    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          RETURNING CITIZENS: CHALLENGES AND
                                OPPORTUNITIES FOR REENTRY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-76

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-519                      WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                   MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
        Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
    ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

            PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                    BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                         KAREN BASS, California, Chair
                        VAL DEMINGS, Florida, Vice-Chair

    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas, Ranking
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                     Member
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana               Wisconsin
    HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    TED LIEU, California                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN COHEN, Tennessee              BEN CLINE, Virginia
                                         W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida

                       JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                        JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, February 27, 2020

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Karen Bass, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of California..     1
    The Honorable Guy Reschenthaler, Member of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Pennsylvania...................................................    17

                                   WITNESSES

    Nancy La Vigne, Vice President, Justice Policy of the Urban
      Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................    19
      Prepared Statement.............................................    22
    Conan Harris, Principal, Conan Harris & Associates
      Oral Testimony.................................................    73
      Prepared Statement.............................................    75
    Ronald J. Lampard, Senior Director, Criminal Justice Task Force
      and Civil Justice Task Force of the American Legislative
      Exchange Council
      Oral Testimony.................................................    77
      Prepared Statement.............................................    79
    Vanessa Martin, Director, Reentry Services, Office of Diversion
      and Reentry of Los Angeles County Department of Health Services
      Oral Testimony.................................................    83
      Prepared Statement.............................................    85
    Jesse Wiese, National Director, Academy Advancement, of Prison
      Fellowship
      Oral Testimony.................................................    93
      Prepared Statement.............................................    95
    John Harriel, 2nd CALL
      Oral Testimony.................................................   108
      Prepared Statement.............................................   110

               STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

    Statement of Cheryl Grills submitted by the Honorable Karen Bass,
      Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of California for the record...........     4

          RETURNING CITIZENS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR REENTRY

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, February 27, 2020

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Karen Bass
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bass, Jackson Lee, Demings,
    McBath, Richmond, Jeffries, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Cohen,
    Gohmert, Chabot, Steube, Cline, and Reschenthaler.
        Staff Present: Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Ben
    Hernandez, Counsel; Joe Graupensgerger, Chief Counsel; Ebise
    Bayisa, Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member;
    Jason Cervenak, Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority
    Professional Staff.
        Ms. Bass. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to
    order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. We welcome everyone
    to this morning's hearing on ``Challenges and Opportunities in
    Reentry Services for Returning Citizens,'' and I'll now
    recognize myself for an opening statement.
        I'm pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this very
    important hearing on the issue of challenges to reentry for
    returning citizens. In the last 10 years, States and localities
    have begun to evaluate and reform the criminal justice system,
    resulting in thousands of individuals returning to their
    communities. While reforms have been considered and
    implemented, there has not been the same level of thought and
    effort about what happens to the individuals when they are
    released, specifically the numerous challenges returning
    citizens face. Harsh sentencing laws were followed by numerous
    laws and policies that complicate the ability of people to
    successfully reintegrate in their communities; for example,
    laws that forbid formerly incarcerated individuals from working
    in certain professions, laws or policies that restrict
    individuals from associating with felons that might result in
    homelessness if family Members or nearby neighbors are also
    formerly incarcerated, and policies that forbid individuals
    from residing in public housing or receiving safety net
    benefits. These are just a few examples.
        The scope of the problem is well known. There are currently
    2.2 million men and women incarcerated in our State, local, and
    Federal prisons. In fact, 95 percent of all prisoners will
    eventually be released back into their communities. This year
    alone 600,000 people are expected to be released back into the
    community. In Los Angeles County alone, 100,000 individuals are
    released back into the community every single year. I might
    say, in Los Angeles, and I am sure the same is true in many
    communities, they tend to be released to very specific zip
    codes, which then means you have a concentration of people in
    need.
        If returning citizens are not given the tools and resources
    for successful reintegration, the likelihood that they will be
    go back to prison increases significantly. California has had a
    recidivism rate of over 67 percent. Given these circumstances,
    it is no surprise that homelessness in housing instability is
    pervasive among those recently released from prison. Returning
    citizens are ten times more likely to be homeless than the
    general public. That number does not include the number of
    formerly incarcerated individuals who are living in marginal
    housing such as motels or rooming homes.
        If you cannot find a place to live, if you cannot find a
    job, it should be no surprise that, to survive, you reoffend.
    The policies of the Get Tough on Crime era contribute
    significantly to high rates of recidivism. We set individuals
    up to fail.
        Formerly incarcerated women face even more hurdles as they
    often have to struggle to regain custody of their children or
    face the fact that their rights have been terminated, their
    parental rights have been terminated if they have been
    incarcerated for too long.
        The revolving door of incarceration release and
    reincarceration has real cost. The U.S. spends over $80 billion
    a year on incarceration. We spend another 100 million in police
    and judicial administrative costs. These numbers do not tell
    the entire story of the cost of incarceration because the toll
    of incarceration on families and communities cannot be
    quantified.
        Much has been done in the area of reentry, such as the
    bipartisan Second Chance Act, but there is still a lot to do.
    We want to make sure we are providing recently released
    prisoners the tools and resources to successfully reintegrate
    into society so we can end the cycle of reincarceration. We
    also want to make sure that the services are easily accessible.
    I'm interested in hearing about ways we can streamline reentry
    efforts so returning citizens can access multiple reentry
    services in one location.
        Dr. Cheryl Grills, a professor and researcher from Loyola
    Mary-mount University, was unable to be here today. So, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter her full testimony into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                            MS. BASS FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. I do want to highlight several points from her
    testimony. When we are considering legislation to support the
    reintegration of returning citizens, she suggests that they be
    involved at every stage, hired as consultants in design of
    reentry services, that we support the entrepreneurial interest
    by funding pilot programs run by people who were incarcerated,
    that we bring in system experts regarding the coordination of
    services, reentry peer navigators, mentors to support access to
    utilization of and navigation through and personal assessment
    of goal attainment.
        Additionally, Dr. Grills suggests we look at examples in
    other fields of programs that work with a similar social
    demographic constituency that interests with returning citizens
    who might be family Members, for example, peer support models
    within the child welfare, housing, social services, education,
    and related systems are important reference in the formulation
    of policies to guide the design of reentry efforts. These
    approaches use peer mentoring navigators with lived experience
    who can effectively establish rapport and trust and enhance
    returning citizens' understanding of reentry opportunities,
    frustrations, and needs.
        Dr. Grills raises several areas of caution I want to
    mention. Two of those areas are, number one, there are
    significant gaps in recidivism research. Number two, we should
    consider developmental differences to understand reentry needs
    and challenges. For example, the needs of a 22-year-old will
    not be identical to the needs of a 45-year-old or a 60-year-old
    returning citizens. Needs across the lifespan will differ and
    intervention should be sensitive to those differences.
        Closely related to developmental differences is the length
    of time an individual was incarcerated. There are differences
    here as well. Returning citizens who have been in custody for
    15 to 20 years are facing a very different reentry experience
    than somebody who has been in custody for 2 to 3 years. Reentry
    programming should reflect an understanding of these
    differences. Today we are lucky to have a diverse panel of
    witnesses testifying before our subcommittee. I'm especially
    interested and eager to hear from our panel their ideas and
    suggestions of how we can assist the successful reentry and
    reintegration of people after incarceration.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the subcommittee.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass.
        I truly appreciate it and thank you to everybody that came
    here today. I really look forward to your testimony, your
    thoughts, and sharing your experiences with us. I am truly glad
    that we can take this time to discuss the challenges and the
    opportunities that formerly incarcerated individuals face when
    reentering society.
        To be frank, recidivism rates are just simply too high in
    this country.
        According to one study on Federal offenders, nearly 50
    percent of returning citizens were rearrested at least once
    during an 8-year follow-up period. Personally, when I served as
    a district judge in southwestern Pennsylvania right outside
    Pittsburgh, I saw firsthand the revolving door to prison. Too
    often people coming before my bench were returning offenders
    who, upon release from prison, struggled to find housing,
    employment, and mental health and drug treatment programs.
    Working on the front lines of our criminal justice system
    showed me that we can reduce crime by giving these individuals
    the tools they need to live productive and fulfilling lives.
        I want to be clear about something. You can be tough on
    crime while at the same time being smart on crime. In reducing
    recidivism, we are by definition eliminating future crimes and
    making our communities safer and stronger. So, there is no
    other way to be tougher on crime than reducing recidivism
    because we, by definition, eliminate future crime.
        We would all be well served if we improved our reentry
    services that would also benefit our national and our local
    economies.
        Let me explain. The Center for Economic and Policy Research
    estimates losses as high as $87 billion to the U.S. GDP each
    year because of the barriers to employment that formerly
    incarcerated individuals face. The Judiciary Committee has
    already taken an important step in this area. As Chairman Bass
    said, the First Step Act championed by Ranking Member Doug
    Collins and by Representative Jeffries reauthorized grants for
    reentry efforts. There is still so much more that we can do.
        Last year I partnered with my good friend Representative
    Lisa Blunt Rochester, and we introduced the bipartisan Clean
    Slate Act. This legislation would automatically seal an
    individual's Federal criminal record if they had been convicted
    of nonviolent drug crimes. It would also create a streamlined
    process that allows individuals to petition the courts to seal
    their records for other qualifying nonviolent crimes.
        Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester has been an incredible
    champion for this important cause and our proposal is just one
    of the many efforts to reduce recidivism in Congress. So, I
    look forward to discussing these and other ways we can stop the
    revolving door to prison and help those that are reentering
    society to fully participate and contribute to their
    communities.
        I would like to, once again, thank Chairwoman Bass for
    bringing this important issue before the subcommittee.
        With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
        I will now introduce today's witnesses.
        Nancy La Vigne?
        Ms. La Vigne. La Vigne.
        Ms. Bass. Nancy La Vigne is vice President for Justice
    Policy at the Urban Institute. She publishes research on
    prisoner reentry, criminal justice technologies, crime
    prevention, policing, and the analysis of crime and criminal
    behavior. She holds a B.A. in Government and Economics from
    Smith College.
        Conan Harris is the principal of Conan Harris & Associates
    Management consulting firm in Boston. Prior to starting his own
    consulting firm, Mr. Harris was deputy director for the mayor's
    Office of Public Safety in Boston, Massachusetts from 2015 to
    2019. As the deputy director of public safety, Mr. Harris was
    instrumental in creating Boston's first ever Office of
    Returning Citizens, a prisoner reentry service center. He holds
    a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology from Boston University.
        Ronald Lampard is the senior director of the Criminal
    Justice Task Force and Civil Justice Task Force at the American
    Legislative Exchange Council. Mr. Lampard has testified on
    issues related to administrative law, regulatory reform,
    judicial nominations, civil asset forfeiture, and other issues
    related to criminal justice reform.
        Vanessa Martin is director of reentry division of the
    Office of Diversion and Reentry in Los Angeles County. Under
    her direction, the office opened Los Angeles County's first
    community reentry center called Developing Opportunities
    Offering Reentry Solutions, otherwise known as DOORS.
        Jesse Wiese serves as the national director of academy
    advancement at prisoner fellowship, the Nation's largest
    outreach to prisoners, former prisoners, and their families. He
    served 7 and a half years for robbery in the Iowa prison system
    and subsequently earned his law degree, believes in criminal
    justice solutions that prioritize proportionate accountability,
    community participation, and second chances.
        Finally, John Harriel is the superintendent and diversity
    manager at Morrow Meadows, a full service electrical
    contracting company located in Los Angeles, California. He also
    teaches weekly classes at 2nd CALL, a community-based
    organization that assists returning citizens with housing and
    employment assistance and mentors returning citizens.
        We welcome all our distinguished witnesses and thank them
    for participating in today's hearing.
        Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you
    in. Please raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Let the record show the witnesses answered in the
    affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated.
        Please note that each of your written statements will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. So, accordingly, I ask
    that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you
    stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table.
    When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute
    to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
    signals your 5 minutes have expired, but we will have an
    opportunity when we ask questions for you to speak again.
        I ask that you go ahead and begin.

