Prisoner Releases: Reintegration of Offenders Into Communities	 
(20-JUL-01, GAO-01-966T).					 
								 
This testimony discusses prisoner releases and reintegration	 
programs and provides some perspectives on the particular	 
challenges posed by the District of Columbia offenders. 	 
Nationally, the total inmate population in federal and state	 
prisons increased almost fourfold during the past two decades.	 
Consistent with the trend of larger prison populations, the	 
number of inmates who complete their sentences and return to	 
communities has also risen significantly in recent years,	 
surpassing the half-million mark in 1998. After being released,  
many individuals--about 40 percent historically--later are sent  
back to prison for committing new offenses or violating parole	 
conditions. Regarding criminal history, the Bureau of Justice	 
Statistics' (BJS) most recent nationwide survey of prison inmates
showed that 40 percent of federal inmates and 55 percent of state
inmates in prison in 1997 has serves prior sentences. BJS data	 
showed that D.C. offenders, in particular, had more extensive	 
criminal histories than the national averages. For example, in	 
D.C., 98.3 percent of all adult probationers had prior		 
convictions, almost twice the national average of 50  percent.	 
BJS' 1997 survey also showed that the bulk of inmates in prison  
were drug abusers. The National Institute of Justice noted that  
69 percent of D.C. offenders arrested in 1999 tested positive for
at least one type of drug. Regarding reintegration, GAO found	 
that certain reintegration programs for D.C. prisoners were	 
lacking. For example, the Corrections Trustee for the District of
Columbia noted that few D.C. inmates had the benefit of a	 
transitional period in a halfway house before being released for 
return to the community. While noting that much progress has been
made, the Corrections Trustee stated that there continues to be a
shortage of halfway house beds. Several national and D.C.	 
reintegration initiatives exist to assist offenders who are	 
returning to the community. The Young Offender Initiative, the	 
Reentry Grant Program, and the Demonstration Grant Program are	 
among the programs that focus on reducing recidivism, developing 
job skills, and treating drug abuse problems. This testimony	 
summarizes the June report, GAO-01-483. 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-966T					        
    ACCNO:   A01425						        
  TITLE:     Prisoner Releases: Reintegration of Offenders Into       
             Communities                                                      
     DATE:   07/20/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Drug abuse 					 
	     Halfway houses					 
	     Offender rehabilitation				 
	     Parolees						 
	     Prisoners						 
	     Recidivism 					 
	     Statistical data					 
	     District of Columbia				 
	     DOJ/DOL/HHS Offender Reentry Initiative		 
	     DOJ/DOL/HHS Demonstration Grant Program		 
	     DOJ/DOL/HHS Young Offender Program 		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-966T
     
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT Friday, July 20,
2001 PRISONER RELEASES

Reintegration of Offenders Into Communities

Statement of Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues

GAO- 01- 966T

Page 1 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss our June 2001 report on prisoner releases and reintegration
programs 1 and to provide some perspectives on the particular challenges
posed by District of Columbia offenders. Our recent report presented
information on national trends in the number of inmates released from
federal and state prisons, the extent of recidivism, the criminal and drug
use histories of inmates, and programs for preparing and assisting offenders
with reintegrating into communities. In my testimony today, I will summarize
that information and, as applicable, provide supplementary data focusing on
the D. C. community.

U. S. criminal justice policies and other factors in recent years have
resulted in record numbers of offenders being incarcerated in prisons.
Although many inmates are serving longer sentences than they would have a
decade ago, most inmates are not serving life sentences without the
possibility of parole or release. After inmates complete their terms, they
return to communities throughout the nation. Although many are successfully
reintegrated into society, other ex- offenders are arrested for new crimes
or violations of parole or supervision and are returned to prison. In order
to reduce recidivism rates- and to enhance public safety, alleviate fiscal
pressures associated with ex- offenders being returned to prison, and to
provide opportunities for ex- offenders to straighten out their lives-
policymakers, correctional system administrators, and other concerned
parties are looking for ways to more successfully reintegrate ex- offenders
into communities.

