[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECOND CHANCE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-154
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-479 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 THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas
JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
TED DEUTCH, Florida TOM ROONEY, Florida
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
JARED POLIS, Colorado
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York TED POE, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TOM ROONEY, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED DEUTCH, Florida
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 2
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 4
WITNESSES
Ms. Le'Ann Duran, Director, National Reentry Resource Center,
Council of State Governments, New York, NY
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Ms. Michele Banks, Richmond Second Chance Reentry Program
Manager, Richmond City Sheriff's Office, Richmond, VA
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Ms. Nancy G. La Vigne, Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban
Institute, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
Mr. David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
Ms. Gladyse Taylor, Acting Director, Illinois Department of
Corrections, Chicago, IL
Oral Testimony................................................. 60
Prepared Statement............................................. 61
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 5
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Nancy La Vigne, Director,
Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC..... 78
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
SECOND CHANCE ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m., in
room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, and Gohmert.
Also Present: Representative Davis of Illinois.
Staff Present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief
Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Keenan Keller, Counsel;
Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) Kimani
Little, Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Legislative Assistant.
Mr. Scott. Good afternoon. Welcome to the oversight hearing
on Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act.
In April, 2008, the historic Second Chance Act was signed
into law. It authorized Federal grants to government agencies
and non-profit organizations in order to better address the
needs of the growing population of ex-offenders returning to
our community.
Although the 2-year authorization for the Second Chance Act
will expire on September 30, there are still grant funds that
were appropriated under the original authorization that the
Department of Justice will award over the next year.
As Congress continues to evaluate and implement the Second
Chance Act, today's hearing will examine some of the programs
that have been funded under the law. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 more than 7.3 million
people were on probation or parole or in prison, which equals
3.2 percent or one in every 31 adults. This is the highest rate
in the world. The number of prisoners have quadrupled over the
past two decades to more than 2.3 million, and the number of
adults under the criminal justice system through parole and
probation agencies has more than tripled, to more than 5
million.
The growth of the incarcerated population has resulted in
over 700,000 people being released from prisons and jails every
year. These people must successfully reintegrate in our society
or be at risk of going back to prison. The bipartisan Second
Chance Act was established to provide resources to local
communities to help former offenders transition back to their
communities.
Today we will hear about a program in the Richmond Virginia
Sheriffs Office funded by the Second Chance Act that provides
wraparound services, including substance abuse treatment,
education, employment readiness, and life skills to people
returning home from jail. This program serves up to 50
participants and assists them in successfully reuniting with
their community or otherwise improving their lives.
One of the problems we have with the Second Chance Act
programs is that funding of the programs has not been made
available long enough for the programs to show enough activity
and results to credibly evaluate their impact. Moreover, with a
2-year authorization period, the Act's reauthorization is about
to expire before there is sufficient basis to evaluate its
impact in the normal way we do it. But we know there are
reentry programs across the country that are successful in
stopping the cycle of incarceration. So I hope that we can
provide for a longer period for evaluation for the next
reauthorization.
The reentry programs funded by the Department of Justice
prior to funding being made available under the Second Chance
Act does give us a basis for evaluation, except that we had a
July Department of Justice Inspector General's audit report
that found that, while DOJ has apparently established
appropriate procedures for oversight and evaluation for Second
Chance Act grants, it did criticize DOJ oversight of prisoner
reentry programs that were established prior to the Second
Chance Act.
Although this report found flaws in the Department's design
and performance measures of the Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative and its Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the
audit was clear about the fact that these problems were being
addressed in the context of the Second Chance Initiative.
Several of the today's witnesses will discuss reentry
programs funded by the Second Chance Act that are making great
progress in keeping former offenders from returning to prison.
Another of today's witnesses will discuss the audit and how the
Department of Justice has responded to those criticisms. I look
forward to hearing more from our witnesses about the good work
that is being done with the Second Chance Act funding, and I
would like to hear how we can improve the Second Chance Act
during this reauthorization process to provide more
opportunities for the rehabilitation of offenders.
We have several witnesses today, but, before I introduce
them, I will yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing does focus on reauthorization of the Second
Chance Act signed into law by President Bush on April 9, 2008.
The goal of the legislation was to provide Federal assistance
to help State and local governments implement programs to ease
the transition of offenders from prison back to the community.
The Act authorizes up to $330 million for prison reentry
programs during fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
Reentry programs are essential in assisting the nearly
700,000 individuals who are released from incarceration each
year. Studies show that, unfortunately, about two-thirds of
these ex-offenders will recidivate within 3 years. Higher
recidivism rates not only decrease the safety of the
neighborhoods affected by the crime but also increase
government expenditures on prisons and criminal justice
systems.
To combat recidivism, the Second Chance Act authorizes the
Department of Justice to provide Federal grants to State and
local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to
provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment,
housing, family programming, rendering victim support and other
services that can help reduce recidivism.
When we debated the Second Chance Act of 2007 in the last
Congress, I supported including a provision to fund faith-based
initiatives because of their proven success and cost
efficiency. Faith-based programs are frequently less expensive
than other reintegration initiatives.
Further, faith-based prisoner rehabilitation and post-
relief programs have proven successful in reducing the
likelihood that a prisoner will reoffend. In a previous hearing
on the collateral consequences of incarceration, one witness
noted that some faith-based groups have created reentry
programs that reduce recidivism among its participants by over
50 percent.
As Federal deficits continue to skyrocket, Congress needs
to continue to identify successful programs as we cannot afford
to just fund programs blindly, especially if they only provide
mediocre results. As Congress considers whether to reauthorize
the Second Chance Act, we need to gather as much information as
possible to ensure that the prisoner reentry programs funded by
the DOJ actually result in the goal of reducing recidivism.
Unfortunately, we do not have very much information about
whether these programs reduce recidivism, because many reentry
grant recipients are not closely monitored by the DOJ.
In July of this year, the DOJ Inspector General released a
report concluding that the Department did not establish an
effective system for monitoring recipients of grants made under
the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and the
Prisoner Reentry Initiative, two programs that were precursors
to the Second Chance Act. The audit did not find specific flaws
with the Second Chance Act reentry grant programs because its
audit only covered programs funded from 2002 to 2009.
That said, other observers have not been able to fully
evaluate the Second Chance Act programs as the programs are
still very new. There has not been sufficient time to examine
and evaluate the programs for effectiveness. However, the
Second Chance Act does not require grant recipients to track
and report baseline and ongoing recidivism data. As we consider
reauthorizing these programs, Congress should contemplate
including directives to the DOJ to collect this information and
improve its monitoring of reentry grants.