                      TESTIMONY OF NANCY LA VIGNE

        Ms. La Vigne. Good morning, and thank you Chairwoman Bass,
    Members of the subcommittee. I very much appreciate the
    opportunity to speak to you today about reentry from prison.
    I'm here as a researcher. I have a Ph.D. in criminology and a
    terminal master's in public policy, and I believe I'm here to
    share more about the research about what works in reentry.
        My colleagues and I at the Urban Institute have been
    studying this topic for close to two decades. We've done
    longitudinal studies of the process of reintegrating from
    prison to the community in several different States. We've done
    large-scale evaluations of multi-site demonstration programs
    funded through the Second Chance Act. We've also conducted
    individual evaluations of county-led reentry programs, and we
    led the development in partnership with the Council of State
    Governments Justice Center of the What Works in Reentry
    Clearinghouse, which takes together all the evaluation
    literature, screens it for rigor, and summarizes and
    synthesizes the findings.
        So, with all that knowledge, you would think I would have a
    very simple answer to the question of what works in reentry.
    I'm sorry to disappoint. There is no simple answer, and that's
    because reentry is not a simple issue or a simple process. It's
    complex, as are human beings. People have many different
    issues, needs, and challenges as they prepare to reintegrate
    into society.
        There's no simple solution. Yet, a lot of the literature
    and a lot of the interventions around reentry tend to focus on
    one thing, one need. Take job programs, for example. Absolutely
    jobs are important for reentry success, but when you focus on
    jobs alone, you might be missing a lot of factors that are
    critical. For example, if someone has a long history with
    substance use disorder and that isn't addressed, they get a
    job, they're earning a wage. It's all too tempting to use that
    money to continue using.
        Similarly with housing. I mean, housing is important, but
    if it doesn't address individuals' needs, it might actually
    even be harmful. There's literature out there on halfway houses
    and the idea is let's transition everyone through halfway
    houses back to the community, but the literature suggests that
    halfway houses are very helpful for people at medium and high
    risk of recidivism but can actually be harmful to people at low
    risk. I think probably because you're disrupting some family
    supports and social supports that they already have in place.
        Successful reentry programs need to be holistic. They need
    to address the multiple needs of people who are exiting prison
    and returning back to their communities, but they also need to
    be tailored, recognizing that people have different needs.
    Right?
        Reentry programs need to focus not just on those big ticket
    items, the ones that we all think about when we think what is
    important to reentry success, things like having a job, having
    housing, addressing substance addiction, getting education,
    becoming literate, or even acquiring higher education. All of
    those are absolutely important, but there's a lot of little
    things that matter too that are often overlooked: Things like
    transportation to get to the services that are in the
    community. Things like having a picture ID upon release. If you
    don't have that, it's hard to do much of anything, or things
    like childcare to ensure that you can comply with your
    conditions of supervision. All of these are really important.
        Another thing that's often overlooked are peoples' assets.
    Folks who are working in reentry tend to look at peoples' risks
    and needs; they tend to problematize people, but everybody has
    talents. Everybody has assets. In particular, our own research,
    some of the earliest research we did on reentry, made note of
    the power of family supports. Almost everyone we spoke to had
    at least one family member who was able to help their
    transition back, and yet so few programs actually integrate
    family support into their models.
        Community is another important asset and one that is often
    overlooked and, in particular, programs that focus on community
    strengths, like the testimony that Dr. Grills would have
    delivered had she been here. The importance of knowing that
    communities are the experts on their own neighbors. There's
    examples out there, one I'd like to highlight is in Colorado.
    The State of Colorado, through its Justice Reinvestment
    Initiative, chose to invest in the communities that are hardest
    hit by mass incarceration. They didn't just give those
    communities money and tell them what to do. They said: You tell
    us what to do. You are the experts of your community and your
    neighbors.
        That's exactly what they did. In part, they hired people
    who had successfully reintegrated to help support the
    transition of people coming home from prison.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. La Vigne. So, with that, I will just close by
    summarizing. It's important that reentry programs be holistic.
    It's important that they also be tailored to individual needs,
    including their assets. And it really is very critically
    important to invest in communities and in their expertise in
    helping people transition home.
        [The statement of Ms. La Vigne follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. Let me acknowledge the
    presence of my colleague, Ayanna Pressley, Representative from
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Conan Harris.

                       TESTIMONY OF CONAN HARRIS

        Mr. Harris. Chairwoman Bass, and Members of this esteemed
    committee, thank you for my opportunity to appear before you
    today to testify about challenges and opportunities face the
    returning citizens.
        My name is Conan Harris. I grew up in Boston,
    Massachusetts, and I am the founder and principal of Conan
    Harris & Associates, a firm that works with nonprofit and for-
    profit businesses and organizations around executive culture,
    strategic planning, and capacity building to advance the common
    good.
        I worked extensively to support the transformation of
    formerly incarcerated individuals across the city of Boston, a
    Commonwealth, and noted much of our efforts to provide people
    with successful reentry begins when people are still
    incarcerated. Preparing yourself internally before your release
    date is often the one factor that an incarcerated person can
    control. When incarcerated, men and women prepare themselves to
    be released back into society. They are eager to get out and
    make positive contributions to their family, to the workforce,
    and communities.
        Once released back into society, a variety of social and
    economic barriers stand in the way of returning citizen's
    ability to control where they sleep, work, and heal. Returning
    citizens need support to navigate in their communities to find
    a safe and stable environment to sleep, a decent job with
    livable wages, and access to affordable quality healthcare.
    These necessities are crucial for returning citizens not to get
    out of prison, but to stay out.
        In 2017, with the support of the Boston mayor in
    partnership with my colleagues, I oversaw the development and
    grand opening of the first ever mayor's Office of Returning
    Citizens. The office focused on connecting returning citizens
    to resources throughout the city and serves as a one-stop shop
    to help men and women coming home from incarceration with
    navigating activities many of us take for granted, such as
    getting identification card, finding employment, enrolling in
    substance abuse treatment programs, and getting therapy.
        The program has tackled many challenges, but one of the
    most pressing continues to be access to housing. Like many
    cities and States throughout the country, there are many cranes
    in the air and new housing being built, but the political will
    to build safe and transitional housing for returning citizens
    has yet to become a priority.
        For me this is personal and reflective on my own life as a
    formerly incarcerated man who spent 10 years in prison for drug
    trafficking. My transition home as a returning citizen started
    while I was still incarcerated. During that time, I received my
    GED, took corresponding courses to local community colleges
    before gaining enough credits to enroll in the Boston
    University College program inside the institution. Also, at
    that time, I spent time self-educating, reading books like the
    autobiography of ``Malcolm X'' that strengthened me. Older men
    who were serving life became mentors and uncovers the greatness
    in me versus the worst of my being.
        When I returned home, my family afforded me a safe
    environment to sleep and allowed me the space to settle myself
    mentally and emotionally. Through the support of family and
    many others, I was able to find employment doing sanitation
    work in a 9-week program. This job was a lifeline and paid $17
    an hour, which allowed me to pay rent for my room and voucher
    as a motivational speaker to speak to teen centers, high
    schools, and colleges. This work quickly became my passion, and
    my fifth week home, I had found more stable job working
    primarily with youth. Through my experience, I've worked with
    $1.2 billion foundation, consulted on multiple projects
    throughout the country, and became the deputy director for the
    mayor's Office of Public Safety and the executive director for
    the Boston's chapter of President Obama's initiative, My
    Brother's Keeper.
        There are times when people learn my history, and they
    think, what is different about me? I always say: I am an
    ordinary person with extraordinary support. The difference
    between that support and what drives my passion is we're making
    sure that everybody has the opportunity to have the support
    needed so they can get out and stay out.
        I believe that Congress should continue to make progress
    with respect to the Pell grant and removing restrictions that
    make it difficult for incarcerated men and women to get
    education and gain the skills they need to thrive when they go
    home. It is crucial that States be given the resources they
    need to build transitional housing. Formerly incarcerated men
    and women and support them in their efforts to feel safe to
    find stable home. I would also add, like Dr. Grills, also
    building out a bipartisan board of formerly incarcerated men
    and women would be important to ensure that Congress is
    developing policies that is informed by those who it will
    impact most in doing what it can to end recidivism and
    intergenerational cycle of mass incarceration.
        Lastly, while I was building out the mayor's office of
    returning citizens, I put together an advisory group, formerly
    incarcerated men and women, they informed me that they do not
    want handouts. What they want is opportunity. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Lampard.

                     TESTIMONY OF RONALD J. LAMPARD

        Mr. Lampard. Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Mmber, other Members
    of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I
    look forward to discussing my work on this issue as well as how
    ALEC Members have been working in their respective States to
    reduce barriers to entry for those with criminal records and to
    ensure that individuals who are incarcerated have access to
    reentry programs.
        The American Legislative Exchange Council is America's
    largest nonpartisan voluntary Membership organization of State
    legislators dedicated to the principals of limited government,
    free markets, and Federalism. We are comprised of nearly one
    quarter of the country's State legislators and stakeholders
    from across the policy spectrum. ALEC Members represent more
    than 60 million Americans. ALEC provides a forum for Members to
    meet and discuss ideas and provide elected officials the
    resources they need to make sound policy. It enjoys a broad and
    growing Membership that includes over 200 businesses and
    nonprofit Members.
        ALEC has over 1,800 individual supporters and roughly 20
    percent of Members of Congress are ALEC alums. We also have
    several sitting Governors and hundreds of locally elected
    officials. For nearly a decade, our Members have driven changes
    to the criminal justice system to ease the transition of those
    with a criminal record. Over 2 years ago, ALEC launched a
    working group on reentry. The working group was formed shortly
    after the adoption of the ALEC model resolution in support of
    reentry programs, which encourages States and the Federal
    Government to implement prisoner reentry programs; namely, that
    the development and implementation of sound reentry policies
    promote public safety, reduce recidivism rates, and offer those
    with criminal records second chances. Reentry programs keep
    communities safe and help individuals reintegrate into society.
    Roughly 40,000 Federal prisoners were released in 2018 and
    roughly 20,000, or 50 percent, will return within 3 years of
    being released.
        If the First Step Act is as effective as similar
    legislation enacted in the States than that rate will drop
    considerably. Reentry programs in the States have grown
    substantially over the last decade. These include growth in
    States, such as Louisiana, Maryland, North Dakota, and Texas. A
    common barrier to entry is obtaining employment. Obtaining
    employment is a crucial step for someone with a criminal record
    attempting to reenter society. Over the last 2 years, States
    such as Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, 10nessee, and Wyoming have
    enacted legislation relaxing their occupational licensing
    restrictions. These laws allow individuals who have committed
    certain crimes to have the ability to rejoin the workforce,
    enabling them to provide for themselves and their families
    while contributing to their community.
        Another area that poses a challenge to those with criminal
    records is burdensome fines and fees that often accompany
    criminal sentences. State policymakers have successfully
    enacted solutions other than these fines and fees or the
    suspension of a driver's license for certain conduct. These
    States include Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, and Montana, which
    have all enacted legislation to aim to reduce driver's license
    suspensions and the imposition of fines and fees.
        A clean slate is a crucial part of someone trying to
    reenter society. A criminal record can negatively impact an
    individual for years. In fact, roughly 77 billion Americans
    have some sort of criminal history. Unfortunately, having even
    a minor criminal record carries lifelong barriers that can
    block successful reentry and participation in society. This
    includes barriers to both employment and housing. Over the last
    few years, Pennsylvania and Utah enacted measures to address
    this issue commonly referred to as Clean Slate laws.
        These laws allow individuals the opportunity to have their
    records sealed after a period of time has passed following
    completion of their criminal sentence.
        In conclusion, as the chairwoman noted earlier, ultimately
    over 75 percent of all individuals serving a prison sentence
    will be released. Individuals should certainly be punished and
    held accountable for their crimes. However, they should also be
    permitted the chance to rejoin their communities after they
    have paid their debt to society. Elected officials at all
    levels of government should place substantial emphasis on
    public safety and allow individuals the opportunity to
    participate in reentry programs that help ensure that they do
    not commit additional crimes after they have been released from
    prison. In addition, burdensome occupational licensing
    restrictions and fines and fees ought to be reviewed and
    revisited.
        Finally, individuals who have committed certain offenses
    and have completed their criminal sentence should have the
    opportunity to have their record sealed from many but not all
    potential employers. ALEC will continue to work on this issue
    and to ensure that individuals are given a better opportunity
    to rejoin society and to keep communities safe.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Lampard follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. Martin.

