    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM HOME: EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM
                                  AND REENTRY

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

                                    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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 5, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-77

                                   __________

    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
    58-348 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
        Columbia                         AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     BLAINE LEUTKEYEMER, Missouri
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             ANH ``JOSPEH'' CAO, Louisiana
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    JUDY CHU, California

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

    Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
                                    Columbia

                   STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
        Columbia                         MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
                         William Miles, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 5, 2010......................................     1
    Statement of:
        Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Adrienne
          Poteat, Deputy Director, Court Services and Offender
          Supervision Agency; Nancy LaVigne, director, Justice Policy
          Center, the Urban Institute; Philip Fornaci, executive
          director, D.C. Prisons Project; Andrew Cook, former Federal
          Bureau of Prisons Inmate; and Louis Sawyer, former Federal
          Bureau of Prisons Inmate...................................    17
            Cook, Andrew.............................................    60
            Fornaci, Philip..........................................    46
            Lappin, Harley...........................................    17
            LaVigne, Nancy...........................................    39
            Poteat, Adrienne.........................................    29
            Sawyer, Louis............................................    60
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah, prepared statement of.......................     7
        Fornaci, Philip, executive director, D.C. Prisons Project,
          prepared statement of......................................    48
        Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, prepared
          statement of...............................................    19
        LaVigne, Nancy, director, Justice Policy Center, the Urban
          Institute, prepared statement of...........................    41
        Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of..............     3
        Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
          District of Columbia, prepared statement of................    11
        Poteat, Adrienne, Deputy Director, Court Services and
          Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of.........    31

     HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM HOME: EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM
                                  AND REENTRY

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010

                      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 2:47 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Davis, Cummings,
    and Chaffetz.
        Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
    Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; Adam Fromm, minority
    chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior
    counsel; and Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel.
        Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on the Federal
    Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will
    now come to order. I apologize for the delay, the slight delay
    in starting. We had votes on the floor.
        But let me welcome all of the Members. I am told that Mr.
    Chaffetz, the ranking member, will be along shortly. He as well
    was on the floor.
        But to all of our Members, subcommittee hearing witnesses,
    and all those in attendance, the purpose of the hearing today
    is to examine the criteria used to determine the placement of
    D.C. Code offenders, as well as to discuss the rehabilitation
    and reintegration challenges that these individuals face as a
    result of being in prison so far from their homes and
    supportive networks.
        The chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members
    will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and all
    Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.
        Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me welcome you to this
    subcommittee, D.C.-related oversight hearing entitled,
    ``Housing D.C. Code Felons Far Away From Home: The Effects on
    Crime, Recidivism and Reentry.'' Today's hearing gives the
    subcommittee the opportunity to examine the criteria used to
    determine the placement of D.C. Code offenders. In addition, we
    will examine the unique rehabilitation and reintegration
    challenges faced by these individuals as a result of being
    imprisoned such a far distance from their homes and support
    networks.
        As you may know, the National Capital Revitalization and
    Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, also known as the
    Revitalization Act, transferred the responsibility and costs
    associated with certain State criminal justice functions,
    including housing, parole and supervised release of adult
    felons convicted under the D.C. Code, D.C. Criminal Code, from
    the District of Columbia to various Federal Government
    agencies. While considerable progress has been made over the
    past 10 years since the enactment of the Revitalization Act, a
    host of challenges regarding the implementation of
    effectiveness on felon supervision, reentry and revocation
    systems and practices remain.
        Notably, D.C. Code felons are unique in that they are
    routinely housed hundreds of miles away from their homes. In
    addition to placement in the District of Columbia, nearly 5,700
    D.C. Code felons are housed in 33 States in facilities owned or
    leased by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. While the majority of
    these individuals reside in facilities located in Pennsylvania,
    North Carolina, and West Virginia, some D.C. Code felons
    receive placement in States as far away as Florida, Texas, and
    California.
        In recognition of the challenges posed by distant
    placement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a 1998
    Memorandum of Understanding executed with the District of
    Columbia, seeks to house each inmate within 500 miles of their
    home. However, a variety of factors, including the availability
    of beds, security concerns, and individual prisoner medical
    needs, may affect that placement. Accordingly, today's hearing
    is intended to both examine the Federal Bureau of Prisons
    offender placement process and procedures, as well as explore
    how the issues of distance impacts the reentry process.
        With research suggesting that prisoners who have regular
    contact with members of their family have lower recidivism
    rates than those who do not, placement far away from the home
    makes the reentry process especially hard for D.C. ex-
    offenders. Ex-offenders also face many barriers that impede
    their return to society, including a lack of education and
    minimal employment qualifications.
        I would like to especially thank my colleague and friend,
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for her tireless work in
    this policy area and her work on keeping me up-to-date and
    pushing on this issue. The subcommittee looks forward to
    continuing to work with her and her office as we conduct
    oversight on this issue, as well as other members of the
    committee.
        Again, I thank all of those in attendance this afternoon,
    and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. I
    now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes
    for an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for being here and for your insight that we will be hearing
    from today.
        At the onset, let me just say that this is one of the
    critical roles and functions of our government. You know, for
    most campaigns people will tell you you are not going to win or
    lose an election based on what happens with the Bureau of
    Prisons and these types of issues unless something has really,
    really gone awry. But for me personally, I think it is one of
    those core functions that government should do and execute
    well, and is a duty and a service to the public.
        We also have to recognize that most people will be
    returning to the public for instance, in my State, we refer to
    it as the Department of Corrections. But I often wonder are we
    doing enough to actually correct this behavior so that people
    can return to their public life, you know, go back into society
    and be productive members of that society. And so this is a
    long-term interest for me personally, and I appreciate holding
    this hearing.
        I was not elected to Congress yet, 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, in both the Clinton and the Bush
    administrations, to facilitate the transfer of the D.C.
    prisoners to a newly built facility in North Carolina. And it
    is my understanding 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, the District of Columbia got a
    safe new facility at no cost to the city. Since the Federal
    Government absorbed the cost, the subcommittee has heard about
    conditions and programs in the facility and others where D.C.
    felons are housed.
        On October 16, 2007, our predecessors on the subcommittee
    held a hearing entitled ``Doing Time,'' which focused on D.C.
    prisoners being prepared for reentry with access to the Bureau
    of Prisons services. On September 22, 2009, we held a hearing
    on the local role of the U.S. Parole Commission, which focused
    on alternatives to incarceration within the District of
    Columbia. And on February 3rd of this year we held a hearing on
    halfway houses in the District of Columbia with testimony from
    many of the same entities we will hear from today.
        This additional view today is welcome, and we do appreciate
    your time. I remain interested in how the Bureau of Prisons and
    the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency work
    together to reduce recidivism. We all want ex-offenders to
    return safely to their communities, and this transition is
    difficult.
        Proximity of jailed offenders to their communities is also
    a key factor for inmates and their families. But it is clear
    that released offenders can best succeed if they are sober,
    employed, and have a place to live. Otherwise, they are highly
    likely to go through the revolving door of the criminal justice
    system.
        Again, I think there is a proper role of government to help
    those that are in need of making those transitions back into
    their communities. How we best do that in a cost effective
    manner but, at the same time, wanting people to become self-
    sufficient and get back on their feet, I think is critical.
        That is why I appreciate bringing up this hearing today. I
    appreciate your insight and look forward to learning more about
    the issue.
        With that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor
    Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I again thank
    you for always being willing to hold hearings on matters of
    importance to the District of Columbia. And I would like to
    simply summarize my opening statement and to say that of all
    the matters you could, in fact, hold a hearing on, nothing is
    more important than guaranteeing public safety in the District
    of Columbia, as well as facilitating reentry of our men and
    women who are now spread across the United States in prisons,
    many of them far from home, as a result of the Revitalization
    Act, affording very little contact with their families or with
    services and making reentry a huge challenge to the city and to
    the inmates themselves and to the Federal agencies, including
    the BOP, who must work with them.
        Mr. Chairman, we do not ask, in this hearing, for changes
    in the Revitalization Act. We recognize that the District of
    Columbia asked for this change. It wanted Lorton closed. Lorton
    was anything but a model prison. It wanted it taken off of its
    budget, and there are many advantages to the Bureau of Prisons.
    In my judgment, the Bureau of Prisons is the best prison system
    in the world. Now, that may not say much when you consider what
    prisons look like in most of the world, but if you have visited
    the Bureau of Prisons, I think you would agree that it is a
    fine prison.
        The real question is, does it meet the challenges that
    Congress posed when, for the first time in U.S. history,
    Congress placed a State prison system within the Federal prison
    system. Now, you can put them there and spread them out as if
    they were all Federal prisoners. They are not. There are 5,700
    of these D.C. Code offenders, and I think it blows the mind,
    Mr. Chairman, to recognize that they are in 115 different
    facilities in 33 States throughout our country. There are no
    State prisoners who face this kind of dispersal, lack of access
    to families, and to services for all that means for them, for
    the city, and for the city to which they must return. In fact,
    best practices make clear what happens, frankly, in every
    State, that from the time an inmate is in the criminal justice
    system to the time he is released and post-release, the
    authorities have a relationship with him that must assure his
    successful reentry. So that if we were in Maryland or Virginia
    State system, for example, that these services, these parts of
    the criminal justice system would all be working together with
    the offender.
        Now, the challenge created here is that we are dealing
    with, in our Federal system, Federal agencies like the Bureau
    of Prisons and CSOSA on the one hand, and facilities here in
    the District, not to mention the Parole Commission on the
    other. So you have a meeting of State and local agencies that
    will call for greater understanding and coordination and,
    frankly, creativity to, in fact, deal with this unprecedented
    challenge in our city.
        For example, the Bureau of Prisons doesn't have to be as
    nearly in touch with the local needs of a city the way it
    should occur when they have this set of State prisoners in
    their midst. Prison, parole, and supervision agencies in each
    State serve only offenders in that State. That is not the case
    here. It doesn't mean it is impossible to deal with. One of the
    challenges we will be hearing from if you are in a State prison
    system you are closer in touch, for example, with the resources
    and skills necessary to get a job. That is going to be pretty
    hard if you are in North Dakota or Arizona or Wyoming or
    wherever BOP has sent you.
        You are learning a skill, I am pleased to say. I have gone
    to BOP facilities, impressed with what they do in vocational
    training. It doesn't have much relationship to what these men
    and women will find when they get back home. Almost none of
    these facilities can be called close to home. CSOSA tries to do
    what it can. It can reach only a fraction of those who will be
    returning home.
        Mr. Chairman, I will be absolutely candid. I think the
    answer is placing D.C. Code felons in one BOP facility closer
    to D.C., men, women and, yes, we have children all the way in
    North Dakota. They should be brought home right now and made
    closer to home. In the meantime, we can do a better job of
    coordinating reentry and the needs of these D.C. Code felons
    for some contact with their family before, all of a sudden, out
    of prison, into the District they are expected to somehow act
    as they would if they had been in an ordinary State prison
    where they would have had access to their families, to some
    sense of services, and to the true integration into reentry.
        So Mr. Chairman, this is a very important hearing for the
    District of Columbia. I couldn't thank you and the ranking
    member more for assuring this hearing today.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Before I read the introductions of
    our panelists, it is the custom of this committee to ask anyone
    who is going to offer testimony before the subcommittee to be
    sworn. So could I ask you all to rise and raise your right
    hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that all the witnesses have
    answered in the affirmative. Let me begin with Mr. Lappin.
        Harley Lappin has served as the Director of the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons since April 4, 2003. A career public
    administrator in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Lappin is
    responsible for the oversight and management of the Bureau's
    115 institutions and for the safety and security of more than
    210,000 inmates under the agency's jurisdiction.
        Deputy Director Adrienne Poteat serves as the agency head
    of the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency [CSOSA],
    for the District of Columbia. In this position, Ms. Poteat
    oversees a Federal agency of nearly 1,300 employees, which was
    created by the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 to improve
    public safety through active community monitoring and
    supervision of ex-offenders.
        Ms. Nancy LaVigne is the current director of the Justice
    Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. LaVigne is an expert
    on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and is the founding
    Director of the U.S. Department of Justice's Mapping and
    Analysis for Public Safety Program.
        Mr. Philip Fornaci joined the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services
    Project as executive director in August 2003. In addition to
    his primary management and the fundraising responsibilities,
    Mr. Fornaci also manages the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services
    Project public policy work, which is aimed at advocating for
    the humane treatment and dignity of all persons convicted,
    charged or formally convicted with a criminal offense under the
    District of Columbia law.
        Mr. Andrew Cook is a former D.C. Code offender and Bureau
    of Prisons inmate. Having only been recently released from
    prison, Mr. Cook is continuing his effort to reintegrate back
    into society by participating in various transitional programs
    and by searching for employment opportunities.
        Mr. Louis Sawyer is a current parolee under the supervision
    of Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Mr. Sawyer
    was released from prison earlier this winter and is presently
    participating in a job training program with the organization,
    So Others Might Eat.
        I know some of you have testified here before, so I want to
    thank you all for offering your advice and counsel to the
    committee. I would now like to give each witness an opportunity
    for a 5-minute opening statement.
        Mr. Lappin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENTS OF HARLEY LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
     PRISONS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND
     OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; NANCY LaVIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE
     POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE; PHILIP FORNACI, EXECUTIVE
      DIRECTOR, D.C. PRISONS PROJECT; ANDREW COOK, FORMER FEDERAL
      BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE; AND LOUIS SAWYER, FORMER FEDERAL
                        BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE

