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

55–985 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–370 

THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE: REDUCING 

RECIDIVISM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 5, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

HANIBAL KEMERER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............. 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 86 

WITNESSES 

Bartle, Harvey, III, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 5 

Burris, Doug, Chief Probation Officer, U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri ............................................................ 9 

Cabral, Andrea J., Suffolk County Sheriff, Suffolk County, Massachusetts ...... 3 

Lobuglio, Stefan, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services Division, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, 

Rockville, Maryland ............................................................................................. 7 

Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ............................................ 12 

Solomon, Amy L., Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban 

Institute, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................ 10 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bartle, Harvey, III, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania, statement ................................................................................. 29 

Beaty, James A., Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District 

of North Carolina, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, letter .............................. 34 

Britt, W. Earl, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of North Carolina, Releigh, North Carolina, letter ........................................... 35 

Burris, Doug, Chief Probation Officer, U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri, statement ......................................... 36 

Cabral, Andrea J., Suffolk County Sheriff, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 41 

Cacheris, James C., Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of Viginia, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ............................................................... 53 

Campbell, Tena, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, letter and attachments ................................................... 54 

Fitzwater, Sidney A., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, letter ............................................................................................. 77 

Goodwill Industries of Monocacy Valley, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, statement 78 

Holderman, James F., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois, letter ...................................................................................... 84 

Kane, Yvette, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, letter ............................................... 85 

Leary, Mary Lou, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 87 

Legg, Benson Everett, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of 

Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, letter .............................................................. 95 

Lisi, Mary M., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode 

Island, Providence, Rhode Island, letter ............................................................ 97 

Page

IV 

Lobuglio, Stefan, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services Division, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, 

Rockville, Maryland, statement .......................................................................... 99 

Manley, Stephen, Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 109 

Mordue, Norman A., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York, letter .................................................. 120 

Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., statement ......................... 121 

Rosen, Gerald E., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, letter and attachment .................................... 133 

Scirica, Anthony J., Chairman Executive Committee, Judicial Conference of 

the U.S., Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................. 176 

Solomon, Amy L., Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban 

Institute, Washington, D.C., statement ............................................................. 179 

Walker, Vaughn R., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

of California, San Francisco, California, letter .................................................. 186 

Woodcock, John A., Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District 

of Maine, Bangor, Maine, letter .......................................................................... 188 

(1) 

THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE: REDUCING 

RECIDIVISM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009 

U.S. SENATE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Specter, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. I have been informed by Senator Graham’s staff 

that we can get started. Senator Graham will be joining us, the 

Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee. 

First, let me thank Senator Specter, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee, for allowing me to chair today’s hearing. This is a subject of great interest not only to me, but I think to all the members 

of the United States, and that is, the ‘‘First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local Level.’’ 

When one looks at the incarceration rates in the United States, 

there is reason for concern. Our incarceration rates are five times 

the international average, andwe are the United States of America. 

In the Federal and state prisons between 1980 and 2001, there was 

a 240-percent increase in the prison population. We now have 

somewhere around 2.3 million people, Americans, behind bars, 95 

percent of whom will ultimately return to our community. And twothirds of those who return to our community will be rearrested 

within 3 years. 

Now, if our principal objective is to improve public safety, we are 

not doing a very good job. We are incarcerating people over and 

over again who are committing criminal offenses, jeopardizing the 

safety of the people in our community. 

As we look at the reentry programs and services as a way to deal 

with these numbers and to make our communities safer, in a figurative sense, we have a captured audience when they are in our 

prison systems. They have our attention. They cannot go anywhere. 

We have the ability to provide services, whether that be education 

or counseling, in order to try to make reentry successful. And this 

is particularly true in our local jails, and I say that because one 

of the real challenges in reentry is to be able to deal with the community in which the person is going to be returning. Our local jails 

2 

are much more likely to be the venue that people who are released 

from prison will end up in that community. So it is a particularly 

opportune place to have a reentry program based at local facilities 

in order to deal with the realities that the people will be returning 

to that community. If you are operating a Federal prison, the person is released and goes to another State, yes, you can do some reentry there, but you need to work with the local community. 

So local jails to me provide a real opportunity for dealing with 

successful reentry. The current census indicates that there are 

about 12 million admissions and releases per year in our local jails. 

That is 34,000 a day. 

Now, I have had a chance to visit the Montgomery County reentry program this past week, and, Chief, thank you for your hospitality. It was a real opportunity for me to see firsthand a program that works in the local community, but in coordination with 

the State and Federal facilities in order to deal with people who 

are going to reenter into Montgomery County, Maryland. I have 

also been to Frederick City in the State of Maryland and looked at 

their reentry program, which is a lot smaller and is somewhat 

more limited because of resources. But both in Montgomery County 

and in Frederick, they have successful reentry programs. Their 

numbers are much, much better than the national average, and I 

know we will be hearing more examples of that today as we look 

at ways of improving reentry services. 

We have real challenges. We have challenges because 60 percent 

of the people that are in our prisons lack a high school diploma. 

Well, if you are going to try to get a job today and you do not have 

a high school diploma, you are limited. If you have been convicted 

of a crime, you have a limit as to being able to find a job. But if 

you do not have education, it makes it much more difficult. So we 

need to deal with the realities of education. 

The vulnerability on health, in the target groups that are in our 

prisons, two-thirds have some form of substance abuse. Well, you 

need to deal with that. Once again, how is the person going to be 

a reliable employee and successfully reenter society if they have a 

substance abuse issue that is not under treatment. 

Housing is a significant problem. I remember talking to my 

friends in Frederick about the stigma of someone coming out of 

prison to try to find a home in a community. The resources in order 

to be able to afford housing are limited. It made it very, very complicated. 

The location of facilities, it was interesting. The Montgomery 

County facility is located in a very interesting area, a very fine 

area in Montgomery County. It was there before the area was developed. Now when you try to put a reentry program in a community, it is a very difficult challenge politically to locate these facilities, and it all comes down to resources. Are we going to invest the 

resources to make reentry work? There are a lot of competing 

needs out there for budgets, and I would be very interested to see 

what progress we are making in getting the necessary resources 

out to our community in order to have a chance for these programs 

to be successful. 

It is for that reason I am very pleased that we have the real experts who are before us who have devoted their lives to dealing 

3 

with reentry issues and dealing with trying to help our community 

through public safety through the programs that each of you have 

been responsible for. And I welcome you to the Committee. 

Let me introduce our panel, and then we will start in with the 

hearing, and let me say from the beginning that your statements 

all will be made part of the record. You will be able to proceed as 

you would like, and at the conclusion of the last person on the 

panel, we will open it up for some questions and discussion. 

We are joined by Andrea Cabral who is the sheriff of the Suffolk 

County Sheriff’s Department in Boston, Massachusetts; Hon. Harvey Bartle III, the Chief Judge, United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Stefan LoBuglio, who is Chief of 

the Pre-Release and Reentry Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, from Rockville, 

Maryland; Doug Burris, the Chief Probation Officer, United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; Amy Solomon, 

the Senior Research Associate from the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.; and David Muhlhausen, the Senior Policy Analyst 

from the Heritage Foundation, a frequent witness before our Committee from Washington, D.C. 

Sheriff Cabral, we will start with you. Turn your microphone on, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREA J. CABRAL, SUFFOLK COUNTY 

SHERIFF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 

Sheriff CABRAL. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Turn your microphone on, please. 

Sheriff CABRAL. I am sorry. I did not realize it was off. Thank 

you. 

In Massachusetts, there are two types of correctional facilities for 

adults: prisons and houses of correction. Prisons are run by the 

State Department of Correction and hold offenders convicted and 

sentenced in the Commonwealth’s superior courts for very serious 

felonies, like rape, murder, drug trafficking, armed robbery, et 

cetera. There are 20 State prison facilities in Massachusetts and 13 

county-based houses of correction. These facilities hold offenders 

who have been convicted and sentenced in the district courts for 

mid-level misdemeanors and certain felonies for which the district 

courts’ jurisdiction is conferred by statute. 