                      TESTIMONY OF VANESSA MARTIN

        Ms. Martin. Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Members, and Members
    of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing today
    to lift up the experiences with people with justice involvement
    face as they reintegrate into society and to consider how those
    of us in government can help to improve their lives and make
    communities safer.
        My name is Vanessa Martin, and I am the director of the
    Reentry Division at the Office of Diversion and Reentry, an
    innovative office created by the Los Angeles County board of
    supervisors in 2015. I'm grateful for this opportunity to
    highlight our reentry initiatives, as I believe we have an
    obligation given the size of our county, economy, and,
    unfortunately, our jail population to be a leader in criminal
    justice reform.
        We are at a time in which there is bipartisan support for
    criminal justice reform. In California, there has been
    significant legislation in recent years to reform the system
    and a commitment by the State to reinvest funds from
    incarceration into locally run supervisions and services with
    the goal of reducing recidivism.
        The funds for ODR's reentry services come from Proposition
    47, passed in 2014, which recategorized some nonviolent
    offenses to misdemeanors rather than felonies. Senate bill 678,
    passed in 2010, which encouraged probation departments to keep
    individuals under community supervision instead of returning
    them to State prison.
        The mission of ODR's reentry division is to develop and
    implement holistic, accessible, community-based, and community-
    based programs to serve the needs of people with justice
    involvement. To create an infrastructure that is sustainable
    and equitable.
        One of our most important collaborations is with the L.A.
    County Probation Department. We work closely with them on all
    programs funded by S.B. 678 with the key initiative being L.A.
    County's first of its kind community reentry center. It is
    perhaps one of the best examples of the partnership between ODR
    and probation, exemplifying what can be done when county
    departments work together toward a shared vision rather than
    working in silos.
        Developing Opportunities and Offering Reentry Solutions
    (DOORS), is designed to provide an array of comprehensive
    support of services in a welcoming and culturally responsive
    environment. In essence, a one-stop shop. It is one of several
    initiatives spearheaded by the probation department. It is a
    16,000-square-foot space housed on the third floor of the
    largest probation area office in Los Angeles and located in the
    vibrant Exposition Park neighborhood, walkable from the L.A.
    metro. It is also in the poorest district in L.A. County, the
    2nd Supervisorial District, with 24 percent of its residents
    living below the poverty line.
        Through our community partners, we offer services ranging
    from housing support to education. For example, as part of our
    employment services, we offer vocational trainings,
    transitional employment opportunities, and job placement
    assistance. We also offer legal services, such as motions for
    early termination of probation, sentence reduction, record
    sealings, and corrections. Housing services, of course, such as
    assistance with navigating housing availability, placement into
    interim housing, and linkage to permanent housing
    interventions.
        Through our county partners, we offer mental health and
    substance use services, and access to public benefits. Over
    1,000 people have received services since DOORS opened on July
    1, 2019. In addition to DOORS, I would like to highlight a few
    of our other key reentry initiatives. Reentry intensive case
    management services is a care coordination and service
    navigation program. What distinguishes it from traditional case
    management programs is that the case managers, known as
    community health workers, are people with lived experience of
    incarceration or credible messengers. They serve as advocates
    for their client and have a whatever-it-takes approach to
    assisting their clients with their needs ranging from
    accompanying them to doctor's appointments to helping them
    acquire IDs, to navigating the complex housing, employment, and
    social services systems.
        The sector program provides industry recognized
    occupational skills training and paid work experience
    opportunities to help prepare individuals for careers in high
    growth sectors that offer living wages and pathways to
    advancement.
        Lastly, L.A. Free to Vote is an initiative to civically
    engage and register to vote justice-involved individuals.
        In closing, I want to recognize our policymakers, like
    Congresswoman Bass, who have fought for criminal justice
    reform. Thank you for the work that you have done and will
    continue to do. While we are grateful for the funding we have,
    more is needed, more funding that is flexible and unrestricted
    to sustain and expand our programs given the massive size of
    the reentry program. Again, given the cost of incarceration,
    both on the human and economic cost, this is critical.
        Finally, we need to have compassion and continue to have
    our programs and policies informed by the experiences of those
    who have been involved in and impacted by the justice system.
    On this note, I would like to end with a quote from one of our
    community health workers. Sharing my lived experiences of how I
    overcame adversity, addiction, and discrimination in my own
    life is a testament that real change in life is not only
    possible, but probable given the right support.
        I would like to invite Congresswoman Bass and Members of
    the Subcommittee to visit DOORS so you can see firsthand the
    transformation that is taking place in Los Angeles.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The statement of Ms. Martin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Wiese.

                        TESTIMONY OF JESSE WIESE

        Mr. Wiese. Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member, and other
    distinguished Members of the committee. Reentry should be about
    a return to full citizenship. Despite the incredible State
    level justice reform gains in the past decade and this
    committee's accomplishment in passing the Second Chance Act of
    2008 and the First Step Act of 2018, reentry success stories
    are primarily the result of grit, the kindness of others, and,
    frankly, beating the odds.
        Today, I'm a husband, a father, a soon-to-be lawyer, and
    the national director of Academy Advancement for Prison
    Fellowship, the Nation's largest prison ministry. For those who
    meet me now, it can be difficult to detect I'm one of the few
    success stories.
        I was 21 years old when I robbed a bank at gun point. I
    know from personal experience that to pave the way for
    successful reentry two systemic issues must be address: Prison
    culture and collateral consequences. I deeply regretted my
    crime and wanted to pay the debt I owed. However, I was quickly
    confronted with prison norms which are antithetical to the
    norms of society. Adapting to this culture offers short-term
    safety but does not prepare you to be successful upon release.
    Prison Fellowship has long recognized prison culture as one of
    the leading causes of poorer criminal justice outcomes.
        If we want to improve reentry outcomes, we must not think
    of it as a timeframe, but rather a frame of mind. The Prison
    Fellowship Academy uses evidence-based practices and life-
    changing curriculum to replace criminal thinking and behaviors
    with a renewed value system and life purpose. Prison Fellowship
    Academy graduates are prepared to take their places as good
    citizens, positive contributors to their communities, inside
    and outside of prison.
        The academy provided me with a counter-prison culture,
    equipping me while in prison to confront my actions, reconcile
    with my victim, graduate with honors with my undergraduate
    degree, help other men obtain their GED, and study for the Law
    School Admission Test.
        When I was released, I began to put into practice what I
    had been taught, but I was up against the 44,000 collateral
    consequences of a criminal conviction that plagued the
    estimated one in three American adults who have a criminal
    record. I thought I could outwork, outpace, outmaneuver, and
    outnetwork this second prison. The reality is you can't. It's
    always there. The hand reaching from the past slowing you down
    and pulling you back from reaching your potential. It's a
    taxing and never-ending process of convincing landlords,
    universities, employers, insurance companies, professional
    licensing boards, criminal justice officials, and, in my case,
    my wife, and the churches that the system can actually work.
        I learned early that my accomplishments were not enough to
    erase the vestiges of a felony conviction. By God's grace, in
    spite of my parole officer, who told me I would never go to law
    school, I graduated Magna Cum Laude with my Juris Doctorate.
    Yet, obtaining a license to practice law required a decade of
    perseverance, including passing the Virginia bar exam twice,
    hundreds of pro bono legal hours, six administrative hearings,
    during which I was asked why my rehabilitated soul would ever
    attempt to practice law, and two appeals to the Virginia
    Supreme Court.
        As I walked this path, I challenged the participants in
    Prison Fellowship's prison programs to drain big and take hold
    of their second chance. Yet, there were times where I wondered
    if promoting such an unattainable challenge was unethical. I've
    witnessed the majority of people going through the dejecting
    reentry process give up because of the overwhelming barriers.
    Earning back the public's trust after committing a crime should
    not be an easy task, but it must be an attainable one if we
    want to increase public safety.
        We spend billions of dollars teaching incarcerated men and
    women how to build a new car or a new life, provide the
    appropriate parts, and give them keys, but when the prison
    doors open, there are no roads. Where the brave forge ahead,
    they quickly run out of gas.
        It's time to allow people to practice the rehabilitation we
    are so adamantly preaching. To that end, Prison Fellowship
    respectfully asks this Committee to address prison culture and
    pave a road to full citizenship. First, to really see gains,
    there must be a cultural, not just legislative shift. This
    cultural transformation starts by abandoning labels, such as
    offender and felon, in favor of language that reflects human
    dignity.
        Cultural transformation is all about the heart of why
    Prison Fellowship launched Second Chance Month. Members of this
    Committee can join the forthcoming 2020 Second Chance Month
    resolution and use your influence to infuse the value of second
    chances in the national narrative.
        Second, reject the status quo of prison culture. This
    includes infusing greater opportunities in prison for
    transformation, specifically lifting the ban on Pell grant
    access for incarcerated students and continuing to provide
    oversight of the First Step Act implementation. Prison
    Fellowship eagerly awaits the opportunity to expand the academy
    and Federal facilities. Finally, repeal Federal collateral
    consequences that are not substantially related to the criminal
    conduct and require an impact statement scrutinizing whether
    there is evidence of public safety benefit for any newly
    proposed collateral consequences.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Wiese follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Mr. Harriel.

