            described in subsection (e)).
                (3) Program incentives.--Program incentives described in
            subsection (d) for prisoners meeting the phase requirements of
            the Program.
        (c) Program Phases.--The Program shall include the following
    phases:
                (1) Initial institutional phase.--An initial institutional
            phase for prisoners enrolled in the Program at each Federal
            institution and, to the extent feasible, in an area set apart
            from the general prison population.
                (2) Transitional institution phase.--A transitional
            institution phase at each Federal institution for prisoners
            that have completed the initial institutional phase but have
            not yet been released or placed in pre-release custody.
                (3) Transitional community phase.--A transitional community
            phase at each community corrections facility for prisoners that
            have completed the initial institutional phase, have remained
            eligible during the transitional institution phase, and have
            been transferred to a community corrections facility.
        (d) Program Incentives.--
                (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), under the
            Program a prisoner eligible under paragraph (2) for Program
            incentives may receive any of the following incentives:
                        (A) Temporary release for reentry preparation
                    purposes.
                        (B) The maximum allowable period in a community
                    corrections facility.
                        (C) Early release, but not earlier than the date
                    that is one year before the prisoner's original
                    scheduled release.
                        (D) Such other incentives as the Director considers
                    appropriate.
                (2) Eligibility for incentives.--
                        (A) Initial institutional phase.--To be eligible
                    for Program incentives during the initial institutional
                    phase, a prisoner must successfully complete 500 hours
                    of reentry education before the end of the one-year
                    period beginning on the date of the prisoner's
                    enrollment in the Program.
                        (B) Transitional institution phase.--To remain
                    eligible for Program incentives during the transitional
                    institution phase, a prisoner must successfully
                    complete two hours of reentry education during each
                    month--
                                (i) beginning after the month the prisoner
                            completes the initial institutional phase; and
                                (ii) ending before the month the prisoner
                            is released or placed in pre-release custody.
                        (C) Transitional community phase.--To remain
                    eligible for Program incentives during the transitional
                    community phase, a prisoner must successfully complete
                    one hour of reentry education during each month--
                                (i) beginning after the month of the
                            prisoner's transfer to a community corrections
                            facility; and
                                (ii) ending before the month the prisoner
                            is released.
                (3) Revocation of incentives.--If a prisoner fails to meet
            the eligibility requirements to receive Program incentives
            during a given phase of the Program, the Director may revoke
            any Program incentive granted to the prisoner.
                (4) Limitations.--
                        (A) Considering public safety.--When considering
                    whether to grant a Program incentive to a prisoner, the
                    Director shall take into account the prisoner's
                    behavior while imprisoned and history of criminal
                    conduct to determine whether granting such incentive
                    would endanger the safety of the public.
                        (B) Ineligibility under other provision of law.--
                    For purposes of this subsection, any prisoner who is
                    ineligible for a Program incentive by operation of any
                    other provision of law shall be ineligible for such
                    incentive.
        (e) Program Reentry Education.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2),
    reentry education shall include classes and activities designed to
    prepare prisoners for release and successful reentry into the
    community. Each such class or activity shall relate to one or more of
    the following categories:
                (1) Health and nutrition issues a prisoner may face after
            release.
                (2) Finding employment and preparation for reentry and
            assimilation into the workforce.
                (3) Dealing with personal money management and financial
            planning.
                (4) Familiarization with available community resources,
            including housing availability and public welfare benefits and
            services.
                (5) Familiarization with release procedures, including
            prisoner compliance with pre-release and release requirements.
                (6) Social skills, family relationships and development,
            and relapse prevention.
        (f) Definition.--For purposes of this section and section 232, the
    term ``prisoner'' means an individual committed to the custody of the
    Bureau of Prisons under section 3621 of title 18, United States Code.
    Such term does not include an individual confined in a non-Federal
    facility.

    SEC. 232. IDENTIFICATION AND RELEASE ASSISTANCE FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS.

        (a) Obtaining Identification.--The Director of the Bureau of
    Prisons shall assist prisoners in obtaining identification (including
    social security card, driver's license, or birth certificate) prior to
    release.
        (b) Assistance Developing Release Plan.--If a direct-release
    prisoner so requests, a representative of the United States Probation
    System shall, prior to the prisoner's release, help the prisoner
    develop a release plan.
        (c) Direct-Release Prisoner Defined.--In this section, the term
    ``direct-release prisoner'' means a prisoner who is scheduled for
    release and will not be placed in pre-release custody.

    SEC. 233. IMPROVED REENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS.

        The Attorney General shall take such steps as are necessary to
    modify the procedures and policies of the Department of Justice with
    respect to the transition of offenders from the custody of the Bureau
    of Prisons to the community--
                (1) to enhance case planning and implementation of reentry
            programs, policies, and guidelines; and
                (2) to improve such transition to the community, including
            placement of such individuals in community corrections
            facilities.

    SEC. 234. DUTIES OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS.

        (a) Duties of the Bureau of Prisons Expanded.--Section 4042(a) of
    title 18, United States Code, is amended--
                (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
                (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
            a semicolon; and
                (3) by adding at the end the following:
                ``(6) provide for pre-release planning procedures for
            prisoners to ensure eligibility for Federal and State benefits
            upon release (including benefits under the old-age, survivors,
            and disability insurance program under title II of the Social
            Security Act, the supplemental security income program under
            title XVI of such Act, the Medicare program under title XVIII
            of such Act, the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act,
            and a program of the Department of Veterans Affairs under title
            38) is established prior to release, subject to any limitations
            in law;
                ``(7) include as part of the standard intake procedures for
            offenders entering Federal custody the collection of
            information regarding the dependent children of such an
            offender, including the number, age, and residence of such
            children;
                ``(8) ensure that all policies, practices, and facilities
            of the Bureau of Prisons support the relationship between
            parent and child; and
                ``(9) identify and address the training needs of employees
            of the Bureau of Prisons with respect to the effect of
            incarceration on children, families, and communities, age-
            appropriate interactions, and community resources for the
            families of offenders.''.
        (b) Measuring the Removal of Obstacles to Reentry.--
                (1) Program required.--The Director shall carry out a
            program under which each institution within the Bureau of
            Prisons codes the reentry needs and deficits of inmates as
            identified by an assessment tool that is used to produce an
            individualized skills development plan for each inmate.
                (2) Tracking.--In carrying out the program under this
            subsection, the Director shall quantitatively track, by
            institution and Bureau-wide, the progress in responding to the
            reentry needs and deficits of individual inmates.
                (3) Annual report.--On an annual basis, the Director shall
            prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
            Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
            Representatives a report that documents the progress of each
            institution within the Bureau, and of the Bureau as a whole, in
            responding to the reentry needs and deficits of inmates. The
            report shall be prepared in a manner that groups institutions
            by security level to allow comparisons of similar institutions.
                (4) Evaluation.--The Director shall--
                        (A) implement a formal standardized process for
                    evaluating each institution's success in enhancing
                    skills and resources to assist in reentry; and
                        (B) ensure that--
                                (i) each institution is held accountable
                            for low performance under such an evaluation;
                            and
                                (ii) plans for corrective action are
                            developed and implemented as necessary.
        (c) Measuring and Improving Recidivism Outcomes.--
                (1) Annual report required.--
                        (A) In general.--At the end of each fiscal year,
                    the Director shall submit to the Committee on the
                    Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the
                    Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report
                    containing the statistics demonstrating the relative
                    reduction in recidivism for inmates released by the
                    Bureau of Prisons within that fiscal year and the 2
                    prior fiscal years, comparing inmates who participated
                    in major inmate programs (including residential drug
                    treatment, vocational training, and prison industries)
                    with inmates who did not participate in such programs.
                    Such statistics shall be compiled separately for each
                    such fiscal year.
                        (B) Scope.--A report under this paragraph is not
                    required to include statistics for a fiscal year that
                    begins before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                        (C) Contents.--Each report under this section shall
                    provide the recidivism statistics for the Bureau of
                    Prisons as a whole, and separately for each institution
                    of the Bureau.
                (2) Measure used.--In preparing the reports required by
            subsection (a), the Director shall, in consultation with the
            Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, select a measure
            for recidivism (such as rearrest, reincarceration, or any other
            valid, evidence-based measure) that the Director considers
            appropriate and that is consistent with the research undertaken
            by the Bureau of Justice Statistics pursuant to section
            241(b)(6).
                (3) Goals.--
                        (A) In general.--After the Director submits the
                    first report required by paragraph (1), the Director
                    shall establish goals for reductions in recidivism
                    rates and shall work to attain those goals.
                        (B) Contents.--The goals established under
                    subparagraph (A) shall use the relative reductions in
                    recidivism measured for the fiscal year covered by that
                    first report as a baseline rate, and shall include--
                                (i) a 5-year goal to increase, at a
                            minimum, the baseline relative reduction rate
                            by 2 percent within 5 fiscal years; and
                                (ii) a 10-year goal to increase, at a
                            minimum, the baseline relative reduction rate
                            by 5 percent within 10 fiscal years.
        (d) Format.--Any written information that the Bureau of Prisons
    provides to inmates for reentry planning purposes shall use common
    terminology and language.
        (e) Medical Care.--The Bureau of Prisons shall provide the United
    States Probation and Pretrial Services System with relevant information
    on the medical care needs and the mental health treatment needs of
    inmates scheduled for release from custody. The United States Probation
    and Pretrial Services System shall take this information into account
    when developing supervision plans in an effort to address the medical
    care and mental health care needs of such inmates. The Bureau of
    Prisons shall provide inmates with a sufficient amount of all necessary
    medications (which will normally consist of, at a minimum, a 2-week
    supply of such medications) upon release from custody.

    SEC. 235. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUREAU OF PRISONS.

        There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director to carry
    out sections 231, 232, 233, and 234 of this chapter, $5,000,000 for
    each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 236. ENCOURAGEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER PRISONERS.

        The Attorney General shall take such steps as are necessary to
    implement a program to educate employers about existing incentives for
    hiring former Federal, State, or local prisoners, including the Federal
    bonding program and tax credits.

    SEC. 237. ELDERLY NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PILOT PROGRAM.

        (a) Program Established.--
                (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3624 of title 18,
            United States Code, or any other provision of law, the Director
            shall conduct a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of
            removing each eligible elderly offender from a Bureau of Prison
            facility and placing such offender on home detention until the
            date on which the term of imprisonment to which the offender
            was sentenced expires.
                (2) Timing of placement in home detention.--
                        (A) In general.--In carrying out the pilot program
                    under paragraph (1), the Director shall--
                                (i) in the case of an offender who is
                            determined to be an eligible elderly offender
                            on or before the date specified in subparagraph
                            (B), place such offender on home detention not
                            later than 180 days after the date of the
                            enactment of this Act; and
                                (ii) in the case of an offender who is
                            determined to be an eligible elderly offender
                            after the date specified in subparagraph (B)
                            and before the date that is 3 years and 91 days
                            after the date of the enactment of this Act,
                            place such offender on home detention not later
                            than 90 days after the date of such
                            determination.
                        (B) Date specified.--For purposes of subparagraph
                    (A), the date specified in this subparagraph is the
                    date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of
                    this Act.
                (3) Violation of terms of home detention.--A violation by
            an eligible elderly offender of the terms of the home
            detention, including the commission of another Federal, State,
            or local crime, shall result in the removal of the offender
            from home detention and the return of the offender to the
            designated Bureau of Prisons institution in which the offender
            was imprisoned immediately before placement on home detention
            under paragraph (1).
        (b) Scope of Pilot Program.--
                (1) Participating designated facilities.--The pilot program
            under subsection (a) shall be conducted through at least 1
            Bureau of Prisons institution designated by the Director as
            appropriate for the pilot program.
                (2) Duration.--The pilot program shall be conducted during
            each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
        (c) Program Evaluation.--
                (1) In general.--The Director shall contract with an
            independent organization to monitor and evaluate the progress
            of each eligible elderly offender placed on home detention
            under subsection (a)(1) for the period such offender is on home
            detention during the duration described in subsection (b)(2).
                (2) Annual report.--The organization described in paragraph
            (1) shall annually submit to the Director and to Congress a
            report on the pilot program under subsection (a)(1), which
            shall include--
                        (A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot
                    program in providing a successful transition for
                    eligible elderly offenders from incarceration to the
                    community, including data relating to the recidivism
                    rates for such offenders; and
                        (B) the cost savings to the Federal Government
                    resulting from the early removal of such offenders from
                    incarceration.
                (3) Program adjustments.--Upon review of the report
            submitted under paragraph (2), the Director shall submit
            recommendations to Congress for adjustments to the pilot
            program, including its expansion to additional facilities.
        (d) Definitions.--In this section:
                (1) Eligible elderly offender.--The term ``eligible elderly
            offender'' means an offender in the custody of the Bureau of
            Prisons who--
                        (A) is not less than 60 years of age;
                        (B) is serving a term of imprisonment after
                    conviction for an offense other than a crime of
                    violence and has served the greater of 10 years or \1/
                    2\ of the term of imprisonment;
                        (C) has not been convicted in the past of any
                    Federal or State crime of violence;
                        (D) has not been determined by the Bureau of
                    Prisons, on the basis of information the Bureau uses to
                    make custody classifications, and in the sole
                    discretion of the Bureau, to have a history of
                    violence; and
                        (E) has not escaped, or attempted to escape, from a
                    Bureau of Prisons institution.
                (2) Home detention.--The term ``home detention'' has the
            same meaning given the term in the Federal Sentencing
            Guidelines, and includes detention in a nursing home or other
            residential long-term care facility.
                (3) Term of imprisonment.--The term ``term of
            imprisonment'' includes multiple terms of imprisonment ordered
            to run consecutively or concurrently, which shall be treated as
            a single, aggregate term of imprisonment for purposes of this
            section.
        (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

                          CHAPTER 2--REENTRY RESEARCH

    SEC. 241. OFFENDER REENTRY RESEARCH.

        (a) National Institute of Justice.--From amounts made available to
    carry out this Act, the National Institute of Justice may conduct
    research on juvenile and adult offender reentry, including--
                (1) a study identifying the number and characteristics of
            minor children who have had a parent incarcerated, and the
            likelihood of such minor children becoming involved in the
            criminal justice system some time in their lifetime;
                (2) a study identifying a mechanism to compare rates of
            recidivism (including rearrest, violations of parole,
            probation, post-incarceration supervision, and reincarceration)
            among States; and
                (3) a study on the population of offenders released from
            custody who do not engage in recidivism and the characteristics
            (housing, employment, treatment, family connection) of that
            population.
        (b) Bureau of Justice Statistics.--From amounts made available to
    carry out this Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics may conduct
    research on offender reentry, including--
                (1) an analysis of special populations, including prisoners
            with mental illness or substance abuse disorders, female
            offenders, juvenile offenders, offenders with limited English
            proficiency, and the elderly, that present unique reentry
            challenges;
                (2) studies to determine who is returning to prison, jail,
            or a juvenile facility and which of those returning prisoners
            represent the greatest risk to victims and community safety;
                (3) annual reports on the profile of the population coming
            out of prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities;
                (4) a national recidivism study every 3 years;
                (5) a study of parole, probation, or post-incarceration
            supervision violations and revocations; and
                (6) a study concerning the most appropriate measure to be
            used when reporting recidivism rates (whether rearrest,
            reincarceration, or any other valid, evidence-based measure).

    SEC. 242. GRANTS TO STUDY PAROLE OR POST-INCARCERATION SUPERVISION
                        VIOLATIONS AND REVOCATIONS.

        (a) Grants Authorized.--From amounts made available to carry out
    this section, the Attorney General may award grants to States to study
    and to improve the collection of data with respect to individuals whose
    parole or post-incarceration supervision is revoked, and which such
    individuals represent the greatest risk to victims and community
    safety.
        (b) Application.--As a condition of receiving a grant under this
    section, a State shall--
                (1) certify that the State has, or intends to establish, a
            program that collects comprehensive and reliable data with
            respect to individuals described in subsection (a), including
            data on--
                        (A) the number and type of parole or post-
                    incarceration supervision violations that occur with
                    the State;
                        (B) the reasons for parole or post-incarceration
                    supervision revocation;
                        (C) the underlying behavior that led to the
                    revocation; and
                        (D) the term of imprisonment or other penalty that
                    is imposed for the violation; and
                (2) provide the data described in paragraph (1) to the
            Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a form prescribed by the
            Bureau.
        (c) Analysis.--Any statistical analysis of population data under
    this section shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Register
    Notice dated October 30, 1997, relating to classification standards.
        (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    SEC. 243. ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS.

        (a) Best Practices.--The Attorney General shall collect data and
    develop best practices of State corrections departments and child
    protection agencies relating to the communication and coordination
    between such State departments and agencies to ensure the safety and
    support of children of incarcerated parents (including those in foster
    care and kinship care), and the support of parent-child relationships
    between incarcerated (and formerly incarcerated) parents and their
    children, as appropriate to the health and well-being of the children.
    Such best practices shall include information related to policies,
    procedures, and programs that may be used by States to address--
                (1) maintenance of the parent-child bond during
            incarceration;
                (2) parental self-improvement; and
                (3) parental involvement in planning for the future and
            well-being of their children.
        (b) Dissemination to States.--Not later than 1 year after the date
    of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall disseminate to
    States and other relevant entities the best practices described in
    subsection (a).
        (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that States and
    other relevant entities should use the best practices developed and
    disseminated in accordance with this section to evaluate and improve
    the communication and coordination between State corrections
    departments and child protection agencies to ensure the safety and
    support of children of incarcerated parents (including those in foster
    care and kinship care), and the support of parent-child relationships
    between incarcerated (and formerly incarcerated) parents and their
    children, as appropriate to the health and well-being of the children.

                CHAPTER 3--CORRECTIONAL REFORMS TO EXISTING LAW

    SEC. 251. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PLACE PRISONER IN COMMUNITY
                        CORRECTIONS.