Lastly, I understand that some proponents of the Second
Chance Act are not only actively seeking its reactivation but
also pushing for an expansion of the reentry programs funded by
DOJ. At this time of economic hardship, it is not prudent to
expand these programs to increase their level of authorization,
especially considering their effectiveness has not been yet
proven.
As a former State judge, I strongly support efforts to
reduce recidivism by assisting ex-convicts in their reentry
into communities. However, we can no longer afford to wantonly
spend Federal money on programs that may or may not be
inefficient and ineffective.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to develop a sensible, cost-efficient Federal
policy to reduce recidivism and to improve ex-convict
reintegration into communities and families.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. This
is an important topic regarding the safety of our country. So I
look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony and yield back
my time.
Mr. Scott. We are joined by the Chairman of the full
Committee, a strong supporter of the Second Chance Act, Mr.
Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like my statement to be put into the record.
Mr. Scott. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Conyers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Then I would just like to talk about the
environment in which this bill was brought forward and created.
And the whole theme under it is that people with different
views can work together.
Look, when Conyers and George Bush can land on the same
subject, when Judge Gohmert and Bobby Scott can land on the
same subject, when Danny Davis and Rob Portman can land on the
same subject, this illustrates that there may be other areas
that we may be able to come together on.
One of them is the Performance Rights Bill which I have a
number of conservative members working with me on. And this is
heartening because, well, I was just asked on the floor during
the last series of votes by--I'm pretty sure she was a freshman
Member--and she said, have you ever seen it so partisan since
you've been here? And I said the short answer is yes. And I'm
amazed when people say the atmosphere has never been so
vitriolic.
Look, when I came here, Strom Thurman and Bilbo--there was
a long list of people who--there was no chance of us talking to
even see if we could come together. There was very serious
divisions. And I say that not to make it seem that it is okay
for what is going on now but to say that the nature of the
political process is that there are sharp divisions and
certain--some individuals go to different ways to express the
strongness of their convictions that are held.
So what this bill represents is the combined thinking of
moderates, conservatives, and liberals together. And it is
probably to the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee
that much of that emanated from.
Sure, I was surprised on April 9, 2008, in the White House
when President George W. Bush signed this bill into law. And he
was unreservedly enthusiastic about it. And I was just as
surprised that he was enthusiastic as he was enthusiastic about
it.
So I think that is a very important backdrop on the work
that Danny Davis and Rob Portman began. We have come a long way
on a very important subject.
So I will return the balance of my time.
I will yield to the judge.
Mr. Gohmert. I have been asked that question, too: Have you
ever seen things so vicious between parties?
I explain historically around the 1800's there was one
senator that called the other liar. And that one spit on the
one who called him a liar and whacked him with his cane. The
one that got whacked went over and got fire tongs and they beat
each other and eventually were broken up.
And then of course Senator Sumner on the floor of the
Senate was nearly beaten to death with a cane. Senator Sam
Houston was involved in a caning for a guy that called him a
thief and liar or fraud.
I tell people, we haven't had a good caning since I've been
here. So, as bad as it has been here recently, it is not as bad
as it was historically, and it will always be a pleasure and an
honor to serve with you.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. I will have to make a note of all of these
incidents. I didn't know anybody was keeping track. Very good.
Thank you, Judge Gohmert.
Mr. Scott. We have several witnesses to help us consider
the issues today.
Our first witness is Le'Ann Duran, who is the reentry
project director for the Council of State Governments and the
Justice Center. She oversees efforts at the Council of State
Governments to improve the likelihood that people's transition
from prison to the community are safe and successful. In this
capacity, she manages the National Reentry Resource Center,
which is funded by a Second Chance Act grants.
After she has testified, our next witness will be Michele
Banks from the Richmond Second Chance Reentry System. She is
the grant manager for the City of Richmond, Virginia. In
addition to managing a diverse grant portfolio, she also writes
and administers grants from a variety of funders for the City
of Richmond. We are delighted to have you here, and
particularly I look forward to your testimony on what the
sheriff has been doing on behalf of reducing recidivism.
Next will be Nancy La Vigne, who is the director of the
Justice Policy Center of the Urban Institute, where she leads a
staff of over 30 researchers and oversees a research portfolio
of more than three dozen active projects spanning a wide array
of crime, justice, and public safety topics. Before being
appointed as director, she served as senior research associate
at the Urban Institute, directing projects on prisoner reentry,
crime prevention, and the evaluation of criminal justice
technologies.
Next witness will be David Muhlhausen, who is a leading
expert on criminal justice programs in the Heritage
Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. A senior policy analyst
at Heritage, he has testified frequently before Congress on the
efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement grants
administered by the Department of Justice.
Our final witness will be Gladyse Taylor, the acting
director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. She has
been involved in all areas of the Department of Corrections
policy, procedure, and operations. She left the Department in
2005 for a position in the Governor's Office of Management and
Budget where she served as deputy director. She returned to the
Department in February as chief fiscal officer and director of
the Public Safety Shared Services Center before being appointed
as acting director.
Each of our witnesses' written statements will be entered
in the record in its entirety. I ask the witnesses to summarize
your testimony in 5 minutes or less; and to help stay within
that time there is a timing device before you that will start
green, change to yellow when you have 1 minute remaining, and
change to red when your time has expired.
Ms. Duran.
TESTIMONY OF LE'ANN DURAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REENTRY RESOURCE
CENTER, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, NEW YORK, NY
Ms. Duran. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Gohmert, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing
on the Second Chance Act.
My name is Le'Ann Duran. I am the director of the National
Reentry Resource Center. When the Second Chance Act was passed
in 2008, I had been working for 5 years to design and implement
a comprehensive reentry effort called the Michigan Prisoner
Reentry Initiative.
Second Chance came at a critical time in Michigan's work.
For the first time, there was Federal legislation and a clear
message from Congress that improving reentry policy and
practice is vital to public safety. This message fueled public
and legislative support for Michigan's reentry initiative,
which enhanced public safety by reducing recidivism and
ultimately allowed the State to reduce its prison population by
12 percent, saving an estimated $900 million. The establishment
of a National Reentry Resource Center was an important step to
advance the reentry field.
Congress and the Bureau of Justice Assistance are
strengthening government, community, and faith-based
organizations receiving Federal funds to ensure the most
effective use of those investments.
Following a highly competitive process, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance awarded the contract for the National
Reentry Resource Center to the Council of State Governments
Justice Center.
We have learned a great deal from our work with Second
Chance grantees, though it is still very early in the process.