                       TESTIMONY OF JOHN HARRIEL

        Mr. Harriel. Thank you, Chairman Bass and the Committee for
    being here today. This is a great opportunity to be here for
    myself. I support reentry because myself, too, like Mr. Harris
    and this young man next to me, it was tough when I was in
    prison and when I got out, I thank God that the International
    Brotherhood of Electrical Workers allowed someone like myself
    to join their union, but there were some things that I had to
    do.
        So, when we have these programs, I want to make sure that,
    for my community, the community that I come up in, east side of
    Los Angeles, that it's not just a program. It needs to be a way
    of life, and this is why 2nd CALL was formed by brothers Kenny
    Smith and Skip Towson. When they formed it, they formed it just
    for hard core gang intervention, but when I got with them, I
    asked them, when a man puts down his gun and his flag, then
    what? If he has nothing to go to--because none of the programs
    out there address me: I was over 25. I come from one of the
    hardest communities in the city. They didn't have nothing for
    me. I could get a license, but I had to be under a certain age.
    So, I had to get my GED. I had to go to a program. Well,
    programs come and go.
        So, what I did was, with the help and the blessings of the
    IBEW, I started the pathway into the trades and then through
    2nd CALL what we did was, I realized that, in my community,
    what we suffered from was unresolved trauma. How do I deal with
    being in a community where suppression and violence was normal?
    It was a way of life. I didn't see no one getting up at 3
    o'clock in the morning going to work.
        So, when I got to Morrow Medals, one of the things that
    happened was the IBEW got me to Morrow Meadows, but Morrow
    Meadows grew me as a man. They became a lifeguard for me, and
    so I understood that theory. So that family took me in, treated
    me as one of their own, but, more importantly, made me feel
    like I was part of something greater than.
        So, I take that back to my community. I didn't leave the
    community. I lived there still, and I own in my community now,
    but I have a trade. So now every week, I do a Thursday class at
    Abundant Life Christian Church downstairs with the blessing of
    the pastor for free to teach young men and women how to
    reintegrate into society, but, more importantly, how to get rid
    of the unresolved trauma. Because me having anger management,
    low self-esteem--I had no idea that when I woke up in the
    morning and I put them colors on from head to toe and I was
    dressed in all red because I was a member of the Bloods, that I
    had low self-esteem. I wanted to commit suicide, but I didn't
    want to do it with my own hand. I wanted somebody else to do
    it, and I had no idea what that looked like. Now, 23 years
    later, homeowner, I have a trade. From Lonnie Stephenson, our
    international President all the way down to a first-year
    apprentice at Morrow Medals or in the IBEW getting in, I've
    been able through 2nd CALL to get thousands of young men and
    women that are some of the most notorious proven risk criminals
    to pick up tape measures instead of guns and, more importantly,
    buy homes instead of doing home invasions because on a weekly
    basis, we don't have a program; it's a way of life. We preach
    and teach ownership. We talk about anger management, angry
    behaviors, because those things plague my community. A lot of
    times when I go to certain programs, they don't address the
    needs of individuals that look like me because if they did, you
    would see a different dynamic out there. So, for me, it is very
    important to have that one-stop shop to where it's 24 hours,
    but it's individuals who not only speak the language, but are
    from the community, and they help add and multiply instead of
    subtracting and dividing. Because when I think about the women
    and I look at women and I put the correlation because one of
    our dear sisters who has an organization called Back to the
    Basics, where she deals with suspects and victims of domestic
    violence because she too had murdered her husband, but she did
    17 years, got out, and now she's one of the leading experts on
    domestic violence.
        So, she gets to talk to the young men and women and get
    them back on board, and then we get them into careers, but I
    tell people all the time no matter what community a person
    comes from, if I do not have an advocate or a lifeguard that
    does not look like me, so when they go inside that room to talk
    for me, it's very important that I do my part, and that's why
    I'm so grateful and thankful for you to have me here, but I'm
    so grateful and thankful for the trades, the IBEW, and Morrow
    Meadows as an organization and my church, to give an
    opportunity to help young men and women who cannot afford or
    can't even go to other places because of the gang culture.
    Because not only am I dealing with the hard-core Crips and
    Bloods, I don't go to the colleges and high schools; I go to
    the hardest hit neighborhoods and speak to the proven risk
    offenders. We get them into these trades in the Hispanic
    community, Asian community, and even I deal with some of my
    Arian brothers too because we, together, have to rise, and I
    believe in accountability and responsibility.
        Once we teach and do that, it makes for a better place for
    all to grow in my community and all other communities. So, I
    just want to say thank you for having me here, and this has
    been a great day today.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Harriel follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for your statements, and we'll now proceed
    under the 5-minute Rule with questions, and I begin by
    recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harriel, you describe IBEW, and I take it you are an
    electrician?
        Mr. Harriel. Yes. Absolutely. Yes, I am a journeyman on my
    ticket, but I'm a superintendent, and I'm also the diversity
    manager for the entire West Coast for the Meadows Corporation
    because I, just like the family, understood that for it to
    work, one has to be in a position of leadership.
        Ms. Bass. So, how did you make it through? I mean, that
    apprenticeship and journeyman program is several years, right?
        Mr. Harriel. It's a 5-year apprenticeship. It was tough.
    When I graduated, I graduated with a perfect attendance, and I
    was number one for that class and graduated in 2003. That's why
    I know that I had to get over some barriers. I was going
    through a divorce. I was working for one of the toughest
    individuals that a person can work for, but what that did was
    it prepared me for the work that I'm doing, and the IBEW gave
    me self-esteem. I had low self-esteem.
        Now there's nowhere on this Earth that I cannot build, I
    cannot look, and I don't understand how it works. So that's the
    path, and they taught me that I can. There's no such thing as
    can't.
        Ms. Bass. So, your program that you run for free--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. --it meets once a week or so?
        Mr. Harriel. We meet once a week, yes. We've started off
    with four people. Now it's hundreds, and we have 18 classes.
        Ms. Bass. Is your goal to grow that into a nonprofit?
        Mr. Harriel. Absolutely. Well, it is a nonprofit, but they
    don't have the funding. We need a building. We need somewhere
    where someone can call and come to. We only meet--thank God the
    churches--my church allows us to be there. They don't charge me
    and we're just doing the work from within, but it would be
    great to get not only funding but to have a building to where
    someone can come to and meet and greet people who can help them
    through this process 24/7 in their community.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. Martin, how does an individual get to the
    reentry center? Meaning, one of the issues that I know is faced
    in all communities, you get out and it might be in the middle
    of the night, and where do you go?
        Ms. Martin. That's right.
        Ms. Bass. So, what resources do people have from 5 o'clock
    in the evening to 7 next morning?
        Ms. Martin. It's a great question. Actually, one of the
    things that we have an Alternatives to Incarceration Work Group
    that's being led in Los Angeles County right now, and one of
    the recommendations for it is discussion around the issue of
    people being released in the middle of the night and how we can
    ensure that there's transportation or that there's some way to
    provide them some type of interim housing until we can work
    with them in the morning. Because obviously a lot of our
    providers, a lot of our community-based organizations are not
    able to work with them in the middle of the night.
        Also, there's issues of obviously holding people longer
    than necessary. So, that is an issue that we are currently
    discussing in L.A. County.
        Then in terms of access into DOORS, so it's conveniently
    housed within a probation office. It's, again, the largest
    probation office in L.A. County, which they see about 3,000
    people a month.
        Ms. Bass. I'm sorry. I'm going to run out of time.
        Ms. Martin. Okay. Sorry. So, they--
        Ms. Bass. I needed to ask Mr. Harris we'll come back.
        Ms. Martin. Okay.
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Harris, I had the incredible opportunity of
    visiting the prison where you were incarcerated--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. --and meeting with some of the individuals. I
    just wanted to know, what takes place inside the prison to
    prepare people? Many of the people we saw were there for life.
        Mr. Harris. Well, I think that a lot of incarcerated men
    driven programming is the thing that helps with the reentry
    process while you're inside. I think that a lot of times folks
    with great ideas, people go inside the institution, and they
    formulate programs that they think will work.
        What I've learned is throughout my stint of doing time for
    10 years and a lot of my friends being people whose spend the
    rest of their life in prison, it really helps with the
    connectivity of each other and the program that formulates
    through the hands of each other and building one's self-esteem.
        Now, there's different programs that exist with college and
    the ACC, African American Coalition Committee, and the church
    programs, but it really comes from one brother reaching and
    teaching each other and holding each other accountable to be
    successful. I always say that people talk about all these
    things that happen outside of prison and what needs to be done.
    If you don't work within yourself while you're in there and do
    some truth telling while you're in there, when you get out, no
    program alive will save you.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Wiese, you talked about prison culture. Could you give
    us a couple of examples of what you're talking about?
        Mr. Wiese. Yeah. So, unfortunately, prison has been become
    a social shaper in the United States, and I think one of the
    most under-looked catalyst when we look at our criminal justice
    outcomes is the culture that men and women spend years living
    by. We somehow expect that one or two programs will
    successfully counter that culture and by them magically walking
    past the prison threshold, we will sprinkle some reentry dust
    and you will become a different person. That is just not
    reality.
        I think we can all agree that we would expect more. So, I
    think we have to take a strong look at what cultural norms are
    existing currently in our prison system.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, and thank
    you everybody for testifying. Your testimony was very
    inspirational. As I mentioned in the opening statement that I
    gave, I introduced the Clean Slate Act with my good friend and
    colleague Lisa Blunt Rochester, and I started working on this
    issue in the Pennsylvania State Senate. We were actually in
    Pennsylvania the first ones to have a clean slate bill passed
    as, Mr. Lampard, mentioned in your testimony.
        That bill was signed into law in 2018, and it will
    facilitate the sealing of records for 30 million people in
    Pennsylvania. I mean, the numbers are just staggering. Several
    other States are following Pennsylvania's lead, but with that,
    Mr. Lampard--and I have a few questions for you, so just if you
    could help me conserve the time.
        What can Congress learn from the States that had
    implemented Clean Slate bills where there's automatic sealing
    of records?
        Mr. Lampard. Congress can absolutely learn a whole lot. The
    Clean Slate records allow for people to move past their
    criminal history and to get past that barrier to entry which is
    so crucial for someone who has a criminal record. So, that's
    why States--you're looking at--not only did Pennsylvania pass
    it in 2018, Utah passed it in 2019, and this year Michigan has
    introduced Clean Slate legislation as well, and so has
    Washington State.
        So, States are realizing how important this is, and it's
    crucial that Congress as well take up this issue.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Just looking at the Federal system,
    under the system that we now have in place, what avenues do
    individuals have who are looking to seal their records in the
    Federal system? What options do individuals have now?
        Mr. Lampard. It's on a petition-by-petition basis just like
    other States. So, Pennsylvania before 2018, you'd have to have
    individuals actually petition the court and that takes time and
    money, and these people often don't have a lot of time or money
    for that matter to file these petitions. I mean, so you'd have
    to hire an attorney, and that's why that's an option. It's a
    limiting option for someone.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So, that's why it's so critical to have
    the automatic expungement, correct? You take down the barrier
    of the time and the financial resources, et cetera?
        Mr. Lampard. Absolutely, yes. It's so crucial.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Mr. Lampard.
        Ms. Martin, I do have a question for you. So, there's a
    bipartisan group of lawmakers, I'm on the committee, so are a
    lot of individuals here on the panel, and it's that Crisis
    Stabilization and Community Reentry Act, and a lot of Members
    on the Committee are behind that. This legislation authorizes
    funding to provide mental health services for incarcerated
    individuals and those that are reentering society.
        Ms. Martin, how important is it to address the mental
    health issue upon reentry and for those that are currently
    incarcerated?
        Ms. Martin. Yeah, it's extremely important. The estimate is
    about 30 percent of the individuals in our L.A. County jails
    have a mental health issue. So, it's a huge, huge issue. That's
    just mental health. That's not including substance use
    disorders. So, this is a huge crisis, and one in which we work
    very closely with the Department of Mental Health Services to
    try to provide as much treatment as possible, but I think
    having resources dedicated specifically for the reentry
    population is very important.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Is it Mr. Wiese? Am I saying that
    correctly?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes. That's correct.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. With a name like Reschenthaler,
    I'm pretty sensitive to people pronouncing names correctly. Mr.
    Wiese, I feel like you got cutoff before when you were talking
    about the change in culture. Do you feel like you needed more
    time to address that? You're welcome.
        Mr. Wiese. No, I appreciate that. Yes. I think it's such a
    paramount issue that gets overlooked. When we think about some
    of the cultural norms in prison at the top of my list are
    dishonesty, distrust. I learned quickly you don't look people
    in the eye. You don't shake hands. There's nothing that we
    would want people to adopt and live by post-release.
        I would say all the time to people who are still in the
    criminal justice system, if you live by these norms, there's
    only one place where these norms are allowed, and that's back
    in the criminal justice system. So, at Prison Fellowship, we
    work hard to create a place that has a different culture that
    men and women can begin to practice the values of good
    citizenship because perfect practice makes perfect, and so we
    want people to exercise those good citizenship muscles inside
    of this culture as much as we can. We really work counter
    culturally.
        Mr. Harris. I'll just add a little bit to that and just
    say, different experiences for different people while
    incarcerated. Because there are things that you learn within
    the institution by building relationships with other men that
    are positive that then you can take some of that behavior and
    bring it out here and it be an asset.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks.
        I yield the balance of my time.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank all the witnesses and
    certainly appreciate our committee's work on this issue, in
    particular, those of you that have experienced in real time and
    real life what we want to try and not only fix because some of
    you have been your own fixers, but also enhance.
        So, my questioning will be along the lines of trying to do
    that. I'm going to start with Mr. Wiese first. Give us the
    specifics of the barriers that caused you to look like to be
    almost a 20-year journey, may not have been that long, but give
    us so that on the Federal level we can utilize the legislative
    bully pulpit so that States have a better view of what they
    need to be doing for reentry and that is helping, that is
    facilitating, that is giving the hand up.
        So, if you give me one or two because I want to get to some
    of the other gentlemen here and ladies here if you would.
        Mr. Wiese. Sure. I think for me personally, one of the
    largest is just employment. Just always navigating how you're
    going to turn a negative into a positive. I think that's one of
    the most prevalent collateral consequences.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you ultimately paroled?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right, and so you're obviously off
    parole now?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You have to always note that you're a
    convicted felon?
        Mr. Wiese. It depends. So, yes. Certainly, for housing
    issues, that usually comes up. It's usually case by case. You
    learn kind of where to look and where to go to avoid those.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm just going to interrupt. On the
    achieving your bar license, you were going by way of State law?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, the barriers were what?
        Mr. Wiese. In moral character and fitness.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. That's where they got you?