                       STATEMENT OF HARLEY LAPPIN

        Mr. Lappin. Good afternoon, Chairman lynch and members of
    the subcommittee. Congresswoman Norton, thank you for your kind
    comments during your opening statement. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Bureau of
    Prisons designation process, particularly as it affects the
    reentry needs of offenders from the District of Columbia.
        The Bureau of Prisons is the Nation's largest corrections
    system. We are responsible for the incarceration of more than
    211,000 inmates, including 5,408 inmates convicted in the
    District of Columbia Superior Court. We refer to this
    population as D.C. Code offenders. We appreciate the unique
    role the BOP plays in the District of Columbia.
        While the number of D.C. Code offenders is relatively small
    compared to the entire inmate population, we devote substantial
    resources to ensure they receive appropriate care and
    treatment. Given our decades of experience, we know that
    consistency is critical to effectively achieving our mission.
    For this reason, we employ a validated objective classification
    system to designate all inmates. Our policy is to initially
    designate each inmate to the lowest security level possible,
    given medical, security and program needs in an institution
    within 500 miles of the anticipated release area. This is
    consistent with requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding
    between the District and the Office of Management and Budget
    that was signed in 1997 as a precursor to the National Capitol
    Area Revitalization Act.
        Crowding in Federal prisons across the country has had a
    profound impact on our inmate designation process. We have
    experienced significant increases in the inmate population over
    the last 2 decades. The Bureau of Prisons is operating at 37
    percent over rated capacity systemwide, with high security
    institutions operating at 51 percent over capacity and medium
    security institutions operating at 46 percent over rated
    capacity.
        Stated quite simply, this level of crowding means there are
    not always available beds for offenders as close to their homes
    as we would like. Crowding poses real risks to inmate safety.
    Additionally, prison composition can greatly impact safety and
    security. Inmates in the Federal prisons across the country
    have repeatedly demonstrated their proclivity to organize based
    on geographical area, gang affiliation, racial and ethnic
    background, and they have further demonstrated that such
    organization can lead to misconduct and attempts to severely
    disrupt prison operations.
        Accordingly, we make every effort to distribute the inmate
    population across facilities such that we balance the various
    factors noted above. We have found that this balance is
    critical to operating safe and secure prisons.
        Inmate health care needs impact designations, particularly
    for inmates with medical conditions that require significant
    treatment. These inmates typically are designated to a medical
    care Level 3 facility or a Federal medical center. Only six of
    these are within 500 miles of the District of Columbia.
    Location itself creates designation pressures.
        We have little control over where prisons are built and
    many are sited in very remote locations. We have made clear in
    the past our strong desire to site a prison in the D.C. area.
    As Congresswoman Norton will recall, we fought hard to secure
    just a small portion of the Lorton property during the
    negotiations over the Revitalization Act. We were unsuccessful
    in those efforts and had to look elsewhere to construct
    facilities to absorb the D.C. sentenced felons into our system.
        We remain committed to the goal of housing the majority of
    D.C. Code offenders within 500 miles of the District, and we
    have been quite successful in meeting this goal, with over 75
    percent of them currently confined in institutions within 500
    miles of the District.
        Four categories of offenders, however, are likely to
    continue to be housed outside of that radius, inmates with
    special management and security needs, inmates with significant
    medical needs, inmates who engage in significant misconduct,
    and high security sex offenders.
        Mindful of our role as the State Department of Corrections
    for the District, we provide specialized programming and
    opportunities for D.C. offenders that will help facilitate
    their successful reentry, while ensuring that they are housed
    in safe and appropriately secure facilities.
        We provide enhanced reentry programs at Rivers, to include
    a residential drug abuse program that allows eligible inmates
    to earn up to 1 year off their sentence.
        We have a trauma treatment program for female offenders at
    Hazelton, WV. We have residential reentry centers that service
    three D.C. facilities, to include Hope Village, which is the
    largest RRC in the Nation. And finally, we continue to
    collaborate with Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agencies on transitional issues.
        Chairman Lynch, this concludes my formal statement. Again,
    I thank you and the members of the committee for your support
    of our agency and will be happy to answer questions that you
    may have of me.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.
        Ms. Poteat, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT

        Ms. Poteat. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member
    Chaffetz, Congresswoman Norton, and members of the
    subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today at this
    hearing to examine the impact of housing D.C. inmates far from
    home.
        As the Deputy Director of the Federal agency responsible
    for supervising approximately 16,000 men and women, I know
    firsthand that the foundation for an individual's successful
    reentry starts with time spent in prison. If credible
    opportunities for treatment, education and occupational
    training are available and taken advantage of, and then
    comprehensive release planning occurs, a person can leave
    prison with a real chance to pursue a positive and constructive
    way of life.
        Approximately 6,000 D.C. Superior Court sentenced inmates
    are now serving their sentence in the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons' facilities around the country. Since our agency was
    established in August 2000, incarcerated men and women have
    returned to the District of Columbia at a rate of about 2,200
    per year.
        CSOSA's Transitional Intervention for Parole Supervision
    [TIPS] teams, are primarily responsible for facilitating an
    inmate's return home from prison, either transitioning through
    a residential reentry center or directly to the community. BOP
    case managers submit a release plan to CSOSA that includes the
    inmate's proposed living arrangement and, when available, the
    potential employment. The TIPS community supervision officers
    investigate their release plans to ensure they are conducive to
    a successful reentry and do not pose a risk to the community.
        About 6,400 of the 16,000 men and women under supervision
    are either on parole or supervised release. Most have long
    histories of substance abuse, educational underachievement, and
    underemployment; 80 to 90 percent of this population reports a
    history of illicit drug abuse. They have low rates of high
    school or GED completion, and only 40 percent report stable
    housing arrangements upon intake. Less than 40 percent are
    employed. Many of them also face challenges reuniting with
    their families and establishing pro-social relationships. These
    conditions can have a significant impact on the success of
    community supervision.
        However, it is well recognized that when effective work on
    these matters can be accomplished during incarceration, the
    prospective for successful reentry is increased. It was toward
    that end that in 2003 CSOSA launched an initiative at the
    Rivers Correctional Facility in Winton, NC. We chose Rivers
    because of the large number of offenders housed there at the
    time, and it was approximately 225 miles away from the
    District. At the time it was 1,100 offenders there. Now they
    have approximately 500 to 600 offenders in that facility.
        Our work at Rivers began with the implementation of a video
    mentoring as part of our faith-based community partnership. The
    program linked inmates nearing release with faith-based mentors
    who provided pre-release encouragement and post-release
    support. This program was an extension of an existing effort
    started the previous year where volunteer mentors from local
    faith institutions were matched with re-entrants transitioning
    through the halfway house. We believed that by making matches
    earlier, we could better prepare the mentees for reentry and
    lay the foundation for post-release.
        CSOSA installed video conferencing systems at Rivers and at
    our headquarters to allow mentors and mentees to have face-to-
    face conversations about job development, locating stable
    housing, and establishing new and more positive leisure time
    activities and friendships. Family members were also present
    during some of these sessions.
        In October we began conducting Community Resource Day for a
    group of 200-plus offenders at Rivers. During this program, we
    piloted it by transporting several of our vendors to Winton,
    NC. After that we began doing these sessions by video
    conferencing. That way we were able to expand some of the
    vendors that were participating in our Resource Day. They
    included presentations by the U.S. Parole Commission, BOP, and
    Hope Village, our community supervision officers, local job
    training providers, the D.C. State Superintendent of Education
    and the Community College of the District of Columbia, the
    Housing Counseling Service and Jubilee Housing, Unity Health
    Care and the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration, among others.
    Surveys by both our providers and offenders were very positive,
    and they were completely satisfied with that program.
        Now, we suspended the mentoring program in 2007 after
    expanding the community-based mentoring program to include men
    and women on probation. This increased demand for mentors and
    quickly exhausted our available pool. However, we plan to
    reinstitute this video conferencing by including the women in
    Hazelton, WV, who are also now participating in a pilot program
    conducted by Our Place.
        Last fall, with the cooperation of the BOP, we developed
    and distributed Community Resource Day packages to all of the
    offenders and all of the institutions and BOP facilities. We
    have been asked to send additional packets, which the inmates
    found very useful. The response has been overwhelming,
    positive, and we continue to receive requests.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in
    today's hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions
    that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. Poteat.
        Ms. LaVigne, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF NANCY LaVIGNE

        Ms. LaVigne. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the
    implications of D.C. felons being housed far from their homes.
        I am Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
    Institute, where we've conducted extensive research on the
    topic of prisoner reentry. We've documented the many challenges
    of prisoner reentry, and we've conducted studies to identify
    the factors that predict both successful prisoner reintegration
    as well as recidivism.
        Among these studies we've specifically examined D.C. Code
    felons. We've learned that, like their counterparts throughout
    the country, incarcerated D.C. Code felons return home in need
    of health care, drug treatment, jobs, and affordable shelter.
    But D.C. felons face an unusual incarceration experience in
    that they are typically incarcerated hundreds of miles from
    their families, their potential employers, and post-release
    services. In fact, over 20 percent of these felons are housed
    more than 500 miles from their homes. This compares to a
    national average for the average State prisoner of about 100
    miles from their home, still pretty far, but their experience
    is much more severe in that regard.
        So why is distance an important issue? Research points to
    two reasons. First, it can diminish family support and, second,
    it makes finding treatment and services difficult.
        Let's focus on the family issue first. Our studies have
    found that families are an important influence on the reentry
    process and they provide much needed support to returning
    prisoners. Both emotional support and tangible support, such as
    housing and financial assistance, are associated with higher
    employment rates and reduced substance use after their release.
    This support from families, however, is not a given. Rather, it
    is closely linked to the nature and type of contact that
    prisoners have with their family members, their parents, their
    intimate partners and their children prior to their release.
        In fact, our research has found that in-prison contact with
    family members is predictive of the strength of family
    relationships following release. Other studies have shown that
    family contact during incarceration is associated with lower
    recidivism rates. Such contact can maintain or reinforce
    attachments to children, giving exiting prisoners a greater
    stake in conformity upon release.
        We have learned that exiting male prisoners who have strong
    positive attachments to their children tend to be legally
    employed for longer periods of time than fathers who have
    weaker ties to their kids. Maintaining and even strengthening
    family ties during incarceration can bolster the positive
    impact that family can have after a prisoner's release.
        But our surveys of family members of prisoners found that
    the single greatest barrier to maintaining contact was that
    prison was far from their homes. Clearly, the closer prisoners
    are housed to their homes, the more contact they will have with
    family.
        Now, let's turn to the second reason that distance creates
    problems for returning prisoners. In addition to family
    support, ties to post-release jobs and reentry services are
    vital for reentry success. Research finds that the most
    effective reentry programs begin behind bars and continue in
    the community.
        Now, we work with a lot of State prison administrators and
    we hear them lamenting about how difficult it is for them to
    link up people who are housed in prisons often far from their
    homes to services because they tend to live in cities rather
    than in the remote areas where prisons are located. But at
    least those administrators are working within the same State
    system. By contrast, the reentry planners working with D.C.
    felons are operating with different systems and in a diverse
    set of States across the country.
        The distance between a correctional facility and the
    prisoner's post-release destination makes connecting with
    employment, housing, substance abuse treatment, faith-based
    institutions, and a whole host of other reentry resources all
    the more difficult.
        Now, to be fair, there are some likely downsides to housing
    prisoners close to home. From a correctional security
    standpoint, if the felons are closer to home visitation will go
    up, and with increased visitation there could be more
    possibilities for the introduction of contraband into the
    facility. And if D.C. Code felons are housed in fewer prisons
    closer to home, correctional officers would need to monitor the
    potential for gang violence more closely.
        These are real risks, but I believe they're far outweighed
    by the documented benefits of housing prisoners close to home.
    With all the challenges associated with the reentry of D.C.
    felons, this is one change that could have a real positive
    impact, not only on the successful transition of those
    returning home from prison, but also on the safety and well-
    being of the families and communities to which they return.
        In the meantime, efforts to facilitate connections between
    prisoners and post-release service providers through the use of
    video conferencing should be supported and expanded, and they
    should also include contact with family members.
        Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. LaVigne.
        Mr. Fornaci, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PHILIP FORNACI