Unlike State prisons, which can hold offenders for any period of 

years, up to and including life, sentences to the house of correction 

cannot exceed 21⁄2 years for conviction on any single count of a 

criminal complaint. Offenders sentenced to the house of correction 

are eligible for parole upon completion of half their sentence, and 

80 percent of the State’s criminal business is resolved in the district courts. Thus, roughly 80 percent of incarcerated offenders are 

held in these houses of correction at the county level. 

In Massachusetts, the county sheriffs lead the way on reentry 

programs. Of the 14 sheriffs in the Commonwealth, 13 operate 

county jails and houses of correction. As public officials elected 

county-wide every 6 years, the sheriffs are most knowledgeable 

about and most closely tied in to their communities. In addition to 

providing mutual aid to State and local law enforcement, the sherVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Apr 26, 2010 Jkt 055985 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55985.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

iffs also create the kinds of partnerships outside of law enforcement 

that result in strong, effective reentry programs. 

The potential impact of these reentry programs on the Commonwealth’s cities and towns is clear. Collectively, the sheriffs hold in 

excess of 70,000 inmates and pre-trial detainees in their facilities 

in Massachusetts. Every year, more than 65,000 are released from 

county jails and houses of correction through bail, case resolution, 

parole, or release upon completion of sentence. By contrast, the 

State Department of Correction releases just over 3,000 inmates 

from Massachusetts State prisons annually. 

State prisons release offenders from facilities located in every 

corner of the State. Some make their way back to their communities, and some do not. By contrast, the majority of offenders held 

at county houses of correction hail from neighboring cities and 

towns and return immediately to those communities. In Suffolk 

County, for example, the house of correction holds approximately 

1,500 inmates, 95 percent of whom live within 5 miles of the facility. The decisions they make within the first 48 hours after release 

will largely determine whether, if at all, they return to custody 

within 6 months to a year. The goal of reentry programs is to provide support, skills, resources, and more opportunities to make 

positive choices. 

As you indicated, Senator Cardin, many inmates, especially those 

who present with persistent drug and alcohol addictions and those 

that have extensive involvement with the criminal justice system, 

live on life’s margins. They have little or no job history, no stable 

housing, are grossly undereducated. We approximate that about 50 

percent of our inmates are high school dropouts. They have suspended or revoked driver’s licenses and no form of State-issued 

identification. This is also a persistently ‘‘sick’’ population, presenting with a number of chronic diseases like high blood pressure, 

diabetes, asthma, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, 

and hepatitis. There is also a high incidence, as you mentioned, of 

mental illness in this population. In the Commonwealth, the sheriffs estimate that approximately 42 percent of their populations 

present with some form of mental illness; 26 percent of that 42 percent present with a major mental illness. 

We have, in fact, become the de facto mental health institutions, 

principal providers for drug detox and substance abuse treatment, 

and we often function as the primary care medical providers for 

those incarcerated at the county level. 

Good reentry programs have three components: a comprehensive 

assessment tool; evidence-based employment and life-skill-building 

programs that use community providers and resources; and case 

management and discharge planning. I have attached to my written testimony a detailed description of the four reentry programs 

we have for both men and women in Suffolk County as well as the 

results and the impact on recidivism that we get from those programs. 

In short, Senator, unless there is national leadership on reentry 

that includes support and funding for initiatives that involve collaboration between law enforcement and community service providers, tax incentives and other incentives for employers to hire exoffenders, and sweeping changes to Federal and State drug laws, 

5 

our recidivism rates will stay at more than 50 percent, and we will 

continue to spend more than $49 billion a year on incarceration. 

Thank you for hearing me. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Cabral appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Judge Bartle. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE III, CHIEF 

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Judge BARTLE. Senator Cardin, thank you for the opportunity 

you have given me to be here today. 

The purpose of the reentry program of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is to help those who 

have completed their prison sentences to reenter society as productive and law-abiding citizens and in this way to reduce recidivism 

and enhance public safety in the community we serve. 

As you know, all convicted felons in the Federal system must 

serve a term of supervised release, usually 3 to 5 years, once they 

are released from prison. During that time these offenders are 

under the supervision of a Federal probation officer. As Federal 

judges, my colleagues and I must deal on a regular basis with 

those who violate the terms of their supervised release. If the violation is also a crime, as is often the case, the court is likely to revoke the supervised release and send the individual back to prison 

with, of course, additional cost to the taxpayer. Then there are 

those who have completed their supervised release, are later convicted of new Federal crimes, and again are incarcerated. Consequently, our court decided that it was time to look for innovative 

ways for us to try to cope more effectively with this recurring problem of recidivism. 

The court, after full consideration, voted unanimously in the fall 

of 2007 to institute our reentry program now in place. Since then, 

the program has achieved an unprecedented and ongoing level of 

cooperation within the criminal justice system. This program has 

intensive court involvement. We are fortunate to have two superb 

magistrate judges to oversee and participate in the program in a 

hands-on manner. 

The candidates for the program are Philadelphia residents on supervised release who usually score 5, 6, or 7—on a scale of 0 to 9— 

that is, medium to high risk, on Federal Probation’s Risk Prediction Index for future crimes. Initially, the probation officers will 

screen the candidates and recommend those suitable for participation, with input from the United States Attorney’s Office and the 

Federal defender. No candidate, however, is placed in the program 

unless he or she is willing to participate. The program typically 

lasts 1 year with intensive efforts to provide a candidate with 

training and employment, if necessary, and to offer guidance and 

assistance with other aspects of life in which the individual needs 

help. 

To aid the candidates, the program has developed partnerships 

with the local bar association, universities, law schools, and career 

6 

training and placement centers. There is a probation officer specifically designated to the program, as well as an Assistant United 

States Attorney and an assistant public defender. 

For any who do not comply with the strictures of the program, 

the magistrate judge may deprive a candidate of credit for a certain 

period of time in the program and also impose a curfew, halfway 

house confinement, up to 7 days’ imprisonment, or drug treatment. 

If a serious infraction occurs, the individual can be evicted from the 

program and referred to the sentencing judge for further action. 

The only incentive that is offered, in addition to the intensive assistance given to each ex-offender, is a reduction of year in the 

term of supervised release if the program is completed successfully 

and the judge who sentenced the individual agrees to the reduction. 

The magistrate judge holds sessions of the reentry court twice a 

month at which time all current participants in the program appear as a group. Beforehand, the magistrate judge has met privately with the probation officer, an Assistant United States Attorney, and a public defender to review the progress in each case. At 

the court session, each participant approaches the lectern and has 

a conversation with the magistrate judge. Family members and 

friends are encouraged to attend, and each session, of course, is 

open to the public. At the court session the magistrate judge listens, encourages, offers advice, and, if necessary, imposes certain 

sanctions. Finally, there is always the all-important ‘‘graduation’’ 

event in the courthouse for those completing the course. Usually, 

the sentencing judge attends and at that time formally signs the 

order reducing the term of supervised release. On one occasion, 

Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia spoke. Family members and 

friends are always in attendance. It is a very uplifting experience 

for all concerned, as I can attest from having participated in several graduations. 

Since its inception, our reentry program has been a great success. As of July 2009, 76 former offenders have either graduated 

or are currently participating in the program. Only 12 or 16 percent have had their supervised release revoked based on new criminal activity or other violations. The revocation rate is well below 

the 47.4-percent rate for the period 2003 to 2008 for the same category of high-risk ex-offenders. 

The program also saves significant taxpayer dollars. In 2008, it 

was estimated that the annual cost of incarcerating a person in the 

Federal prison system was $25,000, roughly, and $3,700 for each 

year of supervised release. This program in our district has saved 

the government, we estimate, over $380,000. Finally, we have enlisted Temple University to study the long-term success rate of the 

program. 

