[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