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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–176 PDF 2007

SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1593

MARCH 20, 2007

Serial No. 110–51

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

[Vacant] 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 20, 2007

Page 

TEXT OF BILL 

H.R. 1593, the ‘‘Second Chance Act of 2007’’ ......................................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 1

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 33

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 35

WITNESSES 

Mr. Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Re-Entry Services, Montgomery 

County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Rockville, MD 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39

Mr. Roger H. Peters, Ph.D., Chairman and Professor, Department of Mental 

Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51

Mr. Steve Lufburrow, President and CEO, Goodwill Industries of Houston, 

Houston, TX 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61

Mr. Jack G. Cowley, National Director, Alpha for Prisons and Re-Entry, 

Wichita Falls, TX 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 65

Mr. George T. McDonald, President, Doe Fund, Inc., New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 86

(1)

SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Nadler, Johnson, Jackson Lee, 

Conyers, Forbes, Gohmert, Coble, Chabot, and Lungren. 

Staff present: Keenan Kelly, Majority Counsel; Michael Volkov, 

Minority Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

And I want to apologize for the delay. We have votes on the floor. 

And hopefully we will have a little time without interruption. 

I am pleased to welcome you to the hearing on the Second 

Chance Act of 2007. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1593, follows:]

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1593

To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning 

and implementation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2007

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COBLE, Mr. SCOTT

of Virginia, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SCHIFF, 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. CHABOT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. CUMMINGS, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Ms. CLARKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning 

and implementation, and for other purposes.

2

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety 

Through Recidivism Prevention’’ or the ‘‘Second Chance Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

Sec. 3. Findings. 

Sec. 4. Submission of reports to Congress. 

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND 

SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

Subtitle A—Improvements to Existing Programs 

Sec. 101. Reauthorization of adult and juvenile offender State and local reentry 

demonstration projects. 

Sec. 102. Improvement of the residential substance abuse treatment for State offenders program. 

Subtitle B—New and Innovative Programs to Improve Offender Reentry Services 

Sec. 111. State and local reentry courts. 

Sec. 112. Grants for comprehensive and continuous offender reentry task forces. 

Sec. 113. Prosecution drug treatment alternative to prison programs. 

Sec. 114. Grants for family substance abuse treatment alternatives to incarceration. 

Sec. 115. Prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of 

minor children. 

Sec. 116. Grant programs relating to educational methods at prisons, jails, and 

juvenile facilities. 

Subtitle C—Conforming Amendments 

Sec. 121. Use of violent offender truth-in-sentencing grant funding for demonstration project activities. 

TITLE II—ENHANCED DRUG TREATMENT AND MENTORING GRANT 

PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—Drug Treatment 

Sec. 201. Grants for demonstration programs to reduce drug use and recidivism 

in long-term substance abusers. 

Sec. 202. Grants for demonstration programs by local partnerships to reduce illegal drug demand by providing drug treatment. 

Sec. 203. Offender drug treatment incentive grants. 

Sec. 204. Ensuring availability and delivery of new pharmacological drug treatment services. 

Sec. 205. Study of effectiveness of depot naltrexone for heroin addiction. 

Subtitle B—Job Training 

Sec. 211. Technology careers training demonstration grants. 

Subtitle C—Mentoring 

Sec. 221. Mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations. 

Sec. 222. Bureau of Prisons policy on mentoring contacts. 

Subtitle D—Administration of Justice Reforms 

CHAPTER 1—IMPROVING FEDERAL OFFENDER REENTRY

Sec. 231. Federal prisoner reentry program. 

Sec. 232. Identification and release assistance for Federal prisoners. 

3

Sec. 233. Improved reentry procedures for Federal prisoners. 

Sec. 234. Duties of the Bureau of Prisons. 

Sec. 235. Authorization of appropriations for Bureau of Prisons. 

Sec. 236. Encouragement of employment of former prisoners. 

Sec. 237. Elderly nonviolent offender pilot program. 

CHAPTER 2—REENTRY RESEARCH

Sec. 241. Offender reentry research. 

Sec. 242. Grants to study parole or post-incarceration supervision violations and 

revocations. 

Sec. 243. Addressing the needs of children of incarcerated parents. 

CHAPTER 3—CORRECTIONAL REFORMS TO EXISTING LAW

Sec. 251. Clarification of authority to place prisoner in community corrections. 

Sec. 252. Residential drug abuse program in Federal prisons. 

Sec. 253. Medical care for prisoners. 

Sec. 254. Contracting for services for post-conviction supervision offenders. 

SEC. 3. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) In 2002, over 7,000,000 people were incarcerated in Federal, State, or 

local prisons or jails, or were under parole or court supervision. Nearly 650,000 

people are released from Federal and State incarceration into communities nationwide each year. 

(2) There are over 3,200 jails throughout the United States, the vast majority of which are operated by county governments. Each year, these jails will release more than 10,000,000 people back into the community. 

(3) Nearly 2⁄3 of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for 

a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years after release. 

(4) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, expenditures on correc- tions alone increased from $9,000,000,000 in 1982 to $59,600,000,000 in 2002. 

These figures do not include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take 

into account the cost to victims. 

(5) The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative provided 

$139,000,000 in funding for State governments to develop and implement education, job training, mental health treatment, and substance abuse treatment 

for serious and violent offenders. This Act seeks to build upon the innovative 

and successful State reentry programs developed under the Serious and Violent 

Offender Reentry Initiative, which terminated after fiscal year 2005. 

(6) Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a parent in a Federal or State correctional facility increased by more than 100 percent, from approximately 900,000 to approximately 2,000,000. According to the Bureau of 

Prisons, there is evidence to suggest that inmates who are connected to their 

children and families are more likely to avoid negative incidents and have reduced sentences. 

(7) Released prisoners cite family support as the most important factor in 

helping them stay out of prison. Research suggests that families are an often 

underutilized resource in the reentry process. 

(8) Approximately 100,000 juveniles (ages 17 years and under) leave juvenile correctional facilities, State prison, or Federal prison each year. Juveniles 

released from secure confinement still have their likely prime crime years ahead 

of them. Juveniles released from secure confinement have a recidivism rate 

ranging from 55 to 75 percent. The chances that young people will successfully 

transition into society improve with effective reentry and aftercare programs. 

(9) Studies have shown that between 15 percent and 27 percent of prisoners 

expect to go to homeless shelters upon release from prison. 

(10) Fifty-seven percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used 

drugs regularly before going to prison, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled ‘‘Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000’’ estimates the use of drugs or 

alcohol around the time of the offense that resulted in the incarceration of the 

inmate at as high as 84 percent. 

(11) Family-based treatment programs have proven results for serving the 

special populations of female offenders and substance abusers with children. An 

evaluation by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

of family-based treatment for substance-abusing mothers and children found 

that 6 months after such treatment, 60 percent of the mothers remained alcohol 

and drug free, and drug-related offenses declined from 28 percent to 7 percent. 

4

Additionally, a 2003 evaluation of residential family-based treatment programs 

revealed that 60 percent of mothers remained clean and sober 6 months after 

treatment, criminal arrests declined by 43 percent, and 88 percent of the children treated in the program with their mothers remained stabilized. 

(12) A Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis indicated that only 33 percent 

of Federal inmates and 36 percent of State inmates had participated in residential in-patient treatment programs for alcohol and drug abuse 12 months before 

their release. Further, over 1⁄3 of all jail inmates have some physical or mental 

disability and 25 percent of jail inmates have been treated at some time for a 

mental or emotional problem. 

(13) State Substance Abuse Agency Directors, also known as Single State 

Authorities (SSAs), manage the Nation’s publicly funded substance abuse prevention and treatment systems. SSAs are responsible for planning and implementing State-wide systems of care that provide clinically appropriate substance abuse services. Given the high rate of substance use disorders among offenders reentering our communities, successful reentry programs require close 

interaction and collaboration with SSAs when planning, implementing, and 

evaluating reentry programs. 

(14) According to the National Institute of Literacy, 70 percent of all prisoners function at the lowest literacy levels. 

(15) Less than 32 percent of State prison inmates have a high school diploma or a higher level of education, compared to 82 percent of the general population. 

(16) Approximately 38 percent of inmates who completed 11 years or less 

of school were not working before entry into prison. 

(17) The percentage of State prisoners participating in educational programs decreased by more than 8 percent between 1991 and 1997, despite growing evidence of how educational programming while incarcerated reduces recidivism. 

(18) The National Institute of Justice has found that 1 year after release, 

up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed. 

(19) Transitional jobs programs have proven to help people with criminal 

records to successfully return to the workplace and to the community, and 

therefore can reduce recidivism. 

SEC. 4. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit all 

reports received under this Act and the amendments made by this Act during the 

preceding year to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee 

on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. 

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS 

ACT OF 1968

Subtitle A—Improvements to Existing Programs 

SEC. 101. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. 

(a) ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED.—

Section 2976(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3797w(b)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(1) establishing or improving the system or systems under which—

‘‘(A) correctional agencies and other criminal and juvenile justice agencies of the grant recipient develop and carry out plans to facilitate the reentry into the community of each offender in the custody of the jurisdiction 

involved; 

‘‘(B) the supervision and services provided to offenders in the custody 

of the jurisdiction involved are coordinated with the supervision and services provided to offenders after reentry into the community, including coordination with Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task 

Forces under section 2902 or with similar planning groups; 

5

‘‘(C) the efforts of various public and private entities to provide supervision and services to offenders after reentry into the community, and to 

family members of such offenders, are coordinated; and 

‘‘(D) offenders awaiting reentry into the community are provided with 

documents (such as identification papers, referrals to services, medical prescriptions, job training certificates, apprenticeship papers, and information 

on obtaining public assistance) useful in achieving a successful transition 

from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility; 

‘‘(2) carrying out programs and initiatives by units of local government to 

strengthen reentry services for individuals released from local jails, including 

coordination with Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task 

Forces under section 2902 or with similar planning groups; 

‘‘(3) assessing the literacy, educational, and vocational needs of offenders in 

custody and identifying and providing services appropriate to meet those needs, 

including follow-up assessments and long-term services; 

‘‘(4) facilitating collaboration among corrections (including community corrections), technical schools, community colleges, businesses, nonprofit, and the 

workforce development and employment service sectors—

‘‘(A) to promote, where appropriate, the employment of people released 

from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility through efforts such as educating employers about existing financial incentives; 

‘‘(B) to facilitate the creation of job opportunities, including transitional 

jobs and time-limited subsidized work experience (where appropriate); 

‘‘(C) to connect offenders to employment (including supportive employment and employment services before their release to the community), provide work supports (including transportation and retention services), as appropriate, and identify labor market needs to ensure that education and 

training are appropriate; and 

‘‘(D) to address obstacles to employment that are not directly connected 

to the offense committed and the risk that the offender presents to the community and provide case management services as necessary to prepare offenders for jobs that offer the potential for advancement and growth; 

‘‘(5) providing offenders with education, job training, responsible parenting 

and healthy relationship skills training (designed specifically to address the 

needs of fathers and mothers in or transitioning from prison, jail, or a juvenile 

facility), English literacy education, work experience programs, self-respect and 

life skills training, and other skills useful in achieving a successful transition 

from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility; 

‘‘(6) providing structured post-release housing and transitional housing (including group homes for recovering substance abusers (with appropriate safeguards that may include single-gender housing)) through which offenders are 

provided supervision and services immediately following reentry into the community; 

‘‘(7) assisting offenders in securing permanent housing upon release or following a stay in transitional housing; 

‘‘(8) providing substance abuse treatment and services, including providing 

a full continuum of substance abuse treatment services that encompasses outpatient services, comprehensive residential services and recovery, and recovery 

home services to offenders reentering the community from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility; 

‘‘(9) expanding family-based drug treatment centers that offer family-based 

comprehensive treatment services for parents and their children as a complete 

family unit, as appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being of the family; 

‘‘(10) encouraging collaboration among juvenile and adult corrections, community corrections, and community health centers to allow access to affordable 

and quality primary health care for offenders during the period of transition 

from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility; 

‘‘(11) providing or facilitating health care services to offenders (including 

substance abuse screening, treatment, and aftercare, infectious disease screening and treatment, and screening, assessment, and aftercare for mental health 

services) to protect the communities in which offenders will live; 

‘‘(12) enabling prison, jail, or juvenile facility mentors of offenders to remain 

in contact with those offenders (including through the use of all available technology) while in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility and after reentry into the community, and encouraging the involvement of prison, jail, or a juvenile facility 

mentors in the reentry process; 

‘‘(13) systems under which family members of offenders are involved in facilitating the successful reentry of those offenders into the community (as apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
6

propriate to the safety, security, and well-being of the family), including removing obstacles to the maintenance of family relationships while the offender is 

in custody, strengthening the family’s capacity to function as a stable living situation during reentry, and involving family members in the planning and implementation of the reentry process; 

‘‘(14) creating, developing, or enhancing offender and family assessments, 

curricula, policies, procedures, or programs (including mentoring programs)—

‘‘(A) to help offenders with a history or identified risk of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking reconnect with their families and communities (as appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being 

of the family), and become non-abusive parents or partners; and 

‘‘(B) under which particular attention is paid to the safety of children 

affected and the confidentiality concerns of victims, and efforts are coordinated with victim service providers; 

‘‘(15) maintaining the parent-child relationship, as appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being of the child as determined by the relevant corrections and child protective services agencies, including—

‘‘(A) implementing programs in correctional agencies to include the collection of information regarding any dependent children of an offender as 

part of intake procedures, including the number, age, and location or jurisdiction of such children; 

‘‘(B) connecting those identified children with services as appropriate 

and needed; 

‘‘(C) carrying out programs (including mentoring) that support children 

of incarcerated parents, including those in foster care and those cared for 

by grandparents or other relatives (which is commonly referred to as kinship care); 

‘‘(D) developing programs and activities (including mentoring) that support parent-child relationships, as appropriate to the safety, security, and 

well-being of the family, including technology to promote the parent-child 

relationship and to facilitate participation in parent-teacher conferences, 

books on tape programs, family days, and visitation areas for children while 

visiting an incarcerated parent; 

‘‘(E) helping incarcerated parents to learn responsible parenting and 

healthy relationship skills; 

‘‘(F) addressing visitation obstacles to children of an incarcerated parent, such as the location of facilities in remote areas, telephone costs, mail 

restrictions, and visitation policies; and 

‘‘(G) identifying and addressing obstacles to collaborating with child 

welfare agencies in the provision of services jointly to offenders in custody 

and to the children of such offenders; 

‘‘(16) carrying out programs for the entire family unit, including the coordination of service delivery across agencies; 

‘‘(17) facilitating and encouraging timely and complete payment of restitution and fines by offenders to victims and the community; 

‘‘(18) providing services as necessary to victims upon release of offenders, 

including security services and counseling, and facilitating the inclusion of victims, on a voluntary basis, in the reentry process; 

‘‘(19) establishing or expanding the use of reentry courts and other programs to—

‘‘(A) monitor offenders returning to the community; 

‘‘(B) provide returning offenders with—

‘‘(i) drug and alcohol testing and treatment; and 

‘‘(ii) mental and medical health assessment and services; 

‘‘(C) facilitate restorative justice practices and convene family or community impact panels, family impact educational classes, victim impact 

panels, or victim impact educational classes; 

‘‘(D) provide and coordinate the delivery of other community services to 

offenders, including—

‘‘(i) employment training; 

‘‘(ii) education; 

‘‘(iii) housing assistance; 

‘‘(iv) children and family support, to include responsible parenting 

and healthy relationship skill training designed specifically to address 

the needs of incarcerated and transitioning fathers and mothers; 

‘‘(v) conflict resolution skills training; 

‘‘(vi) family violence intervention programs; and 

‘‘(vii) other appropriate services; and 

7

‘‘(E) establish and implement graduated sanctions and incentives; 

‘‘(20) developing a case management reentry program that—

‘‘(A) provides services to eligible veterans, as defined by the Attorney 

General; and 

‘‘(B) provides for a reentry service network solely for such eligible veterans that coordinates community services and veterans services for offenders who qualify for such veterans services; and 

‘‘(21) protecting communities against dangerous offenders, including—

‘‘(A) conducting studies in collaboration with Federal research initiatives in effect on the date of enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007, 

to determine which offenders are returning to prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities and which of those returning offenders represent the greatest risk 

to community safety; 

‘‘(B) developing and implementing procedures to assist relevant authorities in determining when release is appropriate and in the use of data 

to inform the release decision; 

‘‘(C) using validated assessment tools to assess the risk factors of returning inmates, and developing or adopting procedures to ensure that dangerous felons are not released from prison prematurely; and 

‘‘(D) developing and implementing procedures to identify efficiently and 

effectively those violators of probation, parole, or post-incarceration supervision who represent the greatest risk to community safety.’’. 

(b) JUVENILE OFFENDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS REAUTHORIZED.—Section 

2976(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3797w(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘may be expended for’’ and all that follows through 

the period at the end and inserting ‘‘may be expended for any activity referred to 

in subsection (b).’’. 

(c) APPLICATIONS; REQUIREMENTS; PRIORITIES; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS.— Section 2976 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3797w) is further amended—

(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (o); and 

(2) by striking subsections (d) through (g) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(d) APPLICATIONS.—A State, unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe, 

or combination thereof, desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Attorney General that—

‘‘(1) contains a reentry strategic plan, as described in subsection (h), which 

describes the long-term strategy and incorporates a detailed implementation 

schedule, including the plans of the applicant to pay for the program after the 

Federal funding is discontinued; 

‘‘(2) identifies the local government role and the role of governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that will be coordinated by, and that will collaborate on, the offender reentry strategy of the applicant and certifies their involvement; and 

‘‘(3) describes the evidence-based methodology and outcome measures that 

will be used to evaluate the program, and specifically explains how such measurements will provide valid measures of the program’s impact. 

‘‘(e) REQUIREMENTS.—The Attorney General may make a grant to an applicant 

under this section only if the application—

‘‘(1) reflects explicit support of the chief executive officer of the State, unit 

of local government, territory, or Indian tribe applying for a grant under this 

section; 

‘‘(2) provides extensive discussion of the role of State corrections departments, community corrections agencies, juvenile justice systems, or local jail 

systems in ensuring successful reentry of offenders into their communities; 

‘‘(3) provides extensive evidence of collaboration with State and local government agencies overseeing health, housing, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services, and employment services, and with local law enforcement; 

‘‘(4) provides a plan for analysis of the statutory, regulatory, rules-based, 

and practice-based hurdles to reintegration of offenders into the community; 

and 

‘‘(5) includes the use of a State, local, territorial, or tribal task force, described in subsection (i), to carry out the activities funded under the grant. 

‘‘(f) PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS.—The Attorney General shall give priority to 

grant applications under this section that best—

‘‘(1) focus initiative on geographic areas with a disproportionate population 

of offenders released from prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; 

‘‘(2) include—

8

‘‘(A) input from nonprofit organizations, in any case where relevant 

input is available and appropriate to the grant application; 

‘‘(B) consultations with crime victims and offenders who are released 

from prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; and 

‘‘(C) coordination with families of offenders; 

‘‘(3) demonstrate effective case assessment and management abilities in 

order to provide comprehensive and continuous reentry, including—

‘‘(A) planning while offenders are in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, 

pre-release transition housing, and community release; 

‘‘(B) establishing pre-release planning procedures to ensure that the eligibility of an offender for Federal or State benefits upon release is established prior to release, subject to any limitations in law, and to ensure that 

offenders obtain all necessary referrals for reentry services; and 

‘‘(C) delivery of continuous and appropriate drug treatment, medical 

care, job training and placement, educational services, or any other service 

or support needed for reentry; 

‘‘(4) review the process by which the applicant adjudicates violations of parole, probation, or supervision following release from prison, jail, or a juvenile 

facility, taking into account public safety and the use of graduated, communitybased sanctions for minor and technical violations of parole, probation, or supervision (specifically those violations that are not otherwise, and independently, 

a violation of law); 

‘‘(5) provide for an independent evaluation of reentry programs that include, 

to the maximum extent possible, random assignment and controlled studies to 

determine the effectiveness of such programs; and 

‘‘(6) target high-risk offenders for reentry programs through validated assessment tools. 

‘‘(g) USES OF GRANT FUNDS.— ‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Federal 

share of a grant received under this section may not exceed 75 percent of 

the project funded under such grant in fiscal year 2008. 

‘‘(B) WAIVER.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the Attorney General—

‘‘(i) waives, in whole or in part, the requirement of this paragraph; 

and 

‘‘(ii) publishes in the Federal Register the rationale for the waiver. 

‘‘(2) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—Federal funds received under this section 

shall be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for the activities funded under this section. 

‘‘(h) REENTRY STRATEGIC PLAN.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receiving financial assistance under this 

section, each applicant shall develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan 

that contains measurable annual and 5-year performance outcomes, and that 

uses, to the maximum extent possible, random assigned and controlled studies 

to determine the effectiveness of the program. One goal of the plan shall be to 

reduce the rate of recidivism (as defined by the Attorney General, consistent 

with the research on offender reentry undertaken by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) for offenders released from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility who are 

served with funds made available under this section. 

‘‘(2) COORDINATION.—In developing a reentry plan under this subsection, an 

applicant shall coordinate with communities and stakeholders, including persons in the fields of public safety, juvenile and adult corrections, housing, 

health, education, substance abuse, children and families, victims services, employment, and business and members of nonprofit organizations that can provide reentry services. 

‘‘(3) MEASUREMENTS OF PROGRESS.—Each reentry plan developed under this 

subsection shall measure the progress of the applicant toward increasing public 

safety by reducing rates of recidivism and enabling released offenders to transition successfully back into their communities. 

‘‘(i) REENTRY TASK FORCE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receiving financial assistance under this 

section, each applicant shall establish or empower a Reentry Task Force, or 

other relevant convening authority, to—

‘‘(A) examine ways to pool resources and funding streams to promote 

lower recidivism rates for returning offenders and minimize the harmful effects of offenders’ time in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility on families and 

communities of offenders by collecting data and best practices in offender 

9

reentry from demonstration grantees and other agencies and organizations; 

and 

‘‘(B) provide the analysis described in subsection (e)(4). 

‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The task force or other authority under this subsection 

shall be comprised of—

‘‘(A) relevant State, tribal, territorial, or local leaders; and 

‘‘(B) representatives of relevant—

‘‘(i) agencies; 

‘‘(ii) service providers; 

‘‘(iii) nonprofit organizations; and 

‘‘(iv) stakeholders. 

‘‘(j) STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each applicant shall identify in the reentry strategic 

plan developed under subsection (h), specific performance outcomes related to 

the long-term goals of increasing public safety and reducing recidivism. 

‘‘(2) PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES.—The performance outcomes identified under 

paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to offenders released back into the 

community—

‘‘(A) reduction in recidivism rates, which shall be reported in accordance with the measure selected by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 

under section 234(c)(2) of the Second Chance Act of 2007; 

‘‘(B) reduction in crime; 

‘‘(C) increased employment and education opportunities; 

‘‘(D) reduction in violations of conditions of supervised release; 

‘‘(E) increased child support; 

‘‘(F) increased housing opportunities; 

‘‘(G) reduction in drug and alcohol abuse; and 

‘‘(H) increased participation in substance abuse and mental health services. 

‘‘(3) OTHER OUTCOMES.—A grantee under this section may include in their 

reentry strategic plan other performance outcomes that increase the success 

rates of offenders who transition from prison, jails, or juvenile facilities. 

‘‘(4) COORDINATION.—A grantee under this section shall coordinate with 

communities and stakeholders about the selection of performance outcomes 

identified by the applicant, and shall consult with the Attorney General for assistance with data collection and measurement activities as provided for in the 

grant application materials. 

‘‘(5) REPORT.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each grantee under this section shall submit an annual report to the Attorney General that—

‘‘(i) identifies the progress of the grantee toward achieving its strategic performance outcomes; and 

‘‘(ii) describes other activities conducted by the grantee to increase 

the success rates of the reentry population, such as programs that foster effective risk management and treatment programming, offender 

accountability, and community and victim participation. 

‘‘(B) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—On an annual basis, the Attorney General shall submit all reports received under this paragraph during the previous year to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. 

‘‘(k) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General, in consultation with grantees 

under this section, shall—

‘‘(A) identify primary and secondary sources of information to support 

the measurement of the performance indicators identified under this section; 

‘‘(B) identify sources and methods of data collection in support of performance measurement required under this section; 

‘‘(C) provide to all grantees technical assistance and training on performance measures and data collection for purposes of this section; and 

‘‘(D) consult with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse on strategic performance outcome measures and data collection for purposes of this section 

relating to substance abuse and mental health. 

‘‘(2) COORDINATION.—The Attorney General shall coordinate with other Federal agencies to identify national and other sources of information to support 

performance measurement of grantees. 

10

‘‘(3) STANDARDS FOR ANALYSIS.—Any statistical analysis of population data 

conducted pursuant to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the 

Federal Register Notice dated October 30, 1997, relating to classification standards. 

‘‘(l) FUTURE ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section in 

any fiscal year after the fiscal year in which a grantee receives a grant under this 

section, a grantee shall submit to the Attorney General such information as is necessary to demonstrate that—

‘‘(1) the grantee has adopted a reentry plan that reflects input from nonprofit organizations, in any case where relevant input is available and appropriate to the grant application; 

‘‘(2) the reentry plan of the grantee includes performance measures to assess the progress of the grantee toward increasing public safety by reducing the 

rate at which individuals released from prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities who 

participate in the reentry system supported by Federal funds are recommitted 

to prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities; and 

‘‘(3) the grantee will coordinate with the Attorney General, nonprofit organizations (if relevant input from nonprofit organizations is available and appropriate), and other experts regarding the selection and implementation of the 

performance measures described in subsection (k). 