        Mr. Wiese. Yep.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, that's something that we need to look
    at, because, rather than looking at your todays, your moral
    character was tied back to your incarceration?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Because I assume you were a fine gentleman
    at the time that you were applying for your bar license?
        Mr. Wiese. I thought so, yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. They were going back. They were taking you
    back to your 21-year-old Act of--
        Mr. Wiese. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. --and misdirection?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, we should be looking at some of those
    elements because they even follow you in employment. Is that
    what you're saying?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. That's why I took you the whole journey of
    going up and down as it relates to the bar license.
        Mr. Wiese. That's right.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Even today now, are you suggesting
    that conviction follows you? You said sometimes it does?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes, ma'am. Like getting life insurance, for
    example.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Oh.
        Mr. Wiese. There are lots of restrictions just in
    insurance. Professional licensing boards across--not just in
    the legal field; just professional licensing boards. Sometimes
    I don't know. You don't know what's around the corner until you
    hit it, and so sometimes it's just unknown. There are so many
    that I don't even know them all.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, some of the elements of expanding the
    Ban the Box concept and some of the legislation that's been
    spoken about today would be very helpful that you're not going
    back--
        Mr. Wiese. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. --to that element all the time. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris, I'm sorry. Mr. Harriel, not Harris. Was it the
    IBEW that gave you the reentry opportunity?
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. With that in mind, are you in the union,
    or are you now out on jobs, or you have your company? How is it
    that you're utilizing that union?
        Mr. Harriel. I am a union member of IBEW for 23 years now.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So, is there any barrier to you getting
    employment on a job site, et cetera?
        Mr. Harriel. There are certain barriers because the felony
    does come up, like, for instance, when I went to go work at the
    airport, and they did a background check, they knew I had the
    felony, and they were kind of hesitant--there was some hoops I
    had to jump through, one of the barriers right now, they've got
    a lot of building going on at the airport, but questions are
    coming up: Well, do you have anybody, but they can't have a
    felony.
        Well, what does that mean? They're able to work, they have
    the right attitude, they've have the right motivation, but,
    just because they have that felony, they can't work. Well,
    that's not true. That's a half truth. If the felony is more
    than 10 years, I can qualify, but, when a person says they
    can't have a felony, that's like forever, and--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. When we began our funding on the metro
    project, which is Federal funding--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. --I had someone sit up in a board meeting
    and say: Well, I know we can't hire felons because of Federal
    dollars.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I went directly to President Obama, just
    asked him outright at that time.
        Mr. Harriel. Right.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. He said he never heard of that in his
    life. There is a lot of rumors and misinformation.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly go to the difficulty of
    women who are coming out. I know there are gentlemen here. I
    would appreciate if someone would comment on maybe the extra
    difficulty of women coming out. I'll finish and hopefully get
    under the wire to say that the First Step Act is excellent
    legislation, but if anyone wants to comment on what we need to
    do to ensure its funding and it works--I know my colleagues
    want to make sure that it continues to work.
        Gentlemen, anyone want to--
        Mr. Harriel. Well, I think, for me, with the women, it's
    important that they have an advocate because what I've often
    seen out there for the women, it's almost like the lion theory.
    When the lion goes to hunt and kill, they isolate. What I've
    seen with women happen, they get isolated and they're out there
    on the island by themselves, and so they need to have
    advocates, and they need to have rooms to grow because I'd want
    to see a woman be a superintendent and run a job that's more
    than $5 million and have a crew and be able to bring other
    women up, but there are certain barriers out there where that
    does not happen. So, we must continue to champion and stand
    behind and not be complicit in the behavior that not only women
    but women of color especially just--it's horrible, and we
    cannot condone that and be a part of that.
        So, for me, on any of my jobs, if any of that nonsense
    happen, you will get fired.
        Mr. Harris. I'll just add quickly and say it's so crucial
    and important that, as you were making decisions and you were
    figuring out a way to be really helpful, that you have formerly
    incarcerated women and men to help you think through what you
    are going to do. That is crucial because when--it's like
    anything else. You have to have people on your board that have
    lived the experience that can be helpful with making the
    decisions.
        Ms. Martin. I'm sorry.
        Ms. Bass. Yeah.
        Ms. Martin. I would love to jump in on this with women.
        I think the other huge issue for everyone in incarceration
    is that they've also been victims themselves--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Martin. --and that's a recognition we all have to
    understand, women in particular. I think the statistic is over
    90 percent are victims themselves. If you asked someone like
    Susan Burton, who runs A New Way of Life Reentry Project in Los
    Angeles, she would say they need a safe place to live. That's
    the first thing that they need to be safe and be able to
    reintegrate, is housing.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman--
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Chabot?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. --for your generosity. I thank you.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Lampard, I'm going to begin with you if I can.
        Could you describe how occupational licensing has adversely
    impacted folks coming out of our institutions from getting
    gainful employment and then advancing beyond that? What kind of
    roadblock is that?
        Mr. Lampard. Where do I start really? I mean, occupational
    licenses, there are so many of them, as Mr. Wiese noted
    earlier, is that they really target individuals with a criminal
    record too many ways. Some have blanket bans which prohibit
    anyone with a criminal record from obtaining an occupational
    license to work in a specific field, regardless of whether the
    offense itself is relevant to the practice of the occupation or
    poses any real risk to public safety.
        Second, occupational licensing laws often have good-
    character provisions. So, they give these licensing boards
    broad discretions to deny applications based on good character,
    and oftentimes boards will say: If you have a criminal record,
    you don't have good character.
        In some States, they even lack this vague standard, that
    the boards are given complete and total discretion and leave
    job applicants in the dark.
        So, what happens is, as a result, many people will
    participate in reentry programs in prisons and job training
    programs, and then, once they get out, they discover they can't
    work in that field. So, they spend all this time and effort
    doing something that they can't do. So, they can't get
    employed, and, instead, they could have been doing something
    else. It's no surprise that States with high occupational
    licensing restrictions--have a number of occupational licensing
    restrictions have higher recidivism rates.
        So, for example, between 1997 and 2007, recidivism rates
    grew by more than 9 percent in States with the heaviest
    licensing burdens and 2.5 percent in States with the lowest
    licensing burdens. So, occupational licensing or license
    restrictions are a substantial barrier to individuals seeking
    employment and a substantial barrier really to keeping people
    from returning to prison.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lampard. Thank you.
        Mr. Chabot. My next question, Mr. Harriel, Mr. Harris, and
    Mr. Wiese, if I could address you all.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Mr. Chabot. At least think about it. I'll begin with you,
    Mr. Harriel. You had mentioned that you had been associated
    with the Bloods--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Mr. Chabot. --for some period of time. Thank you for all
    the great things that you have done to help others.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Mr. Chabot. My question is this: Is there pressure, are
    there threats and problems when you come out from folks,
    previously? I know the lifespan isn't necessarily extensive.
    So, maybe you have a different group of people, but could you
    address that issue and if there is a problem there or--
        Mr. Harriel. There are no problems because I speak the
    language, and I come from that community that made me, and so,
    in that same community, there is a different way of life now.
    There is a way of how do I learn, how to do something
    productive and be a builder of the community instead of
    destroying the community?
        When a person--and I meet them eye level and they see it
    was one of their own that's doing this back, there is nothing
    but respect, and so I've been able to do that in other
    communities with rival gangs to do that, also because they
    understand that I'm not looking at it as just lip service;
    we're building relationships. As that happens, I get up every
    morning at 3 a.m., go to work every day, 40 hours a week, work
    hard, but I too can lift a hand and help you do that, but
    there's some things that I must change.
        I must be drug free. I must have a valid driver's license.
    We help individuals get through those things because I've been
    through it living in the streets, and I understand it, and so
    we help the individuals start loving themselves because I
    learned that hurt people hurt people, and so, at the end of the
    day, I'm right there in the community, to be a mentor and a
    lifeguard, I've got to walk the walk and talk and be right
    there with them and help them, and so, as we go through the
    journey together, it's about we; not me.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris or Mr. Wiese, do you want to weigh in?
        Mr. Harris. I'll just add and say that it's so crucial to
    be an example of what you're talking about. It's so important
    to be the same when it's dark out and the--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Mr. Harris. --way you are when it's light.
        When you're that true example of transformation, then
    people start to look up to that. I felt like I was a one-person
    reentry program before we created the mayor's Office of
    Returning Citizens. Everybody would come and ask to get support
    because I still go up to the institutions. I'm still supporting
    men and women that are in the institutions now. So, we had to
    create something that was broader than just my individual self
    to make sure that people get the support that they need.
        No, there has never been no safety issues.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay.
        Mr. Harris. What it's really been is making sure that the
    resources are met in the hands of the people.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        Mr. Wiese?
        Mr. Wiese. Yes. I think that, in my experience, the
    majority of men and women coming out of the system, they don't
    want to go back, but they lack the tools to be successful. So
    many of them, you take a program, you think, yes, I'm doing
    everything that people are telling me to do, but, in reality,
    you need more than that. There is always going to be somebody
    around the next corner that says: No, you need more. You need
    something else. You have got to do this.
        I just did this.
        In many instances, you have people who will take a program
    in prison, they get on parole, the parole officer will make
    them take the same program.
        I just took it in prison.
        Well, you have got to take it again.
        So, you continually--
        Mr. Harris. Wow.
        Mr. Wiese. --hit these barriers, and it's just you can only
    fight for so long.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. McBath?
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I thank you so much, every one of you, for being here
    today, and we really have to work to continue to try to improve
    our justice system. I am pleased that we're having this
    bipartisan discussion and finding common ground as we work to
    help strengthen our communities and reintegrate those who are
    ready to move beyond their mistakes.
        My home State of Georgia, we also have been working on this
    issue for a bipartisan--with a bipartisan basis and through an
    executive order by Governor Nathan Deal, who is our Governor.
    He's a Republican. Georgia became the first State to ban the
    box. We stopped asking job applicants about their past
    incarceration when they were applying for State jobs.
        We have reformed our child support systems because everyone
    wins when parents have jobs to support their children and their
    families and to contribute to their communities rather than
    facing additional punitive measures.
        Mr. Harris and Ms. Martin, I'd like to address you. You
    have worked on reducing barriers to reentry, and one of those
    barriers to employment is a person's criminal record. We spoke
    a bit earlier about the State efforts around record sealing.
    So, can either of you speak to what we know about how having
    the record sealed--how it improves a person's ability to fully
    reenter into our community?
        Mr. Harris. I'll let Ms. Martin go before me.
        Ms. Martin. Thank you. Thank you.
        So, as you said, criminal record is a huge barrier to
    employment. We are working actively in Los Angeles County on
    the Fair Chance Act initiative. There is actually a huge event
    there tonight that I'm hoping to make it back for. It doesn't
    allow employers to look at your criminal record in the hiring
    process, similar to what you did in Georgia. As we noticed,
    people who are coming out of incarceration faced over 500
    collateral consequences, and the barriers to employment are
    huge.
        We're actively trying to address that through our
    employment services, particularly the new program that we're
    starting that will be sector based, and we're hoping to bring
    in a lot of the new industries in Los Angeles, particularly the
    IT sector and technology to try to widen opportunities for
    justice-involved individuals.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris?
        Mr. Harris. One of the things I'll just say is that, yes,
    sealing one's record is successful for young people to get out
    and get opportunities of employment, but sealing one's record
    also unlocks the barriers in one's own self because they're
    able to have the confidence to walk inside a place and feel
    like they belong in that job opportunity. When folks who are
    incarcerated walk into--they're looking for people to stop them
    at the door because they've been stopped at the door many times
    before. So, it also unlocks the internal barrier to feel like
    you belong.
        Personally, with myself, I have never sealed my record on
    purpose because I don't want to run from me. Those things that
    I did, that's not who I am. It was so important for us as the
    mayor's Office of Returning Citizens to create real
    opportunities for people to not just have a job but have a
    successful career.
        There are many things that I could talk about with this
    brother with the IBEW, but we created Operation Exit with the
    building trades to make sure that people go through the
    training with guaranteed employment for people that's formerly
    incarcerated. We have to think like that and move like that.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you.
        Ms. La Vigne, your testimony states that family support is
    actually critical for reentry success, yet there are few
    reentry services that actually include families.
        Why do you think it is that the reentry programs do not
    include families as part of the reentry process?
        Ms. La Vigne. Yeah. I think it's because there are many
    programs out there, and they're looking at specific types of
    reentry challenges rather than exploring them more
    holistically. If you look at a person for their whole selves
    and not just their risks or needs, you can also identify their
    strengths and their assets. So, programs that take a strength-
    based approach will look at the family and see what family
    Members could be instrumental in reentry success.
        Ms. McBath. I have one more question--follow-up question
    for you. What are some of the ways that reentry services can
    engage families of those incarcerated or recently released to
    ensure that they have the ability to fully reenter again into
    society?
        Ms. La Vigne. Well, I think it starts during the term of
    incarceration, opening more avenues for family contact.
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. La Vigne. Visitation can be a huge challenge. Families
    can travel hours on end and arrive only to find the facility on
    lockdown.
        Visitation rooms are not family friendly, by and large.
    It's hard to come and bring children. I was in a prison
    recently, and a man said: I've been here 5 years, and I haven't
    touched my child because they only have noncontact visits.
        Phone calls can be very expensive. Video conferencing can
    also cost families a lot of money, and it's increasingly used
    as a substitute for in-person contact, and it should be more of
    a complement.
        Also, when you're preparing to reintegrate, bring the
    family in, have this thing called family conferencing so that
    everybody knows what to expect. A lot of times family want to
    be there for their returning loved one, but they have
    unreasonable expectations, like: Okay, you've been home a week.
    You've had pizza. Now, go find a job, not understanding the
    trauma of incarceration and how this takes time.
        Mr. Harris. Wow. Wow.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you.
