[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DOING TIME: ARE DC PRISONERS BEING ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR REENTRY WITH
EQUAL ACCESS TO BOP SERVICES?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-201
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-018 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Columbia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman JIM JORDAN, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Tania Shand, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 16, 2007................................. 1
Statement of:
Barnes, Kevin, previously incarcerated, Rivers Correctional
Institution................................................ 10
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; and
George E. Snyder, warden, Rivers Correctional Institution.. 18
Lappin, Harley G......................................... 18
Snyder, George E......................................... 31
Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency; Stanley Jackson, acting president,
University of District of Columbia; Charles Jones,
director, Employment Services, D.C. Department of
Employment Services; Phil Holmes, vice president, career
development, Goodwill Industries; Dennis Torbett, vice
president, workforce training and employment, Home Builders
Institute; and James Austin, Ph.D., president, the JFA
Institute.................................................. 62
Austin, James............................................ 102
Holmes, Phil............................................. 88
Jackson, Stanley......................................... 73
Jones, Charles........................................... 83
Quander, Paul A., Jr..................................... 62
Torbett, Dennis.......................................... 89
Robinson, Douglas, previously incarcerated, Bureau of Prisons
Facility................................................... 8
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Austin, James, Ph.D., president, the JFA Institute, prepared
statement of............................................... 104
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 3
Jackson, Stanley, acting president, University of District of
Columbia, prepared statement of............................ 76
Jones, Charles, director, Employment Services, D.C.
Department of Employment Services, prepared statement of... 85
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
prepared statement of...................................... 21
Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, prepared statement of.................. 65
Snyder, George E., warden, Rivers Correctional Institution,
prepared statement of...................................... 33
Torbett, Dennis, vice president, workforce training and
employment, Home Builders Institute, prepared statement of. 92
DOING TIME: ARE DC PRISONERS BEING ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR REENTRY WITH
EQUAL ACCESS TO BOP SERVICES?
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Danny K. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Illinois, Cummings,
Kucinich, Clay, Norton, and Marchant.
Staff present: Tania Shand, staff director; Caleb
Gilchrist, professional staff member; Lori Hayman, counsel;
Cecelia Morton, clerk; LaKeshia Myers, editor/staff assistant;
Eleanor Hudson, intern; Howie Denis, minority senior
professional staff member; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The subcommittee will come to order.
Let me welcome Ranking Member Marchant, members of the
subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all of those in
attendance. Welcome to the Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee hearing, ``Doing
Time: Are D.C. Prisoners Being Adequately Prepared for Reentry
with Access to BOP Services?''
The hearing will examine the manner in which the Federal
Bureau of Prisons [BOP], provides educational, vocational
treatment and transitional programming to D.C. prisoners held
at the privately operated Rivers Correctional Institution in
Winton, NC, as well as at other BOP-run facilities.
Correctional Research has established that participation in
such core programs contributes to substantial reductions in
recidivism.
The subcommittee is seeking detailed information on the
nature, quality, availability, comparability, and effectiveness
of these programs in the prisons where District prisoners are
incarcerated.
Hearing no objection, the Chair, ranking member, and
subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make opening
statements, and all Members will have 3 days to submit
statements for the record.
I shall begin.
Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing to examine the
rehabilitative services at Rivers Correctional Institution, a
privately run Federal Bureau of Prisons facility housing D.C.
inmates and foreign-born residents.
There are 2 million Americans in prisons in the United
States. Each year more than 650,000 ex-offenders are released
from State and Federal prisons. They will return to civilian
life. These men and women deserve a second chance to break the
grip of a drug habit, a chance to support a family, to pay
taxes, and to be self-sufficient.
Many of these ex-offenders return to their communities
unprepared and without the support they need to sustain their
new lives. This is why I have sponsored H.R. 1593, the Second
Chance Act. It is a bipartisan deal that addresses reentry
reform with a comprehensive approach to help eliminate barriers
and increase access to transitional services for ex-offenders.
A third of all departments provide zero services to
released ex-offenders, and most do not offer a transitional
program, thereby placing a heavy burden on families and
communities. Without structure and support to help ensure a
lasting transition, we are unwittingly creating a revolving
door for former inmates. These individuals pay a price, as do
their families and society.
Ex-offenders face many barriers that impede their return to
society, which includes serious physical and mental health
problems, homelessness, and lack of education, or minimal
qualifications to hold a job. As a result, two out of three ex-
offenders will be re-arrested for new crimes within the first 3
years after their release.
This hearing will help shed light on the importance of
transitional services for ex-offenders, not only in the
District of Columbia but across the country.
Currently, 7,000 District inmates under Federal
jurisdiction are spread across 75 institutions and 33 States.
Since the passage of the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Congress has not
conducted any hearings into BOP's management of D.C. prisoners.
My colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been to
Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, NC, and the Federal
Prison Institution in Cumberland, MD. She spoke to inmates and
prison officials at both institutions. I commend her for her
efforts to learn more about the educational and transitional
services offered to D.C. inmates at BOP facilities.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Now I will yield to the ranking
member, Mr. Marchant, for any comments that he might have.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Chairman Davis. Thanks for holding
this hearing today.
I was not yet elected to Congress when the Lorton Facility
was shut down in 2001; however, from what I understand, a
number of congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle
worked together with both the Clinton and Bush administrations
to facilitate the transfer of the D.C. prisoners to the newly
built Rivers Correctional Facility in North Carolina. I
understand this change was much needed and a high priority for
the local congressional delegation because of the extremely
sub-par conditions at the Lorton facility.
In transferring inmates to Rivers Correctional, the
District of Columbia got a safe, new facility with no cost to
the city coffers. Since the Federal Government absorbed the
cost, I am anxious to hear of the conditions and programs in
the Rivers Correctional Facility today and look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.
Delegate Norton, do you have anything?
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Mr. Marchant for his work in cooperating with this
hearing, but especially you, Chairman Davis, for holding the
first oversight hearing concerning the conditions and
circumstances of the District of Columbia felons since the
Lorton, VA, facility was closed almost 10 years ago.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons [BOP], took jurisdiction over
inmates from the District at the request of the District of
Columbia during the city's financial crisis. This hearing
parallels the chairman's own ground-breaking work as the lead
sponsor of the pending Second Chance Act that I have been
pleased to join in cosponsoring. Today's hearing will add to
the national record that shows overwhelmingly the urgency of
passing the Second Chance Act this year.
We welcome all of today's witnesses, and particularly thank
Chairman Davis and his committee staff for the care with which
this hearing has been put together, including their willingness
to travel with me and my staff to the facilities controlled by
BOP.
Today's witnesses, including the leader from Rivers and
from the BOP, the agencies that are responsible for assisting
the successful reentry of our inmates, and practitioners and
experts who have had success in assisting inmates to
reconstruct their lives upon release, all will help open the
door to the fuller investigation that is required.
Among the additional urgent issues that will need attention
is the affect of the Federal Parole System on D.C. inmates'
length of sentence when they are on parole or when their parole
is revoked. Despite efforts of the D.C. Council to clarify the
issue under D.C. law, the time served on parole is not counted
toward the length of an inmate's sentence upon returning to
prison. That is quite exceptional and unusual.
Except for appropriations hearings related to annual
funding, there has been no oversight of D.C. inmates in Federal
prisons, where they have been housed since the District
requested a Federal takeover of the costs of felon
incarceration and several other State functions for which
cities in the United States are not responsible except for the
District of Columbia. In turn, Congress enacted the 1997
Revitalization Act transferring responsibility for D.C.
prisoners, among other costs, to the Federal Government.
The title of today's hearing, ``Doing Time: Are D.C.
Prisoners Being Adequately Prepared for Reentry with Equal
Access to BOP Services,'' indicates our concern that legal and
structural issues may have had the unintended result of
providing unequal access for D.C. prisoners to BOP services
even though once sentenced they become Federal inmates as much
as any other BOP prisoners, notwithstanding the finding of
guilt pursuant to the D.C. Code.
D.C. inmates and criminal aliens are the only Federal
prisoners housed in private federally contracted facilities
with services that do not mirror those available at BOP-run
prisons. Although the Revitalization Act required some D.C.
prisoners to be housed in private facilities, the statute did
not contemplate a unique exception to uniform Federal policies
concerning available services.
The fact that the BOP, itself, houses the vast majority of
D.C. inmates and the abandonment of the private option by the
Federal Government, as mentioned in the Revitalization Act,
except for Rivers, constitutes strong evidence of congressional
intent to treat D.C. prisoners like others in the BOP system.
However, our investigation thus far shows that even in BOP-run
facilities this is not always the case, apparently because of
legal issues.
We are particularly concerned that, although almost 90
percent of D.C. inmates are in BOP facilities, 65 percent who
have had their parole revoked were recommitted to prison for
drug-related offenses. No serious effort to help these inmates
or to reduce crime permanently here will be possible without
the congressional oversight we begin today with today's hearing
and without considerably greater attention by the District of
Columbia government and our own residents to our prison
population while they are incarcerated and after.
Often, thousands of miles away under Federal rather than
the usual local jurisdictions, D.C. inmates have been left out
of sight and out of mind. They and their families have few
advocates and almost no visibility.
To its credit, Rivers provides a free bus each way
Thursdays through Sundays, but this means 8 hours of travel
time, which is particularly difficult for families, whose
visits experts have long documented as important for successful
reentry.
About 7,000 D.C. prisoners are housed in an incredible
array of 75 different facilities in 33 States in groups of a
few hundred and often far fewer. Rivers, with about 831 D.C.
inmates, has the highest concentration of any single
institution.
The services available at BOP-run facilities staffed by
Federal employees are more extensive with higher standards than
those available at Rivers, apparently because the same services
are not required or funded by the BOP contract. The absence of
comparable substance abuse services, particularly at Rivers,
almost guarantees problems for the inmates and for our city
when they return.
A limited non-certified program at Rivers is available to
only 60 of the 800 or so inmates, although 50 to 80 percent
have substance abuse problems. District residents even in BOP
facilities do not qualify for early release incentives upon
completion of a highly regarded 500 hour drug treatment program
which is altogether unavailable at Rivers.
The Rivers drug abuse program has little in common with the
500 hour program, but is available to so few inmates that it,
nevertheless, has a waiting list.
The issues our investigation have thus far uncovered have
less to do with BOP and Rivers as institutions than with the
challenges Congress has not yet faced concerning what is
necessary to integrate State felons into the life of a Federal
prison system for the first time in U.S. history.
Both the Rivers private facility and Cumberland that we
visited appeared well-kept and orderly, and Rivers Warden
George Snyder and Cumberland Warden Lisa Hollingsworth are both
highly qualified prison experts who rose to their present
positions through the merit system at BOP.
As we toured every part of both facilities along with the
wardens, we were impressed that D.C. inmates felt comfortable
to walk right up to me at will and to speak freely about their
concerns, without any fear or sense of intimidation. The most
frequently mentioned concern related to drug abuse treatment.
Our oversight must be circumscribed by issues of law that
Congress can correct or practices that we can help BOP revise.
Until now, Congress has never looked to see how the absorption
of State prisoners into a Federal prison system for the first
time has even operated, whether spreading D.C. prisoners
throughout the country in so many different institutions has
served the purposes of the Revitalization Act and the interests
of inmates and the D.C. government in successful reentry, or
whether there are other options for housing.
The implications of placing residents, American citizens,
in a facility with criminal aliens and the affect on services
offered, and whether Congress, in allowing D.C. residents to be
placed in private facilities, intended to reduce the level of
services rendered by or through the Bureau of Prisons.
These and a litany of other questions deserve a full
investigation and answers after an investment of billions of
dollars in Federal funds without any accountability as to the
effects and outcomes.
I appreciate the work of our subcommittee in beginning this
effort today.
Once again, I thank all of today's witnesses for their
assistance in helping us understand and think through the
issues before us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
We will now proceed with our first panel of witnesses.
I would like to ask Mr. Douglas Robinson if you would come.
And please continue to stand until we swear you in. It is the
custom of this committee that all witnesses are sworn.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witness answered in the affirmative.
Let me introduce Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson was
incarcerated in prison for 16 years. He spent 11 years in State
prison and the last 5 years in the Bureau of Prisons. He is
currently employed as a stock worker at Goodwill Industries,
and he is the kind of person that I think is the epitome of
what we hope to see, and that is individuals who are able to
find employment, individuals who are able to move ahead and
demonstrate that they are, in fact, contributing members of
society.
Mr. Robinson, we thank you so much. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS ROBINSON, PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED, BUREAU
OF PRISONS FACILITY
Mr. Robinson. My name is Douglas Robinson, and this is my
testimony concerning my experience and rehabilitation at the
BOP.
While I was housed at McKean in Pennsylvania, they had the
programs there, but the problem was it was such a long waiting
list. A lot of programs were folding because of funds. So I was
in there for about a year and a half, and I moved to
Petersburg. At Petersburg, the same problem was going on. Staff
was being laid off. Programs were folding. A lot of programs
they had, the guys wanted to get, you couldn't get. And the
waiting list was so long because they were telling us there was
overcrowding in the prison system. So you might be waiting a
year or two before you could get into a program. Like myself, I
had other journeys, which was to enroll into a 500 hour drug
program.
I left Petersburg and went to Butner. I think that was my
best experience, because for so long I had ducked and dodged
that I had a problem, and I learned that my behavior was
causing my problem. It wasn't just the drugs or whatever.
While I was there it was pushed upon me to get my GED,
which I did get. There they had college programs that were
free. While I was at Petersburg, the college programs you had
to pay for. Like myself, I couldn't afford it, because you are
in there, you are making $9 a month, $12, $13, $15 a month, and
everything was revolving around funds. They didn't have the
funds to do this and do that.
I am not speaking bad about the BOP. They have a lot of
things to offer. But the problem to me that I saw was the
funds. That is what I was told.
Like myself and I think a lot of other inmates, there are a
lot of us that do want to straighten out our lives, and it was
a problem at first but I had to take it upon myself. It didn't
stop there.
When I arrived home, I made a choice to move on with my
life. I am working now at Goodwill, and I am out there. I just
came out of the halfway house about a week ago. Now I can move
on with my life. I have more free time now. I can enroll in
some classes and try to do something else with my life.
Those are my concerns.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. We certainly
appreciate not only your being here, but we appreciate your
testimony.
I will begin the questions. I have some questions I would
like to ask you.
What got you in prison? I mean, why did you or why do you
think that you ended up going to prison?
Mr. Robinson. I learned to me it was my behavior. It
started from my behavior, my irrational thinking, you know,
thinking that what I was doing was right. It started from the
streets and the lifestyle of drugs, fast lifestyle. For so long
I was caught up in that cage. It took me a long time.
I don't blame anybody for that but myself. I had plenty of
people to help me along the way, but I was a closed-minded
person. Today I am a more open-minded person.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Were you using drugs or selling
drugs?
Mr. Robinson. I sold drugs. I used drugs.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. How far did you go in high school?
Mr. Robinson. Eleventh grade.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And by then you had started to use
drugs?
Mr. Robinson. I started about that time, yes, and dropped
out of school.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so you dropped out because it
just didn't appear to be the thing to do, or you needed to
generate money to get the drugs, or----
Mr. Robinson. No. Money in my family too much wasn't the
problem. I think I just drifted off. I wanted to be with the
crowd. It was a stupid mistake I made.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Were you a good student?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, I was a pretty good student. I played
sports at Cardozo. I could have gotten a scholarship and go to
college playing football, but I dropped out and went down the
wrong path.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And when you were arrested, it was
finally for what?
Mr. Robinson. Distribution of heroin, armed robbery, and
mayhem.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I noticed that you did mention the
facility that you thought you had your best time at, or the one
that really helped you. Could you tell us again which facility
really helped you, you felt really helped you get on the path?
Mr. Robinson. It was Butner. I took the 500 hour drug
program, and a counselor that was working with me was a pretty
good guy. Due to the death of my Mom while I was there, I was
thinking about dropping out of the program until 1 day he took
me in his office and talked to me. I thought about what he said
and that is what really changed me.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so you feel that when you came
to grips with your drug problem or recognized that you had a
drug problem and needed some help with it, that is really what
changed your approach to dealing with life, in a sense?
Mr. Robinson. That was my main problem, sir. Yes, sir. It
was the lifestyle that I was living that was in my way, that
kept me from moving forward.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So if you had a recommendation to
the Bureau of Prisons that said to them, here is what I think
you can do better than or more than, or here is what I think
would help more inmates, what would that recommendation be?
Mr. Robinson. It would be better programs, like reentry
programs, and maybe I think make it mandatory or some way make
it that a person can get help for their problems, because a lot
of times your problems start with your behavior, and a lot of
guys don't realize that. I didn't realize it. That is basically
where it starts.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so you think that more emphasis
on helping inmates with their individual problem or finding out
what their individual needs are, that this would in all
likelihood help them more?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well thank you very much. I
certainly appreciate your testimony.
I would suspect that we have been joined by Mr. Kevin
Barnes. Mr. Barnes, is that correct?
Mr. Barnes. I apologize for my lateness. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We understand, especially if you are
dependent upon transportation systems that sometimes you don't
have control over.
What we would really like to do then is go back and give
you the opportunity to make your statement, and then we will
continue with the questions.
Before you do that, I need you to stand and get sworn in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witness answered in the affirmative.
Now you might just be seated and tell us your statement,
and then we will pick back up with the questions.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN BARNES, PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED, RIVERS
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Barnes. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It is
truly an honor and a privilege to sit here before you today on
behalf of the inmate population at Rivers Correctional
Institution.