‘‘(m) NATIONAL ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER REENTRY RESOURCE CENTER.—

‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.—The Attorney General may, using amounts made available to carry out this subsection, make a grant to an eligible organization to 

provide for the establishment of a National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center. 

‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—An organization eligible for the grant under 

paragraph (1) is any national nonprofit organization approved by the Interagency Task Force on Federal Programs and Activities Relating to the Reentry 

of Offenders Into the Community, that provides technical assistance and training to, and has special expertise and broad, national-level experience in, offender reentry programs, training, and research. 

‘‘(3) USE OF FUNDS.—The organization receiving the grant under paragraph 

(1) shall establish a National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource 

Center to—

‘‘(A) provide education, training, and technical assistance for States, 

tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections institutions; 

‘‘(B) collect data and best practices in offender reentry from demonstration grantees and others agencies and organizations; 

‘‘(C) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better assess and document coalition performance measures and 

outcomes; 

‘‘(D) disseminate information to States and other relevant entities 

about best practices, policy standards, and research findings; 

‘‘(E) develop and implement procedures to assist relevant authorities in 

determining when release is appropriate and in the use of data to inform 

the release decision; 

‘‘(F) develop and implement procedures to identify efficiently and effectively those violators of probation, parole, or supervision following release 

from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility who should be returned to prisons, 

jails, or juvenile facilities and those who should receive other penalties 

based on defined, graduated sanctions; 

‘‘(G) collaborate with the Interagency Task Force on Federal Programs 

and Activities Relating to the Reentry of Offenders Into the Community, 

and the Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners; 

‘‘(H) develop a national reentry research agenda; 

‘‘(I) bridge the gap between reentry research and practice by translating knowledge from research into practical information; and 

‘‘(J) establish a database to enhance the availability of information that 

will assist offenders in areas such as housing, employment, counseling, 

mentoring, medical and mental health services, substance abuse treatment, 

transportation, and daily living skills. 

‘‘(4) LIMIT.—Of amounts made available to carry out this section, not more 

than 4 percent shall be available to carry out this subsection. 

‘‘(n) ADMINISTRATION.—Of amounts made available to carry out this section—

‘‘(1) not more than 2 percent shall be available for administrative expenses 

in carrying out this section; and 

11

‘‘(2) not more than 2 percent shall be made available to the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of the demonstration projects funded 

under this section, using a methodology that—

‘‘(A) includes, to the maximum extent feasible, random assignment of 

offenders (or entities working with such persons) to program delivery and 

control groups; and 

‘‘(B) generates evidence on which reentry approaches and strategies are 

most effective.’’. 

(d) GRANT AUTHORIZATION.—Section 2976(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘States, Territories’’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘States, local governments, territories, or Indian tribes, or any combination 

thereof, in partnership with stakeholders, service providers, and nonprofit organizations.’’. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2976(o) of the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w), as so redesignated by subsection (c) of this section, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘$65,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $65,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2009.’’; and 

(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—Of the amount made available to carry out this section 

in any fiscal year, not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be used 

for technical assistance and training.’’. 

SEC. 102. IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR STATE 

OFFENDERS PROGRAM. 

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR AFTERCARE COMPONENT.—Section 1902(c) of the Omnibus 

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff–1(c)), is amended—

(1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting ‘‘REQUIREMENT FOR

AFTERCARE COMPONENT.—’’; and 

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) To be eligible for funding under this part, a State shall ensure that individuals who participate in the substance abuse treatment program established 

or implemented with assistance provided under this part will be provided with 

aftercare services, which may include case management services and a full continuum of support services that ensure providers furnishing services under the 

program are approved by the appropriate State or local agency, and licensed, 

if necessary, to provide medical treatment or other health services.’’. 

(b) DEFINITION.—Section 1904(d) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff–3(d)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM DEFINED.—In this 

part, the term ‘residential substance abuse treatment program’ means a course of 

comprehensive individual and group substance abuse treatment services, lasting a 

period of at least 6 months, in residential treatment facilities set apart from the 

general population of a prison or jail, which may include the use of pharmacological 

treatment, where appropriate, that may extend beyond such period.’’. 

(c) REQUIREMENT FOR STUDY AND REPORT ON AFTERCARE SERVICES.—The Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, and in consultation with the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, shall conduct a study on the use and effectiveness of funds used by the Department of Justice for aftercare services under section 

1902(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended 

by subsection (a) of this section, for offenders who reenter the community after completing a substance abuse program in prison or jail. 

Subtitle B—New and Innovative Programs to 

Improve Offender Reentry Services 

SEC. 111. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part FF of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further 

amended by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 2978. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS. 

‘‘(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General shall award grants, in accordance with this section, of not more than $500,000 to—

‘‘(1) State and local courts; and 

12

‘‘(2) State agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

territories, and Indian tribes that have agreements with courts to take the lead 

in establishing a reentry court (as described in section 2976(b)(19)). 

‘‘(b) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—Grant funds awarded under this section shall be 

administered in accordance with such guidelines, regulations, and procedures as 

promulgated by the Attorney General, and may be used to—

‘‘(1) monitor juvenile and adult offenders returning to the community; 

‘‘(2) provide juvenile and adult offenders returning to the community with 

coordinated and comprehensive reentry services and programs such as—

‘‘(A) drug and alcohol testing and assessment for treatment; 

‘‘(B) assessment for substance abuse from a substance abuse professional who is approved by the State and licensed by the appropriate entity 

to provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment, as appropriate; 

‘‘(C) substance abuse treatment from a provider that is approved by the 

State, and licensed, if necessary, to provide medical and other health services; 

‘‘(D) health (including mental health) services and assessment; 

‘‘(E) aftercare and case management services that—

‘‘(i) facilitate access to clinical care and related health services; and 

‘‘(ii) coordinate with such clinical care and related health services; 

and 

‘‘(F) any other services needed for reentry; 

‘‘(3) convene community impact panels, victim impact panels, or victim impact educational classes; 

‘‘(4) provide and coordinate the delivery of community services to juvenile 

and adult offenders, including—

‘‘(A) housing assistance; 

‘‘(B) education; 

‘‘(C) employment training; 

‘‘(D) conflict resolution skills training; 

‘‘(E) batterer intervention programs; and 

‘‘(F) other appropriate social services; and 

‘‘(5) establish and implement graduated sanctions and incentives. 

‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a grantee that operates a drug court under part EE at the time a grant 

is awarded under this section from using funds from such grant to supplement the 

drug court under part EE in accordance with paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b). 

‘‘(d) APPLICATION.—To be eligible for a grant under this section, an entity described in subsection (a) shall, in addition to any other requirements required by 

the Attorney General, submit to the Attorney General an application that—

‘‘(1) describes the program to be assisted under this section and the need 

for such program; 

‘‘(2) describes a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan for 

such program, including how the entity plans to pay for the program after the 

Federal funding ends; 

‘‘(3) identifies the governmental and community agencies that will be coordinated by the project; 

‘‘(4) certifies that—

‘‘(A) all agencies affected by the program, including existing community 

corrections and parole entities, have been appropriately consulted in the development of the program; 

‘‘(B) there will be appropriate coordination with all such agencies in the 

implementation of the program; and 

‘‘(C) there will be appropriate coordination and consultation with the 

Single State Authority for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007) of the State; and 

‘‘(5) describes the methodology and outcome measures that will be used to 

evaluate the program. 

‘‘(e) MATCHING REQUIREMENTS.—The Federal share of a grant under this section 

may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of the project assisted by such grant unless 

the Attorney General—

‘‘(1) waives, wholly or in part, the matching requirement under this subsection; and 

‘‘(2) publicly delineates the rationale for the waiver. 

‘‘(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—Each entity receiving a grant under this section shall 

submit to the Attorney General, for each fiscal year in which funds from the grant 

13

are expended, a report, at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General 

may reasonably require, that contains—

‘‘(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the program assisted by 

the grant; 

‘‘(2) an assessment of whether the activities are meeting the need for the 

program identified in the application submitted under subsection (d); and 

‘‘(3) such other information as the Attorney General may require. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out this section. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATIONS.—Of the amount made available to carry out this section 

in any fiscal year—

‘‘(A) not more than 2 percent may be used by the Attorney General for 

salaries and administrative expenses; and 

‘‘(B) not more than 5 percent nor less than 2 percent may be used for 

technical assistance and training.’’. 

SEC. 112. GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY TASK 

FORCES. 

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3711 et seq.) is further amended by inserting after part BB the following new part: 

‘‘PART CC—GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND 

CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY TASK FORCES 

‘‘SEC. 2901. AUTHORIZATION. 

‘‘The Attorney General shall carry out a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of local government, territories, Indian 

tribes, and other public and private entities for the purpose of establishing and administering task forces (to be known as ‘Comprehensive and Continuous Offender 

Reentry Task Forces’), in accordance with this part. 

‘‘SEC. 2902. COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUOUS OFFENDER REENTRY TASK FORCES. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this part, a Comprehensive and Continuous 

Offender Reentry Task Force is a planning group of a State, unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe that—

‘‘(1) develops a community reentry plan, described in section 2903, for each 

juvenile and adult offender to be released from a correctional facility in the applicable jurisdiction; 

‘‘(2) supervises and assesses the progress of each such offender, with respect 

to such plan, starting on a date before the offender is released from a correctional facility and ending on the date on which the court supervision of such 

offender ends; 

‘‘(3) conducts a detailed assessment of the needs of each offender to address 

employment training, medical care, drug treatment, education, and any other 

identified need of the offender to assist in the offender’s reentry; 

‘‘(4) demonstrates affirmative steps to implement such a community reentry 

plan by consulting and coordinating with other public and nonprofit entities, as 

appropriate; 

‘‘(5) establishes appropriate measurements for determining the efficacy of 

such community reentry plans by monitoring offender performance under such 

reentry plans; 

‘‘(6) complies with applicable State, local, territorial, and tribal rules and 

regulations regarding the provision of applicable services and treatment in the 

applicable jurisdiction; and 

‘‘(7) consults and coordinates with the Single State Authority for Substance 

Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the Second Chance Act of 2007) and the 

criminal justice agencies of the State to ensure that offender reentry plans are 

coordinated and delivered in the most cost-effective manner, as determined by 

the Attorney General, in consultation with the grantee. 

‘‘(b) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.—A Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force for a county or other defined geographic area shall perform the 

duties described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) in consultation with representatives of—

‘‘(1) the criminal and juvenile justice and correctional facilities within the 

county or area; 

‘‘(2) the community health care services of the county or area; 

14

‘‘(3) the drug treatment programs of the county or area; 

‘‘(4) the employment opportunities available in the county or area; 

‘‘(5) housing opportunities available in the county or area; and 

‘‘(6) any other appropriate community services available in the county or area. 

‘‘SEC. 2903. COMMUNITY REENTRY PLAN DESCRIBED. 

‘‘For purposes of section 2902(a)(1), a community reentry plan for an offender 

is a plan relating to the reentry of the offender into the community and, according 

to the needs of the offender, shall—

‘‘(1) identify employment opportunities and goals; 

‘‘(2) identify housing opportunities; 

‘‘(3) provide for any needed drug treatment; 

‘‘(4) provide for any needed mental health services; 

‘‘(5) provide for any needed health care services; 

‘‘(6) provide for any needed family counseling; 

‘‘(7) provide for offender case management programs or services; and 

‘‘(8) provide for any other service specified by the Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force as necessary for the offender. 

‘‘SEC. 2904. APPLICATION. 

‘‘To be eligible for a grant under this part, a State or other relevant entity shall 

submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and manner and at such 

time as the Attorney General specifies. Such application shall contain such information as the Attorney General specifies. 

‘‘SEC. 2905. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

‘‘Nothing in this part shall be construed as supplanting or modifying a sentence 

imposed by a court, including any terms of supervision. 

‘‘SEC. 2906. REPORTS. 

‘‘An entity that receives funds under this part for a Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Force during a fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney 

General, not later than a date specified by the Attorney General, a report that describes and evaluates the effectiveness of such Task Force during such fiscal year. 

‘‘SEC. 2907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section 

for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

SEC. 113. PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended by section 112 of this Act, is further 

amended by inserting after section 2907 the following new part: 

‘‘PART DD—PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT 

ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS 

‘‘SEC. 2911. GRANT AUTHORITY. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may make grants to State and local 

prosecutors to develop, implement, or expand qualified drug treatment programs 

that are alternatives to imprisonment, in accordance with this section. 

‘‘(b) QUALIFIED DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS DESCRIBED.—For purposes of this 

part, a qualified drug treatment program is a program—

‘‘(1) that is administered by a State or local prosecutor; 

‘‘(2) that requires an eligible offender who is sentenced to participate in the 

program (instead of incarceration) to participate in a comprehensive substance 

abuse treatment program that is approved by the State and licensed, if necessary, to provide medical and other health services; 

‘‘(3) that requires an eligible offender to receive the consent of the State or 

local prosecutor involved to participate in such program; 

‘‘(4) that, in the case of an eligible offender who is sentenced to participate 

in the program, requires the offender to serve a sentence of imprisonment with 

respect to the crime involved if the prosecutor, in conjunction with the treatment provider, determines that the offender has not successfully completed the 

relevant substance abuse treatment program described in paragraph (2); 

‘‘(5) that provides for the dismissal of the criminal charges involved in an 

eligible offender’s participation in the program if the offender is determined to 

have successfully completed the program; 

15

‘‘(6) that requires each substance abuse provider treating an eligible offender under the program to—

‘‘(A) make periodic reports of the progress of the treatment of that offender to the State or local prosecutor involved and to the appropriate court 

in which the defendant was convicted; and 

‘‘(B) notify such prosecutor and such court if the offender absconds from 

the facility of the treatment provider or otherwise violates the terms and 

conditions of the program, consistent with Federal and State confidentiality 

requirements; and 

‘‘(7) that has an enforcement unit comprised of law enforcement officers 

under the supervision of the State or local prosecutor involved, the duties of 

which shall include verifying an offender’s addresses and other contacts, and, 

if necessary, locating, apprehending, and arresting an offender who has absconded from the facility of a substance abuse treatment provider or otherwise 

violated the terms and conditions of the program, consistent with Federal and 

State confidentiality requirements, and returning such offender to court for sentencing for the crime involved. 

‘‘SEC. 2912. USE OF GRANT FUNDS. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A State or local prosecutor who receives a grant under this 

part shall use such grant for expenses of a qualified drug treatment program, including for the following expenses: 

‘‘(1) Salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other costs directly related to the operation of the program, including the enforcement unit. 

‘‘(2) Payments for substance abuse treatment providers that are approved 

by the State and licensed, if necessary, to provide alcohol and drug addiction 

treatment to eligible offenders participating in the program, including aftercare 

supervision, vocational training, education, and job placement. 

‘‘(3) Payments to public and nonprofit private entities that are approved by 

the State and licensed, if necessary, to provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment to offenders participating in the program. 

‘‘(b) SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SUPPLANT.—Grants made under this part shall be 

used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be 

available for programs described in such subsection. 

‘‘SEC. 2913. APPLICATIONS. 

‘‘To request a grant under this part, a State or local prosecutor shall submit 

an application to the Attorney General in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. Each such application shall 

contain the certification of the State or local prosecutor that the program for which 

the grant is requested is a qualified drug treatment program in accordance with this 

part. 

‘‘SEC. 2914. FEDERAL SHARE. 

‘‘The Federal share of a grant made under this part shall not exceed 75 percent 

of the total costs of the qualified drug treatment program funded by such grant for 

the fiscal year for which the program receives assistance under this part. 

‘‘SEC. 2915. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

‘‘The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, the distribution of grants under this part is equitable and includes State or local prosecutors—

‘‘(1) in each State; and 

‘‘(2) in rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions. 

‘‘SEC. 2916. REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS. 

‘‘For each fiscal year, each recipient of a grant under this part during such fiscal 

year shall submit to the Attorney General a report with respect to the effectiveness 

of activities carried out using that grant. Each report shall include an evaluation 

in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. The Attorney General shall specify the dates on which such reports 

shall be submitted. 

‘‘SEC. 2917. DEFINITIONS. 

‘‘In this part: 

‘‘(1) STATE OR LOCAL PROSECUTOR.—The term ‘State or local prosecutor’ 

means any district attorney, State attorney general, county attorney, or corporation counsel who has authority to prosecute criminal offenses under State or 

local law. 

‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE OFFENDER.—The term ‘eligible offender’ means an individual 

who—

16

‘‘(A) has been convicted, pled guilty, or admitted guilt with respect to 

a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment is required and has not completed such sentence; 

‘‘(B) has never been charged with or convicted of an offense, during the 

course of which—

‘‘(i) the person carried, possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous 

weapon; or 

‘‘(ii) there occurred the use of force against the person of another, 

without regard to whether any of the behavior described in clause (i) 

or (ii) is an element of the offense or for which the person is charged 

or convicted; 

‘‘(C) does not have one or more prior convictions for a felony crime of 

violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with 

the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm; and 

‘‘(D)(i) has received an assessment for alcohol or drug addiction from 

a substance abuse professional who is approved by the State and licensed 

by the appropriate entity to provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment, 

as appropriate; and 

‘‘(ii) has been found to be in need of substance abuse treatment because 

that offender has a history of substance abuse that is a significant contributing factor to that offender’s criminal conduct.’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by 

adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(26) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part DD such 

sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

SEC. 114. GRANTS FOR FAMILY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION. 

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (42 U.S.C. 3711 et 

seq.) is further amended by inserting after Part II the following new part: 

‘‘PART JJ—GRANTS FOR FAMILY SUBSTANCE ABUSE 

TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION 

‘‘SEC. 3001. GRANTS AUTHORIZED. 

‘‘The Attorney General may make grants to States, units of local government, 

territories, and Indian tribes to develop, implement, and expand comprehensive and 

clinically-appropriate family-based substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent parent drug offenders. 

‘‘SEC. 3002. USE OF GRANT FUNDS. 

‘‘Grants made to an entity under section 3001 for a program described in such 

section may be used for the following: 

‘‘(1) Salaries, personnel costs, facility costs, and other costs directly related 

to the operation of the program. 

‘‘(2) Payments to providers of substance abuse treatment for providing 

treatment and case management to nonviolent parent drug offenders participating in the program, including comprehensive treatment for mental health 

disorders, parenting classes, educational classes, vocational training, and job 

placement. 

‘‘(3) Payments to public and nonprofit private entities to provide substance 

abuse treatment to nonviolent parent drug offenders participating in the program. 

‘‘SEC. 3003. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. 

‘‘A program for which a grant is made under section 3001 shall comply with the 

following requirements: 

‘‘(1) The program shall ensure that all providers of substance abuse treatment are approved by the State and are licensed, if necessary, to provide medical and other health services. 

‘‘(2) The program shall provide for appropriate coordination and consultation with the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 

201(e) of the Second Chance Act of 2007) of the State in which the program is 

located. 

‘‘(3) The program shall consist of clinically-appropriate, comprehensive, and 

long-term family treatment, including the treatment of the nonviolent parent 

17

drug offender, the child of such offender, and any other appropriate member of 

the family of the offender. 

‘‘(4) The program shall be provided in a residential setting that is not a hospital setting or an intensive outpatient setting. 

‘‘(5) The program shall provide that if a nonviolent parent drug offender 

who participates in the program does not successfully complete the program the 

offender shall serve an appropriate sentence of imprisonment with respect to 

the underlying crime involved. 

‘‘(6) The program shall ensure that a determination is made as to whether 

or not a nonviolent drug offender has completed the substance abuse treatment 

program. 

‘‘(7) The program shall include the implementation of a system of graduated 

sanctions (including incentives) that are applied based on the accountability of 

the nonviolent parent drug offender involved throughout the course of the program to encourage compliance with the program. 

‘‘(8) The program shall develop and implement a reentry plan for each nonviolent parent drug offender that shall include reinforcement strategies for family involvement as appropriate, relapse strategies, support groups, placement in 

transitional housing, and continued substance abuse treatment, as needed. 

‘‘SEC. 3004. DEFINITIONS. 

‘‘In this part: 

‘‘(1) NONVIOLENT PARENT DRUG OFFENDERS.—The term ‘nonviolent parent 

drug offender’ means an offender who is a parent of a minor and who is convicted of a drug (or drug-related) felony that is a nonviolent offense. 

‘‘(2) NONVIOLENT OFFENSE.—The term ‘nonviolent offense’ has the meaning 

given such term under section 2991(a). 

‘‘SEC. 3005. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part $10,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

SEC. 115. PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR INCARCERATED PARENTS OF 

MINOR CHILDREN. 

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (42 U.S.C. 3711 et 

seq.), is further amended—

(1) by redesignating Part X at the end (relating to grants for sex offender 

apprehension and juvenile sex offender treatment) as Part KK; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new part: 

‘‘PART LL—PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR INCARCERATED PARENTS OF MINOR 

CHILDREN 

‘‘SEC. 3021. GRANTS AUTHORIZED. 

‘‘The Attorney General may make grants to States, units of local government, 

territories, and Indian tribes to provide prison-based family treatment programs for 

incarcerated parents of minor children. 

‘‘SEC. 3022. USE OF GRANT FUNDS. 

‘‘An entity that receives a grant under this part shall use amounts provided 

under the grant to—

‘‘(1) develop, implement, and expand prison-based family treatment programs in correctional facilities for incarcerated parents with minor children, excluding from the programs those parents with respect to whom there is reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse; 

‘‘(2) coordinate the design and implementation of such programs between 

appropriate correctional facility representatives, the Single State Authority for 

Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the Second Chance Act of 

2007), and other appropriate governmental agencies; and 

‘‘(3) develop and implement a pre-release assessment and a reentry plan for 

each incarcerated parent scheduled to be released to the community, and such 

plan shall include—

‘‘(A) a treatment program for the incarcerated parent to receive continuous substance abuse treatment services and related support services, as 

needed; 

‘‘(B) a housing plan during transition from incarceration to reentry, as 

needed; 

18

‘‘(C) a vocational or employment plan, including training and job placement services; and 

‘‘(D) any other services necessary to provide successful reentry into the 

community. 

‘‘SEC. 3023. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. 

‘‘A prison-based family treatment program for incarcerated parents with respect 

to which a grant is made shall comply with the following requirements: 

‘‘(1) The program shall integrate techniques to assess the strengths and 

needs of immediate and extended family of the incarcerated parent to support 

a treatment plan of the incarcerated parent. 

‘‘(2) The program shall ensure that each participant in the program has access to consistent and uninterrupted care if transferred to a different correctional facility within the State or other relevant entity. 

‘‘(3) The program shall be located in an area separate from the general population of the prison or jail. 

‘‘SEC. 3024. APPLICATIONS. 

‘‘To be eligible for a grant under this part for a prison-based family treatment 

program, an entity described in section 3021 shall, in addition to any other requirement specified by the Attorney General, submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and manner and at such time as specified by the Attorney General. Such application shall include a description of the methods and measurements 

the entity will use for purposes of evaluating the program involved and such other 

information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. 

‘‘SEC. 3025. REPORTS. 

‘‘An entity that receives a grant under this part for a prison-based family treatment program during a fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney General, not later 

than a date specified by the Attorney General, a report that describes and evaluates 

the effectiveness of such program during such fiscal year. Such evaluation shall be 

based on evidence-based data and shall use the methods and measurements described in the application of the entity for purposes of evaluating the program. 

‘‘SEC. 3026. PRISON-BASED FAMILY TREATMENT PROGRAM DEFINED. 

‘‘In this part, the term ‘prison-based family treatment program’ means a program for incarcerated parents in a correctional facility that provides a comprehensive response to offender needs, including substance abuse treatment, child early 

intervention services, family counseling, legal services, medical care, mental health 

services, nursery and preschool, parenting skills training, pediatric care, physical 

therapy, prenatal care, sexual abuse therapy, relapse prevention, transportation, 

and vocational or GED training. 

‘‘SEC. 3027. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part $10,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

SEC. 116. GRANT PROGRAMS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS, JAILS, AND 

JUVENILE FACILITIES. 

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3711 et seq.), as amended by section 115 of this Act, is further amended by adding 

at the end the following new part: 

‘‘PART MM—GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS, JAILS, AND JUVENILE FACILITIES 

‘‘SEC. 3031. GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS, JAILS, 

AND JUVENILE FACILITIES. 

‘‘(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General shall carry out a 

grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of 

local government, territories, Indian tribes, and other public and private entities 

to—

‘‘(1) evaluate methods to improve academic and vocational education for offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; and 

‘‘(2) identify, and make recommendations to the Attorney General regarding, best practices relating to academic and vocational education for offenders 

in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities, based on the evaluation under paragraph (1). 

19

‘‘(b) APPLICATION.—To be eligible for a grant under this section, a State or other 

entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and manner and at such time as the Attorney General specifies. 

Such application shall contain such information as the Attorney General specifies. 

‘‘(c) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the last day of the final fiscal year 

for which an entity described in subsection (a) receives a grant under such subsection, such an entity shall submit to the Attorney General a detailed report of the 

aggregate findings and conclusions of the evaluation described in subsection (a)(1), 

and the recommendations to the Attorney General described in subsection (a)(2). 

