[Senate Hearing 111-878]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-878
THE SECOND CHANCE ACT: STRENGTHENING SAFE AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
REENTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2010
__________
Serial No. J-111-101
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-378 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
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
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Brian A. Benzcowski, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 167
Grassley, Hon. Charles, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.... 2
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 172
WITNESSES
Duran, Le'Ann, Reentry Project Director, Justice Center, Council
of State Governments, New York, New York....................... 5
Husock, Howard, Vice President, Policy Research, Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, New York, New York.............. 12
Muhlhausen, David, Senior Policy Analyst Center for Data
Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC.............. 10
Pallito, Andrew A., Commissioner, Vermont Department of
Corrections, Waterbury, Vermont................................ 3
Rodriguez, Sol, Executive Director, Open-Doors, Providence, Rhode
Island......................................................... 8
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Andrew A. Pallito to questions submitted by Senator
Cardin......................................................... 23
Responses of Sol Rodriguez to questions submitted by Senator
Cardin......................................................... 31
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Duran, Le'Ann, Reentry Project Director, Justice Center, Council
of State Governments, New York, New York, statement............ 149
Husock, Howard, Vice President, Policy Research, Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, New York, New York, statement... 169
Muhlhausen, David, Senior Policy Analyst Center for Data
Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, statement... 174
Pallito, Andrew A., Commissioner, Vermont Department of
Corrections, Waterbury, Vermont, statement and attachments..... 188
Robinson, Laurie E., Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Program, statement..................................... 209
Rodriguez, Sol, Executive Director, Open-Doors, Providence, Rhode
Island, statement.............................................. 213
THE SECOND CHANCE ACT: STRENGTHENING SAFE AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY
REENTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., Room
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, Franken, Sessions,
and Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. First off, I apologize for being late. I
was just telling Senator Grassley, as I told Senator Whitehouse
outside, that another Senator and I were on the subway, chit-
chatting, waiting for the subway car to come; great,
interesting conversation; suddenly realized there was no subway
car. It had broken down. So we hoofed it over. So I apologize.
Today, we are going to consider the important issue of how
best to ensure that when people get out of prison, they become
productive members of society rather than turning to a life of
crime. And many states are making great strides with innovative
prisoner reentry programs. We are going to hear about some of
those efforts today.
In 2008, we passed the Second Chance Act to give Federal,
state and local governments additional tools to help inmates
more successfully get back into their communities upon release,
and we are going to hear about what impact it might have.
It is interesting. The Senator I was talking with is from a
large state and I think he would probably consider himself a
Conservative Republican and was strongly backing Second Chance
and the fact that if we want to get people back into
employment, there has to be some way to do that.
We passed the bill, after a lot of work and compromise,
unanimously. Next year, it will need to be reauthorized and I
hope we have the same bipartisanship again.
I worked with Senator Brownback and Senator Specter and
then Senator Biden to pass it the first time. I know that
Senator Cardin has a strong interest in this area. Senator
Whitehouse has shown a great deal of leadership on prison
reform and reentry and he is helping at today's hearing.
We have passed several new criminal laws, both in Congress
and the states, creating more and longer sentences for more
people. Now, a number of the states are realizing that costs
them a lot of money. California, for example, is facing some
horrible problems.
There are currently more than 2 million people in jail or
prison. More than 13 million people spend some time in jail or
prison each year.
I know from my own experience as a prosecutor, most of
these people sometimes return to our communities. Now, what
kind of experience they have in prison, how we prepare them to
rejoin society, is actually going to affect the communities we
live in. It is going to affect them a great deal.
Before we passed the Second Chance Act, Vermont and other
states were implementing innovative programs to build safer and
stronger communities by ensuring that people in prison receive
services to help them become productive members of society when
they come out and not go back into crime.
The Second Chance Act builds on this important work. It
also says, that state and local corrections agencies and
nonprofits, educational, institutional service providers,
families, that if they are going to have a grant, they have to
demonstrate measurable, positive facts, including a reduction
in recidivism.
It takes an important step toward the goal of reducing the
nationwide recidivism rate of 66 percent. That, of course, will
decrease the annual nationwide $8.2 billion cost of
incarceration.
Now, the Vermont Department of Corrections and many others
in Vermont are strongly supporting this crucial piece of
legislation. It gives me a sense of confidence, when I go home
to Vermont, that it is making our state safe and those others
who are doing it around the country and making the country
safer.
And this is not in any way a partisan issue. We have a
Republican Governor, myself, we both agree with this, but
nobody even looks at it as a Republican or Democratic issue.
They just look at it as a sensible one.
I know that Commissioner Andrew Pallito is here. He has had
great success helping reentry programs, and I look forward to
hearing from him.
Also, I welcome Le'Ann Duran from the National Reentry
Resource Center; Sol Rodriguez, Open Doors of Rhode Island, we
are going to hear how that worked in Rhode Island.
I have no compunction against tough sentences when it fits
the crime, but I also want to know that some days the jailhouse
door is going to open and we ought to have somebody come out
who can be in society.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Grassley, did you want to add
anything?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. First of all, I am only going to be able
to be here until 3. So I will be able to hear a couple of the
witnesses. And I want to be on top of this issue, because,
obviously, keeping people behind bars if it is not necessary is
very much a costly product that hits states worse than it hits
the Federal Government, but all taxpayers are paying more.
And the extent to which everybody has something to
contribute to our society, we ought to encourage that
contribution and not to have the recidivism rate that we have
is very, very important.
I am interested in knowing how the programs are working and
I'm interested in knowing what other ideas might be out there.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Chairman Leahy. The first witness, Andrew Pallito, is the
current Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections,
a role he has held since 2008. He previously served as deputy
commissioner, as management executive overseeing the
department's administrative, financial, information technology
and training needs.
He serves on the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council,
which oversees the training of individuals from all law
enforcement agencies in Vermont.
He began working in Department of Corrections in 2001, did
9 years serving other parts of the Vermont City Government,
including the Agency of Human Services.
He is a graduate of the Vermont Leadership Institute,
received his bachelor's degree from St. Peter's College.
