Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the

District of Columbia, Committee on

Government Reform, House of

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Friday, July 20, 2001 PRISONER RELEASES

Reintegration of Offenders

Into Communities

Statement of Laurie E. Ekstrand

Director, Justice Issues

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

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our June 2001 report on prisoner

releases and reintegration programs1

 and to provide some perspectives on

the particular challenges posed by District of Columbia offenders. Our

recent report presented information on national trends in the number of

inmates released from federal and state prisons, the extent of recidivism,

the criminal and drug use histories of inmates, and programs for preparing

and assisting offenders with reintegrating into communities. In my

testimony today, I will summarize that information and, as applicable,

provide supplementary data focusing on the D.C. community.

U.S. criminal justice policies and other factors in recent years have

resulted in record numbers of offenders being incarcerated in prisons.

Although many inmates are serving longer sentences than they would have

a decade ago, most inmates are not serving life sentences without the

possibility of parole or release. After inmates complete their terms, they

return to communities throughout the nation. Although many are

successfully reintegrated into society, other ex-offenders are arrested for

new crimes or violations of parole or supervision and are returned to

prison. In order to reduce recidivism rates—and to enhance public safety,

alleviate fiscal pressures associated with ex-offenders being returned to

prison, and to provide opportunities for ex-offenders to straighten out

their lives—policymakers, correctional system administrators, and other

concerned parties are looking for ways to more successfully reintegrate

ex-offenders into communities.

The D.C. community is no exception. Indeed, the District—a wholly urban

jurisdiction—is perhaps facing greater challenges than most jurisdictions.

For instance, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data as of

December 31, 1999, D.C. had a higher incarceration rate than any state in

the nation.2

 The D.C. incarceration rate, which is 1,314 prisoners with

sentences of more than 1 year per 100,000 residents, was about 1.7 times

higher than the rate for either Louisiana (776) or Texas (762), the

jurisdictions with the next highest incarceration rates. Also, the D.C.

 1

Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs (GAO-01-483,

June 18, 2001).

2

BJS, “Prisoners in 1999” (NCJ 183476, Aug. 2000).

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

incarceration rate was about 2.8 times higher than the national average of

476 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents.

D.C. felony inmates are now the responsibility of the federal correctional

system, as required by the 1997 Revitalization Act.3

 Specifically, under the

act, the D.C. Department of Corrections’ Lorton Correctional Complex is

to be closed by December 31, 2001, and the felony population (sentenced

pursuant to the D.C. Code) residing at Lorton is to be transferred to

facilities operated by or contracted for by the federal Bureau of Prisons

(BOP).4

 Also, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the

District of Columbia (CSOSA) was created under the Revitalization Act

and was tasked with supervising adult D.C. Code offenders on probation,

parole, and supervised release.5

 CSOSA began under a trustee and was

certified as an independent federal agency in August 2000.

Nationally, the total inmate population in federal and state prisons

increased almost fourfold during the past 2 decades—from about 0.3

million at the end of 1980 to about 1.3 million at the end of 1999.

Consistent with the trend of larger prison populations, the number of

inmates who complete their sentences and return to communities has also

risen significantly in recent years, surpassing the half-million mark in 1998.

After being released, many individuals—about 40 percent historically—

later are sent back to prison for committing new offenses or violating

conditions of release.6

Regarding criminal history, BJS’ most recent nationwide survey of prison

inmates (1997) showed that 40 percent of federal inmates and 55 percent

of state inmates in prison in 1997 had served prior prison sentences.

Moreover, not all inmates had a long stretch of “street time” between

sentences. Of the inmates who were in prison in 1997, more than one-

 3

National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33,

Title XI, 111 Stat. 712 (1997).

4

For further details regarding the closing of the Lorton Correctional Complex, see District

of Columbia: Issues Related to the Youngstown Prison Report and Lorton Closure Process

(GAO/GGD-00-86, Apr. 7, 2000).

5

Some offenders are placed on probation in lieu of incarceration. Parole and supervised

release are forms of postprison community supervision.

6

Appendix I presents additional information about trends in releases from federal and state

prisons and returns for violating parole or other release conditions.

Inmate Releases and

Recidivism Reflect a

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

quarter (27 percent) of federal inmates and nearly half (47 percent) of the

state inmates were under supervision at the time of the arrest that led to

their incarceration. Further, according to testimony before this

Subcommittee last year, BJS data showed that D.C. defendants and

offenders had more extensive criminal histories than the national

averages.7

 For example, the March 2000 testimony noted the following:

• In D.C., 98.3 percent of all adult probationers had prior convictions, almost

twice the national average of 50 percent.