        (a) Pre-Release Custody.--
                (1) Amendment.--Section 3624(c) of title 18, United States
            Code, is amended to read as follows:
        ``(c) Pre-Release Custody.--
                ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Bureau of Prisons
            shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner
            serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final
            months of such term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions
            that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to
            adjust to and prepare for the prisoner's reentry into the
            community. Such conditions may include a community correctional
            facility.
                ``(2) Home confinement authority.--The authority provided
            by this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home
            confinement for the last 10 percent of the term of imprisonment
            or the final 6 months of such term, whichever is shorter.
                ``(3) Assistance.--The United States Probation System
            shall, to the extent practicable, offer assistance to a
            prisoner during such pre-release custody.
                ``(4) No limitations.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
            construed to limit or restrict the authority of the Director of
            the Bureau of Prisons granted under section 3621 of this title.
                ``(5) Reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
            enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (and every year
            thereafter), the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall
            transmit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and
            the House of Representatives a report describing the Bureau's
            utilization of community corrections facilities. Such report
            shall set forth the number and percentage of Federal prisoners
            placed in community corrections facilities during the preceding
            year, the average length of such placements, trends in such
            utilization, the reasons some prisoners are not placed in
            community corrections facilities, and any other information
            that may be useful to the committees in determining if the
            Bureau is utilizing community corrections facilities in an
            effective manner.
                ``(6) Issuance of regulations.--Not later than 90 days
            after the date of enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007,
            the Director of Bureau of Prisons shall issue regulations
            pursuant to this subsection, which shall include modifications
            to section 570.21 of the Bureau's regulations (28 C.F.R.
            570.21), to ensure that such section is in accordance with the
            provisions of this subsection.''.
                (2) Applicability of amendment.--The amendment made by this
            subsection shall apply with respect to any prisoner who--
                        (A) is serving a term of imprisonment on the date
                    of enactment of this Act;
                        (B) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
                    before the date of enactment of this Act, but who has
                    not begun to serve such sentence on such date of
                    enactment; or
                        (C) is sentenced to a term of imprisonment on or
                    after the date of enactment of this Act.
        (b) Courts May Not Require a Sentence of Imprisonment To Be Served
    in a Community Corrections Facility.--Section 3621(b) of title 18,
    United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``Any order, recommendation, or request by a sentencing court that a
    convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community
    corrections facility has no binding effect on the discretionary
    authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the
    place of imprisonment of that person.''.

    SEC. 252. RESIDENTIAL DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM IN FEDERAL PRISONS.

        Section 3621(e)(5)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
    by striking ``means a course of'' and all that follows and inserting
    the following: ``means a course of individual and group activities and
    treatment, lasting at least 6 months, in residential treatment
    facilities set apart from the general prison population, which may
    include the use of pharmocotherapies, where appropriate, that may
    extend beyond the 6-month period;''.

    SEC. 253. MEDICAL CARE FOR PRISONERS.

        Section 3621 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by
    adding at the end the following new subsection:
        ``(g) Continued Access to Medical Care.--
                ``(1) In general.--In order to ensure a minimum standard of
            health and habitability, the Bureau of Prisons shall ensure
            that each prisoner in a community confinement facility has
            access to necessary medical care, mental health care, and
            medicine.
                ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `community
            confinement' has the meaning given that term in the application
            notes under section 5F1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
            Manual, as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Second
            Chance Act of 2007.''.

    SEC. 254. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES FOR POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION
                        OFFENDERS.

        Section 3672 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
    inserting after the third sentence in the seventh paragraph the
    following new sentence: ``He also shall have the authority to contract
    with any appropriate public or private agency or person to monitor and
    provide services to any offender in the community, including treatment,
    equipment and emergency housing, corrective and preventative guidance
    and training, and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the
    public and promote the successful reentry of the offender into the
    community.''.

        Mr. Scott. And I would like to thank Ranking Member Forbes
    and his staff for their leadership and dedicated contributions
    to continuing this important effort in Congress.
        This effort will provide greater public protection from
    crime by better assuring the successful re-entry of offenders
    from prison back into their communities.
        I would also like to thank Congressman Davis from Illinois
    and Congressman Cannon for their continued leadership in this
    effort, as well as that of Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member
    Smith and other co-sponsors of the bill.
        I also want to further acknowledge the dedication and
    tireless efforts of many members of the diverse coalition of
    national, State and local organizations and their
    representative who continue to work for the passage of this
    bill.
        Our national crime rates have been falling significantly
    over the past decade. We have seen an unprecedented explosion
    in our prison and jail populations. Now there are more than 2.2
    million people incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and
    jails--a significant increase since 1980. Moreover,
    expenditures on corrections have increased from about $9
    billion in 1982 to more than $65 billion today, a figure that
    continues to grow. These figures do not include the cost of
    arrest, prosecution, nor do they take into account the cost to
    victims.
        As a result of all the focus on incarceration, the United
    States is the world's largest incarcerator, by far, locking up
    726 inmates per 100,000 population according to 2004 data. The
    incarceration rate around the world is around 100 per 100,000,
    142 in England, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany.
    So, the United States rate is more than seven times the
    average. The closest competitor is Russia, at 532.
        Over 95 percent of incarcerated inmates will be released at
    some time. This year, more than 650,000 people will be released
    from State and Federal prisons to communities nationwide, along
    with more than 9 million people leaving local jails. According
    to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67
    percent of offenders leaving State and Federal prison are re-
    arrested within 3 years.
        Most of those leaving prison are ill-prepared to succeed in
    earning a living and leading a law-abiding life. And the
    resources available to assist them to re-enter successfully are
    very limited. The addition of a felony record and a prison or
    jail stay certainly does not assist their job or social
    development prospects.
        With no or limited education, resources, job skills, with
    Federal benefits being disqualified because of drug or other
    convictions, and often with little or no family or community
    support, it is not surprising that as many as two-thirds of
    released prisoners are re-arrested within 3 years of their
    release.
        So, with this growing number of ill-equipped offenders
    returning to communities each year, the question is whether
    they re-enter society better prepared to lead law-abiding lives
    than when they came in.
        The Second Chance Act provides a host of evidence-based
    approaches designed to reduce the high rate of recidivism. If
    we are going to continue to send more and more people to prison
    with longer and longer sentence, we should do as much as we
    reasonably can to assure than, when they do return, they won't
    go back to prison due to new crimes.
        The primary reason for doing this is not to benefit
    offenders, although it does. The primary reason to do this is
    because it assures that all of us and other members of the
    public will be less likely to be victims of crime due to
    recidivism and also will be much less likely to have to pay the
    high cost of incarceration as taxpayers.
        So, this is a compelling issue, one that we have worked in
    a bipartisan way. And I want to thank again Ranking Member
    Forbes for working with us. This Crime Subcommittee and
    Judiciary Committee generally is a fairly contentious group of
    people. We don't always agree on many things. But on this, I
    think we have got excellent cooperation on a bipartisan basis.
    And hopefully, we can get the bill passed into law as soon as
    possible.
        With that, I will now recognize my colleague from Virginia,
    the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Forbes, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I appreciate you
    holding this hearing on the Second Chance Act of 2007.
        And of course, we appreciate all of our witnesses and their
    attendance here.
        I want to begin by commending you and Chairman Conyers,
    Congressman Cannon and also Congressman Coble for your
    commitment to the issue of prison re-entry.
        The new bill, which is molded on a prior version, is an
    excellent example of bipartisan cooperation on important
    criminal justice matters.
        I also want to commend your chief counsel, Bobby Vassar,
    and Keenan Kelly from Chairman Conyers' staff.
        Also, I would like to commend our counsel, Mike Volkov; a
    member of my staff, Jamie Miller; and also a member of
    Congressman Coble's staff, Johnny Mautz, for their dedication
    and hard work on this issue. It took a long time. It was a lot
    of hard work to get it here.
        Whether you are tough on crime or favor intervention and
    prevention strategies, there is common ground on the critical
    issue of prison re-entry. I believe in tough enforcement of our
    criminal laws. Public safety is essential of a free society.
    And criminals must be aggressively prosecuted and incarcerated
    to protect our communities.
        Once criminals are incarcerated, we have an obligation to
    make sure they are rehabilitated and treated humanely. A
    critical component to this is the need to plan and provide
    effective re-entry services. We can no longer release criminals
    with new clothes and a $5 bill and expect them to become
    productive citizens.
        The Second Chance Act creates a framework of strategic
    policy innovations to provide effective re-entry services. The
    demand for innovative solutions is obvious. It is
    conservatively estimated that approximately 650,000 inmates
    will be released from State prisons in the next year. In the
    absence of actions to address this issue, 67 percent of these
    individuals will be re-arrested, and over half will return to
    prison in the 3 years following their release from prison.
        States are being crushed by an overwhelming financial
    burden for correctional cost. We need to ensure that
    governments have in place appropriate programs to ease the
    transition for offenders, to bring families together once
    again, and to make sure that offenders get the necessary
    support, so that they can truly have a second chance to live a
    law-abiding life. Successful re-entry protects those who might
    otherwise be crime victims. It also improves the likelihood
    that individuals released from prison, jail or juvenile
    detention facilities can pay fines, fees, restitution and
    provide family support.
        The Second Chance Act expands existing demonstration
    programs to improve coordination among service providers,
    supervision services and re-entry task force, and between State
    substance abuse agencies and criminal justice agencies. The Act
    also strengthens re-entry services by expanding the use of
    mentors, improving medical services, offering a continuum of
    drug treatment services, ensuring adequate education
    opportunities and promoting family relationships during
    incarceration.
        The Act also authorizes grants to operate State and local
    re-entry courts and to establish local re-entry task forces to
    develop comprehensive re-entry plans during each phase of
    transition from incarceration, to transitional housing, to
    release in the community. Finally, the Act expands drug
    treatment programs to include family-based substance abuse
    treatment programs, new pharmacological drug treatment programs
    and comprehensive drug treatment for offenders in a re-entry
    program.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today's
    witnesses who can tell us firsthand how re-entry services are
    provided and what new approaches are needed.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. And, without objection, all Members
    may include their opening statements in the record at this
    point. And we have a distinguished panel of witnesses here
    today to help us consider the important issue before us.
        Our first witness will be Stefan LoBuglio, who is an expert
    of designing and evaluating prisons re-entry recidivism
    education and employment programs, including faith-based
    programs. He is currently chief of the Pre-Release and Re-entry
    Services Division of the Montgomery County, Maryland,
    Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. He manages the
    community-based, 155-bed, pre-release and re-entry facility, as
    well as non-residential home electronic monitoring programs.
        He is previously the deputy superintendent of the Suffolk
    County Sheriff's Department Community Corrections Division in
    Massachusetts. Prior to that, he was a criminal justice policy
    consultant. He is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University
    Graduate School of Education, holds a master's in public policy
    from the John F. Kennedy School of Government and is a graduate
    of Duke University.
        Our next witness is Professor Roger Peters, chair of the
    Department of Mental Health Law and Policy of the St. Louis de
    la Parte Mental Health Institute at the University of South
    Florida, where he has been a faculty member since 1986. He
    received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Florida State
    University and has also studied at the University of North
    Carolina School of Medicine.
        He served as lead consultant to the Department of Health
    and Human Services Center for People with Co-Occurring
    Disorders in the Justice System. He has also served for 4 years
    on the board of directors of the National Association of Drug
    Court Professionals and, for the past 7 years, has served on
    the treatment-based drug court steering committee for the
    Florida Supreme Court.
        Our next witness is Steve Lufburrow, who is the president
    and CEO of Goodwill Industries of Houston, a Houston-based
    organization that provides training, skills development, work
    opportunities for people with disabilities and other barriers
    to employment. In his career, he has served as a member of the
    advisory board of Target Hunger and Texas Industries for the
    Blind and Handicapped, as well as the State Bar of Texas
    grievance committee.
        Currently, he serves as a member of the board of directors
    with the Better Business Bureau and the Houston-Galveston Area
    Council Work Development Board. He is a graduate of
    Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, and of the
    Certified Executive Training Program for Goodwill Industries of
    America.
        Our next witness will be Jack Cowley, who is the national
    director of Alpha USA's prisons and re-entry program, which
    helps churches administer to prisoners. He served for 30 years
    with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections primarily as a
    prison warden. When he retired in 1996, he joined the Prison
    Fellowship Ministries as a public policy advocate and later as
    director of Interchange Freedom Initiative, a faith-based re-
    entry program.
        He has run a transitional housing and treatment program for
    released offenders. He serves on the advisory boards of the
    National Institute of Corrections and the Billy Graham
    Institute of Criminal Justice Ministries. He earned his B.S. in
    sociology, an M.S. in corrections from Oklahoma State
    University and completed coursework for a Ph.D. in
    organizational leadership from the University of Oklahoma.
        Our final witness will be George McDonald, who is the
    founder and president of the Doe Fund, a New York-based
    nonprofit organization that helps individuals break the cycles
    of homelessness, welfare dependency and incarceration through
    paid work programs, housing, support services and business
    ventures.
        A former executive and entrepreneur in the apparel
    industry, he currently chairs New York City's Independent
    Committee on Re-Entry and Employment and is co-chair of its
    Discharge Planning Initiative Employment Committee. He also
    serves on the Prisoner Re-entry Steering Committee of the
    city's Workforce Investment Board.
        The Doe Fund has been recognized by the city of New York,
    WENT Channel 13, the New York Post and the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development. He received his undergraduate
    degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
        Thank you.
        And before we hear from our witnesses, does the Chairman of
    the Committee have a statement?
        Mr. Conyers. I have a statement, but I would like only a
    minute or two. And then I will put it in the record.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Conyers?
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Members of this
    Committee.
        Re-entry is so important. And now, thanks to this
    Committee, we are beginning to examine the pressing need to
    provide as much as we can for the 650,000 men and women who re-
    enter our communities from prison every year. And the cultural
    and economic requirements to prepare them for this coming back
    into society has been staggering.
        And I am happy to join in with all of you and the
    distinguished panel of witnesses that we have here to examine
    the Second Chance Act. I think it is a great opportunity. I
    look forward to hearing the witnesses.
        And I ask unanimous consent that my complete statement is
    included in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
    in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
                                   Judiciary
        Good afternoon. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security today as we
    address the issues of federal offender re-entry. For the past several
    sessions, I have introduce my own comprehensive re-entry legislation.
    This year, I am happy to join as an original co-sponsor of the Second
    Chance Act. With this bipartisan legislation, we are set to take the
    next important step in building a web of programs which will help break
    the cycle of recidivism laying at the heart of our prison population
    explosion.
        As Chairman Scott observed in his opening statement, there is a
    pressing need to provide the more than 650,000 men and women who re-
    enter our communities from prison each year with the education and
    training necessary to obtain and hold onto steady jobs, undergo drug
    treatment, and get medical and mental health services. The statistics
    underlying the needs of our prison population are staggering. As
    detailed by many researchers, these deficiencies include limited
    education, few job skills or experience, substance and alcohol
    dependency, and other health problems, including mental health.
    Evidence from the Department of Justice indicates that the needs of the
    prison population are not being met under the current system. If we
    allow them to return to communities with few economic opportunities,
    where their family and friends are often involved in crime and
    substance abuse, we can only expect to extend the cycle of recidivism.
        For example, 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of State inmates
    used drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates of involvement
    with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84
    percent. Further, over one-third of all jail inmates have some physical
    or mental disability and 25 percent of jail inmates have been treated
    at some time for a mental or emotional problem.
        In the face of these statistics, I believe that we can be
    cautiously optimistic in the support of re-entry programming.
    Researchers at the Washington State Institute for Public Policy have
    determined that programs employing ``best practices'' have yielded up
    to 20% declines in re-arrest rates. Spread across the thousands of
    arrests each year, these practices could yield a significant decline in
    recidivism, with a commensurate reduction in community and victim
    costs.
        This is what we hope for with passage of the Second Chance Act. The
    bill focuses on the development and support of programs that provide
    alternatives to incarceration, expand the availability of substance
    abuse treatment, strengthen families and expand comprehensive re-entry
    services.
        As we move toward passage, I hope that we are not caught in the
    trap of attempting to solve this problem on the cheap. In past
    Congresses, there have been objections to the cost of this bill and
    past re-entry initiatives. I must point out that Section 101, the
    demonstration projects at the heart of the legislation, works out to
    less that $200 for each of the more than 650,000 people released into
    the community each year. This bill is a truly modest measure when
    balanced against the more than $60 billion each year spent on
    incarceration. I look forward to healthy discussion on re-entry best
    practices, particularly in the area of drug treatment, to highlight the
    serious need for passage of this legislation.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Are there other statements? Without objection, they can be
    placed in the record.
        And we will hear from our witnesses, beginning with Chief
    LoBuglio.

