local role of the united states parole commission increasing public safety reducing recidivism and using alternative ration in the district of columbia today's hearing gives the subcommittee the opportunity to examine the impact return to the united states for the service of some most of the commission's day to day work involves a d c code offender as of the year ending fiscal year two thousand and about seventy percent or nine thousand two hundred and thirty six of the persons under the commission's jurisdiction of twelve thousand six hundred ninety six were d c code offenders eighteen hundred  making the commission uses guidelines that look at the severity of the crime which the person has been sent and the likelihood that the offender will commit another crime if we lea prison conduct and prison program performance the commission is presently involved in redefining the instrument to improve its predict powers in other words we've done a study of the commission's work that is growing and setting conditions of release and conditions of supervision the commission works closely with programs that can be assessed by the reinforced by the windsor and sanctions their commission also imposes on such offenders a condition of supervision that required participation and treatment programs recommended as about the residential substance abuse program which is run by the d c department of corrections was a program designed for ninety days of behavior modification to deal  to try to change behavior those are the two programs and when you think about the reprimand sanction here and another program designed specifically to address not putting people back incarceration but trying to figure out what's the best method to get them to be motivated to do a better job thank you very much you now recognize five minutes for an opening statement chairman lynch congresswoman norton and at the distinguished members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to testify i am pleased to appear before you to head today on behalf of the court services and offender supervision agency to discuss the work of  its connection with the us paul commission this also is a federal law enforcement agency with a unique local mission the agency supervises approximately sixteen thousand men and women on probation parole or supervise release and the district of columbia two thirds of these offenders are probationers who have gone to prison and are accountable to the d c superior court rather than the us parole commission most of the remaining third about six thousand offenders are on parole or supervised release and have a term of incarceration in the federal bureau of prisons and are accountable to the u s p c our offenders face many challenges thirty percent have a history of violent crime sixty four percent have a history of substance abuse thirteen percent have a formally diagnosed mental illness many others have undiagnosed mental health conditions nearly forty percent do not possess i high school diploma ged and only forty seven percent of our population is employed on an average day eight hundred offenders reside in d c homeless shelters or have housing situations that are considered unstable stable housing and employment are critical factors affecting the likelihood that an offender will commit a new crime violate the terms of their release and ultimately whether or not they'll be revoked to incarceration we partnered with numerous local and federal agencies and community based organizations to access the education training and employment family services mental health and substance abuse treatment and other services that our clients need yet to while we recognize the critical importance of these services c celsus critical mission is public safety and our main strategy is in support of the public safety mission and close to close supervision a system of graduated sanctions cecil's that imposes increasingly restrictive penalties on offenders for violating their release conditions so actions can involved increase office visits drug testing g p s monitoring or residential placement and half way back or the one hundred two bad reentry and sanctioned center r s e that we opened in two thousand and six office of research and evaluation is currently working with the u s parole commission response to supervision violations by parolees and supervised release these in the future in may two thousand and six and conjunction with the us p c we created an alternative sanctioned option called the reprimand sanction hearing for offenders on parole and supervised release this program permits the us p c a face to face our opportunity to address and offenders noncompliant behavior as a last step before formal parole revocation hearing from may two thousand and six to july two thousand and nine two hundred fifty nine hearings were conducted but dissipating offenders have shown a higher level of compliance following these hearings us p c n c sosa are in daily contact regarding the adjustment of the six thousand offenders under their jurisdictions and now supervision routine communications will include both recommendations to reward compliance behavior as well as placement on active supervision we also do the submission of a v r on offenders that are non compliant just yesterday he said also launched the new secure residential treatment program s r t p which will serve as an alternative placement for eligible d c code offenders on parole or supervised release who face revocation for technical violations including substance abuse and in some cases new criminal violations we are partnering in this endeavor with the us p c the department of corrections and the public defender service the national park islet program will consist of a one hundred eighty day treatment regimen including and involving thirty two offenders and is scheduled to run until march two thousand and ten during this pilot demonstration day so also will fund and operate the treatment intervention center the us p c has been an intricate partner in our efforts to establish the s r t p program and to implement the policy demonstration we look forward to the continuation of our close collaboration with the u s pro commission as well as our local and federal partners and work together to enhance public safety while reducing the rate of incarceration as one of our alternate goals i appreciate the opportunity to to appear before you today and i welcome any questions thank you very much thank you very much for sanctions you now recognize with five minutes for opening statement thank you good afternoon i am laura hanken special counsel to the director of the public defender service for the district of columbia thank you for the invitation to testify today on the local role of the united states parole commission the public defender service has represented over ninety percent of d c code offenders who have faced revocation of parole or supervised release since the parole commission replaced the d c board of parole thus we have a unique perspective on and a strong interest in the commission's increasingly local role reducing  public safety one way to reduce recidivism is to develop an appropriately use alternative stream carcer ation p d s commence the commission and see sosa on the development and increasing use of two drug treatment programs and on the continuing work of the sanction reprimand hearing my understanding is that those hearings are held approximately three days a month and we're very gratified to hear the attention it's getting at this hearing and hope that signals that the commission will hold those hearings more often it should be noted however that the need to develop re incarceration