He is joined by his wife today. And I will just mention on
the side, she was born in Barre, Vermont, the same place my
father was born.
Mr. Pallito, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. PALLITO, COMMISSIONER, VERMONT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WATERBURY, VERMONT
Mr. Pallito. Mr. Chairman and fellow members, thank you for
the opportunity to speak to the Committee today regarding the
issue of offender reentry and for the opportunity to showcase
some of the innovative work that we are doing in Vermont.
Our work in engaging community partners in offender reentry
has been brought on by an explosive growth in incarceration. In
1990, Vermont had roughly one-third the number of offenders
that it has in 2010, representing an increase of a staggering
160 percent increase in incarceration.
To manage this growth over the past 20 years, the state has
built several new correctional facilities and today houses
roughly one-third of its offenders in out-of-state private
contracted facilities.
This unprecedented increase has placed an enormous burden
on the state's general fund. The Department of Corrections'
annual percentage growth continues to take a larger and larger
share of the state's available resource and has outstripped our
ability as Vermonters to sustain many other programs.
There is good news, however, in that the annual rate of
growth has slowed. This, I believe, has been accomplished by a
number of new strategies which affect the number of offenders
coming into the system, such as diversion programs and the
manner in which offenders are released from facilities.
Over the past few years, my department has been engaging
and educating communities throughout the state about the
importance of solid release planning for all offenders,
including those with very violent histories.
What differentiates Vermont's response to reentry from
traditional approaches is the philosophical foundation of
restorative justice principles and community involvement.
By providing returning offenders with high measures of
support and accountability, fostering meaningful participatory
community connections, and leveraging the informal social
influence exercised by family and neighbors, we effectively
complement best correctional practice for a more successful
reentry process for offenders.
The support and accountability derived from these
relationships increases offender investment and opportunity. We
have seen this with our work with Circles of Support and
Accountability, also known as a COSA. A COSA is a group of five
or so individuals who are trained in the need areas of
particular offenders and who, in turn, hold an offender
accountable while assisting and supporting them with the
reentry process.
COSAs are coordinated by local municipal community justice
centers. There are 12 such community justice centers located
throughout the state.
Increased citizen participation has resulted in diminishing
public resistance toward offender reentry. This dramatically
improves an offender's potential for success, and can achieve a
reduction in recidivism.
Complementing the COSA process is the offender
responsibility plan, also known as the ORP. The ORP is our case
management system for coordinating, delivering and tracking the
range of treatment and work readiness development services
specific to the offender's strengths and needs.
This document evolves over time to reflect the offender's
progress, including pre-release services such as vocational
assessment, housing readiness, benefits eligibility,
transitional planning, and post-release supervision and
services, behavioral assessment and therapy, substance abuse
treatment, employment, parenting, and other family obligations.
Over the past few years, we have formed critical new
partnerships with offender-serving agencies throughout Vermont.
These include the Department of Labor, the Social Security
Administration, the Veterans Association, the judiciary, and
other Agency of Human Services such as the Economic Benefits
Division, the Office of Child Support, the Department of
Health, and the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
Through these initiatives, we have fundamentally changed
the reentry service delivery system in Vermont. We have
incorporated the leveraging of stakeholder relationships on
both an interagency and interpersonal level in to our case
planning and reentry practices.
Many of the individuals who have reentered with the
assistance of community-based support cite the critical role
these services have played in allowing them to get their
footing and get out of prison.
Targeted reentry services, such as employment and housing
assistance, have also stemmed directly from our community
justice reentry program. The organization of our own department
has started to grow and recognize and appreciate how work is
enhanced through direct citizen involvement in the reentry
process.
We have begun to change the conversation about returning
offenders in local communities from how can we keep them out of
our town to how can we make them a part of our community so
they will not do harm again?
During these difficult fiscal times, the Vermont
legislature has recognized the importance of this work and
recently has appropriated funding for these community-based
strategies.
Challenges we continue to face are lack of funding to
support ongoing efforts and complement the state funding. In
addition, we have not been resourced to conduct an empirical,
longitudinal study to produce data to complement the anecdotal
evidence that already exists.
Submitted along with my testimony is documentation on two
cases of higher level offenders who have been successfully
reintegrated into the community using the COSA process.
In closing, I want to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to address this Committee and I also want to thank
you for the partnership that we have enjoyed with the Federal
Government in the past that spawned this program for us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallito appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Well, as you know, in a small
state like ours, we all have to work together. Thank you.
Our next witness, Le'Ann Duran, is the Reentry Project
Director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
She oversees the center's efforts to facilitate smooth and
successful transition of individuals from prisons back to their
communities. It includes managing the National Reentry Resource
Center, which provides assistance to Second Chance Act grantees
and applicants.
Prior to that, she was administrator of the Michigan Office
of Offender Reentry. That program, the Michigan Prisoner
Reentry Initiative, was nationally recognized for its
effectiveness, its comprehensive approach to reentry.
She received her bachelor's degree from Texas Tech
University, master's degree from Colorado State.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF LE'ANN DURAN, REENTRY PROJECT DIRECTOR, JUSTICE
CENTER, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Duran. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and members of the
committee, for holding this hearing on Second Chance Act. My
name is Le'Ann Duran. I am the Director of the National Reentry
Resource Center.
When Second Chance was passed in 2008, I had been working
for 5 years to design and implement a comprehensive reentry
effort, called the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative.
Second Chance came at a critical time in Michigan's work.
For the first time, there was Federal legislation and a clear
message from Congress that improving reentry policy and
practice is vital to public safety. This message fueled public
and legislative support for a reentry initiative which enhanced
public safety by reducing recidivism and ultimately allowed the
state to reduce its prison population by 12 percent, saving an
estimated $900 million.
The establishment of a National Reentry Resource Center was
an important step to advance the reentry field. Congress and
the Bureau of Justice Assistance are strengthening the
government, community and faith-based organizations receiving
Federal funds to ensure the most effective use of those
investments.
Following a highly competitive process, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance was awarded the contract for the National
Reentry Resource Center to the Council of State Governments
Justice Center.