     TESTIMONY OF STEFAN LoBUGLIO, CHIEF, PRE-RELEASE AND RE-ENTRY
       SERVICES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND
                     REHABILITATION, ROCKVILLE, MD

        Mr. LoBuglio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. If I may ask, please let me recognize the other
    Members that are here: Representative Johnson from Georgia,
    Representative Gohmert from Texas, and Coble from North
    Carolina.
        Thank you. I am sorry.
        Mr. LoBuglio. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to speak before
    you in support of this legislation. And I thank you for your
    leadership on this legislation.
        This legislation is important to the field of corrections.
    It is important to those who are incarcerated. It is important
    to communities across the country.
        I have the privilege of working on a day-to-day basis with
    a dedicated staff of correctional professionals. And we manage
    as many as 200 individuals in the community on a day-to-day
    basis. Those individuals are from the Federal system, the State
    system and the local system. They can be serving sentences of
    20 years or 20 days. The main criteria is that they are within
    1 year of release and returning home to our communities.
        When they are in our program, we know where they are at all
    times. They are working. They are receiving treatment. They are
    meeting with family members. Importantly, they are earning
    money. They are paying family support. They are paying
    restitution. They are being responsible members of our society.
        In Montgomery County, 30 percent of our sentenced
    population is in our program. We are not a boutique program.
    Through a careful screening process, we are able to put a
    number of individuals of different types of offense types into
    our program.
        Right now, I have a count of 164 individuals; 135 of those
    individuals are living in a pre-release center that is a 35-
    minute metro ride from where I am talking now. The other 29 are
    living at home. They have successfully graduated to our home
    confinement program. They have demonstrated that their job,
    their house, their family support system, their connection with
    communities are such that we can allow them to live in the
    community in their home with electronic monitoring.
        Those on our program are working as contractors. They are
    working in the construction field and landscapers and food
    services in offices across the greater Washington area. Every
    single employer who employs them is aware of their situation.
        We actually involve the employer in the re-entry process
    with a formal signed contract. We involve the family in our re-
    entry process. We speak with the loved ones of those who are
    with us and talk about ways that we can work in partnership to
    assist them as they transition to the community.
        Importantly and as part of our everyday practice, we work
    with every community organization that we can, from Government
    agencies, to nonprofit organizations, to the faith-based
    community. There is a limit to the expertise that we have in
    corrections. We know it. And we need the assistance and the
    expertise of outside agencies.
        We have a premise in Montgomery County that it is better
    for individuals to leave our work release program than to leave
    a correctional facility--whether our own correctional facility
    or a facility in a State prison system or a Federal prison
    hundreds of miles away. We do everything we can to get them
    into our program.
        For those who can't come into our program, we have
    extensive re-entry services at our jail. We have developed a
    one-step career center in our jail. We involve over 40 social
    service providers every 2 weeks in a re-entry discussion about
    those who are going to be released, and what wraparound
    services they need.
        Ours is but one of many local and State programs that is an
    example of how re-entry can work. I find it remarkable that, at
    this point in time, there is a consensus--a bipartisan
    political consensus, a consensus of advocates, a consensus of
    professional organizations, and a consensus among the
    leadership in corrections--that re-entry is the way to go; and
    that we have an opportunity now, perhaps the first in 30 years,
    to transform the way that we do corrections, so that re-entry
    is our standard operating procedure. The Second Chance Act will
    help stoke that effort.
        We have learned a lot about re-entry in the last 8 years.
    Eight years ago, a correctional official might have been
    excused for not knowing what works and how a re-entry program
    could work in their facility. However, now there is a huge body
    of evidence that points us in the right direction. It is a body
    of evidence that has been developed by correctional
    practitioners and by leaders and academics in many other
    disciplines.
        There is no one re-entry model that will work in any
    system. And that is why we need the Second Chance Act. We need
    each jurisdiction in the multiple criminal justice systems
    across the country to work out among themselves how does re-
    entry work? What stakeholders should be part of it? And how
    will they put together the plan?
        Another important point I need to make this morning, that
    it is not only the 650,000 returning from State and Federal
    prisons; but it is the 12 million bookings and the 9 million
    individuals who are both being processed into and being
    discharged from our local jails annually. I work at the local
    system. Jail re-entry is as much a part of the discussion as
    prison re-entry is in the State system.
        And what is important and valuable about the Second Chance
    Act is that it recognizes that jails have a role. Jails are
    struggling right now with many issues such as inmates with
    mental health issues and issues of domestic violence issues.
    And re-entry has to be part of the fabric of how we run our
    programs.
        Re-entry requires collaboration. It requires the outreach
    and in-reach of community service providers and faith-based
    organizations. What is important about the Second Chance Act,
    what has been important about the Serious and Violent Offender
    Re-Entry Initiative--the precursor to this Act, is that it has
    leveraged enormous amount of local resources.
        I know I am over my time a few minutes. But with that, I
    will conclude in a minute if I may. Re-entry is sound
    corrections. There are leaders at all levels in corrections--
    from line officers, sergeants, lieutenants, shift commanders,
    sheriffs, wardens--who are ready to embrace re-entry. We need
    some assistance. We need some good models. We are ready to do
    the task.
        Those facilities and those systems that incorporate re-
    entry are among the cleanest, the most humane, and the ones
    that best use their bed space. Re-entry has a great advantage,
    not only to public safety, not only to community well-being,
    not only to victims, but also to the correctional professionals
    who staff our thousands of correctional facilities, and those
    that monitor the millions of individuals in community
    supervision. It can literally transform how we do corrections
    to the betterment of those in the correction field.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. LoBuglio follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Stefan LoBuglio
                                  introduction
        My name is Stefan LoBuglio and I serve as the Chief of the
    Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation's Pre-
    Release and Reentry Services Division in Maryland. I am honored to
    present testimony to support the introduction and enactment of the
    Second Chance Act.
        From my perspective as both a practitioner and as a researcher in
    corrections for 15 years, I believe this legislation can catalyze the
    demonstrated leadership across this county in different disciplines and
    at all organizational and political levels to incorporate prisoner
    reentry as part of our nation's correctional systems' policies and
    practices. Such reforms will directly benefit public safety and
    community well-being, individual incarcerants and their families, and
    just as important, the working environment and job functions of the
    thousands of correctional professionals who run the country's jails and
    prisons and who supervise probationers and parolees in the community.
        The Second Chance Act will provide important seed money to
    encourage and expand innovative prisoner reentry programs in
    jurisdictions throughout this country from county and tribal jails to
    state and federal prisons. Building on the success of the $100 million
    federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, the funds from
    the Second Chance Act will spur partnerships and collaborations across
    disciplines that will leverage local resources in the areas of health,
    workforce development, housing, and treatment services. Also
    significant, the Second Chance Act will continue to build the body of
    research and identify promising practices in prisoner reentry that will
    assist local, state, and federal jurisdictions to better assess what
    models and programs are best adapted for their locations.
        By way of background, I currently have the privilege of working
    with a dedicated staff of correctional professionals and oversee a
    program that manages nearly 200 sentenced individuals--almost 30% of
    Montgomery County's total sentenced population--who are living and
    working in the community and who are within 6-8 months of release from
    federal, state, and local custody. Prior to Montgomery County, I helped
    develop reentry programs in a 2,000-bed sentenced facility located in
    Boston for the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department. In the course of my
    correctional career, I have made dozens of presentations on different
    reentry topics at local, state, and national conferences, and more
    recently have worked with the field's major professional
    organizations--the American Jail Association and the American
    Correctional Association--to advance training and education in this
    area. I have also been active in a number of innovative reentry
    projects sponsored by the National Association of Counties and the
    Council of State Governments.
        In terms of research, I have co-authored several articles on
    reentry on subjects ranging from correctional education, community
    supervision, recidivism, and implementation challenges. This month, I
    completed a two-year evaluation of a jail reentry program in
    Massachusetts, which also serves as my doctoral thesis at Harvard
    University's Graduate School of Education. Currently, I serve as a
    member of the External Advisory Committee for the national evaluation
    of the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which
    is one of the largest and most comprehensive evaluations of reentry
    program in recent history. With funding from the U.S Department of
    Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, I am also currently
    participating in a research effort to collect and disseminate
    information about jail reentry programs and practices--called the Jail
    Reentry Roundtable--which is co-sponsored by the Urban Institute, the
    John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the Montgomery County
    Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.
        In this written statement, I provide an overview of prisoner
    reentry issues with an emphasis on six major points. First, I believe
    we have a window of opportunity--perhaps the first in 30 years--to
    reexamine and change correctional practices and post-release support
    with the mutually supportive goals of increasing public safety,
    community well-being, and the lives of the former incarcerated and
    their families. Prisoner reentry enjoys wide support from bi-partisan
    policy makers, practitioners, professional associations, think tanks,
    faith-based organizations and the inmate-advocacy community, and
    provides a strategy to mitigate the rising social and economic costs of
    high rates of incarceration.
        Second, we have learned an enormous amount about what programs and
    services are effective in supporting reentry goals over the past
    decade. This body of research along with the examples of many promising
    program models that have emerged in jurisdictions throughout this
    country can provide direction, support, and technical assistance to
    spur the development of more programs and to help bring them to scale.
        Third, jails and local correctional systems serve as the entry and
    exit point in the nation's correctional system and must be included in
    the development of prisoner reentry systems. Not only do jails face the
    enormous challenge of processing millions of court-involved individuals
    each year, but they also face unique reentry issues such as managing
    institutional populations with high proportions of individuals with
    mental health and serious physical health problems.
        Fourth, reentry programs require extensive collaborations and
    partnerships with government agencies and community organizations to
    provide the wide range of support and services needed to address the
    many needs of those under correctional supervision. Correctional
    facilities are highly complex and challenging institutions to operate,
    and correctional staff behind the walls and in the community need the
    expertise and resources of practitioners from many other disciplines to
    provide targeted and relevant transitional assistance to this
    population.
        Fifth, prisoner reentry reaffirms and refocuses correctional
    systems on one of their historical goals to correct and rehabilitate.
    The safest, cleanest, most secure and orderly correctional facilities
    that I have seen are the same ones that have the most extensive reentry
    programming. These facilities enjoy a healthy culture that supports
    mutual respect between staff and incarcerants, and utilize more of the
    skills and talents of correctional professionals to manage and motivate
    the institutional population. They are also the facilities that most
    efficiently manage their bed space and which are best able to classify
    appropriate individuals for lower security levels while reserving the
    use of the higher security levels for those who need this additional
    level of control and confinement. Prisoner reentry also will lead to
    more transparent institutions as the magnitude and complexity of the
    issue transcends corrections alone, and requires the active
    partnership, collaboration, and in-reach of social service agencies,
    workforce community, the community and faith-based organizations, law
    enforcement and other public safety departments.
        Sixth, and finally, reentry programs face enormous implementation,
    coordination, and capacity-building challenges, and it is too soon to
    expect that many of them will accomplish such long-term goals as
    significantly reducing recidivism. Instead, we need to ensure that
    these programs are targeting the right individuals, are addressing real
    needs of the population that can affect their post-release success, are
    well-designed with evidenced-based practices, and are implemented with
    integrity and quality control. Such programs should demonstrate an
    ability to accomplish intermediate goals in their treatment domains,
    but an expectation of an immediate reduction in recidivism rates is
    unrealistic, and may lead us to prematurely conclude these programs are
    ineffective before they have had a fair chance to demonstrate their
    long-term benefits.
                          prisoner reentry background
        The growth of the nation's correctional population and the high
    recidivism rates among those released has triggered a re-examination of
    correctional policies and programs that aims to assist inmates'
    transition from incarceration to community life. By mid-year 2005, the
    nation's correction population had risen to 2.2 million--up 380% from
    1980--of which 750,000 were housed in jails and the remainder in state
    and federal prisons (Harrison & Beck, 2006). Many inmates sentenced to
    correctional facilities had previously been incarcerated, giving
    credence to the metaphorical ``revolving door'' at the prison gate. In
    June 2002, the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
    Statistics published one of the largest and best known studies that
    found that among a representative sample of the nation's prison
    population released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years,
    46.9% were convicted for a new crime and 51.8% were re-incarcerated
    (Langan & Levin, 2002).
        For decades, researchers and policy makers have vigorously debated
    the effectiveness of prisoner rehabilitation programs to reduce post-
    release criminality; however, the current national policy discussion on
    reentry programs has reframed the issue. Instead of being mired in
    rancorous opinions about inmates' deservedness for programs, the
    current discussion about prisoner reentry has placed community
    interests and safety at the forefront of the desired outcomes. It has
    focused on the daily reality that large numbers of inmates are leaving
    correctional facilities and returning to communities across the nation,
    and that better preparing them for release is in everyone's best
    interests.
        As such, this new focus has been notable for attracting bi-partisan
    support from both sides of the political aisle. Then-President Clinton
    and his Attorney General Janet Reno launched the reentry dialogue in
    the late 1990's, and more recently, President Bush has accelerated the
    discussion by including the issue in his inaugural address in 2004 and
    by authorizing a $100 million grant program--called the Serious and
    Violent Offender Reentry Initiative--that provided funds for reentry
    programs for every state in the nation. The Second Chance Act will
    further the development of prisoner reentry programs in more
    jurisdictions and provide additional opportunities for research and
    dissemination of promising practices.
        These reentry initiatives are touted as serving community interests
    and safety and draw support from the sheer number of released jail and
    prison inmates and the growing social and economic costs of
    corrections. Collectively, correctional budgets at all governmental
    levels now total more than $60 billion annually, and have begun to
    rival expenditures for such public goods as higher education (Hughes,
    2006).
        Additionally, the hundreds of thousands of state and federal
    prisoners returning home, and the millions being released from jails,
    typically return to the same poorly-resourced neighborhoods and bring
    with them housing, health, and employment problems that further
    destabilize these areas. An estimated one in three of all African-
    American males in their mid-to-late twenties is under correctional
    supervision; the disproportional impact of corrections on this and
    other groups and regions threatens to solidify a perpetual underclass
    in this society. Most individuals in prison have poor educational
    backgrounds and skills (average math and reading scores are 5.0 and 7.8
    grade level equivalencies), and their criminal backgrounds handicap
    them from pursuing certain various careers, licensures, and positions,
    and from receiving government benefits such as student financial aid
    (Jeremy Travis, 2000, 2001; Jeremy Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001).
          effective programming: risk, needs, treatment, and fidelity
        For policy makers and correctional practitioners, the new interest
    in reentry programs has been welcome, but has also left them struggling
    with the question about which types of programs should be offered, and
    how these programs should be developed and evaluated. Fortunately,
    researchers have worked over the past two decades to provide some
    guidance on effective correctional programs and their designs. This
    body of work has emerged to counter earlier reports that questioned
    whether any treatment programming works in corrections to reduce
    recidivism (D. Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975; D. S. Lipton, 1995;
    Robert Martinson, 1974; Robert Martinson, 1979).
        In the late '80's and the '90's, several researchers re-analyzed
    data from earlier studies and conducted new studies, and came forth
    with much different conclusions. They found that treatment programming
    was effective providing that it met certain four principles: first, the
    programs need to target high risk offenders; second, they need to focus
    on factors that lead to recidivism; third, they need to incorporate a
    curriculum that is responsive to this population; and fourth, the
    programs need to be well-designed, implemented, and enjoy institutional
    support (i.e. the programs need to demonstrate ``fidelity'' to these
    goals) (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Gaes, Flanagan,
    Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Lyman,
    2004; Lyman, Morehouse, & Perkins, 2001). Subsequent meta-analyses have
    also identified certain treatment programs as more effective than
    others. For instance, in a policy report in January of 2002, the
    Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that vocational
    programs in prison can reduce recidivism by 12.6 percent, basic adult
    education by 5.1, and cognitive behavioral programming in the community
    by 31.2, whereas boot camps and behavioral therapy for sex offenders
    were found to be ineffective (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006).
        The failure of previous programs to meet the four principles of
    effective programming--risk, needs, treatment, and fidelity--explains
    why researchers have often failed to find statistically significant and
    causal connections between treatment programming and reduced recidivism
    in literally thousands of studies over the past five decades.\1\ Gaes
    et al. explains that education and treatment programs have not been
    designed or optimized to reduce recidivism:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The literature on ``what works'' in corrections has greatly
    expanded in recent years. Professor Edward Latessa from the University
    of Cincinnati has synthesized this literature into the framework of
    four principles of effective programming--risk, needs, treatment, and
    fidelity--which is used in this paper.

            ``The design and delivery of educational programs has commonly
            violated many of the principles of effective correctional
            treatment . . . education programs in prison have not been
            directed to specific criminogenic needs of offenders, have not
            been part of a multimodal intervention strategy, have not
            considered responsivity effects, have not been tailored to
            address the needs of offenders in different risk
            classifications, and have not been adequately funded to permit
            the high doses of educational intervention that many offenders
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            require ``(Gaes et al., 1999).