Today I will speak briefly about the pros and cons of the
program structure at Rivers and attempt to shed a little light,
and hopefully make the whole situation a little better.
As a whole, the program structure is lacking. There isn't
enough effort placed education or tools to help the inmates
educate themselves. The library is about the size of an average
living room in the District of Columbia. Most of the books for
inmate use are mostly novels, and the law library is grossly
out of date. If you were to ask about the athletic programs, I
would say that they get top priority over anything educational.
There is an HVAC course that deserves attention, but only
for inmates 24 and under. Where does that leave the other 70
percent?
I truly believe that the staff at Rivers, as a collect
whole, doesn't care if the inmates are educated, because the
inmates return to D.C. The next time they have to see the
inmate again is when they return, getting off the bus to come
back.
I was a participant in the drug program at Rivers, and I
can honestly say I learned a few things, but it could have been
better.
First of all, the program isn't accredited. Second, most of
the inmates from Rivers are from D.C., and no one is given any
type of good time earned, like the rest of the country gets for
the same type of program. The drug program is under-staffed and
under-equipped to deal with the overwhelming demand. The
majority of inmates are either convicted of drug dealing or
drug-related crimes.
I believe that better drug treatment at Rivers could
possibly reduce the high recidivism rate. In my opinion, anger
management, domestic violence, and parenting classes would also
be of great importance to the inmate population.
I know Rivers, or any prison, for that matter, is not a
college, but better programs could possibly make a big
difference in whether someone stays out or returns back.
Once he leaves Rivers, the inmate is either placed in a
halfway house or directly back into society. Maybe with some
type of transitional housing or better vocational programs
inside, ex-offenders might have better choices or be better
equipped to succeed from turning from criminal behavior.
In my opinion, there is more to be done at Rivers, and I
hope anything I said could help.
If we all work together we could make things more conducive
on the inside so that our fathers, brothers, and sons will be
more productive on the outside.
Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. We really
appreciate the effort that you made to get here, and we
certainly appreciate your testimony.
We will go back to the questioning. I had just finished,
and now I would yield to the ranking member for his round of
questions.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony Messrs. Robinson and Barnes.
I think the main focus of the hearing today should be on
is: what can be done to improve the facility at Rivers
Correctional so that when the prisoners return to society they
are better able to enter back into the city if they choose to
and be productive citizens? Those are the main questions that I
have, and I would ask each of you to make a statement of maybe
the most important things that you think could be done at
Rivers to make it the kind of facility that an inmate could get
out of Rivers, come back to D.C., and be a productive person in
society.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. Sir, I was never at Rivers, but just hearing
Mr. Barnes speak and from other inmates that I have talked to,
he spoke of better programs, because the majority of inmates in
the prison system are using drugs or sold drugs or dealing in
crime. Like I spoke before, what I learned is the behavior.
Like I said, the drug program should be more. It is not the
type of care. The staff, they are not interested. So if they
are not interested, you have inmates there, and they really
need somebody to push them.
And, like I said, funds is one of the problems, or better
programs, because most of the programs that were going on were
shut down because of the funds. That is what I was told as an
inmate.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes. I believe, first, that some of the money, at
least at Rivers, I know a lot of the money from Canteen, where
the inmates are allowed to purchase things, I believe that the
majority of that money goes to athletics and things of that
nature. That is not going to help an inmate when he comes home,
so I think they should divert some of that money into
vocational programs, because the programs that they do have at
Rivers, as far as vocation, like HVAC things that will help
someone when they get back to society be able to earn a living
without turning back to criminal behavior, it should be
directed at that, because the program that was at Rivers
stopped at 24. You have to think, 70 percent of the whole
compound, the place where the inmates are, is well over 24.
Where does that leave them? There should be more programs
directed at parenting skills, things of that nature, learning
how to deal with the anger issues, because all of those play a
big part in someone going back to their old criminal behavior.
If the money could be directed or just some type of
program, period, that would just help someone deal with coming
out of an institution into society, like the domino effect, you
complete that, you complete this. I mean, the rest is up to the
inmate, but if you at least put the tools there for them to use
I think that would be a big help.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could I just first say to both of you thank you. I am proud
of you. I appreciate your coming forward so we can have some
idea from people who have served time. One of you has served
time only in a BOP facility, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Barnes has
served time in Rivers.
Have you also ever served time in a BOP facility?
Mr. Barnes. Not really, just the D.C. jail, CTF, and then
Rivers.
Ms. Norton. So you really do give us a picture of some of
the differences just in what you have said already.
I also congratulate you both for kind of facing up to the
responsibility you are taking for your own crimes. That, like
everything, is the first step to moving forward.
Mr. Barnes, you are employed?
Mr. Barnes. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Where?
Mr. Barnes. I work for Hunt Consulting. I am an
electrician. I am an electrician by trade, and I am also in the
process of trying to start my own nonprofit organization
targeted to youth, at-risk youth. It is going to take a little
work, but right now I am just an electrician.
Ms. Norton. How did you learn to be an electrician, Mr.
Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. On-the-job training. I just picked it up. I
used to be the guy that cleaned up behind the electricians; now
I am the top electrician at my job.
Ms. Norton. Did you know how to be an electrician, as it
were, before you went to prison?
Mr. Barnes. I wasn't as good as I am now, but there was a
foundation, but I came out and did more.
Ms. Norton. Well, the most-voiced complaint from inmates,
former inmates I meet in my job fairs and as I go around the
city, is the difficulty in finding any employment. How were you
able to find employment, Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. I wanted it. I worked hard for it and it came.
A lot of times people make excuses but they don't make an
effort. If you make more of an effort as opposed to an excuse,
you probably would get what you wanted. I mean, I can't speak
for everybody, but I just wouldn't take no for an answer.
Ms. Norton. How old are you, Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. I am 30.
Ms. Norton. How long have you been incarcerated?
Mr. Barnes. Three years.
Ms. Norton. All right. Let's go to Mr. Robinson. Mr.
Robinson, you are also employed. Where are you employed?
Mr. Robinson. I am employed at Goodwill.
Ms. Norton. Where?
Mr. Robinson. Goodwill.
Ms. Norton. How were you able to obtain employment, Mr.
Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I was out looking for a job at the time
I was in the halfway house, and I came back 1 day and they sent
me out. The halfway house sent me out to Goodwill. While I was
there, I told the guy that I had a serious violent crime.
Ms. Norton. You had what?
Mr. Robinson. A serious violent crime.
Ms. Norton. You told him that right off?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, right off the break. And he said, Man,
don't even worry about it. He said, I am going to give you a
chance. So I filled out the application and started the job and
I have been there ever since.
Ms. Norton. Now long is that you have been there, Mr.
Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. I have been there about 5 months. I have been
home 6 months. I have been there 5 months.
Ms. Norton. How long did you look for work before you were
able to obtain this position?
Mr. Robinson. About 3 weeks. I was turned down because of
my record.
Ms. Norton. How long have you been incarcerated?
Mr. Robinson. Sixteen years.
Ms. Norton. Well, I consider it very important that both of
you have jobs. This is the main issue. I want to get on to the
next issue.
Mr. Robinson talked in his testimony about the HVAC
program. Mr. Barnes indicates that at Rivers the HVAC program--
now this is a program having to do with heaTing and air
conditioning; is that correct?
Mr. Barnes. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. That was limited to people 24 to what? Under?
Mr. Barnes. Twenty-four and under.
Ms. Norton. That was not the case, or was the case, Mr.
Robinson, where you had access?
Mr. Robinson. That was not the case. In the BOP there was
no age limit.
Ms. Norton. So there is a difference I don't understand and
we will have to find out. It may have to do with
apprenticeships and what you have to do once you get out, but,
Mr. Barnes, I am impressed that you said 70 percent of the
people couldn't even begin to qualify because of the age limit.
We will have to ask why the age limit was there.
What do you do at Goodwill, Mr. Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. Right now I work on the docks. I load up
tractor trailers right now. This is something temporary until
another job comes up, and I am waiting on another job position
to come through pretty soon.
Ms. Norton. So you applied for another position?
Mr. Robinson. No. I talked to a friend of mine, and I have
a trade refinishing tubs and tiles.
Ms. Norton. Because Goodwill Industries has a record of
hiring people with records throughout the United States.
Mr. Robinson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. And you figure that, having worked there and
attained a good record, you will be able to go to other
employment?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. They are going to testify here, as well, so we
would be very interested in that.
Now, you mentioned that there were long waiting lists at
McKean and programs were limited. What services did you have in
mind that were limited?
Mr. Robinson. That were limited?
Ms. Norton. You said the services were limited and the
waiting lists were long.
Mr. Robinson. They had very few vocational programs there.
They had just opened up an agriculture class, plants and stuff,
and I had enrolled in it. The problem was that you had guys
that might be at the prison 5 or 6 years. I had just arrived,
so their names are already on the list. The wait list was so
long, by the time--I never got a chance to enroll into the
class, basically.
Ms. Norton. And part of this, of course, is that Congress
has not fully funded or has not funded perhaps all of the BOP
facilities as much as we would like, and that is something we
were interested in, as well, in talking about cuts and the
rest, and you seem to understand that had to do with
availability of funds.
The HVAC or heating and air conditioning training, how much
of that did you have?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I did it before when I was at Lorton,
and I was doing it while I was there, but, like I said, I was
moving around so much, I was there for about a year and then I
had enrolled into the 500 hour drug program, and my time came
that I had to leave to go to Butner, so I was there for about a
year and they took me into the program.
Ms. Norton. Now, you were fortunate. You did get access to
the 500 hour program?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. And you spoke highly of the 500 hour program.
Do you believe that it was instrumental, was helpful to you in
overcoming the use of drugs when you got out?
Mr. Robinson. I think it was very helpful. But, like I
said, before I was pretty closed-minded to the fact about my
problem, and I was the type of person I wouldn't open up and
talk to just anybody about my problems, so they had a thing in
the class that you had to open up and share with others. I
think that helped a lot. Basically, I think just being open-
minded, learning that my way wasn't the way.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Robinson, I must tell you, when we went to
Cumberland I got to see the 500 hour program in operation. I
have never seen anything like it. There was no authority
figure, as it were, intervening. The inmate spoke about what he
had done, where he was, and the other inmates got up and
criticized him, and he had to respond. All I can say is I wish
the whole world out here to go through a 500 hour program,
particularly all of us who are used to making excuses, because
the honesty that wrung out of inmates was extraordinary to
behold. I got some sense of the program.
Are you free from drugs now? Do you feel confident that you
will be free and remain free from drugs?
Mr. Robinson. I am doing my best to stay free. I know it is
going to be a struggle. It is a lifetime thing, you know. I
deal with the demons every day, but I am determined to beat it.
I am tired of living that type of life. I am through.
Ms. Norton. As a D.C. resident--we will get into this later
as to the reasons--but you did not get any time off, did you,
for participating in this program?
Mr. Robinson. No, I didn't get any time off.
Ms. Norton. This, of course, is an important ingredient of
this program. In addition to the candid back-and-forth----
Mr. Robinson. Yes, I know.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Kind of talk among peers.
Completion of the program could qualify an inmate for time off,
unavailable to D.C. residents, and yet D.C. residents try their
best to get in the program, and you did.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Even without the incentive, you sought to get
in the program. Why?
Mr. Robinson. Why?
Ms. Norton. Even without the incentive of knowing you would
get some time perhaps deducted from your sentence, you,
nevertheless, wanted to get in the 500 hour program?
Mr. Robinson. I knew I wasn't going to get any time off
before I even enrolled into the program. It was basically I had
determined that I needed it. I knew, talking to other positive
inmates had told me about the program, and a lot of guys were,
like, Why are you taking the program when you are not getting a
year off? So I basically needed help. That is why I enrolled
into it.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Robinson, do you mind telling us your age?
Mr. Robinson. My age? I am 52.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Barnes, your testimony about the HVAC
program is important to us, and your testimony about good time,
as it were, and the absence of any such time related to the
Rivers program. Did you have any contact with the Rivers' drug
program?
Mr. Barnes. Yes. I completed the 500 hour program.
Ms. Norton. Tell us about that program.
Mr. Barnes. Well, the program is fairly new, so that is why
in my testimony I said it was under-staffed, because the staff
that was working the program, they weren't working as a team. I
got a lot out of the program because I put a lot into the
program. I really wanted to really understand why I thought
certain ways or why I saw things a certain way to participate
in such behaviors. But that was majority of me. The program
could have been a lot better.
D.C. inmates, we don't get time off. I already knew that
going into the program, that we didn't get a year off or any
time off. I knew that, but I wanted to look into myself. But as
a whole it could be more done into the program, like programs
such as in the BOP, those programs are sectioned off from other
inmates. Our program was right there, like our drug program
block was right here, and then you have all the other right
there.
Ms. Norton. What you are referring to is what is in BOP
called a residential program----
Mr. Barnes. Right.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. For those in the 500 hour program.
You are calling this a 500 hour program. it is a different
program.
Mr. Barnes. No, it is the same thing. It was supposed to be
the same thing. The therapeutic community, that is what they
called it, the TC, the therapeutic community, but it wasn't.
Ms. Norton. Yes. I am saying that the BOP program is a
certified program that is different from the program offered at
Rivers, but Rivers does offer this program. We understand that
very few inmates get to take the program, to be a part of the
program. Is that your experience?
Mr. Barnes. To some extent.
Ms. Norton. Now, what most interested me in going to these
two institutions--and I finally got to understand the
difference in a way that seems to me is central--at the
Cumberland institution, a BOP-run institution, the life of the
inmate was structured, not unlike the way our lives out here
are structured. We get up, we go to work, we do certain things
in the morning. So the BOP at that institution essentially sent
inmates from activity to activity. Sometimes there was not
enough work but they still had them out there doing some work.
That was part of what they were to do. But what we saw at the
BOP facility was a structure so that one's life imitated life
out here in the sense that you don't simply sit around and
``serve your time'' or wait for your time to be over.
Do you recall your time being structured, your BOP time,
which is the only time, of course, that we are asking you
about, your time in Federal prison being structured where you
went from one activity to the other activity, etc.?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Did you have any work to do there?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. We worked, but, like you said, it was
due to the overcrowdedness, but they did. Instead of working 8
hours, they worked us 4 hours, like half a day, so other
inmates could work. From there, on to school, to school, work,
and taking up other little classes and stuff. To me, that is
the only way I could do my time. I just can't lay around,
because I just had to do something to keep going, you know.
Most of the time when you lay around doing nothing, most of the
time you are going to get involved in something.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are going to have to go and vote
in a minute, and I have a question that I wanted to ask also.
Ms. Norton. I am almost through.
The contrasts between these two, you, on the other hand,
Mr. Barnes, testified that the athletic program was there, but
you did not testify about activities of the kind that Mr.
Robinson has just described.
Mr. Robinson. I wasn't here to hear what he described, but,
like I said earlier in my testimony, at Rivers it was more
about athletics. It was about the baseball tournament or the
football tournament or flag football tournament, and that was
the extent.
Ms. Norton. So you could spend all day kind of hanging out
in the athletic facility?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. The gym is open from the time that they
serve breakfast. Right after they serve breakfast, the gym is
open. The school is open, but that is just for GED for the most
part, GED and light computer skills. The library is extremely
small, like the size of a living room in a D.C. apartment. That
is one of the biggest gripes I had with the institution,
because if you don't give somebody to put their mind on, they
are going to put their mind on anything. I mean me, personally,
I ordered all my own books from outside the institution because
I was very upset with the lack of reading material. I didn't
want to do my time reading novels.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important point,
the real difference between the institutions. I yield back the
rest of my time.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right. Thank you very much.
The question that I had, Mr. Robinson, you mentioned staff
relative to the substance abuse program or the drug program,
that you didn't get the impression that staff were as
interested.
Mr. Robinson. Right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. What made you think that?
Mr. Robinson. What made me think that?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Robinson. Because like what she was saying, being at
Cumberland, because a lot of the programs that inmates went to
besides Butner, they are just riding the time away. When I left
to go to Butner, everybody said, You are going to one of the
strictest programs in the BOP, so it speaks for itself.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And, Mr. Barnes, do you feel that if
there had been more direction toward the educational programs,
that inmates may have pursued those more than just the pursuit
of the athletic programs; that seemingly people would go in the
athletic programs of their own volition, but not necessarily
pursue the educational programs as much on their own?
Mr. Barnes. Yes. I believe, given more opportunity for
education, I believe a lot of inmates would choose education,
at least some of the time, as opposed to just sports all the
time.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you are recommending in a sense
that the institution place more emphases on educational program
spending?
Mr. Barnes. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you both very much.
There is a vote, and I am going to have to go and vote. We
appreciate your testimony. We appreciate your coming. I think
you have been very helpful.
I will recess until I get back from voting.
[Recess.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will now hear from our second panel. I will introduce
them first, and then swear them in.
The Honorable Harley G. Lappin joined the Bureau of Prisons
in 1985 as a correctional treatment specialist at the Federal
correctional institution in Texarkana, TX. He held a variety of
positions at eight Bureau of Prisons institutions across the
country and several correctional institutions in Butner, NC, in
1996. On April 4, 2003, he became the Bureau of Prisons'
seventh Director. He is responsible for the oversight and
management of the Bureau of Prisons' 114 institutions and for
the safety and security of more than 200,000 inmates under the
agency's jurisdiction.
We welcome you, Mr. Lappin, and thank you very much for
being here.