alternatives and to fine tune the systems concerning who should get such an alternative and who instead should be re and carcer rated is becoming increasingly acute as the population over whom the commission has authority changes as a result of the revitalization act parole was abolished in the district affective august fifth two thousand and replaced by supervised release and revocation terms generally speaking terms of supervised release are shorter than the amount of time  offender is on parole and the revocation term the amount of time for which an offender can be sent back to prison if he is revoked is also shorter this determinant sentence supervised release scheme gives the parole commission and sees sosa an opportunity to concentrate their resources on those persons most likely to re offend that is persons recently released from prison and in the long run the scheme should mean fewer people on supervision at any given time particularly when compared with having to supervise people who are on parole for decades or for life but it also means that the commission needs to examine how it budgets the supervision and revocation time with which it has to work the question of whether it makes sense for example to send someone back to prison for twelve months for having committed a low level technical violation like testing positive for marijuana use is more critical to answer when the offender can only be put back on supervised release for two more years and if you violates again can only be sent back to prison for most twelve more months at a hearing on the commission held by the subcommittee last year the director of p d s was afforded the privilege of testifying at that time p b s noted a number of issues that we hoped to see the commission address two issues in particular deserve mention today one that the salient fact or risk assessment tool needed needed to be redesigned in order to account for factors that correlate to receipt of ism and in order to be relevant to the population most often being assessed by the tool offenders facing revocation not offender seeking a role ground to the corresponding guidelines that direct the sanction for a parolee upon finding a violation needed to be recalibrated to shorten the re incarceration periods and allow research in statement of low risk to provide these for los severity violations there might be reasons for the commission not to address these issues though some specific fixes were recommended by an expert the commission helped to hire and since the commission voted to adopt those recommendations it's difficult to imagine what those reasons might be but even if one assumes that the status quo provides good reason to follow through on the recommendations the climate change facing the commission in the form of offenders and a very different sentencing system should give the commission's serious pause if d c offenders continue under the authority of the commission one day there will be no more parole grant hearings the very type of hearing for which the salient factor tool was designed instead that the commission's work will essentially be all revocation hearings but using the salient fact to score revocation hearings is like forcing a square peg into a round hole at every hearing it is impossible for a parolee or supervisee facing revocation to get a perfect score therefore it is impossible under the corresponding guidelines to get a recommendation of knowing re incarceration in addition to changing some of its systems how the commission exercises its discretion should also be examined p d s noted last year that while the commission has the discretion to allow supervisors to remain in the community pending their final revocation hearings it essentially never exercises that discretion and ops instead to detain at the jail virtually all pages persons facing revocation this is no small issue last week roughly six hundred people approximately twenty percent of the d c jails population were there for parole revocations while according to permission commission procedures the time between an arrest on a violation and the final revocation decision should not be more than eighty six days the current wait is closer to four months even putting aside the justness of exercising its discretion  these to remain in the community particularly those who are employed and have not long lost contact with their supervising officer the climate change facing the commission should push it towards using its discretion to release people supervise you get credit for time spent in jail with shorter overall terms of supervision and revocation reflexively using jail time is essentially wasting the resources of supervision and revocation time using up four months in jail on a violation that is ultimately not supported or which results in reinstatement on parole means for fewer months of supporting that offenders re entry and supervising his behavior to increase public safety and for fewer months as a sanction should he later violate a supervised release conditions the public defender service appreciates the opportunity for treatment and success and supervision provided by the commission's new drug program and continues to applaud chairman fullwood on sanction reprimand hearings as he championed has championed them the climate change facing the commission however calls for a new look at how revocation proceedings and sanctions are carried out i appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee and would be pleased to work with the members in their ongoing consideration of these issues thank you thank you you now recognize for an opening statement for five minutes thank you very much to chairman lynch congresswoman norton and the committee for the invitation and opportunity to share with you some of what we know about what constitutes best practice in parole supervision to the end of reducing recidivism and facilitating successful community reintegration parole field at this point in time undergoing a tremendous amount of coming out of a period during which there was a very heavy reliance on surveillance and monitoring which well foundational tools of community supervision ever been shown by themselves and in the absence of other interventions  little or no impact on recidivism and there's been an increasing focus across the country on approaches to parole and proles supervision that seeks to change the behavior of parolees and so  at this time i would like to highlight for broad principles from the research and expert practitioner consensus that should guide best practices and parole in any jurisdiction the first is that there should be clear accountability both for those conducting parole and for the parolees who are being supervised accountability for the parole or is the supervisors in terms of making a clear focus on a goal setting targets and measuring their performance relative to that and in parolees in tailoring their condition so that their specific to that individual's circumstances that all their conditions of parole are tied to factors that put them at recidivism and that are in the whole realistic for them to abide by the second principle is that it is important to strategically allocate limited parole resources in terms of people focusing on moderate to high risk offenders in terms of time focusing on the critical period immediately after release when the risk of recidivism and other behaviors such as return to substance abuse are highest and in terms of place structuring supervision around the communities in neighborhoods where the highest proportion of pro leagues return and often where the greatest risk factors for recidivism are present the third principle