U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–377 PDF 2005

CONFRONTING RECIDIVISM: PRISONER RE-ENTRY

PROGRAMS AND A JUST FUTURE FOR ALL

AMERICANS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Serial No. 109–10

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 2, 2005 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Davis, Hon. Danny, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois ............................................................................................................ 32

Nolan, Pat, Prison Fellowship; Joseph Williams, Transition of Prisoners;

Chaplain Robert Toney, Angola Prison, Louisiana; Frederick A. Davie,

senior vice president of public policy, Public/Private Ventures; and

George A.H. Williams, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities .... 88

Davie, Frederick A. ................................................................................... 112

Nolan, Pat .................................................................................................. 88

Williams, George A.H. ............................................................................... 117

Williams, Joseph ....................................................................................... 100

Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio ................................................................................................................ 20

Wilkinson, Reginald A., Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections Agency; Lorna Hogan, mother advocate, the Rebecca Project for Human

Rights, Washington, DC; Felix Mata, Baltimore City’s Ex-Offender Initiative, Mayor’s Office of Employment Development; Paul A. Quander,

District of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;

and Jim McNeil and David Russell, mentor and protege in the

Innerchange Freedom Initiate ..................................................................... 37

Hogan, Lorna ............................................................................................. 53

McNeil, Jim ................................................................................................ 72

Mata, Felix ................................................................................................. 58

Quander, Paul A., Jr. ................................................................................ 63

Russell, David ............................................................................................ 75

Wilkinson, Reginald A. ............................................................................. 37

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 8

Davie, Frederick A., senior vice president of public policy, Public/Private

Ventures, prepared statement of ................................................................. 114

Hogan, Lorna, mother advocate, the Rebecca Project for Human Rights,

Washington, DC, prepared statement of ..................................................... 55

Mata, Felix, Baltimore City’s Ex-Offender Initiative, Mayor’s Office of

Employment Development, prepared statement of .................................... 60

McNeil, Jim, mentor and protege in the Innerchange Freedom Initiate,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 73

Nolan, Pat, Prison Fellowship, prepared statement of .................................. 93

Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 26

Quander, Paul A., District of Columbia Court Services and Offender

Supervision Agency, prepared statement of ............................................... 66

Russell, David, mentor and protege in the Innerchange Freedom Initiate,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 77

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

Toney, Chaplain Robert, Angola Prison, Louisiana, information concerning Louisiana State Penitentiary ................................................................. 111

Wilkinson, Reginald A., Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections Agency, prepared statement of ............................................................................. 41

Williams, George A.H., Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 119

Williams, Joseph, Transition of Prisoners, prepared statement of .............. 103

(1)

CONFRONTING RECIDIVISM: PRISONER REENTRY PROGRAMS AND A JUST FUTURE

FOR ALL AMERICANS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder, Shays, Harris, Porter, Westmoreland, McHenry, Dent, Cummings, Davis of Illinois, Clay, Watson, Ruppersberger and Norton.

Staff present: Marc Wheat, staff director and counsel; Brandon

Lerch, professional staff member; Nick Coleman, professional staff

member and counsel; Pat DeQuattro and Dave Thomasson, congressional fellows; Malia Holst, clerk; Earley Green, minority chief

clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Tony Haywood, minority counsel.

Mr. SOUDER. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice will now

come to order. Actually, this is a full committee hearing. Although

this topic has been set up under the Subcommittee on Criminal

Justice, it is a full committee hearing; and I appreciate Chairman

Davis as well as Ranking Member Henry Waxman allowing us to

move ahead, even though our committee hasn’t been fully organized yet this year. So while I presume I will continue to be chairman of this subcommittee, it is not yet official.

So good afternoon. I thank all of you for being here. Particular

thanks to the many witnesses who have traveled great distances to

be here.

The impetus for this hearing is owed to the gentleman from

Ohio, Mr. Rob Portman, and the gentleman from Illinois, a longtime member of this subcommittee, an active member, Danny

Davis. Their leadership has brought the issue of prisoner reentry

to the fore of domestic policy.

Many thanks as well to the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah

Cummings. With so much activity swirling around us at the beginning of the 109th Congress, many schedules are quite full. But Mr.

Cummings’ commitment to this issue has helped to bring us together today, and for that I am grateful.

Crime statistics have been debated for decades, but not until recently have these debates included the crisis of recidivism. Thanks

certainly is owed to the two Members of Congress testifying today

2

for raising the profile of this issue, but much of the credit is owed

to those who have been in the recidivism trenches for years.

After more than a decade of tough crime policies, according to

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 2 million Americans are held

in Federal, State or county jails. Over 4 million Americans are on

parole or probation.

It should be surprising to no one that well over half a million inmates are being released every year. Logical questions arise:

Where do these people go? What job skills do they have? Who hires

them? Are they rehabilitated? The answers to these questions are

not very encouraging.

Many of those paroled and released inmates will return to prison

within 3 years. According to the Government Accountability Office,

in 1998, the percentage of reincarcerations among all admissions at

State and Federal prisons was 35 percent, up from 17 percent in

1980. Broader surveys show recidivism rates of nearly two-thirds

of all inmates.

Representing a revolving door in the American justice system,

this recidivism rate indicates a massive failure of the penal system

to return law-abiding citizens to society. The first failure is clearly

inmates themselves, many of whom enjoy few advantages and bear

many burdens upon their release.

Second, however, the system also fails the American public. Indeed, many released inmates will commit violent crimes on innocent victims.

The government institutions and faith-based and community organizations addressing recidivism are addressing one question:

How do we reform a system whose participants often return to the

same old behavior which the system was originally designed to

deter?

As more States and more community and faith-based groups address recidivism, the need for a national strategy becomes clearer.

Moreover, the recent Booker Supreme Court decision on sentencing

guidelines may result in the release of many more prisoners than

otherwise expected.

The U.S. Department of Justice Young Offender Initiative, for instance, provides grants for State and community cooperation in parolee supervision and accountability. At the State level, Texas is

considering placing its inmate release programs with the

InnerChange Freedom Initiative, which already runs numerous

programs in cooperation with the State.

The witnesses assembled today have all brought down the rate

of recidivism by making better men and women of released prisoners. All of them are heroes in our eyes.

Today we will learn more about national strategies from two expert Members of Congress and a host of State, local and private

sector leaders. We will have policymakers on the same panel with

a current parolee and his mentor.

On another panel, we will have reentry program graduates and

reentry program leaders. We will also hear from a prison chaplain

3

who leads this vital reentry work from the moment inmates began

their sentences.

Thank you again for being here today. I look forward to hearing

more about recidivism from our experts with us today.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. SOUDER. Now I would like to yield to Criminal Justice Subcommittee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I

thank you for holding today’s hearing on prisoner reentry, one of

the most profound challenges facing America today.

On any given day in America, as many as 2 million men and

women are incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and local

jails, more than 80 percent of whom are involved in substance use.

In 1996 alone, taxpayers spent over $30 billion to incarcerate these

individuals, who are the parents of 2.4 million children. A fourfold

increase in incarceration rates over the past 25 years, largely a result of efforts to protect communities from drugs and violent crime,

has spawned problems and challenges of its own.

Each year, 630,000 individuals leave State and Federal prisons

and return home. All too often, they are ill-equipped to fully participate and constructively as members of families and communities to whom they return. The reentry or reintegration into civil

society of these individuals represents an enormous challenge that

requires the involvement of multiple layers and sectors of society.

Inmates often leave prison with little preparation for life on the

outside or assistance in their reintegration, increasing the likelihood they will be returned to prison for a new crime or parole violation. This cycle of removal and return of large numbers of young

adults, mostly men, is especially pronounced in communities that

are already experiencing enormous social and economic disadvantages.

The importance of prisoner reentry as a societal concern in my

State of Maryland cannot be overstated. In 2001, 9,448 people were

released from Maryland prisons. That is nearly twice the number

released two decades ago. During 2001, 97 percent of all men and

women released from Maryland prisons returned to communities in

Maryland. Of those prisoners who returned to Maryland, well over

59 percent returned to one jurisdiction in the State, Baltimore City.

The flow of prisoners was further concentrated in a small number

of communities within Baltimore City, many of them in my district.

A recent study showed that 30 percent of the 4,411 released prisoners who returned to Baltimore City returned to just 6 of 55 communities. These high-concentration community areas in Baltimore,

which already face great social and economic disadvantages, may

experience reentry costs to a magnified degree. In addition, while

these numbers represent individuals released from Maryland prisons after serving sentences of 1 year or more, it is important to

note that approximately 5,000 additional inmates are released to

Baltimore City each year after having served jail time, typically

less than 1 year.

Release presents offenders with a difficult transition from the

structured environment of the prison or jail. Many prisoners after

release have no place to live, no job, family or social support. They

often lack the knowledge and skills to access available resources for

adjustment to life on the outside, all factors that significantly increase the risk of relapse and recidivism. In addition, legal measures designed to create disincentives for drug abuse and crime can

complicate efforts to reestablish a foothold in society.

7

In recent years, the high rate of recidivism has generated broadbased interest in finding effective ways to address prisoner reentry

issues across many sectors of society. For its part, Congress has authorized nearly $100 million for reentry initiatives involving various agencies.

Our first two witnesses today are colleagues who have worked on

a bipartisan basis to produce legislation that will renew and improve Federal reentry programs. I would like to commend both

Representative Rob Portman and Representative Danny Davis for

their attention and commitment to this very serious issue of reentry and for your work on your legislation that has garnered support from many quarters. It is encouraging to see this problem,

which affects my district so severely, being recognized so broadly

and addressed on a bipartisan basis.

I supported H.R. 4676 as a cosponsor in the last Congress, and

I intend to do the same when it is reintroduced in this Congress.

I would be remiss not to say, however, that there are serious impediments to successful reentry that are not addressed in this bill.

Some of them are of Congress’ own creation. The Federal student

aid ban, which denies education aid to applicants who have been

convicted of a drug crime, is but one of these. We have discussed

it at length in this committee. I hope that, as this bill moves forward, we can work together to make it as comprehensive as we

can. A comprehensive approach to reentry will provide ex-offenders

their best chance to become full and constructive participants in

our society, while making our communities safer.

To help us understand the challenges of reentry and the strategies that are being employed to address them, we have a diverse

panel of witnesses who include representatives of government

agencies, service providers, ex-offenders, mentors and advocates. I

would like to thank all of our witnesses for their participation in

today’s hearing and extend a particular welcome to Mr. Felix Mata,

who manages Baltimore City’s Ex-Offender Task Force on behalf of

our mayor, Mayor O’Malley.

I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and, with that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. SOUDER. Let me first, before I see if further Members have

opening statements, since it is our first hearing of the year and we

have, as I mentioned earlier, not organized and won’t be until next

week officially, introduce a number of our Republican Members,

three of whom are new to Congress.

Congresswoman Harris has been a member of this committee for

some time. Welcome. Congressman McHenry from North Carolina.

Congressman Westmoreland from Georgia. Congressman Porter,

who has been a member of the committee before, from Nevada.

Congressman Dent from Pennsylvania. Welcome to our committee.

On the Democratic side, these are our stalwarts on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. In addition to Ranking Member Mr.

Cummings, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland, our delegate and honorable representative from the District of Columbia, Eleanor

Holmes Norton, who has been very active in this committee, and

Mr. Clay from Missouri. We thank you all for your leadership.

Congresswoman Harris, do you have any opening comments?

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and thank you

for scheduling this hearing on such an important issue.

Before I begin, I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the

members of the committee on your vision and aggressiveness concerning this issue, and I also want to applaud Congressman Rob

Portman for his outstanding leadership as well. Together, we will

produce safer communities and neighborhoods for our families.

I had the opportunity to testify before Judiciary as a witness

with Congressman Portman in the last congressional session, because criminals who have used society’s second chances to commit

further crimes have an undeniable effect on our communities, and

tragically their actions often affect our most vulnerable citizens,

our children.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the more than

272,000 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5 percent were rearrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors 3 years later. Almost one-half were reconvicted. These

numbers point to a deeply troubling trend in our criminal justice

system; and, more disturbing, a Department of Justice study indicates that sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested

for sex crimes than non-sex offenders.

Last year, in my congressional district, we experienced an unspeakable tragedy that was allegedly caused by a repeat offender.

A young girl, an 11-year-old, Carlie Brucia, was kidnapped, brutally raped and murdered. Following the arrest of Carlie’s accused

murder, we learned that this man should have been behind bars

when the crime took place. He possessed a long history of criminal

activity, including conviction for aggravated battery. He had been

arrested 13 times and placed on probation three times since 1993.

In fact, he was in police custody on an unrelated cause when he

was linked to this crime.

In response to this tragedy, I introduced legislation entitled

Carlie’s Law during the 108th Congress. This bill would have expanded the grounds for mandatory revocation of probation and supervised release, encompass violent felony crimes or an offense intended to facilitate unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

16

While we must ensure that dangerous criminals remain where

they belong, in prison, I also strongly believe we must offer more

opportunities for rehabilitation. Prisoners must have the opportunity to do more than sit idly. That is why I support giving prisoners the opportunity to learn a skill and achieve their GED.

The bill that Congressman Portman introduced in the 108th Congress proposed a comprehensive grant program consisting of educational, vocational and rehabilitation opportunities for individuals

that are reentering society. This legislation continues to create a

meaningful effort to reduce criminal recidivism.

We might also attack this crisis by learning from outstanding

successes in State and local programs. Sheriff Charlie Wells in

Manatee County, FL, has operated a successful boot camp for juvenile repeat offenders since 1993. This program includes a tough

physical and academic regime that focuses on rehabilitation, not

abuse, and for over 10 years the Camp has reformed 55 percent of

its repeat juvenile offenders.

So as we focus on examples like this and programs across the

Nation, I think we can make tremendous progress in battling

criminal recidivism and focusing heavily on these issues relating to

security in the 109th Congress.

Let us remember that nothing is more fundamental to this Nation than the ability of our children to walk and run and play in

our communities without fear. For this reason, I look forward to

this committee on the issue of criminal recidivism and prisoner reentry programs to reduce the likelihood that convicted offenders become repeat offenders.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this

hearing on a very important issue. Congressman Cummings, thank

you for your dedication.

I also want to acknowledge Congressmen Portman and Davis. It

is great to see a Republican and Democrat sitting together at the

table, working together to help resolve this issue.

Obviously we need to do something, because the current system

that we have right now just is not working. I was a former prosecutor, and I understand the burden that recidivism creates on local

law enforcement and on all of our local governments. In fact, all

levels of government must increase the priority of combating recidivism and create new and innovative ways to help prisoners or people who have been arrested before if we are to be successful.

As Baltimore County executive in the State of Maryland, I would

say, when I had that position, Elijah Cummings was one of my

Congressmen. We developed two programs that I would like to just

briefly talk about, because I think it is so important when we have

a hearing we talk about solutions, and I think that is what you are

here today to talk about.

The first program was the Police Athletic League. We made a

policy decision to put a Police Athletic League in every precinct in

our county. Our county has less than 800,000 people. As a result

of having the police and our recreation and parks working together

in a non-combative way with police officers, we were able, after the

program got started, to get 5,000 juveniles off the street.

17

In order to be able to get the kids or children that we really

needed to get off the street, we developed a program with karate,

because then the tough guys would want to come and learn karate.

Once you get them in that program, you hook them, you develop

leadership skills, you work with them on all sorts of problems that

we needed to deal with.

It is important that we deal with an issue before it gets to the

point where someone is going to commit a murder, armed robbery

or whatever.

There was another program that was extremely successful called

the Juvenile Offenders in Need of Supervision. What we found is

there is such a burden on all of the people involved in the criminal

justice system, parole officers who might have 500 clients and all

they can do is just check in, have them check in and say what are

you doing, there is no rehabilitation, helping to get jobs, dealing

with issues involving drugs.

This Offenders in Need of Supervision Program was a program

where the police officers, as soon as an arrest would be made,

would jump on the case, would bring a teen in, if that individual

happened to be in school or work or whatever, bring them in, bring

the parents in, and work with them so that they could get to them

before they would get to the next level. That program was extremely successful. Monitoring that program, that made a tremendous difference in the rate of recidivism.

I bring up two programs like that, because whatever we need to

do, we have to have the right program, we need to hold the people

in the program accountable for the funding, and then we need to

move forward.

The other issue, if we are going to deal with the issue of priorities, we have to fund priorities, and we cannot discount the fact

that drugs is an important issue. I think the statistics say now between 75 and 80 percent of all violent crime is drug-related. If we

don’t deal with the issue of drugs and rehabilitation, we are going

to continue to have this problem.

Unfortunately, I have another hearing I have to go to, so I look

forward to hearing about this hearing. I really think this is very

important, and I again appreciate Congressmen Portman and

Davis being here, and I look forward to your involvement in this

issue. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. I was afraid your phone call was from the Intelligence Committee, but they would probably use a laser to zap you.

Delegate Norton.

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank you, Chairman Souder, because

you have begun this session with an issue of prime importance to

our country, a rising issue in the Congress, an issue that has arisen and thundered into the States who have primary jurisdiction

over criminal matters.

I want to thank Mr. Cummings for his leadership. It has been

constant on these issues, because he lives so closely with these

issues and has thought innovatively about them.

The partnership between Mr. Portman and Mr. Davis is going to

be important for anything we are able to do on this issue in the

Congress, so I appreciate that, by working together, you have started us in just the right way.

18

Mr. Chairman, this is the other side of the law and order equation. As you know from elementary algebra, both sides of the equation have to be in equipoise, and you keep working on it until you

get it right from the time you are in the 6th grade. Well, we forgot

about this side altogether. What this side is about is that these

men and women are going to come here and live right alongside

you and me in the communities that have seen them incarcerated.

Everyone understands why the emphasis on law and order had

to take place and has to continue to take place, particularly as this

phase began in the early 1990’s with a huge outbreak in crime. Everybody, particularly those who live in the inner city, were afraid

of it. The first thing you do is try to get those who are responsible

for that. That will always be the case.

In many ways, there was a pronounced overreaction, especially

in the Congress. The first results were irrational mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines that are so extreme that the Supreme

Court of the United States has now thrown them out. That happened after some of the most conservative justices on the court

began to speak openly about how the criminal justice system was

producing rank injustice, and here they were talking about mandatory minimums in the Federal system.