Mr. George E. Snyder has held a variety of positions in the
criminal justice system. He has served as warden of various
prison facilities for over 15 years. He became warden of Rivers
Correctional Institution in 2003. He is responsible for the
administration, operation, and correctional training of
offenders at Rivers. And I must confess that he is a man after
my own heart because he has also functioned as a school
teacher, and I happen to believe that teachers in many
instances and in many ways are the salt of the earth in our
society.
Let me welcome both of you gentlemen. Please stand and
raise your right hands and be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, we are, indeed, again delighted to have you, and
we will begin with Mr. Lappin.
STATEMENTS OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS; AND GEORGE E. SNYDER, WARDEN, RIVERS CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION
STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN
Mr. Lappin. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be here.
Good afternoon, Congressman Davis and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the role of the Bureau of Prisons in the
confinement, care, and treatment of offenders from the District
of Columbia.
The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the care and
custody of more than 200,000 inmates in 114 Federal
institutions and a number of contract facilities throughout the
United States. We are responsible for the incarceration of
inmates who have been sentenced to imprisonment for Federal
crimes and the detention of individuals awaiting trial for
sentencing in Federal court.
In addition, based on a 1997 Federal law, our agency is
also responsible for the District of Columbia's sentenced felon
inmate population. The National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 required the Bureau of
Prisons to assume responsibility for the incarceration of the
District of Columbia's sentenced felons by December 31, 2001.
Immediately after passage of the act, we began working with the
Department of Corrections in Washington, DC, to ensure that the
transfer of inmates would be orderly and efficient. Our
ambitious construction schedule and our use of some State
correctional institutions and some privately operated
facilities allowed us to meet the actual requirement prior to
the deadline. The transfer was completed in November 2001.
After the Revitalization Act passed, we initiated a process
to procure private contract beds as required by the statute. We
divided the procurement into two phases for two separate
contract facilities. The first phase of the procurement
resulted in a 1999 contract award for a facility in
Philipsburg, PA. The second phase of the procurement resulted
in a contract with the Rivers Correctional Institution in
Winton, NC.
In February of this year, we transferred all of the D.C.
inmates out of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center in
Philipsburg. The vast majority of these D.C. inmates were
redesignated to Rivers Correctional Institution.
Currently, Rivers Correctional Institution confines
approximately 1,300 inmates, approximately 700 D.C. inmates and
600 criminal aliens.
The mission of the Bureau is to provide safe, secure,
humane, and cost-effective confinement of inmates and to
provide opportunities for offenders to gain the skills they
will need to return to society as productive and law-abiding
citizens.
Our programs stress the development of work skills and life
skills needed to enhance employment upon release and to help
inmates maintain a crime-free lifestyle.
Our inmate programs include work, education, vocational
training, substance abuse treatment, opportunities for
religious observance, psychological services, and counseling,
release preparation, and other programs that impact essential
life skills and social values.
We also provide a variety of other structured activities
that are designed to teach inmates productive ways to use their
time.
Preparation for reentry begins in the first days of an
inmate's incarceration. The vast majority of our inmate
programs and services are geared toward helping inmates prepare
for their eventual release.
We also continue to implement our inmate skills development
initiative. This is a strategy the BOP has undertaken to unify
our inmate programs and services into a comprehensive reentry
strategy.
D.C. inmates confined to the Rivers Correctional
Institution are offered the opportunity to participate in a
variety of programs. Based on some recent reviews, we intend to
enhance the vocational training programs and to enhance and
certify the residential drug abuse treatment program to be
consistent with our residential treatment program.
In addition, we have composed a final rule to implement the
law that allows non-violent D.C. co-defenders to receive a
reduction of up to 1 year off their term of imprisonment upon
successful completion of the residential substance abuse
treatment program. We will publish the rule in conjunction with
issuing our own updated policy, which is currently in the final
review and clearance process.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Lappin.
We will proceed now to Mr. Snyder.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. SNYDER
Mr. Snyder. Chairman Davis and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, my name is George Snyder, warden of Rivers
Correctional Institution located in Winton, NC. On behalf of
the GEO Group, Inc., I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today regarding the various programs offered to inmates housed
in our facility.
I would like to briefly introduce my wife, Jeannie, who is
here with me today, as well as David Farmer, the Assistant
Warden for Programs at Rivers Correctional Institution.
The GEO Group, Inc., is a world leader in the delivery of
correctional, detention, and residential treatment services to
Federal, State, and local governmental agencies around the
globe, including 68 correctional and residential treatment
facilities with a total design capacity of approximately 59,000
beds.
Rivers Correctional Institution is accredited by the
American Correctional Association and by the Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations.
A little bit about my background. I have roughly 27 years
of experience in public safety and correctional services. I
have a bachelor's degree in law enforcement, a master's degree
in criminal justice, and a certificate in public
administration. I was proud to be named the 2006 Warden of the
Year by the GEO Group. I have taught courses on correctional
services at four different universities. I have dedicated the
bulk of my adult life to administering correctional services in
the most effective manner possible for the public good.
Mr. Chairman, I share the subcommittee's interest in
ensuring that inmates at Rivers Correctional Institution have
access to the most effective programs possible under the
resources available. In my long career, I have come to
recognize the important role such programs can plan in the
lives of inmates who take advantage of them.
Rivers Correctional Institution offers inmates several
substance abuse, educational, and vocational programs designed
to help participants become productive and responsible members
of their community. Let me highlight just a few.
Under the direction of a licensed doctoral-level
psychologist, the Rivers Correctional Institution Psychology
Department oversees the substance abuse program and a
residential drug treatment program. The 40 hour substance abuse
program is conducted in a classroom setting and provides
inmates with information on alcohol and drugs and the physical,
social, and psychological impact of these substances.
The program challenges inmates to honestly look at
consequences of alcohol and other drug use in their life. The
course is considered a prerequisite for the New Beginning drug
treatment program.
The New Beginning drug treatment program is a 9-month
residential drug treatment program that provides a continuum of
treatment services to inmates with a documented history of
substance abuse problems. This comprehensive program is
conducted within a highly structured regimen of a modified
therapeutic community composed of inmates with similar problems
living and working together, elements critical to building a
sense of community and cohesiveness among participants and
staff.
After completing the program, inmates are provided with an
opportunity to continue their involvement in treatment through
the after-care program. Participation in weekly after-care
meetings provides a forum for inmates to practice skills
acquired during treatment and prevents inmates from slowly
returning back to old behavior patterns.
Participation in the RCI residential drug treatment program
does not preclude transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for
participation in their 500 hour drug treatment program.
Our education and vocational programs are also designed to
help participating inmates be responsible citizens upon
returning to their communities. Education programs include
English as a second language, adult basic education, pre-
general equivalency degree, general equivalency degree, and
life skills/parenting.
Our vocational programs include computer technology I and
II; wood working; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning;
and one of our newest programs that we are real excited about
that we are working in conjunction with the University of the
District of Columbia, CSOSA is a work force transition program.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summation of a few of the
programs offered at Rivers. I look forward to answering any
questions the subcommittee members may have on this very
important subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Snyder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Snyder. I
want to thank both of you gentlemen for your statements. Please
know that your full statements will be included in the record,
and we appreciate your summations.
Let me begin, Director Lappin, trying to understand the
contract and the provisions of the contract with the GEO Group.
The contract requires the Bureau of Prisons to conduct
reviews for contract compliance and quality assurance based on
performance requirements outlined in the contract. In fact, the
GEO Group may earn up to 5 percent of their contract amount
based on contract performance. The Bureau of Prisons'
contracting office may also reduce payments for non-compliance.
Let me ask, How often has the Bureau of Prisons conducted
performance reviews?
Mr. Lappin. Congressman, our contracts with all private
contract organizations are performance based, so let me just
make sure we understand. This is not a contract that lays out
specifically line-by-line exactly what the contractor will
provide. It is performance based. We give general guidance and
we oversee the implementation of that contract through a number
of ways.
No. 1, we have staff full time at each of our contract
facilities, so of the 200,000 inmates at the Bureau of Prisons
there are about 22,000 in private contract facilities, 13
private contracts, one of which is Rivers. We have staff full
time at those institutions--that is 5 days a week. They will go
in on the weekends if necessary--monitoring the general
oversight of the contract.
We then also have contract folks coming in addressing
specific issues with the contract yearly, and then we have an
``audit process'' by which a team of our staff go into each of
the contract facilities twice a year and evaluate the programs,
the contract, and so on, and determine their compliance.
So there is a combination of ways that we monitor the
contract through the Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Has the GEO Group received any
performance-based awarded fees?
Mr. Lappin. You know, I don't have it with me. We could
provide for the record what award fees occurred. I don't have
that specific information, but early on in the process I know
there were some deductions. Practice makes perfect. Whenever
something is new, it takes a little time to work through the
procedures. But we have been in there. I checked the last four
performance monitoring assessments, of which they received good
ratings. I am not sure if they received an award or not or were
subject to some deduction, but we can certainly provide that.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So there were some areas where they
were probably up and maybe some areas that may have needed some
correction or additional conversation?
Mr. Lappin. Let me be a little more specific. When we go in
there, a team goes in there twice a year. They look at
correctional programs that are provided specifically, they look
at the correctional services operation--that is the oversight
of safety and security--the correctional staff, education,
recruitment, food service, health services, human resources,
inmate services, inmate systems, safety and environmental
health facilities, and then there are some areas that are
monitored more remotely, like education, recruitment, so on and
so forth.
They received good or above reviews in each of those prior
two monitoring visits. There were some deficiencies in a few of
the areas, which is not uncommon. We have an audit process in
the Bureau of Prisons, as well, and we go out and review
programs routinely, and on occasions we find deficiencies which
are provided to the institution and they are instructed to make
up corrections and provide to us a plan by which those
corrections will occur. So there were a few areas that had some
deficiencies, but nothing significant.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Have you or any members of your
staff noted or seen anything that would suggest that there
might be some differential between the way that inmates from
the District of Columbia are handled, treated, and inmates from
other places may be handled or treated?
Mr. Lappin. About a year, year and a half ago, we began
dealing directly with you, sir, on some of the reentry issues.
I asked my staff to go back and reevaluate the contract with
Rivers specifically, because it is the only contract that
houses U.S. citizens in their population, compared to the
contracts that had been let for the other facilities which
housed illegal aliens, the majority of which were going to be
deported.
At that time we realized that the contract wasn't specific
enough applicable to vocational training and the drug treatment
program, and so we have been working with the GEO Group in
rewriting, revising, as well as the CSOSA, applicable to
vocational training to identify which vocational trainings
would be most appropriate, and then we will be working with the
GEO Group to build that into a revised contract to add some of
those programs.
I was more concerned about the whole drug treatment
process, so just a few weeks ago I sent some of our staff to
Rivers to evaluate--that is our drug treatment staff who
oversee our program--sent them to Rivers to evaluate the drug
treatment program at Rivers and this issue of certification. We
found many similarities, although there were some areas that
weren't quite at the level of our program, and we are going to
set about taking corrective action to get that program to the
same level as the Bureau of Prisons' programs, consistent with
our expectations and guidelines.
Again, practice makes perfect. We have been in the drug
treatment business now for 15, 16 years, and today, to kind of
put it in perspective, we have 200,000 inmates. About 52
percent of those inmates we believe we know are in for drug-
related offenses. Of that 52 percent, we believe that about 35
percent should have drug treatment, drug or alcohol treatment.
As of today, 92 percent of those offenders are volunteering for
treatment.
So over the course of a year, we are running about 15,000
inmates a year through drug treatment programs, so we get a lot
of practice. That has allowed our staff to develop and evolve
into the programs that Congresswoman Norton saw at Cumberland,
which we think are exceptional. In fact, we are seeing our
research applicable to the inmates who complete drug treatment
is very positive. We are seeing fewer offenders come back to
prison who participate in and successfully complete our 500
hour drug treatment program, and this recidivism research has
been ongoing for 10, 12, 15 years now, so it has enormous
credibility.
We certainly have an interest in getting the program at
Rivers up to the same level so that not only will it be
certified, but when we put offenders there they can qualify,
those that would qualify, the non-violent offenders that
qualify could also be offered some time off of their sentence
based on their participation and successful completion in that
program.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Snyder, let me ask you, the
contract with Bureau of Prisons requires Jail to develop a
specific release plan, which includes a community-based program
for each inmate no later than 11 months before the inmate's
projected release. Would you share with us what might be the
specific components of a typical release plan by Rivers?
Mr. Snyder. Well, as the Director mentioned, we start
preparing for an inmate's release the day that they walk in the
door in looking at what types of programs we may be able to
enroll them in for that. As we get later on closer to the
release, we have sessions with them concerning and in
conjunction with CSOSA who, by the way, as Mr. Quander is going
to testify later, has been a wonderful partner with us in
helping develop these plans of release for these inmates.
So whether it be, for example, our work force transition
program or helping find jobs through CSOSA or through community
initiatives that they have, we work in partnership actually
from day one.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so the development of your plans
are actually done in concert with other external agencies?
Mr. Snyder. Partly with external agencies and partly
internal. We say that the inmate does not have a high school
diploma. We encourage them to enroll in the GED program, for
example. That would be something that is not in conjunction
with another program. But we do work in conjunction with other
programs, also.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Before I go to Representative
Norton, let me just ask you, both of you are experts.
Obviously, you have had long careers and would be considered
experts in this area. In spite of whatever it is that we are
doing, we are still experiencing extremely high rates of
recidivism across the board. If you were to say, in your
estimation, what really could help more to get at this question
of recidivism? What would that be?
Mr. Lappin. First and foremost, I don't care where you are,
you have to have a willing participant. It is just not a one-
sided formula here. We certainly see those offenders that come
to prison, just like the young man you heard earlier who
realized that he had some problems in his past that he decided
it was time to change. It certainly helps our success when we
have someone who is willing to participate in programs that are
offered. It is unfortunate sometimes that more of them do not.
I am not sure about the GEO Group, but we do not force
inmates into programs other than one program, and that is all
offenders who are medically cleared will work. If they fail to
accept a work assignment, they can be disciplined for that.
We encourage, we leverage, we nudge, we counsel, we push
them to get involved in GED, secondary education, vocational
training, and other pro-social value programs. We are quite
successful with many of them. Some offenders just don't see the
light.
It has been helpful, in my opinion, when you all or someone
has asserted some leverage on them, as well. I will give you a
couple of examples.
A few years ago some folks said if offenders don't pursue a
GED you are not going to get all of your good time. Well, that
wasn't us leveraging; that was somebody else saying, hey,
folks, this is so important that you should pursue this, and if
you don't there are some consequences. So the inmates began to
see the consequences of decisions they would or would not make.
That helped.
Let's go back to the time off for non-violent offenders.
That certainly encouraged more offenders who were kind of on
the fence to get involved in drug treatment. Once we get them
into the program, then it is our responsibility to provide a
program that meets their needs, addresses those issues, but no
matter what we do here, if we don't have a willing participant
our programs will be less successful. Any way to leverage those
folks into those programs, in my opinion, is helpful.
Again, I told you just a couple of examples I think that
are positive.
Do we have waiting lists? We have waiting lists. I assure
you today that even though one of our longest waiting lists is
the RDAP 500 hour, we can still get everyone who needs
treatment, treatment before they are released. It is probably
going to occur toward the end of their sentence, because an
offender comes in and has less time, their name goes above that
person so that we can get them through the program before the
end of their sentence. But we can still get every offender
currently coming into the Bureau through the program. We would
like to have a shorter waiting list. Certainly, some additional
resources in that regard would help us get more offenders
through the process earlier in their sentence than the end of
their sentence.
Just a few things.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Snyder. Actually, I concur with about everything that
Director Lappin said. There has to be some individual
commitment from the inmates, and we need to encourage that
programs happen there for them to participate in.
I think there is one other thing we are getting ready to
roll out. I am not sure we have done the best job. This will
affect Jail some time down the road. I mentioned our inmate
skills development program, and basically what we are doing is
getting ready to ramp up a particular where, when the offender
comes into the institution they will be assessed, and that
assessment will determine what skills that offender lacks, and
every facility will be required to have programs available that
address those deficiencies we identify in the offender.
We have not done as good a job in the past as we should
have, I believe, trying programs to the legitimate needs of the
inmates. Sometimes it was a little big of guesswork there. What
do you like to do, what do you want to do, rather than what do
you need to do. And so in the not-too-distant future when we
roll this program out, we will do a better job of identifying
the deficiencies an offender comes to prison with and having
programs available for them to improve in those areas.
Again, it requires a willing participant. We don't force
them into those programs. But we will certainly carry that over
to our contract with GAO at Rivers if, in fact, we still have
U.S. citizens at that facility.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
I will go to Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I suppose I should begin with Mr. Lappin.
Mr. Lappin, there are about 7,000 or so, give or take,
inmates, of course, from the District of Columbia, and
facilities you control. You heard me open saying that they were
in, according to all the figures we have access to, they were
in 75 institutions in 33 States. Now, we have some of the
figures here. For example, there were about 252 or so at
Cumberland. There are about 800 some at Rivers. That is the
largest number. There are 314 at Gilmer, about 300 at Coleman,
309 at Beach Sandy; 100 at Butner, 80 at Cleary; 50 at
Lexington. These are all over the United States, of course.
There are 12 at Ashland.
Now, what I have just detailed, just nine institutions,
that accounts for 1,728 D.C. inmates, plus the 831 at Rivers or
2,559 inmates.