which takes place at the case management level around the relationship between the parole officer in the parolee is to build supervision around individualized supervision plans that are informed by validated risk and needs assessment information that involve the  work setting there goals so that you can increase their buying and their commitment to what after all is their behavior change plan and that reaches out to also engage their informal social support networks their friends families  employers the people who will continue to be in their life and must be supporting the maintenance of their behavior change long after the formal period of supervision has ended and the fourth and final principle is to build into the way the parole and provision are conducted with a rewards and a sanction structure reward structure that recognizes and reward successes when they occur based on research that indicates that rewards and incentives are much more powerful in terms of changing people's behaviors than the threat of sanctions but also a sanctions policy that recognizes that parole violations are going to occur that they need to be responded to in a problem solving way and that in a way that is graduated as several of the members of this panel have already mentioned and that reserve re incarceration for cases where other options have been exhausted or where there is a pressing need to do so so with those four principles in mind i would like to make two concluding observations the first is that in this work of successfully facilitating reintegration through parole supervision partnerships are absolutely necessary partnerships incorporating law enforcement the community community providers but also a partnership between the three core entities the paroling authority the proles supervision authority and institutional corrections who really need to come together around a common goal and purpose for reintegrating people who are leaving prison and in many cases in a jurisdictions across the country this is not the case and they may collaborate not closely or sometimes work in ways they're at cross purposes and the final thing i would like to leave you with is that we can look at in the country and we can see signs of promise for success in implementing these kind of approaches to parole supervision looking at the pilot pro active community supervision model in maryland success in reducing rearrest and warrants for parole violations and also some of the outcomes realized by states participating in the transition from prison to community initiatives including missouri and michigan which have seen improved outcomes in and returns to prison so i think that the takeaway message is that there is hope for these kind of approaches the kind of work relative to recidivism reduction and community integration that we all want to see thank you very the the goal that chairman full would put forth which is to see people succeed it is my experience that all individuals leaving prison as a group have some statistical probability of success success or  failure and that the challenge to us as a community is to increase the odds that they succeed i think that how the manner in which we release people matters and another thing that i think matters greatly and that we need to talk about if we're interested in improving public safety particularly as it relates to individuals released from federal prisons back to the district is that how the experience prison matters let me say first of all that i think there are three critical issues that must be addressed to promote success those are sobriety employment and housing i believe that sobriety is a primary issue it is a primary condition am not a teetotaller i am not making a moral judgment but i know this have to the years that if an individual leaves prison or jail and starts getting high they will not succeed in order to promote sobriety we must ensure that their experience in prison is an experience of sobriety that our prisons and jails are drug free and that while in prison and in jail individuals learn how to stay sober and upon release are provided with connections to those agencies and organizations that can assist them in achieving sobriety it is my understanding that sosa has available to it approximately fifteen million dollars for drug treatment nonetheless it is further my understanding that this meets only approximately twenty five percent the need among the persons under their supervision it is further my understanding that while in the bureau of prisons approximately forty thousand individuals annually are afforded exposure to their drug and alcohol treatment programs on any given day there are only one hundred d c code violators enroll in these programs if we are serious about reducing crime committed by persons upon their release from prison we have to ensure that they leave prison sober that they know how to stay sober and that we provide continuous access to treatment because recovery does not proceed in a straight line with respect to employment it is my understanding that approximately forty percent of the d c code violators who are released are released without a high school diploma this makes the challenge of finding work even more difficult as they are entering a workforce market where eighty percent of the workforce in the district has high school diplomas  i think that we must question why given that d c code violators as i understand that have a rather lengthy stay in the bureau of prisons we cannot get them educated while they are imprisoned in today's world in order to work one must have certain documentations one cannot as we all know work without proof citizenship were illegal permission to work and a social security number and despite the best efforts of c sosa through their vote t program i believe it's called nonetheless large numbers of offenders leave prison today without the documents necessary it is unconscionable in today's day and age that individuals leave prison without the social security card the birth certificate or the other documents that would make them a legally eligible to begin working upon their release from prison i think this should become a performance standard within the bureau of prisons and we should ask them to report on the number of persons leaving prison who leave with the requisite documents finally with respect to housing all of these issues are of course made more difficult by the great distance that the c code violators are held from the district in federal prisons it makes obtaining work obtaining a job all the more difficult one way of ameliorating this problem is by releasing individuals back into the community through some form of halfway house despite the fact that roughly twenty five hundred individuals returned to the district from federal prisons there were only three residential reentry centers as i understand it in the district i believe that despite efforts to open more of them the district as does my own city of new york experiences what we refer to as nimby not in my backyard no one wants it it will take a great deal of political will by the political power structure of the district and the congress to create the requisite number of halfway houses so that individuals leaving prison leave in a rational way i also want to point out that the anti drug hundred eighty eight imposes restrictions on the access to public housing and section eight vouchers by individuals who are convicted of drug crimes this is something that does stand in the way every entry it complicates reentry and something that congress should reconsider i also want to finally say that data is critically important i think that she sews has an excellent