Mr. Chairman, a felony conviction, deserved or not—and I am

the first to concede that most of these convictions are deserved. It

is too bad we haven’t learned how to work as we must before people get such convictions. But a felony conviction is close to a death

sentence in the job market, and everything else falls in the wake

of the member of the family or the community that has that death

sentence, those who would be dependent upon him and, ultimately,

the community in which he lives.

I say ‘‘he,’’ because while there is a growing number of women

incarcerated, something about the socialization of women makes

women less inclined to be in prison. So the rates have grown largely with respect to men. And if I may just put on the record who

those men are, almost half of the men in prison are African American men. The effects of their incarceration and over-incarceration

has been absolutely devastating to the African American family.

Minimally, society that imposes employment death sentences on

people has an obligation, if they don’t care about the men and the

women, to protect the rest of us. Even as you protected us by putting them behind jail, for goodness sake, protect us when they get

out of jail. Because if indeed you get out of jail with nothing and

nobody to help you, the last thing you knew how to do was the occupation that got you back in jail, and I can assure you that men

who don’t have any other way to live will find their way to that

occupation if society does what we do.

This is what we do. We say, you have a drug conviction and you

are a kid and you got it when you were 17 years old? No Pell

grants. Sorry. We know you were young. We know things may be

better. A life sentence on getting you even to a community college

with a Pell Grant. Out of jail, done your time. You say, for goodness’ sake, I never want to see the inside of that again.

And if you have been in Federal prison, you may have even

learned a vocation. And what do you find? A whole set of occupaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
19

tions from which you are barred. Some of those occupations you

trained for in prison.

You want to be a barber? Many States say, not here.

I am not sure what that has to do with most convictions. Got out

and said, I got to find some way to improve my citizenship, and the

first thing you find is you are a felon and in one-third of the States

of the United States we are going to say to you, you will not be

able to vote now, not in 5 years, not forever. And you wonder why

there is great bitterness and anger with people who served their

time and just want some way out of all of this and find society offering them other kinds of sentences.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Norton, if you can kind of——

Ms. NORTON. I feel this very deeply. You called a hearing. I will

go more rapidly.

Because the greatest impact and the reason I feel so passionately, Mr. Chairman, is because of an issue I think we share with

you and with others across the aisle, and that is the impact on the

African American family.

I live in the communities Mr. Cummings does, where 70 percent

of the children are being raised by African American women alone,

and these children go into the streets, no jobs, only drugs and

crime available as opportunities for employment, and they go the

way of their fathers. The over-incarceration of a whole generation

of black men has condemned millions of American children, especially children of color, to poverty.

The States, Mr. Chairman, are rebelling, largely because they

are the ones that had to house most of these inmates, and the high

costs were such that they began to look for other ways out. They

have given us leadership on special diversion for first-time drug offenders with drug courts, and we need to follow suit for what the

States are doing in this regard.

You have Mr. Paul Quander here from the Court Services and

Offender Supervision Agency, which has jurisdiction in the District

of Columbia, because our inmates, our felon inmates, are in Federal prisons, in the Federal prison system, and what it does for inmates afterwards is the best in the United States. I am very

pleased you invited him here.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you have started something by the way

you have started off the 109th Congress. Thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

We are joined by Congressman Shays, the vice chairman of the

full committee, a subcommittee chair here. Thank you for coming.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I know we need to get started. I want to

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Cummings for having this hearing.

It would be nice to deal with what is really a scandalous issue

on a bipartisan basis, and I feel the passion that Ms. Norton feels

and I understand it, and it is deserved.

I just want to thank Danny Davis and Rob Portman for also acting on a very bipartisan basis for something that truly is scandalous. It is a solvable problem, and it is something we should be able

to do with a lot of heart, emotion and common sense.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Clay.

20

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. I have a brief statement.

I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Cummings for

holding this hearing on an issue of critical importance, and that is

reducing the recidivism rate. I am hopeful that our distinguished

panelists will offer constructive and thoughtful proposals on how

the Federal Government can be an effective partner in helping exoffenders successfully reintegrate into communities.

According to recent reports, over 630,000 people will complete

their sentences and be released into society this year. It has been

estimated that approximately two out of every three people released from prison in the United States are rearrested within 3

years of their release.

Given the record number of ex-inmates leaving prisons and returning to communities, it is imperative that Congress focus on

ways to reintegrate ex-offenders and close the revolving door of the

American prison system. The billions spent on corrections expenditures and the costs imposed on society make it blatantly clear that

successful reentry would ensure both safer communities and a

more efficient use of tax dollars.

I am hopeful that this hearing will provide Congress an opportunity to reshape our policies and address issues such as the lifetime ban from receiving welfare, food stamps, college tuition assistance and public housing assistance. These policies make it very difficult for prisoners to reintegrate into society and make it more

likely that they will return to a life of crime.

We can genuinely give prisoners a second chance at successful

reintegration into society by rescinding counterproductive laws. It

is my hope that we can broaden the discussion and address proposals that will lead to a more effective system.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Before proceeding, I would like to take care of a couple of procedural matters. I would ask unanimous consent that all Members

have 5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions

for the hearing record, that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and

others materials referred to by the Members and the witnesses

may be included in the hearing record and that all Members be

permitted to revise and extend their remarks.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Our first panel is composed of our colleagues, Representative Rob

Portman and Representative Danny Davis. By tradition, we do not

administer an oath to Members of Congress, because we just took

one a month ago. As an oversight committee, we generally swear

in all of our witnesses. We are exempt. We presume your other

oath binds you here.

Mr. Portman, thank you for your long-time leadership on this

issue. Thank you for being patient this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Souder.

21

We are honored to be here to testify before you today on prisoner

reentry and also reducing recidivism, and we commend you for

raising the profile of this issue, for providing a forum to discuss

this issue.

I also have to comment that we also appreciate the expertise of

your subcommittee and full committee. Just looking around the

room, we have worked closely with Ranking Member Cummings

over the years on drug prevention, community coalitions, some of

the issues related, as Mr. Ruppersberger pointed out, to this issue;

and I appreciated hearing from him again this afternoon, as well

as other members of your committee.

I will say, the legislation we are about to discuss does not have

the answers to all of our problems. It does not include every provision that everyone on this panel or certainly in this room would

want, and you will hear probably about that during the testimony

from the experts who follow us. But it is an important step in the

right direction.

With the specific reference, Mr. Cummings, to the student aid

ban, I think you will be pleased with the way we address it. We

want to work with you on that. We plan on reintroducing the bill,

as you know, next week. We worked closely with you and Mr.

Souder last year on that, and I think we can address at least most

of your concern with regard to how the student aid ban would operate, that the infraction would occur not prior to but during the time

Federal aid was being provided. So we can talk about that. But I

think, although this bill will not address every concern raised

today, that one I hope you will find it to be satisfactory.

We appreciated working with Mrs. Harris last year on Carlie’s

Law. We included some of those provisions. We are working with

her again this year.

Ms. Norton raised some great points that I think you will find

we address in this legislation with regard to recidivism and families, and that is an important part of this legislation.

Mr. Shays has been an expert on these issues and a leader, and

we appreciate the fact the vice chair of the full committee is here,

because that will help your committee deal with these issues.

Mr. Clay talked about the partnership. That is really what this

bill is about, the Federal Government being a better partner. It is

not the Federal Government stepping in to our local communities

and solving our problems, but it is providing that leverage, we

hope, at the State and local level and with community organizations, even faith-based groups, to be able to better handle this

problem.

Prisoner reentry is about reducing and preventing crime, but it

is also, as Ms. Norton said, about restoring lives. Our view is we

need to be both tough on crime but also smart on crime. We think

this legislation has that balance. We need to be tough in keeping

dangerous felons from returning and committing new crimes, but

we also need to be smart in making sure that those who are coming home are given the most basic chance to start a new life and

turn away from crime.

You all talked about the numbers here this afternoon, and I

won’t get into great detail on that, but just now over 2 million people being incarcerated, 97 percent of those people are going to get

22

out of prison, and that is whether or not the Supreme Court

changes what the sentencing guidelines are or not. People are

going to get out of prison.

As we talked about today, about 650,000 are being released from

incarceration into our communities every year. Think about that,

650,000 people coming into our communities. So these reentry into

community—these reentry numbers mean that we are all affected

by it.

Its success or failure has incredible implications for public safety,

for the welfare of children, for family reunification, for our growing

fiscal issues, and for community health. By doing a better job on

offender reentry, we can prevent crimes, we can help strengthen

our communities, and we can save taxpayer money.

Unfortunately, according to recent data from the Department of

Justice, as you have heard today, about two-thirds of those released

from prison will be rearrested within 3 years. First and foremost,

this offender reentry, then, is about preventing crime and keeping

our communities safe, to try to reduce the high rates of recidivism.

That will translate into, of course, thousands of new victims each

year if we don’t do something about it.

The social and economic costs of a 67 percent recidivism rate is

astounding. As Mr. Shays said, it is a crisis. It is one we need to

get our hands around.

Last session, we worked closely with colleagues on this subcommittee to help our States and communities better address the

problem through this Second Chance Act. It is a bipartisan approach. It helps to better coordinate at the Federal level our Federal agencies and policies on prisoner reentry. It also increases the

support to States and to community organizations to address this

growing population of ex-offenders who are returning to our communities.

The main focuses in the bill are four-fold: One, jobs; two, housing; three, substance abuse and mental health treatment; and,

four, support for families.

I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for

working with us closely last year and putting together some good

legislation and being an original cosponsor.

I also want to thank Representative Danny Davis, my partner in

this, who did a terrific job in helping to put together a good, sensible, balanced bill, and also helped us to be able to be sure that

this bill had balance in terms of its bipartisan cosponsorship.

Elijah Cummings was one of our cosponsors last year, which was

really critical in his role in our caucus and in the Black Caucus to

move this forward. I want to thank him again on this subcommittee for his work.

Also, Representative Platts on this subcommittee, Representative

Cannon, Representative Owens and others who cosponsored the

Second Chance Act last year.

We plan to reintroduce the bill next week, and Danny Davis may

talk a little more about that. But we hope we can again have a

strong cosponsorship from this subcommittee and committee working toward getting this marked up this year and getting it to the

President’s desk for signature.

23

The primary goal, as I said, is public safety in this bill. It makes

funds available to conduct studies to determine who is returning to

jail or prison, why they are returning, which present the greatest

risk to community safety. This is data we don’t have, and we need

it.

The bill also helps in development of procedures to assist relevant authorities in determining when release is appropriate, when

it is not appropriate, and the use of data to inform this released

decision.

Again, that data is not there now. This would include the use of

proven assessment tools to assess the risk factors for returning inmates and the use of technology to advance post-release supervision.

The reason I first got involved in this, as Mr. Cummings knows,

is my involvement with treatment and prevention on substance

abuse. The more I learned about this issue, as Representative

Ruppersberger talked about, the more I saw this direct connection

between substance abuse and recidivism.

The numbers are just absolutely staggering. Fifty-seven percent

of Federal, 70 percent of State inmates use drugs regularly before

prison. The Bureau of Justice Statistics now tells us that they estimate the involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the

offense is as high as 84 percent. We are just not going to get at

this issue, as was talked about earlier, without getting at this issue

of substance abuse. The continuum of care that links former prisoners who receive treatment in prison to support in the community,

without that continuum of care, recidivism is going to occur. We

need to focus on that issue in particular. That is one of our four

priorities in this legislation.

There is lots of evidence that in-prison drug treatment programs

are effective, both pre-release and post-release. The key, of course,

is that this in-prison treatment is far more effective when it is coupled with treatment in the community after the prisoner is released. When there is not this continuum of care, access to AA

meetings immediately afterwards, Al-Anon and so on, there is a

higher failure rate. That is why re-entry programs are so important.

Research shows, without post-release aftercare, results are almost the same as those inmates who didn’t receive treatment in

prison at all, which is interesting. So the need for post-release continuity applies to every domain, including drug treatment, employment services, mental health counseling and parent training. It is

critical to make sure the right connections are made during the reentry to the community.

There are several successful programs that serve many different

populations, from adult men and women to juveniles. For example,

NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse study of a California

Amity program, the California Amity program has shown a 75 percent return to custody rate after 3 years for offenders with no

treatment. That return rate dropped to 27 percent with in-prison

treatment and aftercare.

Return rates to prison of those offenders receiving treatment in

prison but not receiving aftercare or continuing care were similar

to those offenders receiving no treatment at all in prison.

24

There are lots of other studies I was going to talk about. I am

not going to mention them here. I will have them in my written

remarks. I hope, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee will have those

as part of their report.

The bottom line is, State after State, in Delaware, 71 percent for

new arrests, down to 31 percent. In Ohio, you will hear from

Reggie Wilkinson who is going to testify in the next panel, the kind

of success we have had there with our Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. We have some great stories there where,

by working with the communities in aftercare, we have been able

to see huge success in reducing recidivism.

The key element in these promising programs is this aftercare.

Whether it be drug treatment, again, mental health, job training,

parenting skills, a combination of these support services, successful

completion and reduced recidivism depend largely on the availability of these services during the transition home, during the postrelease period.

Of course, the burden on our citizens is also a major issue here.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for all of this. The average cost to

house a Federal inmate is over $25,000 a year, so there is a big

issue here with regard to the taxpayer, and with our deficit, this

is an issue that this Congress needs to be focused on. The average

cost at the State level is a little less, about $21,170 annually. Of

course, these don’t include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor

do they take into account the cost to victims.

A modest expenditure to help transition offenders back into the

community can save taxpayers thousands of dollars because of all

these costs.

There is a study in Washington State, a 2001 study, showing the

best re-entry programs can be expected to deliver 20 to 30 percent

reductions in recidivism and crime rates. If that is true, we will

save billions of dollars, if we can just receive that kind of benefit

from this program, a reduction of recidivism of 20 to 30 percent.

We think we can do even better, but certainly we can help at the

Federal level to make this happen.

Beyond these fiscal issues, one of the most significant costs of

prisoner reentry is the impact on children, the weakened ties

among family members talked about earlier, the destabilization of

our communities. As you all know, the number of kids with a parent in a Federal or State correctional institute has increased over

the last decade dramatically. It has increased 100 percent, to about

2 million kids. When expanded to children with parents under

some form of correction supervision, it is closer to 10 million children now, we are told.

This is one of my biggest concerns. The children at risk for drug

abuse and delinquency need our attention, and they are more at

risk when they are in this situation. This bill does provide resources to grandparents and other kinship care and foster care providers who care for children during parental incarceration. It also

provides State and local government with resources for family

based drug treatment to treat parents and their children as a complete family unit.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, as you know, during the President’s

State of the Union address, he made a case for the need to address

25

our reentering population. He put the issue in perspective by saying, ‘‘America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates

of prison open the path ahead should lead to a better life.’’ That

is why we call our bill the Second Chance bill.

During this address, he announced his reentry initiative with a

strong focus on job training, transitional housing and prisoner

mentoring from faith-based groups. This is an important aspect of

our Federal response to reentry. Our bill would authorize a small

component of this plan and complements the President’s larger reentry initiative.

Together, we think this provides for a comprehensive plan to

drastically change how we serve those men and women and how

we keep our communities safer. By addressing the most basic

needs of ex-offenders coming home, we can reduce the chances of

reoffending, and we can improve their success as productive, contributing citizens.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to testify before you

today, and we look forward to trying to answer any questions you

might have.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Portman follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. SOUDER. Before going to Mr. Davis, the best estimate is that

at 2 o’clock, in about 6 minutes, we are going to start a series of

four votes. What we will do after Mr. Davis’ statement is try to get

the questions in so we don’t have to hold you so we can get to the

second panel. We will go a little bit into the first vote.

It is great to have on our subcommittee one of our most active

Members and a co-leader of this effort, Congressman Davis. We

look forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Let me thank you, first of all, for your leadership and sensitivity

that you have displayed not only to this issue but also the sensitivity in rescheduling the hearing so that those Democrats who would

have found it difficult to be here and at the retreat can now do

both.

I also want to commend the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for

his upstanding leadership not only on this issue but many others,

especially those related to crime and justice in our country.

Of course, it is good to be here with Delegate Eleanor Holmes

Norton and Representative Shays, two of the most outstanding

Members, along with Representative Clay.

One of the highlights of being a Member of Congress has actually

been working with Representative Portman on this legislation. I

want to commend him for his outstanding leadership, for his sensitivity, his understanding and awareness of what I consider to be

one of the most difficult challenges and problems facing urban

America especially.

All of us are aware of the fact that rehabilitating and reintegrating prisoners back into society continues to loom as one of the great

needs of our day. The high rates of incarceration over the last decade have made this need all the more urgent as large numbers of

individuals with felony convictions are coming to the end of their

sentences.

During his State of the Union address last year, President Bush

said, ‘‘600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society this year, and these Americans are in need of help.’’

We can expect on an annual basis that this large number of released inmates from prison will continue for the next 5 years at

least and beyond.

Also, let us be mindful that local jails are releasing 7 million people each year. Many of these individuals, as you have already

heard, are never able to find a decent place to live, cannot access

various entitlement programs such as public housing, financial assistance for college and, in some instances, food stamps and are oftentimes denied employment because of their past criminal convictions.

Statistics show that nearly 52 percent of all of these individuals

will end up back in jail. As these men and women transition from

incarceration to freedom, what they need most are comprehensive

reentry solutions. With implementation of the Second Chance Act,

Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention, it calls for improving and establishing an effective reentry system to assess and

33

change those barriers that prevent ex-offenders from making a successful transition from prison to normal community life.

The Second Chance Act contains demonstration projects that will

focus on providing ex-offenders with education, job training, substance abuse and after-care treatment and assist ex-offenders with

employment and securing housing upon release from prison.

In addition, it will create a Federal interagency task force to

identify programs and resources on reentry and ways for improving

and changing the barriers that prevent ex-offenders from living a

normal, responsible and productive life in society.

Also, the Second Chance Act will establish a resource center for

States, local governments, service providers, corrections and community organizations to collect and disseminate best practices and

provide training and support around reentry.

The Second Chance Act is a good first step that will provide a

directional approach as to what works in trying to increase public

safety, reduce the cost of crime and lower the recidivism rate. Prevention, treatment and rehabilitation are just as important as incarceration. These men, women and children still have to live in

our communities.

Increasing public safety is a primary concern of our communities

and neighborhoods throughout the country. Although we know it is

going to be difficult, it can be done. For example, in the State of

Illinois last year there were 57 job titles that an ex-offender could

not hold by statute. The legislature has removed 18 of those, and

now there are 38 occupational categories where you can’t work

without some form of waiver.