These are where most of them apparently are. That means the
great bulk of the mare in dips and dabs somewhere out in the
United States. So few that, when you look for where they are,
they don't even register.
You are world class prison experts. Do you believe this is
the best way to house prisoners from a State prison system,
spreading them far and wide this way out of the reach of family
or anyone else you they know?
Mr. Lappin. Actually, we can provide you a list specific to
which institutions house D.C. offenders and how many. It is
going to vary.
Ms. Norton. We have been provided with that list, and I
have gone through where the bulk of them are, and most of them
are still scattered in smaller numbers here and there. I want
to know how you decide where to place D.C. residents.
Mr. Lappin. Not unlike other residents, we try to put the
offender as close to home as we possibly can, with a couple of
priorities. No. 1, the appropriate security level is No. 1. The
first issue is what is the security level of the offender, and
we try to put them as close to home based on that, if we can,
we space available. Because you can imagine, at the hose
institutions there are also offenders at those locations in
close proximity to that facility, as well.
So in reality there are many, many offenders in the Federal
prison system who are further from home than what you are going
to find in State facilities, given the fact that we have some
States and some geographic areas with no Federal prisons, and
those offenders are going to go to prison in some location.
Ms. Norton. Although they would seldom be halfway across
the country. They are located in most regions of the United
States.
Mr. Lappin. Of the D.C. offenders, 83 percent are within
500 miles, which is kind of our target, 500 miles or less. The
exceptions to those would be offenders who have medical or
psychiatric illnesses that must be provided for in a hospital,
and those folks are going to go to one of our medical centers.
We then have offenders who have separate issues; that is,
they have either testified or have some conflict with other
offenders in the Bureau of Prisons, and therefore we have to
put them at other locations as a safety security issue.
And then we have offenders who misbehave, and oftentimes
when they misbehave it results in them being moved further from
Washington, DC.
Again, I think hopefully you will understand that many of
the Federal offenders, when you look at how far away they are
from home, are further from home than what most State offenders
would be.
Ms. Norton. I understand that, Mr. Lappin.
Mr. Lappin, Congress has given the Bureau of Prisons a big
challenge and didn't give you all that you were entitled to,
but it asked you to do what has never been done before, and
that is absorb a State prison system. Whatever is the case, it
said integrate them but remember who they are. As a result,
essentially what you have had to do is to deal with your
existing resources to try to place them accordingly.
Quite apart from what you were left to do, would it not be
your opinion that the inmates from a State prison system would
be better off if they could be housed in a facility, since
there are 7,000 of them, enough to fill a facility, that was
closer to the District of Columbia, quite apart from what is
possible? You are not in charge of what is possible and I am
not in charge of what is possible. A lot of that has to do with
money. I am asking you and I am going to ask Mr. Snyder as
corrections experts to say, if you are dealing with a State
prison system and you know how State prison systems operate and
you know where prisoners are placed in States, so I am asking
you would it be, if all things were equal, better for these
prisoners to be housed in a facility closer to their home base?
Mr. Lappin. In my opinion, I am not sure that it would be.
Maybe this is just a difference philosophically on how to
safely run prisons, but we believe we run safer prisons when we
have a balanced population of offenders racially, as
geographically as we can, but primarily racially, so we have
found ourselves----
Ms. Norton. Who are you fooling, Mr. Lappin? Mr. Lappin,
almost 50 percent of those in prison today are African
Americans. Good luck for your balance. You just said that you
have to look at the features having to do with the nature of
the offense, etc. Moreover, everybody knows that what happens
in schools--which is kids bunched together based on race--
happens much more so in the prison environment. So this notion
about racial notion when you have a prison system in the United
States largely controlled people of color it is not going to
wash with this Member. I am not even asking you that.
I am saying, considering that these are State prisoners,
and again, you know, if you want to tell me what the Federal
Government does, fine. I have asked you to speak as a
correction expert, and I am not asking you to contradict
administration policy or any such thing. If you can't take your
hat off as a corrections expert and answer my question, I will
just go on to the next one.
Mr. Lappin. I can answer your question.
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lappin. Of our inmates, 56 percent are White, 40
percent of our inmates are African American, 27 percent of our
offenders are Hispanic. We can create balance in our
institutions. From my position and for my 22 years in the
Federal prison system, I have found us running safer----
Ms. Norton. What is the racial----
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. And more secure prisons----
Ms. Norton. What is the racial composition----
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. When we have a balanced
institution.
Ms. Norton. What is the racial composition at Cumberland
and what is the racial----
Mr. Lappin. I don't know exactly what it is, but we
certainly try to monitor that as best we can to have a more
balanced population of offenders racially----
Ms. Norton. I am going to move on.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. At the institution.
Ms. Norton. I am really going to move on, because I tell
you one thing: one of the things that hurts most for somebody
like me who comes from a majority African American city and
sees the waste of Black men in jail is the notion of the kind
of imbalance that neither you nor anybody else could do
anything about until we do something about the march of African
American manhood into State and Federal prisons.
I am looking at the characteristics here, and this is
Cumberland: 72.2 percent Black, 1.5 percent other, and 26.3
percent White. That is not your fault, but the notion to tell
me that therefore what we are trying to do is racial balance,
when I ask you as a corrections expert and not what you do
within the Federal prisons, does not respond to my question.
But if you cannot speak as a correction expert, I am holding
the hammer at that point and I just want to get to some facts
here.
I am not going to ask Mr. Snyder, who has a contract, and
therefore may feel that he had better watch himself.
Let me just say that this Member has looked at prison
systems around the world and I happen to believe that the
Bureau of Prisons is the best prison system in the world. When
was the BOP started as a system?
Mr. Lappin. In 1930.
Ms. Norton. It was started perhaps in the Depression when
people were willing to build prisons and there was a kind of
rehabilitation view of corrections. You know, you are talking
to somebody who has great respect for BOP, particularly when
compared to State prison systems, like Lorton was for the most
part. So when the District asked the Federal Government to take
some State functions and it turned out the BOP and we knew they
were going to be scattered, the good news at least was, well,
at least they have access to services they never could have
gotten at Lorton.
You have described at pages 5 and 6 some very good what you
call core inmate programs, and they are really exceptional work
programs, occupational training, vocational training, substance
abuse. I think I am looking at yours. Yes, substance abuse,
observance of faith, psychology services, etc. When you let the
contract initially for District of Columbia residents, did you
follow this core set of services in putting out the contract
and funding the contract for the private contractor?
Mr. Lappin. You are asking me?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. I don't know what occurred at the time this
contract was let specifically. What I did was compared the
contract to what we were providing in our institutions. My
sense is this contract for Rivers was more consistent with
contracts we had been offering at our other private contract
facilities that primarily house illegal aliens. So in my
evaluation----
Ms. Norton. Do you think illegal aliens are entitled to the
same services as American citizens?
Mr. Lappin. Obviously, our contracts at the private
contract facilities do not offer the same level of services
that we are providing in our own institutions that primarily
house U.S. citizens.
Ms. Norton. I am talking now about the Rivers contract.
Mr. Lappin. I think it was more consistent with those
contracts rather than one that would specifically address these
issues.
Ms. Norton. Well, why wasn't it, since most of the inmates
are American citizens, why wasn't it based on the BOP model as
opposed to the criminal alien model?
Mr. Lappin. I don't know for sure why. That is why I
mentioned in my opening testimony that we had gone back----
Ms. Norton. You are aware that the statute does not say, in
prescribing what has now been abandoned by BOP and the Federal
Government, that is that some residents would go into private
facilities, it says nothing about those facilities being of a
lesser quality or different in any way from BOP services. That
is not in the statute, is it?
Mr. Lappin. No, it is not.
Ms. Norton. You say, indeed--and I was pleased in your
testimony--that you have recently asked GEO Group to increase
programming at these facilities. Will that programming reflect
your own model, the BOP model that you tout around the country
with good reason, indeed around the world, as a model for how
corrections should be done?
Mr. Lappin. As I indicated, yes, we are working with Jail,
who is working with CSOSA, on identifying what vocational
trainings would be appropriate, and we will be working----
Ms. Norton. No, I am asking you whether you will mirror
what you do.
Mr. Lappin. As closely as possible, but, again, we don't
tell the contractor exactly how to do----
Ms. Norton. I am not asking you how to do. If you have--and
I am using your words--a core set of programs, these are
American citizens. Are they not entitled to the same core set
of programs as other American citizens? And is there anything
in the statute that would exempt them from what other American
citizens in prisons are entitled to, in BOP prisons are
entitled to?
Mr. Lappin. Again, we will try to mirror as closely as we
can the programs we offer in the Bureau.
Ms. Norton. When you put the contract out, the contract was
not funded for these services.
Mr. Lappin. I think many of the things that are listed here
the GEO Group already does at Rivers.
Ms. Norton. What? I am sorry.
Mr. Lappin. I believe many of the things we have listed
here the GEO Group already provides in the current contract.
The areas that we found were lacking was vocational training
and the certification of the drug treatment, but many of the
programs you have mentioned here--observance of faith and
religion, psychological services, visiting, telephone,
correspondence--many of those things are already in the
contract and, according to our monitoring, the GEO Group is
already providing.
Ms. Norton. Yes, we are aware of the ones that are in the
contract and we are aware that some of them have been added on
in time, and we are very grateful for that, but you are
testifying that you intend, to the greatest extent possible, to
mirror the core program of the BOP for the American citizens
who are confined in private facilities; is that your testimony?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. Norton, let me do this. Let me
go to Mr. Clay, who has some questions, and then we can
certainly come back to you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, sir. Glad to yield.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always interesting to
follow my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia. She always has intriguing questions.
Mr. Lappin, let me ask you your followup to one of her
questions. In regard to BOP, are there any plans on the drawing
board to build a facility or to contract out and have a
facility built in the D.C. metropolitan area for D.C.
prisoners?
Mr. Lappin. There are no plans at the present time.
Mr. Clay. Do you plan on having a 10-year plan, 5 year plan
to increase capacity?
Mr. Lappin. We do have a plan for increasing capacity. To
be quite honest with you, we don't get a lot of say in where
prisons are built, so it oftentimes takes a lot of partnership
with the Congress, the administration. So we have a
construction plan to keep up with the growing population. As
you know as well as I do, there are a lot of priorities right
now and it is not easy to come up with funding to build
prisons, but certainly there is a plan. There are issues being
addressed at the appropriate times with the appropriators about
our needs for the future. But certainly there is a building
plan based on our population projections over the next 3 or 4
years which we believe will, if things stay as they currently
are today, will add about 15,000 inmates over the next 3 years
to the Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Clay. I really hope you are wrong about that.
Mr. Lappin. I do, too.
Mr. Clay. What region has the most need? Is it east, west,
north, south?
Mr. Lappin. The east, the west, and the southeast probably
we see our greatest need, but it varies from time to time, but
those typically are the areas that we have the greatest need,
because we prefer to put institutions in close proximity to
where the inmates are coming from, which increases our ability
to keep them closer to home.
Mr. Clay. Yes. In the area of reentry, the 8th Circuit,
which is based in St. Louis, their Office of Probation and
Parole, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's Office, has a
unique program as far as matching up those recently released
and future employers. They hold a career fair for those
recently released and match them into jobs. How successful has
BOP been in matching up recently released inmates? And do you
do programs like that in this region?
Mr. Lappin. Actually, we partner with the folks in St.
Louis nationally on offender work force development. That is
the initiative you are referencing.
Mr. Clay. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. So yearly there is a conference that we
participate with the probations staff, with parole staff, with
our staff in developing programs at all of our institutions
that assist in transition from prison to the community, one of
which is work force development initiatives.
All of our institutions have job fairs so employers can
come in and inmates can be interviewed and resumes can be
reviewed, more in the way of a practice because, again, many of
our offenders are not releasing locally. So the difficult
challenge here is reaching out from a distance to find
providers in certain areas. We have community corrections
centers in many locations that help us with the transition from
prison to the community through halfway houses. The young man
that was here was in a halfway house here in the District of
Columbia. They suggested he go to Goodwill and apply for a job.
That occurs in that fashion more so than from the individual
institution, given the fact that oftentimes the offender is
some distance from their home.
But, again, there is a correction between the staff in our
institutions and what the inmates' needs are, what their
accomplishments are, and the transition to halfway houses.
Our preference is to send all eligible offenders out
through halfway houses, so this past year, of the eligible
offenders, about 84 percent of the offenders did transition out
through a halfway house, which helped facilitate that
transition from prison to the community to secure two real
important aspects: a place to live, and a job.
Mr. Clay. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Critically important.
So, again, the Bureau, given its size, geographically uses
these transition halfway house centers to assist us with that.
Mr. Clay. And all halfway house residents have to be
employed? Is that right?
Mr. Lappin. Well, we certainly do our best. As you can
imagine, when unemployment rates are high, it is more
difficult, but we certainly, as part of that period of time in
a halfway house, a primary component of that halfway house is
to try and secure employment prior to release.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that.
Mr. Snyder, real quickly, how successful is jail in placing
inmates into employment opportunities?
Mr. Snyder. Actually, our facility is not responsible. We
work in conjunction with CSOSA and they handle the placement.
Mr. Clay. Who is CSOSA?
Mr. Snyder. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
Mr. Clay. I see.
Mr. Snyder. And they will be testifying later.
Mr. Clay. Let me ask you about your drug treatment program.
How often do you find inmates that test positive for drug use
in the institution?
Mr. Snyder. We do random drug testing, and we have less
than 1 percent positive drug testing rate. In comparison, that
is very good.
Mr. Clay. What is your testing matrix?
Mr. Snyder. Last year in 2006 we did 100,945 random tests.
We had 1,088 positive tests for a percentage of 1.1 percent of
our population. We did 21,097 suspect tests; that is, something
led us to believe the offender was using drugs, the inmate. Of
those, 900 were tested positive, which is a 4.3 percent
positive test rate. So a 1 to 2 percent rate is very good.
Mr. Clay. I see.
Mr. Snyder. Very low.
Mr. Clay. All right. I thank you both for your answers.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
Let me just ask Director Lappin, did I understand that you
are working on a good time policy for individuals who may be
involved in or who complete the drug program?
Mr. Lappin. The time off?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Yes. On May 24, 2005, the D.C. City Council
passed the Omnibus Public Safety Ex-Offender Sufficiency Reform
Amendment Act of 2004, which granted the authority for non-
violent D.C. offenders who successfully complete 500 hour D.C.
treatment program eligibility for time off their sentence. We
have now taken that through the rules process. We have drafted
the final rules. The final rule, in fact, is at OMB for review.
They should decide by October 20, 2007, next week or this week,
at which time, assuming no concern on their part, we would then
publish the final rule, we would finalize our program statement
and we would begin the implementation of that law for D.C.
offenders.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Does that mean that there are other
kinds of good time policies within the Bureau? I am saying are
there other incentives for individuals who have gone through
any kind of special program or special training or anything
else?
Mr. Lappin. To my knowledge, this is the only program that
offers a reduction in their sentence other than the authority
of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to allow or propose to
the sentencing court a reduction of sentence typically based on
terminal illnesses or some significant health concern or issue,
which we do utilize. To my knowledge, those are the only two
that allow a ``reduction in sentence.'' Most all offenders are
eligible for good time. That is typically driven by the statute
under which they are sentenced, so it would be different for
D.C. offenders possibly than offenders from Federal correct. I
don't know the specifics of those, but as far as something
similar to the reduction of sentence consistent with the 500
hour drug program, I am not sure. I am not aware of any other
programs that offer some reduction in sentence other than the
two I mentioned.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Is any crime committed in D.C. a
Federal crime?
Mr. Lappin. I am sorry?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Is any crime committed in the
District of Columbia a Federal crime?
Mr. Lappin. Yes. I have the number here, I believe. I could
give you the exact number of offenders who are sentenced out of
District Court, but I believe there are about 1,100. I think
there are about 1,100 offenders who come out of District court.
Of the 7,816 D.C. offenders, as of August, 6,698 were sentenced
in D.C. Superior Court, 1,118 were sentenced as a result of
Federal crimes out of U.S. District Court.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Lappin, how many Federal facilities, BOP
facilities, have been built since 1997, approximately?
Mr. Lappin. I hate to guess. I will get it for the record
and submit it to you in writing.
I hate to even guess. Probably 30 or 40.
Ms. Norton. Has the BOP ever, given its corrections
background, suggested to OMB that one of those prisons might be
built to house D.C. residents? That is a lot of prisons.
Mr. Lappin. We have tried to place institutions closer to
Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. That is not my question.
Mr. Lappin. We have not asked or pursued an initiative to
build a prison to house just D.C. offenders. We have not.
Ms. Norton. That was really my question.
You see, the figures I laid out before when you tried to
tell me they were all about balance, where we had 2,559 inmates
in 10 institutions, understand they are in 75, sir. If there
are 2,559 in 10 institutions, that means that there are 5,441
in 65 institutions. You have to understand what my point is,
sir. Whatever the balance point is, since the figures that I
called out were where you will find them in any numbers, it
really means sprinklings of men around the United States. I
just want you to know that is my concern, and that is why I
asked how many prisons since 1997.
How many prisons have been built since 1986 when the
mandatory minimums which have incarcerated an entire generation
of Black men, how many prisons since then have been built?
Mr. Lappin. Again, I could submit that for the record. I
know that in 1980 we had about 26,000 inmates in the Federal
prison system. We operated about 35 institutions. Today we have
200,000 inmates. We operate 114 Federal prisons that we own and
operate, and we contract out for 13 other private facilities.