        Mr. Fornaci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Congresswoman Norton, for the opportunity to provide testimony,
    and thank you also to Congresswoman Norton for your work on
    this issue.
        My name is Philip Fornaci. I serve as director of the D.C.
    Prisoners' Project, the Washington Lawyers' Committee. We
    advocate on behalf of D.C. prisoners held locally and in
    Federal Bureau of Prison facilities on issues around safety,
    health care, access to the courts. We also represent folks in
    parole hearings. So we have a lot of experience directly in
    these facilities where D.C. prisoners are held.
        As described in my written testimony, I will just summarize
    a bit, the Revitalization Act of course transformed the
    District's criminal justice system from an almost exclusively
    local system to a Federalized system. Our entire criminal
    justice system, from prosecution through sentencing through
    incarceration, and then back to parole, supervision and
    revocation, is all Federal. The criminal justice system was
    made this way by a Federal legislature in which D.C. citizens
    of course have no vote, so we have very little control over
    this situation.
        Nonetheless, this is a useful conversation to have. These
    are issues that our organizations have tried to address at all
    levels, with the Vice President's Office, with the Bureau of
    Prisons, with Congresswoman Norton as well.
        As we have mentioned, about 6,100 D.C. prisoners are held
    in at least 98 different Federal prisons spread out from
    California to Florida to Pennsylvania and beyond. As described
    earlier, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of
    Prisons strives to keep D.C. prisoners within 500 miles of
    home. This actually is consistent with preexisting BOP policy.
    The Federal Government has provided no further accommodation or
    legal commitment for the influx of D.C. prisoners happening 8
    or 9 years ago, only about 3 or 4 percent of the population.
        For 6,000 D.C. prisoners, the 500-mile radius is a
    geographic area that reaches from Indiana and Kentucky on the
    west, Georgia in the south, and upper New York State on the
    north. This is a rather huge distance. So although D.C.
    prisoners represent only 3 percent of the total BOP population,
    the BOP is effectively D.C.'s State prison, as the
    Congresswoman mentioned earlier.
        The entire population of D.C.'s returning citizens have
    endured incarceration in these far flung facilities. The
    District retains no control or influence over which facilities
    will house the prisoners, what programs will be available to
    them, the security levels within the BOP or how far away from
    D.C. they will be held.
        As you've heard, this situation causes serious problems.
    Family separation is the most obvious one. Hundreds of miles,
    thousands of miles away, these prisons are located in rural
    areas requiring a car generally to get to. Because D.C.
    prisoners are dispersed so widely, it is difficult for local
    organizations to set up any kind of bus system or any way for
    people in large numbers to visit at any one time. This is a
    major obstacle.
        Telephone calls are extremely expensive. Collect calls run
    about $15 for a 15-minute collect call. There is debit calling
    also available which reduces that call to about $3.50 to $4 for
    a 15-minute call. However, please note that even a well paid
    prisoner who works perhaps in the UNICORP program will make
    maybe $70 a month. So this is an extremely expensive outlay for
    a prisoner to make.
        In addition to this, as Ms. LaVigne has detailed, I think
    quite accurately, having D.C. prisoners dispersed makes reentry
    extremely complex, not only because it is impossible to
    interview for a job or set up housing from a long distance, but
    also because the case management staff and counselors in these
    facilities have no experience with D.C.
        I am reminded when I visited one facility holding D.C.
    juveniles in the Bureau of Prisons in North Dakota, as
    Congresswoman Norton noted, and the teacher in that facility, I
    asked him what could be a very useful thing for us to give you
    to help these kids. He said, could you send us a Yellow Pages
    from the District of Columbia. Well, that clearly did not
    indicate that he had any real clue as to how someone from that
    facility is going to get a job back in D.C. or had any idea
    what life is like for an urban kid now in North Dakota and then
    returning.
        So I want to make a couple of recommendations and cut this
    a little shorter. My written statement goes into a little bit
    more detail. But I would echo Congresswoman Norton's statement
    to move all D.C. prisoners within, if not one, at least a small
    number of Federal facilities close to D.C. This would have an
    enormous impact on reentry. It would have an impact on family
    ties being maintained. There are facilities in Maryland,
    Virginia and Pennsylvania within 250 miles of D.C. Some
    combination of these could certainly be worked. There are
    medical facilities within a fairly short distance in North
    Carolina. It is certainly possible.
        Similarly, a second recommendation is that in facilities
    housing D.C. prisoners case management staff should be trained
    appropriately. This really cannot effectively happen unless
    they are in one small number of facilities.
        And third is to address the issue of juveniles. There is
    simply no reason for D.C. kids, 9, 10, 11, to be sent to North
    Dakota to serve out their sentences.
        Thank you so much. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fornaci follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Fornaci.
        Mr. Cook, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF ANDREW COOK

        Mr. Cook. I would like to say good afternoon. I am also
    honored to be able to sit before you all today and I thank you
    all for being, you know, giving affording so I can share my
    testimony today. Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Sawyer, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF LOUIS SAWYER

        Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress and their
    staff, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and
    gentlemen, good afternoon.
        You've mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in introducing me, where I
    was employed with the SOME program, and I need to clarify
    something, that it is not the SOME, So Others May Eat, it is
    the Opportunities Industrialization Center of Washington, DC,
    and I needed to note that for the record because I don't
    believe I can go back to Southeast if I did not.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. That is duly noted.
        Mr. Sawyer. Thank you so much. And I do have a pamphlet for
    you for the Members of Congress. All right.
        I wanted to thank you for this opportunity for sharing with
    those members who are here in reference to the plight of D.C.
    prisoners far away from home. I do not want to be redundant for
    what Mr. Fornaci has said, he has covered most of everything in
    a nutshell. But I would like to talk with the, have the
    opportunity to speak to the recidivism and the reentry of D.C.
    prisoners coming back into the Nation's Capital.
        And one thing I do note that is very serious are five
    essential basic needs that should be looked upon, and those are
    the transportation of a D.C. prisoner, a returning citizen
    coming back to the Nation's Capitol, his medical care,
    psychological, what have you, clothing issues, employment and
    housing. These are very critical issues that need to be
    explored and looked upon for being where we are and how far
    we've been away, such as when I was in the U.S. penitentiary in
    Lee County for 5 years, and then I transferred to the FCI
    Allenwood in White Deer, PA, where I made parole on February 9,
    2010.
        And after spending 25 years in the system, I found that,
    coming back to the Nation's Capital, the opportunities that I
    thought would be available were not. But I do thank the Public
    Defender Services of the Nation's Capital for providing an
    adult directory of resources. And Ms. April Frazier, who is the
    staff attorney and who's responsible for the reentry, was very
    good. And Mr. Allen McAllister, who is staff attorney who's
    here, who's also working and have worked very hard in seeing to
    it.
        But I would recommend that one of these pamphlets, these
    booklets, this directory would be able to be sent to each and
    every one of the institutions in where a D.C. prisoner is
    housed so it could be noted for the law library. With that
    said, this directory is very useful and which I have found it
    when I was there to look into and to send letters to the
    appropriate individuals where they could become housing
    employment, also with the mentoring aspect. And I am also
    pleased to note that the Welcome Home Project with Ms. Joyce
    Boyd, who was very helpful in my reentry.
        But I must say this. This is of utmost importance, that if
    a person does not have a foundation, which is his family, some
    institution, religion, based on a church foundation, a mentor,
    counselors and advisers, then it is not going to work out. But
    he has to understand that it is not easy out here. But it is
    also incumbent upon those to note that with the assistance of
    the reentry faith-based welcome back, these organizations have
    pooled together, and I am very much a product of that. And I
    thank those individuals for being so thoughtful and so helpful.
        But we need to meet those needs wherein, even with the
    transportation issue. We have some organizations that are able
    to give tokens and then those who are not. But to go out, such
    as myself, I am in the Hope Village halfway house at 2840
    Langston Place Southeast, and to go out every day to look for
    employment. But based on the fact that I am in the
    Opportunities Industrialization Center in Southeast Washington,
    DC, which is the place to be, we still have to go out. It is
    from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday through Friday. And it is a job
    placement training program that facilitates those individuals
    who are looking forward, but they're training them so they're
    just not going out to employment without any skills. They are
    providing that with the Internet, and being able to have those
    opportunities. And I do, I want to note that for the record.
    But still, we're looking at those issues that come before this
    committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir. I want to thank all the
    witnesses who are coming before the committee to help us with
    our work, and Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer especially for offering
    your perspective.
        I am going to yield myself 5 minutes for my questions,
    after which I'll recognize the other Members. It seems there's
    general agreement that the proximity can help a great deal. I
    know, Ms. LaVigne, you pointed out a couple of instances where
    there might be some qualifiers to that with respect to gang
    violence and that type of connection.
        But is it possible, Mr. Lappin, Mr. Fornaci mentioned the
    250-mile, I know you've got this Memorandum of Understanding
    that implies, or it establishes a goal of 500 miles, which is a
    long, long distance. Mr. Fornaci suggests that with some of the
    existing facilities in the Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
    Virginia area, you might be able to reduce that down to 250.
    But I also hear from you and Ms. Poteat about the capacity
    problem, the overcrowding problem that we have. Is that
    feasible?
        Mr. Lappin. Thank you, sir. It is an excellent question.
    And let me begin by agreeing with them that closer to home is
    better, even with those challenges. However, this has been a
    challenge for the Federal system since its creation. Well, I
    want to set the parameters so you have a sense of how the other
    inmates in the Federal prison system compare to the inmates
    from the District of Columbia. And I can break it down by
    gender.
        Right now 75 percent of the inmates from the Superior Court
    are within 500 miles. Male inmates from the Superior Court
    within 500 miles, 75 percent. For all the other inmates in the
    Federal prison system, male, there's 69 percent of them are 500
    miles from home. So a larger percentage than with the District
    inmates are beyond 500 miles.
        Comparing male Superior Court offenders with all other
    Federal offenders, 75 percent of the male Superior Court
    offenders are within 500 miles of home; 69 percent of all other
    male Federal offenders are within 500 miles of home. For
    females, 81 percent are within 500 miles of home. For all other
    females in the Federal system, 69 percent are within 500 miles
    of home.
        And this has been somewhat true over the course of many,
    many years. It is unfortunate that a long, long time ago we
    didn't see the value of inmates being closer to home and before
    we built prisons, we built them in locations that were closer
    to where the inmates were coming from. Unfortunately, that did
    not happen.
        So today our infrastructure, much of it new, are in remote
    rural locations where there are not as many inmates coming from
    those systems. But you can see that the distance issue has been
    a challenge for us for a long, long time.
        To compensate for that, we work closely with U.S. Probation
    Service, our contract providers in the halfway houses, CSOSA
    and others, to try to improve the relationship in advance of
    the inmates returning home.
        To your question, before you can do any of the things you
    want to do in prison, provide programs, provide reentry
    opportunities, teach GED, teach vocational training, have
    inmates working in Prison Industries, you must run safe
    prisons. Inmates must be able to safely come out of their cells
    from 6 a.m., until 9 or 10 p.m., whatever time that is, and
    function within that unit. It has been our experience that
    we've been more successful allowing that to happen when we have
    a balanced designation process, when inmates are balanced both
    geographically, gang-wise, racially, and ethnically. And we
    strive to achieve that balance at our institutions and retain
    that balance.
        But as you indicated, it is even more of a challenge when
    you don't have enough beds because, quite honestly, there are
    some days you are just trying to find an empty bed to put an
    inmate in at the appropriate security level. So I don't think
    it is possible within 250 miles and successfully manage those
    prisons as safely as we do today because it will disrupt this
    balance that we are trying to achieve. And that is unfortunate.
        The other thing is there are several reasons why those that
    are beyond 500 miles, one, medical care. Some inmates require
    more medical care. And let me just mention this very briefly.
    We classify inmates based on security level. Once that is
    accomplished, we classify them on care level, how much medical
    care do we think they're going to require, based on their
    physical condition, because we came to the realization a few
    years ago that we could not provide the same level of care,
    health care at every facility, given the fact that many were
    built in very rural locations or in very urban locations where
    we were competing for limited resources in the way of health
    care providers, one, and two, that there were not a lot of
    facilities outside of that institution, hospitals, that could
    provide that care if in fact we could not provide the care
    inside the facility. So therefore, we created healthy
    institutions and institutions with inmates who were healthy but
    needed some additional care and then our more institutions with
    greater need for health care. That alone sends inmates a little
    further away from home so that we can provide adequate health
    care.
        Separations.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lappin, you have far exceeded--I only have 5
    minutes. You've exhausted all that time. I appreciate your
    answer was no, is that correct?
        Mr. Lappin. I do not believe that we can do it as safely as
    we do today.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. All right. I will now yield to the ranking
    member for 5 minutes, Mr. Chaffetz.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go swiftly
    because 5 minutes goes by fast. I do not understand why we have
    102 people from Washington, DC, in Arizona. Understanding that
    the documentation that was here, give me one reason why we
    would send somebody all the way to Arizona, other than it has
    really good weather.
        Mr. Lappin. High security sex offenders. That is the only
    housing you have of a high security nature where we can house
    sex offenders in an open population.
        Mr. Chaffetz. There is nowhere closer than Arizona.
        Mr. Lappin. There is nowhere closer for high security sex
    offenders than Tucson, AZ.
        Mr. Chaffetz. What about 101 people in Colorado?
        Mr. Lappin. As I indicated, inmates that have special
    security needs, there are 44 of them at ADX Florence because
    they have assaulted staff and inmates, they've killed inmates,
    they have attempted to escape. So there is a high security
    facility, ADX Florence. There are 41 alone in that facility
    because of their misconduct in prison.
        Mr. Chaffetz. And let me go to Mr. Fornaci. I saw at least
    from your kind of nonverbal, I thought you took some issue to
    this idea of balance based on medical needs and those types of
    things. Do you care to comment on that based on what Mr. Lynch
    was questioning?
        Mr. Fornaci. Well, yes, thank you.
        I was looking at the listing of where D.C. prisoners are.
    Certainly there is some number of folks in medical facilities
    which is a care Level 4. The care Level 3 there is a smaller
    number. But I am not sure that actually states it. I think the
    security issues I suspect are stronger on Mr. Lappin's basis
    than are the medical issues. There are many medical facilities
    within this area. The care level system is actually relatively
    new.
        I guess what I was raising my eyebrows at is I am a little
    bit, I am not quite sure of how to interpret it, was the notion
    of having certain kinds of balance, including racial balance.
    That was what I was responding to. D.C. folks are known as
    about 95 percent African American prisoners. It is an urbanized
    population. The BOP generally is 38 percent African American.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, first of
    all, I appreciate you being here. You have been here. You have
    seen it. I think your only vested interest is probably to make
    it better. So maybe starting with Mr. Cook and then Mr. Sawyer,
    from your vantage point, what is, what are the two or three
    things, and if you just have one, you just have one, but that
    you would like to see improved. It is just your own personal
    point of view. It is from what you've witnessed. If you could
    make the situation better, what should we be doing? What should
    we be insisting that the Bureau of Prisons do better?
        Mr. Cook. Meaning as far as, you mean as far as the
    location?
        Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah. Yeah.
        Mr. Cook. Well, from my experience I've been locked up 8
    years. And out of 8 years I've been to five different
    penitentiaries. And out of five different penitentiaries I
    would say, well, with the help of Mr. Fornaci, I've been out in
    Indiana. I am not no security risk so I am wondering why was I
    out there. I don't have no family out there. Then after I leave
    there I go to Kentucky. Same thing apply.
        So I am curious to know what do they, you know, what is the
    information they use to place a person? I am just thinking they
    going sending you to the next bed.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Now he talked about the safety and security
    of these prisons. From the time they opened that cell to the
    time they close it did you feel safe in those penitentiaries?
        Mr. Cook. Well, I am going to say the only thing I was kind
    of worried about was getting back home, closer to home. Other
    stuff don't even matter to me.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How did you communicate? Do you have family
    here then?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How did you communicate with them? Were there
    any resources?
        Mr. Cook. Well, being so far a way, your money, you don't
    really have too much money.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Right.
        Mr. Cook. And when you get a job in there, they pay you a
    little less than nothing. So the little money you do obtain
    you've got to stretch it. Either you are going to pay----
        Mr. Chaffetz. Give me an idea. What were you doing and how
    much money were you making?
        Mr. Cook. Well, my first job, I've been a tutor, you know,
    throughout the BOP. That pay a little bit. That is one of the--
    --
        Mr. Chaffetz. Like how much in a month? How much in a month
    does that make?
        Mr. Cook. An hour? Like 30 something cent an hour.
        Mr. Chaffetz. 30 cents an hour. And with that you are
    expected to pay for long distance toll calls and all that kind
    of thing to communicate with your family?
        Mr. Cook. Pretty much.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Was your family ever able to come out and
    visit you?
        Mr. Cook. No good.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Sawyer, Ill give you an opportunity.
        Mr. Sawyer. Thank you so much. Your question again, sir?
        Mr. Chaffetz. If you had two or three, maybe one or two
    things that you just want the Bureau of Prisons to do to
    improve the system for people that are so far away, what would
    that be? Be very specific and as brief as you can on what you'd
    like them to do.
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, I am very much concerned about Mr.
    Lappin, who spoke to the issue about when the individuals come
    out of their prison cells.
        I have been in--for 25 years, and I have yet to see--
    because I have been in the medium-security facility, and even
    at the U.S. penitentiary in Lee County, when you understand
    that you are in a prison setting and when you fear no one but
    God, and God alone, then that tends to give you a more secure
    balance in where you are and who you are.
        But, of course, we understand it is a prison and it is a
    U.S. penitentiary and it is prison. But still, for the Bureau
    of Prisons to look at it, in bringing the District of Columbia
    inmates closer, the States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland,
    it should be looked upon as a serious entity wherein the
    closeness--I don't believe we are a security factor. For those
    who went in 25, 30 years ago, who are now coming home, they are
    looking forward to being with their families. It is a telephone
    issue. It is a visitation issue. And it is very expensive.
        They travel all night to get to the facility, and when they
    come, they are not welcome because, for whatever reason, the
    Federal Bureau of Prisons staff are not too likened to D.C.
    prisoners and their families. And, to be honest with you, and I
    will share that with you because no one wants to speak about
    that, but that is an issue. That is an issue.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you both. I wish you nothing but the
    best, and I appreciate your taking time to be here.
        Thanks for the latitude in time, Madam Chair. And I think