The D. C. community is no exception. Indeed, the District- a wholly urban
jurisdiction- is perhaps facing greater challenges than most jurisdictions.
For instance, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data as of
December 31, 1999, D. C. had a higher incarceration rate than any state in
the nation. 2 The D. C. incarceration rate, which is 1,314 prisoners with
sentences of more than 1 year per 100,000 residents, was about 1.7 times
higher than the rate for either Louisiana (776) or Texas (762), the
jurisdictions with the next highest incarceration rates. Also, the D. C.

1 Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs (GAO-
01- 483, June 18, 2001). 2 BJS, ?Prisoners in 1999? (NCJ 183476, Aug. 2000).
Background

Page 2 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

incarceration rate was about 2.8 times higher than the national average of
476 prisoners per 100,000 U. S. residents.

D. C. felony inmates are now the responsibility of the federal correctional
system, as required by the 1997 Revitalization Act. 3 Specifically, under
the act, the D. C. Department of Corrections? Lorton Correctional Complex is
to be closed by December 31, 2001, and the felony population (sentenced
pursuant to the D. C. Code) residing at Lorton is to be transferred to
facilities operated by or contracted for by the federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP). 4 Also, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the
District of Columbia (CSOSA) was created under the Revitalization Act and
was tasked with supervising adult D. C. Code offenders on probation, parole,
and supervised release. 5 CSOSA began under a trustee and was certified as
an independent federal agency in August 2000.

Nationally, the total inmate population in federal and state prisons
increased almost fourfold during the past 2 decades- from about 0.3 million
at the end of 1980 to about 1. 3 million at the end of 1999. Consistent with
the trend of larger prison populations, the number of inmates who complete
their sentences and return to communities has also risen significantly in
recent years, surpassing the half- million mark in 1998. After being
released, many individuals- about 40 percent historically- later are sent
back to prison for committing new offenses or violating conditions of
release. 6

Regarding criminal history, BJS? most recent nationwide survey of prison
inmates (1997) showed that 40 percent of federal inmates and 55 percent of
state inmates in prison in 1997 had served prior prison sentences. Moreover,
not all inmates had a long stretch of ?street time? between sentences. Of
the inmates who were in prison in 1997, more than one

3 National Capital Revitalization and Self- Government Improvement Act of
1997, P. L. 105- 33, Title XI, 111 Stat. 712 (1997). 4 For further details
regarding the closing of the Lorton Correctional Complex, see District of
Columbia: Issues Related to the Youngstown Prison Report and Lorton Closure
Process

(GAO/ GGD- 00- 86, Apr. 7, 2000). 5 Some offenders are placed on probation
in lieu of incarceration. Parole and supervised release are forms of
postprison community supervision. 6 Appendix I presents additional
information about trends in releases from federal and state prisons and
returns for violating parole or other release conditions. Inmate Releases
and

Recidivism Reflect a Revolving Door Trend

Page 3 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

quarter (27 percent) of federal inmates and nearly half (47 percent) of the
state inmates were under supervision at the time of the arrest that led to
their incarceration. Further, according to testimony before this
Subcommittee last year, BJS data showed that D. C. defendants and offenders
had more extensive criminal histories than the national averages. 7 For
example, the March 2000 testimony noted the following:

 In D. C., 98.3 percent of all adult probationers had prior convictions,
almost twice the national average of 50 percent.

 Among D. C. parolees, the percentage with at least one prior conviction
was 99 percent.

 23 percent of D. C. parolees had six or more prior convictions. BJS? 1997
survey of federal and state inmates showed that it is not just criminal
histories generally that characterize the bulk of inmates in prison, but
substantial histories of drug use as well. For example, the 1997 survey
showed that 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates reported
having used drugs regularly before prison. Also, approximately 1 in 4 (28
percent) federal inmates and 1 in 3 (34 percent) state inmates reported
having used cocaine or crack regularly.

Regarding D. C. offenders and drug use, in a June 2000 report, the National
Institute of Justice noted that 69 percent of adult males arrested in the
District in 1999 tested positive for at least one type of drug. 8 This
figure was 5 percentage points higher than the median rate (64 percent) for
use of any drug among the adult males arrested in the 34 urban sites covered
by the report. Moreover, according to recent (March 2001) CSOSA data, two-
thirds of D. C. parolees have substance abuse problems. 9

7 Statement of John A. Carver, Trustee, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, before the Subcommittee on
the District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, March 23, 2000.