Ms. Norton. Now, for criminal aliens--and yet District of
Columbia residents are the only American citizens in such
private facilities.
Mr. Lappin. Again, as you know, the law that passed in 1997
mandated----
Ms. Norton. It did not mandate and it was not necessary to
put D.C. residents in a prison with criminal aliens where you
know you do not have to provide the same services. It said
private facility. It said Bureau of Prisons. It says these are
inmates.
The fact that you have 800 in a private facility means it
was in your discretion to fill it up with D.C. residents, but
you did not do so, and that raises the problem. If you are an
American citizen living in the District of Columbia, you get
tired of not having rights even when you go to jail, sir,
particularly when it was in your discretion, your, BOP at
large, discretion to do something about it, and particularly
since these men have to come home to the District of Columbia.
I am here trying to divide what we have to do, sir. I know
I have a lot of work to do to convince my colleagues, and what
you, it seems to me, had at least some discretion to recommend.
Again, this is a grand experiment. The Congress has said,
look, BOP, you are a great prison system. We are going to ask
you to do something that has never been done before. Therefore,
Congress looks to you to say, can this be done? Can it be done
better? That is what I am impressing upon you that we need to
have happen.
I want to ask you about the testimony you heard from the
prisons, the ex-prisoners. It was important in reinforcing what
we saw when we went to the two prisons. I said they were both
well-kept. Everybody felt free to come up and talk to me. There
was a marked difference in the activities available. Let's
leave aside the services for a moment. The BOP prisoners had
not only structure but had times when they went from one place
to the next place, and it looks like the BOP has a theory of
corrections that says that you let a man lie around doing what
we would all like to do--what would you like to do today? Sit
in a hearing, or would you like to hang out? Sir, I would hang
out, and I have been working all my life.
Do you say to somebody, hey, here's a nice facility, here
is a gym. They hang out in your private facility, but Mr.
Robinson, I believe it was, testified that he was in a very
structured environment, that he had to work, and of course he
has work now. You saw Mr. Barnes, a young man, obviously very
self-motivated early in life, very intelligent, already could
pick up a craft, talk about what it was like to be in an
unstructured environment.
Why, given the fact that the BOP model is tried, has been
tested, is seen as one of the most effective in the world, why
would you not try to replicate at least the structure, which
you could have done even if you didn't have the money, at least
the structured environment that leaves a man or woman to have
some sense of what is going to be expected of him out here. Why
was that model abandoned in the private facility at Rivers?
Mr. Lappin. I don't think that model was abandoned. I am
very pleased that you had a good visit to the institution in
Cumberland and you left there pleased that the inmates were
productively occupied. That certainly is a mainstay in our
safely running prisons.
Again, I don't think the contract at Rivers didn't take
that into consideration. I think it did. Other than----
Ms. Norton. I really don't want to argue the facts here. I
don't have a lot of time. The facts are that most of the
inmates--and you heard testimony here, we saw it ourselves--
spend most of their time on weights and in the yard, and we
don't blame them. Men will not engage in structured activities,
even when they are available, unless you draw the incentives
such that they really think that this is what we are supposed
to do. Of course, men have to work in BOP facilities. You don't
have to work there, so please don't make me lay out not what I
saw but what I have documented as to the difference between the
unstructured environment at the private facility which is 180
degrees unlike what the inmate will find out here and the very
structured way in which he must live his life in a BOP
facility, because I saw it. We documented it. I didn't just go
there. I asked questions--how many hours they have to work,
what if they decide not to do this, then what do they do. I got
very specific answers from the warden.
Now I am asking one question only: if structure works in a
BOP facility, why would you, in putting out a contract, not say
do it the way you want to do, but the structured life is
necessary to prepare these men that you are going to get to
enter the real world.
Mr. Lappin. Again, I think our contract that was let at
Rivers has that framework. Our contract oversight folks who are
there routinely throughout the course of the contract observe
that behavior. Granted, there can be improvements, but I beg to
differ that we have completely abandoned that theory or
philosophy in the contract.
Again, the warden here can address probably those day-to-
day issues that----
Ms. Norton. You know, I really don't want to keep us here.
Mr. Snyder, does a man, besides the GED program, is he
compelled to work, for example?
Mr. Snyder. Yes, ma'am. They are required to work in our
facility.
Ms. Norton. What are their work assignments for how many
hours a day?
Mr. Snyder. Again, like many BOP facilities, it may be a
short period of time, 4 hours. They may work 4 hours and may be
enrolled in some other program for 4 hours.
Ms. Norton. You know what, Mr. Snyder, I talked to lots of
men down there. None told us that he had any assignment
whatsoever. Now you are telling me that every man at Rivers has
a work assignment?
Mr. Snyder. Yes, ma'am, the majority do.
Ms. Norton. I am going to ask you to submit to the
committee what my own eyes contradicted, what you heard the
prisoner, the ex-offender testify. I want you to submit to me
the work day of prisoners. I want you to submit to me how your
program is structured on paper. I would like to see that.
Mr. Snyder. I can submit to you the number of inmates that
we have working in the facility.
Ms. Norton. You just said these people have every inmate
working.
Mr. Snyder. Well, the majority----
Ms. Norton. Now, we saw some people working.
Mr. Snyder. Yes.
Ms. Norton. We know that there are some people who work.
Everybody at the BOP facility we saw. In fact, if you want to
know the truth, Mr. Lappin, the warden told us that it
sometimes gets to be difficult because the facility has so many
people coming in and so much work to do, but they still say you
have to put 4 hours in to work. That is what you told me. You
have to put 4 hours in to work, every last man at Rivers?
Mr. Snyder. The vast majority. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Four hours of work a day?
Mr. Snyder. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Forgive my skepticism, but you are under oath.
Mr. Snyder. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Let me quickly go through the rest of this,
because we have just heard testimony that this is just like
BOP, which contradicts what we saw with our naked eyes. How in
the world are we going to improve things if we get this kind of
testimony?
Now, you have programs in carpentry, HVAC. We are glad to
see the air conditioning and the heating. But then you heard
testimony from a prisoner that it was limited by age. Why is it
limited by age? Indeed, Mr. Robinson said it was not limited by
age at BOP, but of course these programs are exactly the same.
Why was it not limited by age at the BOP prison where he also
had that training and it was limited by age at Rivers?
Mr. Snyder. I can only speak to the program at Rivers. I am
not familiar with----
Ms. Norton. That is all I am asking you for.
Mr. Snyder. Yes, ma'am. The program at Rivers is a grant
program through the D.C. State Department of Education, and
through that grant the ages of participants must be in the age
range of 18 to 25.
Ms. Norton. But that is not true, Mr. Lappin, at the BOP
HVAC program?
Mr. Lappin. I am not aware of a limitation on age; however,
we provide programs located at institutions that sometimes have
some limitations. That is, we contract out at some locations
for those services. Although I have not seen an age limitation,
there are sometimes some limitations based on what is agreed to
within that local contract. If it is a Bureau-provided program
by Bureau staff, we do not limit age.
Ms. Norton. Almost all your programs are Bureau provided,
though.
Mr. Lappin. We have a number of locations where we contract
out vocational training programs because there is a community
college or some service locally that really offers a great deal
for us. That is how you heard testimony that some locations we
still can offer college programs. It is only because we can get
those programs locally.
Ms. Norton. College programs I understand, because Congress
has put some limitations on you there.
Mr. Lappin. Right.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Snyder, do the criminal aliens have access
to the same programs?
Mr. Snyder. Yes, they do.
Ms. Norton. I have nothing against criminal aliens, God
bless them, but I hope I made my point. I would not like to see
any discrimination against them. Who has been discriminated
against? The D.C. residents who are American citizens who would
get different levels of services if they were in BOP
facilities.
We were very disappointed to find out all the time it has
taken for D.C. to be qualified for the incentive, and now that
processes you are assuring me is well under way, so when you
are going through that program, that 500 hour program, that
incentive, which has apparently been useful to making the
program so effective, would be available then.
Since we have composed a final rule, you say on page none
of your testimony, and will publish the rule in conjunction
with issuing our own updated policy, which is currently in the
final review and clearance process, in light of the fact that
we think this should have been the case from the beginning, and
if not it should certainly, given the effectiveness of the
program, should by now be operative, in light of the fact that
the proposed rule to implement the law was published a year ago
in November, or almost a year ago, November 2006, that the
Council made the necessary changes in 2004, I have to ask you,
given the vagueness of the language, to testify when this
policy will finally be operative.
Mr. Lappin. Again, we will implement it as soon as we hear
from OMB and we can finalize the--I don't have the date this
will go into effect until I get the information back from OMB.
Ms. Norton. So you have done all you can do?
Mr. Lappin. We have done all that we can do until we hear
back from OMB. At this point----
Ms. Norton. One thing we would like you to do is to urge
OMB, and we will back you up on that, sir.
Mr. Lappin. And I will report to you as soon as I hear back
from them the status. Once I have that back, I can better give
you a time line for when we will implement this Bureau-wide.
Ms. Norton. We are particularly concerned to get the 500
hour program, the certified program, at Rivers. Can we
anticipate that program will be available at Rivers?
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Ms. Norton. The one with the incentive?
Mr. Lappin. The vocational training, as I mentioned, and
the drug treatment program, we are going to address at Rivers
through the contract. Again, we will keep you informed as to
how that progresses.
Ms. Norton. That is so important, and I thank you for the,
Mr. Lappin. You speak it is about 50 to 80 percent having drug
abuse problems, a great concern to us. Particularly of concern
to us was that 65 percent of those whose parole is revoked are
revoked on drug abuse problems, so the effectiveness of that
program could not be more important.
I am concerned about some of the HVAC programs, the
carpentry programs, not because they aren't excellent programs,
but if they are certified through the Department of Labor, then
a man or woman can perhaps expect to be at least recognized
because he will be able to say I have been through this
program. I am concerned whether or not persons are able to say
something, to have a piece of paper to show that Prison
Industries has a very good reputation, has certified them as
being able to do X, Y, or Z, whether it is HVAC, carpentry, or
any of the rest of it. Is that available?
Mr. Lappin. We make a point that those vocational programs
we provide, to have some type of certification. I want to be
careful on this, because there are varying types of
certifications. Let's take the DOL apprenticeship program.
There are many locations we don't offer that, not because we
don't think it is a good program, it just takes thousands of
hours for the offender to become certified in that program.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Like at Rivers, the offenders on average spend
about 2 years. Most of them, if they began that program,
probably wouldn't be able to finish it, so we look for other
programs that are shorter in nature that give them some type of
certificate so that when they leave prison and they go to apply
for a job they have a document that says yes, I have had this
training in this program to this level of proficiency. So we
try to gear those programs and the length of those programs
based on the amount of time we believe the offenders at a given
institution on average are going to spend at that facility so
that we can get more people through and have them with the
certificate upon release.
In your medium- and high-security institutions where
offenders are serving a longer time, you will find a greater
array of the DOL apprenticeship programs, because many of those
offenders are spending a long enough time in prison that if
they begin the program they can finish it before they are
released.
Ms. Norton. Makes sense.
Our figures show that for BOP low-security inmates, it
costs the BOP $52.57 per day. At the Rivers low-security
program it costs $67.36 per day. Is that approximately correct?
Mr. Lappin. I didn't hear the last figure.
Ms. Norton. It is $52.57 for low-security BOP, $67.36 per
day for Rivers low-security. Is that the case?
Mr. Lappin. Let me give you the number that I use publicly,
because there is sometimes two numbers floating around. Our
average cost per day for low-security inmates in the Federal
prison system is $57.08. That is all-inclusive. That is
overhead, training, administrative staff, everything that goes
into housing that inmate, including central office costs,
everything--$57.08. I believe the contract at Rivers is $72.
Ms. Norton. OK, because obviously the private contractor--
--
Mr. Lappin. It is $72.23 per inmate per day.
Ms. Norton. So $72.23, so if we could get past the capital
cost and we were just looking at the efficiency of the BOP
operation, you have a more efficient operation than private
contractors have, because he has to build in the cost, the
capital cost, and he's got to have a profit and the rest of it.
Mr. Lappin. But I think you have to realize, I mean, I am
averaging thousands of inmates in this average.
Ms. Norton. I certainly do recognize that. That is one of
the reasons you are more efficient. The more you have, the more
you are able to have the efficiencies that come with the large
numbers.
Mr. Lappin. There are some variations geographically,
though, that we have to acknowledge, some higher-cost of living
areas where it is more expensive to run prisons than other
locations.
Ms. Norton. I understand. If you want to play down your own
efficiency, you are welcome. I am talking about efficiencies of
scale, and that is all I am talking about. That is something
that you don't have any control over. That is why I read you
the raw statistics.
Finally, let me ask you what is the profit margin for the
Jail Corp., which is the corporation that, of course, built
Rivers?
Mr. Lappin. Are you asking me?
Ms. Norton. You or Mr. Snyder. You ought to know it as much
as Mr. Snyder knows.
Mr. Lappin. What their profit margin is?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. I have no idea.
Ms. Norton. That is not built into the contract?
Mr. Lappin. I have no idea.
Ms. Norton. So they can make any amount of profit they want
to?
Mr. Lappin. Again, I have no idea what their profit margin
is.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Snyder. I am unaware of our profit margin at this
point.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask you, Mr. Lappin, to get that
information to me? I don't think that contracts let out by the
Federal Government say you can make whatever profit you want to
from housing these Federal prisoners. If they are, then the
Congress needs to know if that is the case.
Mr. Lappin. If that information is available to us, we will
certainly provide it to you.
Ms. Norton. Well, it has to be available to somebody in the
BOP.
Mr. Lappin. I am not sure that it is. I am not sure it is
stipulated in our contract what the profit margin is.
Ms. Norton. So you are therefore testifying that profit
doesn't matter to you and you can make any profit you desire so
long as you give us a facility?
Mr. Lappin. It is competitive bid.
Ms. Norton. I understand that. I am talking about profit. I
am talking about profit.
Mr. Lappin. If there is a profit margin available, we will
provide it to you.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Snyder, you know more. You are closer to
the profit margin than even Mr. Lappin. These are 100 percent
Federal dollars. Within 30 days we want to know what the profit
margin is.
One final question. It has to do with phone calls. How much
does it cost in a Federal prison to make a phone call, or how
do you calculate those costs?
Mr. Lappin. I don't have the exact numbers. I will provide
them on the record, what our charges are nationally for phone
calls throughout the Bureau to the inmates.
Ms. Norton. If phones are to be used in a private facility,
would there be a profit available to the facility for allowing
the calls to be made, or would that facility have phone calls
available in the same way and for the same cost to the prisoner
as a BOP facility?
Mr. Lappin. Again, I would have to go back and look at the
contract, what it says specific to phone calls. My guess is it
is pretty broad and says phones will be made available to the
inmates. How those costs are determined, I am not sure. If it
is in our contract I will provide to you specifically what the
contract indicates regarding their applying that aspect of the
contract to housing those offenders there, and I will provide
to you our charges to offenders for phone calls in the Bureau
of Prisons.
Ms. Norton. It is very important to have that within 30
days.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the latitude you have given me
in examining these witnesses. They have really been very
helpful. The testimony we have heard seems to me, to summarize,
to say that the BOP is now trying to bring the same services to
the private facility where D.C. residents are housed as they
would have if they just happened to be in a low-security, for
example, public facility. Sir, subject to what we learn about
structure, we will take that to mean that the same kind of
structure imitation of the way life is in the real world we
will obtain at Rivers, as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
I see we have been joined by Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions of this panel?
Mr. Cummings. Just a few. Just a few, Mr. Chairman. I am
sorry. I was in another hearing.
I just am curious. I was just sitting here just thinking
how we have folks who go to prison and it is like they go in
and in many instances they come out worse off. I am just
wondering, at your facility, Mr. Snyder, and to you, Mr.
Lappin, is there any followup on say, for example, they get
this training, and is there any followup on how they do in
life? I mean, it may have been answered earlier. I don't know.
Is there any followup on that, because it seems to me that if
we are going to be paying for these various courses that I see
listed here, that we would want computer classes, woodworking,
heating and air conditioning. It seems as if we would want to
see how our money is being spent, so when you followup on it
what do you come up with?
Mr. Lappin. The Bureau of Prisons does recidivism research
on all of the programs we offer, not specifically every VT, but
VT programs in general, as well as GED, inmates who work in
Federal prison industry, inmates who we do recidivism research
to determine if, in fact, the programs we are offering are
having the intended outcome--that is, reducing recidivism.
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Lappin. Nationally the Federal recidivism rate, our
Federal recidivism rate is 40 percent within the Federal
system, which in the last 10 years came down from 44 percent,
so we went from 44 percent to 40 percent in about the last 10
years. We see that certainly as very favorable.
I couldn't agree with you more: when we invest money in
programs, we want to be assured that those programs are having
the intended outcome. So in groups like this--vocational
training, prison industry, GED--we do long-term recidivism
research assessment. And if we find a program is not having the
intended outcome, we discontinue that program.
I will give you an example. For 10 or 15 years we operated
boot camps. Our research for 10 of those years reflected no
impact on recidivism for the offenders identified who
participate in that program. We brought those types of programs
to an end. We were not getting the intended value, the outcome
we desired based on the investment. That is the way we continue
to assess our programs. So today, besides these programs, we
have faith-based residential programs, we have other pro-social
value programs. I have the acronyms. You don't know what they
mean, but basically the residential programs that target anger
management, stress management, getting a GED. We are doing
recidivism research on those programs, as well.