    it is just a crying shame that these people have to be so far
    away. They are dealing with an exceptionally difficult
    situation, to say the very least for them and their families,
    and there is something we got to do, because this ain't right.
        Ms. Norton. I thank you very much, Mr. Chaffetz, for your
    questions because I think they have elicited the dilemma that
    we have before us, and, I must say, a dilemma that I think is
    quite solvable.
        As you probe the witnesses who have been transferred from
    one prison to another--and, for that matter, Mr. Lappin, I want
    to thank the Bureau of Prisons for quickly admitting D.C.
    residents to the state-of-the-art drug program. We recognize
    there are always backlogs, but the notion that our prisoners
    were not even admitted, that was not your fault, but you
    certainly got that done. You have set up a drug program, a
    state-of-the-art program, also at Rivers. We are very grateful
    for that.
        The answers to the questions posed by the chairman and the
    ranking member, of course, have elicited from Mr. Lappin, you
    know, what you would expect. He is talking about the Federal
    prison system as it is, as if Congress in the Revitalization
    Act hadn't given him a new charge. They didn't say, ``Here is a
    Federal prison. See what you can do with these State
    prisoners.'' The charge was to do something unprecedented, take
    State prisoners and deal with them as State prisoners within a
    Federal prison system. And you know that was the case because
    they are under the D.C. Code still. They are recognizable D.C.
    prisoners.
        So we are working with 500 miles. You have heard testimony
    here, I think it was from Ms. LaVigne, you know, 100 miles is
    what you find in the average State. Already they are at a
    severe disadvantage. And we in the District are supposed to
    say, ``Welcome home, friends,'' at the end of--it could be 25
    years, it could be 10 years, it could be a few years. No matter
    what it is, almost none of them have access to family services.
        So we are not asking for a change in the Federal system. We
    are asking for the Federal system to do what the Revitalization
    Act said: Take these State prisoners, treat them as State
    prisoners within a Federal system, do not disadvantage them,
    give them the advantages that come from your system, not
    disadvantages imposed on them.
        Now, the fact is, Mr. Lappin, we have some reason to
    believe that your office may already be thinking in these
    terms. Has your office been in touch with the D.C. Department
    of Corrections about bringing D.C. Code offenders home early,
    90 days, and putting them in the D.C. correctional treatment
    facility here in the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Lappin. Yes, we have had a discussion over the phone.
        Ms. Norton. With whom have those discussions taken place?
        Mr. Lappin. Director Brown.
        Ms. Norton. Is Director Brown here?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Rather than deal in hearsay, could I ask that
    Mr. Brown take the table? I don't want you to have to quote Mr.
    Brown. Would somebody, staff, bring a chair up so that Mr.
    Brown can take his seat here since he is here? This is somebody
    close to home who has already had discussions. This is a
    problem-solving hearing, and we want to solve this problem,
    beginning now.
        Could you please stand and be sworn?
        [Witness sworn.]
        Ms. Norton. Now, you have testified in your written
    testimony, on page 5, to the advantages--you are right, we
    tried to get closer to home; we even tried to reserve some part
    of the Lorton facility for this very purpose. You talk about
    the advantages for the D.C. Superior Court and closeness to
    CSOSA. You spell that out, I think, very well. You say you have
    had discussions with Director Devon Brown of the D.C.
    Department of Corrections.
        Would you, Mr. Brown, say firsthand what those discussions
    have concerned?
        Mr. Brown. Yes. Director Lappin is correct. I contacted him
    approximately 3 weeks ago to discuss several proposals, all
    impacting upon D.C. inmates.
        One of those proposals entailed having D.C. inmates who are
    in his custody, 90 days from their release, be placed in one of
    my facilities, whereby we could provide them--that is, the city
    and CSOSA--wraparound services to help in their transition back
    into our community.
        Ms. Norton. Now, you are willing to take these prisoners.
        Mr. Lappin, I want you to consider that when we hear
    testimony here, we understand the constraints of the Federal
    prison system. But I need to ask you whether you are prepared
    to accept this offer of the D.C. Department of Corrections with
    the director here testifying today?
        Mr. Lappin. I am not willing to accept that as of yet. We
    are going to meet. Because I think there is another group that
    needs to be discussed in advance of that.
        Ms. Norton. Another group of what?
        Mr. Lappin. D.C. offenders who are serving short sentences.
        Because of the crowdedness at the jail previously, we have
    been designating inmates who are serving over 30 days to a
    Federal prison. And I shared with the director that we should
    first look at this group, because in most jurisdictions, when
    individuals are serving 6 months or less, we oftentimes
    designate them to the jail in lieu of transferring them to
    Federal prison, because when we do that, by the time they get
    to the Federal prison, it is time to return to their home.
        Ms. Norton. Well, Director Brown, did you take this notion,
    which is not new to this subcommittee, into consideration, this
    notion about people who have violated parole?
        Mr. Lappin. Actually, they are serving a sentence of 6
    months or less.
        Ms. Norton. But they are felons.
        Mr. Lappin. They are felons.
        Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am. The discussion really began over
    weekenders, which is very similar. I could not see, nor could
    the Federal judges here see, the utility of having someone who
    has been sentenced to several weekends have their lives
    disrupted by having to travel to one of the Federal
    penitentiaries.
        Ms. Norton. So what happens now to the weekenders or these
    short-termers?
        Mr. Lappin. We have had very few of them. But when we do
    have them, we try to find a jail in close proximity to house
    them. So, out of Baltimore, there is a jail about 2 hours away.
    We are in agreement with the director on that issue and the
    other issue.
        The one I am hesitating on is returning these longer-term
    offenders, 90 days before they are released, back to the
    District until we have a chance to look at how many that would
    be, so that he doesn't accept more than he can actually handle
    at the jail; how much it will cost to transfer them from the
    Federal prison back to the jail and then to house them.
        Ms. Norton. We know this: that you are paying to keep them
    in the Federal prisons right now. We know that you testified at
    length about how overcrowded your prisons are. We know he has
    available beds. And the challenge is not, of course, to tell us
    what can't be done, but to adopt the same problem-solving
    attitude that we are trying to adopt in this hearing.
        If there is such an outstanding offer--this is what I ask:
    for you and Director Brown, within 30 days, to report on
    progress for the weekenders. You can throw anybody in there you
    want to, Mr. Lappin, but also for prisoners who would be
    returning to D.C., not excluding them, but including them.
        Considering that there are a number of beds, it will be
    very hard, Mr. Lappin, for you to show me, since you have to
    pay for these people to come back home anyway, you have to
    house them anyway, it will be very hard for you to show me in
    your overcrowded condition, as you have testified here today,
    that you have a greater burden by keeping these prisoners in
    115 prisons across the United States than accepting Mr. Brown's
    offer.
        Mr. Davis was the next to arrive. And I am very pleased
    that Mr. Davis is attending this hearing because he is the
    author of a landmark bill on reentry for inmates throughout the
    United States.
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        And let me thank the witnesses for being here.
        Director Lappin, it is good to see you again.
        You indicated that sex offenders under your care, you had
    to take them 500 miles away to Arizona to find a Bureau of
    Prisons facility where they be could housed?
        Mr. Lappin. Not all sex offenders. High-security sex
    offenders.
        Mr. Davis. High-security sex offenders. What about sex
    offenders who are not necessarily as high security?
        Mr. Lappin. After the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, the
    Congress in the new law required us to create six sex offender
    management programs. We have done that. There is one in
    Petersburg, VA. There is one in Marianna, FL. There is one in
    each of our regions. The closest one for high-security sex
    offenders is Tucson.
        You can't imagine how difficult it is to house high-
    security sex offenders in an open population. Prior to this,
    many of them were housed in segregation because they were
    unwilling to go to the compound. So we had to find a location
    where we could introduce this with an entirely new group of
    inmates, and that was to do it at a brand-new facility. The
    only high-security institution opening during that time was the
    one in Tucson. That is where we chose to place this high-
    security sex offender program.
        Mr. Davis. Let me ask, what happens to these individuals
    once they have completed their sentences, once they have served
    their time, and it is time for them to return back home?
        Mr. Lappin. Are you asking me?
        Mr. Davis. Well, no, I----
        Ms. Poteat. They would be under CSOSA's supervision. We
    develop a plan for each individual, depending on risk and
    needs. The sex offenders are housed and are supervised in a
    specialized unit under CSOSA. And those units are at 300
    Indiana Avenue.
        And we have programs in place to supervise them
    accordingly. They are lower caseloads. We institute GPS, if
    necessary. We place them in therapeutic groups. And the
    caseload ratio, as I indicated, is much smaller in dealing with
    that population.
        The jobs are looked at a little differently, because we
    have to make sure that where they are working are conducive and
    they are not posing a risk. And their housing needs are also
    scrutinized. If, in fact, they have separations against
    children, then we do not place them in homes or jobs where
    children are present.
        Mr. Davis. And I ask these questions basically because it
    is my experience that sex offenders basically give up their
    freedom once they are convicted of a sex crime. I mean, my
    experiences are that trying to find a place for sex offenders
    to live is almost impossible because, obviously, there is no
    community, there is no location, there is no place where they
    are pretty much acceptable to the rest of society.
        And I raise that point because I often talk to young people
    and I actually caution them quite a bit that, you know, if you
    reach that point, for all practical purposes, you are
    sentencing yourself to a lifetime of prison or a lack of
    freedom relative to movement.
        The other point I would like to make, Madam Chairman: Mr.
    Cook, are you employed? Do you have a job?
        Mr. Cook. No, I don't.
        Mr. Davis. Have you tried to find a job?
        Mr. Cook. Several times.
        Mr. Davis. And you have been unsuccessful. You would
    attribute that to what?
        Mr. Cook. I would contribute that to the lapse, when I fill
    out my resume, the lapse in times of my current job to my, you
    know, the last job I had to now, and the resources.
        Mr. Davis. Would you be a good worker?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Are you going to do
    another round?
        Ms. Norton. We will do another round, yes, sir.
        Mr. Cummings of Maryland?
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Lappin, help me with this. In your testimony, you say
    that, you know, the Bureau of Prisons is establishing
    employment resource centers at all Federal prisons to assist
    inmates with job searches and other areas.
        Are those resources focused on local and the statewide
    level? How do you do that?
        Mr. Lappin. They are really national, given the fact that
    in that institution you have inmates not only from all over the
    United States, you have inmates from all over the world.
        Mr. Cummings. Right. OK.
        Mr. Lappin. And so we focus on those U.S. citizens who
    return to this country with a national approach to how you go
    about finding a job: resume building, job searches. We actually
    are working with companies that provide software as to what
    jobs are vacant in certain areas that inmates can actually
    access and see what jobs are vacant in a given area, what types
    of jobs are available in a given area. So there are resources
    made available to them, based on their release, to assist them
    in preparing for a job search.
        And then, as they transition to a halfway house or a
    residential re-entry center, we have work force development
    staff at those centers who assist them once they arrive at that
    location, given the fact that the majority of the inmates do
    transition out through a halfway house.
        Mr. Cummings. And what have the results been? I mean, do
    you followup to see how many inmates have gotten jobs, say,
    within 6 months of being released?
        Mr. Lappin. We really, sir, we don't track that. Once they
    leave the halfway house, they become the responsibility of the
    U.S. Probation Service. And right now we don't have the
    wherewithal through technology as of yet to determine how many
    of them actually get jobs prior to release. So all we can do is
    rely on the surveys we might do with halfway houses on a case-
    by-case basis.
        Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. It seems to me that you would want
    to--I mean, if you have a program, you want to measure it some
    kind of way. That doesn't seem like it would take rocket
    scientist stuff. Maybe I am missing something.
        Mr. Lappin. No, we agree with you. And we are working----
        Mr. Cummings. Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you can send somebody
    500 miles away, it seems like you ought to be able to figure
    out whether they got a job. I am just curious.
        Mr. Lappin. No, we agree with you. And we have now put in
    place a system that is electronic in nature that we are going
    to be able to gather that information more consistently across
    the United States in the very near future. Right now we don't
    have the technology in place. It would have to be done by hand.
        Mr. Cummings. The reason why I ask that, Mr. Brown knows me
    well; we go way back. And he knows that I used to do a program
    in Baltimore, an aftercare program, where we actually worked
    with the inmates after they got out. And one of the most
    difficult things has always been, and it continues to be, is
    jobs.
        And is it Mr. Cook?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cook, your problem is not only the fact
    that you have a record. The problem, also--and I know this
    because I live in the inner city, and I just did a jobs fair--
    part of the problem is that, right now, there are a lot of
    people looking for jobs who have no records. And that is real.
    And so that competition is kind of rough.
        But I am trying to figure out--I am just trying to make
    sure that if we are doing things--we have a fellow--first of
    all, what is the significance of the 500 miles? Because 500
    miles, I was just doing a little math here, you know, that is a
    long drive.
        Mr. Lappin. It is based on traditional distance from home
    for Federal offenders.
        Mr. Cummings. OK.
        Mr. Lappin. And for years that has been the target, is to
    try to get them within 500 miles. And, again, realize, there
    are 115 prisons, but many of them are concentrated in just a
    few States.
        Mr. Cummings. Right.
        Mr. Lappin. So if you go to West Virginia, for example, you
    have seven or eight prisons there. If you go to Kentucky, there
    are seven or eight prisons there. Believe you me, there are not
    enough inmates coming out of Kentucky and West Virginia to fill
    one prison, let alone 14 or 15. But you are going to fill those
    beds.
        And so, the 500 miles is driven by our experience over the
    last few decades and how far the average inmate is from home.
        Mr. Cummings. And the only reason I was asking about the
    job piece is because one of the things that we discovered in
    our program is that, if we could get somebody a job, they had a
    much better chance of staying on the street, much better. And
    then getting them back with their family and trying to redirect
    their priorities from the street to the family and a job.
    Because one of the things a job also does is it provides them
    another family, really.
        Mr. Lappin. Well, we agree with you, and that is why the
    halfway house is critically important. And a job and a place to
    live are the two most important factors. Our research
    reflects--in a broader scale, not did they get a job, but our
    research reflects those inmates who transfer out through a
    halfway house are far more successful at getting a job and