We have learned a great deal from our work with Second
Chance grantees, though it is still very early in the process.
First off, Second Chance programs have been incredibly popular.
In the first year of the program, over 950 applicants applied
for Second Chance funding. Of those applications, 67 grantees
were funded in 2009, spanning 31 states.
This demand establishes Second Chance as one of the most
competitive justice programs, with an only 7 percent funding
rate in the first year. And based on the number of calls we
fielded regarding 2010 programs, demand for funding is likely
to grow.
Two program types were funded in 2009. The first category,
demonstration projects, were for state, local and tribal
governments interested in advancing their reentry initiatives.
The city of Baltimore received a demonstration grant and is
implementing a project for 60 youth identified as high risk.
The program primarily focuses on delivering enhanced case
management.
In Oklahoma, 200 high risk men returning to Oklahoma City
will be given the opportunity to live in a transitional
facility, where they will receive the treatment and programs
they need to be successful upon release.
The second category, mentoring grants, is available to
nonprofit organizations to advance prosocial support.
In Texas, Volunteers of America is using their grant to
work with incarcerated mothers and will provide one-on-one
mentoring and case management services.
The Resource Center and its partners have designed three
core strategies to respond to grantee needs, as well as the
field at large. First, we are creating a number of Web-based
tools to help practitioners help themselves.
Second, we are building a more cohesive, knowledgeable
reentry field by facilitating peer-to-peer learning. And third,
we are providing individualized assistance to grantees to
respond to their emerging needs.
We are also working with the Urban Institute to develop an
online What Works library for practitioners.
So the big question is, how is it going? While still very
early in the process, the program is thriving, both in the
immense demand for grants, the establishment of a resource
center for the field, and the early accomplishment by the first
cohort of grantees.
It is apparent there is good work happening and a growth in
the number of agencies that are working together to address the
needs of this population.
It is an exciting time to be working in the field of
reentry, which has existed for barely more than a decade, but
is vibrant with innovation.
Also, through this process, a few challenges have emerged.
First, around program design. Grantees in the reentry field are
becoming increasingly familiar with the body of evidence about
strategies that reduce recidivism, but they continue to
struggle with translating these concepts into practice.
The Second Chance Act is a strong step to providing the
reentry field with guidance about smart program interventions,
but it will take time to turn the battleship of corrections in
a data-driven direction.
Secondly, tracking recidivism. The Second Chance Act sets
appropriately high expectations for sites to receive Federal
funding to reduce recidivism, but grantees will need assistance
understanding what to measure and how to obtain and routinely
track quality information.
BJA and the Resource Center will continue to work closely
with grantees to measure the effects on recidivism, but it will
take time.
We appreciate your leadership and your work through Second
Chance. It is a monumental step in changing how we address
prisoner reentry. We hope you will reauthorize the program
quickly to further advance the field at large and help expand
our knowledge about reentry evidence and the practice of smart
reentry strategies nationwide.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
As our next witness is from Rhode Island, I will turn to
the person who knows the most about Rhode Island on this
committee, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
honor for me to have the chance to introduce Sol Rodriguez,
and, also, to recognize A.T. Wall, who is our Director of
Corrections, and who has come down to be with Sol Rodriguez
today.
Sol has a long and distinguished career with community
organizations in Rhode Island. She has run the group that is
now called Open Doors for, I think, 8 years. Before that, it
was called the Family Life Center. I go way back with this
organization and was present at the creation.
I think the thing that is so great about today is that the
Director of Corrections came down to be with her today. It
shows how closely integrated our corrections infrastructure is
with our community infrastructure, and it is extraordinarily
important, because there are certain neighborhoods in Rhode
Island that just get hit particularly hard by the outflow of
the prison system.
There are neighborhoods where one in four 18 to 35-year-
olds on the street are under the supervision of the Department
of Corrections. So you can imagine how many people that
neighborhood is forced to absorb week after week, month after
month.
So I am delighted to welcome to her to this committee and
to share her testimony with all of us.
Welcome, Sol, and thank you for--Ms. Rodriguez, and thank
you for being here.
STATEMENT OF SOL RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN-DOOR,
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you, Senator Leahy, distinguished
members of the committee. My name is Sol Rodriguez, and I want
to thank you for inviting me here to speak.
I am the Executive Director of OPEN-DOOR, a nonprofit
organization based on Rhode Island.
OPEN-DOOR was establish in 2002 with the sole purpose of
working with prisoner coming home from incarceration and their
families. We have a long history of supporting this prisoner
reentry program, and we're faimliar with the many challenges
they face.
Successful reentry is difficult, even for those people who
are deeply committed to the process. Everyone who comes to see
us is on the threshold of change. However, without critical
resources, their chances of success are slim to none.
In Rhode Island, individuals are given no more than a bus
ticket back home once they are released from prison. People
coming out of the prison system return to fractured
relationships, little or no financial resources, few job
prospects, and because of their criminal record, they face
legal discrimination in employment and in housing, and mounting
debt.
Organizations that serve similar populations leave out this
population because of their need to meet performance metrics
and the perception that they pose risk and that they cannot
achieve as other groups can.
Even organizations that we work with often find it
difficult to provide services for this population due to their
multi layered needs. Throughout the years, OpenDoors has
managed to open the doors for many of our folks who are coming
home.
Many of our clients have doors slammed on them over and
over again and, as you can imagine, this becomes fairly
demoralizing. Incarceration rates in this country continue to
escalate at an alarming pace. There are nearly 2.4 million
people in prison, one out of 31 individuals is under some kind
of supervision.
As a country, we spend $69 billion on prisons, and Rhode
Island spends an average of $40,000 per inmate.
Despite this, people continue to return back to the prison
system at disturbing rates. Over 62 percent of people released
from Rhode Island prisons return back within 3 years.
Another consequence is the loss of revenue to the state and
their lack of participation in work during the peak age, of 21
to 35. The long-term consequence is that these individuals will
not be able to pay into Social Security. If this trend
continues, we will bear the financial burden of these people
for a long time to come with services, such as services for the
homeless, urgent medical care, public assistance to families
and costs associated to children in state custody, as well as
the cost of public safety.