They have not been around quite long enough for us to come
out and say yes, this works. We are close. But as soon as that
is available we will be able to make that public, as well.
Mr. Cummings. Well, let me be very specific. I am impressed
that there are computer classes, because that makes sense. I
don't see how one can operate in this society. The janitor in
my church, everything is run by a computer. If he didn't know
how to run a computer, he has a problem.
I am just wondering, if you look at something like computer
classes, do you say 3 years after the person is out did he get
a job operating computers? do you follow what I am saying? In
other words, I don't see how you can even make the
determination whether something is working unless you can kind
of see whether it led to somebody having an occupation in that
area. Do you follow me?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, I do, but we don't do it on a case-by-case
basis, given the volume. We release 61,000 inmates a year, and
so we don't have a system that tracks each and every one of
those individuals. Again, if you would like more detail, I am
not a researcher, but my staff could come by and provide the
research that we have done on this and explain to you how we go
about determining whether or not these programs work and how we
track the offenders and do the assessment. I would prefer, if
you have the time, that I bring some folks along that better
understand that process and can further explain to you or other
committee members how that research occurs and the outcome.
Mr. Cummings. Going back to a statement you made, you said
there has been a reduction in recidivism; is that right?
Mr. Lappin. In the Federal offenders.
Mr. Cummings. All right. I am glad you clarified that. Why
don't we talk about the Rivers Correctional Institution, since
that is the subject matter of our hearing. What has been the
recidivism--and you may have answered this earlier. What has
been the recidivism rate with regard to this institution?
Mr. Snyder. We don't have those figures.
Mr. Cummings. You should. It seems like you would. If you
can quote the recidivism rate for the system and you come here
before Congress and it seems like you would. I kind of think
that if I were trying to get another contract, one of the
things I would want to be able to say is that we were able to
put together a program that had this effect to this Government
or the D.C. government or anybody else. I am just wondering,
Are we concerned, Mr. Snyder, about just warehousing? Or are we
concerned about actually rehabilitating and helping people to
go out and try to make something of their life? I mean, I am
just wondering.
Mr. Snyder. We are very concerned at their rehabilitation.
That is why the emphasis on our progress. We are willing to do
more.
Mr. Cummings. Well, why don't you tell me what you are
willing to do, because maybe we can make that happen. What are
you willing to do? Because I want to and I am sure Ms. Norton
wants to hold you to what it is you want to do. I don't hear
too many people coming in here talking about what they want to
do, so what would you like to do?
Mr. Snyder. As Director Lappin stated previously, we will
be able to enhance our substance abuse program and enhance the
vocational training programs we offer at our facilities in
conjunction with the Bureau.
Mr. Cummings. And how do you plan to do that?
Mr. Lappin. The Bureau is going to revise the contract to
require those types of programs be provided in the Rivers
contract.
Mr. Cummings. All right.
Mr. Lappin. We spoke about that earlier.
Mr. Cummings. All right. I understand.
I wish I had gotten here a little earlier, because I would
have loved to have just heard all this testimony.
Were you about to say something? You look like you are
getting ready to jump over the table.
Mr. Lappin. I was just going to say if you would like us to
come up there and meet with you privately on the issues we
discussed, we would be more than happy to.
Mr. Cummings. Yes. What we will do is I will submit some
questions.
This whole concept of warehousing human beings----
Mr. Lappin. We agree.
Mr. Cummings. I think at some point we have to figure out
how to help people move on with their lives, and living in
Baltimore where we have a significant number of people coming
back and literally saying to me--I mean, I have heard this so
many times, Mr Cummings, I have no way to make a living. I
don't know what to do. I can't get a job. And if I cannot find
a job, I am going to have to do the very things that sent me to
prison. I have heard that many times.
It just seems to me at some point, if we are going to be
using taxpayers' dollars, we ought to be making sure that we
have effective programs that have the effect that we intend, as
opposed to a situation where we are warehousing people only to
come out to be placed in the situation that I just stated.
Mr. Lappin. Can I respond to that?
Mr. Cummings. Sure.
Mr. Lappin. We are in complete agreement. We are opposed to
warehousing offenders. Our job is not only to provide a safe,
secure environment, but provide opportunities for offenders to
improve skills and ability where there is vocational, literacy,
work skills during their period of incarceration.
Again, I think we do help many of the inmates, but we have
to have willing participants. We had a long conversation
earlier that addressed some of those issues. Again, we would be
more than happy to sit down with you personally and discuss
what we do in the Bureau of Prisons to accomplish that. We
certainly want that for the offenders that are at Rivers, as
well.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings.
Of course we have a vote on, so we are going to go and
vote, but Ms. Norton is going to remain and will continue.
Gentlemen, let me thank both of you. I think this will end
this panel and we will go right into the next panel. We
certainly want to thank all of you for your patience and for
your indulgence. We appreciate it very much.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. This is very important testimony
for us. It was important to spend the time we did.
Please stand and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Norton. The record will show that each witness answered
in the affirmative.
The green light indicates you have 5 minutes to summarize
your statement; the yellow light means your time is running
down. We recognize that we have spent much more time with the
first witnesses who have the immediate power to do something
about the situation. We are very pleased that we believe we
have a commitment here under oath to equalize services between
Rivers, for example, and BOP facilities for the first time. It
was important to get that and to document that. But it is
equally important to us to document what you will have to say.
I am going to begin with Mr. Quander, Paul Quander, Jr.,
who is the Director of Court Services and Offender Supervision,
a Federal agency responsible for 15,500 convicted felons who
are on probation, parole, or supervised release in Washington,
DC.
Mr. Quander.
STATEMENTS OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES
AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; STANLEY JACKSON, ACTING
PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; CHARLES JONES,
DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES; PHIL HOLMES, VICE PRESIDENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT,
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES; DENNIS TORBETT, VICE PRESIDENT, WORKFORCE
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, HOME BUILDERS INSTITUTE; AND JAMES
AUSTIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, THE JFA INSTITUTE
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.
Mr. Quander. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Norton and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
As Director of the Federal agency that supervises over
15,000 men and women on community supervision in the District
of Columbia, nearly 6,000 of whom are in post-release
supervision, I know first-hand that the foundation of
successful reentry can be laid during a period of
incarceration.
It is now 10 years since the Revitalization Act transferred
responsibility for housing D.C. co-defenders to the Federal
Board of Prisons and created the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency. In that decade, CSOSA has transformed
community supervision by lowering case loads, implementing
stringent contract standards and other close supervision
strategies, increasing drug testing, opening multiple field
offices, and automating the case management system.
In addition, CSOSA provides limited substance abuse
treatment and operates a learning and vocational assistance
program to supplement the city's over-burdened service
capacity.
Last year we opened a Reentry and Sanctions Center to
provide intensive assessment and treatment readiness
programming for high-risk offenders entering supervision or at
risk for revocation.
These services are sorely needed. Most of the offenders
under our supervision have long histories of substance abuse,
educational under-achievement, and under-employment. Of our
population, 70 percent has a documented history of drug use; 39
percent are under supervision for drug offenses; and 20 percent
have sought substance abuse treatment within the past 6 months.
Only 56 percent have been employed during the past 6 months,
and only 41 percent possess a GED or high school diploma.
Given this profile, we believe that substance abuse
treatment, vocational training, and release preparations are
the most critical programmatic needs. Almost half of the D.C.
offender population at Rivers is incarcerated for a drug-
related offense. Most parole revocations also involve substance
abuse violations. Research has established beyond question that
crime escalates in severity and frequency as drug use
increases.
If more returning D.C. offenders completed the BOP 500 hour
residential treatment program, which is certified, if it was at
Rivers or elsewhere, CSOSA could then use its resources to
continue services either through outpatient treatment or
through the Reentry and Sanctions Center. This coordinated
approach would enable a greater proportion of offenders to
receive a clinically appropriate course of treatment. This, in
turn, would reduce drug use and drug-related crime among the
supervised population.
Residential treatment programs must be delivered by
qualified staff with appropriate experience, training, and
certification. We support the Board of Prisons's efforts to
ensure that treatment programs at Rivers and other facilities
that house D.C. co-defenders will meet these requirements.
Vocational training is another critical need. CSOSA has
been a partner with the GEO Group and the Board of Prisons to
develop programs that equip inmates with the skills needed in
the D.C. job market and to link these programs with local
employers and trade unions. Such linkages will provide
returning inmates with better training and long-term career
prospects.
We hope the carpentry program that is currently being
developed will be the first of multiple BOP and GEO efforts to
bring vocational training to Rivers. We also appreciate the
dedicated efforts of our other partners, the Office of the D.C.
State Superintendent of Education and the University of the
District of Columbia, to implement vocational programs at
Rivers. CSOSA has provided valuable support to both of these
endeavors.
According to the District of Columbia Workforce Investment
Council, approximately 70 percent of D.C. area employment is in
the business services and information technology sector. Those
D.C. offenders who are adequately prepared have the opportunity
for training in these areas where they are most likely to find
a job. As of June 2007, the Board of Prisons reported that 43
percent of the Rivers population was serving 59 months or less.
While it is difficult to define the capacity, duration, and
content of programs that should be developed at Rivers, any new
programs should take into account the length of sentence served
by Rivers inmates.
The BOP utilizes full-time staff, adjunct instructors under
contract, and cooperative agreements with local universities
and trade schools to deliver programs. Each of these service
delivery models should be considered for Rivers, which is
located in a relatively isolated area.
Finally, we must recognize that offenders need skills to
manage stress and overcome ingrained areas of thinking.
Understanding and behavior adjustments must be as much a part
of this treatment as the drug treatment and job training. A
recent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections study cited
unrealistic expectations by inmates, anti-social attitudes and
belief, and poor coping skills as the three most important
factors in parole violation.
CSOSA has collaborate with Rivers' staff since the summer
of 2003 to augment their release preparation programs through
two videoconference programs. The CSOSA faith community
partnership implemented video mentoring to link inmates nearing
release from Rivers with faith-based mentors who provide pre-
release encouragement and post-release support. We have also
developed community resource date, a quarterly videoconference
to provide inmates nearing release with information from local
government and nonprofit service providers in the critical
areas of housing, health care, education, and employment.
Response to these programs has been very positive; however,
they are just one element of a comprehensive release program.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Board of
Prisons and Rivers and our other partners as we try to improve
the programs available to the men at Rivers, because as the men
return to the District they are coming to our community and
they need to be prepared.
Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quander follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Quander.
I am introducing people as we go along, so people don't
have to remember who I said this witness was. The next witness
is the acting president, Stanley Jackson, University of the
District of Columbia. He was chief of staff and senior vice
president for operations at the University before.
Mr. Jackson, please summarize your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY JACKSON
Mr. Jackson. Let me again say good evening, Congresswoman
Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am Stanley Jackson,
and it is truly a pleasure and an honor to be before you today
to speak to the subcommittee on the role the University has
played extensively in helping ex-offenders reenter society and
what it means when we do it right.
As you have heard and read numerous articles, when ex-
offenders return to the District of Columbia, they often return
to the same challenging social environments that led to them
committing the crimes in the first place. Many of these
individuals often lack necessary education and skills to obtain
real, meaningful employment. Those that have received the
education and our skill training and are able to compete often
face additional barriers and challenges. Typically they find
that their criminal records make it harder for them to obtain
employment opportunities.
In a recent article in the Washington Post that appeared in
August of this year, there were some sobering statistics cited
in that article supporting the challenges of our ex-offenders.
The article indicated that approximately 2,000 ex-offenders are
returning to our community every year. That is in excess of
five a day.
Also, it says that as many as 10 percent of our population,
or 60,000 residents, are, in fact, felons.
It also goes on further to say that you have approximately
15,000 returning ex-offenders who are fellows who are under
some court supervision. These ex-offenders arrive at the homes
of relatives, at halfway houses, and at shelters. One out of
three end up homeless or very close to it. Seven out of 10 have
or have had substance abuse problems. Half of these ex-
offenders do not have high school diplomas, and they need
additional support ant training.
The picture facing these ex-offenders is not pretty.
Without proper training, educational support that would lead to
employment opportunities, many of them will be rearrested
within a period of 3 years.
The University, through our work force development program,
has a long history of working with the ex-offender community to
assist with their transition back into our communities.
Beginning about 30 years ago, the UDC Lorton Vo-Tech program
consisted of an array of courses which we offered to our
residents who were confined at the D.C. Department of
Correction at Lorton facility. These courses ranged from areas
of automotive technology, barbering, brick masonry, carpentry,
cosmetology, dentistry, facility maintenance, landscaping,
plumbing, printing, and wood work, just to name a few.
Since June 2001, the UDC Vo-Tech program began phasing out
based on a mandate to terminate the facility at Lorton. Since
that time, the University has continued to work very closely
with our ex-offender population through the Office of
Apprenticeship, Technical, and Industrial Trade, and has served
as a constant contact for individuals who previously were
incarcerated in the Lorton complex, and either started or
completed programming at the Vo-Tech program.
Many of these individuals continue using the University as
a sounding board or as a resource to assist them in various
areas, such as verification of their prior training,
certificate of self-completion of training, request for
continuation of training, request for refresher training, and
request for placement.
Recently we have renewed and re-energized our efforts to
assist in the transition of ex-offenders back into our
communities. We are active team members on the District of
Columbia's Just Us Transition from Prison to Community
initiative, which we refer to as the TPC initiative. The TPC
initiative is a model that identifies and promotes what we
believe are evidence-based best practice that we believe should
be implemented in the following stages of transition process.
One is certainly assessing and classifying new prison
inmates, developing and implementing transition plans for each
inmate, releasing offenders from prison in a timely manner,
providing community supervision and continuous support,
responding to violations of release conditions, and discharging
successful offenders from supervision in a timely manner.
The University will continue to focus on ways in which it
is possible to match our D.C. offenders with educational
opportunity. We are very much interested in working with the
educational component of the reentry process and training
process.
Additionally, in June of this year we were very fortunate
to enter into a partnership with the Justice Grants
Administration with the GEO Group at Rivers, Court Services and
Offenders Agency, and the Criminal Justice Council to implement
what we believe is a good program we refer to as the UDC or
University of District of Columbia Rivers Correctional
Institution Reentry Program, a pilot project that we refer to
as D.C. REP.
The program is specifically focused on occupational skills
enhancement and educational opportunities for ex-offenders
returning to the District of Columbia.
The D.C. REP program will provide pre-release occupational
and literacy assessments, skills enhancement exercise, and job
readiness training to soon-to-be-released offenders serving at
the Rivers Correctional Institution and expecting to return
back to our community here in Washington, DC. These continuous
services will enable the offenders, upon release, to move
directly into a certifiable occupational training program,
hopefully gain meaningful employability skills, and prepare
them to become gainfully employed and self-sufficient, which is
our mutual goal.
The University, in cooperation with the American College
Testing, Inc., Learning Centers and guided by the Department of
Labor Industry Standards, has developed a comprehensive pre-
release program that will enable returning offenders to acquire
requisite skills and attitudes for today's job market, so that
with the proper occupational training they may enter the job
market----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Jackson, I have a Town Meeting, and it is
supposed to begin at 6. I want to be sure we hear from everyone
and be able to ask just a question or two. Could I ask you to
summarizes the rest of your testimony?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
In summary, let me say that we are prepared to work very
aggressively with the community and all our partners to make
sure that our residents who are soon to be returning back to
the community have the required support, whether it is
training, job skills readiness training, whether it is
educational training, and whether it is continuous wrap-around
service so they can come back into our society and become
meaningful participants in our great city.
I think where we are right now, we believe that education
is truly a gap-filler, and what we want to do is to be that
breach filler. We want to be able to work with our partners,
which is CSOSA, DOES, and other agencies to make sure that we
provide our residents the greatest opportunity to succeed as
they return from incarceration back to their communities, and
also become meaningful participants and meaningful family
members incorporated back into the global market of Washington,
DC.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Charles Jones, program director for Project Empowerment
Program at the D.C. Department of Employment Services.
Mr. Jones, would you summarizes your testimony in 5 minutes
or less, please? I am sorry to have to rush us this way, but,
as you can perhaps understand, it was necessary to lay out on
the record, particularly given the commitments we got from the
second panel, what was required of those who had the ability to
move this circumstance forward for our residents, but your
testimony is very important to us. We have your written
testimony. Please summarize that testimony for us, Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES JONES
Mr. Jones. First of all I would like to begin by thanking
the members of the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity
to present my assessment of transition employment services and
programs for the District of Columbia ex-offenders.
I am Charles Jones, and I am the program director of the
Project Empowerment at the Department of Employment Services.
My office currently oversees the transitional employment
program [TEP], an initiative that is helping District
residents, 80 percent of them who are ex-offenders, rebuild
their lives and become productive citizens.
The Department of Employment Service Project Empowerment
office over the last 3 years has worked with offenders and have
partnered with CSOSA and UDC to assist in the successful
transition of our participants, and we like to consider the ex-
offenders in our program as participants.
To summarize this, I would like to also say that at the
Department of Employment Services we feel that we have achieved
a great deal of success in the face of the daunting challenges
that many of our participants are faced with; nevertheless, a
journey toward success for the ex-offender is never easy.
Immediately upon release, most ex-offenders face the very
real obstacle of navigating a new environment complicated by
significant economic, technological, and social changes. Just
obtaining basic necessities such as valid identification and
access to health care, employment, work clothing, and housing
is usually quite overwhelming for our participants, yet all are
essential for leading functional lives and sustaining economic
self-sufficiency.
