[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]