We need to act to address this situation, as it isn't going
to go away. There is proof that recidivism can be successfully
remediated, as in Michigan, where significant investment by the
state reduced the recidivism rate from 55 percent to 38
percent.
But a lot of states do not have the resources to do what
Michigan did. At OPEN-DOOR, we are attempting to find some
solution to this problem. We offer a one-stop center for people
coming out of prison, and we see approximately, 1000 people a
year, that come to our Center for the first time. This isn't
counting the people who continue to come back for services.
We prepare individuals for release from incarceration at
the adult correctional facility and we offer programs, like
employment and housing preparedness, job search, financial
literacy, one-on-one mentoring, civic participation, financial
literacy, computer classes, and recovery services.
We work to build relationships with these individuals, or
provide a safe place for them in the community; so that when
they come out, they are not drawn back to those previous
relationships and destructive social environment that they came
from.
We provide mentoring through the Second Chance Act; this
includes relationship-building activities and community events
and support groups, and one-on-one mentoring.
Our mentors and mentees receive extensive training and
assessment in order to make successful matches.
We started our program back in January 2010 and to date, we
have 10 matches. Many of our mentors are formerly incarcerated
people who have been doing well and want to be mentors to other
people. And so we screen folks to make sure that they are doing
very well in the community before we they are allowed to be
mentors.
But we are looking for mentors in the community that are
business people, and are employers. We want to begin to create
those relationships long term.
In closing I want to make some recommendations. I want to
recommend that you need to continue to allocate funding,
specifically for formerly incarcerated individuals. Direct
finding for this population is critical.
Commitment to this issue long term critical, as well. This
issue is not going to go away, and we need the money long-term
and the resources long-term.
Allow for nonprofits like us to receive direct funding to
do other things besides mentoring. It is pretty clear that a
good job is the single largest factor in determining someone's
success out here, and to stay out of prison.
Addressing the pipeline into prison is another critical
need. We need to begin to look at innovative programs that
really help support people and provide essential interventions
before they go to prison, so that we can address the flow into
to prison.
I want to thank you very much for your consideration and
support, not just for the work that we do, but for the work
around the country.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. I neglected to do it
before. I was reading the testimony prior to the hearing. I was
struck with a number of the case studies that Mr. Pallito had.
And an article without objecting, I will put those additional
things, the case studies and all as intended. They bring home
what real people are and what real people do, and I will put
that in the record as part of your testimony.
Thank you. And for the record, they were case studies of
offenders that had particularly violent past histories.
Chairman Leahy. That is what I understand.
Now, David Muhlhausen is a senor policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation Center for Data. He has testified before
Congress on several previous occasions about law enforcement
grant programs, particularly the COPS program.
One of the staff suggested you are here so often, we should
give you one of these permanent name plates.
He received a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of
Maryland Baltimore County, bachelor's degree in political
science. Just to say, he is from Forestburg. He is currently an
adjunct professor of public policy at George Mason. Please go
ahead, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MUHLHAUSEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER
FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Muhlhausen. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. I
am a senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at
the Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, and the rest of the Committee for
the opportunity to testify today on the Second Chance Act.
The views that I express in this testimony are my own and
should not be construed as representing any official position
of the Heritage Foundation.
Congress' desire to weigh in on prisoner reentry programs.
In 2008 alone, over 735,000 prisoners were released back into
society. Federal, state and local governments need to operate
effective reentry programs. Preventing former prisoners from
returning to prison is a worthy goal.
When Congress first passed the Second Chance Act I in 2008,
little was known about the effectiveness of prisoner reentry
programs. The same holds true for today. We simply do not have
enough knowledge about what works and what does not work.
A major goal of reauthorizing the Second Chance Act I
should be to greatly enhance our knowledge about the
effectiveness of these programs. For this reason, I will
outline five years to the successful evaluation of these
programs.
First and foremost, Congress needs to expressly mandate in
the reauthorization of the Act the experimental evaluation of
prisoner reentry programs. By experimental evaluation, I mean
evaluation that uses random assignment to select individuals
for treatment and for other individuals to go into control
groups. This method is considered the gold standard, because
random assignment is most likely to yield valid estimates of
program impact. Less rigorous designs yield less reliable
results.
When Congress creates programs, especially state and local
programs, we need to make sure that these programs are--when
they are evaluated, they undergo large-multisite evaluations,
so that is my second point.
These programs funded by the Federal Government are not
funded, are not funded. They are implemented across the entire
Nation. Because Federal grants fund agencies and programs
across the Nation, we need to have multisite national large-
scale evaluations.
Third, Congress needs to provide instructions on the types
of outcome measures that will be used to assess effectiveness.
When assessing the impact of reentry programs, the most
effective measure or the most important measure is recidivism.
While intermediate measures, such as finding employment and
housing, are important, these outcomes are not the ultimate
goal of reentry programs.
If former prisoners continue to commit crimes after being
released from prison, then successful; intermediate measures,
while important, still matter little to judging how effective
programs are.
Fourth, Congress needs to institute procedures that will
encourage government agencies, often possessing entrenched
biases against experimental evaluation, to carry out these
studies.
One recommended method is that not later than 1 year afer
the preauthorization of the Act and annually thereafter, the
Departments of Justice and Labor be required to individually
submit to Congress a report on the progress their departments
are making in evaluating the programs authorized under the Act.
Thirty days after the report is submitted to Congress, it
should be made available on the department Websites.
Last, Congressionally mandated evaluations, upon
completion, must be submitted to Congress in a timely manner.
Thirty days after any evaluation is submitted to Congress, they
should be made available, also, on the department's Websites.
Prisoner reentry programs need to be rigorously evaluated
to determine their effectiveness at reducing recidivism. I
believe the need for more evaluations transcends political
party lines. Both Democrats and Republicans should agree on
this issue.
