[Senate Hearing 111-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-370
THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE: REDUCING RECIDIVISM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
__________
Serial No. J-111-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-985 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Hanibal Kemerer, Democratic Chief Counsel
Walt Kuhn, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 75
Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 86
WITNESSES
Bartle, Harvey, III, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania............................... 5
Burris, Doug, Chief Probation Officer, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri.......... 9
Cabral, Andrea J., Suffolk County Sheriff, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts.................................................. 3
Lobuglio, Stefan, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services
Division, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Correction
and Rehabilitation, Rockville, Maryland........................ 7
Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for
Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C........ 12
Solomon, Amy L., Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy
Center, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C....................... 10
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Bartle, Harvey, III, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, statement.................... 29
Beaty, James A., Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, letter............................................... 34
Britt, W. Earl, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Releigh, North Carolina, letter.... 35
Burris, Doug, Chief Probation Officer, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri,
statement...................................................... 36
Cabral, Andrea J., Suffolk County Sheriff, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts, statement....................................... 41
Cacheris, James C., Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Viginia, Alexandria, Virginia, letter...... 53
Campbell, Tena, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter and attachments.......... 54
Fitzwater, Sidney A., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, letter............................. 77
Goodwill Industries of Monocacy Valley, Inc., Frederick,
Maryland, statement............................................ 78
Holderman, James F., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, letter.......................... 84
Kane, Yvette, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, letter..... 85
Leary, Mary Lou, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C., statement........................... 87
Legg, Benson Everett, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, letter.............. 95
Lisi, Mary M., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island, letter.............. 97
Lobuglio, Stefan, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services
Division, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Correction
and Rehabilitation, Rockville, Maryland, statement............. 99
Manley, Stephen, Judge, Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, statement......................................... 109
Mordue, Norman A., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York, letter...... 120
Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for
Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.,
statement...................................................... 121
Rosen, Gerald E., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, letter and
attachment..................................................... 133
Scirica, Anthony J., Chairman Executive Committee, Judicial
Conference of the U.S., Washington, D.C., statement............ 176
Solomon, Amy L., Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy
Center, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., statement........... 179
Walker, Vaughn R., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco, California,
letter......................................................... 186
Woodcock, John A., Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, Bangor, Maine, letter....................... 188
THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE: REDUCING RECIDIVISM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009
U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Specter, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. FROM THE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. I have been informed by Senator Graham's
staff that we can get started. Senator Graham will be joining
us, the Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee.
First, let me thank Senator Specter, who is the Chair of
the Subcommittee, for allowing me to chair today's hearing.
This is a subject of great interest not only to me, but I think
to all the members of the United States, and that is, the
``First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local
Level.''
When one looks at the incarceration rates in the United
States, there is reason for concern. Our incarceration rates
are five times the international average, andwe are the United
States of America. In the Federal and state prisons between
1980 and 2001, there was a 240-percent increase in the prison
population. We now have somewhere around 2.3 million people,
Americans, behind bars, 95 percent of whom will ultimately
return to our community. And two-thirds of those who return to
our community will be rearrested within 3 years.
Now, if our principal objective is to improve public
safety, we are not doing a very good job. We are incarcerating
people over and over again who are committing criminal
offenses, jeopardizing the safety of the people in our
community.
As we look at the reentry programs and services as a way to
deal with these numbers and to make our communities safer, in a
figurative sense, we have a captured audience when they are in
our prison systems. They have our attention. They cannot go
anywhere. We have the ability to provide services, whether that
be education or counseling, in order to try to make reentry
successful. And this is particularly true in our local jails,
and I say that because one of the real challenges in reentry is
to be able to deal with the community in which the person is
going to be returning. Our local jails are much more likely to
be the venue that people who are released from prison will end
up in that community. So it is a particularly opportune place
to have a reentry program based at local facilities in order to
deal with the realities that the people will be returning to
that community. If you are operating a Federal prison, the
person is released and goes to another State, yes, you can do
some reentry there, but you need to work with the local
community.
So local jails to me provide a real opportunity for dealing
with successful reentry. The current census indicates that
there are about 12 million admissions and releases per year in
our local jails. That is 34,000 a day.
Now, I have had a chance to visit the Montgomery County
reentry program this past week, and, Chief, thank you for your
hospitality. It was a real opportunity for me to see firsthand
a program that works in the local community, but in
coordination with the State and Federal facilities in order to
deal with people who are going to reenter into Montgomery
County, Maryland. I have also been to Frederick City in the
State of Maryland and looked at their reentry program, which is
a lot smaller and is somewhat more limited because of
resources. But both in Montgomery County and in Frederick, they
have successful reentry programs. Their numbers are much, much
better than the national average, and I know we will be hearing
more examples of that today as we look at ways of improving
reentry services.
We have real challenges. We have challenges because 60
percent of the people that are in our prisons lack a high
school diploma. Well, if you are going to try to get a job
today and you do not have a high school diploma, you are
limited. If you have been convicted of a crime, you have a
limit as to being able to find a job. But if you do not have
education, it makes it much more difficult. So we need to deal
with the realities of education.
The vulnerability on health, in the target groups that are
in our prisons, two-thirds have some form of substance abuse.
Well, you need to deal with that. Once again, how is the person
going to be a reliable employee and successfully reenter
society if they have a substance abuse issue that is not under
treatment.
Housing is a significant problem. I remember talking to my
friends in Frederick about the stigma of someone coming out of
prison to try to find a home in a community. The resources in
order to be able to afford housing are limited. It made it
very, very complicated.
The location of facilities, it was interesting. The
Montgomery County facility is located in a very interesting
area, a very fine area in Montgomery County. It was there
before the area was developed. Now when you try to put a
reentry program in a community, it is a very difficult
challenge politically to locate these facilities, and it all
comes down to resources. Are we going to invest the resources
to make reentry work? There are a lot of competing needs out
there for budgets, and I would be very interested to see what
progress we are making in getting the necessary resources out
to our community in order to have a chance for these programs
to be successful.
It is for that reason I am very pleased that we have the
real experts who are before us who have devoted their lives to
dealing with reentry issues and dealing with trying to help our
community through public safety through the programs that each
of you have been responsible for. And I welcome you to the
Committee.
Let me introduce our panel, and then we will start in with
the hearing, and let me say from the beginning that your
statements all will be made part of the record. You will be
able to proceed as you would like, and at the conclusion of the
last person on the panel, we will open it up for some questions
and discussion.
We are joined by Andrea Cabral who is the sheriff of the
Suffolk County Sheriff's Department in Boston, Massachusetts;
Hon. Harvey Bartle III, the Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Stefan
LoBuglio, who is Chief of the Pre-Release and Reentry Division,
Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and
Rehabilitation, from Rockville, Maryland; Doug Burris, the
Chief Probation Officer, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri; Amy Solomon, the Senior Research
Associate from the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.; and
David Muhlhausen, the Senior Policy Analyst from the Heritage
Foundation, a frequent witness before our Committee from
Washington, D.C.
Sheriff Cabral, we will start with you. Turn your
microphone on, please.
STATEMENT OF ANDREA J. CABRAL, SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF, SUFFOLK
COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
Sheriff Cabral. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Turn your microphone on, please.
Sheriff Cabral. I am sorry. I did not realize it was off.
Thank you.
In Massachusetts, there are two types of correctional
facilities for adults: prisons and houses of correction.
Prisons are run by the State Department of Correction and hold
offenders convicted and sentenced in the Commonwealth's
superior courts for very serious felonies, like rape, murder,
drug trafficking, armed robbery, et cetera. There are 20 State
prison facilities in Massachusetts and 13 county-based houses
of correction. These facilities hold offenders who have been
convicted and sentenced in the district courts for mid-level
misdemeanors and certain felonies for which the district
courts' jurisdiction is conferred by statute.
Unlike State prisons, which can hold offenders for any
period of years, up to and including life, sentences to the
house of correction cannot exceed 2\1/2\ years for conviction
on any single count of a criminal complaint. Offenders
sentenced to the house of correction are eligible for parole
upon completion of half their sentence, and 80 percent of the
State's criminal business is resolved in the district courts.
Thus, roughly 80 percent of incarcerated offenders are held in
these houses of correction at the county level.