8 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program: 1999 Annual Report on Adult
and Juvenile Arrestees (NCJ 181426, June 2000). ADAM is a National Institute
of Justice research program that provides planning and policy information on
drug use and other characteristics of arrestees in U. S. cities through
quarterly interviews of adult and juvenile arrestees in holding facilities.
The 1999 program collected data from more than 30, 000 adult male arrestees
in 34 reporting sites. ADAM data consist of arrestees? self- reports
regarding their drug use and urinalysis results.

9 ?CSOSA Fact Sheet - Re- Entry System? (Mar. 2001).

Page 4 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Regarding inmate participation in prison programs, BJS? 1997 survey data
were less extensive but indicated that some needs, such as drug treatment,
might be unmet. Although not all drug users may need treatment, our analysis
of inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months of BJS? 1997 survey
showed that 33 percent of the federal and 36 percent of the state inmates
participated in residential inpatient treatment programs for alcohol or drug
abuse. 10 Further, for prison programs other than drug treatment, BJS? 1997
survey data on inmates scheduled for release indicated the following:

 27 percent of both federal and state inmates participated in vocational
training programs;

 11 percent of the federal inmates worked in prison industry jobs, compared
with 2 percent of the state inmates; and

 37 percent of federal inmates participated in prerelease programs,
compared with 12 percent of state inmates.

Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate?s preparation for
reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the
process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in- prison phase
of the offender?s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue
during a transitional period in a community- based halfway house for a
period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further
continue after the offender?s release during a 3- to 5- year period of
community supervision by probation officers. BOP oversees inmate activities
during the in- prison phase and the halfway house phase, and U. S. Probation
Offices oversee the community supervision phase. 11

For the in- prison phase, BOP provides programs- including work, education,
vocational training, and drug treatment- to help inmates rehabilitate
themselves. 12 According to BOP, providing such programs not only supports
correctional management purposes, such as minimizing idleness and increasing
the safety of staff, but also prepares inmates for

10 Appendix II presents additional information about inmate participation in
substance abuse treatment programs. 11 U. S. Probation Offices are
responsible for the community supervision of federal offenders sentenced
under the U. S. Code by U. S. District Courts. CSOSA is responsible for
supervising D. C. Code- sentenced offenders released by BOP to the
community. CSOSA?s community supervision officers manage a blended caseload
of parolees and probationers.

12 Appendix III presents additional information about BOP programs for
prisoners. Reintegration

Addressed in Three Phases of Federal Correctional System

Page 5 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

employment opportunities and successful reintegration upon release.
Moreover, BOP?s policy is that rehabilitation programming is to continue
during the halfway house phase. During this phase, for example, each
participating inmate is expected to find and keep a job and, if applicable,
continue to participate in drug or alcohol treatment programs. Further,
after an inmate is released from BOP?s custody, a probation officer is
expected to finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender in the
community. The supervision plan should reflect a probation officer?s
statutory responsibilities, which include reducing the risk the offender
poses to the community and providing the offender with access to treatment,
such as substance abuse aftercare and mental health services. 13

As mentioned previously, based on the 1997 Revitalization Act, BOP is now
responsible for incarcerating felony inmates sentenced under the D. C. Code.
Implementation of the act, including the status of progress in transferring
all D. C. Code- sentenced felons to BOP, was a topic of a congressional
appropriations hearing held earlier this month. At the hearing, the
Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia noted that, of the current
D. C. inmate population of 10,200 inmates, almost 8,000 were adult felony
inmates, and about 4, 500 had already been transferred to the permanent
custody of BOP. 14 Also, the Corrections Trustee noted that nearly 80
percent of the transferred inmates were housed in facilities within 500
miles of the District.

Further, at the hearing, the Corrections Trustee testified that, before the
Revitalization Act, few D. C. inmates had the benefit of a transitional
period in a halfway house before being released for return to the community.
While noting that much progress has been made, the Corrections Trustee
stated that there continues to be a shortage of halfway house beds.

13 Appendix IV presents additional information about the supervision tools
and communitybased social services used by federal probation officers. 14
Testimony of John L. Clark, Corrections Trustee for the District of
Columbia, at a hearing held by the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Appropriations, U. S. Senate, July 10, 2001.