Policymakers should not implement prisoner reentry
programs, because advocates for Federal funding believe these
programs are effective. There has to be a solid base, a
scientific knowledge demonstrating that these programs work.
Thus, Congress needs to do more to ensure that the reentry
programs it funds are rigorously evaluated.
That is all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Whitehouse [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Muhlhausen.
Our next witness is Howard Husock. He is the Vice President
of Policy Research and Director of the Social Entrepreneurship
Initiative at the Manhattan Institute.
Mr. Husock has been widely published on housing and urban
policy issues, and has spoken in policy forums sponsored by the
Federal Government and the States of California and
Massachusetts.
Prior to his time at the Manhattan Institute, Mr. Husock
worked at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government,
and was a broadcaster and documentary filmmaker at WGBH in
Boston, Massachusetts, which reaches into Rhode Island.
Mr. Husock graduated from Boston University School of
Public Communications and was later a fellow at Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs. And we welcome him to the committees.
Mr. Husock.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD HUSOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY RESEARCH,
MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Husock. Thank you so much, Senator Whitehouse, Ranking
Member Sessions, and members of the committee.
In addition to the policy research we do at the Manhattan
Institute, we've long tried to play a problem-solving role in
social problems, especially as they affect our cities.
In that context, we recently returned our attention to the
daunting problem addressed in the Second Chance Act, that is,
successful prisoner reentry, a goal we understand to be central
to the safety of our cities and the restoration of healthy
family life in households in which parents, often fathers, have
been incarcerated.
It is not a minor problem, not when 700,000 individuals are
released from prison annually and 44 percent are re-arrested
just within 1 year.
It is an important problem, but at the same time, we
believe that in reauthorization, the Second Chance Act can
still be improved. And in that context, I'd like to share with
you some reflections on the institute's experience in helping
to establish, fund and operate a reentry program in cooperation
with the city of Newark, New Jersey, whose results to date and
the results of similar programs have convinced us that for such
efforts to be successful, they must emphasize employment. We
call it rapid attachment to work, and we believe that there are
aspects of the way that rapid attachment program in Newark is
funded, particularly ITSA, AART, EMT, use of matching private
dollars and the way it's managed, particularly its emphasis on
pay for performance among social service providers, which can
all be useful elements of a reauthorized Second Chance.
The Newark initiative began, when, in response to then the
mention of prisoner reentry in 2006, his 2006 inaugural
address, the Manhattan Institute approached Newark Mayor Cory
Booker.
We agreed to work together on a program for newly released
ex-offenders. Staying out of trouble in the first few weeks,
the mayor believed, was crucial and the employment can be the
hub around which a non-criminal life can be organized.
His vision has borne fruit. Thanks to $2 million in Federal
funds, matched by $3 million in private philanthropic funds, a
small portion of which has allowed the institute to provide
loaned executive help to the city of Newark.
Six agencies in Newark today compete with each other to
help place those coming out of prison rapidly into jobs. They
are proving successful, even in today's difficult economy; 58
percent of the 1,000 plus program a intended seen to date have
been placed in jobs with an hourly wage of more than $9 an
hour. And to date, after more than a year, only 8 percent of
all participants have been re-arrested.
At the same time, crime in Newark, which historically has
involved violence often between two individuals with criminal
records, has dropped sharply and, in March, the city saw its
first month in 40 years without a murder.
Other work-oriented reentry programs are showing similar
progress. In New York, the Ready, Willing and Able program,
which includes employment as a central part of it, must be
evaluated by a Harvard University sociologist who found that 3
years after release, its clients have 30 percent fewer arrests
than a comparison group.
In addition, the Ready for Work Program, which was a
Department of Labor model program, found that between 2003 and
2006, recidivism in this work-focused program was reduced by 34
to 50 percent.
There is no accountabilty without clear results, however.
And in Newark, in keeping with the best thinking on our
performance management, we are tracking and comparing the
placement records of individual job providers, job placement
providers, and by tying compensation to results, we believe
that we can affect improved performance.
In other words, it is our view that there is an emerging
formula for successful reentry, a formula based on work as
intended, performance management, and private matching funds.
And a reauthorized Second Chance Act, which gave top priority
to demonstration projects, incorporating these approaches,
could play a key role in influencing the billions spent by
state corrections, parole and probation programs, which will
continue to play the lead.
There is one additional element which the Act could
encourage, which has yet to be incorporated into reentry
programs, but is also a significant barrier, and half of them
owe back child support payments. It is a problem that only gets
worse when they are in person.
The typical prison parent owed $10,000 when he goes behind
bars, $20,000 when he leaves, because wages can be garnished to
pay child support. Such arrearage is a powerful deterrent to
workforce participation.
A reauthorized Second Chance Act, however, could encourage
its demonstration programs to use these child support payments
constructively by linking reductions in arrearage to getting
and keeping a job; and, with the permission of either parent
involved, playing a role in family life.
America's criminal justice system, including reentry
through parole, has historically been and will continue to be
primarily the province of state government and current budget
deficits leave little room for a Federal role.
That is why it is especially important for a reauthorized
Second Chance Act to support those model programs that could
influence reentry practice broadly.
The best way to do that, the Manhattan Institute believes,
is to emphasize and encourage those programs focused on rapid
attachment to work.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Husock appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Commissioner, you talked about the Department of
Corrections working with the cities and towns in Vermont. The
largest one is 38,000 people, the smallest is just about 38 to
try to get them to reintegrate.
I know it is not easy. You are asking people to spend
scarce time and resources to bring ex-offenders into the
communities. How do you get communities to engage in this kind
of reentry effort?
Mr. Pallito. I think I would best describe it as an
evolving conversation. It was a conversation that really
started between the Department of Corrections and our local
communities many, many years ago, and, through persistent and
consistent messaging, we really tried to shift the attitude.
Interestingly enough, the city of Barre, that you have
mentioned that my wife is from, has an undue burden of
corrections offenders that come and go within the city, and saw
an opportunity to engage the Department of Corrections.
So rather than keep the conversation about keep them out of
our neighborhood, keep them out of our neighborhood--as one of
the panelists mentioned earlier, 90 percent of offenders are
coming back to communities, and that is a fact, 95 percent in
some states.