        Mr. Wiese and Mr. Harriel, thank you both for sharing your
    stories today. As we think beyond the First Step Act, what do
    you most want us to focus on? Keep in mind about your stories
    and the people that you have worked with who are not here
    today.
        Ms. Bass. We're a little over time.
        Ms. McBath. Sorry. I'm so sorry.
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Cline?
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll thank the
    witnesses for being here.
        In 2018, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into
    law the First Step Act. This legislation included three major
    components: Correctional reform, sentencing reform, and
    reauthorization of the Second Chance Act. Additionally, the
    bill included numerous other changes to our criminal justice
    laws.
        Now that we're more than a year removed from enactment of
    the First Step Act, it's important to review its impact and
    ensure that our criminal justice system is operating as
    intended. Once offenders have served their sentence, it's
    incumbent on them to return to society as productive Members.
    Gaining employment is just one way in which they can do this.
        I'm glad we're here today to look at this particular issue
    as it relates to criminal justice reform, and I appreciate
    hearing the insights of today's panel.
        I'll start by asking Dr. La Vigne: You state in your
    testimony that the Federal Government has poured hundreds of
    millions of dollars into reentry for well over a decade. Can
    you further explain how community-based efforts may be better
    suited to reduce recidivism rates and improve reentry rather
    than additional Federal spending?
        Ms. La Vigne. Oh, to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that
    Federal spending should be diminished but, rather, should be
    more targeted towards community-led efforts.
        Mr. Cline. Spending on Federal programs. I'll put it that
    way
        Ms. La Vigne. Okay. Fair enough.
        Yes. It's because what we're learning is that communities
    understand the unique challenges of people returning to their
    neighborhoods, and that community context is a really important
    component of reentry success. So, then, as we have heard from
    others, hiring community Members who have experienced
    incarceration creates these credible messengers that are more
    likely to be able to connect with people who are returning and
    vice versa so that the folks who are returning know: This is
    someone who has walked in my shoes. They've been successful. I
    can trust that they're going to guide me in the right
    direction.
        Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you.
        With that, I'd be happy to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I'd like to thank my friend and
    colleague from Virginia.
        Mr. Harris, Mr. Harriel, you were both talking about the
    importance of how the trades are involved, giving somebody a
    way out. Would you--could you talk about what point you think
    that the programs should be offered to individuals in prison?
    Is there a particular time that works better to have these
    reentry programs specifically with the trade unions?
        Mr. Harriel. Me personally, I think it should start within
    like 2 years of release because I know for sure that there are
    some things--it's a process, and most individuals don't
    understand the process, and this is how they get locked out.
    Once one knows the process, they can start the process. Like,
    for instance, in the IBEW, there is a mathematical, mechanical,
    and reasoning exam that a person can take. They can take that
    inside prison. They can get ready so, when they get out, they
    can go--or they can have interviews so that, when they get out,
    they can go right to the apprenticeship if selected, but it can
    start in prison with that process to get the GED, to get the
    required math, to get the driver's license, Social Security
    card, birth certificate, all those things, because oftentimes
    young men and women that come from my community, they don't
    know that. So, they think that someone is trying to lock them
    out when, in reality, they just don't know the process, and no
    one is teaching it to them. Therefore, the work is so important
    from individuals who do it. I am a leader out in the labor
    field as an electrician. So, I get to show, teach, and preach
    about what we do. That's what's so important.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Then I'll just add it's the will, right? It's
    the will of building trades, to be able to then open their
    doors so people can walk in. What we had in Boston, it was so
    crucial and important for the mayor of that city and the strong
    form of government to be able to bring the building trades to
    the office and really talk about making sure that we're
    creating a pathway for people that were formerly incarcerated
    to not just get in and go through the regular process, but to
    guarantee employment, because what we know, people of color
    will go through the whole process to get in the building trade
    and get turned around at the door, whether you have a criminal
    record or not.
        So, it's so important to make sure elected officials that
    are part of pushing this agenda forward make sure that there is
    a will that exists.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
        Ms. La Vigne, you were talking about ways to incorporate
    the family with reentry. I felt like you were cut off. Did you
    want to expand on what you were saying?
        Ms. La Vigne. No, but I thought you might be interested in
    knowing some research around clean slate. Would you welcome
    that?
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Of course.
        Ms. La Vigne. Okay. Terrific. I've been dying to share.
        There are four bodies of research that support clean slate.
    The first one is the scarlet letter of a criminal record, that
    collateral consequences are born from having that criminal
    record, and we know that creates tremendous barriers to
    reentry, particularly with regard to employment and housing.
        The second is the literature on desistance, what leads
    people to cease their criminal activities, and what the
    research finds is that people with criminal records who have
    remained crime free for 4 to 7 years are no more likely than
    the general population to commit a new crime.
        The third is the impact of records clearances. So, research
    from the University of Michigan finds that people are 11
    percent more likely to be employed and are earning 22 percent
    higher wages one year after their record has been cleared.
        Finally, the literature also documents the difficult
    process of expungement, one that very few people successfully
    navigate and those that do tend to have the means to do so.
        This makes automated record sealing a no-brainer.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. My time has expired.
        I thank the Madam Chair for generosity of time.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. Demings?
        Ms. Demings. Thank you so much and thank you to all of you
    for being with us today.
        I think we all have an obligation to take the joys and
    pains of life and turn them into improving the quality of life
    for those around us. So, thank you so much for being a part of
    that.
        I have so--I was late getting here, but I have so enjoyed
    the discussion that I've heard, and Ms.--is it La Vigne? I
    don't want to mess your name up.
        Ms. La Vigne. It's La Vigne. Thank you.
        Ms. Demings. La Vigne. Thank you.
        You were talking about the importance of family, and, when
    we think about it, family is important to everybody, right, in
    all situations, if we're going to guarantee success. Do you
    know of any programs out there that really support families so
    that they can better support their loved ones who are
    incarcerated?
        Ms. La Vigne. Uh-huh. Very few programs do that. I'm
    thinking of--I know, in Maryland, they had--and I don't know if
    it still exists--this family conferencing program, where I know
    that they meet with family Members separate from their
    incarcerated loved one to talk about the challenges of
    welcoming them back home, but I don't know that they're really
    providing concrete supports for them.
        Ms. Demings. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Martin, if you've already talked about it, forgive me,
    but I know there was some discussion about client centered and
    having a holistic approach.
        Ms. Martin. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Demings. Could you kind of elaborate a bit on what you
    mean by that?
        Ms. Martin. Sure. So, that's all the work that we do
    through the Office of Diversion and Reentry in Los Angeles
    County, is very much client centered. We take a holistic
    approach to all the programming, and we work very closely with
    community-based organizations. That is the crux of our model.
        One of the programs--one of our key programs that I
    highlight in my testimony was the community reentry center,
    which is the first of its kind in Los Angeles County, called
    DOORS, Developing Opportunities and Offering Reentry Solutions.
    It provides--it's a one-stop shop that provides a plethora of
    services for individuals, particularly those who are on
    probation. It's housed actually--housed within a probation
    office. So, we receive referrals from probation, and also the
    community--the broader community.
        Ms. Demings. Okay. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Harris--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. --I think it takes a lot of moving parts or a
    lot of parts coming together--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. --to guarantee, and the focus should be on
    guarantee, and not--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. --testing or experiments, but guaranteeing a
    successful transition--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. --back into the community. I think it takes a
    Federal level, but I also think it takes local and State to
    coordinate those efforts together.
        Could you speak a little bit about what you've seen in
    terms of the Office of Returning Citizens, how they have been
    able to coordinate resources, Federal, States, particularly
    State and local--
        Mr. Harris. Yep.
        Ms. Demings. --to guarantee smooth transitions back into
    the community.
        Mr. Harris. I think one of the things that's crucial and
    important is that, when a person is incarcerated, making sure
    that the Mayor's Office of Returning Citizens is walking inside
    those institutions and the one letting folks know that they are
    a resource and connecting with them and some of the groups that
    are operating to function and think about a reentry path. When
    folks come out, be able to say: This is where we're at, and
    this is where you can locate. So, then you go inside these
    places that you know will help you navigate.
        Part of the hardest things for a person that's formerly
    coming out--that's formerly incarcerated is navigation, knowing
    where to go get my ID card, know where to get my Social
    Security card, knowing how to apply for a job. All of the
    little, small things that we take for granted are huge, and so
    the mayor's Office of Returning Citizens, one of the things we
    did before we thought about what we would do, we sat down with
    men and women that were formerly incarcerated--some have been
    locked up for 32 years, and they got out, and some was only
    locked up a year--and said: What do you need? What should we
    have, first month, first week, first day, and first year? Then
    let them guide the process because they know what they need
    more than any one of us could tell them what they need.
        Ms. Demings. That's right. In terms of those
    documentations, if you will, that people need, why couldn't
    that process begin 30 to 60 days before--
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. --a person is released?
        Mr. Harriel, would you--
        Mr. Harriel. Well, one of the barriers that I faced when I
    had to get a license, the dirty little secret people don't talk
    about is, if I'm a young man and I really didn't know what
    manhood was, and I started having children at a young age, and
    they hit me with the child support--
        Mr. Harris. Oh.
        Mr. Harriel. --I can't get the license.
        Ms. Demings. That's right.
        Mr. Harriel. So, they don't relieve that debt. So now, not
    only do I get out, and I've got to go back to this crime-
    infested community, I can't get the license or get that,
    because I've got a debt, and now I've got this debt that's
    being compounded 10 percent every year. I have nowhere to go,
    nowhere to eat, and I can't even get the license--
        Ms. Demings. You can't get the job because--
        Mr. Harriel. Can't get the career.
        Ms. Demings. --you can't get the license to get the job.
        Mr. Harriel. The people, when I go to that desk and say:
    Hey, I want to work.
        They'll say: Do you have a driver's license?
        Well, no. I need to make money to go with the child
    support.
        That is--there has to be something done to where a person
    can still get a license--and I'm not saying neglect their
    responsibility, but I'm saying allow me the opportunity and
    then give me an opportunity to pay the debt, but, if I start
    off like that, it's like swimming being handcuffed.
        Ms. Demings. That's right.
        Mr. Harriel. Can't do it.
        Ms. Demings. It's impossible.
        Mr. Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Demings. Well, my time is up. Doggone it, that was
    quick. Thank you all so much.
        Mr. Harriel. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. In certain areas, if you don't have a driver's
    license, you cannot--you're not employable.
        Mr. Harriel. Absolutely.
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond?
        Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        First, let me thank you for calling this hearing and thank
    the witnesses because, when I was in the State legislature, we
    actually went to Angola Penitentiary to have a judiciary
    hearing to talk about reentry, and we learned things that were
    just common sense but we had never thought of.
        For example, in Louisiana, you got released out of Angola
    with a bus ticket and $10. You got home. You're immediately
    upside down with the law because you're supposed to have a
    State ID, and that cost $12. So, some of the things we did was
    we put an ID center inside our penal institutions so they could
    get it before they go home.
        Other things that are important is you went and served more
    than a year in jail. Whatever traffic fines and fees you had
    before you went in should be waived because you have served
    more than a traffic ticket time. We have to think about those
    small things as well as the big things.
        Mr. Lampard--and I note, at ALEC, you all do model
    legislation all the time. Have you all done any model
    legislation about the general moral and character--the fitness
    tests on licenses? Because, in Louisiana, it's over 300
    licenses you can't get if you're formerly incarcerated.
        Mr. Lampard. That's correct, and I'm actually from your
    district. So, we went to high school around the corner from one
    another.
        Mr. Richmond. Mine was better.
        Mr. Lampard. Yes, it was. I will freely admit that Ben
    Franklin--
        Mr. Richmond. No, I'm just kidding.
        Mr. Lampard. I couldn't get into Ben Franklin. So, I went
    to Brother Martin instead.
        Absolutely. In Louisiana, you need an occupational license
    to be a florist, which is absolutely ridiculous for something
    like that. Yes, we do have model policy on that point, and that
    we would have these boards remove the good character
    requirements--it's called the Occupational Licensing Defense
    Act. It would remove these good character requirements that are
    stopping so many people from getting an occupational license to
    work in a particular field. I mean, someone might want to cut
    hair in--there are no basements in New Orleans, at least, but
    they might want to cut hair in their house, but they can't do
    that because they're not a licensed barber. Unlicensed practice
    of cosmetology is a misdemeanor offense in some States.
        Mr. Richmond. Correct.
        Mr. Lampard. So, we absolutely do have a model policy on
    point on this, and it's something that our Members have
    implemented in numerous States.
        Mr. Richmond. Not just employment, but you have barriers on
    serving on commissions and other things that influence policy,
    and if you're not at the table, then generally you're on the
    menu. So, we have to make sure we have people with their voice,
    and the other part of it is stable housing.
        We have so many people that can't go home on probation or
    parole because they don't have stable housing, and that's one
    of the biggest determining factors in terms of whether you get
    back into the system, and I know, Mr. Harris, you had a chance
    when you were in New Orleans to see the First72Plus
    organization that is founded and run by formerly incarcerated
    persons to provide that stable housing, and, in fact, after now
    10 years, they still have a zero-percent recidivism rate for
    people who come through their center.
        Can you talk about--
        Mr. Harris. Yes. It's interesting. I was going to butt in
    and kind of add--bring that up about housing. I had the
    opportunity to go to New Orleans and meet with, first, folks
    that were formerly incarcerated running a program that is run
    successfully: What do you say?
        The truth of the matter is that, to be able to have a thing
    that is one of the biggest barriers to coming home and getting
    out and staying out is housing. Running a housing program, I
    was thoroughly impressed because they didn't just do housing;
    there was helping young entrepreneurs build their business.
    There was helping our people get the identification, as well as
    making sure that they have all the right paperwork, but they
    was able to then be able to support young men and men with
    men's groups because there is--the barrier that folks face is
    not just about things that they do; it's about the internal
    work that needs to take place and then being able to have men
    connecting with each other about some of the struggles that are
    going on internally is crucial. That was one of the things that
    stuck out to me that I was thoroughly impressed about.
        Mr. Richmond. Mr. Lampard, I don't know if you have seen
    that program, but it's impressive, but one thing I learned by
    watching that program is that we depend too much on the
    philanthropic community to do this work.
        This work is very important. We're talking about people
    offending again, and we can prevent crime; we can prevent more
    victims in the future. So, we can invest the money now or