Page 6 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

The Departments of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services (DOJ, DOL,
and HHS)- in response to the large numbers of offenders being released from
state prisons and returning to communities- are developing a federal grant
program, the ?Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant Program and the
Demonstration Grant Program.? The goal of the interagency Young Offender
Initiative is to help states and communities work together to improve
offender supervision and accountability and essential support services in
order to enhance community safety through the successful reintegration into
the community of high- risk or specialneed offenders released from state
prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing
state inmates. Under the initiative, interagency resources are to jointly
target the same communities, especially areas with high concentrations of
returning offenders. And communities are to be encouraged to focus on
offenders who pose significant public safety risks and who are likely to
benefit from structured interventions.

For fiscal year 2001- the first year of federal funding for the Young
Offender Initiative- designated funding consisted of $30 million from DOJ,
$55 million from DOL, and $8 million from HHS. The three federal agencies
have joint responsibility for developing solicitations for grant
applications from jurisdictions interested in applying for federal funds
available under the initiative. The first solicitation- for the Reentry
Grant Program component of the initiative- was issued June 1, 2001.
Applications are to be submitted to DOJ by October 1, 2001. According to the
solicitation, approximately $79 million is available to fund approximately
25 grants of up to $3.1 million each to applicants that demonstrate a
collaborative effort and broad- based community support. Under the Reentry
Grant Program component, applicants are to focus on a population of young
offenders (within the age range of 14 to 35 years old) returning to the
community from incarceration (minimum of 12 consecutive months for adults, 6
consecutive months for juveniles) who pose a risk to community safety.

A second solicitation- for the Demonstration Grant Program component of the
Young Offender Initiative- is to be issued at a future date. According to
the federal agencies, this grant program will fund separate awards totaling
up to $11.5 million for communities to focus on an agerelated subset of the
Young Offender Initiative?s target population. That is, the component is to
focus on young offenders (within the age range of 14 to 24 years old) who
are already involved in the criminal justice system or gangs or who are at
risk of such involvement. A basic goal of the Demonstration Grant Program
component- and of the Reentry Grant Program component- is to provide
reentering offenders with job training National and D. C.

Reintegration Initiatives

Page 7 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

and employment opportunities, education, substance abuse treatment and
rehabilitation, mental health care and aftercare, housing assistance, family
support services, and criminal justice supervision.

Applicants may apply for awards under both solicitations. However, according
to the federal agencies, applicants are to be eligible to receive only one
award for the same or similar target populations.

Under the Young Offender Initiative, grant assistance eligibility regarding
offenders released from BOP custody and returning to the District depends on
various factors. For instance, according to DOJ officials, since the
initiative is intended to assist state offenders, one technical factor is
whether the offender was sentenced under the D. C. Code versus the U. S.
Code. Also, the officials noted that assistance eligibility can depend on
whether proposed program plans are consistent with the overall purpose of
the initiative and incorporate all required program elements, including
identification of target populations.

Regarding other initiatives for reintegrating D. C. offenders, in March
2001, we reported on various ongoing efforts to improve operations of the D.
C. criminal justice system. 15 For example, in November 1998, CSOSA formed
its first ?Community Justice Partnership? with the Metropolitan Police
Department. Under this initiative, CSOSA?s community supervision officers
are to work closely with police officers to monitor probationers and
parolees in the District, improve offender accountability, and develop
community networks to solve problems and prevent crime.

Also, in July 2000, the ?Pilot Reentry System? initiative was started. A
principal component is a ?learning lab? to provide computer software
training, as well as basic adult education, for offenders returning to the
District. For the pilot, DOJ?s Executive Office for Weed and Seed provided
financial support. Other participants included CSOSA, the University of the
District of Columbia, and the D. C. Office of Justice Grants Administration.
According to CSOSA officials, a second learning lab is now in operation, and
plans are under way for a third and a fourth lab. Finally, CSOSA noted that
recently introduced federal legislation- the

?Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001? (S. 304)- 15 D.
C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed Among Participating
Agencies (GAO- 01- 187, Mar. 30, 2001).

Page 8 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

would authorize funding for local reentry efforts in the District, efforts
that would focus on high- risk parolees.