data collection and management can capability i think that we we ought to adopt the idea that if you can't measure it you can't manage it and we ought to look at how we manage our workload and our case loads focused on the high risk cases and pretty much leave the low risk cases to themselves thank you thank you s involved with how the district residents reenter in society and what we can do is activists and role models to take part in these conversations to be represented you know and i must say i agree with a lot of the things that i've heard i personally have worked with the sofa and i think we're on the right track  me myself personally i know sobriety directly relates to reentry i don't think it's by mistake that i have nineteen years of sobriety and i've been home you know and i've been reading that society successfully for nineteen years and no go than it haint you know and one of the things that my experience of taught me is that when you can you know deal with you addiction you stand a much better chance to stand in society education education is real big me personally as a direct result of education i've been able to know not returning citizens involved in these meetings there's not people forming a cause rate of people who are at the table when all these decisions are being made and i want to emphasize that we're talking about successfully things that you call citizenship and now wanting to be a role model i haven't the avenue to do that had been the means to be able to you know be that role model one thing  i will say is that any successful reentry usually there's a hand that was reached out from a form a castrated person to show another person the way i think we have a unique ability to meet a person with a are as a result of having been there you know and you know what we have returned citizens united is trying to do is have that you have that you know we looking to be role models mentors paid mentors to take part in the conversations that are being had one of saying in the district of columbia you know i think you know one of saying there's an office that has a right now is not even doesn't have a director whose you know what strategies that strategies i in place for you know from that office to assist in this conversation you know one of the things also there's a lot of you know rules in the books right now that are just not being carried out right now you know i'm also involved with several nonprofit organizations i'm a trainer with sausage blues you here and you know i do trace training and i was just at a meeting where a section three me where i mean there's rules in the books that a lot of development that has taken place in addition columbia is mandated to use district residents return assistance but there's no oversight and that's not happening you know developers are continuously find a loophole in ways to get around that happening and you know it's just you know you know it's just through this process successfully that's a very important element of success where shipping people outside of the community and we're breaking that connection between their support and and try to give these parolees the best chance of success one of the things that we have done it was when the bureau of prisons transferred a large portion of offenders t rivers correctional facility we took a tour and a visit down there with staff and we listened to some of the issues the concerns that the offenders raised and part of those problems were number one they were away from their families the about resources there was a lack of programs and the support system as a result of that we elected to start a mentoring program where we would do video conferencing from our offices as well as go down there we would take a poll of staff as well as employment vendors and other community resource activists to the prison so that they could hear what these offenders were in need of prior to their return to facility in addition we did some case management training on site with their staff so they recognize some of the challenges these these men would face coming back to the district of columbia some of the resources that we have some of the problems facing with housing or employment and try to keep them in connection with our c f cells so that there was a communication for the offender to have a smooth transition once they come back to the district so upon return we had some idea of what these men needed before they were before they arrived and we could hook them up with some of those resources prior to their arrival here now we can't meet all of them because there was some ascenders and other sites in the bureau of prisons that was so far away that there was a lack of contact family support is very critical for these men success some of them have been without support system for so long have burned bridges and as a result they need to reconnect with their families the substance abuse history was a critical issue and we know many of them are abusers as well as just frequent users they needed to get in some type of substance abuse program we recognize that we could not meet all of their needs where those with we could do on site we help them up with those services as well as outpatient or inpatient treatment i talked about the family integration system to talk about employment we had of employers sit in the audience when we did video conferencing and talk to the offenders at rivers and some of them were interviewed right then and terms of the types of jobs they had the credentials you needed to in order to work at these particular jobs and what they needed to do once they returned home so some of the things that is so important for these men and women clothing some of them allow clothing so we worked very closely with our place for women as well as others for the men so that they had suitable clothing is recognized and not in one of the testimonies that we submitted we have worked with the department of motor vehicles as was indicated the driver's license or some type of identification so that they could get employment along with that we were able to get a non drivers d so that they could come and get the identification and so when they showed up to the employers they had some form at that time thank you my time having i will now recognize  mr horn mr do you not also testified about these distinction does the commission prioritize in any way offenders based on the offense to public safety of the offender as given the large number of folks under supervision that you have i would ask the people who are the three of you at the table to any priority so that you get to the  have a risk screener that we apply to all of the standards that are released therefore we can determine who is at the intensive level or who is at the minimum level and we supervise them accordingly and when i say that the high risk offenders will face they will have to report more they will be engaged in the accountability tours with the metropolitan police department more frequent home visits more frequent office visits and all of them are usually subjected to routine substance abuse testing we will also probably put some of those on g s to monitor their behavior based on their risk level and so as they progress and do well then their supervision or less level can be lessened well  that it is very i say active we have approximately eight hundred twelve people on g p s right now and we have trained not only the metropolitan police department but the capitol police park police and so they all have the ability to go in and look and monitor all g p s system we have been able to assist the police department in solving crimes because we're able to detect if the offenders