For example, ex-offenders were not allowed to be a barber, to cut

hair, a nail technician, cosmetologist, cannot be a custodian in a

hospital or cut the grass around a medical center or watch dishes

at a nursing home.

Many of these ex-offenders were convicted of nonviolent offenses,

mainly drug offenses, so it is extremely difficult for ex-offenders to

find housing and get a job after they have paid their debt to society. We must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to be productive citizens in this country.

Everyone deserves a second chance. The bill before us now by my

colleague Rob Portman and I will start the process when it becomes

law to give ex-offenders hope to transition themselves back into

community life.

Finally, in my district I work a great deal with people in the

community. I have 31 task groups and work groups. And one of

those is an ex-offenders task force which represents a broad group

of members from national, local civil rights organizations, ex-offenders themselves, law enforcement officials, elected officials, community actions, faith-based organizations, block clubs, businesses.

The task force convened several focus meetings to explore the

problems and make recommendations, and in every instance one of

the basic needs that ex-offenders indicated that they had was the

need to find a place to stay, the need to have a house, the need

to have a place that they could go to once they are released from

prison.

Therefore, as a result of that, we introduced H.R. 2166, the Public Safety Ex-offender Self-sufficiency Act, which is designed to proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

vide structured living arrangements for ex-offenders by building

100,000 units of SRO-type housing throughout the country, using

a system of tax credits we call an ex-offender tax credit, where

States would receive credits on the basis of the number of ex-offenders living in the State.

Finally, I agree with Representative Portman. There is no way

that you can seriously have a reentry program that works without

substance abuse treatment. The correlation between drug use and

crime commission is so high until, in many instances, they are almost one and the same. So if we are going to seriously rehabilitate

ex-offenders and help them find their way back, then we must provide resources for treatment. We call it treatment on demand,

where when a person decides that they are ready for drug treatment they ought to be able to receive it.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. We

put that initiative on the ballot in Cook County in the last election.

A group of community residents, ex-offenders themselves, and 1.2

million people in Cook County voted to say yes we want to put

some more money into substance abuse treatment, because we

know it is a good investment.

I thank you very much and appreciate being here.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me start with a basic question here. I know this

was heavily debated when you drafted the bill, and a forum like

this is both to identify the problem and say, look, we have a problem in this country. This hearing will hopefully help make us

aware of it, but then also look at the particular legislation and say

how are you addressing this. First off, we understand; but I am not

sure everybody who may be here or watching—and this is an authorizing bill, not an appropriations bill, so the money isn’t real

money, it is guideline money. Now, even with it in that context, the bill is $112 million. We

have multiple different subsections, and this leads to two different

types of things that we are going to have to deal with as we look

at legislation like this: Can you really make a difference with $112

million, and how do you see that leveraged. And, second, given the

budget pressures that we have, do you think we can get $112 million through an authorization? It’s a challenge from both ends, and

I know it’s what you have been struggling with.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I don’t know about giving him the money

that I do.

Mr. PORTMAN. And you say that I am responsible for getting the

money.

You have put your finger on it, Mr. Chairman. We initially actually chose $100 million, and then we just liked that mentoring program so much we couldn’t find a way to cut it back, so we are figuring $112 million this year. The reason we tried to keep it at that

level was because of the physical situation we find ourselves in this

country. We are cognizant of the fact that it is going to be tough

to get an authorization bill done at much over 100. It has to do

with how we work our process in Congress and the Suspension Calendar and so on.

But having said that, we also, you know, have been very careful to keep within that bill, within that $112 million, which is substantial resources, some real leverage points for State and local governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
35

ments to be able to take what we are giving them and leverage it

into something more.

The provision of the data I talked about earlier, just providing

data so that communities know where to better target their resources; no one else is doing that. The Federal Government really

needs to provide that.

Danny talked about some other issues that we think will encourage innovation at the State and local level by having a little Federal seed money. We will get them to do some things that are innovative and we will help the whole country, because by funding

something that works, then we can spread that information, disseminate it, and we do, you know, we do have a clearing house of

information to go out around the country, of best practices, what

does work and doesn’t work, you know.

Mr. Ruppersberger talked about a couple of programs that he

thought worked very well in his county in Maryland. We ought to

have a hearing about that nationally and get that information out.

So it is not all the money that, again, some folks would like to

hear, and maybe you will hear that in your testimony.

On the other hand, given the budget realities, we think that, you

know, it’s adequate to make a big difference, and we think it’s doable in the context of our budget deficit. The return on investment

is incredible, too, as we talked about earlier. If we can get this

done, it will result in a tremendous return on the investment to the

taxpayer.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And I think that’s really the key. It’s a

minor investment in reality because the returns are so great. I

mean, just imagine, if you can redirect 100 ex-offenders, some of

whom might have committed a crime that could have cost millions

of dollars. I mean, one hit on the head, when a person is trying to

get a $10 fix on a nickel bag, can put a person in the hospital that

will run up a hospital bill for maybe a half million dollars that

would have been saved, because had the individual not been in

their state of need, then this crime perhaps never would have occurred. And so in addition to the return relative to the savings,

also the return in terms of the prevention of a crime and the prevention of a trauma and a tragic situation that develops for someone else.

So I think as tough as it is, I think the American people would

appreciate that kind of expenditure because it’s a great investment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Can I give you a back-of-the-envelope estimate—

not to spend too much on this question—but let’s assume that of

the 650,000 State and Federal prisoners getting released every

year, about half go back to prison within 3 years. We have talked

about two-thirds. Well let’s be conservative. That translates into

about 240,000 ex-offenders going in at about $25,000 a year at Federal level. Let’s assume we can reduce recidivism by about 20 percent, being conservative. We believe there are incentives in here to

be able to achieve that over time. That is $6 billion in State and

Federal prison costs.

And so we think although this is a substantial amount of money,

it is money that will be well invested and the return to the taxpayer will far exceed.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

36

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have one question, since we are limited on

time.

One of the things that, you know, as you all were talking, I was

thinking—we had some witnesses come here on another issue, and

they were talking about effective integration of services and not reinventing the wheel, not necessarily on this issue, but I was just

wondering, in negotiation a lot of times we come in with programs,

and there are already mechanisms.

For example, in the city of Baltimore, we have job-finding agencies. And sometimes folks are so busy trying to reinvent the wheel

that they go past these various entities instead of trying to, you

know, bring them all together.

I guess the thing I am concerned about is what the chairman

was just referring to. If I could spend, you know—if I had an unlimited budget, I would like to have one for this because it is just

that important. But I am just being realistic, looking at our fiscal

restraints in this time that we are in.

I was just wondering whether you all had—is the program aimed

also at pulling in agencies, State and Federal, even private, that

might already have these things that are important, and them

being a part of the process, as opposed to trying to reinvent the

wheel, you come up with a nice new wheel, but the effectiveness,

because you have to spread the money so far, is not as great as it

could be when those pieces are already out there.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I think it speaks to the issue of coordination, and I would agree with you that there are many disparate programs that exist. But I think this helps to bring those programs and centralize them so that everybody, and if not everybody,

many people now know what is, in fact, available.

But I think the other thing that it does, as we continue the discussion, the big problem is you can have a program to find jobs,

but if companies won’t hire anybody, you just got a program.

And my point is that it helps raise the level of awareness to the

extent that potential employers begin to understand that it is also

in their best interest to find ways to help put some of these individuals to work.

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things I had established long before

I came to Congress, a volunteer program to help inmates coming

out of our boot camp. We found that they were very—the boot camp

seemed to be very effective. But once they got out of the boot camp,

they went back, as I think Congresswoman Norton was saying, to

the same neighborhood, hanging with the same people, doing the

same thing. So they went back.

One of the things that we discovered, though, was that if we

could redirect, you know, the people that they hung with and the

things that they did, and could find them jobs—and we also had

some volunteers that come in and do counseling, basically the

kinds of things you are talking about—it could be very effective.

But it was very effective. I was so glad to hear you talk about jobs,

both of you, because without a job you go right back to the same

old things.

On that note, Congressman Davis, one of the things that happened is that as people began—companies began to hire people

from our little program, they did—the guys went out and ladies

37

went out there and did just such a great job, they started asking

us for the folks that were in the program, because, you know—so

one thing led to another. So there is a rainbow out here, we just

have to make sure we can reach it.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Especially if we train them well.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Work ethic. All of the things that go with

it. It is kind of a two-way street. You have to meet the individual

halfway if the individual is ready to do that. That’s what we have

to attempt to do.

Mr. SOUDER. We only have 5 minutes left in the vote. I am going

to dismiss the first panel.

On the second panel, will anybody who is back start with the

questioning. Thank you very much for your participation.

This committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER. The committee will come back to order.

As you heard me refer to in the first panel, as an oversight committee it’s our standard practice to ask all of our witnesses to testify under oath. So will you each stand, raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that all the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. My understanding is that Dr. Wilkinson,

Reginald Wilkinson of Ohio has a 3:30 flight. And so are you still

going to try to make that? But we are going to put you—we are

going to put you——

Mr. WILKINSON. I would still rather go first.

Mr. SOUDER. If you need to go first I understand that. This vote,

four votes, took a long time.

Thank you very much. Dr. Wilkinson.

STATEMENTS OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON, Ed.D., OHIO REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS AGENCY; LORNA HOGAN,

MOTHER ADVOCATE, THE REBECCA PROJECT FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC; FELIX MATA, BALTIMORE CITY’S

EX-OFFENDER INITIATIVE, MAYOR’S OFFICE OF EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT; PAUL A. QUANDER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION

AGENCY; AND JIM McNEIL AND DAVID RUSSELL, MENTOR

AND PROTEGE IN THE INNERCHANGE FREEDOM INITIATE

STATEMENT OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON

Mr. WILKINSON. Thank you.

Chairman Souder, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate

the opportunity to provide testimony at this oversight hearing. I

am now in my 32nd year as a correctional administrator and my

14th as director. A more detailed account of my experience is included in my written testimony for your review.

I would like to provide the committee with a general overview of

the importance of prisoner reentry to the field of corrections. The

field of corrections has embarked upon a major reexamination of offender reentry. In a short span of time, an impressive array of efforts has been launched at all levels of government to build more

effective and innovative responses to the notion of offender reentry.

38

For instance, the Urban Institute has hosted a series of reentry

round tables to assess the state of knowledge and to publish specialized reports on this topic.

The National Institute of Corrections in 2000 hosted two national

public hearings on a variety of correctional topics. One such topic

was offender reentry. As a result, the Transitions from Prison to

Community Project was launched.

The U.S. Department of Justice and other Federal agencies

forged a unique partnership by providing a total $100 million in

grant funding to all 50 States to address reentry for violent offenders. This project is known as the Serious and Violent Reentry Offender Initiative.

As this committee is well aware, and as you have heard from the

previous witnesses, President George W. Bush in his 2004 State of

the Union address urged Congress to support the reentry transition

of offenders.

The President’s statement that America is the land of second

chances will resonate with corrections professionals for many years

to come. We are pleased that Cleveland, OH hosted the first Annual National Conference on Offender Reentry, sponsored by the

U.S. Department of Justice. The Council of State Governments Reentry Policy Council has recently released a landmark report that

offers a comprehensive set of bipartisan consensus-based recommendations for policymakers and practitioners interested in improving the likelihood that adults released from prison or jail will

avoid crime and become productive and healthy members of families in our communities.

The report of the reentry Policy Council reflects a broad consensus achieved among diverse experts in these areas. The Second

Chance Act is consistent with those recommendations enunciated

in the council report, in that it recognizes the many complex issues

affecting individuals released from prison or jail which must be addressed to reduce recidivism.

I have wrestled with the issue of reentry for much of my professional life, and I have seen how our approach to reentry can and

should be reinvented to improve the safety and stability of America’s families and communities.

I would like to recognize the unprecedented leadership of Ohio

Congressman Rob Portman and Congressman Danny Davis and

other cosponsors of this vital legislation. This bill, when adopted,

will exert a substantial impact on reducing offender recidivism,

save precious taxpayer dollars, and provide tools to address the

myriad substance abuse, mental health, and other problems. It will

further strengthen families in communities across the country. It

is a bill that speaks to sound public policy and effective correctional

practice.

It is notable that approximately 650,000 persons, as you heard

earlier today, will be released annually from State and Federal

prisons to communities across this Nation.

Criminologist Dr. Joan Petersilia explained that the problem of

offender reentry remains quite serious. Her dismal conclusion is

that from available evidence, persons being released from prison

today are doing less well than their counterparts released a decade

39

ago. The cost of criminal behavior, recidivism, are enormous. A

total of $60 billion was spent on corrections alone in 2002.

In many States, innovative reentry initiatives are under way. A

key is that these strategies and initiatives must be developed in

collaboration with community groups, service providers, citizens,

victims, as well as formerly incarcerated persons.

In July 2002 the Department of Corrections in Ohio published a

comprehensive report entitled ‘‘The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender reentry and Recidivism Reduction.’’ The Ohio plan views reentry as a philosophy, not as a program. The plan calls for broad

systems approach to managing offenders returning to the community.

Under the Ohio plan, the process of planning for reentry begins

immediately upon incarceration, not a few weeks, not a few months

before release from imprisonment. This effort represents a holistic

and seamless approach to transition from the prison community.

Ensuring that offenders receive appropriate programming during

confinement and while they are under supervision in the community is an important component of the reentry transition.

During the last decade, the total numbers of parents in prison

has increased sharply, from an estimated 452,000 in 1991 to

721,000 in 1997, an increase of 60 percent. These prisoners are

parents to millions of children, again as you heard earlier today.

Policymakers need to pay more attention to how the experience

of incarceration and reentry affect families and children.

The Second Chance Act recognizes the importance of family involvement and reentry. The Ohio Department of Corrections has

taken steps to engage offenders and family in reentry. In March

2004 the Department hosted a conference focusing on prisoners as

parents and the changes associated with reentry.

Following the conference, I formed the Family Council, composed

of appropriate stakeholders. The Second Chance Act recognizes the

vital role that community-based organization and local community

members should play in returning offenders home crime-free and

drug-free. Communities and local citizens bring expertise, knowledge of resources, and often a willingness to assist offenders in

making a successful transition back home.

Three Ohio cities have recently been involved in a program called

REIL, Reentry of Individuals and Enriching Lives. These events

have all been well received. Mayor Jane Campbell in Cleveland

probably has the most aggressive local government reentry initiative in our State.

Finally, under the Ohio plan we have taken steps to engage the

faith community through the formation of a faith-based council. Offenders released from prison experience a range of barriers affecting their prospects for a successful return home. Numerous laws

have been passed restricting the kinds of jobs for which prisoners

can be hired. Again, you have heard some testimony about this earlier.

Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal

Justice in New York, called these ‘‘invisible punishments’’ by which

he means the extension of formal criminal sanctions through the

diminution of rights and responsibilities of citizenship. They may

40

carry serious, adverse, and even unfair consequences for the individuals affected.

Some offenders have the opportunity to live for a short time in

a halfway house or similar transitional housing. The problem for

many leaving prison or temporary housing continues because there

are collateral sanctions that prevent access to public housing in

many jurisdictions. Access to permanent and affordable housing for

the released offender needs to be addressed.

I am optimistic about the future of reentry. The commitment in

the field of corrections remains strong and is growing. Several

States, including Ohio, Michigan, and others have formed the

equivalent of an interagency reentry steering committee to guide

their work. In my State, I chair the newly formed State Agency Offender Reentry Agency Coalition.

I also want to acknowledge the formation of the International Association of Reentry. Its mission is to foster victim and community

safety through correctional reform and prison population management, cost containment, professional development, and the successful reintegration of offenders. The association is hosting its Inaugural Summit in Columbus, OH in March 2005.

There is a pressing need for information to be shared and disseminated regarding where reentry best practices may be found. I

strongly support the Second Chance Act’s provision calling for a national offender reentry resource center. The Second Chance Act

provides a sensible balance that recognizes reentry is about public

safety. At the same time, it is about returning offenders home as

taxpaying and productive citizens. I appreciate the opportunity to

provide this testimony.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. SOUDER. We have been joined by our colleague from California, Congressman Diane Watson, and she has a statement she

would like to make.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing addressing

issues that are very tragic not only to our Nation as a whole, but

specifically disastrous and devastating to the African American

community. At issue is the dubious trend amongst African American males in the United States, criminal justice system, to enter

this system and be released with nowhere to turn for support.

The tragic state of African American males and minority males

in general is, in fact, perpetuated by a lack of funding and attention to our educational system and post-release programs for those

that have been incarcerated. The goal is not to coddle criminals but

to foster productive contributions to society.

Our schools and our students are at war with themselves, while

our communities constantly get the negative ripple effect of more

people being in jail than in college. Researchers constantly wonder

why violence in American society has reached pandemic levels. The

answer is simple. We have forgotten about those who will 1 day be

released from prison and will be in the same society we function

in every day.

Our most urgent need is a national resolve to confront and deal

with the problems leading to violence before, during, and after incarceration. The key to preventing our stemming recidivism is to

understand where and when it occurs, what causes it, and which

strategies for prevention and intervention are most effective.

All too often we fail to effectively listen to those people who are

directly impacted by the justice system.

Mr. Chairman, I can speak firsthand on the plague of crime

caused in my congressional district and throughout the Nation.

Support, legislatively and financially, should be given to pilot efforts that will help increase education and decrease recidivism.

A man or woman when released from prison must have direction

and opportunity because they will be part of the communities

where most of us live. We must put greater focus on this issue and

remember that we must leave no one behind or our Nation will fall.

And I just want to add this piece. We have been doing a series

of youth violence hearings in my district, because the last police officer in Los Angeles who was killed was killed by a young man

coming out of prison and in a domestic violence situation. And the

whole community turned out mourning for the death of this officer.

So it comes home to all of us and certainly to those who represent

the inner cities.

And we must support the mission in our prisons for rehabilitation. And as they leave these incarceration provisions—or

incarcerationsites, they must then have provisions that will help

them get back in society in a more productive way.

So in closing, the National Foundation for Women’s Legislative

Policy on Crime, Justice, Terrorism and Substance Abuse has also

been looking at the issue for several years now, and I have a very

important report issued through the NFWL last year that shows

that unresolved drug addiction is a $95 billion a year problem. And

53

NFWL also produced a second report analyzing one safe and costeffective option for addressing the issue.

I would like these reports entered into the hearing record, Mr.

Chairman, and request that we conduct a future hearing looking

at this issue again.