    Risk
        The first principle, ``risk,'' argues that correctional programs
    must target offenders who are at high risk of recidivating if they are
    to demonstrate success at reducing recidivism. By definition, lower-
    risk offenders do not need such programs, and studies have actually
    shown that they can fare worse if made to participate. Programs for
    these offenders can interfere with the structure and support systems
    that they would be able to create for themselves (Lowenkamp et al.,
    2006).
        Unfortunately, several factors converge in the correctional
    environment that leads to lower-risk offenders enrolling in programs.
    Many programs are offered in lower security settings that are off-
    limits to higher-risk inmates. Others have incorporated eligibility
    criteria that specifically exclude high risk offenders as part of a
    strategy to win greater institutional and community support. Also,
    since programs offer inmates many advantages within the institution--
    greater out-of-cell time, reduction in sentence length, nominal pay--
    and have open and voluntary enrollment policies, they tend to attract
    the most motivated, highly-skilled, and savviest inmates who are less
    likely to recidivate. Many evaluations that find statistically
    significant reductions in recidivism between program participants and a
    control group are actually finding the ``self-selection'' bias that is
    comparing low-risk inmates in programs with high-risk inmates in the
    controls.
    Needs
        The second principle of effective programming, ``needs,'' requires
    that programs specifically target those risks and needs that make
    certain offenders at higher risk of recidivating. In the field of
    criminal justice, the most commonly identified criminogenic factors
    include individual characteristics and traits that are static and
    immutable: age, family upbringing, prior juvenile and adult criminal
    history, prior drug use; and others that are dynamic and that can be
    changed: anti-social/pro-criminal attitudes, belief, and values
    (sometimes called criminal thinking), impulsive behavior, association
    with criminal peers, return to high-crime areas; and poor education and
    vocation skills.
        The needs principle states that only programs that explicitly
    address these dynamic criminogenic factors can reduce recidivism. This
    obvious point addresses the problem of internal validity that is
    commonplace in the evaluation literature of correctional treatment
    programs. Programs that are not designed to reduce recidivism and that
    lack a direct logical mechanism to address factors that could reduce
    future criminality are nonetheless often solely evaluated by their
    success at reducing recidivism. Not surprisingly, the evaluations of
    these programs find them unsuccessful at demonstrating the
    effectiveness of this outcome, although the programs may offer other
    benefits to inmates and to jail administrators that have nothing to do
    with reduced recidivism rates.
        Programming in most correctional facilities was not designed with
    the specific purpose to reduce recidivism. Instead, many institutions
    have an eclectic collection of programs that have evolved rather than
    being the results of deliberative planning. In many cases a community
    volunteer, organization, or church will have proposed a program or
    service, and the institution has gladly accepted the opportunity to
    have inmates engaged in programming that has little cost.
    Alternatively, cyclical grant programs funded by outside organizations
    will lead to the development of new programs that did not necessarily
    address a specific institutional need, but are welcomed nonetheless.
    From a correctional administrator's standpoint, these programs serve a
    valuable function--to occupy inmates' time in a constructive fashion
    making the job of running the facility easier--but most of these
    programs were not designed with the goal of reducing recidivism.
    Treatment
        The third principle for effective programming, ``treatment,''
    relates to the importance of incorporating social learning theory in
    the curriculum and classroom activities where new skills and behaviors
    are modeled. It promotes a widely-used therapy used by psychologists in
    this country called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) that focuses on
    action, motivation, goal setting, and ``correct'' thinking patterns.
    Unlike psychoanalytic therapy, CBT does not attempt to delve into past
    issues to identify root causes of active behavior, but rather is
    oriented in the present and future. This type of therapeutic style can
    be infused in treatment programs that focus on specific needs such as
    substance abuse or anger management.
    Fidelity
        The fourth principle, ``fidelity,'' for effective correctional
    programming, concerns the need to ensure that programs are well-
    designed, robust, implemented with integrity by qualified and motivated
    staff, and are supported by the institution. Again, a seemingly obvious
    point, but many correctional programs do not subscribe to these
    criteria. Often programs meet infrequently, have no standardized
    curriculum, are taught by volunteers and staff (and sometimes fellow
    inmates) who are not schooled in delivering programs effectively, and
    the programs are poorly supported by the institution.
                           implementation challenges
        Recent studies of reentry programs reveal the enormous challenges
    that correctional practitioners face to develop and implement reentry
    programs, and to demonstrate their effectiveness particularly on the
    sole measure of reduced recidivism rates. In an evaluation of a modest
    jail reentry program in Boston, Piehl, LoBuglio and Freeman generalized
    the implementation challenges of reentry programs into four points:

              First, they recognized that correctional institutions
            have few incentives to develop reentry programs given that the
            benefits of these programs accrue to society as a whole, while
            the institutions bear the full costs and liabilities of running
            them. The traditional responsibility of caring for and
            controlling complex inmate populations proves difficult enough
            but, unlike recidivism, these goals are within the means of
            correctional officials to control directly;

              Second, the researchers indicated that the fractious
            jurisdictional differences in the country's criminal justice
            systems make replicating one reentry model difficult, and that
            the design of reentry programs will be driven by the local
            stakeholders and community institutions of the facility;

              Third, the case study details just how difficult it
            is to operate programs in a busy correctional environment, and
            the critical importance of institutional support for reentry
            programs;

              And fourth and finally, the authors write that while
            analysts and practitioners agree on the need to support inmates
            reentering the community, there is no clear consensus on
            reentry treatment models or the rank ordering of inmates to
            participate in such programs in terms of deservedness, greatest
            need, or potential highest public safety return on investment
            (Piehl, LoBuglio, & Freeman, 2003).

        The research findings to date of the largest and most comprehensive
    evaluation of reentry programs have also identified implementation
    issues as a significant problem. Many of the 69 program sites studied
    as part of the national evaluation of the $100 million Serious and
    Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI) were delayed in meeting their
    planned start-up dates and were under-enrolling participants in their
    programs. After thousands of interviews with individuals during their
    incarceration and post-release, researchers from the two organizations
    leading the study--the Urban Institute and the Research Triangle
    Institute--have found that SVORI program participants did receive
    slightly more services than non-program participants, but that the
    level of the services received were generally far below the levels of
    self-reported needs. There is some encouraging evidence to indicate
    that the program participants are demonstrating better outcomes on a
    wide range of program goals, and a recidivism comparison between the
    treatment and control groups will be completed by next year (Lattimore
    & Steffey, 2006).
        This study and the Boston case study both raise concern that if
    these start-up issues are not carefully considered and if the
    expectations of program success are unrealistically too high initially,
    the enormous implementation challenges may squander this unique
    opportunity to reassess the three-decade movement of corrections away
    from rehabilitative ideals and post-release support and supervision.
    Unfortunately, failure to address implementation challenges could
    reaffirm the cynical notion that ``nothing works'' in offender
    programming, without giving reentry programming a fair chance to prove
    its effectiveness.
                               reentry from jail
        For the past seven years, the policy discussion on offender reentry
    has focused exclusively on the return of prisoners from state and
    federal prisons and has largely ignored jails. Several factors may
    explain this omission. First, comparatively little data exists at the
    national level on jail populations. While state and federal
    correctional systems are easy to identify, there were over 3,600 jails
    in the country when last surveyed in 1999, each of them can be
    organized and run by different entities including sheriff's
    departments, county and municipal departments, Indian tribes, states,
    penal commissions, and the federal government. They range in size from
    modest lock-up facilities in rural areas with a handful of cells, to
    large systems such as those in Los Angeles and New York City that
    incarcerate more offenders than many state prison systems (19,500 and
    14,000 respectively). Nearly half of the nation's jails have
    populations under 50, yet the almost 160 jails with average daily
    populations of more than 2,000 inmates incarcerate 30% of the total
    number of inmates in the country (Sabol & Beck, 2007).
        A second reason that jails have been ignored in the policy
    discussion on prisoner reentry is that their populations are more
    varied and complex than prison populations and many policy makers and
    even some jail practitioners do not understand the relevance of
    offender reentry for a highly mobile population, most of whom will be
    released back into the community in a matter of hours. In the criminal
    justice system, jails serve a variety of functions, from holding
    individuals pre-trial, holding individuals temporarily (juveniles,
    mentally ill, military, court witnesses, protective custody), to
    holding individuals awaiting transfer to a state or federal agencies
    (often due to overcrowding).
        Third, while jails book large numbers of offenders annually, most
    of these individuals stay for only a few hours or days, and some
    believe it is not practical or feasible to offer reentry services in
    this limited time period. The nation's jails process 12 million
    bookings of 9 million individuals each year. By comparison,
    approximately 700,000 individuals are both admitted and discharged from
    the country's state and federal prisons, and the average inmate spends
    several years in these facilities. Finally, jail inmates are often
    viewed as less serious offenders than state and federal inmates, and
    therefore are viewed as requiring fewer services.
        In reality, jails are often the point of entry into the nation's
    correctional system and incarcerate offenders who are alleged to have
    committed or who have been convicted of crimes of all types. Jails also
    incarcerate large numbers of offenders serving relatively short post-
    conviction sentences for which offender reentry programs are extremely
    relevant. In many states, offenders sentenced to one year or less serve
    their sentences in jails rather than in the state prison system.
        The sentence threshold between serving time in jails versus serving
    time in a state prison system actually varies from state to state. In
    Massachusetts, which has the 30-month sentencing threshold, more
    sentenced offenders are held in county jails than in state prisons.
    While the vast majority of the 12 million individuals moving in and out
    of jails remain only for a few hours or days before community release
    or institutional transfer, an estimated 20% will spend at least one
    month in jail, 12% at least two months, and 4% will spend more than 6
    months (Gerard, 2005; Sabol & Beck, 2007).
        The growing recognition of the importance of including jails in the
    policy discussion on offender reentry is evidenced by the fact that the
    government's main statistical gathering entity, the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, is due to release the first large-scale survey of jail
    populations in its history. Also, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, an
    agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, funded a national
    conference on jail reentry in June of 2006 that brought together
    practitioners, policy makers, and academics from across the country. As
    part of this conference, several papers were commissioned to study
    effective means of transitioning jail inmates back into their
    communities.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The conference was organized by the Urban Institute with
    funding from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
    Assistance and was co-sponsored by the John Jay College of Criminal
    Justice and the Montgomery County Department of Correction and
    Rehabilitation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Indeed, by including jails in the discussion, policy makers and
    practitioners have begun to realize that jails possess enormous
    geographical advantages in delivering reentry services as compared to
    federal and state prison systems. Most jail releasees are released to a
    neighborhood in proximity to the jail, whereas state and federal prison
    inmates are released from correctional institutions hundreds if not
    thousands of miles from their homes. Some states like Virginia are
    experimenting with reentry models that transfer state inmates to local
    jails in order to allow the inmates to develop stronger family and
    community ties before release. Many state systems and the Federal
    Bureau of Prison also contract with local jails and community-based
    facilities to place carefully selected inmates into work release
    programs just prior to release.
                              promising practices
        In the last decade, many jurisdictions have developed and refined
    promising reentry programs. The Report of the Re-entry Policy Council,
    a 648-page summation of the work of hundreds of stakeholders from
    around the country organized by the Council of State Governments, lists
    dozens of noteworthy reentry programs in jurisdictions from across the
    country. Similarly publications and websites from the American
    Correctional Association, the Urban Institute, the National Institute
    of Corrections and other organizations have profiled programs of all
    types and sizes that target specific populations with specialized
    services. In this information age, there is no dearth of data on
    different programmatic reentry models and a Google search on the term
    ``prisoner reentry'' yields over 480,000 entries and illustrates the
    explosion of interest and research in this topic.
        In Montgomery County, we continue to develop new programs and ideas
    daily to improve reentry services both for incarcerated individuals who
    are confined to our detention centers and to those who are enrolled in
    our work release program. As mentioned earlier, our Pre-Release and
    Reentry Services (PRRS) Division supervises nearly 200 sentenced
    individuals who are living and working in the community and who are
    within 6-8 months of release from federal, state, and local custody.
    Our work-release program holds them accountable for their whereabouts
    at all times, and most importantly directly contributes to public
    safety and community well-being by ensuring that they are working,
    paying program fees, child support, and restitution orders, addressing
    their housing and treatment needs, and developing a support system with
    family and community institutions that will assist them transition back
    into their communities.
        For thirty years, our program has assisted over 11,000 individuals
    sentenced at the local, state, and federal level who are returning home
    to Montgomery County and the Greater Washington area. We conduct
    extensive screening and assessment to ensure that we enroll individuals
    who can work, participate in treatment, comply with the rules of the
    program, and refrain from criminal behavior. Unlike most programs, we
    have few disqualifiers and operate on the premise that whenever
    possible--even in the case of lower level sex offenders--it is in the
    community's best interest and the individual's best interest to have
    them leave confinement from our program with housing, a job, and family
    support rather than from a correctional facility, which in the case of
    state and federal inmates, might be located hundreds of miles from
    their home.
        We look at each case uniquely and carefully balance the benefits
    and the risks of bringing each individual into our program. The only
    exceptions are that we will not accept individuals who have a prior
    history of escape and individuals who have assaulted correctional
    officers. In our program, we provide intensive and quality services and
    develop unique reentry plans that combine goals for work, treatment,
    and family/community support.
        At the same time, our programs employs many methods and
    technologies to ensure that program participants are either at our
    community correctional facility or at an approved community location
    whether it be a job site, a treatment program, or the home of a family
    member. If they are not and we can not locate them within two hours, we
    file criminal escape charges, and work directly the police and
    sheriff's department to apprehend the individual and with the State
    Attorney's Office to ensure that the individual is prosecuted to the
    full extent of the law. Once apprehended, we follow the case and attend
    all of the disposition hearings and I will personally speak at
    sentencing hearings about the harm that the escape caused our program
    and public safety.
        While we have not measured whether our program reduces recidivism
    rates, our performance measures speak to many accomplishments. To cite
    data from 2006:

              85% successfully completed our program and were
            released from the pre-release facility instead of from the
            jail;

              Nearly 90% were released with employment;

              99% were released with a housing plan that does not
            include a shelter;

              Nearly all of the residents were referred to
            community and faith-based organizations and have made follow-up
            appointments;

              Almost $400,000 of program fees were collected by
            clients;

              The average individual released had savings of more
            than $600.

        The Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation's
    (MCDCR) commitment to reentry extends not only to those on our work
    release program, but also to those individuals in the jail who are pre-
    trial detainees and who are ineligible for the work-release program and
    to sentenced individuals who due to institutional misconduct, the
    nature of their cases, or on-going legal matters cannot be placed in
    the community program either. In 2006, 9,400 individuals were received
    and discharged from the Department, and the vast majority of them were
    detained on a pre-trial status. Of this number, most were released from
    the detention centers and 550 participated in the work release program,
    which demonstrates the need for reentry program both in the community
    and in the jail settings.
        To serve the population of individuals in the detention center, the
    MCDCR introduced a program called ``Reentry for All,'' in 2005 to
    better coordinate the extensive array of education, treatment, and
    workforce programming and services offered within the jail and to
    develop extensive linkage and in-reach partnerships with community and
    government agency collaborators. In the longer-term detention facility,
    the Montgomery County Correctional Facility, over 75% of the
    institutional population of over 700 individuals is engaged in some
    form of work or reentry programming that lasts for a minimum of 6 hours
    a day. These programs include a full service educational program that
    includes special education instruction, drug treatment and cognitive
    behavioral therapeutic communities within several living units, mental
    health therapy in the Crisis Intervention Unit, and a workforce
    production section. The workforce programs--the Job Shop and the
    Digital Imaging Shop--offer individuals an opportunity to perform real-
    world jobs in a work environment that teaches a variety of job
    readiness and job production skills.
        In 2006, the MCDCR, in collaboration with the Montgomery County
    Workforce Investment Board, located a full-service One-Stop Career
    Center in the jail. This career center is staffed by workforce
    personnel who move between the One-Stop Career locations in the jail
    and in the community. This allows them to work with individuals in the
    jail and then to continue to provide direct services post-release at
    the One-Stop Career Center in Wheaton, Maryland. The One-Stop offers
    incarcerated individuals carefully controlled internet access to sites
    with job listings, and offers job readiness and instructional videos,
    and literature and program guides on a variety of services that can
    assist them as they reenter the labor market. With technical assistance
    from the National Institute of Corrections and the US Department of
    Labor, the program is seeking to extend service hours by tapping
    volunteers from faith-based organizations.
        For selected inmates within 90 days of release and who will be
    returning to communities in Montgomery County directly, the ``Reentry
    for All'' program has also created a Collaborative Case Management
    Process where more than forty social service providers from community,
    faith-based organizations, and government agencies review the reentry
    needs of these individuals and team-up to provide wrap-around services
    post-release. Meeting twice a month, this group examines the unique
    reentry challenges that individuals face such as housing, employment,
    and health service. These issues are discussed at length and a workable
    and coordinated reentry plan among the partner agencies is developed.
    Finally, the ``Reentry for All'' initiative also provides released
    inmates with a temporary identification card with the County seal: this
    can assist individuals secure housing, jobs, education opportunities--
    and in one case--was even helpful to an individual to allow him to
    participate in school functions with his children. The 60-day card also
    serves as a bus pass and a library card, thus addressing very practical
    transportation and informational needs that individuals have
    immediately after release.
        Montgomery County is but one of dozens of jurisdictions from around
    the country committed to developing effective Prisoner Reentry
    programs, and many others offer innovative and exciting models that are
    worthy of study and emulation. A brief--but by no means complete--
    survey of such noteworthy models might include:

              The Hampden County Sheriff's community health care
            model that successfully integrates the community and
            institutional health care delivery systems such that
            incarcerated individuals see the same doctors in the
            institution that they see in neighborhood health clinics;

              The Allegheny County State Forensic Program that
            provides mental health services and support for individuals
            released from the Pennsylvania prison system and those that are
            detained in the in the county jail in Pittsburgh;

              Statewide efforts in Colorado, Texas, and Virginia
            that have connected the workforce development system with the
            correctional system to assist returning individuals secure
            employment and benefits;

              Parole agents in Iowa case managing individuals
            before they are released from prisons in Iowa to ensure a
            greater continuity of support and services;

              Police and Sheriff Departments' efforts to implement
            monthly public safety and social service panels as part of the
            Boston Reentry Initiative that seek to target the highest risk
            returning offenders with an array of services provided by
            community-based partners, and including a community college and
            faith-based organizations;

              The efforts to provide discharge planning services in
            New York City's correctional department with community partners
            for a system that has an average daily population of 13,000
            individuals and that processes over 100,000 per year;

              The array of innovative community correction programs
            in Minnesota's 31 Community Correction Act Counties that
            integrate the delivery of adult and juvenile correctional
            services at the local level including Hennepin's County
            Sentencing to Service Homes program that trains state prisoners
            to build homes;

              The correctional and community-based partnership in
            Davidson County, Tennessee that provides a continuum of jail-
            based and community-based services including mentors to
            individuals within seven months of release;

              Family Justice's efforts in New York City, New
            Jersey, and other jurisdictions to team up with correctional
            agencies to incorporate family members in the reentry planning
            processes;

              The job opportunities and training provided by such
            organizations as CEO in New York City and Pioneer Human
            Services in Seattle to employ individuals exiting local and
            state correctional systems into real jobs;

              The integration of work, treatment, and case
            management services provided by such community-based programs
            as the Safer Foundation in Illinois, the Talbert House in
            Cincinnati, Ohio, Community Resources for Justice in Boston,
            Massachusetts, the 6th Judicial District's Residential
            community Corrections/Work Release program in Cedar Rapids,
            Iowa; and Volunteer of America's programs in New Jersey and
            Minnesota.