are in close proximity to an  of warrants for of offenders that's out on the street today yes we do have a backlog of warrants however we have been working very closely with the parole commission and addressing all of those warrants and the metropolitan police department has an initiative now that they want all of our warrants and all the p s a so they can go out and pick some of them up as well let me ask you about them appear in court martial dishonest and the district court mar l under the senatorial courtesy that the president has given me i have now advertised to go before my commission first people for who wish to be superior court marshal because that is a federal appointment and district court martial now i called in the superior is working you know there marshals that come from all over the united states this is needed because after all this is that all mortals can can can fit in it looks like an office doing the best it can but without any leadership never there and works in collaboration with the marshal service so therefore some of our warrants that need to be picked up there able to look at an act or i meet all do you think the backlog has has anything to do with  staffing at the marshal service or i really can't address that i don't know if you're warrants are proceeding as you would expect when they probably need to  be some improvement yes well that's not improvement in management and you can speak to whether or not they're not marshals all i can tell you most poteat is i need some guidance i'm now looking for somebody who can staff that office as it should be staffed i have had complaints from people who are from developers that you can't get marshals to go out even after the district is through with all this process these are very concerned with any let me ask you a that's kind of a uniform approach to public safety that results in lack of public safety there's got to be some differences among the people and that's what  example concerned that you move toward the best practices the best data the best information and i know under your new leader that you have been much better very concerned about this this salient fact or notion that was and here i make a point this commission is in the throes of a huge transformation what the united states government did was to say fiscal reasons we got to have someone to do supervise so it created the sofa for the first time and it gave new life to the parole commission and this parole commission is the in many ways when i asked the chairman about the salient facts are i'm asking about the old before federal parole was abolished system my grandfather system is what i'm asking about what we're asking cisneros particularly the commission and certainly says so so w must work in league with this and again with your partners light the public defender service we are asking you to transform a federal agency which will continue to be a federal agency into a sensually a local parole agency no parole understand and you're not local and you're answerable to congress and not directly to the district of columbia there is heard of in the history of the united states we do not give local functions to the to a federal agency that's what we're asking you to do and that's why i understand i'm always what's a call g to turn it on its head because the greatest lustration of this subcommittee is seeing how little of a federal agency can automatically be adapted to the new role you have been given for example by the way the b o p which also got this new responsibility brewer prison bad is prisons are this is the best one in the united states and in the whole world  for me to say that about a prison is the top from how bad perhaps others are but i must say that this bureau of prisons has been responsive to us all we had to do was to hold a hearing and we did get the state of the art drug program open to district residents we did get a new facility build a beverage we did i went along without the change we did with oversight when we were  there was no oversight of this d c madam but i'm interested in this both at risk first and how often in this country we ignore risk in providing for remedy now this data from the justice department people with mental illnesses who may not appear as the people who are at highest risk they haven't committed for example perhaps the a violent crime but here i'm quoting and face a significant clinical legal and socioeconomic challenges are life as likely as people without mental illness to have the community supervision revokes knowing bad just that bit of information it seems to me they almost surely would go to the front of the line in need of supervision and perhaps in need of something to keep them from going over the top since they are more likely than others can i ask you how they would rate versus osa in your risk categories thirteen percent of the offenders under your supervision are in this category whether or not they are high risk or not th there risk because of mental illness and substance abuse county puts them at some risk of failing progress well congresswoman yes they they are risks that we treat this population a little different only because we recognize the fact that they have sometimes they are dualie diagnosed not only with the mental illness but what the substance abuse and sold there for one of the things that we did do was create additional teams to supervis population with lower case load ratios and we offer more trees now this week this re offending that we are sending but but yeah in the sense that they lose their probation status and that occur in the district twice as often as that study i believe was a national study i'm sorry which was this loss of their probation status twice is likely a plea without notice and to have the community's supervision revoke that was from a national study i believe does that occur in the district of columbia that these people who have mental disorders co existing with their other problems  to my colleagues that many of our clients do have mental health issues and could use increased support and assistance in being successful on parole and in this data may not be available i'm asking this vendors who have diagnosed mental illnesses perhaps with other under diagnosed conditions this is the study says they almost have on diagnosis condition somebody has said that they have a mental illness of some kind and if they've been in the b o p i think those diagnoses are reliable and then because i'd like to see what happens with those people midst because i don't know where they would fall in a bias list of violent or nonviolent all i know is national study disturbs me about what kind of responsibility and i'm very very pleased to hear you say  that they do get increased supervision and the rest i'd just like to know what the outcomes are for that very high risk group but i'd like to ask mr horn in your testimony seemed to speak to say the new york city point in my experience many of the people in prison and jail who are diagnosed with a mental illness are as likely to be diagnosed with depression and anxiety as with some form of a causes them discomfort whether it's hallucinations or or voices or whatever or simply depression or anxiety and they can relieve it by using cocaine or heroin or alcohol or marijuana which are more pleasurable if you will than some of the very power to drop legal pharmaceuticals yes the other thing that we have found is that there is a very high correlation between individuals who are mentally ill and individuals who are both homeless and in turn out of jail oftentimes we refer to them as frequent users we found ten percent of our jail population new york city for