In Massachusetts, the county sheriffs lead the way on
reentry programs. Of the 14 sheriffs in the Commonwealth, 13
operate county jails and houses of correction. As public
officials elected county-wide every 6 years, the sheriffs are
most knowledgeable about and most closely tied in to their
communities. In addition to providing mutual aid to State and
local law enforcement, the sheriffs also create the kinds of
partnerships outside of law enforcement that result in strong,
effective reentry programs.
The potential impact of these reentry programs on the
Commonwealth's cities and towns is clear. Collectively, the
sheriffs hold in excess of 70,000 inmates and pre-trial
detainees in their facilities in Massachusetts. Every year,
more than 65,000 are released from county jails and houses of
correction through bail, case resolution, parole, or release
upon completion of sentence. By contrast, the State Department
of Correction releases just over 3,000 inmates from
Massachusetts State prisons annually.
State prisons release offenders from facilities located in
every corner of the State. Some make their way back to their
communities, and some do not. By contrast, the majority of
offenders held at county houses of correction hail from
neighboring cities and towns and return immediately to those
communities. In Suffolk County, for example, the house of
correction holds approximately 1,500 inmates, 95 percent of
whom live within 5 miles of the facility. The decisions they
make within the first 48 hours after release will largely
determine whether, if at all, they return to custody within 6
months to a year. The goal of reentry programs is to provide
support, skills, resources, and more opportunities to make
positive choices.
As you indicated, Senator Cardin, many inmates, especially
those who present with persistent drug and alcohol addictions
and those that have extensive involvement with the criminal
justice system, live on life's margins. They have little or no
job history, no stable housing, are grossly undereducated. We
approximate that about 50 percent of our inmates are high
school dropouts. They have suspended or revoked driver's
licenses and no form of State-issued identification. This is
also a persistently ``sick'' population, presenting with a
number of chronic diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes,
asthma, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and
hepatitis. There is also a high incidence, as you mentioned, of
mental illness in this population. In the Commonwealth, the
sheriffs estimate that approximately 42 percent of their
populations present with some form of mental illness; 26
percent of that 42 percent present with a major mental illness.
We have, in fact, become the de facto mental health
institutions, principal providers for drug detox and substance
abuse treatment, and we often function as the primary care
medical providers for those incarcerated at the county level.
Good reentry programs have three components: a
comprehensive assessment tool; evidence-based employment and
life-skill-building programs that use community providers and
resources; and case management and discharge planning. I have
attached to my written testimony a detailed description of the
four reentry programs we have for both men and women in Suffolk
County as well as the results and the impact on recidivism that
we get from those programs.
In short, Senator, unless there is national leadership on
reentry that includes support and funding for initiatives that
involve collaboration between law enforcement and community
service providers, tax incentives and other incentives for
employers to hire ex-offenders, and sweeping changes to Federal
and State drug laws, our recidivism rates will stay at more
than 50 percent, and we will continue to spend more than $49
billion a year on incarceration.
Thank you for hearing me.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Cabral appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Judge Bartle.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE III, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Judge Bartle. Senator Cardin, thank you for the opportunity
you have given me to be here today.
The purpose of the reentry program of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is to
help those who have completed their prison sentences to reenter
society as productive and law-abiding citizens and in this way
to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety in the community
we serve.
As you know, all convicted felons in the Federal system
must serve a term of supervised release, usually 3 to 5 years,
once they are released from prison. During that time these
offenders are under the supervision of a Federal probation
officer. As Federal judges, my colleagues and I must deal on a
regular basis with those who violate the terms of their
supervised release. If the violation is also a crime, as is
often the case, the court is likely to revoke the supervised
release and send the individual back to prison with, of course,
additional cost to the taxpayer. Then there are those who have
completed their supervised release, are later convicted of new
Federal crimes, and again are incarcerated. Consequently, our
court decided that it was time to look for innovative ways for
us to try to cope more effectively with this recurring problem
of recidivism.
The court, after full consideration, voted unanimously in
the fall of 2007 to institute our reentry program now in place.
Since then, the program has achieved an unprecedented and
ongoing level of cooperation within the criminal justice
system. This program has intensive court involvement. We are
fortunate to have two superb magistrate judges to oversee and
participate in the program in a hands-on manner.
The candidates for the program are Philadelphia residents
on supervised release who usually score 5, 6, or 7--on a scale
of 0 to 9--that is, medium to high risk, on Federal Probation's
Risk Prediction Index for future crimes. Initially, the
probation officers will screen the candidates and recommend
those suitable for participation, with input from the United
States Attorney's Office and the Federal defender. No
candidate, however, is placed in the program unless he or she
is willing to participate. The program typically lasts 1 year
with intensive efforts to provide a candidate with training and
employment, if necessary, and to offer guidance and assistance
with other aspects of life in which the individual needs help.
To aid the candidates, the program has developed
partnerships with the local bar association, universities, law
schools, and career training and placement centers. There is a
probation officer specifically designated to the program, as
well as an Assistant United States Attorney and an assistant
public defender.
For any who do not comply with the strictures of the
program, the magistrate judge may deprive a candidate of credit
for a certain period of time in the program and also impose a
curfew, halfway house confinement, up to 7 days' imprisonment,
or drug treatment. If a serious infraction occurs, the
individual can be evicted from the program and referred to the
sentencing judge for further action.
The only incentive that is offered, in addition to the
intensive assistance given to each ex-offender, is a reduction
of year in the term of supervised release if the program is
completed successfully and the judge who sentenced the
individual agrees to the reduction.
The magistrate judge holds sessions of the reentry court
twice a month at which time all current participants in the
program appear as a group. Beforehand, the magistrate judge has
met privately with the probation officer, an Assistant United
States Attorney, and a public defender to review the progress
in each case. At the court session, each participant approaches
the lectern and has a conversation with the magistrate judge.
Family members and friends are encouraged to attend, and each
session, of course, is open to the public. At the court session
the magistrate judge listens, encourages, offers advice, and,
if necessary, imposes certain sanctions. Finally, there is
always the all-important ``graduation'' event in the courthouse
for those completing the course. Usually, the sentencing judge
attends and at that time formally signs the order reducing the
term of supervised release. On one occasion, Mayor Michael
Nutter of Philadelphia spoke. Family members and friends are
always in attendance. It is a very uplifting experience for all
concerned, as I can attest from having participated in several
graduations.
Since its inception, our reentry program has been a great
success. As of July 2009, 76 former offenders have either
graduated or are currently participating in the program. Only
12 or 16 percent have had their supervised release revoked
based on new criminal activity or other violations. The
revocation rate is well below the 47.4-percent rate for the
period 2003 to 2008 for the same category of high-risk ex-
offenders.
The program also saves significant taxpayer dollars. In
2008, it was estimated that the annual cost of incarcerating a
person in the Federal prison system was $25,000, roughly, and
$3,700 for each year of supervised release. This program in our
district has saved the government, we estimate, over $380,000.
Finally, we have enlisted Temple University to study the long-
term success rate of the program.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania strongly endorses its
reentry program and highly recommends it to our sister Federal
and State courts. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Judge Bartle appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Judge, thank you for your testimony.
Impressive results.
Chief LoBuglio.
STATEMENT OF STEFAN LOBUGLIO, CHIEF, PRE-RELEASE AND REENTRY
DIVISION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
AND REHABILITATION, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
Chief LoBuglio. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for my being
able to offer testimony. My name is Stefan LoBuglio, and I am
Chief of Pre-Release and Reentry Services for the Montgomery
County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation in Maryland.
In my position, I oversee a work-release program that
transitions prisoners back into the community. Today our
program is supervising 175 male and female prisoners who are
all within 1 year of release and who will complete their
sentences in our community-based program.
Our population includes today 26 prisoners from the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 5 prisoners from the Maryland State Division
of Corrections, and 144 prisoners from the local jails in
Montgomery County. These individuals have committed crimes
ranging from misdemeanant petty offenses like theft and traffic
offenses to Part I felony offenses for rape and homicide. They
may be serving sentences ranging from 30 days to 30 years. They
are all within 1 year of release. A conviction for escape is
the only offense that would disqualify a person from
consideration for our program.