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania strongly endorses its reentry program and highly recommends it to our sister Federal and 

State courts. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Bartle appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Judge, thank you for your testimony. Impressive results. 

Chief LoBuglio. 

7 

STATEMENT OF STEFAN LOBUGLIO, CHIEF, PRE-RELEASE 

AND REENTRY DIVISION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for my being able 

to offer testimony. My name is Stefan LoBuglio, and I am Chief of 

Pre-Release and Reentry Services for the Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation in Maryland. In my position, I oversee a work-release program that transitions prisoners 

back into the community. Today our program is supervising 175 

male and female prisoners who are all within 1 year of release and 

who will complete their sentences in our community-based program. 

Our population includes today 26 prisoners from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 5 prisoners from the Maryland State Division of 

Corrections, and 144 prisoners from the local jails in Montgomery 

County. These individuals have committed crimes ranging from 

misdemeanant petty offenses like theft and traffic offenses to Part 

I felony offenses for rape and homicide. They may be serving sentences ranging from 30 days to 30 years. They are all within 1 year 

of release. A conviction for escape is the only offense that would 

disqualify a person from consideration for our program. 

We strongly believe in Montgomery County—and this is supported by research—that if prisoners are returning back to our 

area, we enhance public safety by transitioning them through a 

community-based program regardless of the offense types and 

whether they are returning from the Federal, State, or local correctional systems. 

The pre-release program requires offenders to follow a customized reentry plan of work, education, treatment, and family engagement. They pay program fees, taxes, child support, and restitution. Most reside in the 177-bed community correctional facility 

that is located 15 miles from this hearing room in Rockville, Maryland. 

For almost 40 years, the program has served to keep our jail 

undercrowded by managing 16,000 clients in our center. In concert 

with the other operational divisions of Montgomery County, the 

program serves as a vital component of our county’s investment 

strategy to effectively and judiciously use community-based programs and jail beds to maximize public safety and to minimize social and economic costs. We are part of the first line of defense that 

is the subject of today’s hearing. 

Our program is one of many successful models of prisoner reentry that exist across the county, and our field has seen an explosion of interest. However, with all of the accumulated knowledge 

of and interest in what works in prisoner reentry, there is a question of why hasn’t reentry penetrated the core of correctional practice. Perhaps some delay is to be expected because of the change 

of complex correctional operations that have grown so large in recent decades. A second and less examined reason, though, concerns 

the lack of incentives for correctional programs to fully embrace a 

commitment to reentry and to take responsibility for reducing recidivism rates. Providing care, custody, and control in our jails and 

prisons is challenging to be sure, but fully within the scope and 

8 

ability of correctional professionals. By definition, reentry extends 

the focus of corrections into the community and beyond the safe 

confines of the prison walls, which makes it feel risky to many correctional practitioners. Adapting this new orientation is inhibited 

by the fact that the results are not easily measured, understood, 

or controlled. 

In my written testimony, I suggest two critical roles that the 

Federal Government can and should play to expedite the development and adoption of robust reentry strategies in our correctional 

systems. The first involves providing States and local jurisdictions 

with incentives to develop an infrastructure of One-Stop Reentry 

Residential Centers, like our Montgomery County Pre-Release Center that you saw on Monday, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The centers are needed because prisoners return 

from all three correctional systems at different frequencies and 

times. But inmates from all three systems present similar public 

safety risks and have similar transitional requirements. Within a 

community, the centers would serve as the nexus for social services 

and for public safety monitoring. 

Federal incentives can change the landscape of corrections. In 

1994, the truth-in-sentencing legislation tied Federal subsidies for 

construction of prisons to sentencing reforms and helped spur a 

boom in prison construction. Under this proposal, the Federal Government could use the same strategy by offering incentives to build 

and coordinate the operations of one-stop reentry residential centers. 

The second role involves developing robust data systems and analytical capabilities that would allow jurisdictions at all levels to 

measure key reentry performance measures in real time and to readjust resources and policies as needed. The COMPSTAT model of 

informational analysis and resource deployment that transformed 

the New York City Police Department in the 1990’s and that has 

fueled the growth of community policing nationwide provides the 

example of what is needed to spur development of reentry strategies. Unfortunately, the myopic focus on recidivism rates as the 

single measure of success of reentry programs often obscures other 

key measures of community well-being and public safety. Also, recidivism proves surprisingly difficult to measure and interpret. For 

a recent study in Montgomery County, we encountered significant 

challenges in measuring our own recidivism outcomes. The sheer 

effort it took and the accompanying time until results are known 

mean that this type of research will be done sporadically, not routinely, and it is the routine rapid feedback loop that is a cornerstone of the COMPSTAT and related innovations that have improved law enforcement performance in other areas and which 

could do the same for reentry. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief LoBuglio appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Chief LoBuglio, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Burris. 

9 

STATEMENT OF DOUG BURRIS, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Mr. BURRIS. Thank you. I first must start off by expressing my 

sincere gratitude for allowing me to testify today. It truly is an 

honor. I am here representing the Eastern District of Missouri, 

where I serve as the Chief U.S. Probation Officer. I have held this 

position for over 9 years and believe that I have the best job on the 

planet. I wake up without an alarm clock at 5 o’clock every morning and cannot wait to get to work. 

With well nearly 2,400 people on our caseload, my district ranks 

th in size of the 94 districts that make up the Federal system. In 

spite of ranking 18th overall, we rank in the top ten in the number 

of people on supervision for firearms, methamphetamine, and crack 

cocaine convictions. Specific to firearms cases, we rank seventh. 

More people are on supervision for a Federal firearms conviction in 

St. Louis than are on supervision for the same crime in Chicago, 

Los Angeles, or New York City. As to drug cases, Eastern Missouri 

ranks sixth in size for crack cases. In fact, early in 2008 our district hosted one of two Federal crack summits, where people from 

throughout the Nation convened to prepare for the retroactive 

change that took place with the crack laws in March of 2008. I 

hope to discuss these cases in detail later. 

Having shared this information, it is probably no surprise that 

the Eastern District of Missouri has one of the most at-risk caseloads in the system. We also have one of the top ten revocation 

rates. Last year, 2008, our risk prediction average was second in 

the Nation of the 94 districts. 

We decided to try to take a look at reducing recidivism, and a 

wave of change took place in our district when we began collaborating with various community partners and doing what we could 

in eliminating barriers to success. The first area that we concentrated on was employment. 

To share the importance of employment on recidivism, all one 

has to do is examine the impact of having a job at the time of a 

case closing. Federal statistics show that individuals who have the 

highest risk and are unemployed at the time supervision starts and 

ends have a revocation rate of 78 percent. However, the same individuals with the highest risk levels who start and end supervision 

unemployed had a revocation rate of only 23 percent. 

We started our ex-offender employment program, and our unemployment rate in the community at the time was 3.6 percent. Our 

caseload unemployment rate at that time was 12.1 percent. Aiming 

to lower the caseload rate, we received training from the National 

Institute of Corrections on an Offender Workforce Development 

curriculum. This set the foundation for our program. We began 

seeking employers who offered a living wage and health benefits, 

not minimum wage and part-time fast-food positions. At the beginning, we had a lot of doors slammed in our face. However, with the 

help of various incentives and promises to employers that we would 

do all we could to eliminate barriers, we began having some success. Nothing breeds success like success, and we eventually 

achieved something that I never dreamed possible. Local governments and law enforcement groups began endorsing ex-offender 

10 

employment as a crime reduction strategy. Additionally, nearly 5 

years ago, our caseload—once again one of the most at-risk caseloads in the entire system—experienced an unemployment rate less 

than that of the community. For the last 47 months now, our caseload unemployment rate has been less than the community unemployment rate. When a snapshot was taken last month, our caseload unemployment rate was 4.3 percent, while the general population unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. 