And so I will submit them, without objection, to you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. At the very beginning of the hearing,

I got unanimous consent that any Member who asked for inserts—

so we will make sure that we put those documents into the record.

If I can again make clear to each of the witnesses—which I

should have said a little bit ago—you will see the lights in front

of you. You basically have 5 minutes. When the yellow comes on

there is 1 to go. Your full statement will be in the record. If there

are additional materials you want to put in after you hear the discussion today, we would be happy to do that as well. We appreciate

your patience.

We have another panel after this one as well. But I very much

appreciate also, I know Dr. Wilkinson, for example, moved his

schedule around to accommodate today as opposed to tomorrow,

and I am sure many others did as well.

At this point we are now going to go to Lorna Hogan, Washington, DC.

STATEMENT OF LORNA HOGAN

Ms. HOGAN. Good afternoon, members of the community. It is my

privilege to be here today.

My name is Lorna Hogan. I am the mother of four children and

at the age of 14, I began abusing marijuana and alcohol as a way

of coping with being physically, mentally, and verbally abused.

I was afraid to tell anyone what was going on and self-medicating was the only way that I knew that could ease the pain. But

after a while this combination was not working. I needed something stronger to help me cope with the abuse. I began using crack

cocaine. This drug will take me to horrible places I would never

imagine I would even go. The once clean police record I once had

became stained with drug-related crimes I committed in order to

support my habit.

My children were definitely affected by my drug use. I wasn’t a

mother to them. My grandmother was raising them, and when she

became ill, I began leaving them with other people. I just couldn’t

stop using. I tried 28-day treatment programs, but I was just

detoxing. I was not getting help for the emotional pain I kept suppressed by using drugs.

There were no services provided for me as a mother. There were

no services for my children. There were no opportunities to heal as

a family.

In December 2000 I was arrested on a drug-related charge, and

my children were placed with Child Protective Services. And when

I went before the judge in criminal court for sentencing, I begged

him for treatment. The judge refused my request. I felt hopeless.

I not only lost my children, I lost myself. I didn’t know where my

children were or what was happening to them. I felt I would never

see them again.

54

In jail I received no treatment. I was surrounded by women like

myself. We were all mothers who were all there in jail suffering

from untreated addiction. But there were no treatment services in

jail for us. When I was released, there were no referrals to aftercare treatment programs. Instead, I was released to the street at

10 p.m., with $4 in my pocket. I still didn’t know where my children were. I went back to doing the only thing I knew how to do,

use drugs. I felt myself sinking back into a life of self-degradation.

Months later, by the grace of God, I finally found someone to listen to me, a child welfare worker who was assigned to my case. I

disclosed to her that I had been using drugs for 26 years. I was

referred to an 18-month family treatment program.

The family treatment groups helped me to heal from domestic violence, helped me to understand that I was self-medicating to the

problem instead of getting help for it. I had a therapist to help me

address my childhood issues and my separation from my children.

I had a primary counselor I could talk to at any time, and I still

do. I also have parenting classes that gave me insight on being a

mother.

Today I am a graduate of the family treatment program. I have

4 years’ clean time from drugs and alcohol. My case with Child

Protective Services is closed. My children and I have been unified

for 3 years. We live in our own home in Montgomery County. My

children are succeeding academically in school, and I recently

watched with pride and joy as my children performed in a concert

at school where they all sang in English, Japanese, and French. We

are a whole and strong and loving family today.

I would like to conclude my story by sharing with you how critical it is for women to receive treatment while they are incarcerated. Most incarcerated mothers are nonviolent drug felons, and

they are untreated drug addicts. Mothers behind bars receive little

or no opportunity to heal from the disease of addiction. This lack

of treatment and support services for mothers is apparent in every

point of their involvement with the criminal justice system.

Pretrial diversion, release services, court-sentence alternatives,

and reentry programs for women offenders are restricted in number, size, and effectiveness. Mothers behind bars and mothers reentering the community need treatment. Mothers need comprehensive family treatment so that they may heal and break the cycle

of addiction and the revolving door of the criminal justice system.

If treatment is made available to mothers behind bars, to mothers

returning to the community, so many families will have a real

chance to heal from the disease of addiction. And, like my family,

they will have a chance to heal and not be lost to the criminal justice system.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan follows:]

55

56

57

58

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness was already kind of somewhat introduced by a colleague from Maryland. Mr. Felix Mata, Baltimore

City’s Ex-Offender Mayor’s Initiative Office of Employment Development. Thank you for your patience today.

STATEMENT OF FELIX MATA

Mr. MATA. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings,

and all the other honorable members of the subcommittee. My

name is Felix Mata and I manage Baltimore’s Citywide Ex-offender

Initiative within Mayor Martin O’Malley’s Office of Employment

Development. I would like to thank you for the invitation to testify

before you.

As you may know, over the last 5 years, we have witnessed a

surge in the public’s interest to create new reentry initiatives in

the United States. Already along the East Coast, there are several

ex-offender initiatives occurring. Besides the city of Baltimore, New

York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Chicago are a few areas

where task forces aimed at addressing this issue have started.

However, the problem is not only an urban problem.

In the Washington, DC, corridor, Prince George’s County, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County have all started a reentry and/

or gang task force to look at the problems of reentry or to prevent

youth from entering the prison system.

On the Federal level, a reentry Policy Council, a collaboration of

the U.S. Department of Justice and Labor and Health and Human

Services was created to further look at ways that addressed the

issue of reintegration.

With regards to the city of Baltimore, each year over 9,000 individuals returned to the city from Maryland prison facilities, with

over 1,000 returning from the Federal prison facilities. Close to

20,000 individuals are under mandatory supervision through the

Division of Parole and Probation, and over 60,000 individuals filtered through the local detention center in Baltimore City. Our

mayor, Martin O’Malley, and the Mayor’s Office of Employment

Development, facilitated the creation of the Baltimore City-wide

Ex-offender Task Force in October 2002.

With members representing more than 100 government agencies,

nonprofit and community-based service providers, the task force

worked in committees, including those addressing the needs and

engagement of employers; a survey of existing services to support

the needs of the population; the development of a model program

to assist ex-offenders re-enter society; a review of relevant legislation; a focus on the involvement of the faith community in reentry;

and, last, examination of transitional housing needs for ex-offenders.

Based on the work of the committee, the task force found that

the average ex-offender returning to Baltimore City is: one, African

American; two, male, ages between 20 to 40, with an average age

to 33; and has little more than a sixth grade education.

A typical ex-inmate returning to the city of Baltimore receives no

more than $40 upon release. With very little education and/or

training, owes $8,000 in child support, has no transportation, no

59

medication, has no place to stay and cannot find legitimate employment, but wants to turn his life around.

A myriad of services must be made available for this population:

housing assistance; physical and mental health aid; substance

abuse treatment; child support modification support; access to identification; education and training; and employment opportunities.

In March 2004, the mayor appointed the Baltimore Citywide Reentry and Reintegration Steering Committee to carry out selected

recommendations of the task force. In the last 2 years, we have

seen some significant progress in reintegrating ex-offenders into

Baltimore. One example is a collaborative project between the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development and the Division of Parole

and Probation, by placing one staff member to handle P&P’s clientele have made a big difference. The result of this collaboration has

linked over 1,200 ex-offenders to services in the past year.

Through the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, funding

has been brought in to create another position in the east side of

Baltimore.

Last, encouraging more employers to hire ex-offenders has been

the aim of the three employer appreciation breakfasts sponsored by

the steering committees. These breakfasts allow businesses in the

community to recognize businesses that hire ex-offenders. Due to

the tremendous success of this event, at our last breakfast on December 14, 2004, we had over 300 people in attendance, over 100

business representatives from over 36 businesses. The event has

even received sponsorship now, the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg

Foundation.

Even though the city of Baltimore has done a tremendous

amount of work, we have a long way to go. The city is currently

looking at a new and bolder approach of reentry by setting up a

one-stop reentry center in northwest Baltimore. With the help of

both State and Federal Government, Baltimore will be able to better assist the returning population.

Once again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify,

and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mata follows:]

60

61

62

63

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness was also introduced earlier by

Delegate Norton.

Mr. Paul Quander is with the District of Columbia’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. He represents that agency.

Thank you for coming today.

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear

before you today. I also want to thank the committee for scheduling

this reentry hearing during Reentry Week here in the District of

Columbia. 2005 marks the 4th consecutive year that the Court

Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] has collaborated with local faith institutions and the District of Columbia Government to present a full week of events highlighting the needs of

returning offenders.

Tomorrow night our third annual Citywide Reentry Assembly

will be held at St. Luke’s Center on East Capitol Street. We will

gather to thank our volunteers and to hear directly from offenders

who are receiving faith-based support. I invite all of you to join us

for an informative and inspirational evening.

I would also like to submit for the record a copy of the comprehensive reentry strategy for adults in the District of Columbia

that was prepared in conjunction with the District of Columbia government and faith institutions and members of the community who

are previously incarcerated individuals.

I would like to share with the committee a few of the reentry

strategies that we have in place. In 2001 we reached out to the

city’s clergy and began our Faith/Community Partnership. Our goal

has been to connect returning offenders with institutions and individuals who can support them both during and after their term of

supervision. Within our Faith/Community Partnership, three lead

institutions identify and broker mentoring and other services for

returning offenders and their families. We currently have a network of 46 participating faith institutions, as well as approximately

200 volunteer mentors.

While faith-based support does not replace CSOSA’s treatment

and education program, it supplements and augments our supervision community officers, commonly referred to as probation and

parole officers, their capacity to provide after-care and one-on-one

interaction.

In 2003 we recognized the need to link returning offenders with

services well before they actually are released to the community.

Using teleconferencing and video technology, we took the Faith/

Community Partnership into Rivers Correctional Institution, a Bureau of Prisons contract facility that houses over 1,000 D.C. code

offenders.

Here in the District of Columbia we are unique in that every offender who is convicted of a crime in the District is sentenced to

a Bureau of Prisons facility. And the Bureau tries to place these

offenders within 500 miles, but oftentimes offenders are all apart

in different facilities throughout the country. There are 1,000 individuals in Rivers, which is located in North Carolina.

64

That outreach has developed into regular community resourcebased video conferences at which representatives from the Faith/

Community Partnership and a variety of District social service

agencies provide information to men nearing release. Partnership

with CSOSA has encouraged our lead faith institutions to expand

the range of services they provide.

For example, in response to the critical need for transitional

housing, East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership is

converting a 14-unit apartment building into transitional housing

for returning offenders. We cannot over-estimate the importance of

stable housing to successful reentry. About 25 percent of the release plans we investigate prior to an individual being released do

not contain a stable housing placement.

While we can often arrange for a short-term placement such as

a public law placement in a halfway house, permanent solutions

are much more difficult to achieve.

According to the District of Columbia’s Department of Public

Housing and Community Development, a household income of

$40,000 per year, or roughly $20 an hour, is necessary to rent a

two-bedroom apartment at market rate in this community. Almost

half of the District households report income below that threshold.

These are the households most likely to be impacted by reentry,

and the returning offenders compete directly with other workers in

these households for a limited supply of viable jobs.

Approximately half the offenders under supervision are unemployed at any given time. Unstable housing and precarious employment undermine the individuals’ chances for success. To put it in

the words of one of the offenders, ‘‘To get a job you need an address, but to get an address you need a job.’’

We are working with District non-profits to identify additional

housing resources. We are also addressing the public safety concerns that are integral to any discussion of offender housing.

In 2004 we executed a memorandum of understanding with the

District of Columbia Housing Authority to share information about

offenders who are living in public housing similar to our successful

partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department.

For men and women with severe long-term substance abuse

problems, intensive intervention has to begin at the moment of release. These offenders cannot negotiate reentry without intensive

support.

We have developed and implemented a program at our Assessment and Orientation Center that takes offenders directly upon release and puts them through 30 days of assessment, counseling,

and treatment to prepare them for reentry. And for most, that

means continued drug treatment as well.

This program has had a positive effect on recidivism. For one cohort of the participants, arrest rates dropped 75 percent. Based

upon the Assessment and Orientation Center’s proven success, we

are expanding it into a Reentry and Expansion Center that will

serve approximately 1,200 high-risk offenders and defendants each

year. Our first two units are scheduled to open in November 2005.

No matter how aggressively we supervise offenders in the community, we cannot guarantee their success. Too many variables influence reentry for the outcomes to rest solely on enforcement. AcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
65

cording to the Urban Institute, family support, substance abuse

treatment, and employment assistance are what returning offenders need the most. These essentials can only be provided through

concerted, sustained collaborations in which all partners contribute

to the true goal of reentry initiatives: the restoration of individuals,

families, and our communities.

I thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing, and I will respond to questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quander follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witnesses, Jim McNeil and David Russell,

mentor and protege of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative.

It is good to see you again. I heard you at the breakfast last fall

with a lot of Senators and House Members. Thank you for coming

for an official government hearing here to give your testimony

today.

Mr. McNeil.

STATEMENT OF JIM McNEIL

Mr. MCNEIL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my

name is Jim McNeil, and I am from Richmond, a suburb of Houston, TX. I am retired and a volunteer worker in InnerChange Freedom Initiative Ministry, a branch of Prison Fellowship. I, along

with my wife, moved from west Texas to the Houston area 5 years

ago to be near our 5 children and watch our 11 grandchildren grow

up.

Shortly after moving, I was invited to a Church Missions Meeting and was introduced to the InnerChange Ministry. After a visit

there, I signed on as a volunteer worker, counseling and setting up

the substance abuse curriculum.

For years I have been concerned about the prison population explosion and offenders going to prison at an early age and continuing to return. When they have reached their 40’s, they see a life

slipping by, and by this time don’t know how to function in society.

There are many good prison ministries. But I saw the

InnerChange Ministry as one that worked with the offenders after

release. During this timeframe, my wife and I started mentoring offenders who were enrolled in the ministry.

To date, we have mentored 12 fellows; 2 have returned to prison,

much to our disappointment, and 8 are out and doing well, and 2

have yet to be released. All of these fellows and their families are

our extended families. They call us regularly, visit with us at our

home, take care of us, consult us on living problems and family

problems, and even help with chores at our home.

Our home is their home, and our door is open to all of them.

They continue to bless my wife and me and give us a lot of pleasure.

Let me close in commending you on your task in prison reform.

It must be addressed and dealt with. Rehabilitation has to be

brought off the back burner. These people must be prepared to take

their responsible places in our society and be productive citizens

and positive family members.

As a closing thought for you, more tax moneys are being spent

in our State on prisons than on public education.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNeil follows:]

73

74

75

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Russell.

STATEMENT OF DAVID RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my

name is David Russell. I was born in Abilene, TX. I am a graduate

of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative Ministry, and now a volunteer of IFI.

I made a decision to transfer a few years after my second incarceration from west Texas to the Houston area, believing and trusting in God to provide a way for my transition into a new surrounding.

Years into my second incarceration, I knew there had to be a better way of life. I just didn’t know where to begin, to start it or even

begin. But years had passed by. Things started becoming clearer to

me that the only way was to let God’s will for my life start to prevail.

Not knowing much as to what was in store for me and this new

way of life, of living, I started to see things a lot more clearly than

before, but still not sure where God was taking me. I just started

to trust and believe in God’s word.

Then it happened. A program was being put into effect in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice system called the

InnerChange Freedom Initiative Program. It originated in the

Houston area, but there were still many hurdles I had to overcome.

It seemed as though I would never get there.

Another year passed by since I heard of the program, and it happened. I was being transferred to another unit in the TDCJ system.

Not knowing which unit I would be transferred to, I started wondering would I ever be able to get away from my past.

A couple of days later I went for classification. I was told my

next unit to where I would be assigned would be the Jester 2 Unit.

The Jester 2 Unit, now the Carol S. Vance Unit, was where the

InnerChange Freedom Initiative Program was now in process. I

had gotten past another obstacle in my life, on my way to a new

life.

A year had gone by since transfer to the Jester 2 Unit. I was still

not in the program as of yet. But then it happened. A couple of IFI

members that I have been working with, and also built a friendship

with, asked me if I wanted to become a member of the IFI program, and I said yes without any hesitation. So they took me to

see the program director, the program manager, and I gave them

my information.

Weeks later I was accepted into the program, and God continued

to move in my life. Doors began to open. My new way of life began

to flourish. There I met my mentor, Jim McNeil. This was just one

of many relationships that were built within the IFI program.

Other relationships would also form that were still just as strong

as my relationship with my mentor. Jim and Joyce are my extended family, and I love them dearly. I am blessed to have many

Christian people in my life that will guide me and encourage me

as I continue my growth with Christ Jesus.

Let me close my saying that other offenders will benefit from the

Prison Reform Act. The current rehabilitation process must be addressed and dealt with. Not rehabilitation but transformation. It

76

has to be brought into the foreground of offenders’ incarceration.

Offenders must be prepared to take their responsible places in our

society and be productive citizens and provide for a family member;

not to be the problem of a society, but to be a part of the solution

of the society.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]

77

78

79

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you all for your testimony.

Let me start first by thanking each of you for your work. And

this is an incredibly difficult area, and I think for those in Congress and those listening to the testimony that it is very easy to

raise false expectations about what we can do.

Even Mr. McNeil, in intensive personal mentoring, has said that

several people have gone back into prison; that I know many taxpayers look at these types of programs and say you are spending

all of this money on it and yet the recidivism rate went up.

But this is not easy. Partly we come, and hear people come, and

they tell us their great results, and sometimes they are short term,

and we don’t necessarily have longitudinal studies because we look

at the numbers and see it go up.

But some people go back in within months. Some people go back

5 years later. And we have to develop a standard of measurement

that’s realistic here. We are not going to get 100 percent by putting

all of this money in. We are not going to get that kind of rate of

return; and then second, even if somebody goes back in or they go

in for a lower level of crime than they went in the first time.

In other words, are we making some level of improvement? Is it

going to be easier to do the rehabilitation? Is there some hope down

the way here? Because if we hold up false hopes in front of Congress and say throw $112 million at this and recidivism goes up,

we are going to have a huge problem.

A second part of this as we look at this legislation is the numbers

you are looking at far overwhelm anything the Federal Government is going to be able to do. I mean, you are talking thousands

in each city, whereas this Federal initiative will only touch thousands nationwide. Yet hopefully we will be able to do that.