• Among D.C. parolees, the percentage with at least one prior conviction

was 99 percent.

• 23 percent of D.C. parolees had six or more prior convictions.

BJS’ 1997 survey of federal and state inmates showed that it is not just

criminal histories generally that characterize the bulk of inmates in prison,

but substantial histories of drug use as well. For example, the 1997 survey

showed that 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates reported

having used drugs regularly before prison. Also, approximately 1 in 4 (28

percent) federal inmates and 1 in 3 (34 percent) state inmates reported

having used cocaine or crack regularly.

Regarding D.C. offenders and drug use, in a June 2000 report, the National

Institute of Justice noted that 69 percent of adult males arrested in the

District in 1999 tested positive for at least one type of drug.8

 This figure

was 5 percentage points higher than the median rate (64 percent) for use

of any drug among the adult males arrested in the 34 urban sites covered

by the report. Moreover, according to recent (March 2001) CSOSA data,

two-thirds of D.C. parolees have substance abuse problems.9

 7

Statement of John A. Carver, Trustee, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for

the District of Columbia, before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee

on Appropriations, House of Representatives, March 23, 2000.

8

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program: 1999 Annual Report on Adult and

Juvenile Arrestees (NCJ 181426, June 2000). ADAM is a National Institute of Justice

research program that provides planning and policy information on drug use and other

characteristics of arrestees in U.S. cities through quarterly interviews of adult and juvenile

arrestees in holding facilities. The 1999 program collected data from more than 30,000 adult

male arrestees in 34 reporting sites. ADAM data consist of arrestees’ self-reports regarding

their drug use and urinalysis results.

9

“CSOSA Fact Sheet – Re-Entry System” (Mar. 2001).
Page 4 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Regarding inmate participation in prison programs, BJS’ 1997 survey data

were less extensive but indicated that some needs, such as drug treatment,

might be unmet. Although not all drug users may need treatment, our

analysis of inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months of BJS’ 1997

survey showed that 33 percent of the federal and 36 percent of the state

inmates participated in residential inpatient treatment programs for

alcohol or drug abuse.10 Further, for prison programs other than drug

treatment, BJS’ 1997 survey data on inmates scheduled for release

indicated the following:

• 27 percent of both federal and state inmates participated in vocational

training programs;

• 11 percent of the federal inmates worked in prison industry jobs,

compared with 2 percent of the state inmates; and

• 37 percent of federal inmates participated in prerelease programs,

compared with 12 percent of state inmates.

Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate’s preparation for

reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the

process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in-prison phase

of the offender’s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue

during a transitional period in a community-based halfway house for a

period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further

continue after the offender’s release during a 3- to 5-year period of

community supervision by probation officers. BOP oversees inmate

activities during the in-prison phase and the halfway house phase, and U.S.

Probation Offices oversee the community supervision phase.11

For the in-prison phase, BOP provides programs—including work,

education, vocational training, and drug treatment—to help inmates

rehabilitate themselves.12 According to BOP, providing such programs not

only supports correctional management purposes, such as minimizing

idleness and increasing the safety of staff, but also prepares inmates for

 10Appendix II presents additional information about inmate participation in substance

abuse treatment programs.

11U.S. Probation Offices are responsible for the community supervision of federal offenders

sentenced under the U.S. Code by U.S. District Courts. CSOSA is responsible for

supervising D.C. Code-sentenced offenders released by BOP to the community. CSOSA’s

community supervision officers manage a blended caseload of parolees and probationers.

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

Reintegration

Addressed in Three

Phases of Federal

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

employment opportunities and successful reintegration upon release.

Moreover, BOP’s policy is that rehabilitation programming is to continue

during the halfway house phase. During this phase, for example, each

participating inmate is expected to find and keep a job and, if applicable,

continue to participate in drug or alcohol treatment programs. Further,

after an inmate is released from BOP’s custody, a probation officer is

expected to finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender in the

community. The supervision plan should reflect a probation officer’s

statutory responsibilities, which include reducing the risk the offender

poses to the community and providing the offender with access to

treatment, such as substance abuse aftercare and mental health services.13

As mentioned previously, based on the 1997 Revitalization Act, BOP is

now responsible for incarcerating felony inmates sentenced under the D.C.