As mentioned previously, our revocation rates have decreased as 

well. While we had a risk prediction average that ranked second 

nationally, our revocations did not rank the same. In fact, our revocations ranked 53rd instead of second. The number of people 

under our supervision has more than doubled since 2000, yet we 

file less violation reports now than we did 9 years ago. 

Earlier in my testimony, I mentioned wanting to further discuss 

the subject of those released from prison because of a crack reduction. Thus far, nearly 200 people have returned home to Eastern 

Missouri because of this change in law in my district, again ranking in the top ten nationally. More than half of those who benefited 

from this retroactive change have been home more than a year. In 

total, only six of those released to Eastern Missouri by way of a 

crack reduction have failed supervision and returned to prison. 

Thus far this is a failure rate of only 3.2 percent. 

Every day I get to go to work with an outstanding group of 

judges, probation staff, and community partners who create stories 

that would just amaze you. I truly do have the best job on the planet. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burris appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Burris, those are certainly very impressive numbers. It is a pleasure to have you here. 

Ms. Solomon. 

STATEMENT OF AMY L. SOLOMON, SENIOR RESEARCH 

ASSOCIATE, URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. SOLOMON. Thank you. Senator Cardin, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. 

For the past years, we have focused on the more than 700,000 

prisoners returning home each year from State and Federal prisons. Only recently have the 12 to 13 million releases from local 

jails gained attention. 

The traditional approach to incarceration is to keep inmates 

locked up away from society to keep us safe. With little treatment 

and transition planning, most are released with the same problems 

that they were locked up with. 

To be clear, business as usual does not produce the results we 

want. Since almost everyone in jail will eventually return home, 

the big question is how do we imprison and release people in a way 

that makes them less likely to reoffend and more likely to work, 

support their families, pay taxes, and be productive members of society? 

It is not easy. Jail stays are brief. Less than 20 percent of inmates stay less than a month. Many are jailed only a few hours 

11 

or days. This is not a lot of time for services and release planning. 

Also, jails house a variety of populations, most of whom have not 

been convicted of a crime. This means jails cannot easily predict 

when many people will be let out, which adds another complication. 

But the need for treatment in jails is acute. 

As you mentioned, many who cycle in and out of jail face multiple problems like substance abuse and mental illness, and they 

would benefit from interventions that begin in jail and continue in 

the community. Yet most jails do not have the time or capacity to 

help people overcome these serious deficits. 

Also, unlike prisoners who are typically released to supervision, 

most jail inmates are simply let out on their own. No single person 

or organization is responsible or held accountable for reentry assistance or oversight. 

There are also unique opportunities alongside these challenges. 

Short jail stays mean that people are not disconnected for long 

from their families, jobs, and churches, and because jails are locally 

sited, they can facilitate in-reach with nearby service providers. 

These agencies, such as health and human service organizations, 

are likely already working with the very people who cycle in and 

out of jail. Not only are most repeat offenders using jail space over 

and over again, but they are also repeatedly using human services. 

Over the past 4 years, the Department of Justice has made strategic investments to assist the field. In 2006, the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance funded a local jail reentry roundtable. More recently, 

the Urban Institute has been working with the National Institute 

of Corrections to develop a transition from jail to community model, 

TJC, that can be adopted in jurisdictions large and small, urban 

and rural. TJC is not a program but a systems change approach, 

a way for jails and communities to work effectively together on a 

day-to-day-basis. 

So what does effective transition involve? Screening and assessment to quickly flag high-risk individuals; a transition plan to identify what people need most and how they will get it; and targeted 

interventions like drug treatment and job training that begin in jail 

and continue after release. The goal is to match the right treatment and requirements to the right individuals, focusing scarce resources on the interventions that are most effective and on the people who need them most. 

We are evaluating the TJC pilot sites so we can help guide jurisdictions toward success and document it when it occurs. In both 

TJC and the new Second Chance sites, we hope to see lower recidivism rates, higher employment, better health, and less drug abuse. 

The progress is real, but it is too soon to declare victory. While 

dozens of jurisdictions are working on reentry, there are more than 

3,000 jails across the United States Through hearings like this one 

and by passing bipartisan legislation like the Second Chance Act, 

Congress signals to communities around the country that new directions are in order. 

Of course, funding through grants makes a difference, too. It fosters collaboration, seeds innovation, and funds real services. Congressional attention and funding signal to cities, counties, and 

States that a proactive approach to reentry is the way of the future—and they should not wait or they will be left behind. 

12 

At the same time, we have much to learn about what works, so 

funding should also be used to rigorously evaluate new reentry efforts. It is critical that we figure out what approaches are most effective so that lessons learned can benefit the broader field. 

The work ahead is complex and implementation is difficult. But 

I am optimistic that well-implemented, research-informed reentry 

efforts will lead to safer, healthier communities for all Americans. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Solomon appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. Solomon, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Muhlhausen. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MUHLHAUSEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. 

I am a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Benjamin Cardin, Ranking 

Member Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the Committee for the 

opportunity to testify today on prisoner reentry issues. The views 

I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

Congress’s desire to weigh in on the recidivism rates of former 

prisoners is easy to understand. In 2007 alone, over 725,000 prisoners were released back into society. 

While opponents of incarceration often argue that too many offenders are incarcerated in prison and that prisons are a burden 

on State budgets, they rarely recognize two important detail: First, 

as a percentage of State and local expenditures, the cost of corrections is not a burden on State budgets. In fiscal year 2007, corrections accounted for 3.4 percent of total State expenditures. Second, 

increased incarceration rates have reduced crime. Several studies 

have demonstrated a link between increased incarceration and decreases in crime rates. 

To address the issue of offender recidivism, the Federal Government should limit itself to handling tasks that fall under its constitutional powers and that State and local governments cannot 

perform by themselves. First, the Federal Government should operate evidence-based reentry programs for offenders formally incarcerated in the Federal correctional system. By evidence-based programs, I mean programs that have undergone rigorous scientific 

evaluations and found to be effective. Second, the Federal Government should not assume responsibility for funding the routine operations of State and local reentry programs. Providing basic services 

through Federal agencies that States themselves could provide for 

State and local prisoners is a misuse of Federal resources and a 

distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the Federal 

Government. 

Unfortunately, most reentry programs have not undergone scientifically rigorous evaluations. Despite the need for more rigorous 

evaluations, two recently published evaluations shed some light on 

the potential of these programs. 

13 

An experimental evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities Prisoner Reentry Program found that placing recently 

released prisoners immediately into transitional taxpayer-subsidized jobs had underwhelming results. After 2 years, the transitional job program failed to yield lower arrest rates. However, the 

intervention did have a lower effect on conviction rates. While this 

difference appears to be driven largely by the fact that participants 

were less likely to be convicted of misdemeanors, disappointingly, 

the program appears to have had no impact on felony convictions. 

I will add, though, the program did lower the conviction rate of 

participants. 

However, there is another program that may have more potential 

of reducing recidivism. The Boston Reentry Initiative used mentoring, social service assistance, vocational training, and education 

to help offenders reintegrate into society. A quasi-experimental 

evaluation of the program that used a strong research designed 

found that participants experienced a reductions of 30 percent for 

arrest rates, including violent arrests. 

What is astounding about this effect is that rather than selecting 

participants most amenable to rehabilitation, officials selected what 

they considered to be the highest-risk offenders for their participation in the program. 

While this evaluation found positive results, this program and 

others found to be effective need to be replicated and rigorously 

evaluated in other settings before policymakers and academics can 

conclude that these interventions are effective. Too often, criminal 

justice programs that have been deemed ‘‘effective’’ and labeled as 

‘‘model’’ programs have often been implemented under optimal conditions. When evaluated under real-world conditions and circumstances, these programs often fail to produce the same results. 

All levels of Government need to operate reentry programs for 

former prisoners under their respective jurisdictions. However, the 

Federal Government should not assume responsibility for funding 

the routine operations of State and local reentry programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank all six of you for your testimony. I found this extremely helpful and very interesting. 