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement, I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Laurie E.
Ekstrand at (202- 512- 8777) or Danny R. Burton at (214) 777- 5600.
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Ann H.
Finley, Mary K. Muse, and Ellen T. Wolfe. Contacts and

Acknowledgments

Page 9 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

As figure 1 shows, the number of federal and state inmates released to
communities increased from 148,867 in 1980 to 532,136 in 1998, the most
recent year for which complete data were available. 1

Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and Returns for
Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions

Note 1: For offenders released, no federal data were reported for 1990,
1991, and 1992. For these 3 years, the graph reflects only state prison
releases.

Note 2: For offenders reincarcerated, violations of parole or other release
conditions can consist of various technical violations, such as not keeping
appointments with probation officers or failing a urinalysis test for
illegal drug use. Supervision revocations and reincarcerations can also
result from the commission of a new crime, an act that violates the most
basic of release conditions. However, the reincarceration data shown in the
graph do not include returns to prison of ex- offenders who committed a new
crime while not under parole or other supervised release.

Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Also, figure 1 shows that the number of offenders reincarcerated for
violating parole or other release conditions increased more than

1 In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506, 049)
were state prisoners. Appendix I: Trends in Prison Releases and

Returns

0 100,000

200,000 300,000

400,000 500,000

600,000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980

Number of offenders Calendar year

Offenders released Offenders reincarcerated for violating parole or other
release conditions

148,867 28,817

532,136 209,782

Page 10 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

sevenfold, from 28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998. 2 These reincarceration
data, as noted in figure 1, do not include ex- offenders who were returned
to prisons for committing a new crime but were not under parole or
supervised release. Nonetheless, the reincarcerations shown in figure 1
represent an increasing proportion of all prison admissions. For instance,
reincarceration of violators of parole or other release conditions
represented 17 percent of all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35
percent of admissions in 1998.

2 In 1998, of the total number of violators reincarcerated, 98 percent
(206,152) were returned to state prisons.

Page 11 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Generally, while agreeing that there is a need for more substance abuse
treatment for prisoners, BJS officials offered a cautionary comment about
statistics that quantify this need. For instance, the officials commented
that not all drug users are addicts. Also, the officials noted that BJS?
most recent (1997) survey of federal and state prison inmates showed that
the percent of alcohol- or drug- involved prisoners, who- since admission to
prison- participated in treatment or other substance- abuse programs,
increased as the time to expected release decreased. As table 1 shows, for
example, among the alcohol- or drug- involved federal inmates, about 20
percent of the inmates serving their final 6 months reported receiving
treatment, compared with 10 percent of the inmates with more than a year
until release.

Table 1: Inmate Participation in Substance Abuse Treatment or Other Programs
in 1997

Time to expected release Treatment a Other programs b Federal prisoners

Greater than 1 year 10.0% 24.2% 6 to 12 months 12.5 28.4 Less than 6 months
20.5 36.9

State prisoners

Greater than 1 year 12.6 31.0 6 to 12 months 16.3 32.4 Less than 6 months
18.6 34.0

Note: These data show inmate participation since admission to prison for
current offense. a Includes residential facilities, professional counseling,
detoxification units, and maintenance drug

programs. b Includes self- help or peer counseling groups and educational or
awareness programs.

Source: BJS, Special Report, ?Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and
Federal Prisoners, 1997? (NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.

Appendix II: Substance Abuse Treatment and Programs for Prisoners

Page 12 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

To help inmates rehabilitate themselves, BOP provides various programs, such
as education, work, vocational training, and drug treatment programs. For
example, BOP requires all federal inmates to work if they are medically
able. BOP recognizes that release preparation begins at initial intake or
classification 1 and encourages inmates to begin preparing for their release
from prison upon their arrival at the institution. Table 2 describes the
programs generally available to inmates during incarceration, although not
all federal prisoners participate in these programs.