So let me start with this question. Understanding that all the

parts are important—housing, jobs, drug treatment, all these different parts—and understanding that in D.C. alone you have

2,000—we heard 9,000 in Los Angeles, the number has to be even

higher—how would you best target these dollars, and how do you

figure out who should be eligible for the limited funds you have?

Should it be those who show the best opportunity to rehabilitate;

those who are the hardest cases; those who are first in line? How

are you going to allocate these funds and how would we best target

what we are doing? If you would like to take that.

Mr. QUANDER. I will start.

As the director of CSOSA here in the District, we are also faced

with limited options, resources. And so what we have decided to do,

we have to tailor our approach and focus our resources where the

greatest impact is going to be, and that’s public safety and violent

crime.

We have to target individuals who have the greatest indicator

that if you don’t receive the treatment, they are going out and they

are going to create havoc in our communities. And so that’s why

we have built this Reentry and Sanction Center so that we target

the greatest group.

Thirty percent of returning offenders who we have targeted we

believe will cause the greatest amount of harm in our city. Now,

if we can get those resources and if we can provide them with the

80

services that they need, we think we will have the biggest impact

on reducing crime and helping the city become safer.

At the same time, we are reaching out to groups, churches in

particular, because a lot of the churches in our community have

faith-based organizations, have prison ministries, have clothing

ministries, have housing ministries, and they need some assistance

to help us do the work that we have.

When we hook up with existing church programs, we already

have a viable vehicle that is already out there, that has substance

in the community, and so we try to match that, the community

part of it and the government part, and it can work.

We realize that the resources are limited. But if they are targeted in that way, we think that we will have the best chance for

having the greatest impact on the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to ask Mr. Mata a question with a followup

to that. But, for example, InnerChange Ministries, it’s self-selected.

In other words, you have to choose to go into that section of the

prison, because it’s a faith-based ministry?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, you have to volunteer.

Mr. SOUDER. And so that would be one way if it’s a faith-based

question.

We heard from Ms. Hogan about the mothers with children.

Would that be another subtarget group because of the impact potentially on the children in the family, and how do you handle that,

for example, in Baltimore?

Mr. MATA. The city of Baltimore actually looks at what everyone

is doing. One of the great things we do is see what the city of Chicago is doing. The Shay Foundation actually builds a triangle and

says the top level group of ex-offenders returning into the community, they don’t really need our help. They can come back. We have

the bottom level of that triangle, our ex-offenders, who no matter

how much you can try to help them, you can spend money and time

on them. They are not going to want to change their lives around.

But you have that middle tier who just need an extra push. They

need to be put into a training program, they need to get transitional housing. Those are the groups that you can help.

You can’t expect an ex-offender who is coming out of prison to

go through an 8 to 10-week training program to change their life

around. It’s going to take a number of kinds of different programs.

I look at the Baltimore Reentry Partnership Program. It’s an actual 2-year program with a 70 percent success rate, but they also

provide transitional housing. The case manager meets the person

at the prison door when they are released and says, all right, let’s

go get you signed up. We are going to get you your identification,

get you food stamps, get you all these other services that you need

right now.

That’s the type of dedication that it takes to get ex-offenders involved and to help turn them around.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. MCNEIL. Mr. Chairman, there are two things I would like to

elaborate on.

One is the mentoring program. David’s and my relationship

started 2 years before he got out of the penitentiary, and I think

81

that is very important. Some people are mistaken that mentoring

is picking up the guy when he gets out. If you don’t know him

when he gets out, he by nature is very suspicious of you.

The second is, Congressman Davis, I want to echo what you were

talking about in substance abuse. I am a recovering alcoholic, so

maybe I am a little bit more sensitive to that. But the numbers run

side by side.

In the State of Texas because of budget restraints and the population explosion, TDCJ has cut back on their substance abuse programs within the penitentiary. That’s a mistake.

And so I am not versed on where your money should go, but

these are just two of the issues that I think are very important.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis, if it’s OK I will go to Ms. Norton next,

because she didn’t get questioning on the first panel.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. OK.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I’m sorry I didn’t get to hear everyone’s testimony. I just want

to congratulate those of you who have been involved in delivering

these services and those of you who have had the benefit of them.

Because to have the benefit of them is not enough; you have to

have a great deal of personal inner strength to take advantage of

those services.

There’s been a lot of emphasis, I think correctly, on services that

join the community, such as mentoring services. The bill, Mr.

Portman’s, Mr. Davis’ bill, shows us how at the beginning of this

we all—when you talk about data collection is necessary, and how

much of faith-based programs.

I would like to hear more from Mr. Quander. He is from the Federal system. It has a more developed system than any of the

States. And here I have been critical of the way we go at law enforcement in the Federal system. At the same time, I want to say

that the Federal prison system and its after-services are the best

in the United States.

And I have some before and after, because Lorton, which is the

city prison, was closed. The Federal Government took over, and it

was night and day. Such an improvement. So there is the Federal

system out there can be a real example for the States.

Right after, Mr. Quander, right after the Federal Government became involved with felons from the District of Columbia, there was

literally, almost immediately, within the first few months, an immediate effect on recidivism. So much so that I went around the

District of Columbia with a chart, showing people, because we were

trying to get halfway houses placed in places. I recognize that over

time it may not have been as great as it was then, but obviously

you were having an effect on recidivism.

When we had a hearing, when Mr. Davis had a hearing here, we

tried to learn more about what was happening. What impressed us

was not at that point the community services. The community was

still trying to get them to understand these were their children,

their numbers, residents of the District of Columbia. They hadn’t

been dropped in from outer space. What impressed us was the services that CSOSA offered. The chairman could not be more correct:

We are going to have to target whatever we are talking about.

82

I notice that in the testimony here from Reginald Wilkinson, he

says that President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union urged

Congress to allocate $300 million over 4 years to support reentry

transition services. He named several kinds of services that he indicated the President had named: job training, placement services,

transitional housing, community faith-based services. Some of that

is very expensive.

Let me ask you about the services that I think have made a difference in the District of Columbia, which I think could be less expensive, and hear your response.

One was anger management services. These are very angry people. That’s how they got there in the first place in some sense, and

when they see how society views them, including their own neighbors, that builds up.

The other was inpatient and outpatient drug treatment, so much

so that you have some facilities here.

And then, as I recall, there was a step, everybody got tested. So

that if, in fact, you get tested dirty, you are one step back to prison.

I wish you would describe those services, see if they are available,

and the effect they have had.

Because a lot of your testimony, Mr. Quander, was about things

like community services, faith-based and the other services we are

all for, but very frankly, I don’t think that’s what the difference is

in the District of Columbia so far if we are talking about the difference in recidivism rates.

I would just like you to lay out for us what—at least these—I am

not even into transitional housing. I mean, you may have to bunk

up with somebody for a long time. I am into what it takes to get

through every day without punching somebody in the nose, maybe

even your parole officer, and going back to jail, because you are

still on drugs, because you are not being tested, because there are

no incentives to stay out and stay clean.

Mr. QUANDER. One of the first things that we were able to accomplish with the help of this Congress was we were able to reduce

the caseloads of the men and women who supervise offenders.

When we first started this agency, the average caseload was well

over 100. Today, for our general service units, it’s less than 50 to

1. Some of our specialized units, the sex offender unit, the domestic

violator unit, even traffic is down to 25 or 30 to 1. So it allows our

men and women who have the training and dedication to work

with the men and women who are under supervision, to provide

services and to keep them focused and accountable.

As far as anger management is concerned, we offer anger management because people need to understand how to deal with the

day-to-day frustrations. Many of us have parents and guardians

and coaches that helped and taught us how to work and to navigate and negotiate.

Many of the men and women that we see have never had anyone.

And so after a period of incarceration, after going through the court

services, people are angry, they are frustrated, and they are easily

dissuaded. So we try to build in anger management and coping

skills.

As far as substance abuse, we drug test. Everyone that comes

into the door has to drug test, and we have graduated sanctions beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
83

cause we want to work with individuals. But our offenders know

that if you test positive there will be immediate sanctions.

We don’t have to go back to court. We don’t have to go back to

the parole authorities. We have the authority to sanction individuals. And those sanctions can be anywhere from going to AA meetings to actually being under house arrest or actually having a

bracelet placed upon you for global positioning satellite monitoring

so we know what you are doing 24 hours, 7 days a week.

It is important that there is——

Ms. NORTON. Now, if you continue to offend, are the next steps

back so that people know that they could end up back in jail?

Mr. QUANDER. It’s clear that if you continue to offend, that’s exactly where you are going. But we want to give people the opportunity.

We have to be clear as to what the expectations are; that if you

reoffend, that if you have these technical violations, you will definitely go back. Our mission is to try to get them to turn their lives

around, know what they are facing is to correct that path so that

we can keep them here in our community.

Ms. NORTON. It is a real carrot-stick.

Mr. QUANDER. It is but a major component is the substance

abuse treatment. If you don’t give individuals time away from this

environment, it’s sort of a like a man on a diet who lives right

above the Burger King Restaurant. He smells the hamburger cooking, the food day in and day out, but our community is even more

pervasive than that.

The person doesn’t have to smell it upstairs, the drugs are right

in the house. Grandmother has the drugs, sister has the drugs.

When you walk out on the street, all your partners and friends

have the drugs. They are all enticing you. They are all saying come

on, come back.

And so we need money and resources so that we can get people

out of that environment, get them away, get them where people

who have gone through this type of process say, hey, I have made

it.

It takes time, it takes effort, it takes money. On average, it cost

us $14,000 per individual that we put through treatment. Three

phases—detox, inpatient, and that outpatient component is just so

critical.

That’s where that faith-based component also comes in, because

you need a mentor sometimes. You need someone that has gone

through that process to walk with you. When you are feeling low

and when you have that temptation and your partners are calling

you, you need someone on the pro-social side that you can pick up

the phone and you can look at for support. That’s where we start

to make the change.

So my agency has been successful, but a lot of that has to do

with the good graces that this committee and others have given us

the resources to dig in to find out what it is that we actually need

to do, and the men and women who work with the offenders day

in and day out in some of that community support, some of which

is represented here in the audience today.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

84

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, the notion of—I think the

chairman has been clear, you know; no one is going to throw some

money out of there in front of you. Frankly, I don’t think they

should.

I would look at CSOSA and what has worked there. It can’t be

done on the cheap. We didn’t do it on the cheap when we put them

in jail for $30,000 a year, bringing them out here in the same condition. And therefore we’ve got to decide if you have a limited

amount of dollars, where to use them. And these record numbers

are in prison because of drugs, then it does seem to me to make

sense to somehow extricate that one part of the problem, because

it is such a large part of the problem.

I just want to say, finally, to Ms. Hogan, I am very impressed

to read your testimony and to hear your testimony, because you are

the story of virtually every woman in prison. And here was a

woman who was saying get me off these drugs and I will be all

right. She went to prison and could not—she couldn’t get them beforehand. And we are getting to the point where it is easier to get

them after you come out than beforehand. She couldn’t get any effective drug treatment beforehand. The last place apparently you

can get it at least is in State prisons, and then she was on her way

back out until she found somebody who would help her after she

got out of prison.

So I just want to thank all of you for what you are doing.

And I do think, Mr. Quander, that you could be helpful to the

States, because it’s really a State problem. Most people are in State

prison. If somehow what has happened here, which is kind of a microcosm that is normally not available to localities, should be

shared so that they would have some sense where to put their own

limited dollars while we are trying to get more dollars here, and

I think that your experience is very useful to us all.

And I am very grateful for what the Federal Government, the

Federal prison system and the Federal dollars that fund CSOSA

have done for the returning of felons in the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank each one of the witnesses for their testimony.

Listening to all of the things that we continued to hear, my question really goes to Mr. Russell and to Ms. Hogan. Could you project

what your life might be like if you had not come into contact with

some help? I am saying we often look at the statistic that 67 percent of the individuals would probably reoffend within the 3-year

period if they didn’t find some kind of help.

So would you just project what you think your life might be like

if you had not come in contact with some help?

Ms. HOGAN. Yes. I could basically say that if I hadn’t gotten the

help from a social worker, that, you know, my children were in

Child Protective Services, I can predict pretty much if I had kept

using and going in and out of jail that my children would be gone.

And because addiction is a disease, once—you know, if it’s left untreated, you get fatal results.

85

So I don’t think I would be here today if I was still using and

going in and out of jail. And I am thankful that I had someone that

took interest in me to help me.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Mr. Russell.

Mr. RUSSELL. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be sitting here

today either if it weren’t for the InnerChange Freedom Initiative

Ministry. You have volunteers coming in and sharing their lives

with you, and not knowing you from Adam, and giving you an opportunity to open yourself up to them, knowing that they care

about you.

You have someone walking beside you and not looking down on

you. You have someone giving you the tools and the instructions

so that you could have a structured life as well.

Being with Jim has been a blessing to me, because if he wouldn’t

have been around, I would have gone back to the same old ways.

I would have been back to the old same community I came out of.

But having an opportunity to move out of that community into a

new community, into a new environment, opened my eyes to where

now I want to help, I want to give back.

So, having those volunteers there, having the mentors there,

having the program in place has opened my eyes a lot more clearly

than they had been before—not changed, not rehabilitated me, but

transforming me from that old man to the new man.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Mata, Mr. Quander, both of you are

professionals in the field, in the business. As you do the work that

you do on a regular basis, what do you think can really put the

seal on and become a real breakthrough?

We know that there are many individual programs throughout

the country, but they are oftentimes so meager, so minor, so small,

and we are missing so many people who never come into contact

with the program, who never get touched.

What becomes a real breakthrough for this problem across the

Nation?

Mr. QUANDER. I will try to respond this way. I think you actually

need a movement, you need a concerted effort whereby the focus

of reentry and prisoners actually takes on the character of the

movement so that everyone is aware of the issues and everyone is

focused on what some of the solutions are.

Some of the solutions are pretty straightforward. We mentioned

drug treatment, we have mentioned housing, we have mentioned

employment. There are certain areas in which certain programs are

very successful. We need to concentrate on those areas. I think if

we concentrate on those areas, we can produce the results, and

once we produce the results, you can’t argue with the numbers. I

think that is where we need to go and that is where we need to

concentrate.

For offenders in the District of Columbia, housing is such a big

issue. They will tell you, I can’t concentrate on my substance abuse

issues if I don’t have a place to live. I want to get back with my

family. I want to go to the PTA meetings, but I need to establish

myself as a man and provide for my family, and I am going to do

it either by hustling or I am going to do it the correct way.

86

So those are those real issues that we really need to focus on.

Some of the faith-based partners that we have done it with, they

have apartment buildings, and they are willing to convert those

and are doing that right now. We need to support those efforts, because they have already taken the lead. We need to support it.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Mata.

Mr. MATA. Mr. Davis, I agree with what Mr. Quander just said,

but I also want to make a differentiation between the city and the

State. I actually have two positions. I work for the city of Baltimore, but I also work for the State of Maryland as the executive

director for the Governor’s Advisory Council on Offender Employment.

The city and the State are two very different monsters. The city

is sort of an urban island, and then you have the State of Maryland, which is western, eastern, southern Maryland that thinks

very differently from what the city of Baltimore does. So it does

take a movement in order to make these changes happen.

There are some great things coming out of the Federal Government that we could use in the State, but our State representatives

sometimes vote against things that can help reentry in the State

of Maryland.

The movement has started in Maryland. Like I said, Montgomery

County, Prince George’s County, they have both started reentry activities there. If you look at a county such as Montgomery County,

which is a very wealthy county in the State of Maryland, they actually are having some problems with reentry because when they

connect their inmates to employment after they are released, they

may get a job offer from that business, but then all of a sudden

they don’t show up to the job anymore because after release the Division of Corrections no longer has ahold of them, they can no

longer assist them in making that proper transition. So they are

back out into the free world, but they don’t have the cognitive restructuring or the mental capacity to deal with everyday living like

you and I do.

This is something else that needs to be brought in and taught

to these inmates and ex-offenders, and programs such as CSOSA,

programs like the REP program in Baltimore City, these programs

are doing great jobs in assisting these ex-offenders in returning

into the community.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. What Mr. Mata just said is not widely talked about,

yet is a huge problem of the longer term followup if you haven’t

had a substantive change. Because often as I have dealt with the

businessmen who are first willing to hire many of the people going

back into the community, they are themselves the most outspoken

leaders in the community trying to get other business leaders to do

that. And then if it doesn’t work and they are running a business

that runs on a profit, and if the people don’t show up, they give

up and it affects the entire business community.

We have a stake in making these programs go, to make sure that

there is some kind of followup in that employment, for literally it

isn’t that it just fails in one case, it spreads to the employers, to

other employers, and by word of mouth just goes through the busiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
87

ness community that this is too high a risk, because you are already taking some risk in the situation.

Before moving to the next panel, I wanted to raise one other

question that challenged me years ago, and I know it is going to

come up in the course of this debate.

Years ago, when I was a staffer for the House, a man named Bob

Woodson told me, when I went to talk to him, he said, ‘‘Don’t be

a typical White guy who sits on your duff and pronounces what is

wrong with the urban centers. Go out and meet some people.’’

So I said, ‘‘OK, introduce me to some.’’ One of the men I met was

V.G. Ginnis, who over 20 years ago was working with gang problems with the Bloods and the Crips in the city of Los Angeles. We

had done a number of antigang initiatives to provide job training,

housing assistance, counseling, drug treatment to people and

gangs. And he said, ‘‘Here is the problem with some of what you

do.’’ Guess what that program did? More kids joined gangs because

they couldn’t get job training, drug treatment, housing assistance

if they didn’t belong to the gang, so gang membership went up.

When these services don’t exist in the community for people who

are following the law, how do we best make the argument—other

than a pure cost question here, which you can, but it doesn’t get

into the equity question—how do we make this argument to sell a

bill like this, when there is a shortage of services across the board?

Mr. MATA. If I could just answer that, Mr. Chairman, with the

reentry center that we are trying to start in Baltimore, that is actually one of the issues that we are looking at, because if we put

it in the northwest corridor, we are actually replacing a center that

assists all the population in that northwest area of Baltimore City.

But what we are looking at is that it will be open to all Baltimore

City residents, but with specialists who focus on ex-offender issues.

The reason why you need that there is because those specialists,

they have the contacts who know what works specifically for ex-offenders.

Going back to the business aspect, you don’t only want to put an

ex-offender into a job, you want to put them into a career pathway,

and you want to do that for any resident. Because the older you

get or the more experienced you get, you want to move up the career ladder, you want to be a better taxpaying citizen and you want

to help others do the same thing. Those specialists that would be

at that center would be able to do that and better assist that population.