Sheriff Cabral, let me start with you, if I might, because you said 

something that really stuck with me, and that is that basically the 

fate of a person who reenters will be largely determined in the first 

48 hours, that if you do not successfully reenter within 48 hours, 

then the vulnerabilities are too great. 

Now, I am going to ask, does that depend upon whether the person has a job or the person has a place to go as far as housing, 

whether the person has a family to go back to, whether the person 

is healthy enough to make it outside of the institution, all of the 

above? Or what are the indicators on those first 48 hours? 

Sheriff CABRAL. All of those things have an impact. If you have 

comprehensive reentry programs-in addition to the Boston Reentry 

Initiative that was referenced by the gentleman to my left, we have 

three other programs for men and women—and they are all gauged 

toward different levels of offenders. What you might put in place 

14 

for a low-risk non-violent offender is not the same for what we call 

a high-impact player, someone who has an extensive criminal history, violates the law repeatedly, frequently uses a weapon. Those 

are the people that would be in the Boston Reentry Initiative. And 

you tailor your program based on the needs of the individual. You 

are constantly doing a ‘‘risk to the public versus needs’’ analysis. 

In some people’s cases, what they need, they have stable or relatively stable family life, but they need to reenter the job market 

or start in the job market. Some need housing. Some need both. 

What we have also found, our programming for women is gender 

specific. In order for reentry programs to be effective for women, 

they need to be gender specific. Women have very different needs 

and very different reactions and responses to inmate programming, 

and you have to build in a lot of things around self-esteem and 

trauma. I think the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that over 70 

percent of women who are incarcerated have experienced domestic 

violence or sexual assault before the age of 17 or by the age of 17. 

Trauma plays a huge role in criminal behavior. And it is not an 

excuse, being victimized oneself is not an excuse for victimizing, 

but we continue to ignore the fundamental causes of criminal behavior at our peril, so that by the time you get to the back end— 

and I would disagree with the gentleman to my left. I think that 

there is an enormous burden on State budgets for incarceration 

and an additional burden with regard to reentry programs. Many 

of us who are doing them are doing them with money that we are 

taking out of our own budgets because we see it as so necessary 

to having a positive public safety impact on our communities. 

But you really need to have comprehensive services in pre-release so that people will make those good choices within the first 

48 hours. Their options within the environments to which they return are limited, and all the negative influences are right there in 

those environments. They are the same places that the criminal behavior sprang from. So what we try to do is give people alternatives and opportunities and reasons to hope that their lives will 

be better and that they will be better parents, that they will be 

productive members of society. And if they make good choices within the first 48 hours and a little bit beyond, then they are at least 

on the road to continuing to make them and have an impact on reducing our recidivism rates. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Burris, as I commented earlier, your numbers are really very impressive, and I see your enthusiasm is paying off for the people that you supervise. 

Mr. BURRIS. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. And congratulations for your service. It is just 

incredible numbers. But you also are showing something that I 

think we all understand, and that is, if a person has an employment opportunity, their chances of successful reentry are much 

greater than if they do not have an employment opportunity. If 

they come to the penal system with skills and jobs, they are much 

more likely to return successfully to the public. Whereas, if they do 

not,the challenges are much greater. 

Mr. BURRIS. That is absolutely correct. In fact, the Bureau of 

Prisons has run some studies on recidivism, and the RDAP program, the 500-hour drug treatment program that so many people 

15 

get to use—which is a fantastic program—shows a 16-percent reduction in recidivism. The vocational training programs within the 

Bureau of Prisons show a 33-percent reduction in recidivism. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, you know, these are numbers—I think 

this is what Mr. Muhlhausen and Chief LoBuglio both are agreeing 

on, and that is, we need better statistical information to evaluate 

what works and what does not work. I found agreement between 

both of your testimonies on that point. 

Chief, it seems to me that there has not been enough of this evidence-based review or oversight in order to really understand best 

practices, in order to establish national models from what is being 

done in our local jails. Is that a fair statement? 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Sure. It is just very difficult right now to use 

Federal data, State data, local data, court data, corrections data to 

do an overall analysis of recidivism. Ann Peale, who is a professor 

at Rutgers University, made a comment at the recent national conference on sentencing guidelines where she said that doing recidivism analyses in 2009 is as difficult as it was 20 years ago, despite 

the fact that information technology has transformed other aspects 

of our lives. 

So as correctional managers, we have difficulty right now getting 

our hands on this data and using this data in real time. I am interested as much in recidivism for the statistic as for understanding 

what belies it. What is the flow of individuals, of offenders within 

our correctional system? Is it in a given month or year I am seeing 

high numbers of recidivism because of changes in probation or parole practices or police practices? That would be helpful for me to 

know. It would be helpful for me to be able to engage probation and 

parole and police, and it might be that it is very reasonable and 

not necessarily a bad thing. 

So I think there is an appropriate Federal role to get our informational systems up to snuff, and in my written testimony, I said 

one of the most sort of discouraging aspects is that when we looked 

at the FBI NCIC data, which is the repository for our most serious 

crimes, that was not a complete record in comparison with the 

Maryland State arrest records, and neither was complete. Both 

needed to be accessed. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just ask you, the other recommendation 

you made is for Federal incentives to set up one-stop shops. The 

facility you operate is a residential facility that deals with inmates 

that are ready to be released within a short period of time, months 

to a year before they are released. Many come from the local jail. 

Some come from State and some come from Federal under arrangements, and all are basically being released into Montgomery County, Maryland. 

My question to you is—I do not know if you know this or not, 

but how many of these facilities do we have in Maryland? How 

many of these facilities are nationwide where we truly have onestop shop pre-release or reentry areas that are available, that could 

provide somewhat comprehensive services in a residential capacity 

before an inmate is released? How many of these exist? 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Very few. The pre-release center, which was 

built in 1978, was meant to be a model for Maryland, and in the 

16 

statutory legislation there was an expectation that they would be 

replicated in all the other counties. It has not happened. 

Now, there are halfway houses that are used in jurisdictions. 

Typically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is using many of those 

beds. 

What we find and what I describe in my paper is that we have 

this unusual situation where in some jurisdictions we will have the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons using halfway house beds, but the State 

and the local jurisdictions are not using any type of pre-release residential center. 

You know, the recommendation of creating these one-stop reentry residential centers is really to respond to the fact that the 

Federal Government has a significant interest in having well-structured, strong programs that are strong on services and strong on 

accountability placed throughout the country. 

There are jurisdictions where the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

which has done a good job in placing individuals in our type of programs, they do not have any beds available. And Northern Virginia 

is an example. I was speaking to Doug Burris. He was mentioning 

in Oklahoma, in one of the cities, there is no infrastructure right 

now. 

It is no surprise over the last 30 years we have built prisons, but 

our infrastructure of the residential centers is sort of dilapidated. 

It is aging. Many of them are owned by nonprofits that do not have 

the capital to invest, to meet higher building codes and higher correctional standards. 

Also, many halfway houses have not met the standards of what 

I think our program meets of strong accountability and strong services. They are not completely coupled with the mission of the correctional agency. 

I have not found more than a dozen to 20 programs like ours in 

the country where the staffing is sufficient, the funding is sufficient 

to really do both the public safety piece and the service piece well. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, that is a shocking number, because you 

are a county facility, you are not even a State—I mean, you represent a relatively small part of the entire State of Maryland, so 

it is—we could use in Maryland alone perhaps as many as if each 

county had a similar facility. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Right. Those smaller counties could—— 

Senator CARDIN. But at least that would save maybe—six to ten 

probably would be the adequate number for Maryland if we were 

to provide comprehensive—— 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Right. 

Senator CARDIN. You have got to be close to where the person is 

being released. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. That is right. And local jurisdictions face the 

challenge right now that the Federal inmates, they are coming out. 