Table 2: BOP In- Prison Programs for Inmates Program type Program
description

Literacy programs are to allow inmates without a high school diploma (or its
equivalent) to earn a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Under provisions of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (P. L. 104- 134), inmates lacking
high school credentials must participate and make satisfactory progress in
the GED program in order to earn the maximum amount of good time credit,
which may reduce sentence length. According to BOP, 3,962 federal inmates
successfully passed the GED test during the first 9 months of fiscal year
2000. Education

An English- as- a- second- language program is to allow inmates with limited
English fluency skills to achieve at least an eighth grade English
proficiency level. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 mandates that
non- English- proficient inmates participate in this program until they
function at the eighth grade level in English competency. According to BOP,
18,852 federal inmates (15 percent of the total federal inmate population)
were eligible for the English fluency program during calendar year 1999.
Work Inmates are to learn job skills in institutional job assignments, such
as food service worker,

orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper. Also, some
inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) factories that
produce, for example, metal products, furniture, electronics, or textiles.
According to BOP, most inmates have institutional job assignments, and the
other inmates work in UNICOR factories- although a small percentage of
inmates have no work assignments due to medical conditions. Occupational or
vocational training BOP reports that it has occupational or vocational
training programs that encompass 86

different skill areas, and inmates are provided with opportunities to
develop work skills by on- the- job training through institution work
assignments and prison industry jobs. For fiscal year 1999, BOP reported
that 8, 711 federal inmates completed at least 1 occupational training
program. Also, as of March 2000, BOP data showed that 9, 427 federal inmates
(about 9 percent of total federal inmate population) were enrolled in an
occupational training program. Drug treatment According to BOP, its drug
treatment programs include substance abuse education,

nonresidential substance abuse treatment and counseling, and residential
substance abuse treatment. BOP data indicate that approximately 34 percent
of the total federal inmate population have a diagnosed substance abuse
disorder. For fiscal year 2000, BOP reported that 12, 541 federal inmates
participated in its residential drug abuse treatment program.

1 In the context of correctional systems, the term ?classification? refers
to the systematic subdivision of inmates into groups on the basis of their
security and program needs. Appendix III: BOP Provides Various

Programs for Inmates

Page 13 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Program type Program description

Mental health Psychologists are to provide professional diagnosis,
counseling, and treatment on an individual or group basis. In calendar year
2000, BOP data showed that 14, 369 federal inmates (10 percent of the total
federal inmate population) were diagnosed with a mental health need. Release
preparation Designed to help inmates transition from prison to the
community, this program is to offer

courses in six core areas-( 1) health and nutrition, (2) personal growth and
development, (3) personal finance and consumer skills, (4) employment, (5)
release requirements and procedures, and (6) information on community
resources. Beginning approximately 24 months before release, inmates are
encouraged to enroll in and complete at least one course in each core area.
Generally, each core area may offer various courses. For example, the health
and nutrition core area may include courses about disease prevention,
including AIDS awareness, as well as courses about weight management and how
to eat nutritionally. Inmate placement This program is to encourage federal
correctional institutions to plan and hold mock job

fairs to help inmates hone their job search and interview techniques. In
addition, the inmate placement program is to provide job placement services
to inmates, help inmates prepare release folders (which include such
documents as a social security card, education certificates, and vocational
certifications), and help institutions establish onsite employment centers.
According to BOP, between 1996 and 2000, the inmate placement program
conducted 127 mock job fairs at 66 institutions, with approximately 5,000
inmates participating.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

The same types of programs as those presented in table 2 are also available
to federal inmates during their transition back to the community (i. e.,
during the inmates? halfway house stay) or during the offenders? term of
community supervision. For example, inmates with diagnosed substance abuse
addictions who were receiving treatment in prison are to continue that
treatment during their transitional period at contractoroperated halfway
houses and after release to supervision. Also, inmates who are prescribed
medications for diagnosed mental illness are to leave the institution with a
30- day supply to begin their halfway house stays.

Page 14 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

National community supervision policies are established by the Judicial
Conference of the United States, which is the policymaking authority for the
federal judiciary. Each district court appoints officers and supervises the
implementation of the probation system. The Administrative Office of the
United States Courts (AOUSC) develops and communicates national community
supervision policies for federal probation officers.

Table 3 presents examples of the various resources- supervision tools and
community- based social services- used by federal probation officers to
assist offenders with reintegration issues. The tools and services apply to
U. S. Probation Offices and the descriptions presented in table 3 were
provided to us by AOUSC. Thus, the examples are not directly applicable to
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia (CSOSA), which is responsible for supervising D. C. Codesentenced
offenders released to the community. However, CSOSA officials told us that,
to some extent, the agency?s community supervision officers may use similar
tools and services.