We strongly believe in Montgomery County--and this is
supported by research--that if prisoners are returning back to
our area, we enhance public safety by transitioning them
through a community-based program regardless of the offense
types and whether they are returning from the Federal, State,
or local correctional systems.
The pre-release program requires offenders to follow a
customized reentry plan of work, education, treatment, and
family engagement. They pay program fees, taxes, child support,
and restitution. Most reside in the 177-bed community
correctional facility that is located 15 miles from this
hearing room in Rockville, Maryland.
For almost 40 years, the program has served to keep our
jail undercrowded by managing 16,000 clients in our center. In
concert with the other operational divisions of Montgomery
County, the program serves as a vital component of our county's
investment strategy to effectively and judiciously use
community-based programs and jail beds to maximize public
safety and to minimize social and economic costs. We are part
of the first line of defense that is the subject of today's
hearing.
Our program is one of many successful models of prisoner
reentry that exist across the county, and our field has seen an
explosion of interest. However, with all of the accumulated
knowledge of and interest in what works in prisoner reentry,
there is a question of why hasn't reentry penetrated the core
of correctional practice. Perhaps some delay is to be expected
because of the change of complex correctional operations that
have grown so large in recent decades. A second and less
examined reason, though, concerns the lack of incentives for
correctional programs to fully embrace a commitment to reentry
and to take responsibility for reducing recidivism rates.
Providing care, custody, and control in our jails and prisons
is challenging to be sure, but fully within the scope and
ability of correctional professionals. By definition, reentry
extends the focus of corrections into the community and beyond
the safe confines of the prison walls, which makes it feel
risky to many correctional practitioners. Adapting this new
orientation is inhibited by the fact that the results are not
easily measured, understood, or controlled.
In my written testimony, I suggest two critical roles that
the Federal Government can and should play to expedite the
development and adoption of robust reentry strategies in our
correctional systems. The first involves providing States and
local jurisdictions with incentives to develop an
infrastructure of One-Stop Reentry Residential Centers, like
our Montgomery County Pre-Release Center that you saw on
Monday, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The
centers are needed because prisoners return from all three
correctional systems at different frequencies and times. But
inmates from all three systems present similar public safety
risks and have similar transitional requirements. Within a
community, the centers would serve as the nexus for social
services and for public safety monitoring.
Federal incentives can change the landscape of corrections.
In 1994, the truth-in-sentencing legislation tied Federal
subsidies for construction of prisons to sentencing reforms and
helped spur a boom in prison construction. Under this proposal,
the Federal Government could use the same strategy by offering
incentives to build and coordinate the operations of one-stop
reentry residential centers.
The second role involves developing robust data systems and
analytical capabilities that would allow jurisdictions at all
levels to measure key reentry performance measures in real time
and to readjust resources and policies as needed. The COMPSTAT
model of informational analysis and resource deployment that
transformed the New York City Police Department in the 1990's
and that has fueled the growth of community policing nationwide
provides the example of what is needed to spur development of
reentry strategies. Unfortunately, the myopic focus on
recidivism rates as the single measure of success of reentry
programs often obscures other key measures of community well-
being and public safety. Also, recidivism proves surprisingly
difficult to measure and interpret. For a recent study in
Montgomery County, we encountered significant challenges in
measuring our own recidivism outcomes. The sheer effort it took
and the accompanying time until results are known mean that
this type of research will be done sporadically, not routinely,
and it is the routine rapid feedback loop that is a cornerstone
of the COMPSTAT and related innovations that have improved law
enforcement performance in other areas and which could do the
same for reentry.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief LoBuglio appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Chief LoBuglio, thank you very much for
your testimony.
Mr. Burris.
STATEMENT OF DOUG BURRIS, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI
Mr. Burris. Thank you. I first must start off by expressing
my sincere gratitude for allowing me to testify today. It truly
is an honor. I am here representing the Eastern District of
Missouri, where I serve as the Chief U.S. Probation Officer. I
have held this position for over 9 years and believe that I
have the best job on the planet. I wake up without an alarm
clock at 5 o'clock every morning and cannot wait to get to
work.
With well nearly 2,400 people on our caseload, my district
ranks th in size of the 94 districts that make up the Federal
system. In spite of ranking 18th overall, we rank in the top
ten in the number of people on supervision for firearms,
methamphetamine, and crack cocaine convictions. Specific to
firearms cases, we rank seventh. More people are on supervision
for a Federal firearms conviction in St. Louis than are on
supervision for the same crime in Chicago, Los Angeles, or New
York City. As to drug cases, Eastern Missouri ranks sixth in
size for crack cases. In fact, early in 2008 our district
hosted one of two Federal crack summits, where people from
throughout the Nation convened to prepare for the retroactive
change that took place with the crack laws in March of 2008. I
hope to discuss these cases in detail later.
Having shared this information, it is probably no surprise
that the Eastern District of Missouri has one of the most at-
risk caseloads in the system. We also have one of the top ten
revocation rates. Last year, 2008, our risk prediction average
was second in the Nation of the 94 districts.
We decided to try to take a look at reducing recidivism,
and a wave of change took place in our district when we began
collaborating with various community partners and doing what we
could in eliminating barriers to success. The first area that
we concentrated on was employment.
To share the importance of employment on recidivism, all
one has to do is examine the impact of having a job at the time
of a case closing. Federal statistics show that individuals who
have the highest risk and are unemployed at the time
supervision starts and ends have a revocation rate of 78
percent. However, the same individuals with the highest risk
levels who start and end supervision unemployed had a
revocation rate of only 23 percent.
We started our ex-offender employment program, and our
unemployment rate in the community at the time was 3.6 percent.
Our caseload unemployment rate at that time was 12.1 percent.
Aiming to lower the caseload rate, we received training from
the National Institute of Corrections on an Offender Workforce
Development curriculum. This set the foundation for our
program. We began seeking employers who offered a living wage
and health benefits, not minimum wage and part-time fast-food
positions. At the beginning, we had a lot of doors slammed in
our face. However, with the help of various incentives and
promises to employers that we would do all we could to
eliminate barriers, we began having some success. Nothing
breeds success like success, and we eventually achieved
something that I never dreamed possible. Local governments and
law enforcement groups began endorsing ex-offender employment
as a crime reduction strategy. Additionally, nearly 5 years
ago, our caseload--once again one of the most at-risk caseloads
in the entire system--experienced an unemployment rate less
than that of the community. For the last 47 months now, our
caseload unemployment rate has been less than the community
unemployment rate. When a snapshot was taken last month, our
caseload unemployment rate was 4.3 percent, while the general
population unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.
As mentioned previously, our revocation rates have
decreased as well. While we had a risk prediction average that
ranked second nationally, our revocations did not rank the
same. In fact, our revocations ranked 53rd instead of second.
The number of people under our supervision has more than
doubled since 2000, yet we file less violation reports now than
we did 9 years ago.
Earlier in my testimony, I mentioned wanting to further
discuss the subject of those released from prison because of a
crack reduction. Thus far, nearly 200 people have returned home
to Eastern Missouri because of this change in law in my
district, again ranking in the top ten nationally. More than
half of those who benefited from this retroactive change have
been home more than a year. In total, only six of those
released to Eastern Missouri by way of a crack reduction have
failed supervision and returned to prison. Thus far this is a
failure rate of only 3.2 percent.
Every day I get to go to work with an outstanding group of
judges, probation staff, and community partners who create
stories that would just amaze you. I truly do have the best job
on the planet.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burris appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Burris, those are certainly very
impressive numbers. It is a pleasure to have you here.
Ms. Solomon.
STATEMENT OF AMY L. SOLOMON, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, URBAN
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Solomon. Thank you. Senator Cardin, thank you for the
opportunity to speak here today.
For the past years, we have focused on the more than
700,000 prisoners returning home each year from State and
Federal prisons. Only recently have the 12 to 13 million
releases from local jails gained attention.
The traditional approach to incarceration is to keep
inmates locked up away from society to keep us safe. With
little treatment and transition planning, most are released
with the same problems that they were locked up with.
To be clear, business as usual does not produce the results
we want. Since almost everyone in jail will eventually return
home, the big question is how do we imprison and release people
in a way that makes them less likely to reoffend and more
likely to work, support their families, pay taxes, and be
productive members of society?