    retaining a job and less likely to come back to prison.
        So in that assessment is the understanding that getting a
    job and a place to live are the two most important aspects of
    that release. And, certainly, that halfway house transition
    helps us be more successful in that regard.
        Mr. Cummings. I see my time is up. Thanks.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
        You can see the Members are very skeptical about this 500
    miles. Nobody buys it as in any way facilitating re-entry. So
    then we have to think outside the box, Mr. Lappin. That is why,
    since we had this information, it seems to me that should have
    been in your testimony, if I can be candid, that you were at
    least looking at that. And we got that information simply
    because we are in the District.
        And, therefore, it is that kind of thinking outside the
    box, or else we are going to be sitting here trying to thread a
    needle that does not thread. We are not asking you to change
    the whole system. We are asking you to accommodate a State
    system, as the Revitalization Act has mandated.
        Now, there is nothing that will keep you, is there, from
    designating a prison, let's say, within 200 miles or whatever
    distance would be closer to home, now with various kinds of
    inmates as a D.C. prison? There is nothing that would keep you
    from doing that, is there? And, in fact, locating D.C.
    residents in that particular existing FBOP facility.
        I am not asking you to do it. I am asking you if there is
    anything that you know of that would keep you from doing it----
        Mr. Lappin. Yes, there is.
        Ms. Norton [continuing]. Given the Revitalization Act and
    the challenge you face and the testimony you have heard here
    today.
        Mr. Lappin. Congresswoman, you and I have had this
    discussion before.
        Ms. Norton. I have never had this discussion with you at
    any length, sir. And I want to have it right now, under oath,
    right here. Is there anything that keeps you from designating a
    prison within a few hundred miles of D.C. for D.C. inmates at
    this time? And if there is, I want to know what it is.
        Mr. Lappin. If you go back to my oral statement or my
    written testimony, I explain why I believe it is unwise for us
    to designate a specific location for one type of inmate.
    Because we have been more successful in operating prisons
    safely when we have a balanced inmate population.
        Ms. Norton. You are back in the box again. And I am trying
    to get you outside of the box dealing with the testimony you
    have heard here about the failures of the BOP because you deal
    with these prisoners as a part of a Federal complex instead of
    as a new set of prisoners charged with you. I understand that.
        You say, you know, in your discretion, it wouldn't be wise.
    Obviously, there are ways to have a facility which, in state-
    of-the-art penology, has inmates at various levels. Done all
    the time in the States. But, of course, what it would take, Mr.
    Lappin, is the will to do it. And if the will to do it needs to
    come by Federal statute, that is a lot of will by the will of
    law. But guess what? I don't think it is necessary. That is why
    I asked you if there was anything in law that kept it from
    happening. You said what your own view is. I would like to have
    those discussions with you.
        Now, I would like to ask a question, really based on Mr.
    Fornaci's testimony. But, Mr. Fornaci, you do say something
    that makes me want to followup here unrelated to the question I
    was to ask. You say the BOP even pays the District to house
    these prisoners in D.C. jail facilities after they are
    sentenced and while they await designation and transportation
    to a BOP facility.
        Director Brown, is that the case? Is the BOP paying the
    District to house sentenced felons while they await designation
    and transportation to a BOP facility?
        Mr. Brown. No, ma'am. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Who pays for these people, who are sentenced
    felons in the care of the District of Columbia? Who pays for
    it?
        Mr. Brown. The District of Columbia pays.
        Ms. Norton. Has the District of Columbia ever been paid at
    all to house any of these felons in District of Columbia care,
    so far as you know?
        Mr. Brown. Ma'am, the point in which the District of
    Columbia receives payment from the Federal Government is upon
    their designation to a Federal Bureau of Prison facility. All
    time prior to that, the cost is borne by the District of
    Columbia.
        Ms. Norton. You mean once they are sentenced?
        Mr. Brown. No, ma'am. Even after the sentencing, the
    District of Columbia continues to absorb the cost of payment
    for the housing of individuals, felons, who have been sentenced
    as felons up until the point in which they are designated to a
    Federal Bureau of Prisons facility.
        Ms. Norton. Is that the case, Mr. Lappin, in States other
    than the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Lappin. That is the practice, that up until the point
    the inmate is designated--so if they are in the jail and they
    have been sentenced, on the day they are designated to a
    Federal prison, we begin paying the next day. And that is
    typical of all the other locations.
        Ms. Norton. So, Mr. Fornaci, the date of the payment, then,
    becomes an issue. I just wanted to clear that up.
        Mr. Fornaci gave really heartbreaking testimony about these
    children. Yes, they are felons who are as far away from home as
    you can be, with a teacher with no information about home. And
    The Washington Post sent a reporter out there a couple of years
    ago just so that the District would have some sense of what it
    meant to have a child so far from home. We don't have any issue
    with people in North Dakota trying to deal with a few kids from
    D.C.
        But could I ask, Mr. Brown, if you have had any discussions
    with the Bureau of Prisons about taking these few kids--it must
    be maybe 10 or 12 kids, if that many--and housing them here in
    the District of Columbia? Have you had such discussions? If you
    have not had such discussions, would you be willing to have
    such discussions with the Bureau of Prisons?
        Mr. Brown. I have had several discussions with the Bureau
    of Prisons, including a brief discussion with Director Lappin
    prior to this hearing.
        Ms. Norton. Could you tell us about that discussion?
        Mr. Brown. Yes. I was approached approximately 2 years ago
    by a Federal Bureau of Prisons official inquiring about the
    possibility of the District continuing to house juveniles who
    had been designated to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to
    continue to house them at our special juvenile unit at the
    correctional treatment facility until such time as they reached
    the age of majority.
        Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Lappin, I appreciate that is an idea
    you have had for some time. I have to ask you, why hasn't that
    idea been acted upon?
        Mr. Lappin. Well, as I understand, the juvenile facility
    here didn't have the room at the time we met with them. Also,
    some concern over the seriousness of the offense behavior of
    some of these juveniles at that facility.
        So you are right, the number here is small. In fact, right
    now we have four. And we would much prefer to have them much
    closer to Washington, DC, if not in Washington, DC, I am open
    to any suggestions. We have been to the State of Pennsylvania,
    Virginia, West Virginia, the District, and, as of yet, no one
    is willing--some of them have pretty good programs, but no one
    is willing to offer up beds.
        Ms. Norton. And here we have, right at home, an offer of
    perhaps beds.
        Mr. Brown, could I ask you, given the fact that these are
    not likely kids who are out at our new facility here, these are
    convicted felons, convicted as juveniles, but they are pretty
    serious crimes, four of them, do you think that you have a
    facility somewhere here in the District of Columbia that could
    take these four kids home at this time?
        Mr. Brown. We would handle it the same way as what we
    proposed to do with the adults.
        What I am referring to is those juveniles who are awaiting
    transfer, they have been convicted, they are awaiting
    designation, that we continue to house them here in the
    District at our juvenile unit until such time as they reach 18
    years of age and they can be placed in an adult Bureau of
    Prisons facility.
        Ms. Norton. All right. Now, this is very important. You
    house them while they are awaiting transfer anyway. I mean, you
    house them until they are transferred to North Dakota or
    wherever they are going to be sent. Is that not the case?
        Mr. Brown. That is the case, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. As with other convicted felons here in the
    District of Columbia. So all you are saying is, since you have
    them anyway, since you have already had to keep them separate
    in a facility based on, among other things, the seriousness of
    the crime, why ship them to North Dakota in the first place? Is
    that the testimony?
        Mr. Lappin. In the past, there has been an issue of space.
        Ms. Norton. Well, you know what? Past is past, and I don't
    want to take time----
        Mr. Lappin. But one other----
        Ms. Norton. I am asking--I can understand, and I am not
    blaming anybody for anything. I am trying to solve a problem,
    Mr. Lappin.
        Mr. Lappin. The other issue has been the availability of
    programs for people who may be in the jail for 2 or 3 years.
        Ms. Norton. Excuse me?
        Mr. Lappin. The availability of programs for those
    juveniles.
        Ms. Norton. Are you kidding? Did you hear Mr. Fornaci say
    that the teacher had to ask for the Yellow Pages just to find
    out which way was up?
        Mr. Fornaci, would you elaborate at what you found at North
    Dakota?
        Mr. Fornaci. Well, I have to say, what I was referring to
    was actually reentry. The program in North Dakota, in fact,
    does have educational services. I think that is what Mr. Lappin
    is referring to.
        Ms. Norton. So you are worried, then, Mr. Lappin, whether
    or not D.C. has the proper education facilities?
        Mr. Lappin. I don't know what they have available. My only
    concern is that sometimes these could be 2-year stays, and I
    think we just need to make sure----
        Ms. Norton. Well, these children could be sentenced at,
    what, 16? What is the youngest age, 16?
        Mr. Lappin. I am not sure. I think it is 15.
        Ms. Norton. Fifteen. It could be 2 years, it could be 3
    years.
        Mr. Lappin. Right.
        Ms. Norton. And that is not at issue here, Mr. Lappin. I am
    trying to find out what can be done.
        Mr. Brown, what is your response about whether or not there
    are the facilities, whether or not, you know, you have them
    anyway, so I assume that you are not letting them sit there
    anyway doing nothing.
        So I am not even sure what Mr. Lappin is talking about. You
    are already providing for these children until they go all the
    way to North Dakota. What more would have to be done to provide
    for these children if you didn't send them to North Dakota in
    the first place?
        Mr. Brown. Ma'am, I would say this: that the D.C.
    Department of Corrections, for the last 4 years, has been the
    best-kept secret, not only in the District of Columbia but
    nationally, in terms of the stellar programming, absolutely
    stellar programming, that has been brought to our jurisdiction,
    particularly as it relates to the juveniles. I invite anyone at
    any time to tour our facility and compare it with any other.
        One of the more critical elements that we provide for our
    juveniles, for the District of Columbia juveniles, is
    education, particularly for special education inmates. There is
    something, as you well know, called an IEP, an individual
    educational plan. It is a legally binding contract between the
    student, his or her parents, and the provider of education.
        Ms. Norton. You have an IEP.
        Mr. Brown. And we absolutely have it. When they go to South
    Dakota or North Dakota, that IEP does not follow them, whereas,
    if they stayed in the District, we would be in adherence to
    that special educational mandate.
        Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Lappin, I respect the fact that the
    Bureau of Prisons has state-of-the-art programs. I have
    witnessed them, and I have always spoken well of them. So I
    would certainly welcome your coming to the District to observe
    Mr. Brown's program to see if it meets your standards.
        But assuming that it does, would you be amenable to having
    these kids, four or five, now incarcerated in North Dakota
    remain in the District of Columbia, complete with their IEPs,
    individual education plans, that it provides closeness to
    parents, preparation if they are about to go over to BOP? Would
    you be amenable to working with Mr. Brown to see that might
    happen in the District of Columbia for these kids?
        Mr. Lappin. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Lappin.
        I am going to go now to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Sawyer, let me ask you, how long have you been out or
    free of any obligation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, Mr. Davis, I returned home on February 9,
    2010, paroled to the Nation's Capital.
        Mr. Davis. So you just got home?
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. Have you found a job yet?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, no, I have not yet found employment. I
    have not found that. But I am in the Opportunity
    Industrialization Center [OIC], which is a job-training
    organization in southeast Washington that are preparing me for
    those job sites and what have you.
        Mr. Davis. What would you consider to be, when you talk
    about re-entry, your greatest need? What will help you feel the
    most like you have re-entered society, you are back in the
    mainstream, you are a regular citizen with the same hopes and
    aspirations and possibilities as any other citizen?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, Mr. Davis, one key point would be the
    stigma of not being looked at as an ex-felon. If that could be
    taken away, that would be fantastic. And, also, the situation
    with employment and housing.
        Mr. Davis. And how does one not be looked at as an ex-
    felon? I mean, if I met you walking down the street, I
    certainly wouldn't have any indication that you were an ex-
    felon.
        Mr. Sawyer. This is true. One thing in particular would be
    the concept of the halfway house in which I am located
    presently, in Hope Village. And when you go out for jobs and
    searching, they have a vocational counselor who calls in to
    verify, and they will state that they are from Hope Village.
    And even though on the resume or application it states, my
    position is don't ask, don't tell. And if the employer does not
    ask the question, then I don't share that with them. But if
    they do, I have no problems with sharing that. But the staff
    tends to share that information with the employers.
        Mr. Davis. Oh, so you are actually in a program, which
    means that you are doing OK because you are on your way. I
    mean, you are in a program, people are working with you, they
    are helping you, you are learning things, you are learning
    where to go, how to go, what to do. So, you are on your way.
    You will be all right.
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, when you say ``all right,'' that is a
    very interesting way of putting it. But the OIC is the basics
    in which they are providing job training. And one thing I do
    know, there are two words that I use, it is ``initiative'' and
    being ``persistent.'' And every day I get up and make it my
    business to go out and to be a part of the OIC operation from 8
    a.m. to 4 p.m., and that is Monday through Friday. But if one
    does not take it upon themselves to take the initiative, then
    if you want to be dormant--nothing is going to come to a
    sleeper but a dream.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you.
        Ms. LaVigne, let me ask you--of course, the Urban Institute
    has been involved with this issue for a long time, a number of
    years, and is recognized as one of the real experts in the
    country relative to it.
        We are making little bits and pieces of progress, I think.
    But what would you consider to be, say, the two major areas
    where we are not making or have not made the kind of progress
    that we need to?
        Ms. LaVigne. There are so many things we could still be
    doing, it is hard to choose just two.
        I do see that, as much as departments of corrections across
    the country are really embracing their role as more than just
    housing people safely and securely but also preparing them for
    release so they don't ultimately return, they are still having
    challenges connecting people to re-entry resources on the
    outside. They do what they can with people behind bars, but
    they are very challenged in making those connections to the
    community.
        In large part, and as I said in my formal testimony, the
    prisons are located in places that are far away from where the
    majority of prisoners end up residing. And that is even more of
    a stark contrast when we are talking about D.C. felons. So I
    think that is a big challenge, is making those connections with