Mr. MCNEIL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share something

with you. In Texas, after an offender has been out 2 years and he

can get permission from his parole officer, from the unit, they can

come back to that unit and be a volunteer in services.

David has just gone through the Texas Department of Corrections, or TDCJ, security and safety training, and he is becoming a

mentor himself. We have several of our fellows who are back in

mentoring, and we find that they are the best mentors. But we also

find that it is real good for them. You can’t keep it if you don’t give

it away.

They really can work with the guys with their problems. They

understand them, they have been there. And we have fellows that

are really wanting to come back and work as volunteers.

88

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Quander.

Mr. QUANDER. Sometimes I believe we just have to take small

steps. For certain individuals that are returning from periods of incarceration, they have never held any type of job. So the first step

sometimes is just getting into a job, learning those soft skills: How

do you work with others? How do you resolve disputes? How do you

talk to people? It may not be a career that a person is looking for,

but it is a start.

There are jobs out here in our communities that we can get people started. Sometimes, you know, a long journey begins with that

first step. So sometimes the first job, the first positive experience

that we can provide to men and women who are returning can help

them, along with other support, to make the next steps in their

lives.

So a job is a job when you have that support, and it can be more

than just that first job, it can be the first step. That is the approach we have to take, because I know across the country, there

are limitations. But for individuals who are just returning from

prison that first step can be so important and meaningful.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you each for your testimony. If you want

to submit anything else into the record, if you hear anything on the

third panel or you have additional thoughts, please get it to us in

the next 5 legislative days, and thank you for your patience.

If the third panel could now come forward: Pat Nolan, Joseph

Williams, Chaplain Robert Toney, Frederick Davie and George Williams.

If you could each remain standing, I need to swear you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative.

The first witness on this panel—and thank you very much for

your patience; it has been a long afternoon—is Pat Nolan from

Prison Fellowship, from Justice Fellowship. Pat and I have known

each other longer than we want to admit. It is great to see you here

today, and thank you for your leadership in this area.

STATEMENTS OF PAT NOLAN, PRISON FELLOWSHIP; JOSEPH

WILLIAMS, TRANSITION OF PRISONERS; CHAPLAIN ROBERT

TONEY, ANGOLA PRISON, LOUISIANA; FREDERICK A. DAVIE,

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES; AND GEORGE A.H. WILLIAMS, TREATMENT

ALTERNATIVES FOR SAFE COMMUNITIES

STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished

Members. It really is an honor to be here with you and discuss

with you this very important issue of public safety.

We are working to prepare prisoners to return to their community, and we want them to do it safely and successfully so they can

become productive, law-abiding, contributing members of the community.

Mr. Chairman, as you noted, I am the president of Justice Fellowship, which is the criminal justice reform arm of Prison FellowVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
89

ship Ministries. Prison Fellowship for three decades now has

worked to change prisoners’ lives by taking the gospel into prisons;

and part of that is, we can’t take the gospel into prisons if we also

don’t care about the circumstances in which they live and to which

they return and the circumstances that got them there. So we work

at dealing with the prisoner in all of those circumstances from a

biblical basis.

Scientific studies have shown that inmates who participate in

just 10 or more of our Bible studies are two-thirds less likely to

recidivate. And that is significant because, for many of us, Joe and

others, who have been incarcerated—I knocked off 10 Bible studies

in about 2 weeks. For those who are interested, there are plenty

of opportunities to do it. So just 10 or more having that impact is

very significant.

I wrote a book, ‘‘When Prisoners Return,’’ to call the church to

become involved in preparing prisoners for their return and then

helping them after they return. It is based on our experience as a

ministry and my own personal experiences.

I bring a unique background to the ministry. I was for 15 years

a member of the California State Assembly. I was Republican leader of the Assembly for 4 of those years. I was a leader on crime

issues.

I was one of the original sponsors of the Victims’ Bill of Rights,

Proposition 15. I was the author of the Death Penalty Restoration

Act and author of tough-on-crime measures, including mandatory

minimum sentences.

I pushed for the expansion of California’s prison system as the

floor leader at a time when we built nine new prisons and not one

new university.

Then I was targeted for prosecution over a campaign contribution

that turned out to be part of an FBI sting operation. I pleaded

guilty to one count of racketeering and went to prison for 25

months and spent another 4 months in a halfway house.

I had a chance to see the impact of the policies that I had so ardently advocated played out, and I saw how our system is failing

us. I saw that the prisons were not making the community safer,

that the atmosphere inside a prison was not conducive toward reformation of character, and in fact the skills you learn to survive

inside prison make you antisocial when you get out.

And while in good faith I had supported all those policies, in fact

they weren’t keeping the public safer; they were making the public

more dangerous. Even low-risk or nonviolent offenders that go to

prison are more likely to commit offenses when they get out. The

RAND Corp. studies have shown that.

While I was in prison, I had plenty of time to think about why

that was, why those policies that I had strongly supported weren’t

working. My testimony today reflects the conclusions that I came

to and that we have learned from our experience in trying to minister to people.

First, let me tell you what it is like to be released from prison.

The moment you get off the bus, you are faced with several critical

decisions immediately: Where will you live? Where are you going

to find your next meal? Where will you look for a job? How do you

90

get to the job interview? How do you get to where you hope to live?

How can you earn enough money to support yourself?

There are a million business details: How do you open a bank account? How do you get an I.D. card? Most people are released from

prison without even identification, and these days, after September

11, you can’t get a hotel room, you can’t get on a train, you can’t

get on a plane, without I.D. What are you going to do?

How do you make medical appointments? Inside prison you are

exposed to staph infections, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS.

How do you get a medical appointment? And how do you have a

doctor treat you when you don’t have any of your records with you?

These things put a lot of stress on an inmate coming out. And

the problem is, the pressure of these decisions hits you at a point

when you have been stripped for years of any control over any aspect of your life. You are desensitized to making decisions.

I will give you a perfect example. When I came out, a bunch of

my friends—it was the first day at the halfway house. A bunch of

my friends took me to lunch at the 8th Street Deli, right near the

Capitol. We all sat there. The waiter came and they went around

and ordered. And I sat there and stared at the menu. And I looked

at it—you know, on a deli menu there are hundreds of choices. I

stared and was paralyzed; I couldn’t make a choice. For 2 years I

hadn’t ordered anything for myself. I hadn’t decided what to eat.

And here I was.

Finally, in embarrassment, I just ordered where my eyes hit, but

I didn’t want it. I was just too embarrassed. I just wanted to get

that moment over with.

I come from a good background. I had a great education. I was

an attorney. I was a member of the legislature. If, after just 2

years of incarceration, I couldn’t order something from a menu,

think of a person that didn’t have any of those advantages going

into prison, and they confront where to live, where to sleep, how

to get a job, what to do with their time. It is a significant problem.

The first thing I want to say to you, mentors make all the difference in the world. It is not programs that are as important as

relationships. Programs are important, but only if they facilitate a

relationship, or the real live human being that loves you.

By the very statement of being a mentor, it is an act of love. Just

being there for the inmates is a powerful statement. That somebody like Jim McNeil would come every week and visit David Russell in prison and then walk through the gate with him and help

him, to be there as he confronted all those decisions, is an act of

love. Government programs can’t love people, only people can.

The second thing I want to say is where are those loving people

going to come from? Ninety-five-plus percent of them come from

churches. We can use euphemistic terms such as ‘‘communitybased,’’ but it is churches that provide these people. Willie Sutton

was asked, ‘‘Why do you rob banks?’’ He said, ‘‘That is where the

money is.’’

If we are interested in finding loving people to start these relationships with inmates, it is the churches where they are going to

come from, and that is just the reality. We can play all around

that, but going and speaking to a Kiwanis Club, you are not going

to have nearly the impact as you do going to a church, saying, ‘‘Will

91

you come and join us in walking with these men and women and

helping prepare them for their return and then walk through the

gate with them as they make those decisions?’’

The church is also a healthy atmosphere. John Dilulio made a

very interesting observation: ‘‘The last two institutions to leave the

inner-city are liquor stores and the churches.’’ Think of the clusters

of ill health, of pathology, around liquor stores, the gambling, the

vice, the drugs, versus the clusters of health, healthy lives, around

churches.

We want the people coming out of prisons to be healthy, not just

physically—mentally, morally—healthy, good people. Churches are

the place. If they are going to hang, if they are going to spend time,

the church is a lot healthier place for them to hang out than the

liquor store. So we need to facilitate that. We need to encourage

that.

But it is uncomfortable coming out of prison. You are not sure

if anybody will welcome you. The mentor helps them. They introduce them to the church, they hopefully will have told them ahead

of time, this inmate is coming out that they have that relationship

with, introduce them to the church and get them involved in

healthy activities.

Not just Bible studies and worship services, but also just helping

around the church. Our parents told us that idle hands are the

devil’s playground. There is plenty of idle time when you get out

of prison. You go from a period of control to a period of total freedom with your time. It is better to channel that to where healthy,

loving people are in the churches.

The last point I will make is that the government has to treat

the faith community as a partner. Too many government agencies

treat it as an auxiliary that it is a cheap way to do what we don’t

have enough money to do. That is wrong, because it misses the

power that the church has.

The church provides something that government never can, and

that is not only that love, but it is also that moral outlook and direction. We don’t want the government preaching and giving moral

direction. But crime at its root is a moral problem. Bad moral

choices were made. The decision was made to harm somebody else.

And we need to reform that attitude, that world view, that helps

get that person thinking right, thinking in terms of living a good,

healthy, productive life. The only way that comes is from a world

view.

We don’t have enough cops in the world to stop people from doing

something bad that pops in their head. There has to be self-restraint, and it is the church that can teach that self-restraint, and

the loving mentor that can help model that behavior and help them

when they stumble and make mistakes to get back on their feet.

The last thing I will say is that Dr. Martin Luther King said, ‘‘To

change someone, you must first love them, and they must know

that you love them.’’ It is the faith-based community that reaches

out in love to people society would rather forget and says, ‘‘We love

92

you, we will walk with you, we are here to help you get back on

your feet.’’

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Williams, Transition of Prisoners.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS

Mr. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. Thank you, and good evening.

First, let me start by saying what an honor it is for me to be able

to testify before this committee on an issue that is very near and

dear to my heart, prison aftercare and prison reentry and the reduction of prison recidivism.

If we are going to have a significant impact on this whole problem of prisoner recidivism, I think it is very important for us to

first understand the types of people who populate our prisons, and

if you would allow me to read just a few prisoner demographics.

First of all, 50 percent were raised by a single parent, usually

the mother; 15 percent were raised by neither parent, but were

raised by another relative or in a foster care home or in an institution; 25 percent were raised by a parent or a guardian who was a

substance abuser; 15 percent of male inmates and 55 percent of female inmates were physically or sexually abused as children, and

the numbers are even higher for those raised in foster care homes

or institutions—44 percent for men and 87 percent for women; 95

percent of the men had no loving father figure in their life.

As far as educational achievement is concerned, 40 percent did

not have a high school diploma or its equivalent; 40 to 65 percent

are functionally illiterate, meaning they lack the skills necessary to

read and understand a newspaper, balance a checkbook or fill out

an application for a job—on the average, they read at a 7th grade

level; 25 to 50 percent have symptoms of a learning disability; on

the average, their IQ score is 14 points below the national average,

and about 15 percent score low enough on an IQ test to be identified as mentally retarded.

As far as substance abuse is concerned, alcohol and other drugs

are implicated in the offenses of about 80 percent of inmates. Drug

offenses account for 20 to 60 percent of inmates; 60 to 80 percent

have used drugs at some point in their lives; 70 to 85 percent of

inmates need some level of drug treatment, but only 13 percent receive treatment while in prison.

Then there are the effects of prison after a person ends up in the

prison for a number of years. They have a prison mentality: Don’t

talk, don’t trust, don’t feel. They are indecisive, distrustful, afraid

of life beyond the walls. They are out of touch—out of touch with

family, out of touch with society in general, and out of touch with

the requirements of today’s workplace.

I think when we look at the characteristics of these individuals

who are in prison and are being released into the community, we

can see that this is not going to be a quick-fix solution, that in

order to have a significant impact on the problem of prison recidivism, comprehensive and relatively long-term measures are going

to be required.

I can say that, like Pat, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to

speak to this issue. First of all, I am a former inmate. I am a

former career criminal and former drug addict. For 13 years, between the ages of 15 and 28, I lived as a drug addict and a drug

dealer.

101

When I was 28 years old, God miraculously delivered me from

heroin addiction and from a life of crime, and within a year after

my deliverance and my transition from a life of crime to a life of

being productive in the community, I began to go back into the jails

and the prisons and help others who were in the same situation

that God had brought me out of. But I was not involved in jail and

prison ministry very long before I realized that most of the people

that I was ministering to in the jails and the prison, once they

were released from prison, were back in prison within a short period of time.

For 23 years now, I have worked in some form of ministry to

prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families.

I was also blessed to be able to go back to school, and I received

a bachelor’s degree in religious education with a double major in

urban studies and Bible; and I was also able to attend Wayne State

and to achieve a master of arts degree in applied sociology.

While I was at Wayne State, I discovered the theory of social integration. Basically what the theory of social integration says is

that those who have strong attachments to positive social institutions, such as the church, family and work, are far less likely to

engage in antisocial behaviors.

I was employed by Prison Fellowship in 1992 and started the Detroit Transition of Prisoners program in 1993. We used the theory

of social integration as a basis for our program model. The way

that we achieve social integration is through the churches. We

have about 80 churches working with us in Detroit, and they provide 120 mentors who work with men and women who transition

from prison back into the community.

It has been referenced today during these hearings, but I want

to put more emphasis on it, that most of those, like I was—those

people who were in prison and coming out of prison—have strong

attachments to antisocial networks, and in order for them to be

successful, then we have to facilitate their integration into pro-social networks.

A person can go through the finest program. We know that drug

treatment and housing and job placement and education and all of

those things are very much needed. But unless we are able to facilitate their connection to pro-social support networks, they are

very likely to go back to old friends and associates, as Mr.

Cummings alluded to; and it is only a matter of time before they

end up back using drugs, back committing crime and back in prison.

We have collected quite a bit of data on our program since the

time that we started. We have been in existence now for about 12

years. Our program evaluator is Leon Wilson, who is the Chair of

Sociology and Criminal Justice at Wayne State University, and he

conducted a study in 2000. He found that only 18 percent of those

who graduated from a TOP program had any further contact with

the criminal justice system within 3 years, and of that 18 percent,

only one person went back to prison for the commission of a new

crime.

I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the idea of faithbased and community-based organizations working hand in hand

with the government to impact this problem, and our data and my

102

experience suggest that when we in the church and in the community work hand in hand with the government, we can have a significant impact on the problem of recidivism.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph Williams follows:]

103

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness is Chaplain Robert Toney from

the Angola Prison in Louisiana.

Thank you for coming today.

Rev. TONEY. Thank you.

I would like to thank this committee and Brandon Lerch for the

opportunity of a lifetime today for me to be here before you distinguished gentlemen and ladies. I also would like to thank my warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary for the opportunity to represent him today, Warden Burl Cain, and the 5,108 inmates and

the 1,800 employees of the Louisiana State Penitentiary.

The Louisiana State Penitentiary is better known as simply Angola. It was once the most violent prison in America. Today, we are

known as the safest prison in America. This change began with a

warden that believed that change could occur. He also came with

a dream that within these walls transformation could take place

within the lives of those inmates there and that they could become

productive people in our world.

The chaplain and the programs within a prison cannot make this

change. The only way that change is possible within America inside

the walls of our prison is through the warden, the secretary of corrections and through the Governor’s Office; and our warden had

that support. He was willing to do it, Secretary of Corrections Richard Stalder was willing to do it, and they had the support of the

Governor.

Angola houses the most violent offenders with an average sentence length of 88 years. We have only four types of inmates within

our facility: We have murderers, we have aggravated sex offenders,

we have habitual offenders, we have short-timers that were so violent they could not be kept in another facility so they sent them

to us in Angola.

Warden Cain brought this moral change 10 years ago to Angola.

Moral rehabilitation is the only rehabilitation that works. If you

just have education, what you have done is just created a smarter

criminal. The change must come from within.

The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, a 4-year, accredited college, was started in 1997 within the walls of Angola. This

school exists today without any tax dollars. This school is supported by the local churches, the Judson Baptist Association of

Churches.

In 1997, we had our first group of inmates graduate from this

school, and I want to remind you they are graduating with a B.A.

degree that is an accredited degree, that when they are out of the

system can be built upon with a master’s degree or doctoral degree.

We had our first group that graduated. We put these to work as

inmate ministers. We put them to work all over our prison. It is

their job to minister and serve others. Inmates put down the knives

and the weapons and they picked up the Bible.

I have a graph that I have given to you today that shows that

during this 10-year period of Warden Cain’s administration, the

more rehabilitation has occurred, the violence of inmates on inmates, inmates on staff, has gone down to nearly nothing.

We had a culture change. We have no profanity. Profanity is only

one step away from violence. If we can keep it out of our prisons,

we are two steps away from violence.

109

We sent missionaries from Angola to the other prisons within our

State. A missionary, as we would call it, is one of our inmates that

graduated from our 4-year college. In 2005, we will have 50 more

graduates with a 4-year degree. We will have a graduation like any

other college. Moms and dads are going to come. The president of

the seminary, Dr. Chuck Kelley, from New Orleans, LA, will be

there, along with other professors. They will be in their attire of

their gowns and their caps. In many inmates’ lives, this will be the

first positive accomplishment in their entire life. Moms and dads

will get to see their sons accomplish a great goal.

The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is not just Baptists, it is for all faiths. Within this seminary, within this college,

we have Pentecostal, Methodists, Episcopal, Muslim, Jehovah’s

Witnesses, Church of Latter Day Saints—non-religion.

It is non-religion. It is moral education. We want you to have morality, because character counts.

All religious groups have grown as a result of this school being

inside our walls. The culture of the bloodiest prison in America has

changed. Morality exists, hope lives, men have been rehabilitated.

The men who have gone home after completing this program have

not returned to prison.

Angola, out of 5,108 inmates, has only 1,400 of our inmates living in a cell. Most of our population live in a dormitory setting, and

I want you to know they live in peace. Tonight they will be able

to go to sleep and not have to worry about someone taking their

life.