They may serveyears in prison, but they are coming out at some 

point. The State inmates that are serving a little bit less time, they 

are coming out at some point. And the jails, they are coming out 

more quickly. 

There needs to be that first line of defense, and I think that onestop reentry residential center is that place where we can stabilize 

them. 

17 

In my testimony, I provide some results of our first recidivism 

analysis, and, you know, there is a chart in there—it is Figure 3— 

that actually sort of demonstrates the question that you were asking a few minutes ago about the high risk of recidivism right near 

the time of release. And what we find—and it is graphically presented—is that the risk actually increases after release, and then 

it dramatically decreases. 

So our challenge from a policy standpoint is to get individuals 

stabilized in the community, and that is going to involve the housing and the employment, the mental health, the substance abuse. 

No better place to do that in a one-stop reentry residential center 

like the one that you saw on Monday. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just agree with you. I think perhaps you and I have discussed the need for better statistical information. The Department 

of Justice in the Bureau of Justice Statistics has worked hard over 

the years and produces large amounts of information. But I am not 

sure—it is of a general nature sometimes and not so much intensely focused on the kind of reviews of programs that work and 

which ones do not work. And that is what we have to do. We periodically go through a spasm of concern over prisons, and we spend 

money, and then, I do not know, it just goes all out, and a few 

years later nothing has changed, and we are back here having the 

same kind of hearings that we are having today. 

I would say to you that Norm Carlson—some of you might remember him, former prison commissioner, and he said there is no 

area that he knew of in which more people thought they had the 

one answer to fix it than incarceration and prisons and crime. Everybody has an idea that they are convinced if it were done just 

like they suggested, this problem would—well, we have been trying. Ever since I have been in law enforcement since the late 

1970’s, everybody has had this program, that program, and another 

program, and it is supposed to work. I would just say this is a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002 release that says within 3 years of 

their release—in 1994 they did a major study—67 percent were rearrested. And most of the recidivism occurs in the first year, twothirds of it in the first year. 

I wish this were not so. I mean, I wish it were not so. But I am 

not aware that there is any silver bullet. 

Now, Mr. Burris, you have got a program that you believe works, 

but you are not the first person that has come in to Congress and 

testified they have got a program that has dramatic results, but 

somehow it seems difficult to replicate it. 

Mr. Muhlhausen, you are sort of a—I do not know if you are a 

skeptic, but let me ask you, have you seen the Department of Justice or anyone else produce any studies that can help us see that 

this technique or process in working with prisoners can have significant improvements in the recidivist rate and their success on 

the outside? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I believe that the Federal Government 

has a large role and has done some—— 

Senator CARDIN. Please turn your microphone on. 

18 

Senator SESSIONS. Push your microphone button there. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I believe the Federal Government has done 

some evaluation in this area. It could do more. But the prisoner reentry program, CEO, Center for Employment Opportunities, was 

funded by the Federal Government. The study of the Boston Reentry Initiative was funded by the Federal Government, and one 

program, the transitional job program, CEO, in my opinion found 

some effects, but it really was not impressive. But the Boston Reentry Initiative had really impressive effects. 

Now, as the skeptic is me is concerned, the evaluation was not 

a randomized experiment, which is the gold standard of finding 

causal effects; it was not done for that study. Even though it was, 

in my opinion, a very good study, my question would be: Can we 

replicate those impressive findings of a 30-percent drop in arrest 

rates for participants in another area under an even stronger research design? And maybe that is something the Federal Government could help State and local government do. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is good, Mr. Chairman. Some of 

this money, we need to think about how to do that because we have 

seen dramatic things. I remember the Boston project with juveniles 

in which the probation officers stopped just having the juveniles 

come in once or twice a month and report. They would go out at 

night with the police officer, and if the curfew was 7 o’clock and 

they were not at home where they were supposed to be, they would 

do something to them. There was a consequence to that. And they 

claimed dramatic improvements, 90-percent reduction and all this. 

I suspect some of that was exaggerated, but if you had a 30-percent reduction, that would be worthwhile. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. That was the Boston Operation Cease-Fire, 

and that program, elements of that have been replicated in Chicago, and there is some research that they are actually having 

some success in Chicago with former offenders who are gang members and who were very likely to be suspected of committing violent 

offenses after release. And they have gone to them and told them, 

‘‘We know who you are, and if you make mistakes, we are going 

to come down on you.’’ And so there is a real deterrent effect, and 

there is some research to suggest that that program has a positive 

effect in reducing recidivism in another jurisdiction. 

Senator SESSIONS. That strikes me as similar to the drug court 

programs for adults in which you go from—the alternative to incarceration is very intensive supervision, and they require the drug offender to come in, and most of these had drug problems and were 

not major traffickers, or they are not supposed to be. And the judge 

monitors them, drug testing regularly, and if they do not do what 

they are supposed to do, there is a consequence immediately. They 

are supposed to go and apply for a job. They do not. They get fired 

because they did not show? There is a consequence. You want to 

not be in jail? We will let you work. But if you do not show up and 

you get fired or you get caught stealing, we put you back in jail, 

and those kinds of things. But it takes a lot of intensity. 

Mr. Burris, do you think that is a fundamental model that has 

some potential for taking a chance on a prisoner that you might 

otherwise put in jail? 

19 

Mr. BURRIS. Absolutely, Your Honor. In fact, we have a post-release—— 

Senator SESSIONS. You can call me ‘‘Your Honor,’’ but I am—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BURRIS. I am sorry. 

Senator SESSIONS. I can tell you have testified in court, which 

gives me some confidence in your real experience. 

Mr. BURRIS. Sorry, Senator. But your question, absolutely yes. In 

fact, we proudly stole a drug court model to use on post-release defendants and implemented it about a year and a half ago. And one 

of the programs we visited was Philadelphia, and I am sure the 

judge could talk about the incredible success they have had. We 

have reviewed the Temple study, the Temple University study, and 

it is showing some amazing results. 

Also, we have done exactly several of the things that you have 

discussed. In my district, probation officers have mandatory 

evening and weekend hours. They are not going to just see someone across the desk from them. The worst example of what can 

happen with that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. What did you say about evening hours? 

Mr. BURRIS. The probation officers are required to go into the 

field on the weekends and evenings as opposed to seeing them 

across a desk in a probation office. And the example that we—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is not a little bitty thing for State 

employees who prefer not to work on weekends and at night. Has 

that transition worked? 

Mr. BURRIS. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we were able to see 

problems start early and do interventions before they became huge, 

and we were able to get good relationships with family members, 

employers, things along those lines, and it is really producing excellent results. 

Senator SESSIONS. Per defendant, per probation officer, it is a lot 

more hours committed. Is that correct? 

Mr. BURRIS. It is. 

Senator SESSIONS. I mean, it is one thing to have 10 to 20 people 

come into your office for 30 minutes. It is another to go out to 10 

people’s homes at night. That takes a lot more time in resources 

and costs. 

Mr. BURRIS. It is, Senator. Yes, it is. 

Senator SESSIONS. Judge, I would just say 20 years ago, gosh, I 

supported—in Mobile we were able to replicate, one of the first 

places in the country to replicate the drug court that started in 

Miami, Judge Goldstein and that group in Miami, and they made 

national news and so we just did it. And I think it was pretty— 

it worked some, but you just do not bring somebody in and they 

cease being an addict, they do not cease being a thief the next day 

just because—I wish it were that easy. 

Judge, maybe you would comment, and that will be all. 

Judge BARTLE. Well, our program is very intensive. It involves 

two magistrate judges who are constantly monitoring those offenders who are in the program. It is not limited simply to those who 

are either drug addicts or who have committed drug offenses. We 

have many who have committed other offenses, gun offenses, other 

violent offenses, and the key is the supervision by the magistrate 

20 

judge who not only is someone there to punish but is there as a 

mentor and counselor and guide for the people in the program. And 

I think it is extremely important that someone in high authority 

takes an interest in someone and guides them and encourages 

them. 