If ex-offenders do not receive systemic rehabilitation
services that lead to social reintegration, employment,
education, and housing, then communities will be left
vulnerable to the cost of recidivist criminal activity.
A major factor in this challenge is adequate funding.
Clearly the prison system is not doing enough to prepare ex-
offenders for survival in the outside world; consequently, many
ex-offenders are left unemployed, jobless, homeless, hopeless,
even after going through reentry programs.
We believe that prisons are positioned to successfully take
on these challenges. Prior to release, ex-offenders must be
afforded access to the community and allowed access to
prospective employers. They must be afforded simulated
workplace scenarios and mock interviews to increase workplace
familiarity. They must be provided with intensive life skills
development, relationship building, anger management, and
parenting skills.
Public or privately funded ex-offender reentry programs
should provide a continuation of those services, as well as
access to an expanded network of community partnerships that
provide support in such areas as education, clothing, as well
as financial. These type of programs and services will give the
ex-offender an excellent chance at successful community
reintegration.
Numerous research studies have suggested that pre-release
reentry programs that involve transitional community services,
such as job training, job placement, and job retention
services, as well as supportive services such as substance
abuse treatment, housing assistance, will discourage recidivism
and promote community reintegration.
I am convinced of this. Absent of a comprehensive,
systematic, and proven process to comprehensively address the
needs of our ex-offender population, which must begin prior to
an ex-offender's release from prison, the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area must be prepared to continue to deal with the
human and financial costs of recidivism and an ongoing threat
to public safety.
Congresswoman Holmes Norton and members of the Subcommittee
on the Federal Workplace, Postal Service, and District of
Columbia, it has been an honor to appear before you today as an
advocate for ex-offenders who want to lead productive lives and
provide for their families.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Our next witness is Phillip C. Holmes, vice president for
program development and public policy for Goodwill Industries
for Central Maryland and Eastern Shore.
Would you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less,
Mr. Holmes?
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP C. HOLMES
Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am Phil Holmes. I work for Goodwill Industries of the
Chesapeake out of Baltimore. I am vice president for program
development and public policy. I am here today on behalf of
Goodwill Industries International and, in particular, our Task
Force on Reentry.
I have submitted my written testimony, and I just want to
very briefly stress three points.
One, there are effective, efficient, cost beneficial ways
to return men and women from prison back to our communities.
I want to, second, briefly talk to you about a reentry
program we have been operating since 2001 called our seats
program.
And the third point I would like to make is something that
has happened throughout this hearing, and that is the stress on
the recidivism rate and noting what these recidivism rates are.
My first point is that we have moved, thankfully, away from
the belief in our country that nothing works in rehabilitation
of offenders, and we are finally back to recognizing that some
things work. We know from the literature that paid employment--
and I want to stress paid as opposed to forced employment
through Prison Use Industries--works in reducing recidivism. We
know that you have heard throughout today's testimony that
education classes work and that pre-GED and GED classes work to
reduce recidivism. We know that vocational training works.
According to Edward Latessa, who has done meta research on
what works in reentry, he argues that cognitive restructuring
counseling is the most effective thing we can do to prepare men
and women for release.
Moving to my second point, I would like to point out that
we have been, as a business, essentially running a reentry
program in Baltimore for the past 7 years, and the fact of the
matter is fully half of the men who come to us to help navigate
the employment system have some criminal justice system
involvement, and fully 25 percent of the women. Sadly, this
rate is increasing.
Our SETTS Program, Supporting Ex-Offenders in Training and
Transitional Services, has two components, and I haven't heard
them discussed today. One is an in-reach component, where we go
inside the prisons and we recruit participants to get into a 4-
week readiness program. It is an intensive readiness program,
and the goal is to engage offenders in their last 3 to 6 months
of incarceration.
We also assign a case manager, who literally is a guide to
help men and women when they leave prison navigate and make
these community connections that are so essential.
The contribution we are trying to make at Goodwill
Industries is helping people successfully navigate the labor
market, get a job, and keep a job.
We have, in the last 12 months ended June 30th, we helped
176 successfully complete this inside-the-fence component, and
after their release we helped 73 to gain employment, and an
additional 27 individuals to gain subsidized employment. I
stress that subsidy, because sometimes you need subsidized
employment as an initial way of getting people employed.
We also served 488 men and women who came to us from the
community who were released without our being able to work with
them inside the prison, and we helped 309 of those individuals
to gain unsubsidized, competitive employment, and an additional
30 others to gain subsidized employment.
We are striving to scale this program up because the State
of Maryland releases 13,000 men and women back to our
communities every year, 9,000 to Baltimore City where I live.
My third and final point, Madam Chair, is simply that we
need to start asking our prison officials to report on their
recidivism rates. Until this is part of our public policy
discussion, it is our belief that prison administrators won't
take the affirmative steps to apply what really works in
reducing recidivism.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Holmes.
Dennis Torbett has experience in the employment and work
force fields and with construction. I am going to ask him to
summarize your statement, Mr. Torbett, in 5 minutes or less.
Mr. Torbett is the vice president for workforce training
and employment at the Home Builders Institute.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS TORBETT
Mr. Torbett. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton and members of
the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the work of
the Home Builders Institute to train offenders and ex-offenders
for successful careers in our industry. I am the vice president
for workforce training and employment with the Home Builders
Institute, and we are the work force development arm for the
National Association of Home Builders.
One of the most pressing problems facing our industry for
many years has been the shortage of skilled workers. Factors
contributing to this shortage include increasing and record
demand for workers to build, remodel, renovate, and maintain
our homes, retirements in our industry, and dwindling interest
in the building trades.
Compounding the problem has been insufficient training
opportunities for those considering a career in the industry.
The number of construction career programs offered by high
schools, post-secondary vocational schools, and community
colleges has declined dramatically over the past 25 years, and
training through the public work force development investment
system is very limited.
Well, according to BLS and our industry estimates, our
Nation will need to construct 18 million new homes to meet
demand over the next decade. That equates to creating more than
1 million new jobs in our industry.
HBI has been training our industry's labor force for more
than 30 years, serving targeted populations, including
adjudicated and at-risk youth and adults, dislocated workers,
and homeless veterans. Our programs put thousands to work in
our industry, while helping to rebuild lives.
Over the years, our programs and methodologies for
offenders and ex-offenders have been evaluated and shown to
contribute to lower recidivism and higher employment outcomes.
HBI has two main programs targeted for offenders and ex-
offenders: a youth-oriented project craft and an adult-oriented
project trade. Both programs emphasize training and job
placement in residential construction. They also work to
promote successful transition into the community through
education, employment, and social services that promote
reintegration and reduce recidivism.
The core of HBI's training is the integration of work-base
learning, combined with the program of vocational and academic
skills. Our curriculum combines work-based learning with
workplace literacy and employability development. It also
provides career advancement and increased wage earnings through
a progression of vocational training and learning programs. We
provide 240 to 480 hours of instruction, coordinated with other
treatment and education that includes trade skills, safety
training, life skills, work habits, and math and communication
skills.
Intensive, hands-on training takes place at building sites
made available by community-based organizations,
municipalities, and home building and remodeling sites. There,
trainees apply skills introduced in the classroom while working
alongside professionals. This type of learning has been very
successful for our adult offender and ex-offender populations,
increasing the likelihood of them completing their training and
gaining important life skills.
The program builds self-esteem and it provides
opportunities for students to help their communities through
these projects.
Home Building Industry representatives helped us develop
our curriculum and they are also actively involved in planning,
community work-based learning, training. job placement, support
services, and followup.
The collaboration addresses two critical barrier issues to
prisoner reentry: access to employment, and comprehensive wrap-
around services such as family reunification and housing.
Industry members also act as guest lecturers, offer job
try-outs, conduct information on mock interviews, and provide
work-based job readiness and employability training.
I would like to touch briefly on a couple of our active
programs.
Project Craft in Nashville, which serves students from 18
to 24 years old, includes both a facility-based construction
program as well as a community-based construction training
program. It is funded by the Department of Labor's Responsible
Reintegration of Youthful Offender program, and the numbers
speak for themselves. Over a 5-year period, 215 offenders
enrolled in the program. Of those, 85 percent were repeat
offenders, yet 99 percent of those graduating with a pre-
apprenticeship certificate training certificate were placed in
jobs. More than 2 years after graduation, 25 were still
employed with their placement employer, and only 5 have been
newly convicted.
More than half, over 60 percent of those students,
experienced at least one grade level improvement or gain in
reading and math. Although many may no longer be at their
original place of post-training employment, we know that they
have not returned to the judicial system, which is a
significant achievement not to be overlooked.
Unfortunately, due to funding delays and government
bureaucracy, HBI is in the process of closing down this very
successful program.
Project Trade in Sheridan, IL, operated by the State
Department of Corrections, has implemented an innovative
treatment approach which includes vocational training. Since
Project Trade Sheridan opened its doors in 2004, 247 inmates
have gone through their program, with 171, or 70 percent,
receiving certificate in the building trades.
In conclusion, these programs are specifically designed to
serve the offender population. It is not uncommon to have ex-
offenders enroll in other HBI training programs serving
veterans or the homeless. HBI works aggressively with all
available resources to provide information, programming, and
educational opportunities to those interested in starting a
career in our industry.
We know that if you are a hard worker, have a skill, and a
pathway to a good, long-term career in an industry full of
opportunities, you are less likely to return to criminal
behavior.
We know that if you give someone a job he may quit
tomorrow; if you teach them a skill, they will have it for a
lifetime.
Together, industry and government must ensure that there
continue to be training programs available to these communities
that can train the needed workers to enter our industry.
Programs such as the ones I have described are key contributors
to this goal, and, much more, they build self-esteem. They
empower the participants and they can fundamentally change
lives.
As you review the training and education programs that have
made a difference, I hope you will consider those that I have
shared with you today.
HBI and its partners in the residential construction
industry and the correctional systems that we work are
convinced that our programs are making a difference in people's
lives.
Thank you, Congresswoman Norton, and to the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torbett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Torbett.
The final witness is Dr. James Austin, who has 30 years of
experience in correctional planning and research. He currently
is president of the JFA Institute, which is a research
institution that provides technician assistance to States and
agencies on prison population projection.
Particularly with the time problem I am facing, I am going
to ask you, Mr. Austin, to summarize your testimony in 5
minutes so we can get at least a question or two asked of all
the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF JAMES AUSTIN
Mr. Austin. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
Basically, I was asked to provide testimony because I did a
study recently for the U.S. Parole Commission of D.C. inmates
who had been released from the BOP. As such, it is the only
recidivism study that exists, although I might add, listening
to the testimony, the BOP is totally capable of producing the
same study on a routine basis.
In particular, we looked at the extent to which D.C.
inmates got programs from the BOP and what impact they had on
recidivism, so all of the questions that have been asked could
have been answered if people would look at the study, which you
now have.
Here are the major findings:
No. 1, the D.C. inmates that are being sentenced and come
out of the BOP have much longer sentences and serve much longer
time in prison than other State inmates that you see in prison.
I want to emphasize this is a very important statistic that
your inmates are serving about twice as long as other inmates
in other State prison systems.
A large reason for that was the sentencing code, but also
the practices and the policies of the U.S. Parole Commission,
which I am working with.
In terms of the recidivism rates, the recidivism rates of
the D.C. inmates are pretty typical of other State inmates.
Most people don't understand this, but most inmates that go to
prison do not come back. About 60 percent never come back to
prison again. There is a large pool of prisoners, of the 7,000
that are locked up that are D.C. inmates, a huge number of the
BOP prisoners, who are very low-risk and will never come back
to prison again. What is interesting about this also is if you
look at their rate of being arrested, both before they went to
prison and after, it is coming down significantly, a 60 percent
drop. So the idea that recidivism rates are real high and they
are going higher is completely false. Just the opposite. They
go much lower once a person goes through the prison system.
The other important statistic that is very important is
that no matter how long you spend in prison--and this is
important for D.C. inmates because they have much longer time
they are serving compared to other inmates--there is no
difference in recidivism rates, so you are keeping very large
numbers of prisoners in prison longer than they need to be, and
all the money that people talk about for programs has already
been funded. You are funding them for that longer period of
length of stay.
One of the reasons that we looked at the risk instrument
that the Commission used, that determines how long the D.C.
inmates serve on their indeterminate sentencing, and also on
parole revocations. The factors they are using--and they now
know this--are not valid, so they are not predictive of
recidivism, and they are not valid because they don't at the
factors of inmates that are incarcerated, what we call dynamic
factors. Are they doing programs? Getting older is a big one,
and getting prepared for release.
We found a number of factors that do predict that, and if
the Commission were to use those, prisoners could be released
sooner and we would save a large amount of money without
aggravating public safety.
One other thing that is important is that for parole
violators, which they apply to all prisoners, their
guidelines--I don't know where they came from, but the
guidelines often require a prisoner to serve more time on a
technician parole violation than on the original sentence. I
want to repeat that: they can serve more time on a technical,
non-criminal behavior than on the original sentence.
So the recommendations that we have made to the Commission
and to the BOP and to the Department of Justice is change the
guidelines. This all can be done by administrative rule. It
doesn't require a law of any kind. They need to stop using the
factors that they are using to keep people in for longer
periods of time. They never no predictive value at all.
Overall, Congress needs to look at this whole issue of
length of stay. When the BOP says that their recidivism rate
has gone down from 44 to 40, anyone who is a good researcher
knows why that is going on is because the length of stay has
jumped dramatically in the BOP. They are filled with prisoners
that are low risk now, and it is a much older population, and
because age is such a predictor it has to come down, because we
are keeping people in so long now.
Finally, the U.S. Parole Commission needs to adopt new
guidelines that take into account the behavior of the prisoner
while they are in the BOP. We found a number of factors that
are good factors. By the way, we found most of the inmates did
not get to participate in a program while they were
incarcerated. Somewhere in the ball park of 25 to 30 percent
actually got into a program before they got released. This is
for people that were released in 2002. Maybe it is a lot better
now, but those coming out in 2002 did not get into too many
programs. Those that did and got Social Security cards, got
driver's license, went through the reentry programs had much
lower recidivism rates.
It is very clear what we have to do, and it can all be done
administratively. It doesn't require any laws, but just people
getting together and doing some things differently.
I have briefed the Commission. I must say the Commission
has new leadership with some good members on there that I know
personally. They want to go forward. They are about to make
that decision. I would urge this Commission to press the U.S.
Parole Commission to go forward with these changes.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois [presiding]. Well, thank you very
much.
Ms. Norton, I know that you have to leave at 6, I
understand, so if you want to go ahead.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I
just have a question for each of the witnesses. They gave
important testimony, and the written testimony is additionally
very helpful to us.
Mr. Quander, did I understand that you are trying to put
some of the services that CSOSA now offers or directs people to
out of prison behind prison walls to give you an opportunity to
prepare people with those sources right there in the prison
instead of waiting until they get out?
Mr. Quander. Yes. That is exactly what we are trying to do.
We are trying to be as proactive as we can, not only with the
GEO Group but with the University of the District of Columbia
in partnership with putting some of those programs in the
institution so that the men there can take advantage of that.
Ms. Norton. Can you tell us what programs would go into the
institution?
Mr. Quander. One is a preparedness program that the
University of the District of Columbia is working on.
Ms. Norton. That is a very important program, where they
evaluate the resident. I don't regard that as a program. That
is an evaluation. It seems to me it is a critical mission that
they have.
How about programs?
Mr. Quander. The other program that we are close to
implementing is a carpentry training program that we have
developed in partnership with the Board of Prisons and with GEO
and with the Carpenters Union here in the District of Columbia.
We wanted skills for which men could get jobs when they get
out. We are progressing to the point now where the Carpenters
Union here has been in contact with the Regional Carpenters
Authority in the North Carolina region. That Carpenters Union
there is speaking with the facility and with the Bureau so that
they can know exactly what will be needed.
Ms. Norton. That is very important because to work with the
Union you know they have to be certified, and we see the
relationship there also, the need.
One final question on structure. You have been to Rivers a
number of times.
Mr. Quander. I have been to Rivers.
Ms. Norton. Do you find that the residents, the inmates in
Rivers have a structured environment where they move every hour
or so from one activity to the other, and that all of them have
at least 4 hours of work? Did you observe that to be the case?
Mr. Quander. I observed more individuals on the basketball
and playing fields than working or in class when I was there
when I visited.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. That was our observation, and we
have every reason to believe that is where most of them spend
their time. I actually talked with them and asked them what
they did.
I am concerned that there was testimony that made it look
as though they have the same structured environment.
Mr. Jackson, your testimony listed an extraordinary number
of programs that at one time were provided when Lorton was
open. Then, of course, these inmates were spread all over the
country.
We are grateful for the assessment idea. That was one of
the main ideas we wanted to have your testimony. But may I ask
you if there are specific kinds of courses. This is a college.
This is a university. In fact, there is an affiliation with a
college down there, I guess, to get the HVAC program where
somebody there went and got a Federal grant.
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Ms. Norton. I wondered whether or not you know of
professors at UDC who are prepared to ask to seek similar
Federal grants so that some of the offerings of UDC could be
made, as you apparently made them before, including college
courses?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. I think that is exactly what we are
doing. The whole first phase was the assessment phase. Once we
do that, then we develop the individual performance plans or
development plans based on the client's expected desire for an
occupational opportunity when he or she returns from
incarceration. So what we do with the initial tranche is to do
the evaluation, identify what their desires are when they leave
prison, what kind of industry or sector they would like to get
in, and then provide them with a menu of training and services
to get them to that entry level.