Second Chance Act programs have been incredibly popular. In
the first year of the program, over 950 applicants applied for
Second Chance funding. Of those applications, 67 grantees were
funded across 31 States. This demand establishes the Second
Chance Act as one of the most competitive justice programs with
only a 7 percent funding rate in the first year. Over 170 2010
awards were announced this week, representing the best of
almost 1,000 applications. The demand for continued and
expanded funding is strong.
Two types of grant programs were funded in 2009. The first
category, demonstration projects, was for State, local, and
tribal governments interested in advancing their reentry
initiatives. For example, the Florida Department of Corrections
is partnering with the City of Jacksonville to implement a
comprehensive reentry model designed to reduce the risk of men
and women returning to Jacksonville.
The second program category, mentor grants, is available to
nonprofit organizations to advance their pro-social support
efforts. In Texas, Volunteers of America is using their grant
to implement a new reentry initiative targeting incarcerated
mothers and will provide mentoring and family case management
services to improve the outcomes of these moms and their
children.
The resource center and its partners have designed three
core strategies to respond to grantee needs as well as the
field at large. First, we're creating a number of Web-based
tools to help practitioners help themselves; second, we are
building a more cohesive, knowledgeable reentry field by
facilitating peer-to-peer learning; and, third, we are
providing individualized assistance to grantees to respond to
their emerging needs.
We are also working with the Urban Institute to develop an
online what works library for policymakers and reentry
practitioners.
So the big question is, how is it going? While still very
early in the process, the program is thriving, both in the
immense demand for grants, the establishment of a resource
center for the field, and early accomplishments by the first
cohort of grantees.
It is apparent there is good work happening; and
government, community, and faith-based organizations are
working together to address the needs of this population. It is
an exciting time to be working in the field of reentry which
has existed for barely more than a decade but is vibrant with
innovation.
Also, through this process, several challenges have
emerged. First, around program design. Grantees in the reentry
field generally are becoming increasingly familiar with the
body of evidence about the strategies that reduce recidivism,
but they continue to struggle with translating these concepts
into policy and practice. The Second Chance Act is a strong
first step to providing the reentry field with guidance about
smart program interventions, but it will take time to turn the
battleship of corrections in a data-driven direction.
Second, tracking recidivism. The Second Chance Act sets
appropriately high expectations for sites that receive Federal
funding to reduce recidivism, but grantees will need assistance
understanding what to measure and how to obtain and routinely
track quality information. BJA and the Resource Center will
continue to work closely to implement the recommendations
outlined in the Inspector General's report of Federal programs.
Key to effectively addressing the OIG's concerns is working
with grantees to track outcomes, but it will take time.
We appreciate your leadership and your work through the
Second Chance Act. It is a monumental step in changing how we
address reentry. We hope you will reauthorize the program
quickly to help further advance the field at large and expand
our knowledge about reentry evidence and the practice of smart
reentry strategies nationwide.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Le'Ann Duran
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. Ms. Banks.
TESTIMONY OF MICHELE BANKS, RICHMOND SECOND CHANCE REENTRY
PROGRAM MANAGER, RICHMOND CITY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RICHMOND, VA
Ms. Banks. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on the matter of reauthorizing the
Second Chance Act.
The Richmond City Sheriff's Office in the City of Richmond,
Virginia, was one of 15 localities to receive the 2009 Second
Chance Adult Demonstration Grant. Under the leadership of
Sheriff C.T. Woody, Jr., we have had the privilege of providing
our returning citizens with evidence-based, comprehensive, and
individualized case management because of the Second Chance
Act.
The Richmond city jail's total inmate population averages
1,400 or more, but the facility was built to hold less than
900. The Second Chance Act has allowed our team to effectively
address the root causes of a high recidivism rate and
overcrowding among the disproportionate number of offenders
that are returning to the Richmond community.
We have been able to provide a sustainable and relevant
reentry program with our pilot focusing on 30-year-old female
and male inmates. While addressing the high criminality across
generations, often correlated with poverty and separated
families, our program has focused on treatment of the whole
person. The approach has made a much wider impact, not only
reducing recidivism and improving quality of life among the
inmates but also among their family members and, consequently,
the larger community.
The City of Richmond, Virginia, has been able to
effectively partner with local government agencies, community
based service providers to assist ex-offenders with issues
surrounding substance abuse, homelessness, mental and physical
health, unemployment, educational challenges, and family
instability. Our three-pronged approach of Getting Ready, Going
Home, and Staying Home consists of integrated pre- and post-
release services that include substance abuse treatment,
transitional housing options, connections to mental and
physical health services, GED and vocational education,
responsible financial management and job-readiness skills
training as well as mentoring and family reunification
services.
It is quite a sight to see an inmate who arrived at the
jail coming down off a binge of drugs and alcohol, homeless,
jobless and not supporting his family in any way to leave a
recovering addict, equipped with a GED, and equipped with a
vocational training certificate. He is prepared to work hard,
manage money, pay restitution, and become a leader in his home.
As I am sure some cynics will believe this is unrealistic,
one of our faith-based programs has graduated 21 participants
with only one returning to jail or prison. It was our community
partnership and the Second Chance Act that has allowed the
program to continue in our jail.
Through the Second Chance Act, the Richmond jail and our
close community partners have been able to collaboratively
design and implement a comprehensive reentry model that uses
risk and need assessments to link our returning citizens to
much-needed services at each of the various stages of reentry.
We now have the capacity to provide a continuum of service as
well as maintain close contact with both the program
participants and service providers to ensure successful service
delivery and performance measurement tracking.
The success of our program is evidenced by our recent work
with a 45-year-old woman who, at age 8, was drugged by her
father and used for child prostitution. Coming to us with only
a third grade education, she can now stand before a room of her
peers and program staff to confidently articulate her well-
thought-out transition plan that consists of supportive
services provided by our Second Chance Program.
We are confident that the reauthorization of the Second
Chance Act will enable the production of increased positive
outcomes among this disadvantaged and high-risk population.
With reauthorization lies the ability to replicate this model
into other areas of Virginia with similar demographic and risk
profiles. The idea is to continually maximize efficiencies
among collaborative partners as the model expands, developing
increased options for this developing population to become
hardworking, personally responsible, tax-paying and law-abiding
citizens. This will virtually assure stronger families and
safer communities.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
including me in this valuable discussion.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Banks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michele Banks
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. La Vigne.
TESTIMONY OF NANCY G. LA VIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE POLICY
CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. La Vigne. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Gohmert, Mr. Conyers. It is a pleasure to be here today.