Code. Implementation of the act, including the status of progress in

transferring all D.C. Code-sentenced felons to BOP, was a topic of a

congressional appropriations hearing held earlier this month. At the

hearing, the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia noted that, of

the current D.C. inmate population of 10,200 inmates, almost 8,000 were

adult felony inmates, and about 4,500 had already been transferred to the

permanent custody of BOP.14 Also, the Corrections Trustee noted that

nearly 80 percent of the transferred inmates were housed in facilities

within 500 miles of the District.

Further, at the hearing, the Corrections Trustee testified that, before the

Revitalization Act, few D.C. inmates had the benefit of a transitional period

in a halfway house before being released for return to the community.

While noting that much progress has been made, the Corrections Trustee

stated that there continues to be a shortage of halfway house beds.

 13Appendix IV presents additional information about the supervision tools and communitybased social services used by federal probation officers.

14Testimony of John L. Clark, Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia, at a hearing

held by the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.

Senate, July 10, 2001.
Page 6 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

The Departments of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services (DOJ,

DOL, and HHS)—in response to the large numbers of offenders being

released from state prisons and returning to communities—are developing

a federal grant program, the “Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant

Program and the Demonstration Grant Program.” The goal of the

interagency Young Offender Initiative is to help states and communities

work together to improve offender supervision and accountability and

essential support services in order to enhance community safety through

the successful reintegration into the community of high-risk or specialneed offenders released from state prisons, juvenile correctional facilities,

and local facilities housing state inmates. Under the initiative, interagency

resources are to jointly target the same communities, especially areas with

high concentrations of returning offenders. And communities are to be

encouraged to focus on offenders who pose significant public safety risks

and who are likely to benefit from structured interventions.

For fiscal year 2001—the first year of federal funding for the Young

Offender Initiative—designated funding consisted of $30 million from DOJ,

$55 million from DOL, and $8 million from HHS. The three federal agencies

have joint responsibility for developing solicitations for grant applications

from jurisdictions interested in applying for federal funds available under

the initiative. The first solicitation—for the Reentry Grant Program

component of the initiative—was issued June 1, 2001. Applications are to

be submitted to DOJ by October 1, 2001. According to the solicitation,

approximately $79 million is available to fund approximately 25 grants of

up to $3.1 million each to applicants that demonstrate a collaborative

effort and broad-based community support. Under the Reentry Grant

Program component, applicants are to focus on a population of young

offenders (within the age range of 14 to 35 years old) returning to the

community from incarceration (minimum of 12 consecutive months for

adults, 6 consecutive months for juveniles) who pose a risk to community

safety.

A second solicitation—for the Demonstration Grant Program component

of the Young Offender Initiative—is to be issued at a future date.

According to the federal agencies, this grant program will fund separate

awards totaling up to $11.5 million for communities to focus on an agerelated subset of the Young Offender Initiative’s target population. That is,

the component is to focus on young offenders (within the age range of 14

to 24 years old) who are already involved in the criminal justice system or

gangs or who are at risk of such involvement. A basic goal of the

Demonstration Grant Program component—and of the Reentry Grant

Program component—is to provide reentering offenders with job training

National and D.C.

Reintegration

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

and employment opportunities, education, substance abuse treatment and

rehabilitation, mental health care and aftercare, housing assistance, family

support services, and criminal justice supervision.

Applicants may apply for awards under both solicitations. However,

according to the federal agencies, applicants are to be eligible to receive

only one award for the same or similar target populations.

Under the Young Offender Initiative, grant assistance eligibility regarding

offenders released from BOP custody and returning to the District

depends on various factors. For instance, according to DOJ officials, since

the initiative is intended to assist state offenders, one technical factor is

whether the offender was sentenced under the D.C. Code versus the U.S.

Code. Also, the officials noted that assistance eligibility can depend on

whether proposed program plans are consistent with the overall purpose

of the initiative and incorporate all required program elements, including

identification of target populations.

Regarding other initiatives for reintegrating D.C. offenders, in March 2001,

we reported on various ongoing efforts to improve operations of the D.C.

criminal justice system.15 For example, in November 1998, CSOSA formed

its first “Community Justice Partnership” with the Metropolitan Police

Department. Under this initiative, CSOSA’s community supervision

officers are to work closely with police officers to monitor probationers

and parolees in the District, improve offender accountability, and develop

community networks to solve problems and prevent crime.