We have church 7 nights a week, 7 days a week. We had 11,000

outside volunteers enter our prison in 2004 conducting various

types of ministry. Ms. America came to Angola in 2003. She walked

all over our prison without one whistle or catcall. You are safer in

Angola tonight than you are on the streets of Washington, DC.

If you want the prison systems changed in America, it is moral

rehabilitation. Our Secretary Richard Stalder says, ‘‘Faith in a

prison makes our prisons safer.’’ Faith doesn’t need to be a side

street, but it needs to be the Main Street.

Warden Cain has said, even an atheist warden would want faith

within a prison, because faith within a prison system makes a prison safer. People can change. Moral rehabilitation works.

The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary began a 4-year

degree program in Mississippi this year at Parchman. Georgia is

looking next week at our system. Florida is looking. Alabama is

looking. Arkansas is looking. Moody Bible College is ready to take

on this same challenge in Illinois if the door will open.

Remember, no tax dollars. The church of America will pay for

this. It won’t cost the government anything. The church of America

is waiting for a vehicle to drive. All you have to do is put us in the

driver’s seat, give us an opportunity to change it, and it can take

place. You can watch recidivism go down immediately.

This year, One Day With God occurred within our walls. We

brought in 300 children of our inmates to reconnect with their father. This had never happened in the history of Angola. We are a

maximum security prison for the State. We are not a medium security or minimum security. Because of a warden that wants to make

a difference, change has occurred.

110

Angola represents the true spirit of America. This is what happens when you have true morality. I would like to invite each one

of you, on behalf of our Warden Burl Cain and our Secretary Richard Stalder, to come and see the truth for yourself.

Thank you today.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The information referred to follows:]

111

112

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness is Mr. Frederick Davie, senior

vice president of public policy, Public-Private Ventures. Thank you

for coming.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK A. DAVIE

Mr. DAVIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Members,

and Ranking Member Cummings. Thank you very much. And

thanks to you for taking the time to examine this issue. I also want

to thank Congressman Davis and Congressman Portman for your

work on behalf of the returning offender population.

Public-Private Ventures is a national nonprofit organization

seeking to improve the effectiveness of social policies and programs,

with a particular emphasis on work force development issues. Public-Private Ventures designs, tests and studies initiatives that increase opportunities for the residents of low-income communities.

As has been stated here already today, every year nearly 760,000

ex-prisoners threaten the already tenuous cohesion of many of the

country’s most troubled communities. In response, Public-Private

Ventures developed and launched a $321⁄2 million national reentry

initiative. We call it Ready4Work, An Ex-prisoner, Faith and Community Initiative. We have done it in partnership with the U.S. Departments of Labor and Justice and the Annie E. Casey and the

Ford Foundation.

I want to thank Secretary Chow and her staff, especially Brent

Orrell, who is the DOL’s Director of Faith and Community Initiatives, as well as Robert Florez, who is an Administrative OJDDP

at the Justice Department and his staff, Gwendolyn Dilworth, for

creating this partnership with us.

Ready4Work operates in areas of high crime to strengthen local

networks of young adults and juveniles as they reenter their communities following detention or incarceration. Our primary mission

is to connect ex-offenders with employment opportunities and to

help them find housing, transportation and child care support they

need to sustain that employment. Each participant is also matched

with a volunteer mentor recruited through local faith-based and

community organizations to provide personal support and assistance.

There are 16 sites across the country, both secular and faithbased. I have included a full list for the record, and Public-Private

Ventures would be happy to facilitate contact between this committee or any other Members of Congress and any other participating

organizations.

Ready4Work is currently in its second year of operation. The

sites have so far recruited over 2,000 participants, all nonviolent,

nonsexual, except for prostitution felony offenders. Eighty-five percent of the participants are male, nearly 80 percent are African

Americans.

Of the adult participants, nearly 100 percent are receiving case

management, 64 percent have been placed in jobs, and nearly half

have been matched with mentors.

In the juvenile sites, 64 percent are African American and 84

percent are male. Half are between the ages of 17 and 19. Almost

100 percent of the juveniles are receiving case management, 79

113

percent are being mentored, 60 percent are receiving educational

services, and 67 percent are receiving employment services.

What sets Ready4Work apart from traditional reentry efforts is

its focus on placing local, faith-based and community organizations

at the heart of the network that greets folks when they come out

of prison. We believe that these organizations are a unique source

of accountability and support for returning offenders. They are frequently located in the most deeply affected neighborhoods, as we

have heard, and they have resources that can make a difference between success and failure for a returnee.

Frankly, the compassion and commitment that these groups

bring to the work is irreplaceable.

We also benefit immeasurably from our partnership with the

business community and its willingness to employ Ready4Work

participants. We applaud those of you who have moved this issue

of reentry to the top of Congress’ agenda. Public-Private Ventures

believes that the Second Chance Act provides a solid basis for creating a national policy aimed at reducing crime and recidivism. We

also believe that the bill should be strengthened to find ways to direct more assistance toward the faith community and community

institutions.

We further believe that Congress should look for ways to match

the program experience and technical capacity of organizations like

ours with the people power of smaller groups. This has been the

Ready4Work model, one that we believe offers an excellent chance

to break the cycle of crime and imprisonment for the benefit of returning offenders and their communities.

I want to thank you again for this opportunity, and we look forward to continuing to work with the 109th Congress to enact meaningful reentry legislation.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davie follows:]

114

115

116

117

Mr. SOUDER. And now that Sammy Sosa apparently is heading

to Congressman Cummings’ district, you will be our clean-up person from Chicago.

Mr. George A.H. Williams, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, from Chicago, IL. Thank you for your patience today.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE A.H. WILLIAMS

Mr. GEORGE WILLIAMS. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes,

as a matter of fact, we are going to miss Sammy very much.

To the chairman, thank you, sir. It is good seeing you again. The

last time I saw you was in Chicago on the West Side at Congressman Davis’ district when you had your committee hearing there. I

would like to thank you today for having this process here.

And to the past president, Congressman Elijah Cummings, of the

Congressional Black Caucus, thank you, sir, for your tenure in that

process. I appreciate all the hard work you have done and will do

over the years.

And to my esteemed Congressman and my trusted leader, Mr.

Congressman Danny Davis—he is my Congressman, but most importantly, he is a trusted leader, a man that has the trust of his

district, of the men that live in his district.

I am going to talk a little bit about my organization, TSAC.

Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities is a statewide, notfor-profit organization that provides access to recovery and other

specialized services to individuals in Illinois involved in the criminal justice systems, and the corrections, juvenile justice, child welfare, public aid systems also. TSAC programs reaches over 30,000

people across the State each year, including correctional transition

programs that provide clinical case management for more than

4,000 adults annually who are reentering the community following

incarceration.

TSAC works with an array of service providers and community

partners, including treatment, recovery, support, nontraditional,

traditional organizations, faith-based throughout the State of Illinois.

We at TSAC are in full support of the Second Chance Act to help

to reduce the numerous barriers facing men and women, families

and communities as well. The Second Chance Act is a necessary

step toward reducing the high recidivism rate and the costs that

accompany recidivism and repeat incarceration, including the

threat to public health, public safety.

This legislation begins the process of ensuring better coordination and planning for relief, providing necessary drug treatment

and recovery support services, job training, education, housing,

family assistance upon release. TSAC strongly urges Congress to

support this legislation to provide the health, justice, welfare and

safety to all of our residents and communities.

Thank you very much for this legislation and for this discussion.

Now I want to spend a few seconds on a particular component

of our services that we call ‘‘restoring citizenship.’’ The work that

we do is primarily focused on how do you go into the man and the

woman to get them to look within themselves, as well, with all of

these external supports that are available. Because if you keep in

mind, most men and most women go into the system because they

118

have offended. They don’t come out of the system because they offended, they went into the system because they offended. That

means there was something there in the beginning that attracted

that type of lifestyle.

As a matter of fact, I was searching in my mind some time ago

about the first crime, and I started reading books and trying to do

some research. Somehow I was led to the Bible. In the Bible there

is a situation in there where God asks one of the humans a question, where was his brother? And he responded to God, why are

you asking me? I mean, am I my brother’s keeper? And right then

and there for me was probably reflective of what we are up against.

When man lied to God about a crime that he committed, did we

inherit that consciousness and that spirit as we go forth and try

to look at and dismantle so many pieces to criminality.

It is just not the behavior; it is that men and women can exist

in communities where the behavior is validated, sometimes within

their family structure, within their community structure. So how

do we also begin to dismantle those processes? And within the Seventh Congressional District, we have processes in place in terms of

where we are engaging communities to dismantle some of the

norms that exist, where men can exist in those kinds of behaviors

and don’t get called out.

We are trying to call them out and make them to be accountable

and to crush some of those support systems that allow them to

exist as well.

Behavior is an extremely difficult proposition sometimes, and I

know that the work we are doing right now, this is a movement.

This movement around reentry is very early, but this is a real

strong, powerful movement to look at men and women and to help

them think about establishing and restoring their citizenship, their

rights and responsibilities. Because all over this country, in the

urban areas, in the rural areas, in the suburban areas, you have

men and women crying out, asking for a chance to be self-sufficient

and asking this country for a second chance. And at some point in

time we as a people have to answer the question, at what point in

time do men and women stop serving time?

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. George Williams follows:]

119

120

121

Mr. SOUDER. Well, thank you all for your testimony.

I wanted to just ask Chaplain Toney again, did you say the average was 88 years in the sentence?

Rev. TONEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. I just wanted to make sure I heard that right, in

case I quote that sometime. I am not used to that number.

One of the challenges that we face—just to be very open as we

try to work through this legislation, one of the great things with

today’s hearing is, it suggests some possibilities about how we address this.

There are several things that are happening, whether anybody

likes them or not, and that is State funding is flat at best and not

inflation-adjusted even, just flat funding. Federal funding is tight,

and the problems are not, overall, going down. In fact, crime has

gone down, but that is because we lock so many people up.

Now they are about to come back out, and what does that mean?

This is a huge challenge. That is why we have expanded discussions about faith-based and community organizations and business

organizations, because it doesn’t matter whether you have a Republican or a Democratic Governor, it doesn’t matter who is in

charge of the legislature, it doesn’t matter who is in charge, the

money is not going up. So how do we deal with this?

We also have another sociological, demographic problem that was

alluded to from the beginning today that is a huge challenge politically, and that is that the most difficult crime, if not all crime, is

certainly skewed to inside the black male community and in the

minority community and in the urban areas. It doesn’t mean there

isn’t crime elsewhere, it doesn’t mean there are not addictions to

pornography or other types of problems in all sorts of suburbs, and

it doesn’t mean that the majority, or close to the majority, of people

in prisons are not majority white population. But it does mean that

this disproportionately hits urban centers and disproportionately

hits the minority community.

It is also true that those population areas overall in the United

States have declined. So there are fewer Members of Congress from

those areas. And politically it becomes harder to move legislation

that focuses on those communities as they are less representative

of the whole of the United States.

And it isn’t surprising necessarily that the Congressmen at our

hearing today that were most interested were from Los Angeles

and Baltimore and Kansas City and Chicago and Washington, DC,

and major metropolitan areas, because they have the most stake in

it.

The problem is, to pass this legislation, how do we broaden our

base? How does this base reach the majority community, as some

of you have reached out and said you have obligations here?

One is a cost question, which is cheaper? But, quite frankly, it

is not absolutely clear which is cheaper. At some point, because of

the difficulty of this, it is cheaper, but it is not guaranteed cheaper

based on the housing questions, job training questions and all of

the other kinds of things that we need to do.

There is a moral obligation with it, and I think what is interesting and what I believe is a potential breakthrough opportunity

with this is that as you hear people like Pat, and we have known

122

each other for at least 35 years, like you know Congressman Doolittle and Congressman Royce and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, because we all grew up together in the conservative movement, that having people who have gone through this, not that I

want to or recommend other Members of Congress go to prison for

24 months to figure out the difficulty of it, but to try to figure out

and hear from people who share our ideology make a passionate

appeal of both the need to mentor, the time, the obligation to spend

the time, and the need for services and how we address the followthrough, and the difficulty, given some of the laws that we passed,

that our constituents support and polls show they still support and

even want them to be tougher. This is a huge dilemma as we work

this through in Congress.

But when we hear—and one of the things the American people

are desperate for is hope. They see recidivism rates go up. They see

the problems seem to be there. We battle on this drug issue all the

time. This is a drug policy committee.

But when we hear in Angola prison a story like that, or we hear

individual cases like we heard today, or cases that this is going on

in Detroit, not known as an easy city necessarily to work in, or in

Washington, DC, which has been the murder capital of the United

States 7 of the last 8 years, that to listen to those kind of programs

offers hope. And I hope that today’s hearing can advance that, that

in fact—because if this is viewed as just a traditional way to transfer more money into urban communities and gets an ‘‘us against

them’’ type of mentality in battling for dollars, which is often where

the rubber meets the road here in Congress, it isn’t going to go

anywhere.

This has been a very difficult process, to even get this bill

launched. It sounds great, it is very moving, but in the reality of

how bills become law, it is hard. I think you have suggested a number of things today, and it has been great to hear all of your testimonies about different things that have worked well.

I may have a particular question here to wrap up the hearing,

but let me yield to Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

very much, Mr. Chairman.

What you were just saying, as I sit here, I couldn’t help but say

to myself that trying to get the public to realize that people can do

their time and then go out into the world and be productive is so

very, very hard; and that, as testimony, has been stated over and

over again in this hearing here today, that a prison sentence—or

not necessarily a sentence, a conviction dooms a person for a lifetime.

Mr. Williams, I just want to go to something that you said, and

I am so glad you brought this out. I actually in my law practice

and when I was a State delegate, hired former inmates to give

them a chance. One of the things that I realized early on is that

prison does take more away from a person than their freedom. I

noticed just the whole being on schedule, time, coming to work on

time was a problem. It is like they had to readjust.

I noticed another very interesting thing that came up not long

ago. We had a fellow in Maryland who was wrongfully accused and

served 27 years and got out, and his fiance said that even after he

123

got out, he would stay in the basement and wouldn’t come out. She

said she could hardly get him to come out of the basement, and he

would just sit there.

I think a lot of people don’t realize. They think about just the

physical incarceration. They don’t think about the fact that it really

does something to a person. It takes them out of society. And that

reintegration thing is so significant.

I was talking a little bit earlier about the program that we had

in Baltimore. When you talk about integration and you talk about

family, I think you said church.

Mr. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. And employment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And employment. One of the things that we noticed—take for example with family, fellows, the volunteers who

had done pretty well in life would come on Saturdays, and we

would have like a 12-step program where people sit around and

talk about their lives or whatever. But they would open up into social activities with folk who had been in prison and want their families together, and it made a world of difference, because then they

became more attached to the family.

We also had a fatherhood piece, where fathers could reconnect

with their children. So that gave them something to hold onto as

opposed to the streets. It gave them somebody kind of looking over

their shoulder, and somebody else to disappoint if anything went

wrong.

The same thing with work. I think a lot of people don’t realize

how significant work is. A lot of jobs create a whole new set of family members, because they found they begin to socialize with these

folks, they became a team at work, depending on what kind of job

it was, a team at work, and had new people, new people getting

up at 6 a.m., maybe getting off at 5 p.m., and talking about things

other than committing a crime; and they had something else, they

had hope.

Because a lot of these jobs had opportunities for them to move

up in life. Things that are very basic to those who may not have

gone through the system, but we take them for granted. But the

fact is that all of that I think is needed to make a person whole.

And certainly church.

As the son of two preachers, I found a lot of the people in our

church will come. They will have, again, a reintegration, a whole

other family to connect with, and a family that is not dealing with

drugs, a family not committing crime, a family where the norm is

to do the right thing.

So it is just a whole lot. But I am glad you brought that aspect.

And I didn’t hear your testimony, Mr. Nolan. Maybe you hit on

that, too, and others. But I just think that is a part, no matter

what we have to do, we have to deal with that piece.

Any comments, sir?

Mr. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Back in 1981, when I was making the transition from a life of

crime to one of being productive in the community, the greatest

challenge I faced—many times people ask me what was the greatest challenge I faced, was it struggling with the addiction issue or

the lifestyle issue? But it was loneliness. Because for 13 years,

most of my teenage years and all of my adult years up to that

124

point, all of my associations and friendships were with criminals

and drug addicts.

And so, now, I was drug free. I wanted to do the right thing, but

I was very lonely. And I heard that Mother Teresa was quoted as

citing—she was asked, what was the greatest disease that she had

ever seen, the most devastating disease she had ever seen? And she

cited it was loneliness. And that loneliness, because I didn’t have

the kinds of people, the pro-social types of people to fellowship with

and to direct me in the right way, was a danger of driving me back

to my old associates and back to the old behaviors. And I wonder,

with the other two former inmates who testified earlier, that had

I not been able to, through my church, make all those new associations through friendships and through school and through employment, that I would not be here today.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How does government—and this is my last question—how does a program like the one we are talking about, how

do we in government—we can only do but so much. But what do

you see us doing, or you all see us doing, and I assume we pretty

much all agree that’s a big part of it, to get people more socially

integrated?

I mean, what do you see government’s role in that, if any?

Mr. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. Yes, and I don’t think that it is something

that the government can do per se, but I think the greatest role

that government can take on is to build the capacity of organizations such as Transition of Prisoners and these organizations who

have been committed to this cause for a number of years.

And unfortunately, what happens is, you know, we have thrown

around some figures of some $300 million and $100 million, and so

a lot of nonprofits will develop a desire to go into re-entry because

of that. But there’s been a lot of organizations that have been out

here for years and have been committed to it, and they are going

to do it whether the funding is there or not. But they don’t have

the capacity to really do it at a large scale.

So I think that the best thing that government could do is to

build the capacity of community-based and faith-based organizations as we build the capacity of the churches. And that way, I believe that we will be able to sustain our programs. And we know

that the funding will not be there forever, but we need a way to

build our capacity so that we could continue to do this work after

the funding is gone.

Mr. NOLAN. If I could answer, too, the government could also

view churches as a partner. Justice Fellowship sponsored a conference and the head of transition services from New Mexico attended it, and he said it never occurred to him to look to the

churches for mentors.

He was in charge of finding mentors, and he was going to all of

these community groups and not having much success. And it

never occurred to him to go to churches. And so he called me when

he got home, and he said, half of the folks in New Mexico are

Catholics. And I am not a Catholic. What do I do?

And I knew the bishop there, and the Catholic Church provided

a nun full-time to organize parishes to recruit mentors. And the

Protestants, several churches got together and hired somebody

125

half-time. And all he had to do was just be open to that. And,

frankly, a lot of government officials aren’t open to that.