        Again, this is hardly an exhaustive list: there are dozens of other
    reentry programs at all levels of government involving an array of
    community and government agency partners, and providing different
    combinations of services, which are promising and deserving of
    recognition. The needs of the population of individuals returning from
    jails and prisons are extensive, and jurisdictions need to employ a
    variety of combinations of reentry programs and strategies to address
    them.
                                   conclusion
        Prisoner reentry represents effective corrections and smart public
    policy. It recognizes the reality that hundreds of thousands of
    individuals leave state and federal prisons and that upwards of nine
    million individuals leave jails each year and return to communities and
    neighborhoods. It better prepares them and their communities for
    release, and in the long run, will result in reduced crime and
    recidivism, and other positive social outcomes for former incarcerants
    such as increased employment, decreased use of shelter beds, improved
    mental and somatic health care, and increased parental and civic
    involvement. Within correctional facilities, prisoner reentry programs
    can improve safety and order by engaging inmates in productive
    activities and focusing their attention on equipping themselves for
    their lives post-release. Such programs contribute to an institutional
    culture of respect and order and promote better inmate management and
    control.
        The Second Chance Act will spur more jurisdictions to adopt and
    enlarge prisoner reentry programs, and to continue developing applied
    research that will guide the development of more effective programs and
    systems. Passage of this act would continue the important role of
    federal leadership in encouraging local and state collaborations of
    government and community stakeholders to responsibly address the
    challenges of re-integrating large numbers of individuals returning
    from correctional supervision. Given the magnitude of the costs of
    corrections in the country, it represents a modest but critical effort
    that will be leveraged many times over by local sources, and one that
    potentially can yield an extraordinary high rate of return on
    investment for our nation's communities.
                                   references
    Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen,
        F. (1990). Does Correctional Treatment Work? A clinically-relevant
        and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-
        404.
    Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy
        Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice
        Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for
        Public Policy.
    Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing Correctional
        Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. In J. Horney
        (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000--Policies, Processes, and Decisions of
        the Criminal Justice System V 3, P , 2000, , ed.--See ) (Vol. 3,
        pp. 109-175).
    Gaes, G. G., Flanagan, T. J., Motiuk, L. L., & Stewart, L. (1999).
        Adult Correctional Treatment. In M. H. Tonry & J. Petersilia
        (Eds.), Prisons: Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research (Vol.
        26, pp. 361-426). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Gerard, V. S. (2005). New Study Proves Jails are an important Component
        of the Reentry Equation. On the Line, 28(2), 2.
    Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005 (No. NCJ
        215092). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistic, Office of
        Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice.
    Hughes, K. A. (2006). Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United
        States, 2003 (No. NCJ 212260)). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
        Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
    Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released
        in 1994 (No. NCJ 193427). Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice
        Statistics.
    Lattimore, P. K., & Steffey, D. (2006). Intermediate Outcomes: Initial
        Findings from the SVORI Impact Evaluation. Washington: RTI
        International, Urban Institute.
    Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of
        correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies.
        New York: Praeger Press.
    Lipton, D. S. (1995). CDATE: Updating ``The Effectiveness of
        Correctional Treatment'' 25 Years Later. Journal of Offender
        Rehabilitation, 22(1-2), 1-20.
    Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk
        principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and
        97 correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.
    Lyman, M. A. (2004). Hampden County House of Correction Recidivism
        Report: Recidivism Rates One and Three Years Post Release. Ludlow:
        Hampden County Sheriff's Department.
    Lyman, M. A., Morehouse, D. A., & Perkins, M. A. (2001). Maximizing
        Accountability Through Programming: Targeting Criminogenic Factors
        for Successful Offender Reintegration. Ludlow: Hampden County
        Sheriff's Department.
    Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison
        reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
    Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution
        regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243-258.
    Piehl, A. M., LoBuglio, S. F., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Prospects for
        Prisoner Reentry. EPI Working Paper, 125, 37.
    Sabol, W. J., & Beck, A. J. (2007). Trends in Crime, Jail Population
        Growth, and Prisoner Reentry [Powerpoint]. Washington, D.C.: Bureau
        of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
        of Justice.
    Travis, J. (2000). But they all come back : rethinking prisoner
        reentry. Sentencing & corrections ; no. 7., 11.
    Travis, J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry Seen Through a Community Lens.
        Paper presented at the Luncheon Address at the Neighborhood
        Reinvestment
    Corporation Training Institute.
    Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). From Prison to Home: The
        Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington D.C.:
        Urban Institute.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        And we apologize. You were supposed to have gotten a yellow
    light. And we figured out how to work the machine now.
    Everybody else will get a yellow light, which means the time is
    about to run out. You will get a little better warning than you
    did.
        Dr. Peters?

     TESTIMONY OF ROGER H. PETERS, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN AND PROFESSOR,
    DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH LAW AND POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH
                           FLORIDA, TAMPA, FL

        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
    Forbes, and thank you, Members of the Subcommittee, for this
    opportunity to testify on the Second Chance Act of 2007 and to
    participate in this important hearing.
        I have studied drug addiction and treatment in the criminal
    justice system over the past 20 years. And during this time, I
    think we have made great strides in developing effective
    treatments to break the harmful cycle of drug abuse and crime.
        Drug abuse is a major burden to our society. The estimated
    annual cost of drug-related crime are $107 billion. We know
    that substance abuse is closely linked to crime with over half
    of all violent crime, property crime and child abuse and
    neglect cases are related to drug use.
        Of the nearly 7 million adults in the criminal justice
    system, the majority have drug disorders. Most of these
    individuals have never participated in a comprehensive drug
    treatment program. We also know that incarceration without
    treatment is ineffective and is also a costly solution to this
    problem that we have.
        Drug and alcohol disorders do not resolve simply through
    forced abstinence in jails and prisons. Within the first year
    of release, 85 percent of offenders with drug disorders return
    to substance abuse. And within 3 years, two-thirds are re-
    arrested.
        Research conducted by NIDA and NIJ demonstrates that
    substance abuse treatment within the criminal justice system
    reduces recidivism, drug use, family violence, unemployment and
    welfare dependence. These findings are not only robust, but
    they are consistent and compelling.
        Substance abuse treatment reduced drug use by about half,
    reduces crime by up to 80 percent, reduces arrests up to 64
    percent and increases employment by 40 percent. Treatment is
    also effective across different criminal justice settings,
    including prisons, jails, work release center, day reporting
    centers and drug courts. The effectiveness of drug treatment is
    not diminished when it is leveraged through legal mandate.
        The most effective correctional programs are those that
    combine drug treatment in jails and prisons with treatment for
    at least 3 months following re-entry to the community. A NIDA
    study found that those participating in the prison treatment
    followed by treatment in a community work release center were
    seven times more likely to be free of drugs after 3 years than
    those who received no treatment, and were more than twice as
    likely to remain arrest free.
        Treatment in the criminal justice system is not only
    effective, but it also saves money. Cost savings related to
    treatment in reducing drug-related crime amount to $4 to $7 for
    every dollar spent. Despite the effectiveness of the drug
    treatment, only 10 percent to 12 percent of offenders receive
    any form of treatment--a small fraction of those who need it.
    Often these services are not comprehensive in scope.
        One of the most significant treatment gaps is community re-
    entry services following release from jail or prison--a
    particularly vulnerable time when offenders are exposed to high
    risk for relapse and re-arrest. Fewer than half of jails and
    prisons in the U.S. now offer any type of re-entry services.
    This may be the single most important gap that we face in
    services within the criminal justice system.
        Through research, we now have a better understanding of the
    key elements of effective treatment in the justice system. Drug
    addiction is a chronic and relapsing disorder of the brain that
    progresses over an extended period of time. And it is
    characterized by compulsive behavior. As a result,
    comprehensive treatment services are needed over a sustained
    period to interrupt the harmful cycle of drug use and crime.
        Like other chronic health disorders that are relapsing,
    such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension, drug addition
    requires ongoing attention but can be effectively treated and
    managed over time. According to NIDA's recently published
    Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice
    Populations, the most effective drug treatments are those that
    combine behavioral and pharmacological approaches and also
    include re-entry services. The Second Chance Act of 2007
    provides an important step toward enhancing correctional
    treatment of re-entry services and breaking the harmful cycle
    of drug abuse and crime.
        Also needed to achieve the goals of the Second Chance Act
    are to provide stable sources of funding and support for
    treatment and re-entry services throughout the criminal justice
    system; incentives to create State coordinating councils to
    help plan, develop and implement statewide offender treatment
    and re-entry systems; continued cooperation and partnerships
    between the Justice Department and SAMSA to expand and improve
    the continuum of correctional treatment and re-entry services.
    Finally, support for additional research to examine effective
    offender treatment is of critical importance, if we are going
    to continue building on the success stories discussed here
    today.
        In closing, drug abuse disorders are widespread in our
    society and particularly effect those involved in the justice
    system. We know that there is a strong connection between drug
    abuse and crime and of the harmful cycle that leads from drug
    abuse to crime and to incarceration. We also know that drug
    treatment and re-entry services can be highly effective in
    breaking this cycle, particularly if these services are
    comprehensive and coordinated across different points in the
    justice system. Yet, drug treatment now is provided to only a
    small fraction of offenders who need these services.
        For all of these reasons, your efforts to enact the Second
    Chance Act of 2007 make good sense from both a policy and a
    human perspective.
        Thank you for allowing me to share this information with
    you. And I will be happy to answer any questions later that you
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Roger H. Peters

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        We have been joined at one time or another by Mr. Nadler
    from New York, Mr. Chabot from Ohio, Mr. Lungren from
    California.
        Mr. Lufburrow?

       TESTIMONY OF STEVE LUFBURROW, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GOODWILL
                   INDUSTRIES OF HOUSTON, HOUSTON, TX

        Mr. Lufburrow. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee, my name is Steve Lufburrow, and I am the
    president and CEO of Goodwill Industries of Houston. And I
    really am pleased to testify today in support of the Second
    Chance Act.
        The need to help hundreds of thousands of incarcerated
    individuals in this country re-integrate into society has
    reached epidemic proportions. The critical underlying factor in
    any re-integration plan for the community is public safety.
        The Second Chance Act would lead our Nation in the right
    direction, as we discussed earlier, through the integration of
    the four major areas: drug treatment and mental health; job
    training; mentoring; and family strengthening. Inmates exiting
    the Nations jails and prisons need all of these vital services.
        Goodwill Industries is a network of 186 community-based
    independent member organizations in the United States, Canada
    and then 15 other countries. Each organization serves people
    with disabilities, low-wage workers and other jobseekers by
    providing education and career services as well as job
    placement opportunities and post-employment support. Our goal
    is to help people overcome their barriers to employment and
    become independent taxpaying members of our communities.
        In 2005, more than 846,000 people benefited from Goodwill's
    career services. Goodwill Industries reported $2.65 billion in
    revenues and channels 83 percent of the revenues directly into
    the programs and services. Goodwill Industries has unique
    experience as a service provider in areas impacting prisoner
    re-entry.
        Even before the re-integration program reached epidemic
    proportions, local Goodwill agencies throughout the country had
    been working with this population in both jails and prisons and
    when inmates are released. Since our agencies are community-
    based, we are able to work directly with the probation
    officers, the courts, the jails, the prisons and other partners
    in the community. In 2005, 97 local Goodwill agencies helped
    more than 45,000 current and former prisoners.
        The challenges in helping this population are tremendous.
    And legislation, such as the Second Chance Act, recognizes the
    need for comprehensive and integrated services. According to
    the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, between one-
    third and one-half of ex-offenders are caught committing new
    crimes within 3 years of their release. But in a 2004 study of
    the Urban Institute showed that inmates who are involved in
    work programs while incarcerated are approximately 20 percent
    less likely to re-offend upon release.
        In the State of Texas, we have 19 local Goodwill agencies.
    Our clients are primarily those with the most severe barriers
    to obtain employment, such as people with disabilities and
    welfare recipients. However, more individuals who seek our
    services have some prior criminal background. And we believe
    this is due to the growing rate of incarceration in this
    country.
        For example, of the 26,043 persons served by my friends and
    our friends at the San Antonio Goodwill last year, 10,945 were
    ex-offenders. That is nearly half of their entire client
    population. And out of all of our agencies in Texas, 14,308 ex-
    offenders were served. And that is startling to me.
        There exists a lack of comprehensive and coordinated
    services for ex-offenders from local, State and Federal
    authorities. And we are pleased that this legislation includes
    a role for nonprofit service providers. For years, our
    nationwide network has been providing juvenile and adult ex-
    offenders.
        And funding for prisoner re-entry is critical and often
    lacking in not for profits; because at Goodwill, we support
    many of our programs through the revenue provided by sales of
    donated clothes and household goods in our retail stores. The
    Second Chance Act, though, would help reduce recidivism by
    allocating the necessary funds to support those comprehensive
    services that have been identified as reducing recidivism.
        Many of the clients served by local Goodwill agencies have
    some type of criminal background on their record. And some
    estimates indicated as many 30 percent to 50 percent of the
    individuals served by local Goodwill agencies have a prior
    conviction. As a human service organization, Goodwill
    Industries understands that for ex-offenders to re-enter
    society, they must have the following: safe housing; substance
    abuse treatment; services for physical and mental illness;
    training, education and jobs; occupational skills training; and
    job retention services.
        I have included for the record a more extensive list of our
    programs and services. We believe that the Second Chance Act is
    urgently needed. Until the necessary steps are taken to help
    former prisoners obtain and retain jobs, the downward spiral of
    recidivism will continue.
        By keeping former prisoners from returning to a life of
    crime and being incarcerated, we increase public safety, reduce
    correction cost. And the Second Chance Act furthers us toward
    these goals and saves taxpayers dollars.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lufburrow follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Steve Lufburrow
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Steve
    Lufburrow, and I am the President and CEO of Goodwill Industries of
    Houston. I am pleased to testify today in support of the Second Chance
    Act.
        The need to help the hundreds of thousands of incarcerated
    individuals in this country reintegrate into society has reached
    epidemic proportions. The critical underlying factor in any
    reintegration plan for the community is public safety.
        The Second Chance Act would lead our nation in the right direction
    through the integration of four major areas: drug treatment and mental
    health, job training, mentoring, and family strengthening. Inmates
    exiting the nation's jails and prisons need all of these vital
    services.
        Goodwill Industries is a network of 186 community-based,
    independent member organizations in the United States, Canada, and 15
    other countries. Each organization serves people with disabilities,
    low-wage workers and other job seekers by providing education and
    career services, as well as job placement opportunities and post-
    employment support.
        Our goal is to help people overcome barriers to employment and
    become independent, tax-paying members of their communities. In 2005,
    more than 846,000 people benefited from Goodwill's career services.
    Goodwill Industries reported $2.65 billion in revenues, and channels 83
    percent of its revenues directly into its programs and services.
        Goodwill Industries has unique experience as a service provider in
    areas impacting prisoner re-entry. Even before the reintegration
    problem reached epidemic proportions, local Goodwill agencies
    throughout the country have been working with this population in both
    jails and prisons and when inmates are released. Since our agencies are
    community-based, we are able to work directly with probation officers,
    the courts, jails, prisons, and other partners in the community.
        In 2005, 97 local Goodwill agencies helped more than 45,000 current
    and former prisoners. The challenges in helping this population are
    tremendous, and legislation such as the Second Chance Act recognizes
    the need for comprehensive and integrated services.
        According to the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Texas, between
    one-third and one-half of all ex-offenders are caught committing new
    crimes within three years of their release. But a 2004 study by the
    Urban Institute showed that inmates who are involved in work programs
    while incarcerated are approximately 20 percent less likely to re-
    offend upon release. By conducting pre-release assessments to evaluate
    educational and vocational needs and facilitating collaboration with
    nonprofits and other groups to promote employment, including
    transitional jobs and time-limited subsidized work experience, the
    Second Chance Act would significantly aid in increasing ex-offender
    employment opportunities.
        In the state of Texas, we have 19 local Goodwill agencies. Our
    clients are primarily those with the most severe barriers to obtaining
    employment, such as individuals with disabilities and welfare
    recipients. However, more individuals who seek our services have some
    prior criminal background. We believe this is due to the growing rate
    of incarceration in this country.
        For example, of the 26,043 persons served by San Antonio Goodwill
    last year, 10,945 were ex-offenders. That's nearly half of their entire
    client population. Out of all of our agencies in Texas, 14,308
    offenders/ex-offenders were served. This is startling.
        There exists a lack of comprehensive and coordinated services for
    ex-offenders from local, state, and federal authorities. With nearly
    650,000 individuals released from jails and prison each year, we are
    reaching a national crisis in serving this group and helping them to
    reintegrate into society. We believe that passage of the Second Chance
    Act is a step in the right direction and long overdue. We support the
    integration of the workforce development system with housing, health
    services, education, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment.
    Because of this crisis, many of our local agencies across the country
    are beginning prisoner re-entry programs.
        We are pleased that the legislation includes a role for nonprofit
    service providers. The Second Chance Act would support the development
    of healthy child-parent relationships through implementing programs in
    correctional agencies to include the collection of information
    regarding any dependent children.
        According to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's
    Prisons, the most accurate indicator of a successful return to society
    is the inmate's connection to family. Children of incarcerated parents
    are six times more likely than other youth to land in prison at some
    point in their own lives. Over 1.5 million children have at least one
    parent in prison.
        Goodwill agencies understand that reconnecting to one's family can
    be immensely effective in ending the cycle of recidivism. Through an
    ongoing partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, local Goodwill
    agencies across the U.S. assist in supporting strong family
    relationships.
        For years, our nationwide network has been providing juvenile and
    adult services to ex-offenders. Some of our programs receive state or
    foundation support. The Second Chance Act would provide support for
    family strengthening programs like the one we operate at Goodwill
    Industries.
        Funding for prisoner re-entry is critical and often lacking for
    nonprofits. At Goodwill Industries, we support many of our programs
    through the revenue provided by sales of donated clothing and household
    goods in our retail stores. Currently, adequate funding does not exist
    for prisoner re-entry programs. Much of the funding in the corrections
    system is spent on housing inmates, and not on comprehensive services
    that would actually help prepare them for release and ultimately lead
    to a decrease in the nation's recidivism rate. The Second Chance Act
    would help reduce recidivism by allocating the necessary funds to
    support those comprehensive services that have been identified as
    reducing recidivism.
        The legislation would also help reduce state corrections' costs. A
    significant portion of state budgets are dedicated to correction-
    related expenses. The average cost to house a federal inmate is over
    $25,000 a year. The average cost on the state level in 2000 was only
    slightly less--$21,170 yearly. While the costs to taxpayers soared from
    $9 billion per year on corrections in 1982 to $60 billion two decades
    later, recidivism has not improved over the last 30 years. Given the
    current cost spent on corrections, even a modest reduction in the rate
    of recidivism would yield substantial economic benefits.
        Many of the clients served by local Goodwill agencies have some
    type of criminal background on their records, and some estimates
    indicate as many as 30-50 percent of the individuals served by local
    Goodwill agencies have a prior conviction. As a human service
    organization, Goodwill Industries understands that for ex-offenders to
    re-enter society, they must have the following:

              Safe housing

              Substance abuse treatment

              Services for physical and mental illness

              Training, education, and jobs

              Occupational skills training

              Job retention services

        Many of our agencies are involved in providing such services, which
    we believe are critical in reducing the nation's rate of recidivism. We
    have two local agencies--Goodwill Industries of New York and New Jersey
    and Goodwill Industries of San Antonio--that received the Prisoner
    Reentry Initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. We support
    the expansion of this program and the authorization of new funding for
    job training programs operated by nonprofits.
        Goodwill Industries of San Antonio leads a collaboration of faith
    and community-based providers in an efficient, seamless service
    continuum for non-violent offenders. The agency's ``Learn While You
    Earn'' project features transitional employment, job retention support
    and continuous case management, in addition to job placement, housing
    assistance, counseling, and alcohol and drug treatment. In each of
    these service areas, the agency partners with other providers.
        Goodwill Industries of New York and New Jersey began Project Caring
    Community in 2003 to help female ex-offenders successfully transition
    to community life after their release from prison. This agency provides
    wrap around case management services and medical assistance. The
    program also provides counseling by trained psychologists to deal with
    psychiatric, substance abuse, housing, education, social, personal and
    family related issues. This program serves women at several women's
    prisons in upstate New York. I have included for the record a more
    extensive list of our programs and services.
        Our local agencies specialize in vocational screening, pre-
    employment and soft skills training, transitional work experience,
    placement and retention services. The successful reintegration of
    individuals coming out of our nation's prisons depends upon community
    and family support, and placement into employment--this ultimately will
    help us to reach our goal of improving public safety.
        We believe that the Second Chance Act is urgently needed. Until the
    necessary steps are taken to help former prisoners obtain and retain
    jobs, the downward spiral of recidivism will continue. By keeping
    former prisoners from returning to a life of crime and being
    incarcerated, we increase public safety and reduce corrections' costs.
    The Second Chance furthers us toward these goals.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Cowley?