    community service providers.
        The other challenge I see is that a lot of people have
    jumped on the re-entry bandwagon, and that is great, and they
    talk about doing evidence-based practice because they have
    heard that is the thing they are supposed to be doing, but they
    don't really know what that means.
        And so they have a lot of resources that they spread very
    thinly across the inmate population in preparing them for
    release, rather than taking a step back and trying to
    understand better what their needs are, what their risks are,
    and what their assets are, so that they can more tailor re-
    entry services to individual needs and challenges.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, you could talk
    about this all week.
        Ms. Norton. And I must say, Mr. Davis, you have done a
    whole lot more than talk about it for prisoners nationally. And
    we so appreciate your questions.
        Ms. Poteat, first let me say, I understand the hardship
    that CSOSA is under. You technically have jurisdiction for
    these more than 5,000 inmates spread across the United States.
    And you are able to reach very few of them until they land in
    your lap, so to speak.
        You mentioned the--and there are many different kinds of
    innovations--and I say this to Mr. Lappin. They had to figure
    out what to do, too. CSOSA not only had to create itself,
    invent itself from scratch, but then had to figure out how to
    do what it could to serve as many of these inmates as possible.
    And one of the things they came up with was video mentoring.
    And there has been some videoconferencing generally. But that
    is the kind of innovation we are looking for, the kind of sense
    of innovation we are looking for.
        If these people are so far from home, then if we simply
    speak the jargon of the Federal prisons, we show no intention
    to modify and serve the people of the District of Columbia. And
    if you send us back people who recommit crimes, we are going to
    hold the Bureau of Prisons responsible. We are trying to assist
    the Bureau in its mission. And its mission is not only to house
    these inmates; it is to make sure that they successfully re-
    enter and do not disturb the peace in the District of Columbia.
        And we are not convinced that simply treating them as part
    of the vast array of the Federal prison system demography, that
    you can do that if you only think in those terms. You have
    shown that you are willing to think otherwise, and the answers
    when Mr. Brown sat down and you disclosed and he disclosed the
    conversations you are already having.
        I will have less frustration at this hearing if we begin to
    think in those terms. Because as long as you thrust before us
    what you have, you are not showing the problem-solving notions
    that we think hearings are for. Hearings are to solve problems.
    We don't bring you here to say ``gotcha.'' I think your prison
    system is an extraordinary prison system. I just don't think
    that if you continue to treat our folks as if they were like
    Federal prisons, you are doing the best you are capable of
    doing for them.
        Well, here comes CSOSA to say, ``OK, let's try video
    mentoring.'' Well, first of all, how many prisons have you done
    video mentoring in, BOP facilities?
        Ms. Poteat. We are doing it at Rivers Correctional
    Facility, and we are getting ready to extend it to Hazelton.
        Ms. Norton. Let me ask Mr. Lappin. And I don't expect you--
    I know you are talking about facilities all over the country.
    But suppose CSOSA was able to do video mentoring with prisons
    outside of this one that is at least 4 hours from the District.
    I don't have to tell you, going 4 hours coming and 4 hours
    back, I don't know why anybody ever--how anybody from D.C. ever
    gets to Rivers, much less to other prisons.
        But would there be anything to keep video mentoring from
    occurring in other Federal prisons where there are D.C.
    inmates?
        Mr. Lappin. We are more than willing to look at new
    technology that would facilitate the visits.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. That is all I needed to
    know, if you are willing to look at it.
        And, Ms. LaVigne, in the States, in your experience, are
    rehabilitation and re-entry services provided more or less for
    the duration of the prisoners' incarceration?
        Ms. LaVigne. It varies quite a bit by State and even by
    facility within each State. So it is hard to make a blanket
    statement.
        Ms. Norton. Well, if I am in the State of Maryland.
        Ms. LaVigne. Well, I am glad you mentioned that because I
    wanted to share with you: Even before I knew about the
    conversation that Director Brown had had with Mr. Lappin, I was
    sitting here thinking, you know, a compromise might be to do
    what the State of Maryland does, which is something like,
    between 6 and 12 months of a person's release date, people are
    transferred to the Maryland Pre-Release Center in Baltimore to
    be closer to their homes and jobs and services in their
    community.
        So there is a really good example out there of a way in
    which this could work. And, you know----
        Ms. Norton. Something like what Mr. Brown was speaking
    about when he testified, along with the conversation with Mr.
    Lappin.
        Ms. LaVigne. Exactly. So there are examples of that out
    there.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. The State of Maryland has been doing that for at
    least 10 years. I was involved in it, as the Congressman
    indicated. I know it works. The way the model works is very
    similar to what I am proposing, and that is individuals from
    Baltimore, who are placed throughout the Maryland system, when
    they are about 120 days out from their release, they are
    transitioned--and that is what it is called, a transition
    center--back to Baltimore, their home, that is where they
    reside, to receive wraparound services, from parole and
    probation, from the community, from the churches--the very
    model that I am asking.
        And I am very pleased--I want to make it clear that
    Director Lappin has been open in his discussions with me. He
    has indicated quite correctly, as any director would, that we
    have to talk in terms of logistics, just what would this
    involve. And we are at the early stages of the discussion. He
    has not rejected, in any sense, being willing to explore.
        Ms. Norton. We are here only testing feasibility. I very
    much appreciate your reference to Maryland.
        After discussing this innovation, Ms. Poteat, you say you
    suspended video mentoring in 2007, the demand for mentors,
    because you were doing community-based mentoring. And then you
    say that substantially increased demand for mentors and quickly
    exhausted the available pool. You are now going back to video
    mentoring?
        Ms. Poteat. Yes. We had about 200-and-some mentor and
    mentee matches in about 85 institutions. Well, you know, after
    a while, the mentor pool exhausts itself. And so the Community
    Justice Program--in fact, Jasper Ormond, who is here, is
    constantly continuing, trying to recruit more mentors and
    institutions so that we will have more to engage in this
    process.
        Ms. Norton. It does seem to me, with the discussions that
    Mr. Brown is having with Mr. Lappin, what Ms. LaVigne says
    about what happens in Maryland, which sounds like it is old-
    hat, it sounds like state-of-the-art penology where it is
    possible. It is not possible for Mr. Lappin to do this within
    the system if the system doesn't accommodate the needs of this
    State population. But if we begin to think more broadly and
    more flexibly, it does look like there are things that we can
    do even now, even with no new prison or any close prison to the
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. Fornaci, very disturbing in your testimony was
    something that the Revitalization Act created that is a dead
    letter, it would seem, the Corrections Information Council. It
    was supposed to be a three-member voluntary body--I have no
    idea what ``voluntary body'' refers to--to provide the BOP with
    advice and information regarding matters affecting the District
    of Columbia sentenced felon population.
        Then you say on page 3 that the CIC, this Corrections
    Information Council, has never visited any BOP facility to
    examine conditions or to interview D.C. prisoners--and here is
    the operative part--in part because there has never been a
    memorandum of understanding with BOP.
        You say the District government has failed, also, to
    appoint any members of the CIC since 2004, which means at least
    they had some members before, with last terms expiring in 2006.
    Shame on us.
        But, first, let me understand about this so-called
    memorandum of understanding with BOP.
        Mr. Fornaci. There had been negotiations, is my
    understanding--this was a little bit before my experience--with
    the CIC. They had negotiations with the Bureau of Prisons, and
    there had been discussions, but no agreement was actually
    reached.
        Ms. Norton. Well, let's ask Mr. Lappin, because he is the
    man in charge here at the BOP.
        What would be the difficulty in getting a memorandum of
    understanding so that these people could assist you in matters
    affecting the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Lappin. I am more than happy to sit down with whoever
    is appointed and finish. Because I have, in fact, here a draft
    memorandum from 2004.
        Ms. Norton. You are ready to go with the District.
        Mr. Lappin. Absolutely.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lappin. When we have appointed candidates, we will sit
    down with them and try to finish the memorandum and get it in
    place.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        It does look like the onus is on the District of Columbia.
    Is anybody here from the District of Columbia? You see the
    disconnect between the District of Columbia. There should at
    least have been somebody here from the District of Columbia.
    Now, we didn't notify the District of Columbia, but one of the
    things we have to do is to reconnect to the District of
    Columbia.
        You can see why the disconnect would occur. The District of
    Columbia said, ``Take this package off of us. We can't pay for
    it.'' The District had good reason to do that. It was carrying
    a State function that no city in the United States carries,
    State prisons. And of course it wasn't funding them. The last
    thing to get funded was Lorton.
        Well, when you go to a Federal--to become essentially a
    part of a Federal agency, unless somebody is trying very hard
    in the District of Columbia, you say, well, you know, that is
    off my plate now. So one of our missions, along with yours, is
    to reconnect the District of Columbia, because I have every
    reason to believe the District of Columbia wants to be
    reconnected. So we are going to take that on, as well, Mr.
    Lappin, and I appreciate your testimony in that regard.
        It is important to clarify, Mr. Fornaci, what you said
    about--in another part of your testimony. Very disturbing to
    hear that, 2008, 1,700 people were sent to BOP on parole
    revocations, overwhelmingly technical or administrative in
    nature, no new criminal behavior.
        No wonder you are overcrowded, Mr. Lappin.
        Now, we are working with the parole board. Mr. Fornaci,
    what do you think could be done about these people being sent
    away on technical and administrative violations? Is this a
    problem coming from their re-entry, or is there a change in
    regulations or law required here?
        Mr. Fornaci. Well, I think there are a couple issues.
        One of the problems is, the law does not permit the
    District of Columbia to change its own parole laws at this
    point. It is not permitted to make any changes in its laws
    regarding parole without the consent of the United States----
        Ms. Norton. Well, that, Mr. Fornaci, I can understand your
    frustration, but you have here overlapping jurisdiction. Here,
    the parole board is a Federal board. This is Mr. Lappin's
    challenge, too. You can't say, take these people into Federal
    custody, and not treat them in any way as if they are within a
    Federal agency.
        Mr. Fornaci. Certainly. And I certainly understand that. My
    point really is that, for instance, if the District of Columbia
    council decided that technical violations--that is, positive
    urine sample for marijuana or missing appointments with a
    parole officer--should not result in incarceration but instead
    some other alternative----
        Ms. Norton. Well, District government wouldn't have to
    decide that. Couldn't the parole board decide that?
        Mr. Fornaci. But that would be a non-district agency, and
    that has not been the U.S. Parole Commission's inclination to
    do that.
        Ms. Norton. Well, the U.S. Parole Commission--I beg to
    differ--has a new chairman, a former police chief of the
    District of Columbia, who has, in fact, begun even before he
    was named chairman of the board by President Obama, when he was
    a member of the commission has, in fact, begun to use methods
    other than putting someone right back in prison for a technical
    violation.
        Ms. Poteat, are you aware of some of what the man I still
    call Chief Fulwood is doing at the U.S. Parole Board?
        Ms. Poteat. Yes.
        And I would like to speak to Mr. Fornaci's remarks. Just so
    that he will know, in a testimony prior to this we talked about
    a new venture that Court Services has taken on, and that is
    dealing with our technical violators who have substance abuse
    and new criminal charges that are minor, Category 1 or Category
    2. And we have placed them in the correctional treatment
    facility for 180 days. And they do not face revocation if they
    complete the program; they are returned to the community.
        It is only in a pilot stage. It is only 32 beds, that
    hopefully we plan to expand to 96 beds. And this is also in
    collaboration with the U.S. Parole Commission, the Public
    Defender Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and D.C. Department of
    Corrections. So that is one of the things.
        The other thing is that we are still working on the
    sanctions matrix to identify and make sure that all of us,
    including the courts, are in agreement with the sanctions to
    make sure all of them have been applied before we ask for
    revocation for the D.C. prisoners.
        Ms. Norton. This of course is not what Ms. Poteat is
    saying. Some of it is pilot. It's not all well known. But it
    does show the kind of innovation that it's going to take if we
    are going to have State prisoners in this Federal system. And
    the reason I don't want to go to the City Council and then go
    to this is because I think most of what we're discussing here
    today can be done with administrative innovation without
    changes in law and getting all bollixed up in who has
    jurisdiction and whatever.
        Look, D.C. has said you all got jurisdiction. We don't want
    to pay for these prisoners. Whenever I've asked the D.C.
    Council to do anything, as I did, Mr. Lappin will remember, as
    we had to do with the state-of-the-art drug program, the
    problem was on the D.C. side. D.C. did it instantly. This is an
    administrative problem. Mr. Lappin has shown an extraordinary
    ability to deal administratively with the problems we've
    brought to his attention, and the testimony here has been very
    encouraging.
        Mr. Fornaci, you talk about the release of prisoners from
    the Sellmon case.
        Mr. Fornaci. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Would you elaborate on what that means for
    reentry and what the Sellmon case, Sellmon v. Reilly means for
    the Bureau of Prisons and for the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Fornaci. Certainly. Sellmon v. Reilly was decided in
    2008, when the District Court found that the U.S. Parole
    Commission was using the wrong standards in determining who
    should be paroled. So that was changed. And as a result,
    throughout 2009 and early 2010, the U.S. Parole Commission,
    through extreme pressure, has agreed to a lot of remedial
    hearings for people to release them. This is an approximately
    600 to 700 extra hearings were held in about a 3 or 4-month
    span, the end of 2009, early 2010. And that was in fact when
    Mr. Sawyer was released. These folks have all been held at
    least 12 years and as many as 25 years, the folks affected by
    the Sellmon decision. So they're all long-term prisoners. And
    with the impact as is happening now, it's about a 50 percent or
    so increase in releases for about 6 to 8 months this year and
    tapering off. There will still be more in the future affected
    by this decision, but the larger number is this year.
        Mr. Norton. And so these people are coming straight out as
    a result of these hearings?
        Mr. Fornaci. Through the normal process. They're going to
    the halfway houses or----
        Ms. Norton. Yes. They will come out from wherever they
    happen to be located?
        Mr. Fornaci. Yes. And it's important to realize also that
    the regulations under which they're being released they have
    been found through evidence of rehabilitation. There have no
    disciplinary problems, no disciplinary issues, they have been
    in programming. So they've been ruled by the Commission to be a
    safe release. So they're not representing a danger of any kind.
        Ms. Norton. Because if they're not a safe release then