I believe all of us in this room are here for the same
reason. It is because we care about public safety. And I think
that perhaps the biggest way to achieving increased public
safety is by focusing on the men and women who are leaving
prison and returning to their communities. They have many
needs. They have many issues. So the goal here is to give them
the support and the services they need so that they can
successfully reintegrate. If they don't, they end up committing
new crimes, creating new victimizations, and costing us more
money because they ultimately end up back behind bars. We know
that that is a very expensive alternative.
We all know that that is the purpose of the Second Chance
Act. It is to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. But
the question remains how best do we use the Second Chance Act
dollars. This is particularly important in light of the
conversation about reauthorization. How do we get the best
impact out of those dollars and how do we know if we are really
making a difference in public safety?
I am happy to note that we have already made great strides
in this regard through existing Second Chance Act investments.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance has implemented a performance
measurement system that warms this evaluator's heart because it
requires grantees to input data on who they are serving, the
characteristics of those individuals, what their needs are,
what kinds of services they received, and what were their
outcomes.
This is very important. It is important for accountability
of grantees, it is important for us to be able to measure the
impact of their programs ultimately on recidivism and other
important reentry outcomes like employment housing and
substance abuse.
I also think it is really important that the Second Chance
Act through the National Reentry Resource Center is delivering
much-needed technical assistance to the sites. At the Urban
Institute, we have been working with the States and counties
for the last decade helping advise them on how to develop
empirically based programs and also evaluating those programs;
and the single biggest challenge that we have observed with
these sites is their lack of data, their lack of information on
who the returning prisoner population is, what are their needs.
There is a limited ability to understand their needs and
their risks; and, without that data, they are unable to target
resources to those who most need them. And so, in that sense,
if they can't make those important decisions in spending these
scarce resources--because even with Second Chance Act funding
these resources are still limited--if they can't do that, they
are essentially investing money in programs that may not work
even theoretically because they might not be treating the right
people.
Another area of the Second Chance Act is one that Ms. Duran
already referenced, that is the what works resource. It is
something we are working on at the Urban Institute in response
to the call from the field to say what do you all mean by
evidence-based practice? We keep hearing that we are supposed
to be implementing evidence-based practice and we have a sense
of what that means is what rigorous research has determined
works. But there is no one place where we can go to get that
information.
There is a lot of research and scholarly journals, and I
think it is quite unrealistic to expect practitioners in the
field to read those journals. There are different studies that
often conflict, and there is no one place that they can go for
those resources.
So we at the Urban Institute are compiling all of that
information. We have identified a thousand individual studies
that we are now coding and assessing both for their findings
and the quality of the research, and we are going to be
distilling that information and creating a Web site that is
searchable and accessible to the field so they can use that
information to inform the development of their programs.
So those are all of the good things that are happening
right now. But, in consideration of reauthorization, I just
want to touch upon a recommendation and that is to consider
funding future grantees in phases.
Phase one would fund the grantees for some preliminary
granting work and also have a research partner at the table
also funded at the same time who can help him with these data
challenges that I already referenced. The researcher can help
them identify the population to serve and the very data that
they need to do that will also support a rigorous evaluation.
Having the evaluator in at the beginning can also enable us
to assess whether the program that is being designed is worthy
of evaluation. Can it meet evaluation at its highest rigor? Is
it amenable to what we often refer to as the gold standard,
which is a randomized controlled trial? We talk a lot about
that as the goal in evaluation, and yet that is often hard to
implement in the field. So having a researcher there at the
outset can determine that but can also determine an alternative
and yet rigorous design that could be employed.
I also think it is important to note that if for whatever
reason there is no opportunity to work with the sites in a way
that you can get the data that you need and that they are
willing to explore their data and participate in an evaluation,
the phased funding enables grant makers makes a decision or
perhaps not funding them further past phase one.
In summary, I think this phase funding combined with the
technical assistance and the research support that is already
in place holds great promise to achieving the goal that I think
we all share, and that is public safety.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. La Vigne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy G. La Vigne
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Muhlhausen.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D.,
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Muhlhausen. My name is David Muhlhausen. I am a
research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage
Foundation. I thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and
Mr. Conyers for the opportunity to testify today on the Second
Chance Act. The views I express in this testimony are my own
and should not be construed as representing any official
position of the Heritage Foundation.
Congress's desire to weigh in on the recidivism rate of
former prisoners is easy to understand. In 2008 alone, over
735,000 prisoners were released back into society. Federal,
State, and local governments need to operate effective reentry
programs. Preventing former prisoners from returning to prison
is a worthy goal.
When Congress first passed the Second Chance Act in 2008,
little was known about the effectiveness of these prisoner
reentry programs. The same holds true today. We simply do not
have enough knowledge about what works and what doesn't work.
Given the lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of the
Second Chance Act programs and the severe burden of the Federal
Government's debt, Congress should be wary of substantially
increasing spending for these programs.
However, a major goal of reauthorizing the Second Chance
Act should be to greatly enhance our knowledge about the
effectiveness about these programs. For this reason, I will
outline five keys to successful promotion of scientifically
rigorous evaluations of these programs.
First and foremost, Congress needs to expressly mandate in
the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act the experimental
evaluation of prisoner reentry programs. By experimental
evaluation I mean evaluations that use random assignment to
allocate individuals to treatment and control groups. This
method is considered the gold standard because random
assignment is most likely to yield valid estimates of program
impact. Less rigorous designs often yield less reliable
results.
Second, the mandated experimental evaluations need to be
large-scale, multi-site studies. When Congress creates
programs, especially State and local grant programs, the
activities funded are not implemented in a single city or town.
Federal grants fund numerous programs across the Nation.
Congress should require that these programs be evaluated using
national, multi-site experimental evaluations.
Third, Congress needs to provide instructions on the types
of outcome measures that will be used to assess effectiveness.
When assessing the impact of reentry programs, the most
important outcome measure is recidivism. While intermediate
measures such as finding employment and housing are important,
these outcomes are not the ultimate goal of reentry programs.
If former prisoners continue to commit crimes after going
through a reentry program, then the successful effects for
intermediate outcomes will still matter little to judging
whether these programs are effective.
Fourth, Congress needs to institute procedures that will
encourage government agencies, often possessing entrenched
biases against experimental evaluations, to carry out these
studies. One recommended method is that not later than 1 year
after the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act, and
annually thereafter, the Departments of Justice and Labor be
required to individually submit a report on the progress that
the Departments are making in evaluating the programs
authorized under the Act through the Appropriations Committees
and Judiciary Committees of both Chambers of Congress. Thirty
days after the report is submitted to Congress, it should be
made available on the Web site of the Departments of Justice
and Labor.