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated—

‘‘(1) to carry out subsection (a)(1), $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2008 and 2009; and 

‘‘(2) to carry out subsection (a)(2), $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2008 and 2009. 

‘‘SEC. 3032. GRANTS TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN PRISONS, JAILS, AND JUVENILE 

FACILITIES. 

‘‘(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General shall carry out a 

grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of 

local government, territories, and Indian tribes for the purpose of improving the academic and vocational education programs available to offenders in prisons, jails, and 

juvenile facilities. 

‘‘(b) APPLICATION.—To be eligible for a grant under this section, an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such 

form and manner and at such time as the Attorney General specifies. Such application shall contain such information as the Attorney General specifies. 

‘‘(c) REPORTS.—An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the following fiscal year, submit to the 

Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant. 

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

Subtitle C—Conforming Amendments 

SEC. 121. USE OF VIOLENT OFFENDER TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANT FUNDING FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES. 

Section 20102(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

(42 U.S.C. 13702(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) to carry out any activity referred to in section 2976(b) of the Omnibus 

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(b)).’’. 

TITLE II—ENHANCED DRUG TREATMENT AND 

MENTORING GRANT PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—Drug Treatment 

SEC. 201. GRANTS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO REDUCE DRUG USE AND RECIDIVISM 

IN LONG-TERM SUBSTANCE ABUSERS. 

(a) AWARDS REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall make competitive grants to 

eligible partnerships, in accordance with this section, for the purpose of establishing 

demonstration programs to reduce the use of alcohol and other drugs by supervised 

long-term substance abusers during the period in which each such long-term substance abuser is in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, and until the completion of parole or court supervision of such abuser. 

(b) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—A grant made under subsection (a) to an eligible 

partnership for a demonstration program, shall be used—

(1) to support the efforts of the agencies, organizations, and researchers included in the eligible partnership, with respect to the program; 

20

(2) to develop and implement a program for supervised long-term substance 

abusers during the period described in subsection (a), which shall include—

(A) alcohol and drug abuse assessments that—

(i) are provided by a State-approved program; and 

(ii) provide adequate incentives for completion of a comprehensive 

alcohol or drug abuse treatment program, including through the use of 

graduated sanctions; and 

(B) coordinated and continuous delivery of drug treatment and case 

management services during such period; and 

(3) to provide addiction recovery support services (such as job training and 

placement, peer support, mentoring, education, and other related services) to 

strengthen rehabilitation efforts for long-term substance abusers. 

(c) APPLICATION.—To be eligible for a grant under subsection (a) for a demonstration program, an eligible partnership shall submit to the Attorney General an 

application that—

(1) identifies the role, and certifies the involvement, of each agency or organization involved in such partnership, with respect to the program; 

(2) includes a plan for using judicial or other criminal or juvenile justice 

authority to supervise the long-term substance abusers who are participating in 

a demonstration program under this section, including for—

(A) administering drug tests for such abusers on a regular basis; and 

(B) swiftly and certainly imposing an established set of graduated sanctions for non-compliance with conditions for reentry into the community relating to drug abstinence (whether imposed as a pre-trial, probation, or parole condition, or otherwise); 

(3) includes a plan to provide supervised long-term substance abusers with 

coordinated and continuous services that are based on evidence-based strategies 

that assist such abusers by providing such abusers with—

(A) drug treatment while in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility; 

(B) continued treatment during the period in which each such longterm substance abuser is in prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, and until the 

completion of parole or court supervision of such abuser; 

(C) addiction recovery support services; 

(D) employment training and placement; 

(E) family-based therapies; 

(F) structured post-release housing and transitional housing, including 

housing for recovering substance abusers; and 

(G) other services coordinated by appropriate case management services; 

(4) includes a plan for coordinating the data infrastructures among the entities included in the eligible partnership and between such entities and the providers of services under the demonstration program involved (including providers of technical assistance) to assist in monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of demonstration programs under this section; and 

(5) includes a plan to monitor and measure the number of long-term substance abusers—

(A) located in each community involved; and 

(B) who improve the status of their employment, housing, health, and 

family life. 

(d) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—

(1) INTERIM REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2008, the Attorney 

General shall submit to Congress a report that identifies the best practices relating to the comprehensive and coordinated treatment of long-term substance 

abusers, including the best practices identified through the activities funded 

under this section. 

(2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2009, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on the demonstration programs funded 

under this section, including on the matters specified in paragraph (1). 

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘‘eligible partnership’’ means a partnership that includes—

(A) the applicable Single State Authority for Substance Abuse; 

(B) the State, local, territorial, or tribal criminal or juvenile justice authority involved; 

(C) a researcher who has experience in evidence-based studies that 

measure the effectiveness of treating long-term substance abusers during 

the period in which such abusers are under the supervision of the criminal 

or juvenile justice system involved; 

21

(D) community-based organizations that provide drug treatment, related recovery services, job training and placement, educational services, 

housing assistance, mentoring, or medical services; and 

(E) Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and United States Attorney’s offices). 

(2) LONG-TERM SUBSTANCE ABUSER.—The term ‘‘long-term substance 

abuser’’ means an offender, who—

(A) is in a prison, jail, or juvenile facility; 

(B) has abused illegal drugs or alcohol for a significant number of 

years; and 

(C) is scheduled to be released from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility 

within the next 24 months. 

(3) SINGLE STATE AUTHORITY FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE.—The term ‘‘Single 

State Authority for Substance Abuse’’ means an entity designated by the Governor or chief executive officer of a State as the single State administrative authority responsible for the planning, development, implementation, monitoring, 

regulation, and evaluation of substance abuse services. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO REDUCE 

ILLEGAL DRUG DEMAND BY PROVIDING DRUG TREATMENT. 

(a) GRANT AWARDS REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall make competitive 

awards for demonstration programs by eligible partnerships for the purpose of reducing illegal drug demand by providing for drug treatment upon request programs 

through evidence-based models of such programs that—

(1) increase the accessibility of such a program to any individual who requests to participate in such program; 

(2) increase public awareness of the availability of such programs; and 

(3) decrease the cost of drug treatment. 

(b) USE OF AWARD AMOUNTS.—Grant amounts received under this section shall 

be used—

(1) to support the efforts of the agencies, organizations, and researchers included in the eligible partnership; 

(2) to develop a program that provides drug treatment upon request—

(A) at no cost to an individual who participates in the program; and 

(B) within a reasonable period to any individual that requests such 

treatment; 

(3) to increase awareness of the availability of such a program to any individual that may be interested in participating in such a program; and 

(4) to record the outcomes of the program developed. 

(c) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—

(1) INTERIM REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2008 the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report that identifies the best practices in providing for drug treatment upon request programs, including the best practices 

identified through the activities funded under this section. 

(2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2009, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on the demonstration programs funded 

under this section, including on the matters specified in paragraph (1). 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) DRUG TREATMENT UPON REQUEST.—The term ‘‘drug treatment upon request’’ means a drug treatment program that provides to any individual who 

requests to participate in such program full availability and accessibility to such 

program without delay. 

(2) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘‘eligible partnership’’ means a working group whose application to the Attorney General—

(A) identifies the roles played, and certifies the involvement of, two or 

more agencies or organizations, which may include—

(i) State or local agencies (such as those carrying out police, probation, prosecution, courts, corrections, parole, or treatment functions); 

(ii) Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and United 

States Attorney offices); and 

(iii) community-based organizations; 

(B) includes a qualified researcher; 

(C) includes a plan for identifying, with respect to the date of the enactment of this Act—

22

(i) the availability, as of such date, of each drug treatment upon 

request program; 

(ii) the demand, as of such date, for drug treatment that has not 

been met through programs in existence before such date; 

(iii) the ease and quality of access to drug treatment, as of such 

date; and 

(iv) the criteria that have influenced the outcome of drug treatment 

upon request programs; and 

(D) includes a plan that describes the methodology and outcome measures proposed for evaluating the impact of each model used for a drug 

treatment upon request program. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

SEC. 203. OFFENDER DRUG TREATMENT INCENTIVE GRANTS. 

(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General shall carry out a 

grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to States, units of 

local government, territories, and Indian tribes in an amount described in subsection (c) to improve the provision of drug treatment to offenders in prisons, jails, 

and juvenile facilities. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under 

subsection (a) for a given fiscal year, an entity described in such subsection shall, 

in addition to any other requirements specified by the Attorney General, submit to 

the Attorney General an application that demonstrates that, with respect to offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities who require drug treatment and who are 

in the custody of the jurisdiction involved, during the previous fiscal year the entity 

provided drug treatment meeting standards set forth by the Single State Authority 

for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e)) to a number of such offenders 

that is two times the number of such offenders to whom the entity provided such 

drug treatment in the fiscal year that was two years before such given fiscal year. 

Such application shall be submitted in such form and manner and at such time as 

specified by the Attorney General. 

(c) ALLOCATION OF GRANT AMOUNTS BASED ON DRUG TREATMENT PERCENT

DEMONSTRATED.—In allocating grant amounts under this part, the Attorney General 

shall base the amount allocated to an entity for a fiscal year on the percent of offenders described in subsection (b) to whom the entity provided drug treatment in 

the previous fiscal year, as demonstrated by the entity in its application under such 

subsection. 

(d) USES OF GRANTS.—A grant awarded to an entity under subsection (a) shall 

be used—

(1) for continuing and improving drug treatment programs provided at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities of such entity; and 

(2) to strengthen rehabilitation efforts for offenders by providing addiction 

recovery support services, such as job training and placement, education, peer 

support, mentoring, and other similar services. 

(e) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Attorney General may provide technical assistance to any entity awarded a grant under this section to establish or expand 

drug treatment services under this section if such entity does not have any (or has 

only a few) prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities that offer such services. 

(f) REPORTS.—An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the following fiscal year, submit to the 

Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

SEC. 204. ENSURING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY OF NEW PHARMACOLOGICAL DRUG 

TREATMENT SERVICES. 

(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General, through the National 

Institute of Justice, and in consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse 

and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, shall carry 

out a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants to States, 

units of local government, territories, Indian tribes, and public and private organizations to establish pharmacological drug treatment services as part of the available 

drug treatment programs being offered by such grantees to offenders who are in 

prison or jail. 

(b) CONSIDERATION OF PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS.—In awarding grants 

under this section to eligible entities, the Attorney General shall consider—

(1) the number and availability of pharmacological treatments offered under 

the proposed or existing program involved; and 

23

(2) the participation of researchers who are familiar with evidence-based 

studies and are able to measure the effectiveness of such treatments using randomized trials. 

(c) APPLICATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible for a grant under this section, an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney General an application in 

such form and manner and at such time as the Attorney General specifies. 

(2) INFORMATION REQUIRED.—An application submitted under paragraph (1) 

shall—

(A) provide assurances that grant funds will be used only toward a program that is created in coordination with (or approved by) the Single State 

Authority for Substance Abuse, as defined in section 201(e), of the State involved to ensure pharmacological drug treatment services provided under 

such program are clinically appropriate; 

(B) demonstrate how pharmacological drug treatment services offered 

under the proposed or existing program are part of a clinically-appropriate 

and comprehensive treatment plan; and 

(C) contain such other information as the Attorney General specifies. 

(d) REPORTS.—An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the following fiscal year, submit to the 

Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

SEC. 205. STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPOT NALTREXONE FOR HEROIN ADDICTION. 

(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General, through the National 

Institute of Justice, and in consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

shall carry out a grant program under which the Attorney General makes grants 

to public and private research entities (including consortia, single private research 

entities, and individual institutions of higher education) to evaluate the effectiveness of depot naltrexone for the treatment of heroin addiction. 

(b) EVALUATION PROGRAM.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, 

an entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney General an application that—

(1) contains such information as the Attorney General specifies, including 

information that demonstrates that—

(A) the applicant conducts research at a private or public institution of 

higher education; 

(B) the applicant has an established or proposed plan to work with parole officers or probation officers for offenders who are under court supervision; and 

(C) the evaluation described in subsection (a) will measure the effectiveness of such treatments using randomized trials; and 

(2) is in such form and manner and at such time as the Attorney General 

specifies. 

(c) REPORTS.—An entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during a fiscal year shall, not later than the last day of the following fiscal year, submit to the 

Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

Subtitle B—Job Training 

SEC. 211. TECHNOLOGY CAREERS TRAINING DEMONSTRATION GRANTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—From amounts made available to carry out 

this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to States, units of local government, territories, and Indian tribes to provide technology career training to prisoners. 

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under subsection (a) may be used for establishing a technology careers training program to train prisoners during the 3-

year period before release from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility for technology-based 

jobs and careers. 

(c) REPORTS.—Not later than the last day of each fiscal year, an entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year shall submit to 

the Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant 

during the preceding fiscal year. 

24

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

Subtitle C—Mentoring 

SEC. 221. MENTORING GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—From amounts made available to carry out 

this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to nonprofit organizations for 

the purpose of providing mentoring and other transitional services essential to reintegrating offenders into the community. 

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Grant funds awarded under subsection (a) may be used 

for—

(1) mentoring adult and juvenile offenders during incarceration, through 

transition back to the community, and post-release; 

(2) transitional services to assist in the reintegration of offenders into the 

community; and 

(3) training regarding offender and victims issues. 

(c) APPLICATION; PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a nonprofit organization shall submit an application to the Attorney General based 

on criteria developed by the Attorney General. 

(2) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—Priority consideration shall be given to any 

application that—

(A) includes a plan to implement activities that have been demonstrated effective in facilitating the successful reentry of offenders; and 

(B) provides for an independent evaluation that includes, to the maximum extent feasible, random assignment of offenders to program delivery 

and control groups. 

(d) STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES.—The Attorney General shall require 

each applicant under this section to identify specific performance outcomes related 

to the long-term goal of stabilizing communities by reducing recidivism (using a 

measure that is consistent with the research undertaken by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics pursuant to section 241(b)(6)), and reintegrating offenders into society. 

(e) REPORTS.—Not later than the last day of each fiscal year, an entity that receives a grant under subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year shall submit to 

the Attorney General a report that describes and assesses the uses of such grant 

during the preceding fiscal year and that identifies the progress of the grantee toward achieving its strategic performance outcomes. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

SEC. 222. BUREAU OF PRISONS POLICY ON MENTORING CONTACTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, in order to promote stability and continued assistance to offenders after release from prison, adopt and implement a policy 

to ensure that persons who provide mentoring services to incarcerated offenders are 

permitted to continue such services after the offender is released from prison. The 

policy shall permit the continuation of such mentoring services unless the Director 

can demonstrate that such services would be a significant security risk to the offender, incarcerated offenders, persons who provide such services, or any other person. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2008, the Director of the Bureau of 

Prisons shall submit to Congress a report on the extent to which the policy described in subsection (a) has been implemented and followed. 

Subtitle D—Administration of Justice Reforms 

CHAPTER 1—IMPROVING FEDERAL OFFENDER REENTRY 

SEC. 231. FEDERAL PRISONER REENTRY PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of the Bureau of Prisons (hereinafter in this 

chapter referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall establish a prisoner reentry program (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Program’’) to prepare prisoners for release and successful reentry into the community. 

25

(b) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—The Program shall provide for the following, in accordance with this section: 

(1) VOLUNTARY ENROLLMENT.—Voluntary enrollment for prisoners meeting 

enrollment criteria established by the Director, provided such criteria provides 

that a prisoner may not enroll in the Program any earlier than the first day 

of the two-year period preceding the prisoner’s expected release date. 

(2) PROGRAM PHASES.—An initial institutional phase, a transitional institution phase, and a transitional community phase under subsection (c), during 

each of which each prisoner enrolled in the Program receives reentry education 

(as described in subsection (e)). 

(3) PROGRAM INCENTIVES.—Program incentives described in subsection (d) 

for prisoners meeting the phase requirements of the Program. 

(c) PROGRAM PHASES.—The Program shall include the following phases: 

(1) INITIAL INSTITUTIONAL PHASE.—An initial institutional phase for prisoners enrolled in the Program at each Federal institution and, to the extent feasible, in an area set apart from the general prison population. 

(2) TRANSITIONAL INSTITUTION PHASE.—A transitional institution phase at 

each Federal institution for prisoners that have completed the initial institutional phase but have not yet been released or placed in pre-release custody. 

(3) TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY PHASE.—A transitional community phase at 

each community corrections facility for prisoners that have completed the initial 

institutional phase, have remained eligible during the transitional institution 

phase, and have been transferred to a community corrections facility. 

(d) PROGRAM INCENTIVES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (4), under the Program a prisoner 

eligible under paragraph (2) for Program incentives may receive any of the following incentives: 

(A) Temporary release for reentry preparation purposes. 

(B) The maximum allowable period in a community corrections facility. 

(C) Early release, but not earlier than the date that is one year before 

the prisoner’s original scheduled release. 

(D) Such other incentives as the Director considers appropriate. 

(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR INCENTIVES.—

(A) INITIAL INSTITUTIONAL PHASE.—To be eligible for Program incentives during the initial institutional phase, a prisoner must successfully 

complete 500 hours of reentry education before the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the prisoner’s enrollment in the Program. 

(B) TRANSITIONAL INSTITUTION PHASE.—To remain eligible for Program 

incentives during the transitional institution phase, a prisoner must successfully complete two hours of reentry education during each month—

(i) beginning after the month the prisoner completes the initial institutional phase; and 

(ii) ending before the month the prisoner is released or placed in 

pre-release custody. 

(C) TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY PHASE.—To remain eligible for Program 

incentives during the transitional community phase, a prisoner must successfully complete one hour of reentry education during each month—

(i) beginning after the month of the prisoner’s transfer to a community corrections facility; and 

(ii) ending before the month the prisoner is released. 

(3) REVOCATION OF INCENTIVES.—If a prisoner fails to meet the eligibility 

requirements to receive Program incentives during a given phase of the Program, the Director may revoke any Program incentive granted to the prisoner. 

(4) LIMITATIONS.—

(A) CONSIDERING PUBLIC SAFETY.—When considering whether to grant 

a Program incentive to a prisoner, the Director shall take into account the 

prisoner’s behavior while imprisoned and history of criminal conduct to determine whether granting such incentive would endanger the safety of the 

public. 

(B) INELIGIBILITY UNDER OTHER PROVISION OF LAW.—For purposes of 

this subsection, any prisoner who is ineligible for a Program incentive by 

operation of any other provision of law shall be ineligible for such incentive. 

(e) PROGRAM REENTRY EDUCATION.—For purposes of subsection (b)(2), reentry 

education shall include classes and activities designed to prepare prisoners for release and successful reentry into the community. Each such class or activity shall 

relate to one or more of the following categories: 

(1) Health and nutrition issues a prisoner may face after release. 

26

(2) Finding employment and preparation for reentry and assimilation into 

the workforce. 

(3) Dealing with personal money management and financial planning. 

(4) Familiarization with available community resources, including housing 

availability and public welfare benefits and services. 

(5) Familiarization with release procedures, including prisoner compliance 

with pre-release and release requirements. 

(6) Social skills, family relationships and development, and relapse prevention. 

(f) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section and section 232, the term ‘‘prisoner’’ means an individual committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons under 

section 3621 of title 18, United States Code. Such term does not include an individual confined in a non-Federal facility. 

SEC. 232. IDENTIFICATION AND RELEASE ASSISTANCE FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS. 

(a) OBTAINING IDENTIFICATION.—The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall assist prisoners in obtaining identification (including social security card, driver’s license, or birth certificate) prior to release. 

(b) ASSISTANCE DEVELOPING RELEASE PLAN.—If a direct-release prisoner so requests, a representative of the United States Probation System shall, prior to the 

prisoner’s release, help the prisoner develop a release plan. 

(c) DIRECT-RELEASE PRISONER DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘direct-release prisoner’’ means a prisoner who is scheduled for release and will not be placed 

in pre-release custody. 

SEC. 233. IMPROVED REENTRY PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS. 

The Attorney General shall take such steps as are necessary to modify the procedures and policies of the Department of Justice with respect to the transition of 

offenders from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to the community—

(1) to enhance case planning and implementation of reentry programs, policies, and guidelines; and 

(2) to improve such transition to the community, including placement of 

such individuals in community corrections facilities. 

SEC. 234. DUTIES OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS. 

(a) DUTIES OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS EXPANDED.—Section 4042(a) of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) provide for pre-release planning procedures for prisoners to ensure eligibility for Federal and State benefits upon release (including benefits under the 

old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social 

Security Act, the supplemental security income program under title XVI of such 

Act, the Medicare program under title XVIII of such Act, the Medicaid program 

under title XIX of such Act, and a program of the Department of Veterans Affairs under title 38) is established prior to release, subject to any limitations 

in law; 

‘‘(7) include as part of the standard intake procedures for offenders entering 

Federal custody the collection of information regarding the dependent children 

of such an offender, including the number, age, and residence of such children; 

‘‘(8) ensure that all policies, practices, and facilities of the Bureau of Prisons 

support the relationship between parent and child; and 

‘‘(9) identify and address the training needs of employees of the Bureau of 

Prisons with respect to the effect of incarceration on children, families, and communities, age-appropriate interactions, and community resources for the families of offenders.’’. 

(b) MEASURING THE REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES TO REENTRY.—

(1) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Director shall carry out a program under 

which each institution within the Bureau of Prisons codes the reentry needs 

and deficits of inmates as identified by an assessment tool that is used to 

produce an individualized skills development plan for each inmate. 

(2) TRACKING.—In carrying out the program under this subsection, the Director shall quantitatively track, by institution and Bureau-wide, the progress 

in responding to the reentry needs and deficits of individual inmates. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORT.—On an annual basis, the Director shall prepare and 

submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report that documents the 

progress of each institution within the Bureau, and of the Bureau as a whole, 

27

in responding to the reentry needs and deficits of inmates. The report shall be 

prepared in a manner that groups institutions by security level to allow comparisons of similar institutions. 

(4) EVALUATION.—The Director shall—

(A) implement a formal standardized process for evaluating each institution’s success in enhancing skills and resources to assist in reentry; and 

(B) ensure that—

(i) each institution is held accountable for low performance under 

such an evaluation; and 

(ii) plans for corrective action are developed and implemented as 

necessary. 

(c) MEASURING AND IMPROVING RECIDIVISM OUTCOMES.— (1) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.— (A) IN GENERAL.—At the end of each fiscal year, the Director shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee 

on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report containing the 

statistics demonstrating the relative reduction in recidivism for inmates released by the Bureau of Prisons within that fiscal year and the 2 prior fiscal years, comparing inmates who participated in major inmate programs 

(including residential drug treatment, vocational training, and prison industries) with inmates who did not participate in such programs. Such statistics shall be compiled separately for each such fiscal year. 

(B) SCOPE.—A report under this paragraph is not required to include 

statistics for a fiscal year that begins before the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

(C) CONTENTS.—Each report under this section shall provide the recidivism statistics for the Bureau of Prisons as a whole, and separately for each 

institution of the Bureau. 

(2) MEASURE USED.—In preparing the reports required by subsection (a), 

the Director shall, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, select a measure for recidivism (such as rearrest, reincarceration, or 

any other valid, evidence-based measure) that the Director considers appropriate and that is consistent with the research undertaken by the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics pursuant to section 241(b)(6). 

(3) GOALS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—After the Director submits the first report required 

by paragraph (1), the Director shall establish goals for reductions in recidivism rates and shall work to attain those goals. 

(B) CONTENTS.—The goals established under subparagraph (A) shall 

use the relative reductions in recidivism measured for the fiscal year covered by that first report as a baseline rate, and shall include—

(i) a 5-year goal to increase, at a minimum, the baseline relative 

reduction rate by 2 percent within 5 fiscal years; and 

(ii) a 10-year goal to increase, at a minimum, the baseline relative 

reduction rate by 5 percent within 10 fiscal years. 

(d) FORMAT.—Any written information that the Bureau of Prisons provides to 

inmates for reentry planning purposes shall use common terminology and language. 

(e) MEDICAL CARE.—The Bureau of Prisons shall provide the United States Probation and Pretrial Services System with relevant information on the medical care 

needs and the mental health treatment needs of inmates scheduled for release from 

custody. The United States Probation and Pretrial Services System shall take this 

information into account when developing supervision plans in an effort to address 

the medical care and mental health care needs of such inmates. The Bureau of Prisons shall provide inmates with a sufficient amount of all necessary medications 

(which will normally consist of, at a minimum, a 2-week supply of such medications) 

upon release from custody. 

SEC. 235. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUREAU OF PRISONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director to carry out sections 

231, 232, 233, and 234 of this chapter, $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 

and 2009. 

SEC. 236. ENCOURAGEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER PRISONERS. 

The Attorney General shall take such steps as are necessary to implement a 

program to educate employers about existing incentives for hiring former Federal, 

State, or local prisoners, including the Federal bonding program and tax credits. 

SEC. 237. ELDERLY NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.—

28

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 3624 of title 18, United States 

Code, or any other provision of law, the Director shall conduct a pilot program 

to determine the effectiveness of removing each eligible elderly offender from a 

Bureau of Prison facility and placing such offender on home detention until the 

date on which the term of imprisonment to which the offender was sentenced 

expires. 