It is not easy. Jail stays are brief. Less than 20 percent
of inmates stay less than a month. Many are jailed only a few
hours or days. This is not a lot of time for services and
release planning. Also, jails house a variety of populations,
most of whom have not been convicted of a crime. This means
jails cannot easily predict when many people will be let out,
which adds another complication. But the need for treatment in
jails is acute.
As you mentioned, many who cycle in and out of jail face
multiple problems like substance abuse and mental illness, and
they would benefit from interventions that begin in jail and
continue in the community. Yet most jails do not have the time
or capacity to help people overcome these serious deficits.
Also, unlike prisoners who are typically released to
supervision, most jail inmates are simply let out on their own.
No single person or organization is responsible or held
accountable for reentry assistance or oversight.
There are also unique opportunities alongside these
challenges. Short jail stays mean that people are not
disconnected for long from their families, jobs, and churches,
and because jails are locally sited, they can facilitate in-
reach with nearby service providers. These agencies, such as
health and human service organizations, are likely already
working with the very people who cycle in and out of jail. Not
only are most repeat offenders using jail space over and over
again, but they are also repeatedly using human services.
Over the past 4 years, the Department of Justice has made
strategic investments to assist the field. In 2006, the Bureau
of Justice Assistance funded a local jail reentry roundtable.
More recently, the Urban Institute has been working with the
National Institute of Corrections to develop a transition from
jail to community model, TJC, that can be adopted in
jurisdictions large and small, urban and rural. TJC is not a
program but a systems change approach, a way for jails and
communities to work effectively together on a day-to-day-basis.
So what does effective transition involve? Screening and
assessment to quickly flag high-risk individuals; a transition
plan to identify what people need most and how they will get
it; and targeted interventions like drug treatment and job
training that begin in jail and continue after release. The
goal is to match the right treatment and requirements to the
right individuals, focusing scarce resources on the
interventions that are most effective and on the people who
need them most.
We are evaluating the TJC pilot sites so we can help guide
jurisdictions toward success and document it when it occurs. In
both TJC and the new Second Chance sites, we hope to see lower
recidivism rates, higher employment, better health, and less
drug abuse.
The progress is real, but it is too soon to declare
victory. While dozens of jurisdictions are working on reentry,
there are more than 3,000 jails across the United States
Through hearings like this one and by passing bipartisan
legislation like the Second Chance Act, Congress signals to
communities around the country that new directions are in
order.
Of course, funding through grants makes a difference, too.
It fosters collaboration, seeds innovation, and funds real
services. Congressional attention and funding signal to cities,
counties, and States that a proactive approach to reentry is
the way of the future--and they should not wait or they will be
left behind.
At the same time, we have much to learn about what works,
so funding should also be used to rigorously evaluate new
reentry efforts. It is critical that we figure out what
approaches are most effective so that lessons learned can
benefit the broader field.
The work ahead is complex and implementation is difficult.
But I am optimistic that well-implemented, research-informed
reentry efforts will lead to safer, healthier communities for
all Americans.
Thank you for inviting me to speak.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Solomon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Ms. Solomon, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Muhlhausen.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MUHLHAUSEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER
FOR DATA ANALYSIS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Muhlhausen. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. I
am a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the
Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Benjamin Cardin, Ranking
Member Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify today on prisoner reentry issues. 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 rates of
former prisoners is easy to understand. In 2007 alone, over
725,000 prisoners were released back into society.
While opponents of incarceration often argue that too many
offenders are incarcerated in prison and that prisons are a
burden on State budgets, they rarely recognize two important
detail: First, as a percentage of State and local expenditures,
the cost of corrections is not a burden on State budgets. In
fiscal year 2007, corrections accounted for 3.4 percent of
total State expenditures. Second, increased incarceration rates
have reduced crime. Several studies have demonstrated a link
between increased incarceration and decreases in crime rates.
To address the issue of offender recidivism, the Federal
Government should limit itself to handling tasks that fall
under its constitutional powers and that State and local
governments cannot perform by themselves. First, the Federal
Government should operate evidence-based reentry programs for
offenders formally incarcerated in the Federal correctional
system. By evidence-based programs, I mean programs that have
undergone rigorous scientific evaluations and found to be
effective. Second, the Federal Government should not assume
responsibility for funding the routine operations of State and
local reentry programs. Providing basic services through
Federal agencies that States themselves could provide for State
and local prisoners is a misuse of Federal resources and a
distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the
Federal Government.
Unfortunately, most reentry programs have not undergone
scientifically rigorous evaluations. Despite the need for more
rigorous evaluations, two recently published evaluations shed
some light on the potential of these programs.
An experimental evaluation of the Center for Employment
Opportunities Prisoner Reentry Program found that placing
recently released prisoners immediately into transitional
taxpayer-subsidized jobs had underwhelming results. After 2
years, the transitional job program failed to yield lower
arrest rates. However, the intervention did have a lower effect
on conviction rates. While this difference appears to be driven
largely by the fact that participants were less likely to be
convicted of misdemeanors, disappointingly, the program appears
to have had no impact on felony convictions. I will add,
though, the program did lower the conviction rate of
participants.
However, there is another program that may have more
potential of reducing recidivism. The Boston Reentry Initiative
used mentoring, social service assistance, vocational training,
and education to help offenders reintegrate into society. A
quasi-experimental evaluation of the program that used a strong
research designed found that participants experienced a
reductions of 30 percent for arrest rates, including violent
arrests.
What is astounding about this effect is that rather than
selecting participants most amenable to rehabilitation,
officials selected what they considered to be the highest-risk
offenders for their participation in the program.
While this evaluation found positive results, this program
and others found to be effective need to be replicated and
rigorously evaluated in other settings before policymakers and
academics can conclude that these interventions are effective.
Too often, criminal justice programs that have been deemed
``effective'' and labeled as ``model'' programs have often been
implemented under optimal conditions. When evaluated under
real-world conditions and circumstances, these programs often
fail to produce the same results.
All levels of Government need to operate reentry programs
for former prisoners under their respective jurisdictions.
However, the Federal Government should not assume
responsibility for funding the routine operations of State and
local reentry programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank all six of you for your
testimony. I found this extremely helpful and very interesting.
Sheriff Cabral, let me start with you, if I might, because
you said something that really stuck with me, and that is that
basically the fate of a person who reenters will be largely
determined in the first 48 hours, that if you do not
successfully reenter within 48 hours, then the vulnerabilities
are too great.
Now, I am going to ask, does that depend upon whether the
person has a job or the person has a place to go as far as
housing, whether the person has a family to go back to, whether
the person is healthy enough to make it outside of the
institution, all of the above? Or what are the indicators on
those first 48 hours?
Sheriff Cabral. All of those things have an impact. If you
have comprehensive reentry programs-in addition to the Boston
Reentry Initiative that was referenced by the gentleman to my
left, we have three other programs for men and women--and they
are all gauged toward different levels of offenders. What you
might put in place for a low-risk non-violent offender is not
the same for what we call a high-impact player, someone who has
an extensive criminal history, violates the law repeatedly,
frequently uses a weapon. Those are the people that would be in
the Boston Reentry Initiative. And you tailor your program
based on the needs of the individual. You are constantly doing
a ``risk to the public versus needs'' analysis.
In some people's cases, what they need, they have stable or
relatively stable family life, but they need to reenter the job
market or start in the job market. Some need housing. Some need
both.
What we have also found, our programming for women is
gender specific. In order for reentry programs to be effective
for women, they need to be gender specific. Women have very
different needs and very different reactions and responses to
inmate programming, and you have to build in a lot of things
around self-esteem and trauma. I think the Bureau of Justice
Statistics says that over 70 percent of women who are
incarcerated have experienced domestic violence or sexual
assault before the age of 17 or by the age of 17. Trauma plays
a huge role in criminal behavior. And it is not an excuse,
being victimized oneself is not an excuse for victimizing, but
we continue to ignore the fundamental causes of criminal
behavior at our peril, so that by the time you get to the back
end--and I would disagree with the gentleman to my left. I
think that there is an enormous burden on State budgets for
incarceration and an additional burden with regard to reentry
programs. Many of us who are doing them are doing them with
money that we are taking out of our own budgets because we see
it as so necessary to having a positive public safety impact on
our communities.