Last, congressionally mandated evaluations upon completion
must be submitted to the Appropriations and Judiciary
Committees of both Chambers of Congress in a timely manner.
Thirty days after any evaluation is submitted to Congress, the
evaluations should be made available on the respective Web
sites of Departments of Justice and Labor.
Prisoner reentry programs need to be rigorously evaluated
to determine their effectiveness and reduce their recidivism. I
believe the need for more evaluations transcends political
party lines. Both Democrats and Republicans should agree on
this issue. Policymakers should not implement prisoner reentry
programs because advocates of Federal funding believe these
programs are effective. There has to be a solid base, a
scientific knowledge demonstrating that these programs are
effective. Thus, Congress needs to do more to ensure that the
reentry programs it funds are rigorously evaluated.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen follows:]
Prepared Statement of David B. Muhlhausen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Taylor.
TESTIMONY OF GLADYSE TAYLOR, ACTING DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHICAGO, IL
Ms. Taylor. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Gohmert. I am Gladyse Taylor from the Illinois
Department of Corrections, and I am here today in support of
reauthorization of the Second Chance Act.
I have listened to my colleagues provide testimony this
afternoon about research-based support for reauthorization. I
have listened to some of the programs that have been funded
with Second Chance authorization. My written testimony speaks
to some of the programs that Illinois has been engaged in with
respect to Second Chance Act funding. I think those programs
have been successful. If I have a choice of whether I spend
$120 a day on incarcerating an individual for minor crime
versus spending $20 a day on keeping that person on the street,
I think my choice is very obvious. So that is the way I look at
it.
And I think that in the State of Illinois we recognize that
research is important. The State approved a Crime Reduction Act
in 2009 that includes a risk assessment tool of our criminal
population. It includes a sentencing policy advisory consult.
It includes an adult redeploy mechanism so that we are not
channeling all of our criminal populations into the Department
of Corrections.
So I think a combination of the information that has been
provided from the other members testifying before this
Committee is appropriate and relevant. However, I wouldn't say
that these programs are not supported by funding or shouldn't
be supported by funding. I would say the contrary, that funding
and reauthorization of the Second Chance Act is important. It
will assist these people in becoming productive members of
society.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gladyse Taylor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their
testimony.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
One of the things we look at as cost effectiveness is have
any of you done studies to show that you save money in the long
run or even short run by funding Second Chance programs.
Ms. La Vigne. We have not conducted a cost effectiveness of
Second Chance Act programs, but we have done similar studies of
other programs, and we found that even marginal decreases in
recidivism can be cost effective.
Mr. Scott. Can you give us some numbers?
Ms. La Vigne. I can supply them later. I don't have them in
my head.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Duran, you had given us the number of people
who had applied for funds and how many of them got them, 7
percent of the people, 93 percent of the applications. Did you
get to see any of the applications to see how strong those
programs were?
Ms. Duran. Certainly. We are very familiar with the current
2009 grantees that were funded this year and are very familiar
with those applications. We have had a chance to do a
preliminary review of some of the new 2010, the second cohort
of Second Chance grantees that will be coming on line on
Friday, October 1; and we are beginning to get to know this new
class of grantees as well.
What we have found in the 2009 cohort, both with
demonstration grantees and with mentor grantees, is
practitioners are still struggling with translating evidence-
based practices into their program designs. So a lot of our
technical assistance and our partnership with the Urban
Institute has focused on really trying to connect the research
with this program design to make sure that they are targeting
the right people with the right interventions that are likely
to reduce risk and have an impact on those recidivism rates.
That's a big priority for technical assistance for us.
Mr. Scott. Are most of the programs new or existing
programs that apply?
Ms. Duran. Most of the programs have a history of
implementing reentry efforts in their jurisdiction. Some of the
mentor programs, it is their first time to operate a mentor
model with returning offenders although some of them have had
experience working with other--doing mentor programs with other
populations or youth and are now translating that knowledge to
adults.
Mr. Scott. Is the evaluation requirement in the Second
Chance Act effective so we know which ones are working and
which ones are not working?
Ms. Duran. As I understand it, the National Institute of
Justice will be conducting an evaluability assessment of the
current 2009 adult demonstration grantees and will use that
information to determine which of those 2009 grantees are
selected for the NIJ evaluation of Second Chance Act programs.
So certainly after that evaluability assessment we will
know more about how these grantees are progressing in terms of
their ability to be able to be part of an evaluation.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. We do appreciate your observations,
your testimony here.
Ms. Banks, what was the faith-based group that you had
mentioned had 21 successes and only one recidivist?
Ms. Banks. It is a leadership development program. They
come into the jail several times a week to teach our inmates
leadership skills.
Mr. Gohmert. You had mentioned it was a faith-based group,
and I was curious what group it was.
Ms. Banks. It is called Freedom Inside and Out. They are a
grassroots organization and very local.
Mr. Gohmert. Are they sponsored by some faith?
Ms. Banks. Absolutely not. Just a group of volunteers that
our Sheriff had allowed to come into the jail, and they have
been quite successful, and because of Second Chance we have
been allowed to have them come in more often.
Mr. Gohmert. What makes them a faith-based group?
Ms. Banks. Their affiliation with their church.
Mr. Gohmert. That is what I was trying to get at.
Well, did Richmond look to other jurisdictions for their
best practices to create their reentry programs?
Ms. Banks. Absolutely. Our reentry program was actually in
existence before the Second Chance Act. The Second Chance Act
actually allowed us to take it from pre-release into
transitional and post-release. So we did look at some other
models that were on our CSG Web site, and they were also
instrumental in helping us find some best practices at other
localities.
Mr. Gohmert. Ms. Duran, I appreciate your testimony and
your observations and your recitation of the money that is
saved, clearly, by avoiding recidivism. But since a program
that works does save a State so much money, why do the States
not put more money into such programs in order to save money?
Ms. Duran. I think we are in the middle of observing a
trend in State corrections agencies particularly where they are
investing more in strategies that have evidence behind them of
reducing risk and reducing recidivism. We are seeing increasing
investments in reentry related services designed to target
those reduction factors.
Coming from Michigan, I can tell you, it is not easy. These
are complicated systems working with folks that have
complicated needs. And to get the systems to respond to those
individual characteristics case by case by case every time to
see the systemwide impacts is not an easy challenge,
particularly inside corrections agencies that haven't had a
tradition of using evidence-based strategies to inform their
policies and practice.
So we are working hard. The field is working hard. You are
beginning to see increasing understanding of those practices of
how to put them in place, the systems level. And then we see
that investment.