(2) TIMING OF PLACEMENT IN HOME DETENTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the pilot program under paragraph 

(1), the Director shall—

(i) in the case of an offender who is determined to be an eligible 

elderly offender on or before the date specified in subparagraph (B), 

place such offender on home detention not later than 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act; and 

(ii) in the case of an offender who is determined to be an eligible 

elderly offender after the date specified in subparagraph (B) and before 

the date that is 3 years and 91 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, place such offender on home detention not later than 90 

days after the date of such determination. 

(B) DATE SPECIFIED.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the date specified in this subparagraph is the date that is 90 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

(3) VIOLATION OF TERMS OF HOME DETENTION.—A violation by an eligible elderly offender of the terms of the home detention, including the commission of 

another Federal, State, or local crime, shall result in the removal of the offender 

from home detention and the return of the offender to the designated Bureau 

of Prisons institution in which the offender was imprisoned immediately before 

placement on home detention under paragraph (1). 

(b) SCOPE OF PILOT PROGRAM.—

(1) PARTICIPATING DESIGNATED FACILITIES.—The pilot program under subsection (a) shall be conducted through at least 1 Bureau of Prisons institution 

designated by the Director as appropriate for the pilot program. 

(2) DURATION.—The pilot program shall be conducted during each of fiscal 

years 2008 and 2009. 

(c) PROGRAM EVALUATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall contract with an independent organization to monitor and evaluate the progress of each eligible elderly offender placed 

on home detention under subsection (a)(1) for the period such offender is on 

home detention during the duration described in subsection (b)(2). 

(2) ANNUAL REPORT.—The organization described in paragraph (1) shall annually submit to the Director and to Congress a report on the pilot program 

under subsection (a)(1), which shall include—

(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot program in providing 

a successful transition for eligible elderly offenders from incarceration to 

the community, including data relating to the recidivism rates for such offenders; and 

(B) the cost savings to the Federal Government resulting from the early 

removal of such offenders from incarceration. 

(3) PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS.—Upon review of the report submitted under 

paragraph (2), the Director shall submit recommendations to Congress for adjustments to the pilot program, including its expansion to additional facilities. 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ELIGIBLE ELDERLY OFFENDER.—The term ‘‘eligible elderly offender’’ 

means an offender in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who—

(A) is not less than 60 years of age; 

(B) is serving a term of imprisonment after conviction for an offense 

other than a crime of violence and has served the greater of 10 years or 

1⁄2 of the term of imprisonment; 

(C) has not been convicted in the past of any Federal or State crime 

of violence; 

(D) has not been determined by the Bureau of Prisons, on the basis of 

information the Bureau uses to make custody classifications, and in the sole 

discretion of the Bureau, to have a history of violence; and 

(E) has not escaped, or attempted to escape, from a Bureau of Prisons 

institution. 

(2) HOME DETENTION.—The term ‘‘home detention’’ has the same meaning 

given the term in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and includes detention in 

a nursing home or other residential long-term care facility. 

29

(3) TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.—The term ‘‘term of imprisonment’’ includes 

multiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run consecutively or concurrently, 

which shall be treated as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment for purposes 

of this section. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

CHAPTER 2—REENTRY RESEARCH 

SEC. 241. OFFENDER REENTRY RESEARCH. 

(a) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.—From amounts made available to carry 

out this Act, the National Institute of Justice may conduct research on juvenile and 

adult offender reentry, including—

(1) a study identifying the number and characteristics of minor children 

who have had a parent incarcerated, and the likelihood of such minor children 

becoming involved in the criminal justice system some time in their lifetime; 

(2) a study identifying a mechanism to compare rates of recidivism (including rearrest, violations of parole, probation, post-incarceration supervision, and 

reincarceration) among States; and 

(3) a study on the population of offenders released from custody who do not 

engage in recidivism and the characteristics (housing, employment, treatment, 

family connection) of that population. 

(b) BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS.—From amounts made available to carry out 

this Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics may conduct research on offender reentry, 

including—

(1) an analysis of special populations, including prisoners with mental illness or substance abuse disorders, female offenders, juvenile offenders, offenders with limited English proficiency, and the elderly, that present unique reentry challenges; 

(2) studies to determine who is returning to prison, jail, or a juvenile facility and which of those returning prisoners represent the greatest risk to victims 

and community safety; 

(3) annual reports on the profile of the population coming out of prisons, 

jails, and juvenile facilities; 

(4) a national recidivism study every 3 years; 

(5) a study of parole, probation, or post-incarceration supervision violations 

and revocations; and 

(6) a study concerning the most appropriate measure to be used when reporting recidivism rates (whether rearrest, reincarceration, or any other valid, 

evidence-based measure). 

SEC. 242. GRANTS TO STUDY PAROLE OR POST-INCARCERATION SUPERVISION VIOLATIONS 

AND REVOCATIONS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General may award grants to States to study and to improve the 

collection of data with respect to individuals whose parole or post-incarceration supervision is revoked, and which such individuals represent the greatest risk to victims and community safety. 

(b) APPLICATION.—As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State 

shall—

(1) certify that the State has, or intends to establish, a program that collects comprehensive and reliable data with respect to individuals described in 

subsection (a), including data on—

(A) the number and type of parole or post-incarceration supervision violations that occur with the State; 

(B) the reasons for parole or post-incarceration supervision revocation; 

(C) the underlying behavior that led to the revocation; and 

(D) the term of imprisonment or other penalty that is imposed for the 

violation; and 

(2) provide the data described in paragraph (1) to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a form prescribed by the Bureau. 

(c) ANALYSIS.—Any statistical analysis of population data under this section 

shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Register Notice dated October 30, 

1997, relating to classification standards. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

30

SEC. 243. ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS. 

(a) BEST PRACTICES.—The Attorney General shall collect data and develop best 

practices of State corrections departments and child protection agencies relating to 

the communication and coordination between such State departments and agencies 

to ensure the safety and support of children of incarcerated parents (including those 

in foster care and kinship care), and the support of parent-child relationships between incarcerated (and formerly incarcerated) parents and their children, as appropriate to the health and well-being of the children. Such best practices shall include 

information related to policies, procedures, and programs that may be used by 

States to address—

(1) maintenance of the parent-child bond during incarceration; 

(2) parental self-improvement; and 

(3) parental involvement in planning for the future and well-being of their 

children. 

(b) DISSEMINATION TO STATES.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall disseminate to States and other relevant entities the best practices described in subsection (a). 

(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that States and other relevant entities should use the best practices developed and disseminated in accordance with this section to evaluate and improve the communication and coordination 

between State corrections departments and child protection agencies to ensure the 

safety and support of children of incarcerated parents (including those in foster care 

and kinship care), and the support of parent-child relationships between incarcerated (and formerly incarcerated) parents and their children, as appropriate to the 

health and well-being of the children. 

CHAPTER 3—CORRECTIONAL REFORMS TO EXISTING LAW 

SEC. 251. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PLACE PRISONER IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS. 

(a) PRE-RELEASE CUSTODY.—

(1) AMENDMENT.—Section 3624(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) PRE-RELEASE CUSTODY.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent 

practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a 

portion of the final months of such term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the prisoner’s reentry into the community. Such conditions may include 

a community correctional facility. 

‘‘(2) HOME CONFINEMENT AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the last 10 percent of the term of imprisonment or the final 6 months of such term, whichever 

is shorter. 

‘‘(3) ASSISTANCE.—The United States Probation System shall, to the extent 

practicable, offer assistance to a prisoner during such pre-release custody. 

‘‘(4) NO LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit 

or restrict the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons granted under 

section 3621 of this title. 

‘‘(5) REPORTING.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the 

Second Chance Act of 2007 (and every year thereafter), the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transmit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives a report describing the Bureau’s utilization 

of community corrections facilities. Such report shall set forth the number and 

percentage of Federal prisoners placed in community corrections facilities during the preceding year, the average length of such placements, trends in such 

utilization, the reasons some prisoners are not placed in community corrections 

facilities, and any other information that may be useful to the committees in 

determining if the Bureau is utilizing community corrections facilities in an effective manner. 

‘‘(6) ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of 

enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007, the Director of Bureau of Prisons 

shall issue regulations pursuant to this subsection, which shall include modifications to section 570.21 of the Bureau’s regulations (28 C.F.R. 570.21), to ensure that such section is in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.’’. 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment made by this subsection shall apply with respect to any prisoner who—

31

(A) is serving a term of imprisonment on the date of enactment of this 

Act; 

(B) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment before the date of 

enactment of this Act, but who has not begun to serve such sentence on 

such date of enactment; or 

(C) is sentenced to a term of imprisonment on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) COURTS MAY NOT REQUIRE A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT TO BE SERVED

IN A COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FACILITY.—Section 3621(b) of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Any order, recommendation, 

or request by a sentencing court that a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community corrections facility has no binding effect on the discretionary 

authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that person.’’. 

SEC. 252. RESIDENTIAL DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM IN FEDERAL PRISONS. 

Section 3621(e)(5)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 

‘‘means a course of’’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘means a course 

of individual and group activities and treatment, lasting at least 6 months, in residential treatment facilities set apart from the general prison population, which may 

include the use of pharmocotherapies, where appropriate, that may extend beyond 

the 6-month period;’’. 

SEC. 253. MEDICAL CARE FOR PRISONERS. 

Section 3621 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by adding at 

the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(g) CONTINUED ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to ensure a minimum standard of health and 

habitability, the Bureau of Prisons shall ensure that each prisoner in a community confinement facility has access to necessary medical care, mental health 

care, and medicine. 

‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘community confinement’ has 

the meaning given that term in the application notes under section 5F1.1 of the 

Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007.’’. 

SEC. 254. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES FOR POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION OFFENDERS. 

Section 3672 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 

third sentence in the seventh paragraph the following new sentence: ‘‘He also shall 

have the authority to contract with any appropriate public or private agency or person to monitor and provide services to any offender in the community, including 

treatment, equipment and emergency housing, corrective and preventative guidance 

and training, and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the public and 

promote the successful reentry of the offender into the community.’’.

Æ

Mr. SCOTT. And I would like to thank Ranking Member Forbes 

and his staff for their leadership and dedicated contributions to 

continuing this important effort in Congress. 

This effort will provide greater public protection from crime by 

better assuring the successful re-entry of offenders from prison 

back into their communities. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Davis from Illinois and 

Congressman Cannon for their continued leadership in this effort, 

as well as that of Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith 

and other co-sponsors of the bill. 

I also want to further acknowledge the dedication and tireless efforts of many members of the diverse coalition of national, State 

and local organizations and their representative who continue to 

work for the passage of this bill. 

Our national crime rates have been falling significantly over the 

past decade. We have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
32

on and jail populations. Now there are more than 2.2 million people 

incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and jails—a significant 

increase since 1980. Moreover, expenditures on corrections have increased from about $9 billion in 1982 to more than $65 billion 

today, a figure that continues to grow. These figures do not include 

the cost of arrest, prosecution, nor do they take into account the 

cost to victims. 

As a result of all the focus on incarceration, the United States 

is the world’s largest incarcerator, by far, locking up 726 inmates 

per 100,000 population according to 2004 data. The incarceration 

rate around the world is around 100 per 100,000, 142 in England, 

117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany. So, the United 

States rate is more than seven times the average. The closest competitor is Russia, at 532. 

Over 95 percent of incarcerated inmates will be released at some 

time. This year, more than 650,000 people will be released from 

State and Federal prisons to communities nationwide, along with 

more than 9 million people leaving local jails. According to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67 percent of offenders leaving State and Federal prison are re-arrested within 3 

years. 

Most of those leaving prison are ill-prepared to succeed in earning a living and leading a law-abiding life. And the resources available to assist them to re-enter successfully are very limited. The 

addition of a felony record and a prison or jail stay certainly does 

not assist their job or social development prospects. 

With no or limited education, resources, job skills, with Federal 

benefits being disqualified because of drug or other convictions, and 

often with little or no family or community support, it is not surprising that as many as two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within 3 years of their release. 

So, with this growing number of ill-equipped offenders returning 

to communities each year, the question is whether they re-enter society better prepared to lead law-abiding lives than when they 

came in. 

The Second Chance Act provides a host of evidence-based approaches designed to reduce the high rate of recidivism. If we are 

going to continue to send more and more people to prison with 

longer and longer sentence, we should do as much as we reasonably can to assure than, when they do return, they won’t go back 

to prison due to new crimes. 

The primary reason for doing this is not to benefit offenders, although it does. The primary reason to do this is because it assures 

that all of us and other members of the public will be less likely 

to be victims of crime due to recidivism and also will be much less 

likely to have to pay the high cost of incarceration as taxpayers. 

So, this is a compelling issue, one that we have worked in a bipartisan way. And I want to thank again Ranking Member Forbes 

for working with us. This Crime Subcommittee and Judiciary Committee generally is a fairly contentious group of people. We don’t 

always agree on many things. But on this, I think we have got excellent cooperation on a bipartisan basis. And hopefully, we can get 

the bill passed into law as soon as possible. 

33

With that, I will now recognize my colleague from Virginia, the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Forbes, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I appreciate you 

holding this hearing on the Second Chance Act of 2007. 

And of course, we appreciate all of our witnesses and their attendance here. 

I want to begin by commending you and Chairman Conyers, Congressman Cannon and also Congressman Coble for your commitment to the issue of prison re-entry. 

The new bill, which is molded on a prior version, is an excellent 

example of bipartisan cooperation on important criminal justice 

matters. 

I also want to commend your chief counsel, Bobby Vassar, and 

Keenan Kelly from Chairman Conyers’ staff. 

Also, I would like to commend our counsel, Mike Volkov; a member of my staff, Jamie Miller; and also a member of Congressman 

Coble’s staff, Johnny Mautz, for their dedication and hard work on 

this issue. It took a long time. It was a lot of hard work to get it 

here. 

Whether you are tough on crime or favor intervention and prevention strategies, there is common ground on the critical issue of 

prison re-entry. I believe in tough enforcement of our criminal 

laws. Public safety is essential of a free society. And criminals must 

be aggressively prosecuted and incarcerated to protect our communities. 

Once criminals are incarcerated, we have an obligation to make 

sure they are rehabilitated and treated humanely. A critical component to this is the need to plan and provide effective re-entry services. We can no longer release criminals with new clothes and a $5 

bill and expect them to become productive citizens. 

The Second Chance Act creates a framework of strategic policy 

innovations to provide effective re-entry services. The demand for 

innovative solutions is obvious. It is conservatively estimated that 

approximately 650,000 inmates will be released from State prisons 

in the next year. In the absence of actions to address this issue, 

67 percent of these individuals will be re-arrested, and over half 

will return to prison in the 3 years following their release from 

prison. 

States are being crushed by an overwhelming financial burden 

for correctional cost. We need to ensure that governments have in 

place appropriate programs to ease the transition for offenders, to 

bring families together once again, and to make sure that offenders 

get the necessary support, so that they can truly have a second 

chance to live a law-abiding life. Successful re-entry protects those 

who might otherwise be crime victims. It also improves the likelihood that individuals released from prison, jail or juvenile detention facilities can pay fines, fees, restitution and provide family 

support. 

The Second Chance Act expands existing demonstration programs to improve coordination among service providers, supervision services and re-entry task force, and between State substance abuse agencies and criminal justice agencies. The Act also 

strengthens re-entry services by expanding the use of mentors, imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
34

proving medical services, offering a continuum of drug treatment 

services, ensuring adequate education opportunities and promoting 

family relationships during incarceration. 

The Act also authorizes grants to operate State and local re-entry 

courts and to establish local re-entry task forces to develop comprehensive re-entry plans during each phase of transition from incarceration, to transitional housing, to release in the community. 

Finally, the Act expands drug treatment programs to include family-based substance abuse treatment programs, new pharmacological drug treatment programs and comprehensive drug treatment for offenders in a re-entry program. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses 

who can tell us firsthand how re-entry services are provided and 

what new approaches are needed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And, without objection, all Members may 

include their opening statements in the record at this point. And 

we have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to help us 

consider the important issue before us. 

Our first witness will be Stefan LoBuglio, who is an expert of designing and evaluating prisons re-entry recidivism education and 

employment programs, including faith-based programs. He is currently chief of the Pre-Release and Re-entry Services Division of 

the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Correction and 

Rehabilitation. He manages the community-based, 155-bed, pre-release and re-entry facility, as well as non-residential home electronic monitoring programs. 

He is previously the deputy superintendent of the Suffolk County 

Sheriff’s Department Community Corrections Division in Massachusetts. Prior to that, he was a criminal justice policy consultant. 

He is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University Graduate School 

of Education, holds a master’s in public policy from the John F. 

Kennedy School of Government and is a graduate of Duke University. 

Our next witness is Professor Roger Peters, chair of the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy of the St. Louis de la Parte 

Mental Health Institute at the University of South Florida, where 

he has been a faculty member since 1986. He received his Ph.D. 

in clinical psychology from Florida State University and has also 

studied at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. 

He served as lead consultant to the Department of Health and 

Human Services Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in 

the Justice System. He has also served for 4 years on the board of 

directors of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals 

and, for the past 7 years, has served on the treatment-based drug 

court steering committee for the Florida Supreme Court. 

Our next witness is Steve Lufburrow, who is the president and 

CEO of Goodwill Industries of Houston, a Houston-based organization that provides training, skills development, work opportunities 

for people with disabilities and other barriers to employment. In 

his career, he has served as a member of the advisory board of Target Hunger and Texas Industries for the Blind and Handicapped, 

as well as the State Bar of Texas grievance committee. 

Currently, he serves as a member of the board of directors with 

the Better Business Bureau and the Houston-Galveston Area 

35

Council Work Development Board. He is a graduate of Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, and of the Certified Executive Training Program for Goodwill Industries of America. 

Our next witness will be Jack Cowley, who is the national director of Alpha USA’s prisons and re-entry program, which helps 

churches administer to prisoners. He served for 30 years with the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections primarily as a prison warden. When he retired in 1996, he joined the Prison Fellowship Ministries as a public policy advocate and later as director of Interchange Freedom Initiative, a faith-based re-entry program. 

He has run a transitional housing and treatment program for released offenders. He serves on the advisory boards of the National 

Institute of Corrections and the Billy Graham Institute of Criminal 

Justice Ministries. He earned his B.S. in sociology, an M.S. in corrections from Oklahoma State University and completed 

coursework for a Ph.D. in organizational leadership from the University of Oklahoma. 

Our final witness will be George McDonald, who is the founder 

and president of the Doe Fund, a New York-based nonprofit organization that helps individuals break the cycles of homelessness, welfare dependency and incarceration through paid work programs, 

housing, support services and business ventures. 

A former executive and entrepreneur in the apparel industry, he 

currently chairs New York City’s Independent Committee on ReEntry and Employment and is co-chair of its Discharge Planning 

Initiative Employment Committee. He also serves on the Prisoner 

Re-entry Steering Committee of the city’s Workforce Investment 

Board. 

The Doe Fund has been recognized by the city of New York, 

WENT Channel 13, the New York Post and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. He received his undergraduate 

degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University. 

Thank you. 

And before we hear from our witnesses, does the Chairman of 

the Committee have a statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. I have a statement, but I would like only a minute 

or two. And then I will put it in the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Members of this 

Committee. 

Re-entry is so important. And now, thanks to this Committee, we 

are beginning to examine the pressing need to provide as much as 

we can for the 650,000 men and women who re-enter our communities from prison every year. And the cultural and economic requirements to prepare them for this coming back into society has 

been staggering. 

And I am happy to join in with all of you and the distinguished 

panel of witnesses that we have here to examine the Second 

Chance Act. I think it is a great opportunity. I look forward to 

hearing the witnesses. 

And I ask unanimous consent that my complete statement is included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Good afternoon. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security today as we address the issues of federal 

offender re-entry. For the past several sessions, I have introduce my own comprehensive re-entry legislation. This year, I am happy to join as an original co-sponsor of the Second Chance Act. With this bipartisan legislation, we are set to take 

the next important step in building a web of programs which will help break the 

cycle of recidivism laying at the heart of our prison population explosion. 

As Chairman Scott observed in his opening statement, there is a pressing need 

to provide the more than 650,000 men and women who re-enter our communities 

from prison each year with the education and training necessary to obtain and hold 

onto steady jobs, undergo drug treatment, and get medical and mental health services. The statistics underlying the needs of our prison population are staggering. As 

detailed by many researchers, these deficiencies include limited education, few job 

skills or experience, substance and alcohol dependency, and other health problems, 

including mental health. Evidence from the Department of Justice indicates that the 

needs of the prison population are not being met under the current system. If we 

allow them to return to communities with few economic opportunities, where their 

family and friends are often involved in crime and substance abuse, we can only expect to extend the cycle of recidivism. 

For example, 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs 

regularly before prison, with some estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol 

around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. Further, over one-third of all 

jail inmates have some physical or mental disability and 25 percent of jail inmates 

have been treated at some time for a mental or emotional problem. 

In the face of these statistics, I believe that we can be cautiously optimistic in 

the support of re-entry programming. Researchers at the Washington State Institute 

for Public Policy have determined that programs employing ‘‘best practices’’ have 

yielded up to 20% declines in re-arrest rates. Spread across the thousands of arrests 

each year, these practices could yield a significant decline in recidivism, with a commensurate reduction in community and victim costs. 

This is what we hope for with passage of the Second Chance Act. The bill focuses 

on the development and support of programs that provide alternatives to incarceration, expand the availability of substance abuse treatment, strengthen families and 

expand comprehensive re-entry services. 

As we move toward passage, I hope that we are not caught in the trap of attempting to solve this problem on the cheap. In past Congresses, there have been objections to the cost of this bill and past re-entry initiatives. I must point out that Section 101, the demonstration projects at the heart of the legislation, works out to less 

that $200 for each of the more than 650,000 people released into the community 

each year. This bill is a truly modest measure when balanced against the more than 

$60 billion each year spent on incarceration. I look forward to healthy discussion 

on re-entry best practices, particularly in the area of drug treatment, to highlight 

the serious need for passage of this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Are there other statements? Without objection, they can be 

placed in the record. 

And we will hear from our witnesses, beginning with Chief 

LoBuglio. 

TESTIMONY OF STEFAN LoBUGLIO, CHIEF, PRE-RELEASE AND 

RE-ENTRY SERVICES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION, ROCKVILLE, MD 

Mr. LOBUGLIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. If I may ask, please let me recognize the other Members that are here: Representative Johnson from Georgia, Representative Gohmert from Texas, and Coble from North Carolina. 

Thank you. I am sorry. 

37

Mr. LOBUGLIO. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to speak before you 

in support of this legislation. And I thank you for your leadership 

on this legislation. 

This legislation is important to the field of corrections. It is important to those who are incarcerated. It is important to communities across the country. 

I have the privilege of working on a day-to-day basis with a dedicated staff of correctional professionals. And we manage as many 

as 200 individuals in the community on a day-to-day basis. Those 

individuals are from the Federal system, the State system and the 

local system. They can be serving sentences of 20 years or 20 days. 

The main criteria is that they are within 1 year of release and returning home to our communities. 

When they are in our program, we know where they are at all 

times. They are working. They are receiving treatment. They are 

meeting with family members. Importantly, they are earning 

money. They are paying family support. They are paying restitution. They are being responsible members of our society. 

In Montgomery County, 30 percent of our sentenced population 

is in our program. We are not a boutique program. Through a careful screening process, we are able to put a number of individuals 

of different types of offense types into our program. 

Right now, I have a count of 164 individuals; 135 of those individuals are living in a pre-release center that is a 35-minute metro 

ride from where I am talking now. The other 29 are living at home. 

They have successfully graduated to our home confinement program. They have demonstrated that their job, their house, their 

family support system, their connection with communities are such 

that we can allow them to live in the community in their home 

with electronic monitoring. 

Those on our program are working as contractors. They are 

working in the construction field and landscapers and food services 

in offices across the greater Washington area. Every single employer who employs them is aware of their situation. 

We actually involve the employer in the re-entry process with a 

formal signed contract. We involve the family in our re-entry process. We speak with the loved ones of those who are with us and 

talk about ways that we can work in partnership to assist them as 

they transition to the community. 

Importantly and as part of our everyday practice, we work with 

every community organization that we can, from Government agencies, to nonprofit organizations, to the faith-based community. 

There is a limit to the expertise that we have in corrections. We 

know it. And we need the assistance and the expertise of outside 

agencies. 

We have a premise in Montgomery County that it is better for 

individuals to leave our work release program than to leave a correctional facility—whether our own correctional facility or a facility 

in a State prison system or a Federal prison hundreds of miles 

away. We do everything we can to get them into our program. 

For those who can’t come into our program, we have extensive 

re-entry services at our jail. We have developed a one-step career 

center in our jail. We involve over 40 social service providers every 

38

2 weeks in a re-entry discussion about those who are going to be 

released, and what wraparound services they need. 

Ours is but one of many local and State programs that is an example of how re-entry can work. I find it remarkable that, at this 

point in time, there is a consensus—a bipartisan political consensus, a consensus of advocates, a consensus of professional organizations, and a consensus among the leadership in corrections—

that re-entry is the way to go; and that we have an opportunity 

now, perhaps the first in 30 years, to transform the way that we 

do corrections, so that re-entry is our standard operating procedure. The Second Chance Act will help stoke that effort. 

We have learned a lot about re-entry in the last 8 years. Eight 

years ago, a correctional official might have been excused for not 

knowing what works and how a re-entry program could work in 

their facility. However, now there is a huge body of evidence that 

points us in the right direction. It is a body of evidence that has 

been developed by correctional practitioners and by leaders and 

academics in many other disciplines. 