One of the other factors in our program is that we encourage 

family involvement, and the sessions that are held each month, 

family members participate. They come to court—girlfriends, 

spouses, mothers and fathers, and so forth. And I think that is another very important aspect of our program. And as I mentioned 

earlier, we have a wonderful graduation program at the end of the 

year where we give them certificates, recognize their achievements, 

and the sentencing judge participates and at that time formally 

signs an order reducing supervised release by a year, and the sentencing judge usually makes a statement about the individual and 

says how pleased he or she is that the ex-offender has graduated 

and has become a productive member of society. 

So these intangible factors I think are extremely important in 

any successful program to reduce recidivism. But it takes a lot of 

effort. We have a probation officer assigned specifically to this, and 

we have two magistrate judges who, in addition to their regular duties, are participating in these afternoon programs. They begin at 

4 o’clock. Prior to that time, each magistrate judge will meet with 

the probation officer and Assistant U.S. Attorney and a defender to 

review the progress in each case. So it is very time-consuming, but 

our program is one which has not involved an extra dime of Federal money. We have been able to reallocate our resources to maximize the benefit to the offender and to reduce recidivism in the 

cases that participate in the program. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is a similar project to the methods of the program that was established 20 years ago, and I do 

think it works. In general, I do believe that, but it is not a cureall. It just does not eliminate crime, but if you can get a measurable improvement, we should consider it, and I think you do get a 

measurable improvement. 

Judge BARTLE. Yes, we do. We do not claim that we have eliminated all recidivists as a result, but the reduction in recidivism is 

significant, taking into account particularly the high-risk offenders 

who participate in the program. 

Senator CARDIN. I think your numbers are very impressive, a 70- 

plus completion rate, only a 12- to 16- percent revocation rate. That 

is a pretty impressive number, your program. We have been joined 

by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Chairman Specter. I 

thanked him earlier for allowing me to have the gavel for this 

hearing. 

Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you for convening this hearing with this distinguished 

panel of witnesses. I am sorry I could not be here earlier, but the 

subject matter of the ‘‘First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism 

at the Local Level’’ is a subject that I have been interested in for 

a long time. 

I have long believed that the problem of violent crime in America 

can be substantially ameliorated—it is never going to be solved— 

21 

by doing two things: one, life sentences for career criminals; and, 

secondly, realistic rehabilitation for reentry. And the grave difficulty has been to find the resources on reentry for detoxification, 

job training, literacy training. No surprise if you release a functional illiterate from jail without a trade or a skill, the person goes 

back to a life of crime. So that has been the battle. 

We legislated and signed into law last year the Second Chance 

Act which applies to State and local government, and the program 

which has been described by Chief Judge Bartle is enormously impressive, with tremendous statistical results. And it shows it would 

be of great potential savings. We are penny-wise and pound-foolish 

not to utilize these programs to try to reduce recidivism. So I thank 

you for convening this hearing. 

Let me take a moment to note my long association with Judge 

Bartle, a very distinguished career—even if he went to Princeton. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. He partially redeemed himself by being a Penn 

Law graduate and joined a very prestigious law firm, which became 

even more prestigious, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, and was Insurance Commissioner and Attorney General. And among the pitfalls 

of his professional career, he practiced law with me for a while. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. I had the opportunity, along with Senator 

Heinz, to recommend him for the district judgeship. He has served 

there with great distinction since 1991, so I am especially pleased 

to see him in Washington today as a key witness, and I congratulate him on his outstanding career and what he is doing on this 

program, and I congratulate all of you for the work that you are 

doing. 

I like to limit my speeches to 3 minutes, and I am 4 seconds over. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I just really wanted to point out that 

Judge Bartle’s program is saving us a lot of money. The numbers 

that you gave about incarceration versus those who are in this program is incredible direct savings, and then the success rates of reentry save us even more money. So your judge is doing good work. 

Ms. Solomon, if I may ask you a question, you said something 

that had me thinking about the fact that we have a brief opportunity for individuals released from local jails. They may only be 

there a short period of time, and trying to develop a reentry program for a person who may only be incarcerated for 30 days or 45 

days or 60 days. 

How do you deal with that? How can you successfully have reentry when you have a very limited exposure in dealing with that 

person and that person knows that he or she is going to be released 

very shortly, may not have the same incentives? Do you just give 

up, or do you try something? What do you do? 

Ms. SOLOMON. I think the key is to very quickly assess people, 

to screen them, find out who the high-risk people are, so that either the jail providers or the community providers who are coming 

inside the jail to start the work can work with the right people. 

And I think that one of the reasons we have the results we heard 

of from Boston and Chicago is because they are focusing on the 

22 

highest-risk people who most warrant the resources, and that is 

where you can get the biggest bang for the buck. 

So I think the key is early screening and assessment, and then 

making sure if people are going to be out quickly that community 

providers are expecting their return and can start that work. 

If I can, I just want to weigh in very briefly on the evaluation 

issue and say that Joan Petersilia estimates we have got 10,000 or 

more reentry programs, and less than two dozen have rigorous 

evaluations. So there is so little out there, and I think that we have 

an opportunity with the Second Chance grantees that Senator 

Specter just spoke about to look at 67 new sites and grantees who 

have a very high bar and a rigorous approach to how they are 

going about reentry. And right now there is no funded evaluation. 

I think we need to look hard at what they are doing so we can 

learn lessons there. 

I also want to just quickly talk about the CEO evaluation that 

was referenced. For the group of people who are brought into the 

program early, within their first 3 months of release, they actually 

did have bigger results. They had bigger results in terms of their 

recidivism, and it gets at the moment of release issue that the 

sheriff was talking about. If we catch people early, I think that 

there is a big opportunity to make a difference. 

Senator CARDIN. That is an important point. Thank you for 

bringing that out. 

We have talked about jobs and education and services dealing 

with addiction and health care. I do not want this hearing to conclude without mentioning housing. I mention that because when I 

was in Frederick, which has a relatively small reentry program, 

they told me how extremely difficult it is to find affordable housing 

for someone who is not connected, who does not have a place to return to; that there is a stigma, first of all, in finding housing with 

someone who has a criminal record; and, second, there is just a 

shortage of affordable housing. 

I want to give you, any of you who want, an opportunity to talk 

about how serious an issue housing is for a successful reentry and 

whether there are models out there that we can look at to try to 

deal with this potential obstacle to successful reentry. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. I would be glad to say that it is indeed a huge 

issue for us. There are no magical solutions. The benefit of having 

residential community correctional beds is that you provide immediate housing, and then you allow an individual to work and earn 

money. 

In our experience, the best way to prevent homelessness is to 

have an individual get some money in the bank so that he or she 

can go through listings and find that apartment or opportunity to 

live. There is no magic solution, but you are advantaged if you 

have money in your bank account, and you do not typically if you 

are leaving a prison setting. That is one of the great advantages 

of a community correctional residential center. You have that opportunity. All residents can leave with $500 to $5,000 if they have 

been with us for a couple of months. 

Senator CARDIN. You require your residents to actually save 

money. They are required to do it? 

23 

Chief LOBUGLIO. That is right. They pay us a program fee, and 

they are also required to save 10 percent of their gross income, 

which is given at the time of release, and it is typically used for 

the housing piece, a deposit. 

Senator CARDIN. Most of you talked about partnerships, that you 

cannot do this alone, you have to bring in other players. Are there 

nonprofits that are out there helping on housing? 

Sheriff CABRAL. May I weigh in on that one? 

Senator CARDIN. Yes, certainly. 

Sheriff CABRAL. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I think I am on this 

time. I was not the last time. 