example had over a five year period been both in jail four times and in homeless shelters four times in that five year period making very great to have you done what were you able to get people with mental conditions to use their pharmaceuticals well there are several challenges the first is we have to make sure that there is a way of paying for their access to that treatment in a community that means for the team in the committee that means making sure they are eligible for medicaid they almost surely have probably are but many of them may have lost their eligibility while they were in prison because they failed to register or because federal law requires that their medicaid be suspended while they're the other thing is they need they need assistance with housing and they need intensive case management what we didn't done in new york is we have coupled what we call intensive case management that is workers who work in lucidly the mentally ill offender have no more than ten clients in the community and the other thing we've done is we've given them priority for subsidized housing and we have found a way both using medicaid as well as private foundation funds to give them wrap services they require a great deal of support in the community following really cannot deal with the way you deal with the average non mentally ill offender and expect them to succeed they require a great deal well let me go  the program yes initially we had decided that we were going to have a woman however doing the stages we determined and found that we had an increasing population of co occurring in mental health and we elected to open women's unit when we go full blown and then see the correctional treatment facility that's the pilot program we just started and we will have a women's unit and they are and they were tell you you've been in violation of federal law i don't care what the reason greater since no matter what you talk about a woman want to get back her children is most likely to get them back if at all possible when she is released it is a simply a violation of federal law to have a unit paid for by the united states government that excludes women and thirty days of this committee so the chairman needs a plan yet founder stan you're talking i want to know i want a plan that would be implemented beginning this fiscal year begins october first and this is a member of congress has worked very hard to get to so some money i'd like a plan within thirty days and i'd like a plan that will be implemented by remember you get your new month on october first the plan should be given it implementation no later than january first to pull you out of violation of federal law not to mention what did what what what how it bypasses women who may be in need of treatment i think frankly they'll be far fewer and what it would have taken nothing to set aside a few places for women that needs to be done right away let me quickly go on very concerned  while these people have had their federal parole vala their parole revocation by federal agencies that's that's something we've got to do something about then whole point of transferring these responsibilities to the us parole commission and creating the sosa is to take all responsibility for federal forms are for public safety for detaining and maintaining them from the d c government as far as i'm concerned is a violation of revitalization act so what we do is to transfer to the district of columbia a centrally  sponsibility meaning district budget pays for detention for two to four months while you're waiting for parole revocation hearings at the jail and designation to the b prisons also of course the federal agency now i think it is hankins testified you have discretion whether to hold a man in jail or not i certainly want to make sure that they're not  jail without the appropriate factors and circumstances being provided but if you have the discretion if these people are being into the community and what do they tell you yes ma'am and in fact sometimes we have to go back and ask them well they reconsider you know some of the cases we even have staff at the halfway houses that are there to work when the standards transition out  remember that when we first got this responsibility we showed huge huge declines it was sort of the through the halfway house mechanism and then there's got to be the number and they got to be  project empowerment but we're not sure that when the federal government took over imprisonment and parole whether or not that left the city feeling that there was not the kind of responsibility that they had before indeed any responsibility except that if people from the way or otherwise if they are  services they're going to be our services i'd like your view of what you think the city facing huge problems with funding  tension but it simply doesn't have the funding remembering that says so so has major responsibility for supervision not the city as someone who brought up the city i thought our ask you what further the city should be doing so that i could speak with the council and the mayor to see if new things might be possible from the city working with the cells and with the commission one thing  almost always  percent may not be particularly impressive in comparison to say an appellate court review of trials judges i don't know what i thought was sort of more interesting was talking to my colleagues who do have now a lot of experience before the parole commission represent have represented over ninety percent of parolees and supervised supervised at revocation hearing and when i say if you win a hearing a hearing and gone below the guidelines i've asked my colleagues is that when how often is that reversed how often does the repeal to improve what's happened at the at the examination it's the fifteen percent that pretty much always gets decided against our client that i think that i think is the more stunning statistic not necessarily eighty five percent of furhman but that when were one hundred percent of the fifteen percent by the time they get to that many appeals then i'd have to ask you how much overturning would you expect to occur about that how about at least one in the past kind of putting these two parts of the process together so that we know what is the sanction  kinds of sanctions that are used at the social level what kinds of sanctions when you get to the commission level would you help us understand how you are putting together a new system that relies on sanctions to bring compliance before an offender repeatedly i would call them graduated sanctions beginning with the sosa and graduating if need be to the commission level so that we're talking about one system where you begin with and i use the word sanction to mean if improvement is not made you're on your way back to  jail how would graduated sanctions work how are they working now so that when this high can say as you'd expect one in a decade to be overturned you could say more than what common sense tells me if you've gone through so many steps maybe you wouldn't expect even one to be overturned but i don't know because i don't know what the graduation is up to the point where you have a really serious appeal i would say because by the time you get to the commission it ought to be a dead serious appeal and there should have been corrections that perhaps would have been made but for certain complexity in this in this situation so i need to know how this system that we've been trying to understand way so that all to mostly the offender would with the graduated sanctions get to understand that he is deeply now in trouble and either change his behavior or head toward the ultimate sanction of being