There is no one re-entry model that will work in any system. And 

that is why we need the Second Chance Act. We need each jurisdiction in the multiple criminal justice systems across the country to 

work out among themselves how does re-entry work? What stakeholders should be part of it? And how will they put together the 

plan? 

Another important point I need to make this morning, that it is 

not only the 650,000 returning from State and Federal prisons; but 

it is the 12 million bookings and the 9 million individuals who are 

both being processed into and being discharged from our local jails 

annually. I work at the local system. Jail re-entry is as much a 

part of the discussion as prison re-entry is in the State system. 

And what is important and valuable about the Second Chance 

Act is that it recognizes that jails have a role. Jails are struggling 

right now with many issues such as inmates with mental health 

issues and issues of domestic violence issues. And re-entry has to 

be part of the fabric of how we run our programs. 

Re-entry requires collaboration. It requires the outreach and inreach of community service providers and faith-based organizations. What is important about the Second Chance Act, what has 

been important about the Serious and Violent Offender Re-Entry 

Initiative—the precursor to this Act, is that it has leveraged enormous amount of local resources. 

I know I am over my time a few minutes. But with that, I will 

conclude in a minute if I may. Re-entry is sound corrections. There 

are leaders at all levels in corrections—from line officers, sergeants, lieutenants, shift commanders, sheriffs, wardens—who are 

ready to embrace re-entry. We need some assistance. We need some 

good models. We are ready to do the task. 

Those facilities and those systems that incorporate re-entry are 

among the cleanest, the most humane, and the ones that best use 

their bed space. Re-entry has a great advantage, not only to public 

safety, not only to community well-being, not only to victims, but 

also to the correctional professionals who staff our thousands of 

correctional facilities, and those that monitor the millions of indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
39

viduals in community supervision. It can literally transform how 

we do corrections to the betterment of those in the correction field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LoBuglio follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEFAN LOBUGLIO

INTRODUCTION

My name is Stefan LoBuglio and I serve as the Chief of the Montgomery County 

Department of Correction and Rehabilitation’s Pre-Release and Reentry Services Division in Maryland. I am honored to present testimony to support the introduction 

and enactment of the Second Chance Act. 

From my perspective as both a practitioner and as a researcher in corrections for 

15 years, I believe this legislation can catalyze the demonstrated leadership across 

this county in different disciplines and at all organizational and political levels to 

incorporate prisoner reentry as part of our nation’s correctional systems’ policies and 

practices. Such reforms will directly benefit public safety and community well-being, 

individual incarcerants and their families, and just as important, the working environment and job functions of the thousands of correctional professionals who run 

the country’s jails and prisons and who supervise probationers and parolees in the 

community. 

The Second Chance Act will provide important seed money to encourage and expand innovative prisoner reentry programs in jurisdictions throughout this country 

from county and tribal jails to state and federal prisons. Building on the success of 

the $100 million federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, the funds 

from the Second Chance Act will spur partnerships and collaborations across disciplines that will leverage local resources in the areas of health, workforce development, housing, and treatment services. Also significant, the Second Chance Act will 

continue to build the body of research and identify promising practices in prisoner 

reentry that will assist local, state, and federal jurisdictions to better assess what 

models and programs are best adapted for their locations. 

By way of background, I currently have the privilege of working with a dedicated 

staff of correctional professionals and oversee a program that manages nearly 200 

sentenced individuals—almost 30% of Montgomery County’s total sentenced population—who are living and working in the community and who are within 6–8 

months of release from federal, state, and local custody. Prior to Montgomery County, I helped develop reentry programs in a 2,000-bed sentenced facility located in 

Boston for the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. In the course of my correctional 

career, I have made dozens of presentations on different reentry topics at local, 

state, and national conferences, and more recently have worked with the field’s 

major professional organizations—the American Jail Association and the American 

Correctional Association—to advance training and education in this area. I have 

also been active in a number of innovative reentry projects sponsored by the National Association of Counties and the Council of State Governments. 

In terms of research, I have co-authored several articles on reentry on subjects 

ranging from correctional education, community supervision, recidivism, and implementation challenges. This month, I completed a two-year evaluation of a jail reentry program in Massachusetts, which also serves as my doctoral thesis at Harvard 

University’s Graduate School of Education. Currently, I serve as a member of the 

External Advisory Committee for the national evaluation of the federal Serious and 

Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which is one of the largest and most comprehensive evaluations of reentry program in recent history. With funding from the 

U.S Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, I am also currently participating in a research effort to collect and disseminate information about jail reentry programs and practices—called the Jail Reentry Roundtable—which is cosponsored by the Urban Institute, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the 

Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. 

In this written statement, I provide an overview of prisoner reentry issues with 

an emphasis on six major points. First, I believe we have a window of opportunity—perhaps the first in 30 years—to reexamine and change correctional practices and post-release support with the mutually supportive 

goals of increasing public safety, community well-being, and the lives of the 

former incarcerated and their families. Prisoner reentry enjoys wide support 

from bi-partisan policy makers, practitioners, professional associations, think tanks, 

faith-based organizations and the inmate-advocacy community, and provides a strategy to mitigate the rising social and economic costs of high rates of incarceration. 

40

Second, we have learned an enormous amount about what programs and 

services are effective in supporting reentry goals over the past decade. This 

body of research along with the examples of many promising program models that 

have emerged in jurisdictions throughout this country can provide direction, support, and technical assistance to spur the development of more programs and to help 

bring them to scale. 

Third, jails and local correctional systems serve as the entry and exit 

point in the nation’s correctional system and must be included in the development of prisoner reentry systems. Not only do jails face the enormous challenge of processing millions of court-involved individuals each year, but they also 

face unique reentry issues such as managing institutional populations with high 

proportions of individuals with mental health and serious physical health problems. 

Fourth, reentry programs require extensive collaborations and partnerships with government agencies and community organizations to provide 

the wide range of support and services needed to address the many needs 

of those under correctional supervision. Correctional facilities are highly complex and challenging institutions to operate, and correctional staff behind the walls 

and in the community need the expertise and resources of practitioners from many 

other disciplines to provide targeted and relevant transitional assistance to this population. 

Fifth, prisoner reentry reaffirms and refocuses correctional systems on 

one of their historical goals to correct and rehabilitate. The safest, cleanest, 

most secure and orderly correctional facilities that I have seen are the same ones 

that have the most extensive reentry programming. These facilities enjoy a healthy 

culture that supports mutual respect between staff and incarcerants, and utilize 

more of the skills and talents of correctional professionals to manage and motivate 

the institutional population. They are also the facilities that most efficiently manage 

their bed space and which are best able to classify appropriate individuals for lower 

security levels while reserving the use of the higher security levels for those who 

need this additional level of control and confinement. Prisoner reentry also will lead 

to more transparent institutions as the magnitude and complexity of the issue transcends corrections alone, and requires the active partnership, collaboration, and inreach of social service agencies, workforce community, the community and faithbased organizations, law enforcement and other public safety departments. 

Sixth, and finally, reentry programs face enormous implementation, coordination, and capacity-building challenges, and it is too soon to expect 

that many of them will accomplish such long-term goals as significantly reducing recidivism. Instead, we need to ensure that these programs are targeting 

the right individuals, are addressing real needs of the population that can affect 

their post-release success, are well-designed with evidenced-based practices, and are 

implemented with integrity and quality control. Such programs should demonstrate 

an ability to accomplish intermediate goals in their treatment domains, but an expectation of an immediate reduction in recidivism rates is unrealistic, and may lead 

us to prematurely conclude these programs are ineffective before they have had a 

fair chance to demonstrate their long-term benefits. 

PRISONER REENTRY BACKGROUND

The growth of the nation’s correctional population and the high recidivism rates 

among those released has triggered a re-examination of correctional policies and 

programs that aims to assist inmates’ transition from incarceration to community 

life. By mid-year 2005, the nation’s correction population had risen to 2.2 million—

up 380% from 1980—of which 750,000 were housed in jails and the remainder in 

state and federal prisons (Harrison & Beck, 2006). Many inmates sentenced to correctional facilities had previously been incarcerated, giving credence to the metaphorical ‘‘revolving door’’ at the prison gate. In June 2002, the United States Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics published one of the largest and 

best known studies that found that among a representative sample of the nation’s 

prison population released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, 46.9% 

were convicted for a new crime and 51.8% were re-incarcerated (Langan & Levin, 

2002). 

For decades, researchers and policy makers have vigorously debated the effectiveness of prisoner rehabilitation programs to reduce post-release criminality; however, 

the current national policy discussion on reentry programs has reframed the issue. 

Instead of being mired in rancorous opinions about inmates’ deservedness for programs, the current discussion about prisoner reentry has placed community interests and safety at the forefront of the desired outcomes. It has focused on the daily 

reality that large numbers of inmates are leaving correctional facilities and returnVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
41

1The literature on ‘‘what works’’ in corrections has greatly expanded in recent years. Professor 

Edward Latessa from the University of Cincinnati has synthesized this literature into the 

Continued

ing to communities across the nation, and that better preparing them for release 

is in everyone’s best interests. 

As such, this new focus has been notable for attracting bi-partisan support from 

both sides of the political aisle. Then-President Clinton and his Attorney General 

Janet Reno launched the reentry dialogue in the late 1990’s, and more recently, 

President Bush has accelerated the discussion by including the issue in his inaugural address in 2004 and by authorizing a $100 million grant program—called the 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative—that provided funds for reentry 

programs for every state in the nation. The Second Chance Act will further the development of prisoner reentry programs in more jurisdictions and provide additional 

opportunities for research and dissemination of promising practices. 

These reentry initiatives are touted as serving community interests and safety 

and draw support from the sheer number of released jail and prison inmates and 

the growing social and economic costs of corrections. Collectively, correctional budgets at all governmental levels now total more than $60 billion annually, and have 

begun to rival expenditures for such public goods as higher education (Hughes, 

2006). 

Additionally, the hundreds of thousands of state and federal prisoners returning 

home, and the millions being released from jails, typically return to the same poorly-resourced neighborhoods and bring with them housing, health, and employment 

problems that further destabilize these areas. An estimated one in three of all African-American males in their mid-to-late twenties is under correctional supervision; 

the disproportional impact of corrections on this and other groups and regions 

threatens to solidify a perpetual underclass in this society. Most individuals in prison have poor educational backgrounds and skills (average math and reading scores 

are 5.0 and 7.8 grade level equivalencies), and their criminal backgrounds handicap 

them from pursuing certain various careers, licensures, and positions, and from receiving government benefits such as student financial aid (Jeremy Travis, 2000, 

2001; Jeremy Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). 

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING: RISK, NEEDS, TREATMENT, AND FIDELITY

For policy makers and correctional practitioners, the new interest in reentry programs has been welcome, but has also left them struggling with the question about 

which types of programs should be offered, and how these programs should be developed and evaluated. Fortunately, researchers have worked over the past two decades to provide some guidance on effective correctional programs and their designs. 

This body of work has emerged to counter earlier reports that questioned whether 

any treatment programming works in corrections to reduce recidivism (D. Lipton, 

Martinson, & Wilks, 1975; D. S. Lipton, 1995; Robert Martinson, 1974; Robert 

Martinson, 1979). 

In the late ’80’s and the ’90’s, several researchers re-analyzed data from earlier 

studies and conducted new studies, and came forth with much different conclusions. 

They found that treatment programming was effective providing that it met certain 

four principles: first, the programs need to target high risk offenders; second, they 

need to focus on factors that lead to recidivism; third, they need to incorporate a 

curriculum that is responsive to this population; and fourth, the programs need to 

be well-designed, implemented, and enjoy institutional support (i.e. the programs 

need to demonstrate ‘‘fidelity’’ to these goals) (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen & 

Gendreau, 2000; Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Lowenkamp, Latessa, 

& Holsinger, 2006; Lyman, 2004; Lyman, Morehouse, & Perkins, 2001). Subsequent 

meta-analyses have also identified certain treatment programs as more effective 

than others. For instance, in a policy report in January of 2002, the Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy found that vocational programs in prison can reduce 

recidivism by 12.6 percent, basic adult education by 5.1, and cognitive behavioral 

programming in the community by 31.2, whereas boot camps and behavioral therapy for sex offenders were found to be ineffective (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006). 

The failure of previous programs to meet the four principles of effective programming—risk, needs, treatment, and fidelity—explains why researchers have often 

failed to find statistically significant and causal connections between treatment programming and reduced recidivism in literally thousands of studies over the past five 

decades.1 Gaes et al. explains that education and treatment programs have not been 

designed or optimized to reduce recidivism: 

42

framework of four principles of effective programming—risk, needs, treatment, and fidelity—

which is used in this paper.

‘‘The design and delivery of educational programs has commonly violated many 

of the principles of effective correctional treatment . . . education programs in 

prison have not been directed to specific criminogenic needs of offenders, have 

not been part of a multimodal intervention strategy, have not considered 

responsivity effects, have not been tailored to address the needs of offenders in 

different risk classifications, and have not been adequately funded to permit the 

high doses of educational intervention that many offenders require ‘‘(Gaes et al., 

1999).

Risk 

The first principle, ‘‘risk,’’ argues that correctional programs must target offenders 

who are at high risk of recidivating if they are to demonstrate success at reducing 

recidivism. By definition, lower-risk offenders do not need such programs, and studies have actually shown that they can fare worse if made to participate. Programs 

for these offenders can interfere with the structure and support systems that they 

would be able to create for themselves (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). 

Unfortunately, several factors converge in the correctional environment that leads 

to lower-risk offenders enrolling in programs. Many programs are offered in lower 

security settings that are off-limits to higher-risk inmates. Others have incorporated 

eligibility criteria that specifically exclude high risk offenders as part of a strategy 

to win greater institutional and community support. Also, since programs offer inmates many advantages within the institution—greater out-of-cell time, reduction in 

sentence length, nominal pay—and have open and voluntary enrollment policies, 

they tend to attract the most motivated, highly-skilled, and savviest inmates who 

are less likely to recidivate. Many evaluations that find statistically significant reductions in recidivism between program participants and a control group are actually finding the ‘‘self-selection’’ bias that is comparing low-risk inmates in programs 

with high-risk inmates in the controls. 

Needs 

The second principle of effective programming, ‘‘needs,’’ requires that programs 

specifically target those risks and needs that make certain offenders at higher risk 

of recidivating. In the field of criminal justice, the most commonly identified 

criminogenic factors include individual characteristics and traits that are static and 

immutable: age, family upbringing, prior juvenile and adult criminal history, prior 

drug use; and others that are dynamic and that can be changed: anti-social/procriminal attitudes, belief, and values (sometimes called criminal thinking), impulsive behavior, association with criminal peers, return to high-crime areas; and poor 

education and vocation skills. 

The needs principle states that only programs that explicitly address these dynamic criminogenic factors can reduce recidivism. This obvious point addresses the 

problem of internal validity that is commonplace in the evaluation literature of correctional treatment programs. Programs that are not designed to reduce recidivism 

and that lack a direct logical mechanism to address factors that could reduce future 

criminality are nonetheless often solely evaluated by their success at reducing recidivism. Not surprisingly, the evaluations of these programs find them unsuccessful 

at demonstrating the effectiveness of this outcome, although the programs may offer 

other benefits to inmates and to jail administrators that have nothing to do with 

reduced recidivism rates. 

Programming in most correctional facilities was not designed with the specific 

purpose to reduce recidivism. Instead, many institutions have an eclectic collection 

of programs that have evolved rather than being the results of deliberative planning. In many cases a community volunteer, organization, or church will have proposed a program or service, and the institution has gladly accepted the opportunity 

to have inmates engaged in programming that has little cost. Alternatively, cyclical 

grant programs funded by outside organizations will lead to the development of new 

programs that did not necessarily address a specific institutional need, but are welcomed nonetheless. From a correctional administrator’s standpoint, these programs 

serve a valuable function—to occupy inmates’ time in a constructive fashion making 

the job of running the facility easier—but most of these programs were not designed 

with the goal of reducing recidivism. 

Treatment 

The third principle for effective programming, ‘‘treatment,’’ relates to the importance of incorporating social learning theory in the curriculum and classroom activiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
43

ties where new skills and behaviors are modeled. It promotes a widely-used therapy 

used by psychologists in this country called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) that 

focuses on action, motivation, goal setting, and ‘‘correct’’ thinking patterns. Unlike 

psychoanalytic therapy, CBT does not attempt to delve into past issues to identify 

root causes of active behavior, but rather is oriented in the present and future. This 

type of therapeutic style can be infused in treatment programs that focus on specific 

needs such as substance abuse or anger management. 

Fidelity 

The fourth principle, ‘‘fidelity,’’ for effective correctional programming, concerns 

the need to ensure that programs are well-designed, robust, implemented with integrity by qualified and motivated staff, and are supported by the institution. Again, 

a seemingly obvious point, but many correctional programs do not subscribe to these 

criteria. Often programs meet infrequently, have no standardized curriculum, are 

taught by volunteers and staff (and sometimes fellow inmates) who are not schooled 

in delivering programs effectively, and the programs are poorly supported by the institution. 

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Recent studies of reentry programs reveal the enormous challenges that correctional practitioners face to develop and implement reentry programs, and to demonstrate their effectiveness particularly on the sole measure of reduced recidivism 

rates. In an evaluation of a modest jail reentry program in Boston, Piehl, LoBuglio 

and Freeman generalized the implementation challenges of reentry programs into 

four points:

• First, they recognized that correctional institutions have few incentives to develop reentry programs given that the benefits of these programs accrue to 

society as a whole, while the institutions bear the full costs and liabilities of 

running them. The traditional responsibility of caring for and controlling complex inmate populations proves difficult enough but, unlike recidivism, these 

goals are within the means of correctional officials to control directly;

• Second, the researchers indicated that the fractious jurisdictional differences 

in the country’s criminal justice systems make replicating one reentry model 

difficult, and that the design of reentry programs will be driven by the local 

stakeholders and community institutions of the facility;

• Third, the case study details just how difficult it is to operate programs in 

a busy correctional environment, and the critical importance of institutional 

support for reentry programs;

• And fourth and finally, the authors write that while analysts and practitioners agree on the need to support inmates reentering the community, there 

is no clear consensus on reentry treatment models or the rank ordering of inmates to participate in such programs in terms of deservedness, greatest 

need, or potential highest public safety return on investment (Piehl, LoBuglio, 

& Freeman, 2003).

The research findings to date of the largest and most comprehensive evaluation 

of reentry programs have also identified implementation issues as a significant 

problem. Many of the 69 program sites studied as part of the national evaluation 

of the $100 million Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI) were delayed 

in meeting their planned start-up dates and were under-enrolling participants in 

their programs. After thousands of interviews with individuals during their incarceration and post-release, researchers from the two organizations leading the 

study—the Urban Institute and the Research Triangle Institute—have found that 

SVORI program participants did receive slightly more services than non-program 

participants, but that the level of the services received were generally far below the 

levels of self-reported needs. There is some encouraging evidence to indicate that the 

program participants are demonstrating better outcomes on a wide range of program goals, and a recidivism comparison between the treatment and control groups 

will be completed by next year (Lattimore & Steffey, 2006). 

This study and the Boston case study both raise concern that if these start-up 

issues are not carefully considered and if the expectations of program success are 

unrealistically too high initially, the enormous implementation challenges may 

squander this unique opportunity to reassess the three-decade movement of corrections away from rehabilitative ideals and post-release support and supervision. Unfortunately, failure to address implementation challenges could reaffirm the cynical 

notion that ‘‘nothing works’’ in offender programming, without giving reentry programming a fair chance to prove its effectiveness. 

44

2The conference was organized by the Urban Institute with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and was co-sponsored by the John Jay College 

of Criminal Justice and the Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. 

REENTRY FROM JAIL

For the past seven years, the policy discussion on offender reentry has focused exclusively on the return of prisoners from state and federal prisons and has largely 

ignored jails. Several factors may explain this omission. First, comparatively little 

data exists at the national level on jail populations. While state and federal correctional systems are easy to identify, there were over 3,600 jails in the country when 

last surveyed in 1999, each of them can be organized and run by different entities 

including sheriff’s departments, county and municipal departments, Indian tribes, 

states, penal commissions, and the federal government. They range in size from 

modest lock-up facilities in rural areas with a handful of cells, to large systems such 

as those in Los Angeles and New York City that incarcerate more offenders than 

many state prison systems (19,500 and 14,000 respectively). Nearly half of the nation’s jails have populations under 50, yet the almost 160 jails with average daily 

populations of more than 2,000 inmates incarcerate 30% of the total number of inmates in the country (Sabol & Beck, 2007). 

A second reason that jails have been ignored in the policy discussion on prisoner 

reentry is that their populations are more varied and complex than prison populations and many policy makers and even some jail practitioners do not understand 

the relevance of offender reentry for a highly mobile population, most of whom will 

be released back into the community in a matter of hours. In the criminal justice 

system, jails serve a variety of functions, from holding individuals pre-trial, holding 

individuals temporarily (juveniles, mentally ill, military, court witnesses, protective 

custody), to holding individuals awaiting transfer to a state or federal agencies 

(often due to overcrowding). 

Third, while jails book large numbers of offenders annually, most of these individuals stay for only a few hours or days, and some believe it is not practical or feasible 

to offer reentry services in this limited time period. The nation’s jails process 12 million bookings of 9 million individuals each year. By comparison, approximately 

700,000 individuals are both admitted and discharged from the country’s state and 

federal prisons, and the average inmate spends several years in these facilities. Finally, jail inmates are often viewed as less serious offenders than state and federal 

inmates, and therefore are viewed as requiring fewer services. 

In reality, jails are often the point of entry into the nation’s correctional system 

and incarcerate offenders who are alleged to have committed or who have been convicted of crimes of all types. Jails also incarcerate large numbers of offenders serving relatively short post-conviction sentences for which offender reentry programs 

are extremely relevant. In many states, offenders sentenced to one year or less serve 

their sentences in jails rather than in the state prison system. 

The sentence threshold between serving time in jails versus serving time in a 

state prison system actually varies from state to state. In Massachusetts, which has 

the 30-month sentencing threshold, more sentenced offenders are held in county 

jails than in state prisons. While the vast majority of the 12 million individuals 

moving in and out of jails remain only for a few hours or days before community 

release or institutional transfer, an estimated 20% will spend at least one month 

in jail, 12% at least two months, and 4% will spend more than 6 months (Gerard, 

2005; Sabol & Beck, 2007). 

The growing recognition of the importance of including jails in the policy discussion on offender reentry is evidenced by the fact that the government’s main statistical gathering entity, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is due to release the first 

large-scale survey of jail populations in its history. Also, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, funded a national conference on jail reentry in June of 2006 that brought together practitioners, policy 

makers, and academics from across the country. As part of this conference, several 

papers were commissioned to study effective means of transitioning jail inmates 

back into their communities.2

Indeed, by including jails in the discussion, policy makers and practitioners have 

begun to realize that jails possess enormous geographical advantages in delivering 

reentry services as compared to federal and state prison systems. Most jail releasees 

are released to a neighborhood in proximity to the jail, whereas state and federal 

prison inmates are released from correctional institutions hundreds if not thousands 

of miles from their homes. Some states like Virginia are experimenting with reentry 

models that transfer state inmates to local jails in order to allow the inmates to develop stronger family and community ties before release. Many state systems and 

45

the Federal Bureau of Prison also contract with local jails and community-based facilities to place carefully selected inmates into work release programs just prior to 

release. 

PROMISING PRACTICES

In the last decade, many jurisdictions have developed and refined promising reentry programs. The Report of the Re-entry Policy Council, a 648-page summation 

of the work of hundreds of stakeholders from around the country organized by the 

Council of State Governments, lists dozens of noteworthy reentry programs in jurisdictions from across the country. Similarly publications and websites from the 

American Correctional Association, the Urban Institute, the National Institute of 

Corrections and other organizations have profiled programs of all types and sizes 

that target specific populations with specialized services. In this information age, 

there is no dearth of data on different programmatic reentry models and a Google 

search on the term ‘‘prisoner reentry’’ yields over 480,000 entries and illustrates the 

explosion of interest and research in this topic. 

In Montgomery County, we continue to develop new programs and ideas daily to 

improve reentry services both for incarcerated individuals who are confined to our 

detention centers and to those who are enrolled in our work release program. As 

mentioned earlier, our Pre-Release and Reentry Services (PRRS) Division supervises 

nearly 200 sentenced individuals who are living and working in the community and 

who are within 6-8 months of release from federal, state, and local custody. Our 

work-release program holds them accountable for their whereabouts at all times, 

and most importantly directly contributes to public safety and community well-being 

by ensuring that they are working, paying program fees, child support, and restitution orders, addressing their housing and treatment needs, and developing a support 

system with family and community institutions that will assist them transition back 

into their communities. 

For thirty years, our program has assisted over 11,000 individuals sentenced at 

the local, state, and federal level who are returning home to Montgomery County 

and the Greater Washington area. We conduct extensive screening and assessment 

to ensure that we enroll individuals who can work, participate in treatment, comply 

with the rules of the program, and refrain from criminal behavior. Unlike most programs, we have few disqualifiers and operate on the premise that whenever possible—even in the case of lower level sex offenders—it is in the community’s best 

interest and the individual’s best interest to have them leave confinement from our 

program with housing, a job, and family support rather than from a correctional facility, which in the case of state and federal inmates, might be located hundreds of 

miles from their home. 