The city of Barre in Vermont----
Chairman Leahy. So in other words, you are dealing with a
reality, whether you want to or not.
Mr. Pallito. Absolutely, absolutely, And so the city of
Barre really has started to turn that conversation and engage
the Department of Corrections. And I have gone to several
community meetings. I would describe the first as I asked my
wife to be my security guard on the way out to the second,
where the mayor and I have forged a very positive relationship
and we have partnered with the city.
One of the messages that I have consistently said, as the
commissioner and the deputy commissioner and the commissioner
before me, is the State of Vermont is not going to solve this
issue on its own. We need the community, we need community
partners to step up, to be engaged, and to help us out with
this issue.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Ms. Duran, let me ask you. This
morning, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General
released a report on the department's management of prisoners
reentry program. They found the department did not adequately
monitor and evaluate some of the reentry programs. They
couldn't determine whether they were successful in reducing
recidivism. So I hope the Justice Department will immediately
be moving to consider and implement some of the IG's
recommendations.
Now, the good news is the inspector general's report
focused on programs that were in place before the Second Chance
Act. They said that the Second Chance Act was--that those
programs are better designed, although it is too early to tell
thoroughly.
So what steps do you take to make sure, especially with
this report, and I realize it just came out this morning, to
make sure the Second Chance Act Grantees and those who
administer them are doing it right?
Ms. Duran. I think you are right that the Second Chance Act
was a response to some of the design flaws we observed through
SVORI and some of the other Federal reentry grant programs that
have gone before, and we've had the opportunity to learn a lot
from those previous initiatives and have incorporated those
into the way that Second Chance is being implemented.
For example Second Chance is a competitive grant effort.
States and local governments, for demonstration projects, are
required to engage in planning prior to receiving the award,
and demonstrating their readiness to receive the Federal funds
is key to being winning applicants. SVORI was a blanket grant
program.
Also, each state is different and needs to allow for the
flexibility of their differences in terms of their populations
that they are managing the size of their communites. Vermont is
clearly different than California.
Second Chance provides an opportunity for states to be
innovative in the way that they respond to their unique needs
with their population and with their community, and we have
given those grantees that flexibility through Second Chance.
Chairman Leahy. Speaking of what she said about the states
being different, Commissioner, if I can go back to you just for
a moment.
You must talk with your counterparts in other parts of the
country, I assume.
Mr. Pallito. Correct.
Chairman Leahy. You probably both do. Do you find, and this
may seem like an easy question, but I'm curious. Do you find
any states you talk with where they say, ``Hey, we're all set
up. We've got plenty of state funding to do the kind of
programs we want.
Mr. Pallito. Absolutely not. I think every Department of
Corrections in the country is under constant budget pressure.
One of my personal frustrations as the Commissioner of
Corrections is as the incarcerated population grows, the easy
answer to a budget reduction is to cut the Department of
Corrections staff or close a facility that is then responsible
for that incarceration. Then the liability, in the end,
frankly, lands with the Commissioner's office. That's my
personal opinion.
So unless we are more creative in terms of how we use
incarceration, to make sure that on the front end, we are very
stringent in what we use, and then on the back end to make sure
that we do very comprehensive offender reentry planning so that
we do not just simply let offenders out and they cycle back in.
But all states, I think, face the same exact challenge.
Chairman Leahy. Well, keep talking to our mayors and our
boards of aldermen and tell them.
Mr. Pallito. I will, as long as they will keep listening to
me.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Jeff.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a
subject of tremendous national interest for a long time. It is
not the first time it has been brought up.
In fact, the 1960s and 1970s, there was a belief that
prison was no good for anybody. Judges, really, a lot of them
just refused to send people to jail. Crime rates surged, and it
took into the 1980s for the Nation to realize that our hopes
and wishes and dreams did not match reality.
I remember a study in the late 1970s that I kept in my desk
when I was United States attorney that dealt with these reentry
programs and recidivism rates, and the net of it was, I will
summarize, it compared a prison in which it--it was a very
Spartan prison, very little recreation, job training, benefits,
and one that had all kinds of education and other programs, and
the recidivism rate was the same.
That is hard to believe, but, in fact, if we knew how it
worked, why have we not already figured out how to do it? It is
very hard, very hard.
Mr. Husock, you suggest that you got a 30-percent
reduction. Even your numbers probably make me a bit suspicious.
But if you got a 20-percent reduction in recidivism rate, I
would give you an A, if you could maintain that and replicate
that in another place. That is tremendous, really, if we get 20
percent fewer people recidivating, having to go to jail and be
put in jail and cannot support their families, cannot hold down
a job.
And my instincts are that this thing of giving a person a
job immediately out of prison would not be of benefit. That
makes sense to me.
Well, we create these programs. Here, the Chairman made
reference to the Department of Justice programs. The inspector
general audit came out today. Not a good audit. Bad. This is
what they found. The IG found that the OJP did not adequately
define key terms essential for determining whether program
goals are met; did not require grantees to identify baseline
recidivism rates needed to calculate changes in recidivism;
and, did not analyze performance measurement data.
As a result of these design flaws, neither OJP nor the
inspector general could definitively determine the
effectiveness of OJP's grant programs in reducing recidivism.
Well, this is not good.
Ms. Duran, you mentioned the Second Chance Act that we did
2 years ago was different, but they said the same design flaws
the report does for existing ``it.''
Mr. Muhlhausen, do you know how many existing reentry
programs are funded by the Federal Government? Do we have any
idea of how many state programs exist out there? And in your
opinion, are they effectively monitored so we can determine
what actually works and what clearly does not work?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, I think getting a hard count of how
many reentry programs are out there is going to be a little
difficult. But I would say that this report does not inspire
confidence in Office of Justice Programs.
The fact that they are giving out money without effective
performance monitoring protocols in place, no clear definition
of how to measure recidivism, these are basic things that
should be done. And that is why I think that----
Senator Sessions. One of the things that I complained about
is that these programs get to pick their population. They can
pick the target population.