Mr. Gohmert. I understand that. But if it saves money, then
it would seem that since it is saving the State money that the
State ought to be willing to invest the money to save the State
money. And if I am understanding you correctly, it sounds like
perhaps the States are not satisfied yet that there is enough
evidence to show that it is saving them money or they would be
investing more.
Ms. Duran. I think we see States investing more and more of
their State general fund dollars in reentry related programs.
That is a trend we have observed in many States around the
country. Sometimes for the first time ever they have put their
dollars into those policies and practices.
So I think we are seeing that happen more and more, and the
Second Chance Act has sort of led that example.
Mr. Gohmert. Some States feel like the way we save money is
if we can talk the Federal Government into funding our programs
then it saves us money. And what we really need to get to is a
point where States say this is a good program, recidivism saves
money, it saves, it protects the public, and so, therefore,
this ought to be where we invest our money, instead of
continuing to have States come to the Federal Government to ask
for the money.
I can see my time is running out.
Dr. Muhlhausen, you know, we do hear so much about
evidence-based reentry programs, and I know you were discussing
this. If there was one thing you would recommend above all
other things that we do to ensure maximum efficiency, what
would that be?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I would say that would be mandating
experimental evaluations. We need to have not just one
evaluation or two evaluations done, but a lot of programs
across the country need to be evaluated because you may have
one you find to be successful here or there. You may find
others that are not successful here and there. But we need to
get a good picture.
Because what happens often is you find one failed program,
you can say that all these programs don't work. Or you can find
one successful program, and you can say all of these programs
work. When the fact is, all you know is you have one failed
program and one successful program.
So we need to really look at these programs across
jurisdiction, across service areas and really get down and use
the most scientifically rigorous methods available. And in most
cases I would recommend doing a randomized experiment.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Before I recognize the gentleman from Michigan,
I wanted to note the presence of the chief sponsor of the
Second Chance Act, the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis,
has joined us on the podium.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent
that we allow Danny Davis to make some comments here as an
author of the bill?
Mr. Scott. I was going to confer with the Ranking Member
while you were speaking.
Mr. Conyers. That is what I want to do.
Mr. Gohmert. I don't think there will be any canings if we
don't consent.
Mr. Scott. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott, Ranking
Member Gohmert. I want to thank both of you for your kindness
and consideration. I want to thank Mr. Conyers and this entire
Judiciary Committee for the effectiveness of its approach to
dealing with the whole question of criminal justice from my
vantage point and especially the question of reentry.
I have got a couple of questions that I would just like to
ask.
Dr. Muhlhausen, I am a real fan of evaluation. I think it
is very important that we get as much mileage out of everything
that we do, especially when we are spending public dollars. And
we certainly want to make sure that things work. Are there any
approaches to reentry that you think are maybe more effective
than others or any programs that you have taken a good look at
or approaches that you think work better than perhaps some
others do.
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I think one thing to consider is I
think prisoners when they come out of prison they need to
develop attachments or reattachments. It could be to family. It
could be to work. And I think that establishing somehow to get
people as fast as possible into a working environment, where
they are attached to it, where the perception or the belief
comes I have something here that is worthwhile. I can build a
life. Therefore, I don't want to do anything risking that life.
I think work and family as well can do that.
So I think there is not a lot of research--there is a
program called--it is Center for Equal Opportunities in New
York. It was a prisoner reentry program, and it found it had no
affect on arrests. Whether or not you are in the control group
or the treatment group, people were still being arrested. It
did find people who got into the program faster and quicker and
got a job were less likely to recidivate. So I think that rapid
attachment is something to look at.
So I think that is important, but I don't think we know--
right now, we don't have, at least from the literature that I
have read, enough information about whether or not that can be
successful. I think it could be promising, and I think it needs
to be investigated further.
Mr. Davis. I certainly agree that if one can find a job
that becomes the very core I think of one's existence, so I
certainly wouldn't quibble in any way with that.
Ms. Taylor, we were on the plane together this morning--
early this morning, as a matter of fact--so I know you have had
a long day. But let me, first of all, congratulate you on your
recent appointment as the director of corrections for the State
of Illinois, which is obviously one of the great big correction
agencies in the country. And the number of individuals that we
have coming out of the Illinois prisons each year are somewhat
staggering, which means that the numbers going in are also
somewhat staggering.
I have been very pleased with the direction of the Illinois
Department of Corrections over the last half a dozen years or
so, and I think tremendous progress has been made. Which
program activities do you think have been working best? I mean,
I know the Department does a number of different things. Which
of those do you think actually work best, from your vantage
point.
Ms. Taylor. Well, two immediately come to mind. I think our
substance abuse treatment center models for Sheraton and House
Western have very favorable recidivism rates. Our State's
average recidivism is approximately 51 percent, but
participants through those two substance abuse treatment
programs, the outcomes, the performance outcomes are like in
the 25 to 28 percent recidivism rate. So I know they are
successful. That is one.
And the second one is that we do have transitional jobs
programs that have been in existence for maybe the past 4
years, and we are starting to get the performance outcomes for
those. But I would say to the doctor's comments, yes, jobs are
important.
So we are starting with a preplanning program within the
institutions, carrying it through the agents of release and we
are hoping that the employers in the State of Illinois
recognize that it is critical to public safety that they
continue working with these offenders. So I think that program
is very successful.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, the Ranking
Member, and Chairman Conyers for the opportunity to
participate. Again, I think that you have just been incredible
as a Committee in advancing the concepts of reentry so that we
can take advantage of the great opportunities that exist in our
country.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and thank you for your strong work.
Just looking at the numbers that Ms. Taylor gave us, when
you have a hundred people and an average recidivism rate of
about 50 and you drop it below 30, that is about 20 people that
didn't return to prison. What is your annual per prisoner cost?
Ms. Taylor. Well, my budget is $1.2 billion on an annual
basis. The population count today is 48,000, and I have roughly
about 24,000.
Mr. Scott. Do you know what your marginal cost is? Because
a lot of the cost is embedded, construction, things like that.
Ms. Taylor. About $5,000 per inmate.
Mr. Scott. $5,000 per inmate is marginal cost for an
inmate?
Ms. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Scott. And the embedded cost?
Ms. Taylor. About $23,000.
Mr. Scott. Do you know what the program costs are.
Ms. Taylor. Of my----
Mr. Scott. No, the Second Chance Act program, the----
Ms. Taylor. We have in this current authorization--I
haven't looked at all of the awards. Particularly, I know there
is one for the Moms and Babies program. And the other programs
are actually for our juvenile division, so it is a separate
entity.
Mr. Scott. The ones that were successful, that reduced
recidivism about 50 percent, do you know the cost of those
programs?