We look at each case uniquely and carefully balance the benefits and the risks 

of bringing each individual into our program. The only exceptions are that we will 

not accept individuals who have a prior history of escape and individuals who have 

assaulted correctional officers. In our program, we provide intensive and quality 

services and develop unique reentry plans that combine goals for work, treatment, 

and family/community support. 

At the same time, our programs employs many methods and technologies to ensure that program participants are either at our community correctional facility or 

at an approved community location whether it be a job site, a treatment program, 

or the home of a family member. If they are not and we can not locate them within 

two hours, we file criminal escape charges, and work directly the police and sheriff’s 

department to apprehend the individual and with the State Attorney’s Office to ensure that the individual is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Once apprehended, we follow the case and attend all of the disposition hearings and I will personally speak at sentencing hearings about the harm that the escape caused our 

program and public safety. 

While we have not measured whether our program reduces recidivism rates, our 

performance measures speak to many accomplishments. To cite data from 2006:

• 85% successfully completed our program and were released from the pre-release facility instead of from the jail;

• Nearly 90% were released with employment;

• 99% were released with a housing plan that does not include a shelter;

• Nearly all of the residents were referred to community and faith-based organizations and have made follow-up appointments;

• Almost $400,000 of program fees were collected by clients;

• The average individual released had savings of more than $600.

46

The Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation’s (MCDCR) 

commitment to reentry extends not only to those on our work release program, but 

also to those individuals in the jail who are pre-trial detainees and who are ineligible for the work-release program and to sentenced individuals who due to institutional misconduct, the nature of their cases, or on-going legal matters cannot be 

placed in the community program either. In 2006, 9,400 individuals were received 

and discharged from the Department, and the vast majority of them were detained 

on a pre-trial status. Of this number, most were released from the detention centers 

and 550 participated in the work release program, which demonstrates the need for 

reentry program both in the community and in the jail settings. 

To serve the population of individuals in the detention center, the MCDCR introduced a program called ‘‘Reentry for All,’’ in 2005 to better coordinate the extensive 

array of education, treatment, and workforce programming and services offered 

within the jail and to develop extensive linkage and in-reach partnerships with community and government agency collaborators. In the longer-term detention facility, 

the Montgomery County Correctional Facility, over 75% of the institutional population of over 700 individuals is engaged in some form of work or reentry programming that lasts for a minimum of 6 hours a day. These programs include a full service educational program that includes special education instruction, drug treatment 

and cognitive behavioral therapeutic communities within several living units, mental health therapy in the Crisis Intervention Unit, and a workforce production section. The workforce programs—the Job Shop and the Digital Imaging Shop—offer 

individuals an opportunity to perform real-world jobs in a work environment that 

teaches a variety of job readiness and job production skills. 

In 2006, the MCDCR, in collaboration with the Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board, located a full-service One-Stop Career Center in the jail. This career center is staffed by workforce personnel who move between the One-Stop Career locations in the jail and in the community. This allows them to work with individuals in the jail and then to continue to provide direct services post-release at the 

One-Stop Career Center in Wheaton, Maryland. The One-Stop offers incarcerated 

individuals carefully controlled internet access to sites with job listings, and offers 

job readiness and instructional videos, and literature and program guides on a variety of services that can assist them as they reenter the labor market. With technical 

assistance from the National Institute of Corrections and the US Department of 

Labor, the program is seeking to extend service hours by tapping volunteers from 

faith-based organizations. 

For selected inmates within 90 days of release and who will be returning to communities in Montgomery County directly, the ‘‘Reentry for All’’ program has also 

created a Collaborative Case Management Process where more than forty social 

service providers from community, faith-based organizations, and government agencies review the reentry needs of these individuals and team-up to provide wraparound services post-release. Meeting twice a month, this group examines the 

unique reentry challenges that individuals face such as housing, employment, and 

health service. These issues are discussed at length and a workable and coordinated 

reentry plan among the partner agencies is developed. Finally, the ‘‘Reentry for All’’ 

initiative also provides released inmates with a temporary identification card with 

the County seal: this can assist individuals secure housing, jobs, education opportunities—and in one case—was even helpful to an individual to allow him to participate in school functions with his children. The 60-day card also serves as a bus pass 

and a library card, thus addressing very practical transportation and informational 

needs that individuals have immediately after release. 

Montgomery County is but one of dozens of jurisdictions from around the country 

committed to developing effective Prisoner Reentry programs, and many others offer 

innovative and exciting models that are worthy of study and emulation. A brief—

but by no means complete—survey of such noteworthy models might include:

• The Hampden County Sheriff’s community health care model that successfully integrates the community and institutional health care delivery systems 

such that incarcerated individuals see the same doctors in the institution that 

they see in neighborhood health clinics;

• The Allegheny County State Forensic Program that provides mental health 

services and support for individuals released from the Pennsylvania prison 

system and those that are detained in the in the county jail in Pittsburgh;

• Statewide efforts in Colorado, Texas, and Virginia that have connected the 

workforce development system with the correctional system to assist returning individuals secure employment and benefits;

• Parole agents in Iowa case managing individuals before they are released 

from prisons in Iowa to ensure a greater continuity of support and services;

47

• Police and Sheriff Departments’ efforts to implement monthly public safety 

and social service panels as part of the Boston Reentry Initiative that seek 

to target the highest risk returning offenders with an array of services provided by community-based partners, and including a community college and 

faith-based organizations;

• The efforts to provide discharge planning services in New York City’s correctional department with community partners for a system that has an average 

daily population of 13,000 individuals and that processes over 100,000 per 

year;

• The array of innovative community correction programs in Minnesota’s 31 

Community Correction Act Counties that integrate the delivery of adult and 

juvenile correctional services at the local level including Hennepin’s County 

Sentencing to Service Homes program that trains state prisoners to build 

homes;

• The correctional and community-based partnership in Davidson County, Tennessee that provides a continuum of jail-based and community-based services 

including mentors to individuals within seven months of release;

• Family Justice’s efforts in New York City, New Jersey, and other jurisdictions 

to team up with correctional agencies to incorporate family members in the 

reentry planning processes;

• The job opportunities and training provided by such organizations as CEO in 

New York City and Pioneer Human Services in Seattle to employ individuals 

exiting local and state correctional systems into real jobs;

• The integration of work, treatment, and case management services provided 

by such community-based programs as the Safer Foundation in Illinois, the 

Talbert House in Cincinnati, Ohio, Community Resources for Justice in Boston, Massachusetts, the 6th Judicial District’s Residential community Corrections/Work Release program in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Volunteer of America’s programs in New Jersey and Minnesota.

Again, this is hardly an exhaustive list: there are dozens of other reentry programs at all levels of government involving an array of community and government 

agency partners, and providing different combinations of services, which are promising and deserving of recognition. The needs of the population of individuals returning from jails and prisons are extensive, and jurisdictions need to employ a variety 

of combinations of reentry programs and strategies to address them. 

CONCLUSION

Prisoner reentry represents effective corrections and smart public policy. It recognizes the reality that hundreds of thousands of individuals leave state and federal 

prisons and that upwards of nine million individuals leave jails each year and return to communities and neighborhoods. It better prepares them and their communities for release, and in the long run, will result in reduced crime and recidivism, 

and other positive social outcomes for former incarcerants such as increased employment, decreased use of shelter beds, improved mental and somatic health care, and 

increased parental and civic involvement. Within correctional facilities, prisoner reentry programs can improve safety and order by engaging inmates in productive activities and focusing their attention on equipping themselves for their lives post-release. Such programs contribute to an institutional culture of respect and order and 

promote better inmate management and control. 

The Second Chance Act will spur more jurisdictions to adopt and enlarge prisoner 

reentry programs, and to continue developing applied research that will guide the 

development of more effective programs and systems. Passage of this act would continue the important role of federal leadership in encouraging local and state collaborations of government and community stakeholders to responsibly address the challenges of re-integrating large numbers of individuals returning from correctional supervision. Given the magnitude of the costs of corrections in the country, it represents a modest but critical effort that will be leveraged many times over by local 

sources, and one that potentially can yield an extraordinary high rate of return on 

investment for our nation’s communities. 

REFERENCES

Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does 

Correctional Treatment Work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed 

meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404. 

48

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, 

Practice, and Prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000—Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System V 3, P , 2000, , ed.—See ) (Vol. 

3, pp. 109–175). 

Gaes, G. G., Flanagan, T. J., Motiuk, L. L., & Stewart, L. (1999). Adult Correctional 

Treatment. In M. H. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons: Crime and Justice: A 

Review of the Research (Vol. 26, pp. 361–426). Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Gerard, V. S. (2005). New Study Proves Jails are an important Component of the 

Reentry Equation. On the Line, 28(2), 2. 

Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005 (No. NCJ 215092). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistic, Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Hughes, K. A. (2006). Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 

2003 (No. NCJ 212260)). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (No. 

NCJ 193427). Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Lattimore, P. K., & Steffey, D. (2006). Intermediate Outcomes: Initial Findings from 

the SVORI Impact Evaluation. Washington: RTI International, Urban Institute. 

Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger Press. 

Lipton, D. S. (1995). CDATE: Updating ‘‘The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment’’ 25 Years Later. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1–2), 1–20. 

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. 

Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93. 

Lyman, M. A. (2004). Hampden County House of Correction Recidivism Report: Recidivism Rates One and Three Years Post Release. Ludlow: Hampden County Sheriff’s Department. 

Lyman, M. A., Morehouse, D. A., & Perkins, M. A. (2001). Maximizing Accountability Through Programming: Targeting Criminogenic Factors for Successful Offender Reintegration. Ludlow: Hampden County Sheriff’s Department. 

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The 

Public Interest, 35, 22–54. 

Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243–258. 

Piehl, A. M., LoBuglio, S. F., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Prospects for Prisoner Reentry. EPI Working Paper, 125, 37. 

Sabol, W. J., & Beck, A. J. (2007). Trends in Crime, Jail Population Growth, and 

Prisoner Reentry [Powerpoint]. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Travis, J. (2000). But they all come back : rethinking prisoner reentry. Sentencing 

& corrections ; no. 7., 11. 

Travis, J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry Seen Through a Community Lens. Paper presented at the Luncheon Address at the Neighborhood Reinvestment 

Corporation Training Institute. 

Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And we apologize. You were supposed to have gotten a yellow 

light. And we figured out how to work the machine now. Everybody 

else will get a yellow light, which means the time is about to run 

out. You will get a little better warning than you did. 

Dr. Peters? 

TESTIMONY OF ROGER H. PETERS, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH LAW AND POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, TAMPA, FL 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Forbes, and thank you, Members of the Subcommittee, for this opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
49

portunity to testify on the Second Chance Act of 2007 and to participate in this important hearing. 

I have studied drug addiction and treatment in the criminal justice system over the past 20 years. And during this time, I think 

we have made great strides in developing effective treatments to 

break the harmful cycle of drug abuse and crime. 

Drug abuse is a major burden to our society. The estimated an- nual cost of drug-related crime are $107 billion. We know that substance abuse is closely linked to crime with over half of all violent 

crime, property crime and child abuse and neglect cases are related 

to drug use. 

Of the nearly 7 million adults in the criminal justice system, the 

majority have drug disorders. Most of these individuals have never 

participated in a comprehensive drug treatment program. We also 

know that incarceration without treatment is ineffective and is also 

a costly solution to this problem that we have. 

Drug and alcohol disorders do not resolve simply through forced 

abstinence in jails and prisons. Within the first year of release, 85 

percent of offenders with drug disorders return to substance abuse. 

And within 3 years, two-thirds are re-arrested. 

Research conducted by NIDA and NIJ demonstrates that substance abuse treatment within the criminal justice system reduces 

recidivism, drug use, family violence, unemployment and welfare 

dependence. These findings are not only robust, but they are consistent and compelling. 

Substance abuse treatment reduced drug use by about half, reduces crime by up to 80 percent, reduces arrests up to 64 percent 

and increases employment by 40 percent. Treatment is also effective across different criminal justice settings, including prisons, 

jails, work release center, day reporting centers and drug courts. 

The effectiveness of drug treatment is not diminished when it is leveraged through legal mandate. 

The most effective correctional programs are those that combine 

drug treatment in jails and prisons with treatment for at least 3 

months following re-entry to the community. A NIDA study found 

that those participating in the prison treatment followed by treatment in a community work release center were seven times more 

likely to be free of drugs after 3 years than those who received no 

treatment, and were more than twice as likely to remain arrest 

free. 

Treatment in the criminal justice system is not only effective, but 

it also saves money. Cost savings related to treatment in reducing 

drug-related crime amount to $4 to $7 for every dollar spent. Despite the effectiveness of the drug treatment, only 10 percent to 12 

percent of offenders receive any form of treatment—a small fraction of those who need it. Often these services are not comprehensive in scope. 

One of the most significant treatment gaps is community reentry services following release from jail or prison—a particularly 

vulnerable time when offenders are exposed to high risk for relapse 

and re-arrest. Fewer than half of jails and prisons in the U.S. now 

offer any type of re-entry services. This may be the single most important gap that we face in services within the criminal justice system. 

50

Through research, we now have a better understanding of the 

key elements of effective treatment in the justice system. Drug addiction is a chronic and relapsing disorder of the brain that progresses over an extended period of time. And it is characterized by 

compulsive behavior. As a result, comprehensive treatment services 

are needed over a sustained period to interrupt the harmful cycle 

of drug use and crime. 

Like other chronic health disorders that are relapsing, such as 

asthma, diabetes and hypertension, drug addition requires ongoing 

attention but can be effectively treated and managed over time. According to NIDA’s recently published Principles of Drug Abuse 

Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations, the most effective 

drug treatments are those that combine behavioral and pharmacological approaches and also include re-entry services. The Second 

Chance Act of 2007 provides an important step toward enhancing 

correctional treatment of re-entry services and breaking the harmful cycle of drug abuse and crime. 

Also needed to achieve the goals of the Second Chance Act are 

to provide stable sources of funding and support for treatment and 

re-entry services throughout the criminal justice system; incentives 

to create State coordinating councils to help plan, develop and implement statewide offender treatment and re-entry systems; continued cooperation and partnerships between the Justice Department 

and SAMSA to expand and improve the continuum of correctional 

treatment and re-entry services. Finally, support for additional research to examine effective offender treatment is of critical importance, if we are going to continue building on the success stories 

discussed here today. 

In closing, drug abuse disorders are widespread in our society 

and particularly effect those involved in the justice system. We 

know that there is a strong connection between drug abuse and 

crime and of the harmful cycle that leads from drug abuse to crime 

and to incarceration. We also know that drug treatment and reentry services can be highly effective in breaking this cycle, particularly if these services are comprehensive and coordinated across 

different points in the justice system. Yet, drug treatment now is 

provided to only a small fraction of offenders who need these services. 

For all of these reasons, your efforts to enact the Second Chance 

Act of 2007 make good sense from both a policy and a human perspective. 

Thank you for allowing me to share this information with you. 

And I will be happy to answer any questions later that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]

51

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER H. PETERS


RHP0001.eps
52


RHP0002.eps
53


RHP0003.eps
54


RHP0004.eps
55


RHP0005.eps
56


RHP0006.eps
57


RHP0007.eps
58


RHP0008.eps
59


RHP0009.eps
60

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

We have been joined at one time or another by Mr. Nadler from 

New York, Mr. Chabot from Ohio, Mr. Lungren from California. 

Mr. Lufburrow? 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE LUFBURROW, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF HOUSTON, HOUSTON, TX 

Mr. LUFBURROW. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Steve Lufburrow, and I am the president 

and CEO of Goodwill Industries of Houston. And I really am 

pleased to testify today in support of the Second Chance Act. 

The need to help hundreds of thousands of incarcerated individuals in this country re-integrate into society has reached epidemic 

proportions. The critical underlying factor in any re-integration 

plan for the community is public safety. 

The Second Chance Act would lead our Nation in the right direction, as we discussed earlier, through the integration of the four 

major areas: drug treatment and mental health; job training; mentoring; and family strengthening. Inmates exiting the Nations jails 

and prisons need all of these vital services. 

Goodwill Industries is a network of 186 community-based independent member organizations in the United States, Canada and 

then 15 other countries. Each organization serves people with disabilities, low-wage workers and other jobseekers by providing education and career services as well as job placement opportunities 

and post-employment support. Our goal is to help people overcome 

their barriers to employment and become independent taxpaying 

members of our communities. 

In 2005, more than 846,000 people benefited from Goodwill’s ca- reer services. Goodwill Industries reported $2.65 billion in revenues 

and channels 83 percent of the revenues directly into the programs 

and services. Goodwill Industries has unique experience as a service provider in areas impacting prisoner re-entry. 

Even before the re-integration program reached epidemic proportions, local Goodwill agencies throughout the country had been 

working with this population in both jails and prisons and when 

inmates are released. Since our agencies are community-based, we 

are able to work directly with the probation officers, the courts, the 

jails, the prisons and other partners in the community. In 2005, 97 

local Goodwill agencies helped more than 45,000 current and 

former prisoners. 

The challenges in helping this population are tremendous. And 

legislation, such as the Second Chance Act, recognizes the need for 

comprehensive and integrated services. According to the Thurgood 

Marshall School of Law in Houston, between one-third and one-half 

of ex-offenders are caught committing new crimes within 3 years 

of their release. But in a 2004 study of the Urban Institute showed 

that inmates who are involved in work programs while incarcerated are approximately 20 percent less likely to re-offend upon release. 

In the State of Texas, we have 19 local Goodwill agencies. Our 

clients are primarily those with the most severe barriers to obtain 

employment, such as people with disabilities and welfare recipients. However, more individuals who seek our services have some 

61

prior criminal background. And we believe this is due to the growing rate of incarceration in this country. 

For example, of the 26,043 persons served by my friends and our 

friends at the San Antonio Goodwill last year, 10,945 were ex-offenders. That is nearly half of their entire client population. And 

out of all of our agencies in Texas, 14,308 ex-offenders were served. 

And that is startling to me. 

There exists a lack of comprehensive and coordinated services for 

ex-offenders from local, State and Federal authorities. And we are 

pleased that this legislation includes a role for nonprofit service 

providers. For years, our nationwide network has been providing 

juvenile and adult ex-offenders. 

And funding for prisoner re-entry is critical and often lacking in 

not for profits; because at Goodwill, we support many of our programs through the revenue provided by sales of donated clothes 

and household goods in our retail stores. The Second Chance Act, 

though, would help reduce recidivism by allocating the necessary 

funds to support those comprehensive services that have been identified as reducing recidivism. 

Many of the clients served by local Goodwill agencies have some 

type of criminal background on their record. And some estimates 

indicated as many 30 percent to 50 percent of the individuals 

served by local Goodwill agencies have a prior conviction. As a 

human service organization, Goodwill Industries understands that 

for ex-offenders to re-enter society, they must have the following: 

safe housing; substance abuse treatment; services for physical and 

mental illness; training, education and jobs; occupational skills 

training; and job retention services. 

I have included for the record a more extensive list of our programs and services. We believe that the Second Chance Act is urgently needed. Until the necessary steps are taken to help former 

prisoners obtain and retain jobs, the downward spiral of recidivism 

will continue. 

By keeping former prisoners from returning to a life of crime and 

being incarcerated, we increase public safety, reduce correction 

cost. And the Second Chance Act furthers us toward these goals 

and saves taxpayers dollars. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lufburrow follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE LUFBURROW

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Steve Lufburrow, 

and I am the President and CEO of Goodwill Industries of Houston. I am pleased 

to testify today in support of the Second Chance Act. 

The need to help the hundreds of thousands of incarcerated individuals in this 

country reintegrate into society has reached epidemic proportions. The critical underlying factor in any reintegration plan for the community is public safety. 

The Second Chance Act would lead our nation in the right direction through the 

integration of four major areas: drug treatment and mental health, job training, 

mentoring, and family strengthening. Inmates exiting the nation’s jails and prisons 

need all of these vital services. 

Goodwill Industries is a network of 186 community-based, independent member 

organizations in the United States, Canada, and 15 other countries. Each organization serves people with disabilities, low-wage workers and other job seekers by providing education and career services, as well as job placement opportunities and 

post-employment support. 

62

Our goal is to help people overcome barriers to employment and become independent, tax-paying members of their communities. In 2005, more than 846,000 people benefited from Goodwill’s career services. Goodwill Industries reported $2.65 billion in revenues, and channels 83 percent of its revenues directly into its programs 

and services. 

Goodwill Industries has unique experience as a service provider in areas impacting prisoner re-entry. Even before the reintegration problem reached epidemic proportions, local Goodwill agencies throughout the country have been working with 

this population in both jails and prisons and when inmates are released. Since our 

agencies are community-based, we are able to work directly with probation officers, 

the courts, jails, prisons, and other partners in the community. 

In 2005, 97 local Goodwill agencies helped more than 45,000 current and former 

prisoners. The challenges in helping this population are tremendous, and legislation 

such as the Second Chance Act recognizes the need for comprehensive and integrated services. 

According to the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Texas, between one-third 

and one-half of all ex-offenders are caught committing new crimes within three 

years of their release. But a 2004 study by the Urban Institute showed that inmates 

who are involved in work programs while incarcerated are approximately 20 percent 

less likely to re-offend upon release. By conducting pre-release assessments to evaluate educational and vocational needs and facilitating collaboration with nonprofits 

and other groups to promote employment, including transitional jobs and time-limited subsidized work experience, the Second Chance Act would significantly aid in 

increasing ex-offender employment opportunities. 

In the state of Texas, we have 19 local Goodwill agencies. Our clients are primarily those with the most severe barriers to obtaining employment, such as individuals with disabilities and welfare recipients. However, more individuals who seek 

our services have some prior criminal background. We believe this is due to the 

growing rate of incarceration in this country. 

For example, of the 26,043 persons served by San Antonio Goodwill last year, 

10,945 were ex-offenders. That’s nearly half of their entire client population. Out of 

all of our agencies in Texas, 14,308 offenders/ex-offenders were served. This is startling. 

There exists a lack of comprehensive and coordinated services for ex-offenders 

from local, state, and federal authorities. With nearly 650,000 individuals released 

from jails and prison each year, we are reaching a national crisis in serving this 

group and helping them to reintegrate into society. We believe that passage of the 

Second Chance Act is a step in the right direction and long overdue. We support 

the integration of the workforce development system with housing, health services, 

education, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment. Because of this crisis, 

many of our local agencies across the country are beginning prisoner re-entry programs. 

We are pleased that the legislation includes a role for nonprofit service providers. 

The Second Chance Act would support the development of healthy child-parent relationships through implementing programs in correctional agencies to include the 

collection of information regarding any dependent children. 

According to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, the most 

accurate indicator of a successful return to society is the inmate’s connection to family. Children of incarcerated parents are six times more likely than other youth to 

land in prison at some point in their own lives. Over 1.5 million children have at 

least one parent in prison. 

Goodwill agencies understand that reconnecting to one’s family can be immensely 

effective in ending the cycle of recidivism. Through an ongoing partnership with the 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, local Goodwill agencies across the U.S. assist in supporting strong family relationships. 

For years, our nationwide network has been providing juvenile and adult services 

to ex-offenders. Some of our programs receive state or foundation support. The Second Chance Act would provide support for family strengthening programs like the 

one we operate at Goodwill Industries. 

Funding for prisoner re-entry is critical and often lacking for nonprofits. At Goodwill Industries, we support many of our programs through the revenue provided by 

sales of donated clothing and household goods in our retail stores. Currently, adequate funding does not exist for prisoner re-entry programs. Much of the funding 

in the corrections system is spent on housing inmates, and not on comprehensive 

services that would actually help prepare them for release and ultimately lead to 

a decrease in the nation’s recidivism rate. The Second Chance Act would help reduce 

recidivism by allocating the necessary funds to support those comprehensive services that have been identified as reducing recidivism. 

63

The legislation would also help reduce state corrections’ costs. A significant portion of state budgets are dedicated to correction-related expenses. The average cost 

to house a federal inmate is over $25,000 a year. The average cost on the state level 

in 2000 was only slightly less—$21,170 yearly. While the costs to taxpayers soared 

from $9 billion per year on corrections in 1982 to $60 billion two decades later, recidivism has not improved over the last 30 years. Given the current cost spent on 

corrections, even a modest reduction in the rate of recidivism would yield substantial economic benefits. 

Many of the clients served by local Goodwill agencies have some type of criminal 

background on their records, and some estimates indicate as many as 30–50 percent 

of the individuals served by local Goodwill agencies have a prior conviction. As a 

human service organization, Goodwill Industries understands that for ex-offenders 

to re-enter society, they must have the following:

• Safe housing

• Substance abuse treatment

• Services for physical and mental illness

• Training, education, and jobs

• Occupational skills training

• Job retention services

Many of our agencies are involved in providing such services, which we believe 

are critical in reducing the nation’s rate of recidivism. We have two local agencies—

Goodwill Industries of New York and New Jersey and Goodwill Industries of San 

Antonio—that received the Prisoner Reentry Initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. We support the expansion of this program and the authorization of 

new funding for job training programs operated by nonprofits. 

Goodwill Industries of San Antonio leads a collaboration of faith and communitybased providers in an efficient, seamless service continuum for non-violent offenders. The agency’s ‘‘Learn While You Earn’’ project features transitional employment, 

job retention support and continuous case management, in addition to job placement, housing assistance, counseling, and alcohol and drug treatment. In each of 

these service areas, the agency partners with other providers. 