But you really need to have comprehensive services in pre-
release so that people will make those good choices within the
first 48 hours. Their options within the environments to which
they return are limited, and all the negative influences are
right there in those environments. They are the same places
that the criminal behavior sprang from. So what we try to do is
give people alternatives and opportunities and reasons to hope
that their lives will be better and that they will be better
parents, that they will be productive members of society. And
if they make good choices within the first 48 hours and a
little bit beyond, then they are at least on the road to
continuing to make them and have an impact on reducing our
recidivism rates.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Burris, as I commented earlier, your
numbers are really very impressive, and I see your enthusiasm
is paying off for the people that you supervise.
Mr. Burris. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. And congratulations for your service. It is
just incredible numbers. But you also are showing something
that I think we all understand, and that is, if a person has an
employment opportunity, their chances of successful reentry are
much greater than if they do not have an employment
opportunity. If they come to the penal system with skills and
jobs, they are much more likely to return successfully to the
public. Whereas, if they do not,the challenges are much
greater.
Mr. Burris. That is absolutely correct. In fact, the Bureau
of Prisons has run some studies on recidivism, and the RDAP
program, the 500-hour drug treatment program that so many
people get to use--which is a fantastic program--shows a 16-
percent reduction in recidivism. The vocational training
programs within the Bureau of Prisons show a 33-percent
reduction in recidivism.
Senator Cardin. Well, you know, these are numbers--I think
this is what Mr. Muhlhausen and Chief LoBuglio both are
agreeing on, and that is, we need better statistical
information to evaluate what works and what does not work. I
found agreement between both of your testimonies on that point.
Chief, it seems to me that there has not been enough of
this evidence-based review or oversight in order to really
understand best practices, in order to establish national
models from what is being done in our local jails. Is that a
fair statement?
Chief LoBuglio. Sure. It is just very difficult right now
to use Federal data, State data, local data, court data,
corrections data to do an overall analysis of recidivism. Ann
Peale, who is a professor at Rutgers University, made a comment
at the recent national conference on sentencing guidelines
where she said that doing recidivism analyses in 2009 is as
difficult as it was 20 years ago, despite the fact that
information technology has transformed other aspects of our
lives.
So as correctional managers, we have difficulty right now
getting our hands on this data and using this data in real
time. I am interested as much in recidivism for the statistic
as for understanding what belies it. What is the flow of
individuals, of offenders within our correctional system? Is it
in a given month or year I am seeing high numbers of recidivism
because of changes in probation or parole practices or police
practices? That would be helpful for me to know. It would be
helpful for me to be able to engage probation and parole and
police, and it might be that it is very reasonable and not
necessarily a bad thing.
So I think there is an appropriate Federal role to get our
informational systems up to snuff, and in my written testimony,
I said one of the most sort of discouraging aspects is that
when we looked at the FBI NCIC data, which is the repository
for our most serious crimes, that was not a complete record in
comparison with the Maryland State arrest records, and neither
was complete. Both needed to be accessed.
Senator Cardin. Let me just ask you, the other
recommendation you made is for Federal incentives to set up
one-stop shops. The facility you operate is a residential
facility that deals with inmates that are ready to be released
within a short period of time, months to a year before they are
released. Many come from the local jail. Some come from State
and some come from Federal under arrangements, and all are
basically being released into Montgomery County, Maryland.
My question to you is--I do not know if you know this or
not, but how many of these facilities do we have in Maryland?
How many of these facilities are nationwide where we truly have
one-stop shop pre-release or reentry areas that are available,
that could provide somewhat comprehensive services in a
residential capacity before an inmate is released? How many of
these exist?
Chief LoBuglio. Very few. The pre-release center, which was
built in 1978, was meant to be a model for Maryland, and in the
statutory legislation there was an expectation that they would
be replicated in all the other counties. It has not happened.
Now, there are halfway houses that are used in
jurisdictions. Typically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is
using many of those beds.
What we find and what I describe in my paper is that we
have this unusual situation where in some jurisdictions we will
have the Federal Bureau of Prisons using halfway house beds,
but the State and the local jurisdictions are not using any
type of pre-release residential center.
You know, the recommendation of creating these one-stop
reentry residential centers is really to respond to the fact
that the Federal Government has a significant interest in
having well-structured, strong programs that are strong on
services and strong on accountability placed throughout the
country.
There are jurisdictions where the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, which has done a good job in placing individuals in
our type of programs, they do not have any beds available. And
Northern Virginia is an example. I was speaking to Doug Burris.
He was mentioning in Oklahoma, in one of the cities, there is
no infrastructure right now.
It is no surprise over the last 30 years we have built
prisons, but our infrastructure of the residential centers is
sort of dilapidated. It is aging. Many of them are owned by
nonprofits that do not have the capital to invest, to meet
higher building codes and higher correctional standards.
Also, many halfway houses have not met the standards of
what I think our program meets of strong accountability and
strong services. They are not completely coupled with the
mission of the correctional agency.
I have not found more than a dozen to 20 programs like ours
in the country where the staffing is sufficient, the funding is
sufficient to really do both the public safety piece and the
service piece well.
Senator Cardin. Well, that is a shocking number, because
you are a county facility, you are not even a State--I mean,
you represent a relatively small part of the entire State of
Maryland, so it is--we could use in Maryland alone perhaps as
many as if each county had a similar facility.
Chief LoBuglio. Right. Those smaller counties could----
Senator Cardin. But at least that would save maybe--six to
ten probably would be the adequate number for Maryland if we
were to provide comprehensive----
Chief LoBuglio. Right.
Senator Cardin. You have got to be close to where the
person is being released.
Chief LoBuglio. That is right. And local jurisdictions face
the challenge right now that the Federal inmates, they are
coming out. They may serveyears in prison, but they are coming
out at some point. The State inmates that are serving a little
bit less time, they are coming out at some point. And the
jails, they are coming out more quickly.
There needs to be that first line of defense, and I think
that one-stop reentry residential center is that place where we
can stabilize them.
In my testimony, I provide some results of our first
recidivism analysis, and, you know, there is a chart in there--
it is Figure 3--that actually sort of demonstrates the question
that you were asking a few minutes ago about the high risk of
recidivism right near the time of release. And what we find--
and it is graphically presented--is that the risk actually
increases after release, and then it dramatically decreases.
So our challenge from a policy standpoint is to get
individuals stabilized in the community, and that is going to
involve the housing and the employment, the mental health, the
substance abuse. No better place to do that in a one-stop
reentry residential center like the one that you saw on Monday.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just agree with you. I think perhaps you and I have
discussed the need for better statistical information. The
Department of Justice in the Bureau of Justice Statistics has
worked hard over the years and produces large amounts of
information. But I am not sure--it is of a general nature
sometimes and not so much intensely focused on the kind of
reviews of programs that work and which ones do not work. And
that is what we have to do. We periodically go through a spasm
of concern over prisons, and we spend money, and then, I do not
know, it just goes all out, and a few years later nothing has
changed, and we are back here having the same kind of hearings
that we are having today.
I would say to you that Norm Carlson--some of you might
remember him, former prison commissioner, and he said there is
no area that he knew of in which more people thought they had
the one answer to fix it than incarceration and prisons and
crime. Everybody has an idea that they are convinced if it were
done just like they suggested, this problem would--well, we
have been trying. Ever since I have been in law enforcement
since the late 1970's, everybody has had this program, that
program, and another program, and it is supposed to work. I
would just say this is a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002
release that says within 3 years of their release--in 1994 they
did a major study--67 percent were rearrested. And most of the
recidivism occurs in the first year, two-thirds of it in the
first year.
I wish this were not so. I mean, I wish it were not so. But
I am not aware that there is any silver bullet.
Now, Mr. Burris, you have got a program that you believe
works, but you are not the first person that has come in to
Congress and testified they have got a program that has
dramatic results, but somehow it seems difficult to replicate
it.
Mr. Muhlhausen, you are sort of a--I do not know if you are
a skeptic, but let me ask you, have you seen the Department of
Justice or anyone else produce any studies that can help us see
that this technique or process in working with prisoners can
have significant improvements in the recidivist rate and their
success on the outside?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I believe that the Federal Government
has a large role and has done some----
Senator Cardin. Please turn your microphone on.