       TESTIMONY OF JACK G. COWLEY, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ALPHA FOR
                PRISONS AND RE-ENTRY, WICHITA FALLS, TX

        Mr. Cowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee.
        I was raised in a prison town and went to school with kids
    whose dads worked in prison in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State
    Reformatory. And I was hired in 1970 by the LEAA, a grant from
    the Federal Government, as the first inmate relief counselor in
    Oklahoma. It was a pretty disappointing job. But I have stayed
    with corrections ever since and was a warden for many years;
    continued to work in the field.
        I am probably in a prison perhaps once a month. I know
    inmates. I know wardens. I know correctional officers. I know
    the victims. And the system is in dire need of hope--dire need
    of hope.
        They do have models that work. Wardens, quite frankly, have
    long given up on re-entry. And they don't really even think
    about what they do in terms of recidivism rates. They just try
    to keep the toilets flushing and the chicken from being bloody
    when it comes off the stove.
        I was talking with a warden Friday, as he said, at the
    worst prison in Texas--a 3,330 long-term prison for young
    offenders--were opening what I will refer to you in a moment as
    ``God pods'' there. And he said, ``Jack, I am running a 34
    percent vacancy rate. All I can do is just try to survive.''
        In 1997, in the State of Texas, under the leadership of
    Prison Fellowship and then-Governor Bush, we started what was
    called the Interchange Freedom Initiative, which was an
    intensive in-prison pre-release program of at least 18 months,
    in which volunteers came into the prison, made relationships
    with inmates, and began to mentor them upon their release.
        In fact, I got the rule changed in Texas, whereby inmates
    could be released from that prison directly into the arms of
    their mentor rather than traveling all the way to Huntsville to
    be released and having to take a bus home. Many of them don't
    make it.
        That program was studied by Byron Johnson and found that
    what they call a 50 percent recidivism rate in Texas, which is
    really closer to 70 percent--although the sample was fairly
    small, the recidivism rate for those inmates that completed and
    graduated from that program was only 8 percent. It is almost
    too good.
        Since then, with Alpha, what I do is invest in faith-based
    and community organizations in a collaborative way and provide
    wardens the opportunity to offer us a unit within the prison
    where inmates can be housed separately. Then we provide
    programming up until the time they are released. Then that work
    continues after they go home, and it is working. We will build
    so far--although the numbers are growing--was probably close to
    2,000 inmates a year. More States are getting excited about
    what we are offering, because it involves faith-based and
    community organizations in a collaborative with the State. We
    now can tell wardens something works.
        I was at a grand opening Friday of a long-term God pod in
    Rosharon, Texas. And when the warden paints the dorms and puts
    in new flower beds and gets things ready, you know that he is
    dedicated to seeing changes in his prison.
        Now, a lot of that work is being done. And quite frankly,
    it will be done without the Second Chance Act. It won't be done
    on the level that it needs to be. I mean, we have heard 650,000
    inmates go home a year. The Second Chance Act will certainly
    give us an opportunity to add capacity.
        But you have started something, quite frankly, that you
    need to finish. You see, without hope--and I am not talking
    just about inmates and their families and victims, but the
    system. We got this bill now. We say we are going to do all
    this wonderful stuff, and if it isn't done, the message is
    going to go out to the States--to wardens, and the jail
    administrators, and to inmates--well, if those guys really
    don't care, then why should we bother anymore? And I am telling
    you that is what is going to happen.
        The Second Chance Act is much more than money. As much as
    it is needed, the Second Chance Act is a shot in the arm for
    the system--not just ``second chance'' for inmates, but it is a
    ``second chance'' for correctional administrators, a ``second
    chance'' for victims. So, we urge its passing. We know the
    model that works, and we are just waiting for the resources to
    build capacity.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share that with you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cowley follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Jack G. Cowley
        Thank you for offering me this time to speak with you concerning a
    subject, which has for years been debated from the halls of Congress to
    barber chairs in every corner of our country. Crime and Punishment and
    in particular recidivism rates of those inmates who are released from
    our prisons. I literally do mean ``for years'' as I was first employed
    in 1970 as the first Inmate Release Counselor in the State of Oklahoma
    prison system with a Federal Grant to assist with the reduction of
    recidivism. I therefore can speak to you today as a person who for the
    past thirty-seven years has spent as much time in the company of
    inmates as I have with my own children, of the continued failure of our
    criminal justice system to protect the safety of our country's
    citizens.
        I don't believe that I need to go into the numbers, which represent
    that failure. You have heard that testimony from others. The mere fact
    that this hearing is taking place indicates your awareness of the
    problem--a problem by the way, which grows worse as the years go by.
    While crime rates have remained somewhat stable over the past years,
    our correctional facilities are bursting at the seams and more are
    being built every year. We can no longer afford to maintain business as
    usual inside the walls.
        As a warden for over twenty-five years, I saw first hand on the
    faces of inmates about to be released the sincerity in commitment to
    remain crime free. As a director of programs for a non-profit out
    patient clinic dealing with ex-offenders who were struggling to remain
    crime free, I can attest to the fact that they really did not want to
    return to prison. My Dad would say, ``Anyone can stay out of prison
    that really wants to.'' We like to think in this country that anyone
    can be what who want to be. Our country in fact was founded on that
    principal. Yet, after all of
        these years of working in and believing in our system of justice, I
    have come to the conclusion that wanting something to be so, doesn't
    always make it so. There are some people who must be helped, who must
    be nurtured into being what they want to be. With a recidivism rate
    over fifty percent, it is obvious that help has not been forthcoming.
        I can tell you without hesitation that until recently the vast
    majority of wardens and directors of corrections were deliberately
    indifferent in terms of the successful reintegration of inmates back
    into society. We would all say that the programs of academic education,
    counseling and job readiness opportunities were offered inside our
    prisons for exactly that purpose. We would say that upon release parole
    officers were assigned to parolees to assist in reintegration. The
    inference was of course that the system was doing all that could be
    done to provide inmates with the tools of success and therefore the
    failure to remain crime free was due solely to the desire of the ex-
    offender. I can tell you that parole systems are now for the most part,
    given the hike in the recidivism rate, geared solely toward the
    surveillance of parolees and not toward their reintegration back into
    their communities.
        It was in part this philosophy, which gave rise to ``Lock'em up and
    Throw Away the Key'' that prisons came to be constructed at a
    staggering rate all over the country. We couldn't get tough enough on
    crime. As warden I had one public official who said, ``let them carry
    rocks from one side of the prison yard to the other ten hours per day,
    feed them dog food and I bet that they won't come back in.'' The
    reality (and I believe we all know this now) is that you can't build
    our way out of the problems we face in our prisons. Being tough on
    crime is not making those at whom we are angry, hurt; it is providing
    them an environment in which to change and the tools with which to do
    so while incarcerated. It is conscientious assistance upon release with
    becoming tax-paying/crime free citizens. Toughness on crime is
    effective public policy, which promotes public safety. You see the
    Second Chance Act is not a rehabilitation tool. It has nothing to do
    with being soft on crime. It is in fact a bill that promotes public
    safety as it will assuredly reduce the number of future crime victims.
        We now have a model for effective reintegration, which cannot be
    denied. Intensive pre-release programs in which offenders who have
    volunteered are housed within the prison on specific living units,
    participating together in programs led by local volunteers willing to
    continue the
        solid relationships formed during the offenders' incarceration,
    upon release. The inmates' families are asked to participate in support
    programs held in the community. Housing and job opportunities are
    provided through collaborations of faithbased and community
    organizations. The recidivism rate according to the study conducted by
    Dr. Byron Johnson was significantly reduced for those inmates who
    completed the program. The Second Chance Act will send a message to not
    only those state and federal employees that Congress is serious about
    making the system work effectively, it will also encourage the
    development of local collaborations of support upon which rest the
    foundation recidivism reduction.
        Let me conclude my comments by saying at the heart of making the
    system work effectively and thereby reducing the rate at which ex-
    offenders are returned to prison, someone must be held accountable for
    reducing the current rate of recidivism. In other words, if wardens,
    parole supervisors and directors of corrections were held accountable
    for the reduction in recidivism rates, the criminal justice system
    would change over night. By placing that requirement on the annual
    evaluations of federal and state corrections employees, the methods by
    which business is conducted inside our prisons and parole offices would
    dramatically change. No more business as usual. In other words, those
    individuals who choose to work in corrections and who fail to correct
    must be held accountable.
        Passage of this bill will signal to those inside the criminal
    justice system and those ``outside'' of it who are considering becoming
    partners, that there is hope. Much needed resources would become
    available to those correctional administrators willing to make changes
    necessary to overcome the lasting pains of incarceration. The pain of
    the offender most assuredly will become the community's pain if not
    healed. Remember the vast majority of those who are in our prisons are
    simply people at whom we are angry and not of whom we are afraid. We
    now have a proven effective model with which to work. We can reach
    these people, these offenders, these neighbors and now it is a matter
    of holding the system accountable for putting it into practice.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
        Mr. McDonald?

              TESTIMONY OF GEORGE T. McDONALD, PRESIDENT,
                      DOE FUND, INC., NEW YORK, NY

        Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Members of
    the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here and have my
    second chance to testify before Congress.
        I certainly support the Second Change Act of re-integration
    the formerly incarcerated individuals into the workforce and
    the mainstream of society.
        In the early 1980's, I started working with homeless men
    and women in New York City. I spent literally 700 nights in a
    row feeding thousands of individuals who lived in, around and
    under Grand Center Terminal. I got to know them, often becoming
    their friend.
        From them, I learned the conventional solutions are
    insufficient in comprehensively and permanently addressing
    their needs. Shelters provided a place to sleep for the night.
    And a sandwich quelled their hunger for the moment. But what
    they really wanted was a room and a job to pay for it.
        The Ready, Willing and Able program answered that need. It
    was built on a promise, a contract really, between my
    organization, the Doe Fund, and those homeless men, that if
    they gave up drugs and went to work, this program would be
    there to support and open doors for them. Ready, Willing and
    Able, or as we call it RWA, started as an innovative approach
    to solving a seemingly intractable problem that today has
    become the most visible, effective, respected solution to
    homelessness in the Nation.
        We serve over 1,000 people a day in three States. As a part
    of our community improvement street-cleaning project, we send
    men in blue--and that is what we call them, because of the
    bright blue uniforms they wear with the American flag on their
    sleeve--out to clean over 150 miles of New York City streets.
    Seven days a week, 365 days a year, the sweeping, bagging of
    garbage, graffiti removal, snow shoveling and other street
    sanitation services we perform have improved the quality of
    life in our city and made our participants beloved and sought
    after additions to every neighborhood.
        Because they do this hard and humble work with diligence
    and good cheer, they have won the support of over 45,000
    individuals that not only send us financial contributions, but
    notes explaining how much they have come to rely on our
    participants. And believe it or not, feel safer because of
    their presence.
        Several years ago, we recognized that society was facing a
    crisis larger and certainly costlier than homelessness, one
    that threatens public safety, burdens taxpayers and results in
    countless human lives being wasted: criminal recidivism. As you
    have said here, Mr. Chairman, 650,000 people are released from
    jails and prisons cross the country each year. More than two-
    thirds go back within 3 years.
        Knowing that 70 percent of the men we already successfully
    serve in RWA had an average of three felony convictions each,
    and that the chief factor influencing recidivism was quality
    employment, we saw an opportunity to adapt our model to serve
    those exiting prison and solve another critical societal
    problem.
        In 2001, the Department of Justice became our partner in
    these efforts. They funded the launch of a pilot program
    serving parolees who had already had housing, but were in need
    of educational; vocational; substance abuse; social services;
    and most importantly, paid work that RWA offered. Beginning
    with 30 men, the program has grown to serve over 200, who all
    put on that bright blue uniform and go out every day to clean
    our city. In an unassuming and humble way, they accomplish the
    monumental task of reversing prejudices and changing the
    perception of formerly incarcerated people.
        In 2006, building on our success in reducing recidivism by
    helping parolees rejoin the workforce, the New Jersey and New
    York congressional delegations secured additional funding
    through the Department of Justice for us to expand by adding a
    residential component. Today RWA Stuyvesant located in Bedford
    Stuyvesant, Brooklyn seizes on the critical moment when an
    inmate is about to be released and is looking to make a
    positive change in his life. Recruitment begins literally
    before the fellow's release and offers him a chance to walk out
    of the prison door onto one of our vans that will transport him
    to his new transitional home and work.
        For 9 to 12 months, he lives in a safe, drug-free, shared
    apartment. He is paid above the minimum wage to work in our
    community improvement projects, receives the comprehensive
    social services, reports to a parole officer assigned
    specifically to participants in our Stuyvesant program.
    Immediately, he becomes a productive, law-abiding member of the
    community, and an example of what is possible when opportunity
    is provided and seized.
        Jose Carrera was 19 years old when he was sentenced under
    the New York Rockefeller Drug Laws. He was 39 when he came out.
    While inside, he stabbed another inmate and spent a total of 5
    years in solitary confinement. There in the box, as they call
    it, he had an awakening and decided to change his life.
        Upon release, he came to our program, put on that blue
    uniform and pushed a bucket for a year. He remembers the things
    that kept him motivated when he thought about giving up were
    the paycheck and the passers-by who patted him on the back and
    thanked him for the job he was doing. He was used to inspiring
    fear, but never smiles of gratitude.
        The greatest sense of gratitude for his transformation
    comes from his two children. In the past, his son was told you
    are no good. You will be just like your father. Today, Jose Jr.
    sees his father as a role model and appreciates being compared
    to him. Jose graduated from our program with a job as a
    dialysis technician. He likes to say that while he once stabbed
    people to hurt them, today he does it to save their lives.
        There are thousands of stories like Jose's. And through the
    help of this bill and the Doe Fund's criminal justice programs
    and the rest of the folks here, there can and will be many
    more. We have found the way to replace the revolving door of
    criminal recidivism with the best front door in America, one
    that formerly incarcerated persons can walk through with little
    more than a desire to work hard and rebuild his life, and walk
    back out a year later with his sobriety, a permanent job and
    his own apartment.
        As I sit here addressing this Subcommittee of the United
    States Congress, I can't help but think what could be more
    fundamentally American than extending the opportunity of hard
    work and personal responsibility to people striving to become
    taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. This is an important piece of
    legislation to provide that opportunity.
        Thank you for having me here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of George T. McDonald
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today on a matter of significant
    importance to our Nation. As Founder and President of The Doe Fund, the
    New York based non-profit that operates the Ready, Willing & Able
    residential paid work program, I have had the privilege of watching
    thousands of men break lifelong patterns of crime, homelessness and
    substance abuse to become productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens
    and fathers to their children.
        In the early 1980's, when I first started working with people our
    society had given up on--homeless, drug-addicted ex-offenders--I heard
    from their mouths that what they really wanted was a hand-up, not a
    handout. They wanted the opportunity to go to work, to lift themselves
    out of poverty, to escape destructive cycles and to rejoin mainstream
    society. When I handed them a sandwich they thanked me, but asked for
    something more--something I heard over and over again--``A room and a
    job to pay for it. A room and a job to pay for it.''
        The Ready, Willing & Able program fulfills that request. It was the
    first program of its kind to go beyond immediate emergency needs...to
    believe in the potential of even the most downtrodden among us to seize
    an opportunity and succeed.
        I recruited the first Ready, Willing & Able program participants
    from the floor of Grand Central Terminal. That is where they had landed
    after cycling in and out of homeless shelters and prisons. Together we
    entered into a contract in which they promised to give up drugs and go
    to work and The Doe Fund, in return, promised that Ready, Willing &
    Able (RWA) would be there to support and open doors for them.
        From that first handful of men and our first facility in Bedford-
    Stuyvesant, Brooklyn we have grown to serve over 1,000 people a day, in
    six facilities and three states. Our participants come to us, no longer
    off the floor of Grand Central Terminal, but often straight from our
    prisons. They represent the largest and costliest crisis--both
    financially and in wasted human lives--our society has yet to face--
    criminal recidivism.
        Each year, 660,000 individuals are released from prison. Two-thirds
    go back within three years. Studies have shown over and over again that
    the chief factor influencing their recidivism is the ability to find
    quality employment. It is therefore no surprise that Ready, Willing &
    Able's work-based approach has had such extraordinary success in
    helping this population permanently escape the revolving door of
    incarceration.
        As part of our renowned and highly visible community improvement
    street cleaning project, we put the ``Men in Blue'' (as we call them
    because of the bright blue uniforms they wear) to work cleaning over
    150 miles of city streets every day. They earn above minimum wage and
    immediately begin to develop the work ethic and dignity that comes from
    an honest day's work.
        The sweeping, bagging of garbage, graffiti removal, snow shoveling
    and other street sanitation services they perform have improved the
    quality of life in the cities where we operate and made our
    participants beloved and sought after additions to every neighborhood.
    Because they do this hard and humble work with diligence and good
    cheer, they have won the support of more than 45,000 individuals who
    not only send financial contributions, but notes explaining how much
    they have come to rely on our participants and--believe it or not--feel
    safer because of their presence. After 9 months in our program we help
    them find full-time private sector jobs and get ready to exchange their
    blue uniforms for suits and ties, chef's hats and doorman uniforms.
        When in 2001, Kings County (New York) District Attorney Charles
    Hynes asked us to launch a pilot ``day'' program serving parolees who
    had housing, but needed the educational, vocational, substance abuse
    and, most importantly, paid work that RWA offered, we didn't hesitate.
        Beginning with 30 men, our day program has grown to serve over 200.
    All put on our signature bright blue uniforms and go out every day to
    clean our city. In an unassuming and humble way, they accomplish the
    monumental task of reversing prejudices and changing the perception of
    formerly incarcerated people.
        Last year, building on our extraordinary success in reducing
    recidivism by helping parolees rejoin the workforce, we secured
    additional funding through the Department of Justice to help us expand
    our program to serve parolees by adding a residential component to the
    services we were already providing. Today, RWA-Stuyvesant, located in
    Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, is one of the most comprehensive
    residential, work-based models serving this population. It focuses on
    the critical moment when an inmate is about to be released and is
    looking to make a positive change in his life. Recruitment begins
    before he is even released and literally offers him a chance to walk
    out the prison door and onto one of our vans that will transport him to
    his new transitional home.
        For 9-12 months he lives in a safe, drug-free shared apartment, is
    paid above minimum wage to work in our community improvement project,
    receives comprehensive social, services and reports to a Parole Officer
    assigned specifically to participants in RWA-Stuyvesant. Immediately,
    he becomes a productive, law-abiding member of the community and an
    example of what is possible when meaningful opportunity is provided and
    seized.
        Last year, I was asked by Chauncey Parker, then Director of the New
    York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, to assemble a
    committee to formulate recommendations that would enhance employment
    opportunities for job seekers with criminal records. I had the honor of
    working, for over a year, with brilliant and dedicated experts to
    create The Independent Committee on Reentry and Employment's Report and
    Recommendations to New York State on Enhancing Employment Opportunities
    for Formerly Incarcerated People. I am proud of the recommendations we
    put forth in this report and could include findings and statistics from
    it in this testimony, but instead, I would like to share the stories of
    some of our program graduates with you.
        Anthony Malpica came to Ready, Willing & Able with over 50
    convictions for Breaking and Entering. During his three decade long
    addiction to heroin he had known two homes: a prison cell and a
    cardboard box in an abandoned lot in Spanish Harlem that he called
    ``Cardboard Co-op City.'' Upon his last release, he heard about RWA at
    a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Putting on our blue uniform and sweeping
    the streets of New York was Anthony's first legitimate job at the age
    of 45. When it came time for him to look for permanent employment, he
    applied for a job as--of all things--a locksmith apprentice. As he
    says, ``I had broken many locks to rob, but I had never imagined myself
    fixing them.'' Today, Anthony has been drug-free for 8 years. He is
    married and lives in his own home. He is no longer a locksmith
    apprentice, but a certified, bonded locksmith.
        Jose Carrero was 19 when he was sentenced under New York's
    Rockefeller Drug laws. He was 39 when he came out. While inside, he
    stabbed another inmate and spent a total of 5 years in solitary
    confinement. There, ``in the box'' as inmates call it, he had an
    awakening and decided to change his life.
        Upon release, he came to our program, put on a blue uniform and
    pushed a bucket for a year. He remembers that the things that kept him
    motivated, when he thought about giving up, were the paycheck and the
    passersby who patted him on the back and thanked him for the job he was
    doing. He was used to inspiring fear in people, but never smiles or
    gratitude.
        The greatest sense of gratitude for his transformation, however,
    comes from his two children. In the past, his son was told, ``You're no
    good. You will be just like your father.'' Today Jose, Jr. sees his
    father as a role model and appreciates being compared to him.
        Jose graduated from our program with a job as a dialysis
    technician. He likes to say that while he once stabbed people to hurt
    them, today he does it to save their lives.
        There are thousands of success stories like Anthony's and Jose's,
    and through the help of programs like The Doe Fund's there can be more.
    Enacting this bill is a start toward assembling the formula--of which
    work opportunities are the key--to ensuring their success and that of
    the thousands of formerly incarcerated individuals who seek to re-enter
    society and the workforce.
        Ready, Willing & Able has found the way to replace the revolving
    door of criminal recidivism with the best front door in America--one
    that a formerly incarcerated person can walk through with little more
    than the desire to work hard and rebuild his life and walk out of, a
    year later, with his sobriety, a permanent job and his own apartment.
        In my testimony to this Subcommittee of the United States Congress
    , I cannot help but think--``what could be more fundamentally American
    than enacting legislation like this that will extend the opportunity of
    hard work and personal responsibility to people striving to become tax-
    paying, law abiding citizens?''