put back in jail when you talked about the graduated sanctions just let me give you a brief example you know oftentimes you start with the least type of form of sanctions for the offender and it may be a verbal reprimand well let's say an offender has positive urines and you continue to do verbal reprimand verbal reprimand you're really not addressing the problem and all the offender kno is that if i use drugs the only thing that you're going to do is give me a verbal reprimand this new sanction matrix will apply the appropriate chime question to the correct behavior or example how many verbal rebel recommand reprimand i understand that and criminal justice system everything has some discretion yes it does but if there's no rule to say you know x number of verbal or however you say you've graduated to the next thing i don't know why anybody should take these are very smart people criminals aren't dumb they believe did capture and they've had some success in the primal justice system so i'm looking for sanctions that work at all predictable if they're not predictable then who cares and that's what we tend to incorporate think sanctions that are predictable but i also might say that part of that even though we may be a problem and we really have a problem no it's not a problem but we want to make sure here again that it's the appropriate sanction so that by the time it gets to the commission they will be able to determine that we have exhausted everything different i'm not looking for sentencing guidelines or proxy for sentencing guidelines here here i know you know that this terrible system we're trying to get rid of i don't want to see any version of it repeated in this system but  i think the chances for abuse by the staff is greater indeed when in fact there's not appropriate training on the one hand and when the offender does not predictably know that unless there is extraordinary reason x numbers of this is all back going to get you to the next sanction not back to jail but to the next sanction window when would a system at least predictably forecast through the relief resident bearing in mind that there has to be appropriate expression when can we expect such a system such a matrix to be in use from so so up through and including the us parole commission congressman norton there is a system already in place which is only enhancing that system you know now don't give me bureaucratic talk i just said you know i know there is a system and i compliment the sosa on that system but you cannot tell today or at least you haven't thus far told me that someone who has had x number of reprimands knows he's on his way to the next part of what the next four would be or that is written down the challenge what the next party will be and i think time this kind ins gets which case before the commission i don't know you may represent people before so says well she ought to be able to point to something that was in place that hasn't taken place or you ought to be able to say the rule is that unless there are extraordinary circumstances x number of reprimands and then you now go on to and by the way what would you go on to have to verbal reprimand it least as reliable as one another g p s is more controllable where we can monitor what the offender is but why would anybody have somebody come and you know every day if g p s is more reliable sometimes we have people come if they are like unemployed and they come and they may go to their day reporting system center and so therefore they would be saying they're c s l and they'll be telling them exactly what they have done to where they have gone throughout the day if they've gone quite the graduated sanctions model although the questions that you're asking are precisely some of the arguments our attorneys might make which might be why a hearing examiner would say i'm not going to give you a twelve month hit because i you know i'm going to reinstate you because because your c s o maybe needs to help you find treatments or something like that our concern is one of our concern is that the final decision gets made and it is  frequently in the fifteen percent where it's overturned we're going to go back to the twelve months it forget that we're going to reinstate you or that we're only going to give you four months we're going to take a back up to the twelve months and we don't know how that decision got made but there's a slightly different sort of case which is the example you earlier for example of driving without a license there are sort of new offenses which isn't about graduated sanctions which is maybe a case was brought into court and it was dismissed and now there's a there's an allegation of a violation for having committed a new offense and my colleagues are able to convince the hearing examiner that this that this allegation is unsubstantiated now does without it but the hearing but the final it earlier said you're in the throes of recreating the commission itself that means looking at how the commissioners make these decisions if these graduated sanctions w and we certainly are not really the real locking them up once they are out of prison so i ask you is it your impression that we are sending offenders back to jail or roll violations and managed to get themselves a job yes yes we are sending them back have mercy should not be a factor that that how often does that occur i mean if you vanished a whole again even though there is a violation how large a factor does being employed way and whether or not to put you back in jail  make some other mistakes maybe they've tested positive mr horn is gone and tested positive for marijuana or you know you always say that somebody has tested positive got a job and they're going to send them back to jail well  believe they are detained they are detained for months later if they are reinstated while they probably have lost that job because everyone is detained now now now that's go back to that the sosa and protean and commission of forward isn't that counterproductive that person is unlikely is he not to flee if he's managed to get a job  forward was appointed at my request when i was in the minority to as a commissioner he became the only commissioner who would do sanctions hearings so most hankins is left here with some people who are going through this process the old process because there's only one chief forward and the reason they're having you all at the same table is important is that it says to the committee that we probably ought to have more people doing sanctions hearings rather than have the pressures loss of a job by detaining a really changing of alessi be counterproductive go against our own guard against this is that we ought to do everything short of a rest and somebody's nation great to use of summonses would help to rectify some of that as we look at what the group of people that we're going to try to put him in treatment and put him in treatment and he walks out because there is no requirement that you stay that the person can walk away so that's one reason why  year budget to ask you to testify before them so that we can get enhanced appropriation for the treatment that could keep somebody who has a draw from finally just walking away because he's so addicted factors employment as shocking as it is that we might send someone back to jail who has a job it happens and it happens all the time because having employment isn't a salient factor score and it leads right in to the i don't care whatever else the salient fact that they didn't tell me they have just told me everything i need to know the so you can i want to ask you to set a date on it but you know this proteas and commission forward there will be