Also, in July 2000, the “Pilot Reentry System” initiative was started. A

principal component is a “learning lab” to provide computer software

training, as well as basic adult education, for offenders returning to the

District. For the pilot, DOJ’s Executive Office for Weed and Seed provided

financial support. Other participants included CSOSA, the University of

the District of Columbia, and the D.C. Office of Justice Grants

Administration. According to CSOSA officials, a second learning lab is

now in operation, and plans are under way for a third and a fourth lab.

Finally, CSOSA noted that recently introduced federal legislation—the

“Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001” (S. 304)—

 15D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed Among Participating

Agencies (GAO-01-187, Mar. 30, 2001).
Page 8 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

would authorize funding for local reentry efforts in the District, efforts that

would focus on high-risk parolees.

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement, I would be

pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the

Subcommittee may have.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Laurie

E. Ekstrand at (202-512-8777) or Danny R. Burton at (214) 777-5600.

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Ann

H. Finley, Mary K. Muse, and Ellen T. Wolfe.

Contacts and

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

As figure 1 shows, the number of federal and state inmates released to

communities increased from 148,867 in 1980 to 532,136 in 1998, the most

recent year for which complete data were available.1

Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and Returns for

Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions

Note 1: For offenders released, no federal data were reported for 1990, 1991, and 1992. For these 3

years, the graph reflects only state prison releases.

Note 2: For offenders reincarcerated, violations of parole or other release conditions can consist of

various technical violations, such as not keeping appointments with probation officers or failing a

urinalysis test for illegal drug use. Supervision revocations and reincarcerations can also result from

the commission of a new crime, an act that violates the most basic of release conditions. However,

the reincarceration data shown in the graph do not include returns to prison of ex-offenders who

committed a new crime while not under parole or other supervised release.

Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Also, figure 1 shows that the number of offenders reincarcerated for

violating parole or other release conditions increased more than

 1

In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506,049) were state prisoners.

Appendix I: Trends in Prison Releases and

Returns

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Number of offenders

Calendar year

Offenders released

Offenders reincarcerated for

violating parole or other

release conditions

148,867

28,817

532,136

209,782
Page 10 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

sevenfold, from 28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998.2 These reincarceration

data, as noted in figure 1, do not include ex-offenders who were returned

to prisons for committing a new crime but were not under parole or

supervised release. Nonetheless, the reincarcerations shown in figure 1

represent an increasing proportion of all prison admissions. For instance,

reincarceration of violators of parole or other release conditions

represented 17 percent of all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35

percent of admissions in 1998.

 2

In 1998, of the total number of violators reincarcerated, 98 percent (206,152) were

returned to state prisons.
Page 11 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

Generally, while agreeing that there is a need for more substance abuse

treatment for prisoners, BJS officials offered a cautionary comment about

statistics that quantify this need. For instance, the officials commented

that not all drug users are addicts. Also, the officials noted that BJS’ most

recent (1997) survey of federal and state prison inmates showed that the

percent of alcohol- or drug-involved prisoners, who—since admission to

prison—participated in treatment or other substance-abuse programs,

increased as the time to expected release decreased. As table 1 shows, for

example, among the alcohol- or drug-involved federal inmates, about 20

percent of the inmates serving their final 6 months reported receiving

treatment, compared with 10 percent of the inmates with more than a year

until release.

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

1997

Time to expected release Treatmenta

Other programsb

Federal prisoners

Greater than 1 year 10.0% 24.2%

6 to 12 months 12.5 28.4

Less than 6 months 20.5 36.9

State prisoners

Greater than 1 year 12.6 31.0

6 to 12 months 16.3 32.4

Less than 6 months 18.6 34.0

Note: These data show inmate participation since admission to prison for current offense.

a

Includes residential facilities, professional counseling, detoxification units, and maintenance drug

programs.

b

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

Source: BJS, Special Report, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997”

(NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.

Appendix II: Substance Abuse Treatment and

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

To help inmates rehabilitate themselves, BOP provides various programs,

such as education, work, vocational training, and drug treatment

programs. For example, BOP requires all federal inmates to work if they

are medically able. BOP recognizes that release preparation begins at

initial intake or classification1

 and encourages inmates to begin preparing

for their release from prison upon their arrival at the institution. Table 2

describes the programs generally available to inmates during

incarceration, although not all federal prisoners participate in these

programs.