Ms. Taylor. The Sheridan program is approximately about $18
million in programming costs. And the population at that
facility that are receiving those services are roughly about
1,400 inmates.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Muhlhausen, do you have any estimate, if we are going
to do comprehensive evaluations, what an evaluation should
cost?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, experimental evaluations are costly.
Large-scale evaluations can cost $10 million if you are dealing
with, you know, tens of thousands of people participating in
the evaluation, as far as your control group or your
intervention group. So I think that--maybe set aside 10 percent
of overall funding for programs that actually receive funding
in the fiscal year. That may be a way to do it.
But the exact dollar figure I am not sure to give you. It
depends on--it takes a lot of planning. You know, I think that
NIJ's efforts are good, but I think it could be doubled or
tripled and we would find out much more valuable information
than we would otherwise.
Mr. Scott. And, Ms. La Vigne, can you say something about
how we should be going about evaluation, how much money we
should spend on it, how much a good evaluation costs?
Ms. La Vigne. I don't disagree with Dr. Muhlhausen; it does
cost a lot of money to do a good evaluation. Whether or not it
is an experimental design--and, certainly, I think everyone
agrees that that is truly the highest standard of evaluation--
there are other methods out there. And I would like to
encourage us all to consider other methods that are nonetheless
considered quite rigorous. There is propensity score matching;
there are other methods out there.
But the real cost, in my opinion, is in the interviews with
the clients. Because if you are trying to really understand the
impact on offending behavior, let's face it, people re-offend,
they cause new victimization, and they don't necessarily get
caught, they don't necessarily get arrested, and they don't
necessarily return to prison or jail.
So there is a great value in interviewing program
participants. And you want to interview them over time so you
can see whether the outcomes change over time. They are also
the single greatest source of information for what types of
programs they participated in and for how long. And they can
also give researchers other information on intervening factors
that might be contributing to their reentry success or failure,
factors that can both help inform improvements in the program
that is being delivered as well as help inform the impact
evaluation.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Conyers. Well, I haven't had any questions yet, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Scott. The gentlemen is recognized.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much.
Dr. Muhlhausen, I am wondering, as you have heard the other
four panelists with you that have all talked about the benefits
and the positive influence of this prisoner reentry concept,
were you impressed with any of the benefits that they talked
about that resulted from the programs?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I was impressed in the sense that I think
there are good ideas being implemented, but we need to know if
they are effective ideas.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh.
Mr. Muhlhausen. And I wear my hat--when I come here to
testify, I wear my hat as a social scientist whose
concentration is on the evaluation of programs. And, for me,
the ultimate judge of whether or not programs work is a
rigorous scientific study. And so, while we may have anecdotal
examples of where programs can be a success, often those
anecdotal stories are biased or sometimes mistaken, or
sometimes they are--I am not saying any individual here is
doing it, but they are people seeking additional funding, and
so they are not going to say, ``You know what? My program
really stinks.'' They are not going to say that.
But I think that we need to have objective data. I think if
you do an experimental evaluation and you find that it was a
quality evaluation and you find a program works--you know, I
look at it and I am going to say, you know what, I am going to
chalk it up as one program that works. If it doesn't work, I am
going to chalk it up as a program that doesn't work. That is
how I look at it.
So I think that we can have detailed and some really good
stories about what works and what doesn't work from
practitioners, but we need to back that up with scientific
evidence.
Mr. Conyers. Well, that is great. I want to be as
scientific as is appropriate, but that doesn't discount all of
the statements that have been made here today, does it?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I would say that, if the statements
made today had been backed up by scientific evaluations, they
would be that much more stronger.
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Mr. Muhlhausen. I think this takes me back to a case of a
program that was implemented in Texas, where--it was a faith-
based program. And what they did was they looked at people who
participated in the program versus people who didn't
participate. And what they did was they only counted people who
successfully completed the program. And the people who
participated in the program but washed out because they were
getting in trouble they didn't count.
And so they had this enormously effective success rate of
reducing recidivism, but it was really a bogus study. And so
they went around, they told people, they told me, you know,
``You have to look at this. It works.'' I looked at it, I am
like, ``No, it really doesn't. Go back to the drawing board.''
So I think that--I think we need to, when it comes to the
public tax dollars, we need to have spending backed up by
rigorous research.
Mr. Conyers. Ms. La Vigne, you know something about the
Returning Home study?
Ms. La Vigne. Uh-huh.
Mr. Conyers. Do you have a comment to add to this
conversation?
Ms. La Vigne. Sure, yes. The Returning Home study is a
longitudinal study that The Urban Institute implemented a few
years ago. We interviewed people behind bars and tracked them
over the course of a year in the community. We did those very
expensive surveys that I was talking about. So we got a lot of
rich information about what their challenges were and what
their support systems were like.
And the study produced some very interesting findings. One
finding that we had was that family support seems to make a
great difference in reentry outcomes. It is something that,
when we first had the information and shared it, people looked
at perhaps questioningly. They said, ``Oh, we believe all these
people have burned their bridges and they don't have any
support systems anymore.'' What we found is that virtually
everyone that we interviewed reported that they had someone
that they considered to be a family member in their lives that
could provide support, both moral support, emotional support,
and tangible support in the form of housing and so forth, and
that the higher that level of support, the better the reentry
outcomes.
We also found interesting findings when it comes to
employment. We did find that people who had employment programs
behind bars were more likely to be employed on the outside. And
we also found that people who were employed were less likely to
return to prison.
But what is really interesting about our findings is that
wages matter. So people who were employed earning $8 to $10 an
hour were twice as likely to end up back behind bars in a
year's time than those employed $10 to $12 an hour.
So there were a lot of interesting findings that came out
of this research that I think can help inform the current
program's, the Second Chance Act, grantees.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Dr. Muhlhausen, I assume you may have not have had the
opportunity to examine the Returning Home study.
Mr. Muhlhausen. No, I haven't actually read the study.
Mr. Conyers. But it might satisfy some of your desire for
more scientific rigor in the reporting.
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I think it helps to know why people
fail when they are outside. And I think that if attachment to
work is important, then maybe a transition program that helps
people get into good jobs is helpful.
And, you know, I frequently get called by reporters who
want to know somebody who is anti-rehabilitative services and
corrections. And I am like, I am all for incarcerating really
dangerous people, but if you put them behind bars, I am also
not against trying to help them out while they are behind bars,
providing services.
Now, a lot of these services may not work; some may work.
And they are not going to be a magic bullet, probably, in
solving these problems. But I am for helping people.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh. So you are not anti-rehabilitation?