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McDonald.
        I now will proceed to questions under the 5-minute rule. I
    will begin recognizing myself for 5 minutes and start with Dr.
    Peters.
        How important is mental health services to rehabilitation?
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Important point;
    mental health is a critical issue for our inmates. I think you
    heard several of the panelists discuss that already this
    afternoon. We know that 15 percent of our offenders have major
    mental health disorders in this country.
        In some cases, people talk about our correctional system
    now as the public safety net of last resort for our society.
    Unfortunately, these systems are not funded to provide
    intensive services in many cases, nor are they staffed to do
    that.
        So, it is really an important task for us to be able to
    identify those people and get them out of the system if
    possible as early as possible; and in the process at the point
    of entry to jail, for example, if those people don't present a
    public safety risk, to be placed in jail diversion programs
    with court monitoring, supervision and treatment services.
        Of course, for those people in jails and in prisons, they
    need to receive their medication and get treatment services
    that they need, and then be able to receive the same type of
    re-entry services that we are talking about here today for this
    population, who are at very extremely high risk of relapse and
    recidivism, and re-entry to hospitalization crisis
    stabilization units and other, kind of, key services in our
    society that cost huge amounts of money.
        So, a very important group that we need to target for
    resources and for re-entry services as well.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Chief LoBuglio, you mentioned the important of having re-
    entry programs in jails. With jail overcrowding and the short
    period of time that people are going to be in a local jail, how
    effective can re-entry programs be in the local jails?
        Mr. LoBuglio. They can be very effective. And there are
    numerous opportunities to intervene in creative ways to work
    with the jail population. In the jail population--again the 9
    million individuals coming and going from the jail system
    annually--some will be staying for short periods of time,
    others will be staying for years.
        A re-entry plan for each individual is going to be unique.
    It is going to be tailored based on their needs and how long
    they are going to be with us for those in Montgomery County we
    find that in our jail-based program we are able to provide a
    one-stop career center for those who are sentenced for 90 days
    or less.
        There are other re-entry services that can be provided it
    for individuals that are there for shorter periods of time. In
    Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, there is a forensic mental
    health program that provides mental health services to
    individuals have who have been locked up for just 2 hours. They
    come in and they make sure that there is continuity of care.
        So, there are many models of re-entry. That is, I think, a
    theme of this legislation and the experience over the last 8
    years. Not every re-entry program is going to serve every type
    of individual. But don't forsake jails. There is much that can
    be done in jails to promote re-entry, and there are many
    examples across this country. I can cite those for you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Cowley, you represent several faith-based
    organizations. Do they need to discriminate in employment with
    Federal money in order to be effective?
        Mr. Cowley. No.
        Mr. Scott. As a former warden, did you have second chance
    programs in your prisons?
        Mr. Cowley. No.
        Mr. Scott. You didn't have any second chance programs in
    your prisons when you were a warden?
        Mr. Cowley. And very few do today. We talk about reducing
    the custody level, and that in turn means re-entry for most
    systems. But interventions are not that meaningful. We are
    strictly talking bed custody.
        So, when they talk about going to a halfway house, they are
    still--we offer things, but we say, okay, it is just--an inmate
    to get it if he wants to get it. It has to be more involved----
        Mr. Scott. What kind of programs do you think would be
    popular for inmates? What kind of programs would they be most
    likely to actually participate in?
        Mr. Cowley. Inmates know what is good for them if given the
    environment in which to change. Job readiness--most of them, if
    they are given this opportunity, want to know how to be better
    dads, because they know that statistically, just being in
    prison, their kids are at a higher risk. Most want to know how
    to fill out a resume.
        I had one guy that was in for 14 years. The day he got out,
    he said, ``Jack, will you teach me how to eat?'' They don't get
    to use forks and knives, Mr. Chairman. He wanted to know just
    how to eat. So, we did pretty good when he cut his meat, but
    then he didn't know what to do with the fork when he reached
    for his glass, so he just stuck it in the top of his steak
    which, you know--those are the kinds of things they want to
    know.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Forbes?
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, first of all, without objection, I would like
    to introduce for the record a letter from 15 faith-based
    organizations that approve of this legislation as it is
    currently written.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Without objection.
        Mr. Gohmert. Could I reserve objection? Is that the one
    with the top 10 names on it? We had an issue last year where
    some of the faith-based groups that we checked with were not
    familiar with the particular thing their name was----
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I will debate this later if he
    has an objection. If he could voice his objection, and then we
    will deal with it as we get through the--rather than use my
    time on this one.
        Mr. Scott. Well, we will start your time over, but there is
    a motion made to introduce the letter for the record. Is there
    objection?
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, if I could reserve objection----
        Mr. Scott. The right to object has been reserved. We will
    start the time now.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all of you witnesses for being here and for
    the programs that you are involved in.
        Mr. Lufburrow--I hope I am pronouncing that correctly--I
    know that Goodwill does a lot of programs in this area. Can you
    tell us what success rate that you have had?
        Also, how does family-based treatment address the needs of
    children participating in the program? What is the broad
    picture of the children affected by parental incarceration,
    substance abuse?
        If you can be as brief as possible, because I want ask a
    few questions of some of the other witnesses.
        Mr. Lufburrow. Sure. Let me try to answer those.
        The family side for the children, obviously, they have a
    rough run when they have someone, a parent, incarcerated. So,
    when we can work with the parent and get their self-esteem
    built up, it sure helps and rubs off on those kids. We are more
    working with the parent side as they are incarcerated.
        The first question again, sir?
        Mr. Forbes. The first question is, what success rate has
    Goodwill had?
        Mr. Lufburrow. Well, when we work with folks who have been
    incarcerated, you know, we will see not as much as I would like
    to see. But if we could get it to 50, I am happy. We work with
    so many other populations as well, which we are a little higher
    with.
        That is why we are pushing for this to pass through,
    because we don't have the dollars to make these programs
    official. So, we have to do it in other ways.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay.
        Dr. Peters, one of the things we are always looking at is
    effectiveness and how we measure effectiveness of programs. Can
    you tell us the difference between a short-term, let's say 30-
    day, drug program that we try to put on somebody and a more
    comprehensive program that you talked about, the difference in
    effectiveness between those two kinds of programs?
        Mr. Peters. Absolutely, yes. We know that treatment to be
    effective needs to be approximately 90 days for offenders and
    for others that have chronic problems like this. We also know
    that longer-term programs such as 6-to 12-month programs are
    those that create long-term sustained outcomes, and those are
    the programs that we look at.
        And you see some of the figures cited in the testimony,
    where you have 27 percent who are re-arrested over the course
    of 3 years of follow-up after intensive treatment in prison and
    outside of prison, compared to in the range of 75 who don't
    receive treatment in those settings. So, you have a fairly
    persuasive 50 percent reduction in recidivism based on those
    long-term programs.
        You still see marked gains, though, in those intermediate
    range programs over 90 days. But it looks like that is the
    threshold, sir, that we need to reach for. And you can still
    achieve some significant gains in reductions in recidivism and
    substance abuse. But again, those don't typically lead to
    sustained changed in behaviors over time.
        Mr. Forbes. Good.
        Mr. Cowley, I know you have seen it from both sides. You
    have seen it as a warden. You have also worked with several
    faith-based organizations. Based on the organizations that you
    have worked with, do they approve of this bill and its current
    structure as it is written?
        Mr. Cowley. The ones that know about it do. And the ones
    that don't know about it do as well. I can tell you faith-based
    groups and community organizations, not only are they aware of
    the debate in many cases, but they are looking for the
    opportunity to be involved. And with wardens and other Federal
    organizations that would receive the grant money, these people
    would line up, definitely.
        Mr. Forbes. Well, thank you.
        And, Mr. LoBuglio, if I could, first of all, you have a
    model program; done a great job with that in Montgomery County.
    But again, one of the things we are always looking at is
    measuring effectiveness and what measures should we use to
    evaluate re-entry programs. Because it is one of the things we
    are always looking at here, is recidivism.
        You know, I mean, is re-arrested or re-incarceration the
    only valuable measure? Or, if not, what other things?
        Mr. LoBuglio. There are other measures.
        We have been around for 30 years. We have had 11,000 people
    go through our program. In 2006, our performance measures that
    we track and measure the quality of our program with include
    the statistic that 99 percent of those who were with us in our
    work release program left with housing. Ninety percent left
    with employment. All of them left with community referrals and
    contacts and working with family. We recorded $200,000 that was
    provided by inmates for family support. We generated $400,000
    in program fees to support our programs.
        There are many performance measures that can be used to
    measure the effectiveness of programs. Recidivism is an
    interesting figure. It is a figure that, for some programs it
    is appropriate; for other programs, it is probably beyond their
    ability. The factors that go into an individual recidivating
    including, one, their motivation. It also includes other
    exogenous factors, such as police policies, prosecutorial
    policies, probation and parole policies. Those are beyond the
    control of specific programs.
        That said, the research is clear that quality programs
    implemented with integrity can reduce recidivism over the long
    term. I think the findings of the Serious and Violent Offender
    Re Initiative, where we had 69 program sites, that are being
    evaluated give us pause to remind ourselves of the capacity
    that we still need to build within the system to make re-entry
    a reality.
        Mr. Forbes. Good.
        My time is up, but thank you all so much for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Scott. Chairman Conyers?
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What an exercise of
    great magnitude this has been. My feeling for hope has
    increased.
        When I look at a bill with Randy Scott on it, Coble,
    Cannon--yes, Cannon--not Bobby Scott. You are usual. I am
    calling off some names for a special reason--Forbes,
    Sensenbrenner, Chabot, let's see, Coble. But I don't see Judge
    Gohmert on here. And that saddens me deeply.
        We are going to be working on this--because as I look out
    in the audience, I see Charlie Sullivan of CURE and many other
    organizational representatives that have been in this for years
    and years, with Chairman Scott during the large work.
        The subject matter that I want to raise with you, and maybe
    I should be doing this with the Chairman and the Ranking
    Member, is the things that I keep hearing that are still going
    on in prisons.
        And I am going to ask Mr. Cowley to lead this off.
        But the only time I heard the subject of rape in prisons
    brought forward is by the former attorney general of California
    that sits on this Committee. And to me, this plus the coercion
    and violence and gang control that occupies too many prisons
    that I hear about that make them so dysfunctional that this
    probably requires a whole consideration of itself.
        I don't want to get it superimposed upon a perfectly great
    re-entry plan. Elijah Cummings, our colleague from Maryland,
    asks me every day to make sure he is on this bill, because I
    think, as this leadership shows, we have got a real head of
    steam moving forward with a lot of control.
        But with those problems in the prison and the lack of vote
    for prisoners coming out, which I know is frequently a State
    determination, when a person comes out, you are whole, except
    one thing buddy. We don't need you to vote. We accept you back
    into society, but, no, no vote. And yet there are places where
    votes take place inside of prisons.
        So, what I want to ask of Jack Cowley and George McDonald,
    all of you, how are we going to put our arms around this
    problem, which is really what shapes a lot of attitudes? And
    conduct when you get out is what happened to you when you were
    on the inside.
        How do we match the heads and tails of this incredibly
    difficult societal problem, Mr. Cowley?
        Mr. Cowley. Well, we can change it overnight.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I have been waiting 40 years for this
    moment.
        Mr. Cowley. Well, and I am here to tell you. All we have to
    do is hold wardens, directors of corrections and parole chiefs
    responsible for recidivism rates.
        As an old Government employee, I was fondly aware of my
    annual evaluation. And not anywhere was there an expectation
    that those inmates that went through my prison stayed out when
    they got out--nowhere. It is not discussed. I can tell you it
    is not any employment training on correctional officers or
    wardens that the inmates in their prisons remain free.
        So, if we say to wardens, directors of corrections across
    this country, that you will be responsible; because see, now we
    have models that work. Before, we didn't. Now, we do. And we
    say to them, ``If you cannot reduce recidivism significantly
    for those inmates that go through your system, then you won't
    have a job come next year.'' I tell you it will change
    literally overnight. The way we do business will not be the
    same.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I hope you will become a candidate for
    the Federal corrections chief----
        Mr. Cowley. Well, I don't know. Thank you.
        Mr. Conyers [continuing]. When it opens up, which I hope
    will be soon.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Your time has expired.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to point out I agree with you, Mr. Cowley.
    Accountability is a good thing.
        I mean, all five of you have now said this is an extremely
    important piece of legislation. And I got to tell you, when I
    first heard last year that we were bringing up a second chance
    act, I was excited, because we have got to do a better job of
    training and rehabilitating people while they are in prison. It
    is an embarrassment to this country, and it should be to every
    State, that we do not do a better job of that.
        The thing is, we got the bill. The first bill was a 40-page
    bill. And it had things in it that concerned me greatly that
    went far beyond the scope of what was imagined. And I was told
    well, it is being redrafted, not to worry. The day of the
    markup, it turned out, we had a 90-page bill that nobody had
    seen. And we were expected to vote on it that day. A few of us
    raised enough Cain. It was put off. And later, a 60-page bill
    emerged for our markup.
        The latest bill I have gotten is 107-page bill. So, have
    you each read all 107 pages of this bill? Is that correct?
        Mr. Cowley. No, I haven't.
        Mr. Gohmert. Okay. So, when you say this is an extremely
    important piece of legislation, you are not sure what all is in
    there, correct?
        Mr. Cowley. I am sure of those things that will make a
    difference.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well now, Mr. Cowley, you just said that the
    way we could change this overnight was if we held some people
    accountable.
        Mr. Cowley. Right.
        Mr. Gohmert. And I have not found anything in the 107 pages
    that holds anybody accountable. It just spend $360-something
    million over 2 years, plus another provision that says all such
    sums as may be necessary. So, I am not sure how big that goes.
        In the previous bill we took up last year, there was
    nothing about preschool nurseries in the prisons, things like
    this, transportation. These are all new things that have been
    added that I am finding in the new bill.
        So, it goes way beyond the scope of what I had originally
    thought was there. There was one provision I saw that, as I
    understood it, said medical care as long as needed. And I don't
    find too many people that ever quit needing medical care in
    their lifetime. So, there are some things, it seems to me, that
    need to be worked out.
        But I needed to ask you, Mr. Cowley, about one other
    question you answered. And I am not sure if you understood the
    ramifications of what you had said. You were asked by our
    Chairman if these faith-based groups need to discriminate in
    order to be effective. And you answered no, they don't. And let
    me make sure if we are on the same page here.
        Traditionally in the United States--and the Supreme Court
    has upheld this--a Christian group was allowed to hire
    Christians and could discriminate to the point that, if you
    were an atheist and you thought that Christianity was just a
    bunch of baloney, then the Christian group didn't have to hire
    you in their charge; because it would create some problems.
        An issue has come up in the last session where we debated
    this last summer that gee, why couldn't a Christian group hire
    an atheist to do this kind of work? They should have to
    discriminate.