waiting to see that go byebye soon and i'll ask you to tell me what the soon as you mentioned study is not only recently come out i'll be asking you shortly to tell me how soon that can be let me lead let me ask question about the last big injustice that caught my attention when this matter first came to our attention a few days a few years ago and that's about three time which required the district of columbia good to adopt a new law you know it struck me in the face of the district of columbia residents spend longer have longer sentences than any any inmates in the united states of america and i said how can i be as a progressive jurisdiction how did that happen and come to find out that time spent on parole before revocation just in counsel you but i clean and good for how many times some terrible happened i don't know what happened maybe the woman you've been with your wife left you i don't know what make me understand the following except when off and off then that is convicted of a felony or sometimes a misdemeanor while on parole and in situations where offenders are do not quote respond to any reasonable request in quote by the parole commission so that looks like a lot of discretion on the part of the commissioner even for sosa when it comes to street for misdemeanor and looks like he can get it for a felony i'm not even sure how that decision was made but it is a home rule decision i think it must works my understanding is it requires a conviction in court isn't it isn't it isn't that a case can get dismissed in court and there's a new conviction in court that person is probably going to be sentenced on that anyway so the question of whether they need to lose their street time on top of getting sentence on a new offense and getting perhaps a sanction for that time they still have to lose there good time is a third punishment for the  misdemeanors i'm sorry you don't get sentence for all men misdemeanors if if if the offense it would strike me if the offense is serious enough that someone should lose their good time for it then they probably have gotten  was was a lot broader it got essentially seriously cut back to mirror the federal system because part of the a little little part of the revitalization act that said that the district cannot change its own parole laws without the concurrence of the u s attorney general and so while the hearing before the council was unbelievably moving and i think the votes were there absolutely the votes were there to have passed a broader bill we had a meeting with the department of justice and a number of and a number of their of the agencies in the department of justice and they said you're not getting that much that way and they were i was in the counsel that was not really fair to call the count when it was review this as well if what the district was caught having to get the system justice department to agree to whatever did that's fair under  administrative law if there's been a change in the administrative agency that can be reviewed asking staff to have that matter reviewed by the justice department to see whether any changes  least by the city council in which case we would so advise them but i think each and every one of you for being here we use these hearings for purpose we're trying to get something done not just find out what you know what you know has been exceedingly helpful to us and i know to the committee we understand that the subcommittee chair has under his jurisdiction not only disprove the love you but four bills on the floor which cover multiple sosa and all who work with them redesign the u s role commission to fit the residents of the district of columbia thank you very much and will will fare for the next panel final thank you for having  and mr james parker also on supervisory release mr parker is an employee of the district's department of public works i'm going to ask mr parker mr green and mr green and mr parker which ever in which or ever order you desire to testify and i want to thank you before you speak for being willing to come forward to assist the subcommittee in the united states congress this subcommittee tries whenever possible and whenever appropriate to hear not only from the agencies whose job it is to tell us what the agencies are trying to do and how successful they think they are and we heard from some agencies are trying very diligently for us but we can't get a true picture without talking to the clientele of the agency the public that acts with the agency that's why your testimony is as important to us this afternoon as the testimony you have just sat through to hear so many i hear from whoever wants to speak for us we do identify yourself tell where your voice and tell us something about yourself you see those sanctions as as more and more of a warning and more and more serious or restraint on your release well what made the program with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country also trying to find employment in the city gave you a job in the city yes we will try to find out because we know there are quite  substantial significant number of jobs city jobs that now go to those who've been released on the road we will ask god to so so they try to help us pinpoint though so you were there you don't have a job you go to that program yes and is that also approach project empowerment program ok i'm not sure who runs that program but it is important that here mr green does not have a job now however i suppose it is so so they give him credit for going to get his ged and for doing job readiness so that he's not on the street competing with people who have no record he's out here trying to be ready to compete with people who have no record could i ask you in your  its issues and so certain the commission not to mention the bureau of prisons are left to deal with those issues i just want to say as your congressman represents you that i'm proud to represent you pro you well you have done i had a whole lot more advantages just starting out with coleman in vila homes as parents was all the advantage there most people need to start that and their life takes care of itself and it wasn't in the most crime ridden part of the city either so i got to judge you from where you started and i bet you've been willing to come forward and tell us not only where you are now but didn't you didn't start with your life story you could've said well first let me tell you about having no daddy and you know my mom i have the right made by ourselves and being raised in south east when i had to bring that out of you because i want into you now that we're not put into your lives your early lives by your own families perhaps and certainly not until you got through the criminal justice system so now mr parker you are a taxpaying resident of the district of columbia and agreed if you stay in that program are you learning a trade and getting your ged i look forward to your being a taxpayer because we are looking increasingly in the employment sector for people who have been through it and brought home a job means everything and that's why you will find that there will be people looking for you when this great recession is over and i appreciate that when we came looking for you you were willing to step forward so that we would know what these services mean and so that you give me ammunition to go before the appropriation committee to make sure that there is more of those services available to the district of columbia and available also to s to the us role commission to the by the public defender services and to those who work in partnership with them thank you very much for coming forward thank you to all our witnesses this hearing is