Mr. Muhlhausen. No. What I am anti is substituting
rehabilitation for the incarceration of serious and violent
offenders. Putting the two together is okay, but letting
violent criminals roam the street without being behind bars is
something I am not a fan of.
Mr. Conyers. Well, now, when we boil all this down, you are
anti-rehabilitation or you are not anti-rehabilitation?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I am for rehabilitation----
Mr. Conyers. Okay.
Mr. Muhlhausen [continuing]. Under appropriate
circumstances.
Mr. Conyers. All right.
Now, that brings up the question of why you didn't make any
comments in your prepared statement about the fact of the
prison experience sometimes making it more difficult for
rehabilitation, especially since you have had a prison
correction experience yourself.
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, you know, one of the things that--
when I worked in juvenile corrections, one of things that just
really stuck out to me was that, when I was with some of these
youth, some of them would just put a big smile on your face,
interacting with them, but when they would be on the outside,
they were absolute terrorists.
And I would sit down with one of them who always behaved
well, staff trusted him to take care of chores, gave him extra
benefits. You know, I asked him, you know, ``You were here 6
weeks ago, and you came back. Why?'' And a lot of times, they
have--some people don't have the support networks back home. In
this individual's case, he was just--you know, ``I go back
home, and I don't have--my parents aren't really around, and I
am hanging out with my friends.'' And what are the friends
doing? They are selling drugs. And so that is why he was always
coming back.
So I think some way to help people transition back is
important. And I think that there is a lot of talk about
evidence-based programs, but one of the problems with the whole
concept of evidence-based programs is they assume that, once a
program has been found to be effective, anytime it has been
replicated anywhere else, it is going to have the same result,
and that is not true. So that we need to have continual
research.
Mr. Conyers. Well, what about The Urban Institute Justice
Policy Center research findings on challenges of prisoner
reentry? Have you ever run across this document?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I actually haven't read all of the
document. I am familiar with it a little bit. And I think that
The Urban Institute does a lot of good research and provides a
lot of useful information, because I have cited it in the past,
as well.
Mr. Conyers. Good. And do they research the scientific
levels that you established for it to be valid and significant?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I think the difference is that what I
am concentrating on is program evaluations of where you are
taking people and you are assigning somebody to treatment and
non-treatment and you are finding out what the results of
treatment are.
In many cases, a lot of the research being done is, sort
of, interviewing people afterwards. There isn't necessarily--
there wasn't an experiment going on. You are trying to find out
why people recidivate, whey they didn't recidivate, and you are
not necessarily doing an experimental evaluation. You are still
doing research, and very good research.
But what I am concentrating on is a different type of
research, where you are evaluating--trying to find the
effectiveness of these programs.
Mr. Conyers. But this still is pretty authentic research
that is going on. It may be in a different category from what
you would prefer, but--let me ask you like this: Do you think
The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center's findings are
meaningful and useful on prisoner reentry?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I would say yes. But, without knowing the
findings on top of my head, I would be cautious about endorsing
any one of them. But I think that, you know, their institute
has received a lot of funding to do this type of research, and
I think it provides useful information.
Mr. Conyers. Well, could we make this available to you and
then see if you could submit afterward--and it may not be in
time for this hearing to be reported, but it could help us.
Because we have had, in this Subcommittee alone, five hearings
on this subject. And I think that if you and I were to go over
all of the witnesses, you would find additional scientific
research on prisoner reentry that would satisfy you as to the
quality of this research, and it might affect your opinion
about prisoner reentry.
Mr. Muhlhausen. I am open-minded, so I would definitely
love to answer a follow-up question on this issue.
Mr. Conyers. You would do what?
Mr. Muhlhausen. I would definitely love to answer a follow-
up question on this issue.
Mr. Conyers. You would like to work with----
Mr. Muhlhausen. Yeah.
Mr. Conyers. Could I work with you on this----
Mr. Muhlhausen. Definitely.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. And provide you with you the
scientific information and see where you end up on this?
Because I think you have the experience and the approach that
would--that we could reach some kind of agreement.
We reached an agreement with President Bush. We reached
agreement with a number of conservative leaders in government.
As a matter of fact, we haven't found anybody that is critical
of it. And you have made it clear that you are not critical of
it; you are just saying that you haven't seen the scientific
research that validates prisoner reentry.
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, there is not much research that I am
aware of that----
Mr. Conyers. I know. Wait, that is the problem, though.
Mr. Muhlhausen [continuing]. Shows these programs are
effective.
Mr. Conyers. Of course there isn't. But you haven't--look,
I am going to help you research it. So, of course you haven't
found much, but I am going to help----
Mr. Muhlhausen. I appreciate your help.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. You find a lot more.
Ms. La Vigne. If I may, thank you for holding up The Urban
Institute's research. That is flattering.
But in addition to that, as I mentioned in my formal
testimony, we are in the process of documenting assessing for
level of rigor and combining and distilling all the individual
research studies, evaluations out there that fall under the
larger umbrella of prisoner reentry. So that is correctional
education programs, employment programs, substance abuse
treatment programs, housing, et cetera, et cetera.
We have identified a thousand studies that we think might--
might--meet some level of rigor. Of those, I am certain that
there is a much smaller percentage that meet the level of rigor
that Dr. Muhlhausen is asking for.
But I would argue that the information is out there; it
just has not been compiled and distilled and presented back to
the field in the way that they can use that. And so that is
what we are trying to do at The Urban Institute with Second
Chance Act funding.
Mr. Conyers. Well, will you join me and help me, as well?
Ms. La Vigne. I would be happy to.
Mr. Conyers. So both of us will be helping Dr. Muhlhausen.
Now, there is also a fourth person I would like to involve,
and that is attorney Demelza Baer, who is now a member of this
Committee, who was one of the researchers on The Urban
Institute study on prisoner reentry. She would make a great
companion to work with us and Dr. Muhlhausen, don't you think?
Would you be willing to accept this assistance----
Mr. Muhlhausen. Sure.
Mr. Conyers. Dr. Muhlhausen?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Definitely.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today. And it is going to be extremely--the follow-up is going
to be extremely helpful, because, as Mr. Davis said, there are
some good programs and some bad programs and very relatively
little money. So we want to make sure that all of the money
goes to the programs that actually work and not waste it on
programs that don't work. So we appreciate the witnesses'
willingness to help us evaluate the programs so we fund the
good ones and don't fund the bad ones.
We may have additional written questions which we will
forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly as you can
so that your answers can be made part of the record. The
hearing record will remain open for 7 days for the submission
of additional materials.
And, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Nancy La Vigne, Director,
Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]