Goodwill Industries of New York and New Jersey began Project Caring Community in 2003 to help female ex-offenders successfully transition to community life 

after their release from prison. This agency provides wrap around case management 

services and medical assistance. The program also provides counseling by trained 

psychologists to deal with psychiatric, substance abuse, housing, education, social, 

personal and family related issues. This program serves women at several women’s 

prisons in upstate New York. I have included for the record a more extensive list 

of our programs and services. 

Our local agencies specialize in vocational screening, pre-employment and soft 

skills training, transitional work experience, placement and retention services. The 

successful reintegration of individuals coming out of our nation’s prisons depends 

upon community and family support, and placement into employment—this ultimately will help us to reach our goal of improving public safety. 

We believe that the Second Chance Act is urgently needed. Until the necessary 

steps are taken to help former prisoners obtain and retain jobs, the downward spiral 

of recidivism will continue. By keeping former prisoners from returning to a life of 

crime and being incarcerated, we increase public safety and reduce corrections’ 

costs. The Second Chance furthers us toward these goals. 

Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cowley? 

TESTIMONY OF JACK G. COWLEY, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, 

ALPHA FOR PRISONS AND RE-ENTRY, WICHITA FALLS, TX 

Mr. COWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I was raised in a prison town and went to school with kids whose 

dads worked in prison in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Reformatory. And I was hired in 1970 by the LEAA, a grant from the Federal Government, as the first inmate relief counselor in Oklahoma. 

It was a pretty disappointing job. But I have stayed with correcVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
64

tions ever since and was a warden for many years; continued to 

work in the field. 

I am probably in a prison perhaps once a month. I know inmates. 

I know wardens. I know correctional officers. I know the victims. 

And the system is in dire need of hope—dire need of hope. 

They do have models that work. Wardens, quite frankly, have 

long given up on re-entry. And they don’t really even think about 

what they do in terms of recidivism rates. They just try to keep the 

toilets flushing and the chicken from being bloody when it comes 

off the stove. 

I was talking with a warden Friday, as he said, at the worst prison in Texas—a 3,330 long-term prison for young offenders—were 

opening what I will refer to you in a moment as ‘‘God pods’’ there. 

And he said, ‘‘Jack, I am running a 34 percent vacancy rate. All 

I can do is just try to survive.’’

In 1997, in the State of Texas, under the leadership of Prison 

Fellowship and then-Governor Bush, we started what was called 

the Interchange Freedom Initiative, which was an intensive in-prison pre-release program of at least 18 months, in which volunteers 

came into the prison, made relationships with inmates, and began 

to mentor them upon their release. 

In fact, I got the rule changed in Texas, whereby inmates could 

be released from that prison directly into the arms of their mentor 

rather than traveling all the way to Huntsville to be released and 

having to take a bus home. Many of them don’t make it. 

That program was studied by Byron Johnson and found that 

what they call a 50 percent recidivism rate in Texas, which is really closer to 70 percent—although the sample was fairly small, the 

recidivism rate for those inmates that completed and graduated 

from that program was only 8 percent. It is almost too good. 

Since then, with Alpha, what I do is invest in faith-based and 

community organizations in a collaborative way and provide wardens the opportunity to offer us a unit within the prison where inmates can be housed separately. Then we provide programming up 

until the time they are released. Then that work continues after 

they go home, and it is working. We will build so far—although the 

numbers are growing—was probably close to 2,000 inmates a year. 

More States are getting excited about what we are offering, because it involves faith-based and community organizations in a collaborative with the State. We now can tell wardens something 

works. 

I was at a grand opening Friday of a long-term God pod in 

Rosharon, Texas. And when the warden paints the dorms and puts 

in new flower beds and gets things ready, you know that he is dedicated to seeing changes in his prison. 

Now, a lot of that work is being done. And quite frankly, it will 

be done without the Second Chance Act. It won’t be done on the 

level that it needs to be. I mean, we have heard 650,000 inmates 

go home a year. The Second Chance Act will certainly give us an 

opportunity to add capacity. 

But you have started something, quite frankly, that you need to 

finish. You see, without hope—and I am not talking just about inmates and their families and victims, but the system. We got this 

bill now. We say we are going to do all this wonderful stuff, and 

65

if it isn’t done, the message is going to go out to the States—to 

wardens, and the jail administrators, and to inmates—well, if those 

guys really don’t care, then why should we bother anymore? And 

I am telling you that is what is going to happen. 

The Second Chance Act is much more than money. As much as 

it is needed, the Second Chance Act is a shot in the arm for the 

system—not just ‘‘second chance’’ for inmates, but it is a ‘‘second 

chance’’ for correctional administrators, a ‘‘second chance’’ for victims. So, we urge its passing. We know the model that works, and 

we are just waiting for the resources to build capacity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share that with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK G. COWLEY

Thank you for offering me this time to speak with you concerning a subject, which 

has for years been debated from the halls of Congress to barber chairs in every corner of our country. Crime and Punishment and in particular recidivism rates of 

those inmates who are released from our prisons. I literally do mean ‘‘for years’’ as 

I was first employed in 1970 as the first Inmate Release Counselor in the State of 

Oklahoma prison system with a Federal Grant to assist with the reduction of recidivism. I therefore can speak to you today as a person who for the past thirty-seven 

years has spent as much time in the company of inmates as I have with my own 

children, of the continued failure of our criminal justice system to protect the safety 

of our country’s citizens. 

I don’t believe that I need to go into the numbers, which represent that failure. 

You have heard that testimony from others. The mere fact that this hearing is taking place indicates your awareness of the problem—a problem by the way, which 

grows worse as the years go by. While crime rates have remained somewhat stable 

over the past years, our correctional facilities are bursting at the seams and more 

are being built every year. We can no longer afford to maintain business as usual 

inside the walls. 

As a warden for over twenty-five years, I saw first hand on the faces of inmates 

about to be released the sincerity in commitment to remain crime free. As a director 

of programs for a non-profit out patient clinic dealing with ex-offenders who were 

struggling to remain crime free, I can attest to the fact that they really did not want 

to return to prison. My Dad would say, ‘‘Anyone can stay out of prison that really 

wants to.’’ We like to think in this country that anyone can be what who want to 

be. Our country in fact was founded on that principal. Yet, after all of 

these years of working in and believing in our system of justice, I have come to 

the conclusion that wanting something to be so, doesn’t always make it so. There 

are some people who must be helped, who must be nurtured into being what they 

want to be. With a recidivism rate over fifty percent, it is obvious that help has not 

been forthcoming. 

I can tell you without hesitation that until recently the vast majority of wardens 

and directors of corrections were deliberately indifferent in terms of the successful 

reintegration of inmates back into society. We would all say that the programs of 

academic education, counseling and job readiness opportunities were offered inside 

our prisons for exactly that purpose. We would say that upon release parole officers 

were assigned to parolees to assist in reintegration. The inference was of course that 

the system was doing all that could be done to provide inmates with the tools of 

success and therefore the failure to remain crime free was due solely to the desire 

of the ex-offender. I can tell you that parole systems are now for the most part, 

given the hike in the recidivism rate, geared solely toward the surveillance of parolees and not toward their reintegration back into their communities. 

It was in part this philosophy, which gave rise to ‘‘Lock’em up and Throw Away 

the Key’’ that prisons came to be constructed at a staggering rate all over the country. We couldn’t get tough enough on crime. As warden I had one public official who 

said, ‘‘let them carry rocks from one side of the prison yard to the other ten hours 

per day, feed them dog food and I bet that they won’t come back in.’’ The reality 

(and I believe we all know this now) is that you can’t build our way out of the problems we face in our prisons. Being tough on crime is not making those at whom 

we are angry, hurt; it is providing them an environment in which to change and 

the tools with which to do so while incarcerated. It is conscientious assistance upon 

release with becoming tax-paying/crime free citizens. Toughness on crime is effective 

66

public policy, which promotes public safety. You see the Second Chance Act is not 

a rehabilitation tool. It has nothing to do with being soft on crime. It is in fact a 

bill that promotes public safety as it will assuredly reduce the number of future 

crime victims. 

We now have a model for effective reintegration, which cannot be denied. Intensive pre-release programs in which offenders who have volunteered are housed within the prison on specific living units, participating together in programs led by local 

volunteers willing to continue the 

solid relationships formed during the offenders’ incarceration, upon release. The 

inmates’ families are asked to participate in support programs held in the community. Housing and job opportunities are provided through collaborations of 

faithbased and community organizations. The recidivism rate according to the study 

conducted by Dr. Byron Johnson was significantly reduced for those inmates who 

completed the program. The Second Chance Act will send a message to not only 

those state and federal employees that Congress is serious about making the system 

work effectively, it will also encourage the development of local collaborations of 

support upon which rest the foundation recidivism reduction. 

Let me conclude my comments by saying at the heart of making the system work 

effectively and thereby reducing the rate at which ex-offenders are returned to prison, someone must be held accountable for reducing the current rate of recidivism. 

In other words, if wardens, parole supervisors and directors of corrections were held 

accountable for the reduction in recidivism rates, the criminal justice system would 

change over night. By placing that requirement on the annual evaluations of federal 

and state corrections employees, the methods by which business is conducted inside 

our prisons and parole offices would dramatically change. No more business as 

usual. In other words, those individuals who choose to work in corrections and who 

fail to correct must be held accountable. 

Passage of this bill will signal to those inside the criminal justice system and 

those ‘‘outside’’ of it who are considering becoming partners, that there is hope. 

Much needed resources would become available to those correctional administrators 

willing to make changes necessary to overcome the lasting pains of incarceration. 

The pain of the offender most assuredly will become the community’s pain if not 

healed. Remember the vast majority of those who are in our prisons are simply people at whom we are angry and not of whom we are afraid. We now have a proven 

effective model with which to work. We can reach these people, these offenders, 

these neighbors and now it is a matter of holding the system accountable for putting 

it into practice.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McDonald? 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE T. McDONALD, PRESIDENT,

DOE FUND, INC., NEW YORK, NY 

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Members 

of the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here and have my 

second chance to testify before Congress. 

I certainly support the Second Change Act of re-integration the 

formerly incarcerated individuals into the workforce and the mainstream of society. 

In the early 1980’s, I started working with homeless men and 

women in New York City. I spent literally 700 nights in a row feeding thousands of individuals who lived in, around and under Grand 

Center Terminal. I got to know them, often becoming their friend. 

From them, I learned the conventional solutions are insufficient 

in comprehensively and permanently addressing their needs. Shelters provided a place to sleep for the night. And a sandwich quelled 

their hunger for the moment. But what they really wanted was a 

room and a job to pay for it. 

The Ready, Willing and Able program answered that need. It 

was built on a promise, a contract really, between my organization, 

the Doe Fund, and those homeless men, that if they gave up drugs 

and went to work, this program would be there to support and 

67

open doors for them. Ready, Willing and Able, or as we call it 

RWA, started as an innovative approach to solving a seemingly intractable problem that today has become the most visible, effective, 

respected solution to homelessness in the Nation. 

We serve over 1,000 people a day in three States. As a part of 

our community improvement street-cleaning project, we send men 

in blue—and that is what we call them, because of the bright blue 

uniforms they wear with the American flag on their sleeve—out to 

clean over 150 miles of New York City streets. Seven days a week, 

365 days a year, the sweeping, bagging of garbage, graffiti removal, 

snow shoveling and other street sanitation services we perform 

have improved the quality of life in our city and made our participants beloved and sought after additions to every neighborhood. 

Because they do this hard and humble work with diligence and 

good cheer, they have won the support of over 45,000 individuals 

that not only send us financial contributions, but notes explaining 

how much they have come to rely on our participants. And believe 

it or not, feel safer because of their presence. 

Several years ago, we recognized that society was facing a crisis 

larger and certainly costlier than homelessness, one that threatens 

public safety, burdens taxpayers and results in countless human 

lives being wasted: criminal recidivism. As you have said here, Mr. 

Chairman, 650,000 people are released from jails and prisons cross 

the country each year. More than two-thirds go back within 3 

years. 

Knowing that 70 percent of the men we already successfully 

serve in RWA had an average of three felony convictions each, and 

that the chief factor influencing recidivism was quality employment, we saw an opportunity to adapt our model to serve those 

exiting prison and solve another critical societal problem. 

In 2001, the Department of Justice became our partner in these 

efforts. They funded the launch of a pilot program serving parolees 

who had already had housing, but were in need of educational; vocational; substance abuse; social services; and most importantly, 

paid work that RWA offered. Beginning with 30 men, the program 

has grown to serve over 200, who all put on that bright blue uniform and go out every day to clean our city. In an unassuming and 

humble way, they accomplish the monumental task of reversing 

prejudices and changing the perception of formerly incarcerated 

people. 

In 2006, building on our success in reducing recidivism by helping parolees rejoin the workforce, the New Jersey and New York 

congressional delegations secured additional funding through the 

Department of Justice for us to expand by adding a residential 

component. Today RWA Stuyvesant located in Bedford Stuyvesant, 

Brooklyn seizes on the critical moment when an inmate is about 

to be released and is looking to make a positive change in his life. 

Recruitment begins literally before the fellow’s release and offers 

him a chance to walk out of the prison door onto one of our vans 

that will transport him to his new transitional home and work. 

For 9 to 12 months, he lives in a safe, drug-free, shared apartment. He is paid above the minimum wage to work in our community improvement projects, receives the comprehensive social services, reports to a parole officer assigned specifically to participants 

68

in our Stuyvesant program. Immediately, he becomes a productive, 

law-abiding member of the community, and an example of what is 

possible when opportunity is provided and seized. 

Jose Carrera was 19 years old when he was sentenced under the 

New York Rockefeller Drug Laws. He was 39 when he came out. 

While inside, he stabbed another inmate and spent a total of 5 

years in solitary confinement. There in the box, as they call it, he 

had an awakening and decided to change his life. 

Upon release, he came to our program, put on that blue uniform 

and pushed a bucket for a year. He remembers the things that kept 

him motivated when he thought about giving up were the paycheck 

and the passers-by who patted him on the back and thanked him 

for the job he was doing. He was used to inspiring fear, but never 

smiles of gratitude. 

The greatest sense of gratitude for his transformation comes 

from his two children. In the past, his son was told you are no 

good. You will be just like your father. Today, Jose Jr. sees his father as a role model and appreciates being compared to him. Jose 

graduated from our program with a job as a dialysis technician. He 

likes to say that while he once stabbed people to hurt them, today 

he does it to save their lives. 

There are thousands of stories like Jose’s. And through the help 

of this bill and the Doe Fund’s criminal justice programs and the 

rest of the folks here, there can and will be many more. We have 

found the way to replace the revolving door of criminal recidivism 

with the best front door in America, one that formerly incarcerated 

persons can walk through with little more than a desire to work 

hard and rebuild his life, and walk back out a year later with his 

sobriety, a permanent job and his own apartment. 

As I sit here addressing this Subcommittee of the United States 

Congress, I can’t help but think what could be more fundamentally 

American than extending the opportunity of hard work and personal responsibility to people striving to become taxpaying, lawabiding citizens. This is an important piece of legislation to provide 

that opportunity. 

Thank you for having me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. MCDONALD

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today on a matter of significant importance to our Nation. As 

Founder and President of The Doe Fund, the New York based non-profit that operates the Ready, Willing & Able residential paid work program, I have had the privilege of watching thousands of men break lifelong patterns of crime, homelessness 

and substance abuse to become productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and fathers to their children. 

In the early 1980’s, when I first started working with people our society had given 

up on—homeless, drug-addicted ex-offenders—I heard from their mouths that what 

they really wanted was a hand-up, not a handout. They wanted the opportunity to 

go to work, to lift themselves out of poverty, to escape destructive cycles and to rejoin mainstream society. When I handed them a sandwich they thanked me, but 

asked for something more—something I heard over and over again—‘‘A room and 

a job to pay for it. A room and a job to pay for it.’’

The Ready, Willing & Able program fulfills that request. It was the first program 

of its kind to go beyond immediate emergency needs...to believe in the potential of 

even the most downtrodden among us to seize an opportunity and succeed. 

I recruited the first Ready, Willing & Able program participants from the floor 

of Grand Central Terminal. That is where they had landed after cycling in and out 

69

of homeless shelters and prisons. Together we entered into a contract in which they 

promised to give up drugs and go to work and The Doe Fund, in return, promised 

that Ready, Willing & Able (RWA) would be there to support and open doors for 

them. 

From that first handful of men and our first facility in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn we have grown to serve over 1,000 people a day, in six facilities and three 

states. Our participants come to us, no longer off the floor of Grand Central Terminal, but often straight from our prisons. They represent the largest and costliest 

crisis—both financially and in wasted human lives—our society has yet to face—

criminal recidivism. 

Each year, 660,000 individuals are released from prison. Two-thirds go back within three years. Studies have shown over and over again that the chief factor influencing their recidivism is the ability to find quality employment. It is therefore no 

surprise that Ready, Willing & Able’s work-based approach has had such extraordinary success in helping this population permanently escape the revolving door of 

incarceration. 

As part of our renowned and highly visible community improvement street cleaning project, we put the ‘‘Men in Blue’’ (as we call them because of the bright blue 

uniforms they wear) to work cleaning over 150 miles of city streets every day. They 

earn above minimum wage and immediately begin to develop the work ethic and 

dignity that comes from an honest day’s work. 

The sweeping, bagging of garbage, graffiti removal, snow shoveling and other 

street sanitation services they perform have improved the quality of life in the cities 

where we operate and made our participants beloved and sought after additions to 

every neighborhood. Because they do this hard and humble work with diligence and 

good cheer, they have won the support of more than 45,000 individuals who not only 

send financial contributions, but notes explaining how much they have come to rely 

on our participants and—believe it or not—feel safer because of their presence. After 

9 months in our program we help them find full-time private sector jobs and get 

ready to exchange their blue uniforms for suits and ties, chef’s hats and doorman 

uniforms. 

When in 2001, Kings County (New York) District Attorney Charles Hynes asked 

us to launch a pilot ‘‘day’’ program serving parolees who had housing, but needed 

the educational, vocational, substance abuse and, most importantly, paid work that 

RWA offered, we didn’t hesitate. 

Beginning with 30 men, our day program has grown to serve over 200. All put 

on our signature bright blue uniforms and go out every day to clean our city. In 

an unassuming and humble way, they accomplish the monumental task of reversing 

prejudices and changing the perception of formerly incarcerated people. 

Last year, building on our extraordinary success in reducing recidivism by helping 

parolees rejoin the workforce, we secured additional funding through the Department of Justice to help us expand our program to serve parolees by adding a residential component to the services we were already providing. Today, RWAStuyvesant, located in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, is one of the most comprehensive residential, work-based models serving this population. It focuses on the critical 

moment when an inmate is about to be released and is looking to make a positive 

change in his life. Recruitment begins before he is even released and literally offers 

him a chance to walk out the prison door and onto one of our vans that will transport him to his new transitional home. 

For 9–12 months he lives in a safe, drug-free shared apartment, is paid above 

minimum wage to work in our community improvement project, receives comprehensive social, services and reports to a Parole Officer assigned specifically to participants in RWA-Stuyvesant. Immediately, he becomes a productive, law-abiding member of the community and an example of what is possible when meaningful opportunity is provided and seized. 

Last year, I was asked by Chauncey Parker, then Director of the New York State 

Division of Criminal Justice Services, to assemble a committee to formulate recommendations that would enhance employment opportunities for job seekers with 

criminal records. I had the honor of working, for over a year, with brilliant and dedicated experts to create The Independent Committee on Reentry and Employment’s 

Report and Recommendations to New York State on Enhancing Employment Opportunities for Formerly Incarcerated People. I am proud of the recommendations we 

put forth in this report and could include findings and statistics from it in this testimony, but instead, I would like to share the stories of some of our program graduates with you. 

Anthony Malpica came to Ready, Willing & Able with over 50 convictions for 

Breaking and Entering. During his three decade long addiction to heroin he had 

known two homes: a prison cell and a cardboard box in an abandoned lot in Spanish 

70

Harlem that he called ‘‘Cardboard Co-op City.’’ Upon his last release, he heard 

about RWA at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Putting on our blue uniform and 

sweeping the streets of New York was Anthony’s first legitimate job at the age of 

45. When it came time for him to look for permanent employment, he applied for 

a job as—of all things—a locksmith apprentice. As he says, ‘‘I had broken many 

locks to rob, but I had never imagined myself fixing them.’’ Today, Anthony has 

been drug-free for 8 years. He is married and lives in his own home. He is no longer 

a locksmith apprentice, but a certified, bonded locksmith. 

Jose ́ Carrero was 19 when he was sentenced under New York’s Rockefeller Drug 

laws. He was 39 when he came out. While inside, he stabbed another inmate and 

spent a total of 5 years in solitary confinement. There, ‘‘in the box’’ as inmates call 

it, he had an awakening and decided to change his life. 

Upon release, he came to our program, put on a blue uniform and pushed a bucket for a year. He remembers that the things that kept him motivated, when he 

thought about giving up, were the paycheck and the passersby who patted him on 

the back and thanked him for the job he was doing. He was used to inspiring fear 

in people, but never smiles or gratitude. 

The greatest sense of gratitude for his transformation, however, comes from his 

two children. In the past, his son was told, ‘‘You’re no good. You will be just like 

your father.’’ Today Jose ́, Jr. sees his father as a role model and appreciates being 

compared to him. 

Jose ́ graduated from our program with a job as a dialysis technician. He likes to 

say that while he once stabbed people to hurt them, today he does it to save their 

lives. 

There are thousands of success stories like Anthony’s and Jose ́’s, and through the 

help of programs like The Doe Fund’s there can be more. Enacting this bill is a start 

toward assembling the formula—of which work opportunities are the key—to ensuring their success and that of the thousands of formerly incarcerated individuals who 

seek to re-enter society and the workforce. 

Ready, Willing & Able has found the way to replace the revolving door of criminal 

recidivism with the best front door in America—one that a formerly incarcerated 

person can walk through with little more than the desire to work hard and rebuild 

his life and walk out of, a year later, with his sobriety, a permanent job and his 

own apartment. 

In my testimony to this Subcommittee of the United States Congress , I cannot 

help but think—‘‘what could be more fundamentally American than enacting legislation like this that will extend the opportunity of hard work and personal responsibility to people striving to become tax-paying, law abiding citizens?’’

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. 

I now will proceed to questions under the 5-minute rule. I will 

begin recognizing myself for 5 minutes and start with Dr. Peters. 

How important is mental health services to rehabilitation? 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Important point; mental 

health is a critical issue for our inmates. I think you heard several 

of the panelists discuss that already this afternoon. We know that 

15 percent of our offenders have major mental health disorders in 

this country. 

In some cases, people talk about our correctional system now as 

the public safety net of last resort for our society. Unfortunately, 

these systems are not funded to provide intensive services in many 

cases, nor are they staffed to do that. 

So, it is really an important task for us to be able to identify 

those people and get them out of the system if possible as early as 

possible; and in the process at the point of entry to jail, for example, if those people don’t present a public safety risk, to be placed 

in jail diversion programs with court monitoring, supervision and 

treatment services. 

Of course, for those people in jails and in prisons, they need to 

receive their medication and get treatment services that they need, 

and then be able to receive the same type of re-entry services that 

we are talking about here today for this population, who are at 

71

very extremely high risk of relapse and recidivism, and re-entry to 

hospitalization crisis stabilization units and other, kind of, key 

services in our society that cost huge amounts of money. 

So, a very important group that we need to target for resources 

and for re-entry services as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Chief LoBuglio, you mentioned the important of having re-entry 

programs in jails. With jail overcrowding and the short period of 

time that people are going to be in a local jail, how effective can 

re-entry programs be in the local jails? 

Mr. LOBUGLIO. They can be very effective. And there are numerous opportunities to intervene in creative ways to work with the 

jail population. In the jail population—again the 9 million individuals coming and going from the jail system annually—some will be 

staying for short periods of time, others will be staying for years. 

A re-entry plan for each individual is going to be unique. It is 

going to be tailored based on their needs and how long they are 

going to be with us for those in Montgomery County we find that 

in our jail-based program we are able to provide a one-stop career 

center for those who are sentenced for 90 days or less. 

There are other re-entry services that can be provided it for individuals that are there for shorter periods of time. In Allegheny 

County in Pittsburgh, there is a forensic mental health program 

that provides mental health services to individuals have who have 

been locked up for just 2 hours. They come in and they make sure 

that there is continuity of care. 

So, there are many models of re-entry. That is, I think, a theme 

of this legislation and the experience over the last 8 years. Not 

every re-entry program is going to serve every type of individual. 

But don’t forsake jails. There is much that can be done in jails to 

promote re-entry, and there are many examples across this country. I can cite those for you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Cowley, you represent several faith-based organizations. Do 

they need to discriminate in employment with Federal money in 

order to be effective? 

Mr. COWLEY. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. As a former warden, did you have second chance programs in your prisons? 

Mr. COWLEY. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. You didn’t have any second chance programs in your 

prisons when you were a warden? 

Mr. COWLEY. And very few do today. We talk about reducing the 

custody level, and that in turn means re-entry for most systems. 

But interventions are not that meaningful. We are strictly talking 

bed custody. 

So, when they talk about going to a halfway house, they are 

still—we offer things, but we say, okay, it is just—an inmate to get 

it if he wants to get it. It has to be more involved——

Mr. SCOTT. What kind of programs do you think would be popular for inmates? What kind of programs would they be most likely 

to actually participate in? 