Senator Sessions. Push your microphone button there.
Mr. Muhlhausen. I believe the Federal Government has done
some evaluation in this area. It could do more. But the
prisoner reentry program, CEO, Center for Employment
Opportunities, was funded by the Federal Government. The study
of the Boston Reentry Initiative was funded by the Federal
Government, and one program, the transitional job program, CEO,
in my opinion found some effects, but it really was not
impressive. But the Boston Reentry Initiative had really
impressive effects.
Now, as the skeptic is me is concerned, the evaluation was
not a randomized experiment, which is the gold standard of
finding causal effects; it was not done for that study. Even
though it was, in my opinion, a very good study, my question
would be: Can we replicate those impressive findings of a 30-
percent drop in arrest rates for participants in another area
under an even stronger research design? And maybe that is
something the Federal Government could help State and local
government do.
Senator Sessions. I think that is good, Mr. Chairman. Some
of this money, we need to think about how to do that because we
have seen dramatic things. I remember the Boston project with
juveniles in which the probation officers stopped just having
the juveniles come in once or twice a month and report. They
would go out at night with the police officer, and if the
curfew was 7 o'clock and they were not at home where they were
supposed to be, they would do something to them. There was a
consequence to that. And they claimed dramatic improvements,
90-percent reduction and all this.
I suspect some of that was exaggerated, but if you had a
30-percent reduction, that would be worthwhile.
Mr. Muhlhausen. That was the Boston Operation Cease-Fire,
and that program, elements of that have been replicated in
Chicago, and there is some research that they are actually
having some success in Chicago with former offenders who are
gang members and who were very likely to be suspected of
committing violent offenses after release. And they have gone
to them and told them, ``We know who you are, and if you make
mistakes, we are going to come down on you.'' And so there is a
real deterrent effect, and there is some research to suggest
that that program has a positive effect in reducing recidivism
in another jurisdiction.
Senator Sessions. That strikes me as similar to the drug
court programs for adults in which you go from--the alternative
to incarceration is very intensive supervision, and they
require the drug offender to come in, and most of these had
drug problems and were not major traffickers, or they are not
supposed to be. And the judge monitors them, drug testing
regularly, and if they do not do what they are supposed to do,
there is a consequence immediately. They are supposed to go and
apply for a job. They do not. They get fired because they did
not show? There is a consequence. You want to not be in jail?
We will let you work. But if you do not show up and you get
fired or you get caught stealing, we put you back in jail, and
those kinds of things. But it takes a lot of intensity.
Mr. Burris, do you think that is a fundamental model that
has some potential for taking a chance on a prisoner that you
might otherwise put in jail?
Mr. Burris. Absolutely, Your Honor. In fact, we have a
post-release----
Senator Sessions. You can call me ``Your Honor,'' but I
am----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Burris. I am sorry.
Senator Sessions. I can tell you have testified in court,
which gives me some confidence in your real experience.
Mr. Burris. Sorry, Senator. But your question, absolutely
yes. In fact, we proudly stole a drug court model to use on
post-release defendants and implemented it about a year and a
half ago. And one of the programs we visited was Philadelphia,
and I am sure the judge could talk about the incredible success
they have had. We have reviewed the Temple study, the Temple
University study, and it is showing some amazing results.
Also, we have done exactly several of the things that you
have discussed. In my district, probation officers have
mandatory evening and weekend hours. They are not going to just
see someone across the desk from them. The worst example of
what can happen with that----
Senator Sessions. What did you say about evening hours?
Mr. Burris. The probation officers are required to go into
the field on the weekends and evenings as opposed to seeing
them across a desk in a probation office. And the example that
we----
Senator Sessions. Well, that is not a little bitty thing
for State employees who prefer not to work on weekends and at
night. Has that transition worked?
Mr. Burris. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we were able to see
problems start early and do interventions before they became
huge, and we were able to get good relationships with family
members, employers, things along those lines, and it is really
producing excellent results.
Senator Sessions. Per defendant, per probation officer, it
is a lot more hours committed. Is that correct?
Mr. Burris. It is.
Senator Sessions. I mean, it is one thing to have 10 to 20
people come into your office for 30 minutes. It is another to
go out to 10 people's homes at night. That takes a lot more
time in resources and costs.
Mr. Burris. It is, Senator. Yes, it is.
Senator Sessions. Judge, I would just say 20 years ago,
gosh, I supported--in Mobile we were able to replicate, one of
the first places in the country to replicate the drug court
that started in Miami, Judge Goldstein and that group in Miami,
and they made national news and so we just did it. And I think
it was pretty--it worked some, but you just do not bring
somebody in and they cease being an addict, they do not cease
being a thief the next day just because--I wish it were that
easy.
Judge, maybe you would comment, and that will be all.
Judge Bartle. Well, our program is very intensive. It
involves two magistrate judges who are constantly monitoring
those offenders who are in the program. It is not limited
simply to those who are either drug addicts or who have
committed drug offenses. We have many who have committed other
offenses, gun offenses, other violent offenses, and the key is
the supervision by the magistrate judge who not only is someone
there to punish but is there as a mentor and counselor and
guide for the people in the program. And I think it is
extremely important that someone in high authority takes an
interest in someone and guides them and encourages them.
One of the other factors in our program is that we
encourage family involvement, and the sessions that are held
each month, family members participate. They come to court--
girlfriends, spouses, mothers and fathers, and so forth. And I
think that is another very important aspect of our program. And
as I mentioned earlier, we have a wonderful graduation program
at the end of the year where we give them certificates,
recognize their achievements, and the sentencing judge
participates and at that time formally signs an order reducing
supervised release by a year, and the sentencing judge usually
makes a statement about the individual and says how pleased he
or she is that the ex-offender has graduated and has become a
productive member of society.
So these intangible factors I think are extremely important
in any successful program to reduce recidivism. But it takes a
lot of effort. We have a probation officer assigned
specifically to this, and we have two magistrate judges who, in
addition to their regular duties, are participating in these
afternoon programs. They begin at 4 o'clock. Prior to that
time, each magistrate judge will meet with the probation
officer and Assistant U.S. Attorney and a defender to review
the progress in each case. So it is very time-consuming, but
our program is one which has not involved an extra dime of
Federal money. We have been able to reallocate our resources to
maximize the benefit to the offender and to reduce recidivism
in the cases that participate in the program.
Senator Sessions. I think that is a similar project to the
methods of the program that was established 20 years ago, and I
do think it works. In general, I do believe that, but it is not
a cure-all. It just does not eliminate crime, but if you can
get a measurable improvement, we should consider it, and I
think you do get a measurable improvement.
Judge Bartle. Yes, we do. We do not claim that we have
eliminated all recidivists as a result, but the reduction in
recidivism is significant, taking into account particularly the
high-risk offenders who participate in the program.
Senator Cardin. I think your numbers are very impressive, a
70-plus completion rate, only a 12- to 16- percent revocation
rate. That is a pretty impressive number, your program. We have
been joined by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Chairman
Specter. I thanked him earlier for allowing me to have the
gavel for this hearing.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you for convening this hearing with this
distinguished panel of witnesses. I am sorry I could not be
here earlier, but the subject matter of the ``First Line of
Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local Level'' is a subject
that I have been interested in for a long time.
I have long believed that the problem of violent crime in
America can be substantially ameliorated--it is never going to
be solved--by doing two things: one, life sentences for career
criminals; and, secondly, realistic rehabilitation for reentry.
And the grave difficulty has been to find the resources on
reentry for detoxification, job training, literacy training. No
surprise if you release a functional illiterate from jail
without a trade or a skill, the person goes back to a life of
crime. So that has been the battle.
We legislated and signed into law last year the Second
Chance Act which applies to State and local government, and the
program which has been described by Chief Judge Bartle is
enormously impressive, with tremendous statistical results. And
it shows it would be of great potential savings. We are penny-
wise and pound-foolish not to utilize these programs to try to
reduce recidivism. So I thank you for convening this hearing.