Table 3: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers Tools and services Description

Basic services Probation officers may need to help offenders obtain
services, such as welfare and food stamps, to meet basic needs. Officers
also may make arrangements for emergency temporary housing and financial
assistance for the purchase of necessities, such as food, clothing,
medicine, and child care. In addition, referrals may be made to anger
management, parenting, and money management counseling services. Also,
transportation may be arranged for offenders to travel to and from treatment
facilities, vocational training, or placement programs. Employment
assistance Probation officers may refer offenders for testing and work
skills evaluations,

preemployment training, classroom training, and skill- development community
service placements. Also, probation officers may make direct referrals to
employment or job placement agencies. Further, medical examinations may be
obtained to determine employment suitability. Literacy, education, and
vocational training Literacy, GED, and vocational training programs are
available, as is access to higher

education institutions. According to AOUSC, stipends are available for
clients attending such programs. Diagnostic assessment of substance abuse A
formal substance abuse assessment may be conducted by a licensed
professional.

The assessment may include a comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing,
followed by a prognosis report and treatment plan. Detoxification services
Probation officers may request inpatient and outpatient detoxification
services. Such

services may include, for example, a physical examination and report;
medication, such as methadone, antabuse, or trexan; laboratory work; and
residential placement. Substance abuse treatment Educational, counseling,
residential, and medical approaches to treatment are available

to address substance abuse problems of varying types and seriousness. These
approaches or programs include substance abuse prevention and treatment
readiness groups; individual, family, and group substance abuse counseling;
intensive outpatient group or individual treatment; short- term residential
treatment; longer term placement in a therapeutic community setting; and
methadone maintenance.

Appendix IV: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Services Used by Federal
Probation Officers

Page 15 GAO- 01- 966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Tools and services Description

Drug detection Probation officers and service providers may collect urine
specimens, which are sent for analysis to a national laboratory under
contract with AOUSC. On- site drug testing laboratories are utilized in some
districts to analyze specimens and provide results in less than 1 hour.
Handheld, portable drug- testing devices are also used to produce results in
5 to 10 minutes. Further, in conjunction with other testing methods, a sweat
patch may be used to detect the presence of drugs in perspiration. Alcohol
detection Hand- held breathalyzers and saliva swabs can be used to detect
alcohol use. In some

districts, remote alcohol detection equipment- connected to a telephone
line- is used to measure the alcohol content in a breath sample and
immediately transmit the results over the telephone line. Also, some
districts use a vehicle ignition lock device, which links a breathalyzer to
an offender?s vehicle. The ignition cannot be started unless the offender
blows into the device and registers a breath alcohol content level below a
prescribed point. Diagnostic assessment for mental health Probation officers
may arrange for psychological and psychiatric evaluations, which

include comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing, followed by a
prognosis report and a treatment plan. Mental health treatment Mental health
services include individual, family, and group counseling and

prescriptions for psychotropic medication. Community and home confinement
Probation officers may recommend that the courts require an offender to
reside in a

community corrections center or to remain in his or her residence for all or
part of the day. Both of these options are used as alternatives to
incarceration, permitting the officer to work with the offender in the
community. Community service Probation officers may use a variety of civic,
nonprofit, public, and private organizations

to place offenders required to perform community service. Such placements
are generally designed to (1) benefit the community and may also include
elements that use any special skills the offender may possess, (2) enhance
the offender?s awareness of the consequences of his or her actions, and (3)
sharpen the offender?s employment skills. Sex offender treatment Sex
offender management includes the use of polygraph examinations and penile

plethysmograph testing, as well as special sex offender therapy programs.
Remote location verification Continuously signaling electronic monitoring
devices may be used to monitor

compliance with a home confinement condition. This tool is used to detect,
for example, whether an offender wearing a tamper- resistant transmitter
?bracelet? is within 150 feet of a monitoring device attached to a telephone
in the home. In driving by a particular location, a probation officer may
use a portable (? drive- by?) electronic monitoring unit to detect whether
an offender wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of that location. An
automated telephone contact system that combines caller identification and
voice verification technology may be used to determine whether an offender
is at a particular location. Also, according to AOUSC, global positioning
systems that use the military?s satellite network are being field- tested
for use in remote location verifications.

Source: AOUSC data.

(440067)
*** End of document. ***