    invest it later. One way or the other, we're going to do it. I
    think that we have to stress that the Federal Government is not
    putting enough money into these programs that are proven to be
    successful to reduce crime and recidivism.
        So, if you all agree with that same premise about how we
    fund reentry and those types of programs, it would be
    increasingly important.
        I know, Madam Chairwoman, I'm over, but can I just say
    this? The other thing is we don't look at our institutional
    barriers to people connecting with their families. So, in the
    State systems, we allow too many sheriffs to charge too much
    for phone calls, and men that are incarcerated would tell their
    sons: Don't do what I did.
        It keeps that connection there, and people just can't
    afford to maintain that communication, and I think those types
    of things are important. Grandmothers getting phone bills that
    are just as much as a car payment because they want to keep
    that family contact.
        So, anything we can do to address those issues, I think,
    are very, very important.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Richmond.
        Ms. Dean?
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of
    you for your inspiring work and your inspiring stories. I'm a
    mom. I'm a grandmom. I'm a former State representative from
    Pennsylvania. In that capacity, I served on both appropriations
    and judiciary committees, and often had the department of
    corrections in front of us and talked about many of the
    complicating issues that we are talking about today. So, know
    that criminal justice reform is something that's a passion of
    mine.
        Another passion of mine is education. So, two areas that
    I'd like to talk to you about today has to do with education,
    sort of the nexus between education and our failure to get that
    education right before, during, and after incarceration, but
    also health, in particular, mental health and substance abuse.
    So maybe I'll start with some terrible statistics that you know
    better than I.
        According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 41 percent
    of incarcerated individuals in State and Federal prisons do not
    have high school diplomas. Failure of education. More than
    double the rate of our general population. Likewise, only 24
    percent of the prison population has some level of college
    education, compared to 48 percent of our general population.
        I think what I'd like to do is talk about a piece of
    legislation that I have the honor--very small honor of
    partnering with the late Elijah Cummings on, the PREP Act, and
    I am a cosponsor of that Act and very honored to be a part of
    it. So, I guess I'm asking the panel in general, whoever would
    like to jump in and help me here, in your expert opinion, would
    our Federal Prison System benefit from having a centralized
    authority responsible for educational programming--a
    standardized, centralized, invested in across the board, best
    practices for education?
        Mr. Harriel. It can happen in there, but I think it should
    happen before. One of the biggest problems I had in my
    community is that, when I went to school, it was in the enemy
    territory, and the teachers are oftentimes--when I got to
    school late, they would just tell me to go sit in the back and
    say I was being a disturbance. What they didn't know was that I
    just got shot at and I hadn't ate in 2 days, because most of
    the teachers in my community don't look like me. They don't
    live there. They don't eat there, and they don't sleep there,
    and they don't spend their money there. So, they can give a
    damn.
        What they were doing was just housing me. So, I end up
    dropping out at ninth grade. Then I had to get my GED in
    prison.
        Ms. Dean. Right.
        Mr. Harriel. So, I learned it in prison, but that's
    basically the opposite way around, but investing in the kids to
    show that we love them and we want to train them and educate
    them, and put the trades back into the schools.
        Ms. Dean. I couldn't agree with you more, and, if you saw
    this Administration's proposed budget--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. --cutting $6 billion to education at a time when
    we are not educating our kids adequately, it's shameful.
        Mr. Harriel. Direct line to prison.
        Ms. Dean. Exactly. How do we break that cycle? By investing
    our kids.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. For the PREP Act, for the reality, that is mass
    over-incarceration.
        Ms. La Vigne, would you want to express your ideas?
        Ms. La Vigne. Yes. I'm aware of only one or two State
    systems that have school districts dedicated to their
    incarcerated populations. Texas is one of them. They have the
    Windham School District. When you have that kind of model,
    you're going to address all the educational needs.
        Right now, I know there is a lot of focus on Pell grant
    restoration, which absolutely should occur, but those are folks
    who already have their high school diplomas or GEDs. In our
    research, we found the literacy rates are really low for the
    average incarcerated person, and that you really need to
    address all educational issues, from literacy right up through
    vocational training, through to getting your college degree.
        Ms. Dean. So much to talk about, so little time. Let me
    speak just very quickly because I care desperately about the
    issue of substance abuse and mental health as it relates to
    incarcerated people, especially as they are coming out.
        I have the real pleasure of, in a bipartisan way, with Guy
    Reschenthaler, Representative Reschenthaler, and others,
    including Representatives Scanlon, Armstrong--so Democrats and
    Republicans--introducing the Crisis Stabilization and Community
    Reentry Act, having to do with making sure that, as somebody
    leaves the prison system, hopefully not in the middle of the
    night, that they also are connected to treatment, they are
    connected to medication, longer term medication instead of a
    ``good luck, go get a prescription somewhere'' or ``here is
    enough for a couple of days.''
        What do you think--maybe, Ms. Martin, you could help me
    with that? What do you think of those ideas? I care desperately
    about the issue of addiction, frankly.
        Ms. Martin. Yep. Well, first, the Office of Diversion and
    Reentry was created upon--by the county board of supervisors as
    an effort to divert people with substance abuse and mental
    health disorders out of the county jails and into community-
    based treatment. So, I know we're all talking about reentry,
    and that's obviously a huge population, right, and hopefully we
    won't have a reentry population for long, and we will all put
    ourselves out of jobs, right, but diversion is the key on that.
        Then, again, as I made the point about flexible and
    unrestricted funding, especially in L.A. County with our huge
    population, I'm scared--despite the fact that there is
    considerable funding, it's still not adequate to address the
    entire population, and I think having funding that's specific
    for this population and able to be used for things like mental
    health and substance use is critical.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm going to come
    visit you at DOORS. Thank you for the invitation.
        Ms. Martin. Please, please, please, do, yeah.
        Ms. Bass. I'm going to hold you to that, Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Yeah.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It's obvious from listening to all of you this morning--
    thank you for coming also; this is such an important hearing--
    that the barriers that former felons face once they're trying
    to reenter society are just almost impossible really.
        I remember a returning citizen telling me that the day that
    he was released was just as bad or maybe even worse than the
    day that he went into prison, because he had absolutely no
    resources, and he couldn't find a job for months. There was
    nothing out there to really help him find his way back.
        The story is not unique, as we have heard. Returning
    citizens frequently have trouble obtaining meaningful
    employment, sometimes even finding a home, which we just
    discussed, and, at its cores, these barriers affect not only
    those individuals, but also their families, and ultimately our
    communities.
        We can see clearly that there is a stigma against people
    who are trying to reenter society. In Florida, there are 168
    laws that restrict access to employment for former felons. Even
    when the conviction is decades old, people are prohibited from
    obtaining basic occupational or business licenses, and this not
    only deprives Florida of 3 million jobs annually, but it also
    means that industries which, where we desperately need workers,
    such as healthcare, trades, housing, they're unable to hire
    because of unavailable labor pool.
        It's not just about finding a job in Florida or obtaining a
    license. Formerly incarcerated people face obstacles for even
    the most basic aspects of being a citizen, and, in Florida,
    most of you probably heard that, until 2018, we were one of
    three States that imposed a lifetime ban on all former felons
    to vote, and mass disenfranchisement has really--it has no
    place in our society. Everyone has a role to play here--not
    only Congress, but I think also local municipalities and
    communities and local governments.
        Florida Rights Restoration Coalition is working to do just
    that. So, I want to highlight them just for a second. Through
    peer support and grassroots advocacy, they're working to end
    disenfranchisement among formerly convicted persons and easing
    their transition back into society, and I think we need to look
    at our organizations like DOORS or Florida Rights Coalition to
    provide those resources that are available.
        So, I want to go to Mr. Wiese. I was really taken by your
    testimony this morning where you say that prison norms don't
    abide by societal norms. So, when you're in prison, you're
    thrown into this structure where you're treated a certain way,
    and then you're expected to Act a completely different way once
    you're released.
        Can you expand on that just a little bit, and also maybe
    what we need to do to change that system once you're sent to
    prison?
        Mr. Wiese. Sure. So, I think I said earlier that prison has
    really become a social shaper. If you look at how many people
    touch the criminal justice system in the United States, it's
    time that we start to look at what is happening in our prisons,
    and what are people able to do in prison? How do people spend
    their time?
        So, looking at these things and these constructs, it is a
    structural place with a system, and it has culture from DOC,
    Departments of Corrections culture, and then you have, kind of
    from the bottom up, people that are coming into the system
    bring this culture with them. So, you kind of have a--and I'm
    not going to speak general terms because it's different
    everywhere, just like cultures that are local, but there is an
    over--there is an umbrella of antisocial attitudes, thoughts,
    and behaviors that exist in prison.
        For you to even succeed in prison, you've got to learn to
    adapt by these certain norms and cultures. So, for me, it was
    kind of a paradox because I wanted to move beyond that, but
    understanding that, by doing so, you can potentially put
    yourself at risk in some situations, and so it's a catch-22,
    but there is no support to do that. Everybody in this panel has
    given very valid examples.
        Number one, we talked about being able to maneuver a system
    and be able to solve your own problems, being a self-advocate,
    but you can't do that in prison. There is no way to do that--to
    self-advocate, to solve your own problems. So, I think we have
    got to create a microcosm of what it means to become a citizen.
        The problem sometimes isn't reentry; it's entry. So
    sometimes people haven't had the opportunities to actually
    understand what good citizenship is, then practice that good
    citizenship, and be awarded and incentivized to continue doing
    so. That makes the pathway past prison much more seamless.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. So, what type of reentry tools do you
    think we can provide to match those expectations?
        Mr. Wiese. I think a lot of it is soft skills. I think a
    lot of it is understanding how to communicate, how to--EQ,
    understanding who you are, processing trauma, really beginning
    to learn more about yourself. Just as we do individualized
    education plans, we need to develop individualized release
    plans or reentry plans, citizenship plans, if you will. Where
    are people at on the citizenship spectrum? I think a lot of
    this has to do with, if you want different outcomes, you have
    to measure different metrics.
        So, right now, if we look at recidivism, it's a negative
    metric, where basically it's a failure rate. So, even if we're
    succeeding, we still don't know how many people are addicted.
    Are they homeless? Where are they at on this good citizenship
    scale? We aren't looking at that. In the Prison Fellowship,
    that's what we do. That's how we're starting to measure our
    programs. Where are you at on this good citizenship metric? We
    want to see you succeed. Like, we want to see you reach your
    full potential. Yes, I care if you come back to the criminal
    justice system, but that's certainly the floor.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. All right. Thank you so much. My time
    is up.
        Ms. Bass. We're going to give Mr. Cohen just a minute, but
    did anybody else want to respond?
        Mr. Harriel. What he talked about was very important
    because, although, like he said, he would want to do something
    different in prison, but the facts are, if he messed around and
    got caught in the wrong area, he could be killed in prison. So,
    even though he wants to do something, that system is a system
    of its own, and, when a person gets out, I know for me, we
    talked about these life skills and that unresolved trauma. I
    have to tell young men: Hey, when you're going to the oral
    interview, you must look them in the eye. If you don't, things
    can happen the other way.
        On the other side, by me being a diversity manager--
        Ms. Bass. What do you mean the oral interview? What do you
    mean, the oral interview? You mean for a job?
        Mr. Harriel. There is an oral interview for the career, but
    most people are taught growing up that, if a man or a woman
    don't look you in the eye, you can't trust them.
        Ms. Bass. Right.
        Mr. Harriel. Well, I know, in the prison system, if I look
    a person in the eye, I could get killed. So, I have to educate
    on the other side, say: Hey, just because this man doesn't look
    you in the eye might not mean he's a bad person.
        But, on this side: Hey, hold your head up. Look a person in
    the eye.
        That's a learned behavior because oftentimes, when a person
    is abusing drugs and doing those things with the substance, I'm
    not looking at what they're doing; I'm looking at what they're
    running from, and, a lot of times, they're trying to mask the
    pain.
        In prison, that is a Serengeti. You're either predator or
    prey. There is no in between, period. If anybody thinks so,
    they're living somewhere else. That's a different system in its
    own, and there is a lot of things that happen there for
    individuals to get out of their comfort zone because, right
    now, it's complacent to go in there and be among my own. Well,
    it's just tough.
        Ms. Bass. I also would wonder what the differences would
    be, too, in a male versus a female institution, like that.
        Mr. Harriel. Very different. They're very different.
        Ms. Bass. Yeah.
        Mr. Harriel. There are certain phones.
        Ms. Bass. Yeah.
        Mr. Harriel. Certain days in the yard. I mean, when I was
    in prison, there is no way I'm having a conversation with an
    individual look like this gentleman down here.
        Ms. Bass. Yeah.
        Mr. Harriel. Not going to happen, and he ain't going to
    have it this way because he knows, if he does, amongst his
    peers, he will become prey, period. There is no in-between.
    There is no, well, he's a good guy, and--it's none of that.
    It's not--that doesn't happen. Those rules go out the window
    inside those walls. That's a behavior that, when I get out, how
    do I transform that, when I see him, I'm looking at him as a
    human versus an animal that I feel I could take advantage of?
        Mr. Harris. Could I add to that a little bit?
        One, I totally agree with my fellow colleagues around this
    particular population and the navigation of it, but what I
    realized inside institutions is that what we're dealing with is
    fear-based factors, right? If I move here, then that's going to
    happen. So, I'm not going to do it.
        What I've learned that has been most successful, just like
    when we're out here and we do something like step away from
    fear and we step into a place of courage, that you can open a
    learning experience and grow from it.
        Inside institutions, there are programs. I became a
    toastmaster, and in my toastmaster class, there was nobody that
    looked like me, and it was all White. When I first walked into
    an institution, I would have never went in Toastmasters because
    it wasn't with my subgroup.
        So, when we step into an arena of doing something
    different, we almost can awaken a growth period, and I think
    that, a lot of times in the institution, we go in there and be
    fearful. So, we do what we have always done, and then we start
    to step away from that, then we have an opportunity of growth.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        It's a critical topic in my district, as well as many
    others, but particularly in my district, I know. It's tough to
    have a smooth path to reentry. There are punitive policies that
    exist in society that make it harder for individuals to
    successfully reenter, and that's one of the reasons, the main
    reason, I introduced an Act recently that was the acronym MEAL,
    M-E-A-L, MEAL, and the MEA is not me, as Kobe Bryant would have
    thought: Making Essentials Available and Lawful Act.
        It's a simple bill. We repeal the bar on SNAP and TANF
    benefits that currently exist for formerly incarcerated people
    convicted of felony drug crimes. Some States have made some
    progress on this, but West Virginia, South Carolina, and
    Mississippi still have lifetime bans.
        Coming back and reintegrating is difficult enough, but for
    all those reasons which we have discussed, getting a job and
    whatever, to have resources, if you don't have access to food,
    it's that much harder.
        This would make a critical change in allowing people to
    have SNAP benefits and have some sustenance. It will also allow
    people to be released in 30 days to apply for benefits from