Let me take a moment to note my long association with Judge
Bartle, a very distinguished career--even if he went to
Princeton.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. He partially redeemed himself by being a
Penn Law graduate and joined a very prestigious law firm, which
became even more prestigious, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, and was
Insurance Commissioner and Attorney General. And among the
pitfalls of his professional career, he practiced law with me
for a while.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. I had the opportunity, along with Senator
Heinz, to recommend him for the district judgeship. He has
served there with great distinction since 1991, so I am
especially pleased to see him in Washington today as a key
witness, and I congratulate him on his outstanding career and
what he is doing on this program, and I congratulate all of you
for the work that you are doing.
I like to limit my speeches to 3 minutes, and I am 4
seconds over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Well, I just really wanted to point out
that Judge Bartle's program is saving us a lot of money. The
numbers that you gave about incarceration versus those who are
in this program is incredible direct savings, and then the
success rates of reentry save us even more money. So your judge
is doing good work.
Ms. Solomon, if I may ask you a question, you said
something that had me thinking about the fact that we have a
brief opportunity for individuals released from local jails.
They may only be there a short period of time, and trying to
develop a reentry program for a person who may only be
incarcerated for 30 days or 45 days or 60 days.
How do you deal with that? How can you successfully have
reentry when you have a very limited exposure in dealing with
that person and that person knows that he or she is going to be
released very shortly, may not have the same incentives? Do you
just give up, or do you try something? What do you do?
Ms. Solomon. I think the key is to very quickly assess
people, to screen them, find out who the high-risk people are,
so that either the jail providers or the community providers
who are coming inside the jail to start the work can work with
the right people. And I think that one of the reasons we have
the results we heard of from Boston and Chicago is because they
are focusing on the highest-risk people who most warrant the
resources, and that is where you can get the biggest bang for
the buck.
So I think the key is early screening and assessment, and
then making sure if people are going to be out quickly that
community providers are expecting their return and can start
that work.
If I can, I just want to weigh in very briefly on the
evaluation issue and say that Joan Petersilia estimates we have
got 10,000 or more reentry programs, and less than two dozen
have rigorous evaluations. So there is so little out there, and
I think that we have an opportunity with the Second Chance
grantees that Senator Specter just spoke about to look at 67
new sites and grantees who have a very high bar and a rigorous
approach to how they are going about reentry. And right now
there is no funded evaluation. I think we need to look hard at
what they are doing so we can learn lessons there.
I also want to just quickly talk about the CEO evaluation
that was referenced. For the group of people who are brought
into the program early, within their first 3 months of release,
they actually did have bigger results. They had bigger results
in terms of their recidivism, and it gets at the moment of
release issue that the sheriff was talking about. If we catch
people early, I think that there is a big opportunity to make a
difference.
Senator Cardin. That is an important point. Thank you for
bringing that out.
We have talked about jobs and education and services
dealing with addiction and health care. I do not want this
hearing to conclude without mentioning housing. I mention that
because when I was in Frederick, which has a relatively small
reentry program, they told me how extremely difficult it is to
find affordable housing for someone who is not connected, who
does not have a place to return to; that there is a stigma,
first of all, in finding housing with someone who has a
criminal record; and, second, there is just a shortage of
affordable housing.
I want to give you, any of you who want, an opportunity to
talk about how serious an issue housing is for a successful
reentry and whether there are models out there that we can look
at to try to deal with this potential obstacle to successful
reentry.
Chief LoBuglio. I would be glad to say that it is indeed a
huge issue for us. There are no magical solutions. The benefit
of having residential community correctional beds is that you
provide immediate housing, and then you allow an individual to
work and earn money.
In our experience, the best way to prevent homelessness is
to have an individual get some money in the bank so that he or
she can go through listings and find that apartment or
opportunity to live. There is no magic solution, but you are
advantaged if you have money in your bank account, and you do
not typically if you are leaving a prison setting. That is one
of the great advantages of a community correctional residential
center. You have that opportunity. All residents can leave with
$500 to $5,000 if they have been with us for a couple of
months.
Senator Cardin. You require your residents to actually save
money. They are required to do it?
Chief LoBuglio. That is right. They pay us a program fee,
and they are also required to save 10 percent of their gross
income, which is given at the time of release, and it is
typically used for the housing piece, a deposit.
Senator Cardin. Most of you talked about partnerships, that
you cannot do this alone, you have to bring in other players.
Are there nonprofits that are out there helping on housing?
Sheriff Cabral. May I weigh in on that one?
Senator Cardin. Yes, certainly.
Sheriff Cabral. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I think I am on
this time. I was not the last time.
I wanted to talk about our CREW Program. I had mentioned
earlier about gender-specific programming for women. We have
partners on all of our programs. They are critical because
corrections--we just do not have the budget in corrections to
do it alone. But the CREW Program has two partners: the South
End Community Health Center and Project Place. Project Place
deals as a nonprofit with issues around housing and job
placement, and they literally get housing for female inmates.
And the reason we brought in the South End Community Health
Center is because of the health care piece, which is so
critical. If we can get women to go to their local health care
providers, they will also bring their children, and that has a
generational effect.
But just to give you an idea of some of the numbers, once
you get the person in the program, in pre-release, and you are
building job skills and you are building life skills--and it is
application that they do not open checking accounts. So even if
they do have jobs, 15 percent of their checks are being taken
by a check-cashing place because they do not have bank
accounts. I mean, there are real fundamental life skills that
most of us take for granted that are just absent in this
population.
But in terms of housing, we had, since we started the
program, 260 inmates enrolled and 216 have graduated, and these
housing statistics are for fiscal year 2009. Within 3 months of
release, we had placed 66 percent of those graduates into
housing, and we had placed 100 percent of them into housing
within 6 months of release.
We do a lot of residential treatment programs within the
first 6 months as well, and one of the glitches here is that
they get out of a residential treatment program after 6 months,
and in order for Project Place to place them in permanent
housing, they have to become homeless again and go back into
the shelter pool. We try to get them out of the shelter pool
immediately. It is not a very long transition. And then we can
place them in permanent housing. But there is a gap between
residential treatment, which everyone needs--and that is so
critical to their success--and being able to move them smoothly
into permanent housing, even with a nonprofit partner like
Project Place.
But our numbers for recidivism--nationally, they are 30
percent--for the CREW Program graduates (and CREW is one of the
few programs that has a 2-year follow-up and after-care
component, so we can literally track people for 2 years in the
CREW Program) the recidivism rate is 20 percent, so it is 10
percent less than the national average.
So the support, the wrap-around services, and the after-
care are effective.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Burris. Senator, I know of a program, a faith-based
program that we have utilized in St. Louis called the St.
Patrick Center, and they have a program called Release to Rent
for people that are released and have no place to go where they
will pay for the first couple months of an apartment and then
pro-rate it over the next year where the amount that they have
to pay keeps going up and up.
Part of the requirement for that is they have to
participate in an intensive counseling and job training
program, though, and we have had some real success with this
program as well.
Senator Cardin. That seems to be an alternative to what is
done in Montgomery County where you have it all in one location
through the county government. That seems like it is certainly
a very valuable asset for that community.
Mr. Burris. Yes.
Senator Cardin. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Solomon, you mentioned 67 programs.
Are those going to be rigorously evaluated? Is that what you
were saying that under the Second Chance----
Ms. Solomon. They need to be.
Senator Sessions. Need to be. Could be.
Ms. Solomon. Yes, correct.
Senator Sessions. Would provide nice laboratories for us if
we studied effectively.
Ms. Solomon. Yes. They were just funded and the
evaluation----
Senator Sessions. Well, one of the things that happens in
the program that I--a couple things happen with grants. One of
them is that people do not do anything until they get the
grant. But you, Judge Bartle, like they did in Mobile, they
just decided we needed to do the drug court and did it. It did
not take any real extra money to make it all happen. And a lot
of these programs can be done with existing staff if they are
just focused with new ideas.
Now, new money is necessary to do certain things. there is
no doubt about it. But I just worry that people sit around
waiting for somebody to give them a lot of money so they can
take on a new effective program that they could probably do on
their own.
Mr. Muhlhausen, do you think we are--well, I will just back
up. A number of years ago, we helped get some Federal money for
a juvenile program, and I think we had local evaluators, but
everybody seemed to have an interest in the program being
successful. It did not have--what do you call it?--the
competitive environment where somebody is really rigorously
questioning the program. Because the program leaders wanted it
to be successful, they tended to see success and ignore lack of
success.