Mr. COWLEY. Inmates know what is good for them if given the 

environment in which to change. Job readiness—most of them, if 

72

they are given this opportunity, want to know how to be better 

dads, because they know that statistically, just being in prison, 

their kids are at a higher risk. Most want to know how to fill out 

a resume. 

I had one guy that was in for 14 years. The day he got out, he 

said, ‘‘Jack, will you teach me how to eat?’’ They don’t get to use 

forks and knives, Mr. Chairman. He wanted to know just how to 

eat. So, we did pretty good when he cut his meat, but then he 

didn’t know what to do with the fork when he reached for his glass, 

so he just stuck it in the top of his steak which, you know—those 

are the kinds of things they want to know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, without objection, I would like to introduce for the record a letter from 15 faith-based organizations 

that approve of this legislation as it is currently written. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Without objection. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Could I reserve objection? Is that the one with the 

top 10 names on it? We had an issue last year where some of the 

faith-based groups that we checked with were not familiar with the 

particular thing their name was——

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I will debate this later if he has an 

objection. If he could voice his objection, and then we will deal with 

it as we get through the—rather than use my time on this one. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, we will start your time over, but there is a motion made to introduce the letter for the record. Is there objection? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, if I could reserve objection——

Mr. SCOTT. The right to object has been reserved. We will start 

the time now. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you witnesses for being here and for the 

programs that you are involved in. 

Mr. Lufburrow—I hope I am pronouncing that correctly—I know 

that Goodwill does a lot of programs in this area. Can you tell us 

what success rate that you have had? 

Also, how does family-based treatment address the needs of children participating in the program? What is the broad picture of the 

children affected by parental incarceration, substance abuse? 

If you can be as brief as possible, because I want ask a few questions of some of the other witnesses. 

Mr. LUFBURROW. Sure. Let me try to answer those. 

The family side for the children, obviously, they have a rough 

run when they have someone, a parent, incarcerated. So, when we 

can work with the parent and get their self-esteem built up, it sure 

helps and rubs off on those kids. We are more working with the 

parent side as they are incarcerated. 

The first question again, sir? 

Mr. FORBES. The first question is, what success rate has Goodwill had? 

Mr. LUFBURROW. Well, when we work with folks who have been 

incarcerated, you know, we will see not as much as I would like 

to see. But if we could get it to 50, I am happy. We work with so 

many other populations as well, which we are a little higher with. 

73

That is why we are pushing for this to pass through, because we 

don’t have the dollars to make these programs official. So, we have 

to do it in other ways. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Dr. Peters, one of the things we are always looking at is effectiveness and how we measure effectiveness of programs. Can you 

tell us the difference between a short-term, let’s say 30-day, drug 

program that we try to put on somebody and a more comprehensive 

program that you talked about, the difference in effectiveness between those two kinds of programs? 

Mr. PETERS. Absolutely, yes. We know that treatment to be effective needs to be approximately 90 days for offenders and for others 

that have chronic problems like this. We also know that longerterm programs such as 6-to 12-month programs are those that create long-term sustained outcomes, and those are the programs that 

we look at. 

And you see some of the figures cited in the testimony, where 

you have 27 percent who are re-arrested over the course of 3 years 

of follow-up after intensive treatment in prison and outside of prison, compared to in the range of 75 who don’t receive treatment in 

those settings. So, you have a fairly persuasive 50 percent reduction in recidivism based on those long-term programs. 

You still see marked gains, though, in those intermediate range 

programs over 90 days. But it looks like that is the threshold, sir, 

that we need to reach for. And you can still achieve some significant gains in reductions in recidivism and substance abuse. But 

again, those don’t typically lead to sustained changed in behaviors 

over time. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

Mr. Cowley, I know you have seen it from both sides. You have 

seen it as a warden. You have also worked with several faith-based 

organizations. Based on the organizations that you have worked 

with, do they approve of this bill and its current structure as it is 

written? 

Mr. COWLEY. The ones that know about it do. And the ones that 

don’t know about it do as well. I can tell you faith-based groups 

and community organizations, not only are they aware of the debate in many cases, but they are looking for the opportunity to be 

involved. And with wardens and other Federal organizations that 

would receive the grant money, these people would line up, definitely. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, thank you. 

And, Mr. LoBuglio, if I could, first of all, you have a model program; done a great job with that in Montgomery County. But 

again, one of the things we are always looking at is measuring effectiveness and what measures should we use to evaluate re-entry 

programs. Because it is one of the things we are always looking at 

here, is recidivism. 

You know, I mean, is re-arrested or re-incarceration the only valuable measure? Or, if not, what other things? 

Mr. LOBUGLIO. There are other measures. 

We have been around for 30 years. We have had 11,000 people 

go through our program. In 2006, our performance measures that 

we track and measure the quality of our program with include the 

74

statistic that 99 percent of those who were with us in our work release program left with housing. Ninety percent left with employment. All of them left with community referrals and contacts and 

working with family. We recorded $200,000 that was provided by 

inmates for family support. We generated $400,000 in program fees 

to support our programs. 

There are many performance measures that can be used to measure the effectiveness of programs. Recidivism is an interesting figure. It is a figure that, for some programs it is appropriate; for 

other programs, it is probably beyond their ability. The factors that 

go into an individual recidivating including, one, their motivation. 

It also includes other exogenous factors, such as police policies, 

prosecutorial policies, probation and parole policies. Those are beyond the control of specific programs. 

That said, the research is clear that quality programs implemented with integrity can reduce recidivism over the long term. I 

think the findings of the Serious and Violent Offender Re Initiative, where we had 69 program sites, that are being evaluated give 

us pause to remind ourselves of the capacity that we still need to 

build within the system to make re-entry a reality. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

My time is up, but thank you all so much for your testimony. 

Mr. SCOTT. Chairman Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What an exercise of 

great magnitude this has been. My feeling for hope has increased. 

When I look at a bill with Randy Scott on it, Coble, Cannon—

yes, Cannon—not Bobby Scott. You are usual. I am calling off some 

names for a special reason—Forbes, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, let’s 

see, Coble. But I don’t see Judge Gohmert on here. And that saddens me deeply. 

We are going to be working on this—because as I look out in the 

audience, I see Charlie Sullivan of CURE and many other organizational representatives that have been in this for years and years, 

with Chairman Scott during the large work. 

The subject matter that I want to raise with you, and maybe I 

should be doing this with the Chairman and the Ranking Member, 

is the things that I keep hearing that are still going on in prisons. 

And I am going to ask Mr. Cowley to lead this off. 

But the only time I heard the subject of rape in prisons brought 

forward is by the former attorney general of California that sits on 

this Committee. And to me, this plus the coercion and violence and 

gang control that occupies too many prisons that I hear about that 

make them so dysfunctional that this probably requires a whole 

consideration of itself. 

I don’t want to get it superimposed upon a perfectly great reentry plan. Elijah Cummings, our colleague from Maryland, asks 

me every day to make sure he is on this bill, because I think, as 

this leadership shows, we have got a real head of steam moving 

forward with a lot of control. 

But with those problems in the prison and the lack of vote for 

prisoners coming out, which I know is frequently a State determination, when a person comes out, you are whole, except one 

thing buddy. We don’t need you to vote. We accept you back into 

75

society, but, no, no vote. And yet there are places where votes take 

place inside of prisons. 

So, what I want to ask of Jack Cowley and George McDonald, all 

of you, how are we going to put our arms around this problem, 

which is really what shapes a lot of attitudes? And conduct when 

you get out is what happened to you when you were on the inside. 

How do we match the heads and tails of this incredibly difficult 

societal problem, Mr. Cowley? 

Mr. COWLEY. Well, we can change it overnight. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I have been waiting 40 years for this moment. 

Mr. COWLEY. Well, and I am here to tell you. All we have to do 

is hold wardens, directors of corrections and parole chiefs responsible for recidivism rates. 

As an old Government employee, I was fondly aware of my annual evaluation. And not anywhere was there an expectation that 

those inmates that went through my prison stayed out when they 

got out—nowhere. It is not discussed. I can tell you it is not any 

employment training on correctional officers or wardens that the 

inmates in their prisons remain free. 

So, if we say to wardens, directors of corrections across this country, that you will be responsible; because see, now we have models 

that work. Before, we didn’t. Now, we do. And we say to them, ‘‘If 

you cannot reduce recidivism significantly for those inmates that go 

through your system, then you won’t have a job come next year.’’ 

I tell you it will change literally overnight. The way we do business 

will not be the same. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I hope you will become a candidate for the 

Federal corrections chief——

Mr. COWLEY. Well, I don’t know. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. When it opens up, which I hope will 

be soon. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to point out I agree with you, Mr. Cowley. Accountability is a good thing. 

I mean, all five of you have now said this is an extremely important piece of legislation. And I got to tell you, when I first heard 

last year that we were bringing up a second chance act, I was excited, because we have got to do a better job of training and rehabilitating people while they are in prison. It is an embarrassment 

to this country, and it should be to every State, that we do not do 

a better job of that. 

The thing is, we got the bill. The first bill was a 40-page bill. And 

it had things in it that concerned me greatly that went far beyond 

the scope of what was imagined. And I was told well, it is being 

redrafted, not to worry. The day of the markup, it turned out, we 

had a 90-page bill that nobody had seen. And we were expected to 

vote on it that day. A few of us raised enough Cain. It was put off. 

And later, a 60-page bill emerged for our markup. 

The latest bill I have gotten is 107-page bill. So, have you each 

read all 107 pages of this bill? Is that correct? 

Mr. COWLEY. No, I haven’t. 

76

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. So, when you say this is an extremely important piece of legislation, you are not sure what all is in there, 

correct? 

Mr. COWLEY. I am sure of those things that will make a difference. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well now, Mr. Cowley, you just said that the way 

we could change this overnight was if we held some people accountable. 

Mr. COWLEY. Right. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I have not found anything in the 107 pages that holds anybody accountable. It just spend $360-something million over 2 years, plus another provision that says all such sums 

as may be necessary. So, I am not sure how big that goes. 

In the previous bill we took up last year, there was nothing 

about preschool nurseries in the prisons, things like this, transportation. These are all new things that have been added that I am 

finding in the new bill. 

So, it goes way beyond the scope of what I had originally thought 

was there. There was one provision I saw that, as I understood it, 

said medical care as long as needed. And I don’t find too many people that ever quit needing medical care in their lifetime. So, there 

are some things, it seems to me, that need to be worked out. 

But I needed to ask you, Mr. Cowley, about one other question 

you answered. And I am not sure if you understood the ramifications of what you had said. You were asked by our Chairman if 

these faith-based groups need to discriminate in order to be effective. And you answered no, they don’t. And let me make sure if we 

are on the same page here. 

Traditionally in the United States—and the Supreme Court has 

upheld this—a Christian group was allowed to hire Christians and 

could discriminate to the point that, if you were an atheist and you 

thought that Christianity was just a bunch of baloney, then the 

Christian group didn’t have to hire you in their charge; because it 

would create some problems. 

An issue has come up in the last session where we debated this 

last summer that gee, why couldn’t a Christian group hire an atheist to do this kind of work? They should have to discriminate. 

And it was my contention, and I think previously the Supreme 

Court’s and most Christian groups’, that there should be that uniformity of belief. If you are a Mormon group, you shouldn’t be 

forced to hire somebody that thinks Mormons are crazy. If you are 

a Jewish group, you should have to hire somebody that things all 

Jewish people should be killed. 

I mean, there should be some discrimination allowed in order to 

be faith-based, or it isn’t a faith-based group anymore. You understand where I am coming from? 

Mr. COWLEY. I understand. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, in the faith-based groups with which you have 

dealt, have you run into any faith-based groups who did not hired 

people that believed in the same faith that they did? 

Mr. COWLEY. Right. They do. And in those cases, it seems to me 

that has been worked out. There have been Federal grants gone to 

faith-based groups. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you mentioned that they would line up. 

77

Mr. COWLEY. Right. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I tried to have language installed last year that 

would say simply an organization or group cannot be discriminated 

against simply because it is faith-based. And that was fought. 

Mr. COWLEY. I think we have grown up since then, Congressman. Faith-based groups—either they will take it as it comes. And 

if they want to be involved and take the money——

Mr. GOHMERT. And my time is running out, let me ask you very 

quickly. 

Mr. COWLEY [continuing]. That is very possible. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Have you not run into any sheriffs or any wardens who said I am afraid of lawsuits by the ACLU, so I don’t want 

to hire a group that is faith-based because it is faith-based? 

Mr. COWLEY. That is happening. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It has. Yes. 

Mr. COWLEY. And that is why we need the Second Chance Act 

in order to alleviate that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But it does not protect faith-based in the Act. 

Mr. COWLEY. It doesn’t need to. It doesn’t need to. That is what 

I am saying. 

Mr. GOHMERT. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would repeat my request 

to have the letter from the 15 faith-based organizations admitted 

to the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman asks for a regular order on the unanimous consent request, which means that you either press the objection or withdraw it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well obviously, I have been here and haven’t had 

a chance to check with all these groups. But I got burned on it 

once. And I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I got burned. Some of the 

groups didn’t know what they were asked to sign onto, and their 

name was typed. 

And I just was hoping for the opportunity to check on that. If I 

could have 24 hours, I would—if you want to press it, then I would 

object. If not, if I could have time to check on it——

Mr. SCOTT. Objection was heard. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the letter be admitted 

to the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a motion made that the letter be placed in 

the record. 

All in favor of the motion, say, ‘‘Aye.’’

All opposed? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I abstain, because I don’t have enough information at this time. 

Mr. SCOTT. The motion is agreed to. The letter is placed in the 

record. 

And we will make sure that Mr. Gohmert gets a copy, so if he 

subsequently wants to make a comment, he certainly will be able 

to. 

Gentlelady from Texas, Mr. Jackson Lee. 

78

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for yielding to me. 

And I certainly thank Mr. Davis of Illinois and Ms. Tubbs Jones 

of Ohio. I know that they have been working on this issue for a 

very long time, as many of us who have constituencies who have 

negatively been impacted by stark and sometimes unreasonable incarceration principles and laws. 

And I think, Warden, you know that in your new life, that probably there were good reasons for some of those incarcerated you 

may have come in contact with, short of individuals perpetrating 

heinous crimes and on death row short of being found innocent, 

that could have benefited from a number of alternatives, even before they were incarcerated. 

Right now, in the State of Texas, we are dealing with two, I 

think, horrific collapses, or calamities, as it relates to incarcerated 

facilities. 

One, our local jail has been found, over the past 10 years, to have 

had 117 deaths, individuals who went in and—you know, local jails 

are basically holding places. Sometimes you serve a 6-month sentence. But basically, you are being held on your way somewhere 

else or waiting for trial—crises where we have had individuals fallen ill and those who are responsible then say, ‘‘What do you want 

me to do? Get a BandAid? Someone is laying in a pool of blood.’’

Then we have had the Texas Youth Commission that now is renowned for sexually abused incarcerated youth. That says to me 

that the whole system needs overhauling, and people have not listened. But I think it is a good step that we are making today dealing with the question of the idea of the next step. 

So, I know the witnesses have answered questions. I welcome 

Steve Lufburrow, because he is an institution in our community. 

His family is an institution. He has always been on the forward 

side of things. 

And so, let me just pose to Warden Cowley the idea of a second 

chance bill. Can it be the wave of the future, one, in terms of 

maybe even how we look at potential incarcerated persons before 

they go in and how we look at them coming out? The question to 

you. 

To Mr. Lufburrow, how do we impact State systems? We are 

dealing with a Federal bill. But how do we impact State systems 

and get them to understand that a goodwill program is a valuable 

program and a good alternative to having someone incarcerated for 

20, 30, 40 years, certainly if they have perpetrated a non-violent 

act. 

And I believe I am looking at—I have had for a number of years 

a bill dealing with the early release of older non-violent offenders. 

I see this section. I assume it is taken from my bill. I hope that 

is the case. I had asked about this to the staff of this Committee. 

And I see it here in this bill. So, maybe I will get an explanation 

about it as to relate to whether or not it is the good time early release language or not. 

But I do want to try and find out about the value of individuals 

who have been in this incarcerated condition, and they are older. 

They may be aging and get, if you will, sick. And what is the purVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:20 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\032007\34176.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34176
79

pose of keeping them incarcerated? What about these programs 

being useful for them. 

So, let me just yield, because I see the light. And I see Mr.—is 

it Roger? If you would be kind enough to answer. Yes, Roger Peters, Ph.D. 

Mr. Cowley? 

Mr. COWLEY. Whether or not the bill could be the wave of the 

future, again cheerleading is a valuable tool, particularly in corrections, the criminal justice system, where we have been bombarded 

for years and years literally about get tough, get tougher. And 

when you say that, means the life isn’t valued. Let’s just lock them 

up and throw them away the key. The heck with them. 

And wardens know. Wardens know their inmates to a great degree, even in larger prisons. They know who is worthy and who 

isn’t. And yet we look at them all the same anymore. So, this gives 

us an—it is the wave of the future, because it sends the clear message that there is an opportunity for a second chance. 

We had a collaborator meeting. In Dallas, TX, we are starting a 

God pod at the Hutchins State Jail. And we had over 35 faithbased and community organizations show up to get involved. The 

warden came and welcomed them. And that is the wave of the future. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Lufburrow? 

Mr. LUFBURROW. Thank you very much for your comments also. 

And thank you for having me here today. 

How do we impact State systems? Collaboration is the key. We 

didn’t used to have collaboration as much in the agencies throughout the States. And now we are all a lot more open to it. 

And we are working with all the different agencies. For instance, 

in Texas, we have 18 different Goodwills that spread a whole lot 

of our Texas territory. And we are all working with other organizations—State, local, you name it—trying to work together for good, 

trying to make a change in people’s lives. 

And the lack of funding is an issue, even on the State level. And 

it is something that we need to continue to address. But, I tell you, 

our hearts are pretty big in these worlds of not-for-profits. We do 

seem to care a lot about the people that we work with. And we are 

compassionate about the problems, because we do see it on a dayto-day level. But the funding to make it happen is important to us. 

And we can’t all be good at all things. And so we have had to 

decide at Goodwill across the State and across the country, what 

are we really good at? We are really good at providing job opportunities, training and placement into the competitive business world. 

Then we need to work with the folks that are really great with the 

housing side, and the drug abuse and the alcohol treatment side. 

And I think the collaboration answers your question. I went 

around a long way. But I wanted to get that in. So, collaboration, 

I hope, is the answer that you were looking for. And certainly, I 

will stand behind. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. If I understand your question, Representative Jackson Lee, it is about the elderly? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

80

Mr. PETERS. About their amenability to treatment and what we 

need——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And their amenability to an early release—

having individuals incarcerated for ever and ever and ever, is it 

good that non-violent offenders would have that option to be released? 

Mr. PETERS. I think it is a very important area. As we all know, 

the tremendous number of the elderly are now in jails and prisons, 

particularly prisons, spending time in larger proportion that every 

before. They pose slightly different substance abuse problems and 

issues than other offenders too. And because of that, we need some 

unique solutions. They are more likely to use alcohol and prescription medications rather than methamphetamine, cocaine, some of 

the other drugs of abuse that we are used to with our traditional 

offenders. 

And because of that, I think we need specialized treatment approaches. And SAMSA has developed those. In fact, there are treatment manuals now for the elderly with substance abuse. It recognized some of these other specialized needs of the elderly, including 

depression, for example, and other mental health needs that are 

sometimes, kind of, under the radar that are silent that we don’t 

pick very often and don’t get attention, because they are not vocal 

and don’t come to the forefront with these other problems. 

So, there are some interventions that are available, but we need 

to develop more of those. And certainly research is needed by NIDA 

and other agencies to examine the impact of those interventions. 

I think you have raised an important point. We have a lot of people aging in our prisons right now. What can we do with them? 

And how does re-entry fit with that? I think that we talked about 

today some of the those solutions that can be effective for this 

group which are, for example, in-prison treatment plus work release and re-entry services. 

Pre-release services that we talked about today can be particularly useful for the elderly, which in many ways are a lower risk 

category for acting out and recidivism than are other populations 

and are quite good candidates for these release programs that couple in-prison treatment with treatment after release from custody. 

So, that is a really good group and I think a very good set of candidates for the programs that are described in this bill, and that 

we will be able to examine those carefully down the road. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank the Chairman very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that during the 

time I served as Chairman of this Subcommittee, not once did the 

microphones fail. 

But I will say to Chairman Scott, he and I worked very diligently 

last session on this, along with others as you mentioned, Mr. 

Chairman, Congressman Cannon among others. This is an important piece of legislation. Obviously, you gentleman continue to work 

diligently as well. 

81

Mr. McDonald, you have had extensive experience in this matter 

with former prisoners. Let me ask you this. Should we focus more 

on treatment while prisoners are incarcerated or after they have 

been released and acclimating back into society? Or are they both 

about equal? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Congressman, I have been sitting here wishing 

somebody would ask me that question. So, thank you very much. 

My experience is with post-release, well, we go into a prison right 

before somebody is going to be released on parole. We don’t work 

in the prison. So, I don’t have any expertise. I haven’t ever been 

a warden. Thank the Lord and I haven’t ever been an inmate. 

But I can tell you that, out of the people that we see in New 

York City, 77 percent are African-American, 70 percent haven’t 

graduated from high school, 88 percent have a long substantial history of substance abuse, and 78 percent have been formerly incarcerated. Now, those are the people that are coming through the 

front door of our intake homeless shelter. Seventy-eight percent 

have been formerly incarcerated. 

So, I am here to tell you that the hardest thing in the world to 

do, or the hardest thing for us to do, is to get a man a job after 

he has come out of prison. And you can’t do that for him when he 

is in prison. You have to do it when he gets out of prison in some 

manner, shape or form. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDONALD. But it is an economic opportunity for him to 

take responsibility for himself and work. And there are so many 

barriers that are created for this fellow to get on the right road 

that, you know, we welcome this Act. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that, Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. Cowley, you mentioned the ‘‘lock them up and throw away 

the key’’ philosophy. And many people continue to embrace that. At 

one time I embraced it. 

Mr. COWLEY. Sure. 

Mr. COBLE. But I was younger and less wise—not to say that I 

am wise now, but I am wiser now than I was then. Prison overcrowding plagues us. Recidivism plagues us. Those two issues have 

caused me to change my thinking about that. 

Mr. COWLEY. Good. 

Mr. COBLE. And I no longer embrace that theory. 

Now, in your testimony, Mr. Cowley, you mentioned the 34 percent vacancy rate. I am not sure what that means. 

Mr. COWLEY. No, I was talking about the employees. He had a 

34 percent vacancy rate in his employees. He was down 34 percent 

of his staff. 

Mr. COBLE. Oh. 

Mr. COWLEY. That is what I was referring to. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. I didn’t follow that. 

Mr. LoBuglio, my State, North Carolina, has embraced the reentry approach. But I am convinced that more can be done with 

Federal support in large part through funding. Which grants or 

Federal funds are used by your office? And what funding, is it your 

belief, is most needed to improve your services? 

Mr. LOBUGLIO. We don’t use Federal grants in the re-entry programs in Montgomery County. The Federal money that is out there 

82

for re-entry is the Serious and Violent Offender Re-Entry Initiative. 

And that funding has been directed to Baltimore programs. 

In terms of your latter question, how can the Federal money be 

used? It can aid those jurisdictions that do need assistance in spurring the development of re-entry programs. I think it can also be 

used to get collaborators to the table who aren’t there now. And 

those stakeholders include both social service agencies, the faithbased organizations, and law enforcement agencies who can gather 

around the table and talk about re-entry. 

I think the experience of the previous $100 million that was 

spent under the Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative is 

very helpful for us as we consider this legislation. That legislation 

has sponsored a number of very exciting collaboratives. 

And some of the findings now from the natonal evaluation being 

done by the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina and The 

Urban Institute are promising. They have conducted already over 

3,000 interviews with individuals while they are incarcerated and 

post-release. They are finding that most of those collaborations and 

most of those programs are continuing, even as the grant funds 

stop. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, as you and Mr. Forbes know, I am 

not one who advocates hurling Federal money at every problem 

that surfaces. But I think this is one situation where it is justified. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

And when we ‘‘throw money’’ at this situation, we end up saving 

more money, having money thrown back on us if we make those 

important investments. 

I thank you. 

Representative Forbes, do you have a final comment? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, once again, I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

But the Chairman raised some good points earlier when he 

talked about prison rape and some of the conditions in the prisons. 

And now only has Mr. Lungren worked hard on that, but so has 

Frank Wolf and several other Members. 

And one of the things Chairman Scott and I have talked about 

recently is we are not quite as optimistic, Mr. Cowley, as you are 

that we can change it overnight. But at least we can bump it in 

the right direction. 

So, we actually plan to make some trips around the country and 

visit our prisons and talk to some of the inmates and see what we 

can do to alleviate some of these situations. 

We won’t change the whole system. That is not going to happen. 

But we can make some big differences. So, we think that is going 

to happen. And we have agreed to do that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Members may have additional written questions for our witnesses. I would ask them to forward them to you. And if we can 

get responses as quickly as possible, we can make them part of the 

record. 

83

And, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

1 week for submission of additional materials. 

And, without objection, the Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

86


1-1.eps
87


1-2.eps
88

f


1-3.eps
89


2-1.eps
90

f


2-2.eps
91


3-1.eps
92


3-2.eps
93

f


3-3.eps
94


4-1.eps
95

f


4-2.eps
96


5-1.eps
97

Æ


5-2.eps