Table 2: BOP In-Prison Programs for Inmates

Program type Program description

Literacy programs are to allow inmates without a high school diploma (or its equivalent) to

earn a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Under provisions of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-134), inmates lacking high school credentials must

participate and make satisfactory progress in the GED program in order to earn the

maximum amount of good time credit, which may reduce sentence length. According to

BOP, 3,962 federal inmates successfully passed the GED test during the first 9 months of

fiscal year 2000.

Education

An English-as-a-second-language program is to allow inmates with limited English fluency

skills to achieve at least an eighth grade English proficiency level. The Comprehensive

Crime Control Act of 1990 mandates that non-English-proficient inmates participate in this

program until they function at the eighth grade level in English competency. According to

BOP, 18,852 federal inmates (15 percent of the total federal inmate population) were

eligible for the English fluency program during calendar year 1999.

Work Inmates are to learn job skills in institutional job assignments, such as food service worker,

orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper. Also, some inmates work

in Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) factories that produce, for example, metal

products, furniture, electronics, or textiles. According to BOP, most inmates have

institutional job assignments, and the other inmates work in UNICOR factories—although

a small percentage of inmates have no work assignments due to medical conditions.

Occupational or vocational training BOP reports that it has occupational or vocational training programs that encompass 86

different skill areas, and inmates are provided with opportunities to develop work skills by

on-the-job training through institution work assignments and prison industry jobs. For fiscal

year 1999, BOP reported that 8,711 federal inmates completed at least 1 occupational

training program. Also, as of March 2000, BOP data showed that 9,427 federal inmates

(about 9 percent of total federal inmate population) were enrolled in an occupational

training program.

Drug treatment According to BOP, its drug treatment programs include substance abuse education,

nonresidential substance abuse treatment and counseling, and residential substance

abuse treatment. BOP data indicate that approximately 34 percent of the total federal

inmate population have a diagnosed substance abuse disorder. For fiscal year 2000, BOP

reported that 12,541 federal inmates participated in its residential drug abuse treatment

program.

 1

In the context of correctional systems, the term “classification” refers to the systematic

subdivision of inmates into groups on the basis of their security and program needs.

Appendix III: BOP Provides Various

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

Program type Program description

Mental health Psychologists are to provide professional diagnosis, counseling, and treatment on an

individual or group basis. In calendar year 2000, BOP data showed that 14,369 federal

inmates (10 percent of the total federal inmate population) were diagnosed with a mental

health need.

Release preparation Designed to help inmates transition from prison to the community, this program is to offer

courses in six core areas—(1) health and nutrition, (2) personal growth and development,

(3) personal finance and consumer skills, (4) employment, (5) release requirements and

procedures, and (6) information on community resources. Beginning approximately 24

months before release, inmates are encouraged to enroll in and complete at least one

course in each core area. Generally, each core area may offer various courses. For

example, the health and nutrition core area may include courses about disease

prevention, including AIDS awareness, as well as courses about weight management and

how to eat nutritionally.

Inmate placement This program is to encourage federal correctional institutions to plan and hold mock job

fairs to help inmates hone their job search and interview techniques. In addition, the

inmate placement program is to provide job placement services to inmates, help inmates

prepare release folders (which include such documents as a social security card,

education certificates, and vocational certifications), and help institutions establish onsite

employment centers. According to BOP, between 1996 and 2000, the inmate placement

program conducted 127 mock job fairs at 66 institutions, with approximately 5,000 inmates

participating.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

The same types of programs as those presented in table 2 are also

available to federal inmates during their transition back to the community

(i.e., during the inmates’ halfway house stay) or during the offenders’ term

of community supervision. For example, inmates with diagnosed

substance abuse addictions who were receiving treatment in prison are to

continue that treatment during their transitional period at contractoroperated halfway houses and after release to supervision. Also, inmates

who are prescribed medications for diagnosed mental illness are to leave

the institution with a 30-day supply to begin their halfway house stays.
Page 14 GAO-01-966T Prisoner Releases and Reintegration Into Communities

National community supervision policies are established by the Judicial

Conference of the United States, which is the policymaking authority for

the federal judiciary. Each district court appoints officers and supervises

the implementation of the probation system. The Administrative Office of

the United States Courts (AOUSC) develops and communicates national

community supervision policies for federal probation officers.

Table 3 presents examples of the various resources—supervision tools and

community-based social services—used by federal probation officers to

assist offenders with reintegration issues. The tools and services apply to

U.S. Probation Offices and the descriptions presented in table 3 were

provided to us by AOUSC. Thus, the examples are not directly applicable

to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of

Columbia (CSOSA), which is responsible for supervising D.C. Codesentenced offenders released to the community. However, CSOSA officials

told us that, to some extent, the agency’s community supervision officers

may use similar tools and services.