So I am really interested if you think we could do a better
job of creating the kind of rigorous evaluations that we could
then say to the 90 percent of prisoners in State and local
jails who have been arrested by State and local officials that
these programs, properly managed by you, will work. Where are
we on that?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I think we need to do a better job,
and, unfortunately, I think a lot of people do not want program
evaluations to be done because they are afraid of bad results.
Senator Sessions. I think that is true.
Mr. Muhlhausen. But I think also that if Congress gives
grants to State and local agencies to do reentry programs, they
should be evaluated, and Congress can help out by providing the
funds and also mandating it in legislation, but also not only
mandating it but following through, because this reminds me,
when the Workforce Investment Act was passed in 1998, it
mandated a randomized experimental evaluation of Federal
workforce programs. Well, the Clinton administration never got
around to doing it, and the Bush administration never got
around to doing it, and Congress never seemed to care that
evaluation of the workforce investment program based on a
randomized experiment was done. They did a quasi-experimental
evaluation that was done like a year or two ago, but if you
really want to know if these programs work, the emphasis needs
to be on randomized experiments.
Senator Sessions. Well, Mr. Burris, and all of you, I would
just say commitment by the people in charge with creativity and
some skills in human nature seem to be the key to success.
Would you agree, Mr. Burris? And what is your experience in
that regard?
Mr. Burris. Absolutely. To give you an example, Senator,
one of our big obstacles has been transportation, and we do not
have any funding for transportation, so we have actually held
bake sales in our Federal courthouse to provide bus passes so
people could get to and from work, to and from treatment, to
and from home.
Senator Sessions. And what do you think about--was it you
or Mr. LoBuglio who talked about the intensive supervision? I
would like maybe both of you to talk about fundamentally do you
think that we could take money from incarceration and place it
in intensive supervision of releasees and that that could have
a positive effect.
Mr. Burris. I would say yes, that it would have to be a
community approach, though. As you stated, there is no silver
bullet, magic bullet. You are going to have to pull every type
of program, drug treatment, everything into it, along with the
intensive supervision, and not just having a probation officer
there 6 days a week. That will not work. But if you bring in
the various programs, education, drug treatment, drug testing,
everything like that, with the high-risk offenders, I think it
can have a result.
Chief LoBuglio. I think it is having results. I know the
Council of State Governments, NACo, and others have been
pushing this concept of a justice reinvestment strategy of
looking at how much money is being spent in a jurisdiction, at
the State level and at the local level, for corrections, for
probation, for all sorts of things, and how best should it
spend. And I think they have demonstrated some excellent
results in Kansas and in Texas.
I think it is enormously promising. I think the challenge
is to make sure that jails are included and that local
jurisdictions are included in that partnership.
Senator Sessions. Well, local is where the action is. I
mean, 90 percent of the people are prosecuted locally.
Chief LoBuglio. That is right.
Senator Sessions. So the Federal system should be done
right, but so if you take money--the problem with States is--
one of the problems is that the probation officers in Alabama
are paid by the State of Alabama. The district attorneys are
paid by the State and local supplements, and the police chiefs
operate from the city. And there are all these different
budgets, and so it is just not easy to take money from
probation officers and move it over to prisons or vice versa.
And they have Congressmen and Senators and State
representatives that protect turfs, and it is hard to get it
done in a rational way. But I think what I hear you saying is
that without placing the public at any real greater risk, maybe
marginally, you could put more people under intense supervision
and have a net gain for the public interest.
Chief LoBuglio. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. But not just report in once a month to
the probation officer.
Chief LoBuglio. No.
Senator Sessions. That is not what we are talking about.
Chief LoBuglio. And it is going to be, you know, a
customized strategy. Some individuals will have a house that is
fine and they need employment issues and that is what needs to
be focused on. Others will not. So we have to be very clever in
how we do the reentry strategies. But I think there is
tremendous promise.
You know, in Montgomery County, three out of every ten
sentenced offenders is managed in the community, and these are
individuals that have committed Part I felonies as well as
misdemeanants. And I think we demonstrate every day that you
can place individuals--with proper services and proper
monitoring, you can manage a large portion of your population.
You know, one other thing that we have not talked about is
that there are enormous benefits for these programs for the
correctional officers and the correctional professionals in our
Nation's systems. When you have programs that provide
opportunities for individuals, inmates, that incentives them to
work hard, to comply with the program, to get stepped down, to
get to that ability where they can be with their--visit with
their children and to work, you are having more compliance in
our correctional facilities. You are also doing what I think
Senator Specter alluded, that you are providing a greater
sorting mechanism. Those who are most violent, most risky,
should be using that hardened cell. Those who don't need that
hardened cell, we should treat this as a scarce resource, can
be managed in the community.
Our metrics in 2008 is that collectively our prisoners earn
$2 million. They paid taxes of $400,000. The same in program
fees. They paid child support of $200,000. They paid
restitution. They would not have paid any of that if they were
incarcerated. We can manage some of our current--some of the
individuals that are currently incarcerated with these types of
intensive supervision programs and some of the programs with
residential components.
Senator Cardin. And I would also point out, Mr. LoBuglio,
that your incarceration rates in Montgomery County, which is a
very diverse county, a very urban county, is much lower than
the national average. So you are also showing success in that
respect, and it is impressive.
I take away from this that we clearly need more
information. I could not agree more with Senator Sessions and
with the witnesses about evaluating the way programs are
currently working. I think Senator Sessions' point about these
hearings have been going on for decades is absolutely correct.
And we do lay on programs, and we do not evaluate programs, and
I think that is a very valid concern that has been expressed by
most of the witnesses here, and it is something we need to take
a look at.
I do, though, agree that we have a real shortage of
residential programs available for inmates who are going to be
released in our communities that can provide comprehensive
services so that a person has the best chance for successful
reentry. I think the Montgomery County model is the right type
of model. I also think you need adequate supervision, and I
think the Pennsylvania model is the type of model that I would
like to see in more jurisdictions around the country.
So I think there are good examples of--and, Sheriff, your
program is very, very effective. If I could bottle Mr. Burris'
energy--he not only goes out at night and weekends; he gets up
at 5 o'clock in the morning without an alarm clock, so this guy
is----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. We need that type of energy in the
probation office, and it is a tough job. Unfortunately, the
budgets for a lot of the probation departments are so strained
that you do not have enough probation officers to do the type
of work that they need to do. And I think Senator Sessions'
point about budget is absolutely accurate. We have a problem in
Maryland, as Mr. LoBuglio knows, that we could take more State
prisoners into the county program, but the State does not have
the budget to pay for it. And the State does not have the
program. It is a county program. And the State is not
encouraging other counties to develop these programs because
the State is not really anxious to pay them the fees to deal
with the reentry, even though it is going to cost our State a
lot of money because we do not provide these services.
So the budget accountability is certainly lacking in our
system, and that is the main reason we wanted to hold this
hearing, is to take a look at the local services. Senator
Sessions is absolutely right. These programs are really local.
I mean, our jails are local. The crimes are local. And it
affects our Nation, and it is important that we establish a
record here today, and I really do thank all of our witnesses
for their participation.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have got
mental illness questions, you have got alcohol. I remember a
Department of Justice study that surprised me how many people
commit serious crimes after being on a binge of 2 or 3 days of
heavy, uncontrolled drinking, and they do something, like
murder, and the next thing they are serving life in prison at
the taxpayer's cost. So anything we can do to see that, I do
think that we ought not to forget also that punishment is a
legitimate part of the incarceration process, and if you see
the criminal is merely somebody that has got a problem with
trying to help, sometimes that is not the only approach to it
either. Discipline is a big part of success in these programs.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your depth of interest in
this, and we need to do better, and I appreciate your openness,
and this is a good panel.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
We have received statements from Chairman Leahy, Mary Lou
Leary, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
Programs at the Department of Justice; Hon. Stephen Manley,
Superior Court of California; Goodwill Industries of Frederick,
Maryland. Without objection, those statements will be made part
of the record.
[The statements appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Cardin. The record of the Committee will remain
open for 1 week. Again, I thank our witnesses, and with that,
the Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5985.164