It is kind of like an insurance company, it seems to me,
that cherry-picks healthier patients.
Is that the way you would analyze that concern?
Mr. Muhlhausen. Well, yes. I have seen this happen with
Department of Labor job training programs, where it is called
creaming, where they find--they select individuals that they
are going to monitor that are most likely to succeed and the
individuals who are the hard cases they sort of do not track.
And so they end up inflating their performance data.
So that is why I think we need to have the National
Institute of Justice do a lot of multisite, randomized
experiments to find out whether these programs work.
Senator Sessions. I agree, because the states are spending
billions, as you said, Mr. Husock, on these programs and our
money is chicken feed compared to what states are spending.
So if we could help them identify programs that actually
work, even if it is 10, 20 percent better than their current
program, and they could apply their resources more effectively,
this would be a smart role for the Federal Government. Would
you agree, Mr. Husock?
Mr. Husock. I could not agree more. And when we talk about
how many reentry programs are out there, every state has got
divisions of parole. That is a reentry program. Why do we not
want to spend the money that we are spending already more
effectively?
For instance, should not parole officers be judged by not
how many people they lock up again, but how many they place in
employment? Maybe we want to change the way we manage the core
programs that we are already running.
But certainly, I think the Second Chance Act can point in
the right direction, but it is never going to substitute.
Senator Sessions. My time is up. And I would just say I
thank my colleagues, who are interested in this subject. It has
just sort of been an interest of mine ever since I have been
prosecuting cases from the mid-1970s on, and 90-percent of the
people are convicted that go to trial.
The question is how long they serve and what is going to
happen to them. So I think we are striving to accomplish
something worthwhile. I would like to see us focus more on
identifying what works through rigorous focus and help our
states by giving that information so they can better utilize
the resources that they have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, since I will be presiding
at the end, I am here until the bitter end, I would be
delighted to yield to Senator Franken.
Chairman Leahy. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you, Senator Whitehouse. This also has been of great
interest to me for a long time.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Muhlhausen, for urging that we
have more scientific look and more comprehensive data on this,
because that is--I just think we should do that on everything,
because that is going to pay off to see what works, because we
really kind of do not have a choice, do we?
What percentage of--I think, Mr. Pallito said the number
was 90 to 95 percent--is that right? And I think, Mr.
Muhlhausen, you said that releasing offenders into society
increases crime. Now, you are not suggesting we just do not
release people, are you?
Mr. Muhlhausen. No, no. I am just saying, it is just a
statement of fact that we have high recidivism rates, and so
the national consequence of releasing offenders from prison is
we are going to get more crime.
Senator Franken. But the alternative is just locking them
up and throwing away the key, and we do not do that either, do
we?
Mr. Muhlhausen. No, we do not. Obviously, what I would say
is that while serious and violent offenders should serve
lengthy amounts of time in prison----
Senator Franken. Obviously.
Mr. Muhlhausen. [continuing]. A lot of people who are
released deserve to get some sort of help in transitioning back
into society and I think, hopefully, if we identify what works
and we can replicate what works, we will have some good things
to talk about in future reauthorization of the Act.
Senator Franken. There is another premise here that you
could look at, too, which is maybe the fewer prisoners we have
in the first place, that the less increase in crime there would
be when you release less prisoners.
What I am kind of getting at is maybe--do you understand
what I am saying? I am saying that maybe, say, you did early
childhood education. So we invested in people early in life,
and so there were fewer criminals, or maybe even caught
juvenile, youth offenders earlier.
Ms. Duran, in your testimony, you outlined several programs
funded by the Second Chance Act, including those that assist
youth offenders with histories of substance abuse and mental
health needs.
Can you talk more about specifically which services work
best for this population both during incarceration and after?
Ms. Duran. I think it is very important that step, when
trying to change the likelihood that someone is going to commit
a crime in the future, that we have a good understanding of
what the risk and needs are of that individual. And the most
important thing that we can do is match their risk and their
needs to the services that are going to help them change their
behavior and make different choices when they come back home.
Certainly, critical services that have shown to make a
difference are effective substance abuse treatment and mental
health services, both during incarceration and upon release.
It is most important that these services are delivered in
the community, where they have to struggle with sobriety and
maintaining a crime free life.
As Mr. Husock also described, rapid attachment to
employment is also critically important. The Second Chance Act
gives grantees the flexibility to design their programs to
target the services and supports that they feel will make a
difference for their population based on what they know about
their risks and needs of who they are working and be able to
fund those programs and put them in place with their grant.
Senator Franken. I do not know about--Senator Sessions has
left. I do not know about the study he carries around and
whether it would meet Mr. Muhlhausen's very, very high degree
of rigor. There is no way of knowing, is there?
In 2008, the Minnesota Department of Corrections enacted a
pilot reentry program, called the Minnesota Comprehensive
Offender Reentry Program, or MCORP. MCORP provides its clients
help in finding a job, housing assistance, chemical abuse
treatment and a variety of other services.
It is still a premium program, but results from the first
year are incredibly encouraging. They have reduced re-arrest
rates by 37 percent.
I was out for Husock's testimony and I am sorry about that.
But I think we have found things that work and meanwhile, there
are prisoners--I am going to end this soon--there are prisoners
who are getting out tomorrow and the next day and the next day
and the next day. They are getting out.
And I agree with Dr. Muhlhausen that we have to do science-
based research on this. But in the meantime, they are getting
out. And in the meantime, let us use what seems to be
anecdotally working.
And I am just going to wrap up right now, but I would like
to--I am on the Help Committee and I want to do a hearing on
early childhood education. And what I want--I do not want to
have the largest prison population in the world. And, yes, Dr.
Muhlhausen, we have recidivism; and, yes, when You release
prisoners, there is more crime.
But I think the alternative starts very, very early. But
today we are talking about what works on recidivism, and I
thank you all for your work.
Thank you, all, all of you, for your work.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Could you, Ms. Rodriguez, give us your take on what
measures are appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program that OpenDoors manages and what improvements in
measurement would you recommend from where you are?