In addition to what we are doing, which is a new feature,
we are actually, as part of our challenge, meeting with
employers in the region. We recognize that this is a regional
experience in terms of when our residents come back here, that
they need to be employed, what the opportunities are throughout
our region. So right now one of the challenges of the director
of the program is to work with employers to find out their
willingness to work with us and to hire our employees or our
residents that are coming out of the facility.
What we do is also educate them about how we can mitigate
their risk by offering them a bonding program which basically
hedges their risk against any loss or theft occurring from the
hiring of any one of our ex-offenders, and we also have
incentives from the tax side, as well. There are tax breaks in
place.
Ms. Norton. If such a program were put together, I would
recommend that you partner with somebody like Goodwill who, in
fact, has done this, knows how to do this. Home Builders have
done it, know how to do it. Because I think it is very
difficult. In fact, Mr. Jones, we are aware that DOES faces a
huge challenge.
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Ms. Norton. It is often hearings in the District of
Columbia about the challenge you face in placing ordinary,
average D.C. residents, no record, simply want a job.
Apparently DOES has a huge problem with that. I, therefore,
don't envy what you face when we dump on you some ex-offenders
and say, Now go do the same for them.
I understand that you have a backlog, but most of your
testimony was about ex-offenders in general. How are you able
to place? You say here that in the program now you have 724
active ex-offenders, 420 are currently employed, others
involved in work-related activities. Well, that is a lot of
folks. How were you able? I mean, I am not sure that is your
record among the ordinary, average people, so I must ask you
where are these people employed?
Mr. Jones. The good thing is that the District is very open
to hiring residents of our community, and one of the things
that we offer is transitional employment, which is subsidized
employment, because we know----
Ms. Norton. Excellent.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. That it is very important that once
a participant is in our program, that they are automatically
working somewhere, because there is a statistic that shows that
if they are not working after 90 or 180 days, they will usually
go back to what they have done before.
So many of our participants are in a transitional job, and
many of our employers. The truth of the matter is that many
times employers want someone who is going to show up on time,
and definitely skill set is an issue, but part of the reason
that they are in the training is so that they can gain those
skills.
This program, in my mind, is somewhat unique because we
also offer occupational skills training. With occupational
skills training, we are actually paying our participants while
they are in training. Adult based ed and GED classes, our
participants are able to work 3 days a week and go to school 2
days a week and continue to be paid as if they are working,
because we definitely understand that there is a connection
between education and employment, and, more specifically, a
career.
We want to make sure that our participants have all that
they need, and that is why the numbers are great, because,
again, it is not just about unsubsidized employment; it is
about transitional jobs, because again that is very important.
And keeping them engaged in an activity, that is important.
You mentioned earlier about those who may be incarcerated
just sitting around, opposed to someone saying you have to be
busy. That is what we do. We keep them engaged in an activity,
which in my mind definitely reduces recidivism.
Ms. Norton. I was going to ask you, Mr. Jones--you didn't
lay it out in your testimony--it is very important what you
just said how the city, itself, reaches out and becomes the
employer of first resort, giving the ex-offender a record of
employment, which is the most valuable thing you can possibly
have. It sounds like a very good program. I must say I
understand why this rate is as good as it is, and the fact that
it is subsidized, it is worth it to the taxpayers of the
District of Columbia to do exactly what you are doing.
Indeed, I want to ask Mr. Holmes, you seemed to indicate
some of your work, first of all, some of it you go into the
prisons 3 to 6 months--I think it was you, Mr. Holmes--3 to 6
months, and you spoke of subsidies. Does Goodwill subsidize in
the transition some of these employees? For example, Mr.
Robinson comes in. He said he told you all straight out he had
been convicted of a violent felony, and yet you gave him a
chance. What made you do that? Do you have to subsidize? And do
you find is that the way you do it? How do you get somebody to
take a man who spent a lot of his life in prison, comes out,
and comes to you and says, I want a job?
Mr. Holmes. Delegate Norton, I would love to take credit
for his employment. He was employed by the Greater D.C.
Goodwill.
Ms. Norton. I am asking about Goodwill. I am not asking
about Maryland in particular, I am just saying with a man like
that whose record is long and deep, unlike the other young man
who sat beside him, and I want to know if a man like that is
employed who is being subsidized, because I know you don't go
into the Federal prisons ahead of time, so I wonder how you are
able to take a person like that who would normally have a tough
time in the market and get him to the point now where he thinks
he can go on and find a job outside of Goodwill Industries.
Mr. Holmes. Our business preference is to help a person
gain unsubsidized, full-time employment.
Ms. Norton. But is he subsidized for the time he is in
Goodwill?
Mr. Holmes. If, in order to attach somebody to the labor
market, we need to offer a subsidy, then that is a business
practice we have. You said it very well earlier: 3, 6, 12
months of regular employment, giving value to an employer,
showing up on time, taking supervision, being part of a team
makes you employable in other ways, and employers will start to
overlook things in your background.
Ms. Norton. You know, one of the things people have to do,
I don't know if the Second Chance Act provides for subsidized
employment, but that is one of the most valuable pieces of
information I think that has come out of this. How do you get
over it? Why should somebody hire a felon if standing next to
him is somebody who doesn't have a felony record? What is the
incentive?
Mr. Chairman, if it doesn't----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All of those concepts are, indeed, a
part of the bill.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. That impresses me that
might really work.
I have to ask Mr. Torbett, we see that there was an
incentive for Home Builders here because, as you say, this is
tough work, and we have a soft generation, if you will forgive
me. This is high-paying work, but people don't, as readily as
their fathers and grandfathers, go into these high-paying jobs.
You have to be out there in the heat of the day and you have to
be out there when it is pretty cold. So first you have a
shortage. But why should an ex-offender who certainly hasn't
been exposed to those kind of rigors be--what accounts for your
success?
Mr. Torbett. Well, we expose them to those rigors of
working in the industry because they work on work-based
learning projects. We treat the training as if it were a job,
so we prepare them to go to work. What makes it so----
Ms. Norton. Are you also subsidized?
Mr. Torbett. We are contracted to run our program, and our
program is job training and job placement, and the job
placement is matched up with the home building industry that
desperately needs people right now. So in terms of the
participant or the student, we would like for them to market
themselves with assets. Yes, they have some deficits, but they
certainly have some assets. One, they have completed an
industry-sponsored program. They get a certificate that is
recognized and validated by the home building industry.
Ms. Norton. That, in itself, is very valuable.
Mr. Torbett. It is an extremely important marketing tool
for them to get a job. They come out of our programs with
tools, a starter tool kit worth about $200 that they are able
to use to go to work, get ready to go to work.
We recognize that we do a very good job in construction
training, but we also like to partner with other groups so
there are some accompanying services to help that person become
successful.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Finally, Mr. Austin, I am going to ask the chairman for
another hearing. You raise very complicated issues that go to
changes in statutory law that I think may or may not be
required, but I would like to ask you about an idea that is
apparently already underway, initiated by former Chief of
Police Fullwood, who is now a parole commissioner on the U.S.
Parole Board, so-called re-vocating people back.
We have some horror stories out here about people who have
been out for 5 years, and one dirty urine, maybe some marijuana
or something, and so they are back after already showing they
can hold a job, let us say, for a number of years. No credit
for that time.
Mr. Austin. Right.
Ms. Norton. That is enough to break anybody's spirit.
Mr. Austin. Right.
Ms. Norton. What he is doing, apparently, is sanctioning
people, putting sanctions on them so that if you meet these
sanctions then you will not be re-vocated to prison, lose all
your street time, which we are going to try to correct, but in
effect that is what it is today.
Do you know about that?
Mr. Austin. Yes. Very familiar with this, and it is a step.
Again, there are some new Commissioners at the Parole
Commission that are really moving ahead on very progressive
stuff.
It is very clear, from a number of States, that we can do
things differently with folks on these technical violations.
One is what he is doing, which is to keep them out, but the
other thing I want to emphasize is, again--and this is
happening in a lot of States, but some States are getting away
from this--you go back into the prison system and you start all
over again almost on a technical violation. That technical
violation can break, as you said, break the person. They lose
their job, they lose their rental deposits, all that stuff they
lose. A lot of States are giving very quick hits now--2 weeks,
4 weeks. What we are finding through the research, that is just
as effective, if not more effective, than bringing them in for
several months.
This is a very expensive, ineffective policy. I would dare
say if you look at it carefully all the program money you want
is in this practice. If you were to stop this practice, you
would have more than enough program money. You could fund
anything you want.
So I take the position there is more than enough money
being spent; we are just not spending it very smartly, from an
evidence-based, research-based perspective.
I would be glad to work with you and anyone else on
crafting what that would look like, and it is stuff that other
States are doing. D.C. is really behind the times on this.
I am a D.C. resident, and I was shocked at looking at the
length of stay of the D.C. prisoner. It is so far out of line
with the rest of the country, it is horrific.
Ms. Norton. And we think some of that can be corrected, but
I must say your suggestion that--and I can understand it as an
alternative. Let them take a hit for a week or two. I just
think you disconnect. The employer sees that there has been,
for whatever reason, even a minor reason, an infraction. It is
one thing for somebody who has never had a record to have a
minor infraction and to go away for a week or two.
Mr. Austin. Right.
Ms. Norton. But I just think that unless that employee has
proved very valuable--and a lot of people are in fairly entry-
level jobs--that the sanction idea, you will do X, Y, and Z, as
I think Parole Commissioner Fullwood has it, at least keeps
this man saying, thank goodness I do not have to give up a job
that was so hard for me to get.
I am really wondering whether any incarceration should be
the first thing you try.
Mr. Austin. Let me just clarify. The way it is supposed to
be done and the way it is done in other States, if you are low
risk, which means you are unlikely to get involved in criminal
conduct, you don't come back into the system. The high-risk
person, the person that is likely to go out and commit a crime,
you have to get their attention.
I think the other side of this is that if you don't do
something with that high-risk person and they go out and kill
someone--look at Connecticut and you can see what has happened
in Connecticut--it will bring the whole system down.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Those are not the ones.
The ones that we are dealing with are so heartbreaking in D.C.
First of all, most of these guys are low risk. You know, I
don't know about other places, but most of our felons are drug-
related felons. Most of them are in there. They are low-level
drug peddlers. They may even have done an armed robbery, but in
that case there is a different case. But the countless
heartbreaking stories of people who for a dirty urine then lose
everything back in the can----
Mr. Austin. I agree with what you are saying. I do not
disagree at all.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, may I thank you, because I know that this has
been a much longer hearing than you anticipated, but it has
been extremely important.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me just ask a couple of
questions.
Ms. Norton. Please excuse me, because I am 10 minutes late
for my 6 town meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right. Thank you very much.
Many of your experiences seem to be much better than
experiences of people around the country relative to job
placement and the ability of ex-offenders to actually gain
employment. There are many places where it is virtually almost
impossible because there are barriers that just simply exist.
You can't hire at this location, you can't hire at this place.
Many employers just simply have strict policies that simply say
we don't hire people with felony convictions.
I am trying to figure out what is it about the environment
that is providing opportunity for the kind of success that I am
hearing that sounds much better than what I hear in most places
throughout the country, especially in most large urban cities
where the biggest part of the problem really exists.
So what I am trying to find out: is it because perhaps
there has been so much activity or that the environment is a
little different? For example, in my State just a couple of
years ago there were 59 job titles that a person with a felony
conviction could not hold that were licensed by the State, such
as cutting hair or painting nails or you couldn't work in any
facility at all where health care was being provided, not only
in it, but you couldn't work on the grounds. Of course, you
couldn't be any kind of professional. You couldn't be a doctor
or lawyer or nurse or school teacher or you couldn't be a
plumber. You couldn't get a license to be a plumber.
What I am hearing sounds fairly decent in terms of job
placement.
Mr. Jones. Chairman Davis, if I can speak, I think for us
in the District it is hard. I mean, it is hard. There is
nothing easy. Again, as I mentioned, one of the things that has
been very helpful for us is that the subsidized employment has
been very helpful and the District has been really good about
assisting those ex-offenders find employment in reference to
public works and some of the agencies that we work with have a
pretty good staff that actually go out, and not just in D.C.
The truth of the matter is that for all the Federal Government
agencies it is very hard to place people in our program, so we
are actually out in Maryland and Virginia in maintenance
working with apartment complexes, and again the subsidized
employment is very, very helpful to us because many of the
employers decide to give us an opportunity.
I think with Project Empowerment and the program from the
District's point of view, job coaches also are very important,
and those are the support that all of our participants receive,
and that is someone actually going on their work site.
Sometimes you get employers that would say, You know something?
I do a lot better with your participant more so than someone
just walking off the street.
I think it is about support. Again, we definitely recognize
it is not easy, and for us it is really just trying to engage
our participants in activities such as GED prep, adult basic
ed, to give them hope and opportunity, because we recognize
that is important. Just a little bit of hope will take you a
long way, and that has been helpful for us.
Again, it isn't easy and we continue to work hard and try
to knock down some of those walls when it comes to our
participants.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Is much of the subsidy local, or is
the subsidy basically Federal subsidies that come from programs
from Department of Labor or Housing and Urban Development?
Mr. Jones. Well, you know, for us, the Department of
Employment Services, when there was the welfare to work program
it was actually Federal. The District, our funding is actually
local.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. But there is some local subsidies
also?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I think the other thing
is that what we have here is tremendous collaboration that we
have seen emerge over the years between not just DOES and not
just CSOSA, but our whole educational continuum, and what we
try to do is not simply work with the client while he or she is
incarcerated, but we want to work with them when they reenter
back into society, and continue to be that buffer to provide
them with continuous support.
What we have also found is that even after they are
gainfully employed a lot of them are coming back to real
challenging experiences, and so you have to have what I call
that safety net of continuing support services where they can
reach out and gain support.
So I think part of what we have here is two things. One is
that we have had truly a robust economic market in this region
here, which has led to a lot of job growth over the last 10
years. We are averaging about 20,000 new jobs a year, and so
what we have been very aggressively doing is going after
employers who are looking at entry-level opportunities. As we
are going through doing the assessment skill training and the
occupational skill training, we are also providing them with a
lot of tailored kind of training for specific industries that
they have expressed an interest in working with CSOSA and
working with DOES and our other partners.
We have had some success in placing some of our hard-to-
employ residents who are returning back to the city. It is not
an easy job. It is one that we have to go after every day
continuously.
The good thing is that we have now pre-screened some
employers who have at least given us some verbal commitments to
hire some of our returning offenders if they meet a certain
threshold of qualifications.
Mr. Quander. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the issue that you
identify as legislation that was barring returning offenders
from certain professions, we identified that early on as a
barrier, and, as other members of this panel have suggested, we
worked with a number of partners, and one of those partners
that we worked with was the City Council of the District of
Columbia. We asked them to take a look at that legislation and,
in fact, they did, and they modified the language and removed a
number of the barriers for certain positions such as barbering
and beauticians and other sorts of positions, just as you have
indicated.
One of the other areas that we have really worked with our
partners in the Department of Motor Vehicles is we take for
granted the ability of returning offenders to have any type of
identification. They don't have any, and without that
identification you are not going to get a job. So we have been
able to work with the Department of Motor Vehicles so that they
can get a non-driver's identification, and if they apply for it
within 30 days the fee is waived.
We are doing some of the verification that the Department
needs as far as name, address, Social Security number, because
oftentimes they lose their papers.
The other thing that Mr. Jones mentioned is skill sets. Our
offenders can get a job; the question is: can they maintain it
and then buildupon it? We need to utilize services such as job
coaches and others to enhance our ability to do that.
The fourth thing that leads us back to our premise is that
our guys need to get as much education, job skills, other
things that will enhance their abilities to get and maintain a
job while they are sitting in a prison.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Torbett.
Mr. Torbett. Mr. Chairman, working for the home building
industry, we have the luxury of working with an industry that
may have traditionally been more accepting of the offender
populations, so we have an in-road with the employers who are
members of our association, and that helps us out. Plus, they
know about what we do, so they support us. Workforce
development is our mission, and finding a skilled labor force
has been one of the top business priorities over the past
several years.
From a programmatic standpoint, to concur with Mr. Jones
and the last gentleman who spoke, we hire professional staff
who know what job development and job placement is all about.
Essentially what they are is sales people. You have to instill
in them that the product that they are selling are people with
skills and abilities and assets that can help an employer make
money.
So it is having dedicated, committed professional staff
with an industry that needs people is I guess our secret to our
success.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I thank you very much. I was
very interested in some of the comments that Mr. Austin had
made relative to the length of stay and time that I think
oftentimes is wasted, especially after individuals have been
incarcerated for a long period of time and have also reached
certain levels of maturation that in all probability reduces
them in terms of any kind of risk. Yet, we are continuing to
hold them. I think, in terms of reform, that, too, is one of
the areas that we seriously need to look at.
Let me just thank all of you for the patience that you have
displayed this afternoon. We have been here for a long time,
but I think the information that you have shared, even though
we were talking principally about the District of Columbia, in
a sense it mirrors the entire country, and so we were talking
about problems that affect in a serious way the whole country,
as well as our corrections system, and even beyond that, our
criminal justice system, and even beyond that our sense of what
is justice in our country.
I appreciate you very much.
While I am at it, let me also thank our staff, who have
labored long and hard to put together the information that is
needed and have caused this hearing to take place.
I thank all of you for coming. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m, the subcommittee was adjourned.]