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

Tools and services Description

Basic services Probation officers may need to help offenders obtain services, such as welfare and food

stamps, to meet basic needs. Officers also may make arrangements for emergency

temporary housing and financial assistance for the purchase of necessities, such as

food, clothing, medicine, and child care. In addition, referrals may be made to anger

management, parenting, and money management counseling services. Also,

transportation may be arranged for offenders to travel to and from treatment facilities,

vocational training, or placement programs.

Employment assistance Probation officers may refer offenders for testing and work skills evaluations,

preemployment training, classroom training, and skill-development community service

placements. Also, probation officers may make direct referrals to employment or job

placement agencies. Further, medical examinations may be obtained to determine

employment suitability.

Literacy, education, and vocational training Literacy, GED, and vocational training programs are available, as is access to higher

education institutions. According to AOUSC, stipends are available for clients attending

such programs.

Diagnostic assessment of substance abuse A formal substance abuse assessment may be conducted by a licensed professional.

The assessment may include a comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing,

followed by a prognosis report and treatment plan.

Detoxification services Probation officers may request inpatient and outpatient detoxification services. Such

services may include, for example, a physical examination and report; medication, such

as methadone, antabuse, or trexan; laboratory work; and residential placement.

Substance abuse treatment Educational, counseling, residential, and medical approaches to treatment are available

to address substance abuse problems of varying types and seriousness. These

approaches or programs include substance abuse prevention and treatment readiness

groups; individual, family, and group substance abuse counseling; intensive outpatient

group or individual treatment; short-term residential treatment; longer term placement in

a therapeutic community setting; and methadone maintenance.

Appendix IV: Supervision Tools and

Community-Based Services Used by Federal

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

Tools and services Description

Drug detection Probation officers and service providers may collect urine specimens, which are sent for

analysis to a national laboratory under contract with AOUSC. On-site drug testing

laboratories are utilized in some districts to analyze specimens and provide results in

less than 1 hour. Handheld, portable drug-testing devices are also used to produce

results in 5 to 10 minutes. Further, in conjunction with other testing methods, a sweat

patch may be used to detect the presence of drugs in perspiration.

Alcohol detection Hand-held breathalyzers and saliva swabs can be used to detect alcohol use. In some

districts, remote alcohol detection equipment—connected to a telephone line—is used

to measure the alcohol content in a breath sample and immediately transmit the results

over the telephone line. Also, some districts use a vehicle ignition lock device, which

links a breathalyzer to an offender’s vehicle. The ignition cannot be started unless the

offender blows into the device and registers a breath alcohol content level below a

prescribed point.

Diagnostic assessment for mental health Probation officers may arrange for psychological and psychiatric evaluations, which

include comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing, followed by a prognosis report

and a treatment plan.

Mental health treatment Mental health services include individual, family, and group counseling and

prescriptions for psychotropic medication.

Community and home confinement Probation officers may recommend that the courts require an offender to reside in a

community corrections center or to remain in his or her residence for all or part of the

day. Both of these options are used as alternatives to incarceration, permitting the

officer to work with the offender in the community.

Community service Probation officers may use a variety of civic, nonprofit, public, and private organizations

to place offenders required to perform community service. Such placements are

generally designed to (1) benefit the community and may also include elements that

use any special skills the offender may possess, (2) enhance the offender’s awareness

of the consequences of his or her actions, and (3) sharpen the offender’s employment

skills.

Sex offender treatment Sex offender management includes the use of polygraph examinations and penile

plethysmograph testing, as well as special sex offender therapy programs.

Remote location verification Continuously signaling electronic monitoring devices may be used to monitor

compliance with a home confinement condition. This tool is used to detect, for example,

whether an offender wearing a tamper-resistant transmitter “bracelet” is within 150 feet

of a monitoring device attached to a telephone in the home. In driving by a particular

location, a probation officer may use a portable (“drive-by”) electronic monitoring unit to

detect whether an offender wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of that location. An

automated telephone contact system that combines caller identification and voice

verification technology may be used to determine whether an offender is at a particular

location. Also, according to AOUSC, global positioning systems that use the military’s

satellite network are being field-tested for use in remote location verifications.

Source: AOUSC data.

(440067)