    they're not released under this program, under Sellmon?
        Mr. Fornaci. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, Ms. Poteat.
        Ms. Poteat. We did a profile for all of the cases so we
    wanted to be proactive in that in working with the Bureau of
    Prisons so we'll know who exactly is coming out and if you'd
    like I can just give you a quick overview of what we have.
        The average age for this population is 43. 10 percent of
    them are age 56 or older. The youngest person is 30 years of
    age. 56 percent of them will have less than a high school
    diploma or GED. 73 percent of them are unemployed. 50 percent
    have very limited employment opportunities. 30 percent are in
    need of stable housing. 83 percent of them have a history of
    some type of violence. 38 percent have a history of property
    crimes. 34 have a history of drug-related crimes, and 24
    percent have a history of weapon offenses. And then 66 percent
    have a history of illicit drug usage, mostly marijuana,
    cocaine, and PCP. 34 percent have a history of alcohol use, and
    9 percent have a need for behavior health services. 60 percent
    report having children and 9 or 10 of them are dependent
    children. 12 percent of them reported children living in the
    same household.
        So we wanted to get some kind of profiles to see what we
    needed, the services we needed to provide for them once they
    are released.
        Ms. Norton. Very useful. You see what we're talking about.
    We're talking about older prisoners, not particularly prepared
    to get out, thought they were going to be in longer, BOP had
    every reason to think they would be in longer. They're going to
    come home with very little preparation. And of course your
    profile points up what Mr. Lappin has absorbed.
        These are local street criminals. These do not fit the
    profile of your average Federal prisoner. Yes, there are some
    street criminals in Federal prison. But these fit much more the
    profile of Los Angeles State prison, Maryland State prison, New
    York State prison than they do your average Federal prison.
        And when these prisoners are mixed in with other prisoners
    there have been reports that there have been disturbances and
    problems, have there not, Mr. Lappin, of placing these
    prisoners of this profile? You heard 80 some percent have
    weapons offenses. I mean, these are not folks just toting some
    drugs, Mr. Lappin. These are honest to goodness folks who got
    in some big trouble in the District of Columbia. You just mix
    them in with folks in Federal prisons of various types, and you
    sometimes have had problems with that in your prisons, with the
    result that you transfer out folks all around the country.
    Isn't that so?
        Mr. Lappin. It is to some degree, although over the last 20
    years we have acquired a much more violent offender of our own
    with the passage of the Federal drug laws, the firearms
    violations. The classification system should put them in
    prisons with like inmates.
        So again, it is true that we've had some disturbances, some
    problems. I can't say it's unique just to the D.C. inmates. We
    have other groups that have been problematic, whether they're
    Caucasian groups or Hispanic groups alike. So it's a
    combination.
        Ms. Norton. I understand, sir. I understand. I can tell you
    this. I think that the Bureau of Prisons, given it's long
    history, it's effective history I might add, in this country,
    if we challenge the Bureau of Prisons to house D.C. inmates in
    a prison, to segregate them accordingly, and to deal with them
    as a State prison system within the Federal system, given your
    long record of success in state-of-the-art technology, whether
    you think you could do it, I think your record speaks for
    itself and that it could be done.
        Now, I want to put on the record who these two men are who
    have agreed to come and testify because we didn't just want
    them to testify thirdhand. They have experience that needs to
    be on the record. Let's start with Mr. Cook.
        Mr. Cook, you live in the District. How old are you?
        Mr. Cook. Thirty-nine.
        Ms. Norton. When were you released from what prison? What
    prison were you released from to come home?
        Mr. Cook. Cumberland, MD.
        Ms. Norton. From Cumberland, MD?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. How many years have you spent in prison?
        Mr. Cook. Eight.
        Ms. Norton. Eight of your 39 years. Who do you live with in
    the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Cook. My sister.
        Ms. Norton. You're very fortunate that you have a relative.
        What was your last job? What kind of work were you doing?
    Do you remember?
        Mr. Cook. Yeah, it was--I was working--at the time it was
    called the MCI Center.
        Ms. Norton. What were you doing?
        Mr. Cook. It was janitorial work.
        Ms. Norton. Do you have any children?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. How many prisons have you been in in the Bureau
    of Prisons?
        Mr. Cook. Five.
        Ms. Norton. Five prisons in a term of how many years, Mr.
    Cook? How many years were you in the Bureau of Prisons?
        Mr. Cook. 8.
        Ms. Norton. So five prisons in 8 years. What was your first
    contact with your family? Was it when you were home for the
    first time or did you have some kind of, like, physical contact
    with somebody coming to see you? Did people come to Cumberland
    to see you?
        Mr. Cook. Yeah.
        Ms. Norton. Were they more likely to come to Cumberland
    than when you were at the other four places you were?
        Mr. Cook. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Did that help your reentry? Did it help you to
    get used to being home and to prepare to come home, to see
    someone, to have some contact with family?
        Mr. Cook. No.
        Ms. Norton. Why not?
        Mr. Cook. Because what drove me is I wanted to be home
    myself. But it was a plus to have them to come down there. But
    after a while you start looking at things. We much older, so
    they can only do but so much. Everything else falls on us.
        Ms. Norton. Do you receive services, Mr. Cook? Now that
    you're home from court services, CSOSA or from the District of
    Columbia or any services at all?
        Mr. Cook. No. As far as, you mean, as far as my supervision
    or something?
        Ms. Norton. No. Anybody helping, any services to help you
    find a job? Do the people who render supervision help you in
    any way?
        Mr. Cook. Well, they put me in programs, as far as, you
    know, outreach programs and stuff. But most times I do it
    myself.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Cook, what were you sent to prison for?
    What was the offense?
        Mr. Cook. Robbery.
        Ms. Norton. Robbery.
        Mr. Sawyer.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. What was the offense for which you did time,
    and how much time did you do?
        Mr. Sawyer. Murder One; 25 years, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. How many prisons were you, in your 25 years,
    how many prisons of the BOP? Were you in Lorton first?
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Once you were transferred from Lorton to the
    Bureau of Prisons, how many Bureau of Prisons were you in?
        Mr. Sawyer. Two.
        Ms. Norton. And what were they?
        Mr. Sawyer. In 2002, U.S. penitentiary in Lee County,
    Jonesville, VA, and in November 2007, the Federal correctional
    institution in Allenwood in White Deer, PA.
        Ms. Norton. Are you now at Hope Village?
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. This is a halfway house?
        Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. Of the Bureau of Prisons----
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. How old are you, Mr. Sawyer?
        Mr. Sawyer. Forty-nine, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Now, you are one of the so-called Sellmon cases
    that Mr. Fornaci testified about.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Did you expect to be released when you were? In
    other words, along comes this District Court decision. Who
    informed you that you might be subject to release?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, Madam, this was my rehearing. In December
    2005, I went up for my initial, and at that time I was given a
    36-month set-off. And December 2008 was my rehearing. And it
    didn't occur until April 2009.
        Ms. Norton. Well, that's--you had to have two hearings.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Why were two hearings necessary, Mr. Sawyer?
        Mr. Sawyer. For the first one it was denied parole because
    of the ceiling factor.
        Ms. Norton. Because of the what?
        Mr. Sawyer. The ceiling factor, in which the number of
    months that I had not served based on the U.S. Parole
    Commission's guidelines versus the D.C. Parole Board's
    guidelines.
        Ms. Norton. But upon rehearing----
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton [continuing]. It was decided that you were
    eligible for release.
        Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. How much sooner were you released than you
    expected?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, I had initiated the thought of going home
    in my first hearing.
        Ms. Norton. No, I'm sorry. Before the Sellmon case. Were
    you sentenced to 25 years?
        Mr. Sawyer. No, I was sentenced to 22 years, 4 months to
    life.
        Ms. Norton. Twenty-two years, 4 months to life.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. All right. So you did not expect, whether the
    first hearing or the second hearing, to be out of prison when
    you were released; is that right?
        Mr. Sawyer. Oh, no, ma'am. I expected it.
        Ms. Norton. You did expect it?
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am. Most definitely.
        Ms. Norton. Why did you expect it? The Sellmon case came
    along making it possible for you to come out earlier than might
    otherwise have occurred, is that not true?
        Mr. Sawyer. Well, Madam, according to what I was asked to
    do, and to program to stay disciplinary free, and in my 25
    years I have done just that, and based on the first hearing,
    all that was in place, recommendations and persons who spoke on
    my behalf, it was expected that parole would be granted, but it
    wasn't.
        Ms. Norton. Based on your good conduct, the way you
    conducted yourself as a man in that prison?
        Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. Sir----
        Mr. Sawyer. Ma'am.
        Ms. Norton [continuing]. Did you have contact with your
    family while, at any time when were you at the Bureau of
    Prisons facilities.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am. I had family visits, not often, but
    at the U.S. penitentiary in Lee County, for it took them 13 to
    14 hours to come from the Nation's Capital to Jonesville, VA,
    and they would travel overnight on a bus excursion where one of
    the gentleman in our prisons would run a bus service once or
    twice, maybe four times a year, and they would run a bus and
    they would stay overnight, come, leave that Friday night, stay
    all day Saturday, go to the hotel, come back on Sunday, spend
    time with the gentlemen who were in prison and then travel back
    to the Nation's Capital on Sunday night and return.
        Ms. Norton. Have mercy. Who was kind enough to conduct that
    bus service? Was that you, Mr. Lappin? Was it CSOSA?
        Mr. Lappin. No, not us.
        Ms. Poteat. No, ma'am.
        Mr. Sawyer. This was a private entity.
        Ms. Norton. That was doing this in order to enable these
    families?
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. And of course they have to pay to go on this,
    somebody had to pay for it?
        Mr. Sawyer. No more than $45 to $50.
        Ms. Norton. No more than $45 to $50 and 13 or 14 hours to
    see a loved one. There was some loving members of that family.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. You were fortunate, indeed, given that kind of
    long trip. When I went to Rivers, that was 4 hours each way. I
    thought I would kill myself before I got back. Riding along
    those roads in a van that I very much appreciate that the
    Bureau of Prisons provided it, but the distance made me wonder
    for the parents, no matter how, or relatives, no matter how it
    was facilitated for them to get there. It's an exhausting trip
    to come so far.
        Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Now you have services provided by, such as are
    available of course at Hope Village. Was there any preparation
    provided, any services provided to prepare you to come home
    during the months before you were released?
        Mr. Sawyer. No more than I secured for myself.
        Ms. Norton. Meaning?
        Mr. Sawyer. The letters that I've written to organizations
    here, faith-based reentry, those type of letters to those
    organizations and having those persons write back.
        Ms. Norton. But nothing like you've heard testified that
    Mr. Brown did when he served in the State of Maryland and the
    prisoners were brought from Maryland, brought to Baltimore for
    reentry for several months before they came home; nothing like
    that was done for you?
        Mr. Sawyer. No, ma'am. And it would be welcome if it would
    have been.
        Ms. Norton. Nor did you have access to the Court Services,
    CSOSA as we call it, at all in any way?
        Mr. Sawyer. Only with the letter writing campaign, and I
    did write to the faith-based mentoring initiatives, and Mrs.
    Christine Keels returned my letter and we had dialog once or
    twice by letter. And when I returned home I did contact her,
    and she and I have been in contact ever since.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, you are both very
    motivated men. And we find that when people arrive their
    motivation is at a very high level. And if it's at a high level
    when they arrive in D.C., we cannot imagine how much good would
    be done if we had something like what Mr. Brown is talking
    about so that a few months beforehand, instead of slapping you
    right back in the midst of your hometown, you had some
    preparation.
        Your testimony has been invaluable. It has helped. I think
    Mr. Lappin learned more about what happens. After all, he has
    responsibility for many thousands more who have nothing to do
    with the District of Columbia and we're putting a very special
    burden on him. To have Mr. Brown fortuitously here, we're so
    pleased, Mr. Brown, that although you were not invited to this
    hearing because it was about Federal matters, that you were
    interested enough to come, because it turns out that you have
    helped us in some considerable ways to move forward so this
    hearing is not just about talk, but about accomplishing
    something.
        The testimony of each of you has been invaluable by--almost
    inevitably the official witnesses get most of the questions
    because they are the people who are responsible. But all of you
    have offered testimony that has been indispensable to our
    understanding of what is possible and how to make this system
    work within the confines that Mr. Lappin must address.
        I repeat, we're not seeking release from the Federal prison
    system. We have great respect for the Federal prison system.
    Even in my opening testimony, where I talked about where the
    Federal prison system isn't preparing the vocational programs,
    which I happen to have seen and appreciate, they're all state-
    of-the-art programs. You have to understand what BOP does. It
    doesn't just smack a program down. It then tests it and retests
    it. It keeps valuable statistics. These people know what
    they're doing. Yes, they couldn't possibly have a vocational
    program in there to match the District of Columbia. What are
    our industries? Tourism, hospitals, the Verizon kinds of job
    that Mr. Cook had. We can't expect Mr. Lappin to reorient
    vocation in the prison system. But what we can do is bring the
    District to Mr. Lappin. We don't want to revolutionize his
    system. We want to work within his system. But we want to work
    within his system as a State system that must, in fact, report
    ultimately to the District of Columbia, its residents and its
    officials who will be responsible if these two men, extremely
    motivated, do not have the preparation necessary for them to
    come home and do what they clearly want to do now, which is
    live law abiding lives.
        This subcommittee, and I can assure you that this chairman
    who has taken great leadership on law enforcement issues since
    he's chaired this committee, I can assure you you will have the
    greatest cooperation from this subcommittee and the full
    committee, if we, in fact, do what the committee believes must
    be done, adapt, be flexible, accommodate us, facilitate us
    within that system for the greater good of our inmates and
    their families and especially the greater good of the residents
    of the District of Columbia.
        This has been a very fruitful, a very useful hearing to
    this subcommittee. Mr. Lappin and Mr. Brown, you are to report
    on your progress on your discussions--we don't expect
    everything to be wrapped up in a neat package, Mr. Lappin, but
    your progress within 30 days to the chairman of this committee.
    Please feel free to have discussions as well with Ms. Poteat
    and CSOSA and others who have served on this panel. The
    subcommittee cannot thank you enough for your indispensable and
    invaluable testimony.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]