    their institution. That way, benefits can be ready, and the
    individual can begin their reentry without worrying about a
    meal on day one.
        This is a question I have for each of you: What more could
    be done and should be done 60 days, 30 days, 10 days, whatever,
    prior to release to help prepare individuals to successfully
    reenter? You might have answered this while I wasn't here, and
    if so, I apologize. What can be done?
        What's being done with families that you'd be rejoining to
    have meetings of some sort while you're still incarcerated and
    before you're released to get that as a preparation and have
    families come into the institution in some manner to make that
    adjustment? What type of services should be offered in the
    institution, like these type of services with families upon--to
    get ready for reentry, and should they be allowed in the
    institution, and how should they then connect with services
    offered post release?
        Mr. Harriel. I think they should look at what's going on
    before they get out. Like, for instance, if the young man is
    about to get home 60 days, the question should be asked: Are
    you currently on child support? Because oftentimes, once I go
    to prison and the woman is left behind and she has my child,
    she goes on the State's assistance program, and they charge me
    for it, but I'm gone for 10 years. That's an accumulated bill.
    So that question needs to be asked.
        Then, for the woman, if that's happening, how do we
    reintegrate you and decide what are obstacles as far as
    housing, and do you owe child support? Because my daughter was
    formerly incarcerated, and they got child support on her. She's
    been gone for 9 years, and so that's a bill that's been
    attached to her. So, unfortunately, my grandson's father not
    understanding what we're doing right here, he ended up getting
    killed about 2 months ago, and so now my grandson is going to
    grow up without his father because his father chose not to
    understand what was going on with his life, and now he's dead.
        Again, my daughter is stuck with that tab of the child
    support, and there is no help for that.
        Ms. Martin. One of the things that we actually talked about
    was IDs, getting--helping get IDs while they're in jails.
    Speaking on behalf of L.A. County, benefits attainment, I think
    one of the biggest issues we're facing is that people lose
    their Medicaid benefits and any other benefits while they're
    incarcerated. So, preventing that from happening, especially in
    the jails where there is such quick turnaround, and, you know,
    just as cycling door.
        Another thing that we were very focused on is we have
    community health workers who are credible messengers. These are
    people with lived experience on the outside, post release,
    helping individuals. If they could have access into the
    facilities during prerelease, a lot of--they do have a lot of--
    we're encountering a lot of barriers for allowing those people
    in, inside, to be able to work with our clients while they're
    incarcerated, and we know that that warm handoff is critical,
    and so allowing those individuals to be able to go into the
    facilities and work with our clients before release is also
    very important.
        I would definitely say, for IDs and benefits, have that
    happening while they're inside.
        Mr. Cohen. Is First Step doing any of that? Are the First
    Step programs coordinating smooth reentry for individuals into
    their families as well?
        Ms. Martin. I'm not familiar.
        Mr. Harris. No. No.
        Ms. Martin. I'm familiar with First Step, but I don't know
    of a program for--
        Mr. Harriel. Also, just real quick, not just an ID. None of
    the trades accept an ID. They must have a driver's license. No
    one can access what I'm doing with an ID. They need a driver's
    license, and that's very, very important. The driver's licenses
    lock a lot of people out.
        Mr. Harris. I think it's so important to have a navigator
    that's going to walk you through the process when you're inside
    the institution.
        Mr. Harriel. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Harris. Be able to engage--that identification factor
    is a start--a great start that will then have somebody walk you
    through a process of getting your driver's license, but I think
    that, throughout this whole process, they also need access to
    employment before they get out.
        I think that having that job readiness skills and training
    before they get out and they're inside society, they absolutely
    need access to employment. One of the greatest things that
    happened to me is, before I got out, I had an opportunity to go
    get a job. So, when I did, I got all my paperwork and went to
    City Hall and signed up for the 9-week program and was working
    within a week.
        That was huge. I was able to pay for the room I was staying
    in, and it made me feel okay about being out there in society
    and not having to ask everybody for something. That is crucial
    but making sure that you have the identification factors and
    making sure you have everything that you need so you can get
    out and stay out.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I thank each of you. I'm sorry this
    situation we're in, but I thank the chairwoman for having the
    hearing. She's always interested in these issues, and that's
    why she's the chairwoman.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        I'm going to make some closing comments, and then I wanted
    to ask each of you, if you had something you wanted to close
    with, maybe you could take one minute and close.
        We didn't always used to do things this way. I remember, a
    very long time ago, when I went to college, a State university,
    they had a special program for formerly incarcerated people
    where you could get your GED, do your first couple of years
    while you were incarcerated, and, when you got out, you went to
    a State college, and you actually had support to go to a State
    college.
        It wasn't until we decided to change our philosophy away
    from rehabilitation just toward punishment, that we changed to
    then punish people for life. So, you serve your time in prison,
    and then, when you get out, you continue to serve your time
    with all of the barriers that are there.
        So, when I was in the State legislature on this child
    support issue, I had a situation with a woman, because this
    applies to women as well--if your children are being taken care
    of through TANF, you owe that when you get out.
        Mr. Harriel. Absolutely.
        Ms. Bass. So, I did a very simple bill that said, when
    somebody is incarcerated, how about telling them to stop the
    clock because, if you call, you can stop the clock, and I was
    beat up saying that I wanted to let deadbeat dads off of paying
    child support--
        Mr. Harriel. Right.
        Ms. Bass. --because, when you get out, how in the world are
    you supposed to pay child support if you have all the other
    barriers? In California, we banned people from being barbers,
    but we had a barbering school in State prison. So, you can have
    a jackhammer and do construction work, but not a pair of
    scissors.
        Mr. Harriel. Right.
        Ms. Bass. So, we set up all of these barriers, and my dream
    is to have legislation, which we do have a bill, that calls for
    a one-stop reentry center similar to what Ms. Martin runs, but
    actually would interface because it would be run by formerly
    incarcerated people, and it would operate 24-7--
        Mr. Harriel. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Bass. --so that, if somebody gets released at 3 in the
    morning, they have someplace to go.
        Mr. Harriel. That's right.
        Ms. Bass. Then the hand holding that I know you do--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. --in 2nd CALL. 2nd CALL.
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. I always screw it up. Where people can come in
    at--in the evening and just relate to people who have been
    formerly incarcerated that will hold your hand to take you to
    Ms. Martin's program--
        Mr. Harriel. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. --because maybe I'm intimidated to go to Ms.
    Martin's program. Maybe I need somebody to talk to afterwards.
    The entrepreneurial spirit and skills that unfortunately some
    people have that they've used illegally can transfer into legal
    occupations and run their own programs.
        So, we want to propose legislation that actually has
    Federal funds for pilot programs, but the funds go directly to
    community-based organizations. I worry sometimes, if you send
    it to the State or to the county, it does not automatically
    mean--
        Mr. Harris. It doesn't.
        Mr. Harriel. It doesn't.
        Mr. Harris. It doesn't.
        Ms. Bass. --it filters down to the community.
        So, I just want to thank you all for your time. I look
    forward to working with my colleague because this is a
    bipartisan issue. We have embarked on reforms, but sometimes I
    think you place the cart before the horse or the other way
    around, where we need to build up the support services for
    people when they get out. I worry, in California, that we're
    releasing lots and lots of people, but we don't have--I mean,
    it's great we have it in L.A. County, but we have 58 counties
    in California.
        Ms. Martin. Exactly.
        Mr. Harriel. Right.
        Ms. Bass. We don't have the services that people need. Then
    what happens is they re-offend, and then all the people who are
    against reform have all the evidence they need for why it
    didn't work.
        So, with that, I'd just like to ask each of you if you have
    any 1-minute closing comments?
        Ms. La Vigne. Yes. So, the one thing that we didn't discuss
    today that I think is critically important is, what happens
    behind bars in terms of not just culture, but conditions of
    confinement? In all the research I know about reentry programs,
    nobody has looked at that underlying factor that can really--
    you could have the best program in the world, but if someone
    fears for their personal safety, if they have trauma that has
    not been treated, if they are cold or hot or hungry, if they
    don't have these basic needs met, they're not going to bring
    their best selves to any program, however good it is.
        The First Step Act is largely silent on conditions of
    confinement. I think that the Federal system could benefit from
    more oversight, more accountability, more transparency, more
    and better data collected on conditions of confinement so that
    those conditions can be improved.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris. I'll just say thank you. Thank you for having
    this hearing. It is so crucial and so important to use words
    like ``returning citizens,'' citizens like you, like us all in
    this room that we are citizens, and your work will reflect it
    because you see me as you see yourself.
        So, I just wanted to give you words of encouragement and
    say thank you for that, but then I wanted to turn to my cohorts
    that's on this panel and say thank you for showing up today.
    Thank you for bringing this work forward and letting your
    voices be heard.
        The person that comes to my mind is Barry Kamara (ph),
    somebody who I know was serving a life sentence. When he came
    home, he had a bracelet on for fear of immigration that we did
    not talk about. People coming home and have bracelets on their
    legs after serving 21 years in prison because they will be
    deported for any little minor infraction.
        We have to continue to push that needle of citizenship
    because, when you see me, you need to see yourself, and laws
    will depict that when you do that.
        So, thank you very much.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Lampard.
        Mr. Lampard. Well, thank you very much. Just to tie
    everything up that was said today. The one takeaway is reentry
    is a very complex issue. There are a lot of moving parts. You
    could have great job training programs, but if you don't have
    mental health programs in prisons and if you don't have drug
    treatment programs, the reentry programs aren't going to be
    successful. Doesn't matter how good your job training programs
    are.
        It also doesn't matter how good your reentry programs are
    as a whole in a prison, if you give somebody $10 and a bus
    ticket and say good luck as soon as they're released, the
    chances of them being successful aren't very high. So, I want
    to say there are a lot of moving parts. There are a lot of
    tools that need to be used in this, and the analogy I use is
    that, look, Max Scherzer--and I apologize. I know you're a
    Dodgers fan, Chairwoman Bass--but Max Scherzer, the best
    pitcher on the World Champion Washington Nationals is elite
    because he uses four pitches, and he uses every tool at his
    disposal. Reentry, when I try to tell people this, is crucial
    to use every tool, be it mental health, drug treatment, post
    release where a person's going to go, job placement, and all of
    that's so important and all of that's so crucial for a
    successful reentry.
        So, I do thank you very much.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Harriel.
        Mr. Harriel. Yeah. Also, I want to thank you for this
    opportunity, but also I think it's very, very important that we
    tackle--if we're going to deal with the mental issue, you got
    to be careful about those drugs we giving those individuals
    inside the correctional facility because most definitely those
    drugs are horrible.
        Also, understanding that what we're doing out here is part
    of it, but the other part is that they won't give no
    guarantees, but we got to get the gatekeepers inside of these
    rooms also so that when an individual gets out of prison, I
    have an advocate to bring him in because they know they're
    going to come and get the life skills so that when they go in
    there, they don't drop the ball. That's why a person has to
    come to 2nd CALL first to get the life skill before we even put
    them out there in that ocean.
        It's so important that the gatekeepers be part of this
    conversation because I can do my part, but if the company don't
    hire or the organization don't let them in, absolutely useless.
    We need those gatekeepers in there also.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Ms. Martin.
        Ms. Martin. Again, I really want to thank you, again, for
    holding this hearing. It's so important and it's so critical to
    lift up the experiences of those with justice involvement. So,
    thank you, again.
        I will just reiterate many of the points I've made, but to
    protect and expand the legislation. By protection, I think Prop
    47 in California is okay. I'm crossing my fingers that nothing
    will be overturned. There was a public policy institute of
    California did a report that showed it did not increase crime,
    but we know that there are individuals who are active in
    wanting to overturn this legislation, this criminal justice
    reform.
        So, just really pleading and asking for your support in
    ensuring that these legislations are protected and expanded. I
    think the other thing, too, with Federal funding, again, I'll
    say is loosen the restrictions on some of them. We've actually
    applied to two Bureau of Justice Assistance under the Second
    Chance Act grant opportunities, and we had awarded them, but
    it's possible that we might not be able to accept them because
    of the immigration requirements on them in L.A. County. So,
    that's a big concern of mine right now.
        I do want to say I agree with you very much: All the work
    that we do at ODR is through community-based organizations. I
    run a very, very lean team myself, and so all that money is
    passed through to the organizations, but I do think it is
    important to have counties to coordinate that work.
        I will finally say, because I have such a passion on the
    employment side, we talk about the Fair Chance Act and we talk
    about wanting to ensure that individuals have these employment
    opportunities. I think what's key and what's been missing is
    engaging employers. Talking to employers and business
    associations and if they understand these individuals showing--
    telling them their stories, they'll see that these are
    individuals. There's research that's been done that shows that
    they are more productive employees, that they retain longer.
        So, I think that's another key element on the employment
    side is making sure that you engage employers. I really, really
    appreciate this opportunity. I can't thank you enough.
        Ms. Bass. Absolutely.
        Mr. Wiese. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member.
    Tackling this issue is literally tackling American history. I
    came across a Law Review article written in 1971 where the
    author writes: There's a latent, pervasive attitude in our
    society which stresses the generic unworthiness of the
    criminal. His permanent unfitness to live in a, quote ``decent
    society'' unquote. He is seen as an unredeemable, permanently
    flawed, ever-threatening deviant. Proper citizens are felt to
    be menaced or degraded by consorting with him whether or not he
    has paid his debt.
        Though the notion of second chances is a concept deeply
    rooted within the fabric of American society, extending this
    hope to the millions of adults with a criminal record in this
    country remains a work in progress. Counterproductive cultural
    norms in our prisons and arbitrary collateral consequences
    place irrational limitations on the ability of men and women to
    effectively reenter society at their highest potential.
        It relegates millions of Americans to second-class
    citizenship. Prison Fellowship is committed to the
    presupposition that all people have intrinsic value and are
    salvageable, and we are committed to paving the road of
    reconciliation from our prisons into our communities. Based on
    this Subcommittee today, we look forward to seeing each of you
    on that road.
        I also want to extend an offer for any member of this
    Committee to visit our academy program across the country if
    you're interested in learning more about how we change prison
    culture.
        Ms. Bass. Where is it?
        Mr. Wiese. I'm sorry?
        Ms. Bass. Where is it?
        Mr. Wiese. We have 17 locations and over 100 other
    locations as well, so we can follow up. If they're in your
    district or close by, we'd love to host you.
        With that, thanks, again. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Bass. Let me just thank everyone, again. I know many of
    you traveled far to come here for this panel, but I just want
    you to know that your time will be very well spent. We'll want
    to stay in touch with you as we develop legislation. We'd kind
    of be hypocrites if we do the legislation and you don't even
    see it. So, we want you to see it as we're developing it.
        With that, we're adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]