Ms. Rodriguez. I very much agree with Mr. Muhlhausen about
more scientific, more rigorous studies with regards to
recidivism.
We actually do administer a criminogenic needs and risk
management and risk assessment, for those people in the
mentoring program.
We administer it when they first get involved in the
program and we will administer it a year from now to see how
effective--whether we have been able, to both the risk and the
need of the individual.
We also track whether people are re-incarcerated.
Our project is quite small, so we're able to track re-
incarceration. We do that with many of our programs.
Unfortunately, we do not have the capacity internally to do a
scientific sort of data analysis of recidivism in our state,
which I think is pretty important to do, but I think most
states just do not have that capacity or resources.
So putting some resources in that would be really helpful,
I think we all welcome that sort of analysis. It would give us
some sense of how things are working.
All I can say is we worked very much--we are small states.
We see a lot of people at our--I see a lot of people multiple
times. I see people trying. All I can talk about without the
science behind it is how hard it is for people and how hard
they try.
So we have been working hard with these individuals, but we
would welcome a scientific study of recidivism.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Duran, one of the--I'm a big
supporter of and was, as I said earlier, in kind of at the
creation of the Famly Life and traveled out of state to visit
other places as we were working with some of the African-
American churches to try to get this underway.
The objection that comes is that these people are
criminals. They have broken the social contract. Why should we
make any particular effort on their behalf? There are two
responses to that that I have heard. One is that from a cost
perspective, it is in everybody's interest to try to avoid re-
incarceration. Whether or not you particularly like the
individual, you are better off if they are working and paying
taxes than if they are incarcerated at the ACI and absorbing
your tax dollars.
The second is that the way in which offenders emerge from
our prisons and get distributed among our neighborhoods is far
from even. There are particular neighborhoods that receive a
real onslaught of returning, reentering prisoners. And for the
sake of the people in those neighborhoods, forget the people
who are returning, for the sake of the people who are in those
neighborhoods and who are law abiding, it is important that
there be the social services so that they can continue to have
a safe and orderly life and deal with the issues that a very
big returning formerly incarcerated population presents.
Would you evaluate for me those thoughts and add any that
you would care to add?
Ms. Duran. I think you are right. I mean, at the end of the
day, successful reentry is about what happens in those
neighborhoods and in those communities. And this is a complex
social challenge.
Senator Whitehouse. And to the taxpayer, right?
Ms. Duran. Yes. Absolutely. Certainly, getting communities
involved in coming up with creative and innovative solutions to
reducing crime in their neighborhoods and their communities is
a critical part of what will make for effective reentry
planning.
It has to start with the communities, in partnership with
Departments of Corrections and community supervision agencies.
And I think Vermont and Commissioner Pallito described a very,
very great example of the way the community can work with state
and local government and corrections agencies to come together
on these challenges, because no one neighborhood and no one
government agency can do it alone.
Second Chance has set a very clear example, requiring this
type of collaboration to be in place prior to submitting grant
applications, which I think is a strong step in sending the
message that the collaboration is essential, because this
challenge is so enormous.
Senator Whitehouse. We have talked a lot about the metrics
and the statistics and the measurements demographically during
the course of this hearing. The time of the hearing is
concluding.
What I would like to do is ask Ms. Rodriguez, if you would,
to end on a note of what the possibilities are here; and, if
you do not mind, you know Andres Idarraga (ph)?
Ms. Rodriguez. Yes, I do.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you mind relating for the record
here, just briefly, his story, how he came to you and where he
ended up?
Ms. Rodriguez. Andres Idarraga is a young man who spent
about 7 years in prison. He had a pretty extensive criminal
history prior to his incarceration, but he was a very bright
young man.
We met Andres when he was released from prison. He might
have been out about 6 months. We were working, actually, in the
office to restore voting rights for people on probation and
parole, and Andres was somebody who was not going to be able to
vote for 30 years.
So he would be 60 when he could vote, and he was very
interested in voting and interested in getting involved in the
work that we were doing.
Eventually, we ended up hiring Andres, who was actually a
URI student. Subsequently, Andres applied to Brown and was
accepted to Brown, received a bachelor's degree from Brown and
is currently going to Yale Law School.
Andres is one guy. He is a pretty amazing guy, but there
are many young men like Andres. I have to say, I was just
talking about another young man who is headed to law school and
who is also one of ours who has come through the center and we
have helped.
There is so much potential among these young men and most
of them are relatively young. So turning our backs on them is--
--
Senator Whitehouse. So it is a fair point to make, in your
experience anyway, that in addition to the sort of negative
argument of preventing future bad behavior and preventing the
cost of recidivism, there are some real scars in this.
So there are some real stars in this surprising population
who can, when they turn their lives around, accomplish great
things. There are some extraordinary people that are in our
prison systems with extraordinary talents, and we need to
harness those talents and encourage those talents and help
those people achieve what they can achieve.
This is part of what we do. We really try to provide them
the space and believe in them so that they can continue to
improve their lives. And Andres is one young man, but there are
many young men in Rhode Island and I'm sure across the country.
So these services are critical. Yes, we need to measure
them. But they are critical services, and I believe we have no
choice, really. We have no choice as a society. They are coming
back to our communities. They are coming back to families. And
we are just creating more of a burden on families and
communities if we do not help them become productive members of
society.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I appreciate very much everyone's
testimony here today.
We will keep the record of this hearing open for 1 week. So
if anyone wishes to supplement their testimony or provide
additional testimony or comments into the proceeding, they have
that 1 week to do so.
I am grateful to those of you who have taken the trouble to
come here. Some of you have traveled some distance to come
here. This has been very helpful. I think this is a vitally
important issue for us to address.
To digress just for a minute, when you think about what we
spend on incarcerating people and when you think about what we
spend policing the general population and when you think that
the real kind of crux was where those people come out of the
issue population, that should be kind of a gap where we have to
struggle for funding when so much tax revenue goes to support
our prison system and our general policing.
I think it is a wise investment and we look forward to
trying to make that investment as smart as we can make it.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 64378.215