They think it’s improper to have a relationship. Again, they view

churches as maybe providing an education program, or it’s programmatic as opposed to a partner. Then a lot of States have policies that put up barriers. Many States have a policy that says, if

you mentor someone in prison, the prisoner is prohibited from

being in a relationship with you when you get out of prison. The

Federal Bureau of Prisons has that policy. If a volunteer comes in

and mentors you in prison, you are prohibited from being in touch

with them when they get out. Texas had that policy. IFI had——

Mr. SOUDER. Would you elaborate on that? I don’t understand.

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. The idea is that the inmates are all cons and,

therefore, will take advantage of these volunteers when they get

out; that the volunteers would be victims of the offenders when

they get out, and so they have to sever that relationship.

Most States have that policy, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons

has that policy. Texas had that policy, and IFI had to have an exemption. Texas still has that policy. And IFI is exempted from that

policy.

Let me say one last thing. Now, Director Wilkinson is definitely

an exception to this. But most prison systems are built on or structured around what is convenient for the system. If nobody riots and

nobody escapes, they are a good warden. If somebody riots and

somebody escapes, they are bad.

Therefore, volunteers, religious volunteers and mentors are a

threat to their careers, because every time a volunteer comes in,

there might be contraband there; there might be something there,

and so it’s easier to exclude those volunteers. They are a pain in

the neck. They are more work to the people with that attitude.

Institutional security is more important than—and, in fact, one

warden said to me that the way he was trained—now he’s different

in this. But the way he was trained in Oklahoma was that, if nobody rioted and nobody escaped, he was a good warden. If that

prisoner walked out of prison 1 block and raped or murdered somebody, that was still OK because they hadn’t done it on his watch.

And we need to change that attitude to where corrections people

view public safety as their role.

And that whole mindset—if public safety is a role, then you welcome religious volunteers and mentors. And Burl Cain—you know,

I have been to Angola. It is a different atmosphere. The inmates

look you in the eye. They have hope even. The reason that 88 years

is the average sentence is because most of them are going to die

in prison there. And Warden Cain has changed it so they are buried with dignity. The choir sings. They can make their own casket

or another inmate can.

They have created a carriage with horses to draw it. They have

a ceremony to bear them. They used to be just buried in cardboard

boxes in paupers’ graves. Now there’s a ceremony to honor their

life with their friends. They are treated like human beings whose

lives matter.

And you see it in the way that the inmates talk—outsiders the

way they talk to each other, the respect with which they treat each

other and are treated by the staff.

126

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have one other thing.

Mr. Nolan, as I listened to you talk, I have to tell you, I became

a little bit depressed when you talked about them, you know, the

caskets and everything.

I guess one of the things that I am—and maybe nobody else will

say this, but I am going to say it—you know, there are so many

people in my community who come upon the Earth, and because

of circumstances, a lot of times, and some poor decisions sometimes, they don’t believe that they can live the kind of life that

other people live.

And I will never forget one time when I went to speak at a prison, and I looked around, and I was speaking at a graduation. And

if you did not see the guards in the room, I would have sworn you

were at a church.

I guess my point is that, you know, some kind of way—I want

to see people believe that they don’t have to—the prison doesn’t

have to be a part of their lives.

Mr. NOLAN. Right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I don’t want to get to a point where—and

I am not knocking anybody who has gone through that process—

but, I tell you, I want people to have hope. I don’t necessarily talk

about coping skills; I talk about hoping skills. Because I think

when you lose hope—and that my hope is to have a nice funeral

in a prison, and a fellow inmate is making me a casket, to me that

ain’t no hope. That’s not hope to me. That does not excite me.

What does excite me is trying to—although some of these gentlemen and women, perhaps, may not ever get out, but for them to

know that, every day, they can be better than they were the day

before, that’s hope under those circumstances. It’s hope knowing

that they can perhaps counsel a younger inmate and try to show

him or her the path to that, when they get out, to how you have

things that they want to consider, things of that nature.

And I don’t want—I tell you, I don’t want us to adopt a philosophy—you know, one of the things I say all the time is, we have one

life to live, and this is no dress rehearsal, and this is the life.

And sometimes I think that when we get into scenarios like that,

like, you know, the big deal is to be able to make a casket, and

what that reminds me of, one of the guys in my neighborhood, because I live in the inner city, Baltimore, who believe they are going

to die before they are 18.

So what is their, I mean, so—committing a crime is not as big

of a deal because they don’t expect to be here.

What I am saying to you is that we have to, no matter what we

do in our prison systems, I think we have to create a sense of hope.

And I know, I am not sitting here trying to sound like somebody

who is some flaming liberal who thinks he is supposed to be paying

for people who commit crimes. I know what it is to be a victim of

a crime. I know what it is to have a gun, sawed-off shot gun, two

of them, pointed at my head at 2 a.m. I understand it.

But at the same time I don’t want us to move to that point where

we think that it’s nice that somebody can make a casket for me in

prison and bury me on prison ground. I don’t think that sends a

very powerful message at all, to be frank with you.

127

Mr. NOLAN. I didn’t want to send that message. I wanted to say

they are treated with dignity so they can live a life of consequence

even if we are never going to let them out. That is what Warden

Cain has done and the seminary where they can do exactly what

you said, spread hope to the other prisoners. They even have a culinary class. They even have the chefs from New Orleans come up

and teach them to create terrific, you know, high-level cuisine for

the other inmates.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But, see, the thing is that I know for a fact, once,

one little decision in my life could have put me in the same position

as a lot of those folks that find themselves in prison.

Mr. NOLAN. And one of the things we want to work with you on

is sentencing, because these long sentences are horribly cruel in

many cases.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right, there you go.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Let me again commend you and Ranking Member Cummings for holding this hearing.

I also want to thank this group of witnesses especially for coming

to testify.

I agree with you when you talk about the difficulty of passing

legislation, and especially when you talk about the differences that

exist in different geographic areas, big cities versus smaller towns,

urban areas versus rural areas, where the impact of certain issues

are not felt as great.

Pat, it is always good to be where you are, talking about your

experiences, and what you have seen and what you have done. And

I thank you for continuing to do that.

Mr. Williams, it’s—I think the kind of light that you shared and

the kind of inspiration that you give and the kind of hope that you

convey to others who may be in the same circumstances and situations that you have once been in.

Chaplain Toney, I grew up about 10 miles from what we used to

call the Louisiana line. And so I knew about Angola when I was

a child growing up in Arkansas.

And, of course, our parents would admonish us, whenever we

went to Louisiana, that we better not get into any trouble because,

if we did, we might end up in Angola.

And, of course, that spoke to the reputation that Angola had at

that time. And to see how it’s changing—as a matter of fact, I have

an invitation from some inmates in Angola to visit that I have been

trying to figure out when I could work that out, if I could work it

out, in terms of my schedule.

Mr. TONEY. Any time.

Mr. DAVIS. And I am going to put more effort on to it to try to

work it out from hearing your testimony today and what you have

conveyed.

George, it is always good to hear you talk about the work of

TASC and what it does, and coming from your own experiences.

And I also want to thank you not only for changing your schedule

to come and to be here, but also for serving as co-chairman of our

ex-offender task force in the 7th Congressional District back in IlliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:09 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20377.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
128

nois. And the work that task does to help raise the level of understanding about these issues.

When I look at the panel knowing, for example, that three of you,

at least, are what people would call ex-offenders, that there are

three of you on the panel who are dignified citizens, who are selfsufficient, who are professional at what you do. I think that conveys a kind of hope in and of itself.

Because what it really says is that there are thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others who find themselves in a position that you once were in.

And if given assistance, if given the opportunities, if provided the

resources, they, too, become productive citizens. They, too, become

self-sufficient. They, too, become contributing members of society,

and that’s exactly what I think we are trying to do is to indeed provide hope for those who have become hopeless, to provide help for

those who think that they might be helpless and to help individuals know that it’s not always a matter of where you have been,

but it’s also a matter of where you are going.

And I believe that our criminal justice system can, in fact,

change.

Mr. GEORGE WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. That it can, in fact, be different.

What I think government can provide is the impetus. But as others have already said, it does take a movement. And the only way

there is a movement, there has to be the people. And I mean, you

have given me so much hope.

Mr. Davis, organizations like yours that are really looking and

searching—I think we know that it’s not going to be easy.

Mr. GEORGE WILLIAMS. No, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. I mean, I grew up listening to my folks tell us, you

know the Langston Hughes stuff, that life ain’t been no crystal

stair, had a lot of tacks and a lot of holes in it. But we have just

got to keep trying.

And that’s what the Second Chance Act attempts to do. That’s

what the Public Safety Self-Sufficiency Act tries to do, is provide

the hope that tells us that we got to keep trying.

And so I thank you gentlemen so very much.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for this hearing.

And I believe that we are on the right track, and that the American people will respond and life does not have to be, for individuals who are incarcerated, one dark, gloomy picture.

So I thank you.

Mr. GEORGE WILLIAMS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. As we move forward—and it was important that we get the year started out right in this 2-year session

of Congress—a couple of thoughts here at the end: One is, it’s very

easy to be critical of those who commit crimes, and that those of

us who haven’t been to jail, it’s hard—and since the population

that hasn’t had to vote the tax money with which to do this.

In communicating, I have been trying to think of analogies of

every January, I and most Americans commit to lose weight. And

yet, we don’t; that we fail. And yet we criticize those, and they even

have physical addictions, without any of the resources that we have

to follow through, if they fail in what their goal is.

129

And how to get in a way that the average person can understand

the difficulty without being condemning. Because at root, I believe,

as Mr. Williams suggested and others, that the root cause is sin.

And that we are in a constant battle, and that those of us who

have extra resources with which to battle it are blessed.

And then the question comes, how do we reach out to those who

don’t have those and what is our obligation to do so and what is

the individual’s obligation then to change because, there is accountability there, too.

And trying to communicate this message is of critical importance

as we move through this. Really, what are three stages for those

who follow this bill and are going to be active and trying to promote this?

As Pat knows, from being in the Assembly, there’s really three

ways to do this. One is the bill directly, which is an authorizing

bill that says this is allowed to fund these types of programs, and

it’s—Congressman Davis has a housing bill that we have supported

before, and that is arguably the most difficult, because you have to

go through the House, you have to go through the Senate, and the

President has to reconcile and support it, too.

The second thing is that, in the appropriations process, to try to

get little pieces here and there where we fund things in the appropriations process that are parts of the overall bill, and the general

question of prison re-entry.

And the third is through the executive branch where they make

decisions every day on how to allocate funding.

For example, in my home area in Ft. Wayne, IN, which is a city

of 200,000, not as big as most of the cities you are dealing with for

the most part today, the fact is that the Justice Department has

a re-entry program because in Ft. Wayne—which has been bragging now for 5 years that they have had these great crime reductions. Now their people or many could go out of prison, 3,000 of

them, in some neighborhoods that only have 10,000 people in front

of them.

Now what happens, you know, the housing situation is stressed.

The job situation is stressed. There aren’t jobs in that section of the

city that other sections of the city say, why should they come back

there?

It is a problem all across America, as we as politicians and government leaders have bragged about the government reduction in

crime. Many of those sentences were 3, 5, 7 years, and now we

have the re-entry questions that we are going to have to deal with

this, or what we have bragged about and run on, in areas outside

the urban areas as well as inside the urban areas we are faced

with. So I think there are multiple ways to try to tackle this.

I wanted to make sure that we started right at the beginning of

the 2-year term to try to raise this, and you have helped. I would

also like if you can work with Brandon Lerch on our staff, for example, in the Ready-to-Work Program, to identify youth listed in

your testimony, all these different sites across the country, to give

us a little more feedback in what government funds were in, how

that has worked in the capacity building, so we can see. And if you

have any data, any of the rest of you.

Mr. GEORGE WILLIAMS. OK.

130

Mr. SOUDER. In Chicago and Detroit, and I know Justice Fellowship can do that, too.

So as we move into this hearing record, as it moves into the different authorizing committees, that we can try to, whether it’s

through floor statements, through different meetings, that we bring

people in. The more information we have, the better armed we will

be to try to tackle these difficult questions.

This committee does authorizing and oversight on drug policy, so

there are a number of things here—for example in the treatment

program, when I have talked to—when I say about the appropriations process, Chairman Wolf and I have talked to Commerce,

State and Justice Appropriations about, should drug treatment be

more precisely targeted in a higher percentage toward prisons?

Because if we can’t get to it early on, or if, in fact, it becomes

a greater problem in prison or they are introduced to it in prison,

it is a huge question, how do we best target these funds?

So any kind of information you can give us for this hearing

record will not only be in the official record, but then we can use

it as we debate it in multiple forms, including additional hearings

in this subcommittee.

Would any of you like to make any closing comments?

Mr. DAVIE. I would, Mr. Chairman.

You asked earlier sort of what could Congress do. And I would

like to suggest that one of the areas where we have not paid

enough attention to garnering resources and partnerships is with

the philanthropic community.

I mentioned the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in my testimony. I used to work for Ford. So I know that

world pretty well, but I think if Congress and the President were

to reach out to the heads of the major foundations and suggest they

could play a role in this area, a bigger role as well in terms of helping to support local community and faith-based organizations, in

the delivery of these services, you would find a good partner there.

But I think they need to cover—I think if the legislation somehow

required a match from philanthropic and private sources in the implementation of these programs, that would be another sort of incentive and method to get the philanthropic community involved.

There are billions and billions of dollars there, and this is an issue

that the philanthropic community has not paid a lot of attention

to.

I, frankly, think they are scared of it in some ways for obvious

reasons. But with the support and cover of government, in pursuing this as a national policy and a national issue, I do think a number of those philanthropic institutions will come along.

I would just encourage you—if you see your way so clear—to

reach out to that community, because I think they can be a valuable resource.

Mr. SOUDER. We will followup directly on that question. If I can

make an editorial comment here that, as we work this through—

the President’s faith-based initiative, when he first took office,

somehow became mostly focused on the public funding portion that

was going to go to faith-based. It really had multiple pieces, including capacity building, which we talked about. How do we get people

setting up 501c3s? How do we train them in accounting methods

131

so they can have credibility when they go to philanthropic institutions, and then the tax credit, which would give incentive to individuals when they give these 501c3s and to philanthropic organizations? The public fight became over the funding portion. And we

kind of lost the other two, where we might have been able to move

forward.

Steve Goldsmith was originally hired. And as he has pointed out

repeatedly, there’s far more dollars in the philanthropic area right

now than there are in government. Somehow this got second, the

back burner. Trying to reconstruct some of how that happened is

important as we move forward.

Second, one of the things that appeared to have happened is that

the philanthropic organizations themselves backed away—if government didn’t put the money in, because government money was

like a good-housekeeping seal, that we believe this group is good.

And so much like what is happening in pharmaceutical prices

and Medicare is, as we were trying to go cheap on the drug prices,

that every private insurance company standard emulated the government price. And if the philanthropic organizations merely mimic

what we do, we are right back to the first place.

So as we move multiple faith-based pieces through, which we will

probably be starting within 4 weeks, everything from welfare reform, social services block grant and other types of things, in addition to the regular bill and regular implementation, we will try to

figure out how to do that, with suggestions of specifically how to

do that, with regional conferences where the government brings

philanthropic organizations in and lets groups come to present

that. That was one of the things that was raised to me. We do this,

for example, in small business centers around the United States.

We have small business centers where the secretary is shared.

The phone lines are shared. The fax machines are shared. Students

can come and volunteer. Could that be done in a social services

way? And would philanthropic organizations pay for some of that,

which would then build the capacity of small organizations, much

who have no idea to whom you fill out a grant—fill out a grant to

the Federal Government or a philanthropic organization, don’t have

time to hire somebody even to figure out the bid process of a small

foundation, let alone the Federal Government when you don’t know

which 10 days it will be in the middle of the month and have some

inside information.

This, on the surface, sounds really good, but how to implement

it in some very practical things. They have done some of this

around the country. Clearly, the Faith-based Office is trying to figure out how to do it. But we have missed this philanthropic piece,

and the question is, how to jar them. There’s lots of money there,

and you are absolutely right, but it’s a challenge. So any input you

have on that.

Mr. TONEY. Just one statement to you, that position has power,

and each person who sits on this committee and everyone who

serves in Congress and across the board, just by you taking notice

of this and just by taking visits, you have the power to make a difference. One man can make a difference.

Warden Cain is just one man. He has only had 10 years in the

maximum security prison, the bloodiest prison in America. Today,

132

it’s the safest. That’s one man in the right position. Government officials have power. Put that one man in the right places in the prisons.

Education is powerful. We have seminaries across the United

States. Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. They are a prestigious

university. There are other universities that are ready to take on

the process of putting education within the prison system, no tax

dollars, supported by the Church of America. So position has

power, and I thank you for what you are doing; 88 years, do I agree

with that. No, I do not.

There is one man we have at Angola, Bishop Eugene Tannerhill,

he is 70 years old, he has been behind bars for 50 years. Would

he be a detriment to society? No, sir. I would love for him to be

my next-door neighbor.

There are many guys within our system. We can’t help the 88

years. We just have to do the best we can with where we are, and

that’s what we have done in regards to the caskets and those

things being done.

That means a lot to Eugene Tannerhill, who has no one to be his

emergency contact and to pick his body up when he dies. That

means a lot to him, that he will have a decent burial, that he will

have grace and dignity in those last days of his life. That means

a lot to him.

You would only have to be in their position to see the hope these

guys have; hope with no hope; 88 years alive, but they still have

hope. And they have changed their culture. And the society that

they live in is a great world, even within the walls of a prison. But

you have power, and thank you for the power that you are using

today to change our prisons in America.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. I would say that I agree with others who

have testified that there is a movement, re-entry and after-care.

It’s a very young movement, and it reminds me in many ways of

the yearly substance-abuse treatment movement that started back

in the 1960’s, when people were looking at, you know, the validity

of funding substance-abuse treatment.

And I think one of the major things that occurred in that movement was leadership of those who had formerly been addicted to

drugs and alcohol. And somehow, I think, if a way could be found

to encourage the leadership of those who have served time in prison and have successfully made that transition and assure that they

have a prominent place in this movement, I think that is the best

way to perpetuate it years into the future.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you all very much for your testimony and

participating in this hearing. We look forward to having a continuing dialog with you.

Thank you, Congressman Davis, again for your leadership.

With that, the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

Æ