        And it was my contention, and I think previously the
    Supreme Court's and most Christian groups', that there should
    be that uniformity of belief. If you are a Mormon group, you
    shouldn't be forced to hire somebody that thinks Mormons are
    crazy. If you are a Jewish group, you should have to hire
    somebody that things all Jewish people should be killed.
        I mean, there should be some discrimination allowed in
    order to be faith-based, or it isn't a faith-based group
    anymore. You understand where I am coming from?
        Mr. Cowley. I understand.
        Mr. Gohmert. So, in the faith-based groups with which you
    have dealt, have you run into any faith-based groups who did
    not hired people that believed in the same faith that they did?
        Mr. Cowley. Right. They do. And in those cases, it seems to
    me that has been worked out. There have been Federal grants
    gone to faith-based groups.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, you mentioned that they would line up.
        Mr. Cowley. Right.
        Mr. Gohmert. I tried to have language installed last year
    that would say simply an organization or group cannot be
    discriminated against simply because it is faith-based. And
    that was fought.
        Mr. Cowley. I think we have grown up since then,
    Congressman. Faith-based groups--either they will take it as it
    comes. And if they want to be involved and take the money----
        Mr. Gohmert. And my time is running out, let me ask you
    very quickly.
        Mr. Cowley [continuing]. That is very possible.
        Mr. Gohmert. Have you not run into any sheriffs or any
    wardens who said I am afraid of lawsuits by the ACLU, so I
    don't want to hire a group that is faith-based because it is
    faith-based?
        Mr. Cowley. That is happening.
        Mr. Gohmert. It has. Yes.
        Mr. Cowley. And that is why we need the Second Chance Act
    in order to alleviate that.
        Mr. Gohmert. But it does not protect faith-based in the
    Act.
        Mr. Cowley. It doesn't need to. It doesn't need to. That is
    what I am saying.
        Mr. Gohmert. My time has expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Forbes?
        Mr. Forbes. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would repeat my
    request to have the letter from the 15 faith-based
    organizations admitted to the record.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman asks for a regular order on the
    unanimous consent request, which means that you either press
    the objection or withdraw it.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well obviously, I have been here and haven't
    had a chance to check with all these groups. But I got burned
    on it once. And I don't mean to be a jerk. But I got burned.
    Some of the groups didn't know what they were asked to sign
    onto, and their name was typed.
        And I just was hoping for the opportunity to check on that.
    If I could have 24 hours, I would--if you want to press it,
    then I would object. If not, if I could have time to check on
    it----
        Mr. Scott. Objection was heard.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I move that the letter be
    admitted to the record.
        Mr. Scott. There is a motion made that the letter be placed
    in the record.
        All in favor of the motion, say, ``Aye.''
        All opposed?
        Mr. Gohmert. I abstain, because I don't have enough
    information at this time.
        Mr. Scott. The motion is agreed to. The letter is placed in
    the record.
        And we will make sure that Mr. Gohmert gets a copy, so if
    he subsequently wants to make a comment, he certainly will be
    able to.
        Gentlelady from Texas, Mr. Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking
    Member for yielding to me.
        And I certainly thank Mr. Davis of Illinois and Ms. Tubbs
    Jones of Ohio. I know that they have been working on this issue
    for a very long time, as many of us who have constituencies who
    have negatively been impacted by stark and sometimes
    unreasonable incarceration principles and laws.
        And I think, Warden, you know that in your new life, that
    probably there were good reasons for some of those incarcerated
    you may have come in contact with, short of individuals
    perpetrating heinous crimes and on death row short of being
    found innocent, that could have benefited from a number of
    alternatives, even before they were incarcerated.
        Right now, in the State of Texas, we are dealing with two,
    I think, horrific collapses, or calamities, as it relates to
    incarcerated facilities.
        One, our local jail has been found, over the past 10 years,
    to have had 117 deaths, individuals who went in and--you know,
    local jails are basically holding places. Sometimes you serve a
    6-month sentence. But basically, you are being held on your way
    somewhere else or waiting for trial--crises where we have had
    individuals fallen ill and those who are responsible then say,
    ``What do you want me to do? Get a BandAid? Someone is laying
    in a pool of blood.''
        Then we have had the Texas Youth Commission that now is
    renowned for sexually abused incarcerated youth. That says to
    me that the whole system needs overhauling, and people have not
    listened. But I think it is a good step that we are making
    today dealing with the question of the idea of the next step.
        So, I know the witnesses have answered questions. I welcome
    Steve Lufburrow, because he is an institution in our community.
    His family is an institution. He has always been on the forward
    side of things.
        And so, let me just pose to Warden Cowley the idea of a
    second chance bill. Can it be the wave of the future, one, in
    terms of maybe even how we look at potential incarcerated
    persons before they go in and how we look at them coming out?
    The question to you.
        To Mr. Lufburrow, how do we impact State systems? We are
    dealing with a Federal bill. But how do we impact State systems
    and get them to understand that a goodwill program is a
    valuable program and a good alternative to having someone
    incarcerated for 20, 30, 40 years, certainly if they have
    perpetrated a non-violent act.
        And I believe I am looking at--I have had for a number of
    years a bill dealing with the early release of older non-
    violent offenders. I see this section. I assume it is taken
    from my bill. I hope that is the case. I had asked about this
    to the staff of this Committee. And I see it here in this bill.
    So, maybe I will get an explanation about it as to relate to
    whether or not it is the good time early release language or
    not.
        But I do want to try and find out about the value of
    individuals who have been in this incarcerated condition, and
    they are older. They may be aging and get, if you will, sick.
    And what is the purpose of keeping them incarcerated? What
    about these programs being useful for them.
        So, let me just yield, because I see the light. And I see
    Mr.--is it Roger? If you would be kind enough to answer. Yes,
    Roger Peters, Ph.D.
        Mr. Cowley?
        Mr. Cowley. Whether or not the bill could be the wave of
    the future, again cheerleading is a valuable tool, particularly
    in corrections, the criminal justice system, where we have been
    bombarded for years and years literally about get tough, get
    tougher. And when you say that, means the life isn't valued.
    Let's just lock them up and throw them away the key. The heck
    with them.
        And wardens know. Wardens know their inmates to a great
    degree, even in larger prisons. They know who is worthy and who
    isn't. And yet we look at them all the same anymore. So, this
    gives us an--it is the wave of the future, because it sends the
    clear message that there is an opportunity for a second chance.
        We had a collaborator meeting. In Dallas, TX, we are
    starting a God pod at the Hutchins State Jail. And we had over
    35 faith-based and community organizations show up to get
    involved. The warden came and welcomed them. And that is the
    wave of the future.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Lufburrow?
        Mr. Lufburrow. Thank you very much for your comments also.
    And thank you for having me here today.
        How do we impact State systems? Collaboration is the key.
    We didn't used to have collaboration as much in the agencies
    throughout the States. And now we are all a lot more open to
    it.
        And we are working with all the different agencies. For
    instance, in Texas, we have 18 different Goodwills that spread
    a whole lot of our Texas territory. And we are all working with
    other organizations--State, local, you name it--trying to work
    together for good, trying to make a change in people's lives.
        And the lack of funding is an issue, even on the State
    level. And it is something that we need to continue to address.
    But, I tell you, our hearts are pretty big in these worlds of
    not-for-profits. We do seem to care a lot about the people that
    we work with. And we are compassionate about the problems,
    because we do see it on a day-to-day level. But the funding to
    make it happen is important to us.
        And we can't all be good at all things. And so we have had
    to decide at Goodwill across the State and across the country,
    what are we really good at? We are really good at providing job
    opportunities, training and placement into the competitive
    business world. Then we need to work with the folks that are
    really great with the housing side, and the drug abuse and the
    alcohol treatment side.
        And I think the collaboration answers your question. I went
    around a long way. But I wanted to get that in. So,
    collaboration, I hope, is the answer that you were looking for.
    And certainly, I will stand behind.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Peters?
        Mr. Peters. If I understand your question, Representative
    Jackson Lee, it is about the elderly?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
        Mr. Peters. About their amenability to treatment and what
    we need----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And their amenability to an early
    release--having individuals incarcerated for ever and ever and
    ever, is it good that non-violent offenders would have that
    option to be released?
        Mr. Peters. I think it is a very important area. As we all
    know, the tremendous number of the elderly are now in jails and
    prisons, particularly prisons, spending time in larger
    proportion that every before. They pose slightly different
    substance abuse problems and issues than other offenders too.
    And because of that, we need some unique solutions. They are
    more likely to use alcohol and prescription medications rather
    than methamphetamine, cocaine, some of the other drugs of abuse
    that we are used to with our traditional offenders.
        And because of that, I think we need specialized treatment
    approaches. And SAMSA has developed those. In fact, there are
    treatment manuals now for the elderly with substance abuse. It
    recognized some of these other specialized needs of the
    elderly, including depression, for example, and other mental
    health needs that are sometimes, kind of, under the radar that
    are silent that we don't pick very often and don't get
    attention, because they are not vocal and don't come to the
    forefront with these other problems.
        So, there are some interventions that are available, but we
    need to develop more of those. And certainly research is needed
    by NIDA and other agencies to examine the impact of those
    interventions.
        I think you have raised an important point. We have a lot
    of people aging in our prisons right now. What can we do with
    them? And how does re-entry fit with that? I think that we
    talked about today some of the those solutions that can be
    effective for this group which are, for example, in-prison
    treatment plus work release and re-entry services.
        Pre-release services that we talked about today can be
    particularly useful for the elderly, which in many ways are a
    lower risk category for acting out and recidivism than are
    other populations and are quite good candidates for these
    release programs that couple in-prison treatment with treatment
    after release from custody.
        So, that is a really good group and I think a very good set
    of candidates for the programs that are described in this bill,
    and that we will be able to examine those carefully down the
    road.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank the Chairman very much.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Coble?
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that during
    the time I served as Chairman of this Subcommittee, not once
    did the microphones fail.
        But I will say to Chairman Scott, he and I worked very
    diligently last session on this, along with others as you
    mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cannon among others. This
    is an important piece of legislation. Obviously, you gentleman
    continue to work diligently as well.
        Mr. McDonald, you have had extensive experience in this
    matter with former prisoners. Let me ask you this. Should we
    focus more on treatment while prisoners are incarcerated or
    after they have been released and acclimating back into
    society? Or are they both about equal?
        Mr. McDonald. Congressman, I have been sitting here wishing
    somebody would ask me that question. So, thank you very much.
        My experience is with post-release, well, we go into a
    prison right before somebody is going to be released on parole.
    We don't work in the prison. So, I don't have any expertise. I
    haven't ever been a warden. Thank the Lord and I haven't ever
    been an inmate.
        But I can tell you that, out of the people that we see in
    New York City, 77 percent are African-American, 70 percent
    haven't graduated from high school, 88 percent have a long
    substantial history of substance abuse, and 78 percent have
    been formerly incarcerated. Now, those are the people that are
    coming through the front door of our intake homeless shelter.
    Seventy-eight percent have been formerly incarcerated.
        So, I am here to tell you that the hardest thing in the
    world to do, or the hardest thing for us to do, is to get a man
    a job after he has come out of prison. And you can't do that
    for him when he is in prison. You have to do it when he gets
    out of prison in some manner, shape or form.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you.
        Mr. McDonald. But it is an economic opportunity for him to
    take responsibility for himself and work. And there are so many
    barriers that are created for this fellow to get on the right
    road that, you know, we welcome this Act.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you for that, Mr. McDonald.
        Mr. Cowley, you mentioned the ``lock them up and throw away
    the key'' philosophy. And many people continue to embrace that.
    At one time I embraced it.
        Mr. Cowley. Sure.
        Mr. Coble. But I was younger and less wise--not to say that
    I am wise now, but I am wiser now than I was then. Prison
    overcrowding plagues us. Recidivism plagues us. Those two
    issues have caused me to change my thinking about that.
        Mr. Cowley. Good.
        Mr. Coble. And I no longer embrace that theory.
        Now, in your testimony, Mr. Cowley, you mentioned the 34
    percent vacancy rate. I am not sure what that means.
        Mr. Cowley. No, I was talking about the employees. He had a
    34 percent vacancy rate in his employees. He was down 34
    percent of his staff.
        Mr. Coble. Oh.
        Mr. Cowley. That is what I was referring to.
        Mr. Coble. Okay. I didn't follow that.
        Mr. LoBuglio, my State, North Carolina, has embraced the
    re-entry approach. But I am convinced that more can be done
    with Federal support in large part through funding. Which
    grants or Federal funds are used by your office? And what
    funding, is it your belief, is most needed to improve your
    services?
        Mr. LoBuglio. We don't use Federal grants in the re-entry
    programs in Montgomery County. The Federal money that is out
    there for re-entry is the Serious and Violent Offender Re-Entry
    Initiative. And that funding has been directed to Baltimore
    programs.
        In terms of your latter question, how can the Federal money
    be used? It can aid those jurisdictions that do need assistance
    in spurring the development of re-entry programs. I think it
    can also be used to get collaborators to the table who aren't
    there now. And those stakeholders include both social service
    agencies, the faith-based organizations, and law enforcement
    agencies who can gather around the table and talk about re-
    entry.
        I think the experience of the previous $100 million that
    was spent under the Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry
    Initiative is very helpful for us as we consider this
    legislation. That legislation has sponsored a number of very
    exciting collaboratives.
        And some of the findings now from the natonal evaluation
    being done by the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina
    and The Urban Institute are promising. They have conducted
    already over 3,000 interviews with individuals while they are
    incarcerated and post-release. They are finding that most of
    those collaborations and most of those programs are continuing,
    even as the grant funds stop.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, as you and Mr. Forbes know, I am
    not one who advocates hurling Federal money at every problem
    that surfaces. But I think this is one situation where it is
    justified.
        And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
        And when we ``throw money'' at this situation, we end up
    saving more money, having money thrown back on us if we make
    those important investments.
        I thank you.
        Representative Forbes, do you have a final comment?
        Mr. Forbes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, once again, I would like to thank all the
    witnesses.
        But the Chairman raised some good points earlier when he
    talked about prison rape and some of the conditions in the
    prisons. And now only has Mr. Lungren worked hard on that, but
    so has Frank Wolf and several other Members.
        And one of the things Chairman Scott and I have talked
    about recently is we are not quite as optimistic, Mr. Cowley,
    as you are that we can change it overnight. But at least we can
    bump it in the right direction.
        So, we actually plan to make some trips around the country
    and visit our prisons and talk to some of the inmates and see
    what we can do to alleviate some of these situations.
        We won't change the whole system. That is not going to
    happen. But we can make some big differences. So, we think that
    is going to happen. And we have agreed to do that.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        And I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony
    today.
        Members may have additional written questions for our
    witnesses. I would ask them to forward them to you. And if we
    can get responses as quickly as possible, we can make them part
    of the record.
        And, without objection, the hearing record will remain open
    for 1 week for submission of additional materials.
        And, without objection, the Committee is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record