I wanted to talk about our CREW Program. I had mentioned earlier about gender-specific programming for women. We have partners on all of our programs. They are critical because corrections— 

we just do not have the budget in corrections to do it alone. But 

the CREW Program has two partners: the South End Community 

Health Center and Project Place. Project Place deals as a nonprofit 

with issues around housing and job placement, and they literally 

get housing for female inmates. And the reason we brought in the 

South End Community Health Center is because of the health care 

piece, which is so critical. If we can get women to go to their local 

health care providers, they will also bring their children, and that 

has a generational effect. 

But just to give you an idea of some of the numbers, once you 

get the person in the program, in pre-release, and you are building 

job skills and you are building life skills—and it is application that 

they do not open checking accounts. So even if they do have jobs, 

15 percent of their checks are being taken by a check-cashing place 

because they do not have bank accounts. I mean, there are real 

fundamental life skills that most of us take for granted that are 

just absent in this population. 

But in terms of housing, we had, since we started the program, 

260 inmates enrolled and 216 have graduated, and these housing 

statistics are for fiscal year 2009. Within 3 months of release, we 

had placed 66 percent of those graduates into housing, and we had 

placed 100 percent of them into housing within 6 months of release. 

We do a lot of residential treatment programs within the first 6 

months as well, and one of the glitches here is that they get out 

of a residential treatment program after 6 months, and in order for 

Project Place to place them in permanent housing, they have to become homeless again and go back into the shelter pool. We try to 

get them out of the shelter pool immediately. It is not a very long 

transition. And then we can place them in permanent housing. But 

there is a gap between residential treatment, which everyone 

needs—and that is so critical to their success—and being able to 

move them smoothly into permanent housing, even with a nonprofit partner like Project Place. 

But our numbers for recidivism—nationally, they are 30 percent—for the CREW Program graduates (and CREW is one of the 

few programs that has a 2-year follow-up and after-care component, so we can literally track people for 2 years in the CREW Program) the recidivism rate is 20 percent, so it is 10 percent less than 

the national average. 

24 

So the support, the wrap-around services, and the after-care are 

effective. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. BURRIS. Senator, I know of a program, a faith-based program 

that we have utilized in St. Louis called the St. Patrick Center, and 

they have a program called Release to Rent for people that are released and have no place to go where they will pay for the first couple months of an apartment and then pro-rate it over the next year 

where the amount that they have to pay keeps going up and up. 

Part of the requirement for that is they have to participate in an 

intensive counseling and job training program, though, and we 

have had some real success with this program as well. 

Senator CARDIN. That seems to be an alternative to what is done 

in Montgomery County where you have it all in one location 

through the county government. That seems like it is certainly a 

very valuable asset for that community. 

Mr. BURRIS. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Solomon, you mentioned 67 programs. Are 

those going to be rigorously evaluated? Is that what you were saying that under the Second Chance—— 

Ms. SOLOMON. They need to be. 

Senator SESSIONS. Need to be. Could be. 

Ms. SOLOMON. Yes, correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would provide nice laboratories for us if we 

studied effectively. 

Ms. SOLOMON. Yes. They were just funded and the evaluation—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, one of the things that happens in the 

program that I—a couple things happen with grants. One of them 

is that people do not do anything until they get the grant. But you, 

Judge Bartle, like they did in Mobile, they just decided we needed 

to do the drug court and did it. It did not take any real extra 

money to make it all happen. And a lot of these programs can be 

done with existing staff if they are just focused with new ideas. 

Now, new money is necessary to do certain things. there is no 

doubt about it. But I just worry that people sit around waiting for 

somebody to give them a lot of money so they can take on a new 

effective program that they could probably do on their own. 

Mr. Muhlhausen, do you think we are—well, I will just back up. 

A number of years ago, we helped get some Federal money for a 

juvenile program, and I think we had local evaluators, but everybody seemed to have an interest in the program being successful. 

It did not have—what do you call it?—the competitive environment 

where somebody is really rigorously questioning the program. Because the program leaders wanted it to be successful, they tended 

to see success and ignore lack of success. 

So I am really interested if you think we could do a better job 

of creating the kind of rigorous evaluations that we could then say 

to the 90 percent of prisoners in State and local jails who have 

been arrested by State and local officials that these programs, 

properly managed by you, will work. Where are we on that? 

25 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think we need to do a better job, and, 

unfortunately, I think a lot of people do not want program evaluations to be done because they are afraid of bad results. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is true. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. But I think also that if Congress gives grants 

to State and local agencies to do reentry programs, they should be 

evaluated, and Congress can help out by providing the funds and 

also mandating it in legislation, but also not only mandating it but 

following through, because this reminds me, when the Workforce 

Investment Act was passed in 1998, it mandated a randomized experimental evaluation of Federal workforce programs. Well, the 

Clinton administration never got around to doing it, and the Bush 

administration never got around to doing it, and Congress never 

seemed to care that evaluation of the workforce investment program based on a randomized experiment was done. They did a 

quasi-experimental evaluation that was done like a year or two 

ago, but if you really want to know if these programs work, the emphasis needs to be on randomized experiments. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Burris, and all of you, I would just 

say commitment by the people in charge with creativity and some 

skills in human nature seem to be the key to success. Would you 

agree, Mr. Burris? And what is your experience in that regard? 

Mr. BURRIS. Absolutely. To give you an example, Senator, one of 

our big obstacles has been transportation, and we do not have any 

funding for transportation, so we have actually held bake sales in 

our Federal courthouse to provide bus passes so people could get 

to and from work, to and from treatment, to and from home. 

Senator SESSIONS. And what do you think about—was it you or 

Mr. LoBuglio who talked about the intensive supervision? I would 

like maybe both of you to talk about fundamentally do you think 

that we could take money from incarceration and place it in intensive supervision of releasees and that that could have a positive effect. 

Mr. BURRIS. I would say yes, that it would have to be a community approach, though. As you stated, there is no silver bullet, 

magic bullet. You are going to have to pull every type of program, 

drug treatment, everything into it, along with the intensive supervision, and not just having a probation officer there 6 days a week. 

That will not work. But if you bring in the various programs, education, drug treatment, drug testing, everything like that, with the 

high-risk offenders, I think it can have a result. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. I think it is having results. I know the Council 

of State Governments, NACo, and others have been pushing this 

concept of a justice reinvestment strategy of looking at how much 

money is being spent in a jurisdiction, at the State level and at the 

local level, for corrections, for probation, for all sorts of things, and 

how best should it spend. And I think they have demonstrated 

some excellent results in Kansas and in Texas. 

I think it is enormously promising. I think the challenge is to 

make sure that jails are included and that local jurisdictions are 

included in that partnership. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, local is where the action is. I mean, 90 

percent of the people are prosecuted locally. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. That is right. 

26 

Senator SESSIONS. So the Federal system should be done right, 

but so if you take money—the problem with States is—one of the 

problems is that the probation officers in Alabama are paid by the 

State of Alabama. The district attorneys are paid by the State and 

local supplements, and the police chiefs operate from the city. And 

there are all these different budgets, and so it is just not easy to 

take money from probation officers and move it over to prisons or 

vice versa. And they have Congressmen and Senators and State 

representatives that protect turfs, and it is hard to get it done in 

a rational way. But I think what I hear you saying is that without 

placing the public at any real greater risk, maybe marginally, you 

could put more people under intense supervision and have a net 

gain for the public interest. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. But not just report in once a month to the probation officer. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. No. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not what we are talking about. 

Chief LOBUGLIO. And it is going to be, you know, a customized 

strategy. Some individuals will have a house that is fine and they 

need employment issues and that is what needs to be focused on. 

Others will not. So we have to be very clever in how we do the reentry strategies. But I think there is tremendous promise. 

You know, in Montgomery County, three out of every ten sentenced offenders is managed in the community, and these are individuals that have committed Part I felonies as well as 

misdemeanants. And I think we demonstrate every day that you 

can place individuals—with proper services and proper monitoring, 

you can manage a large portion of your population. 

You know, one other thing that we have not talked about is that 

there are enormous benefits for these programs for the correctional 

officers and the correctional professionals in our Nation’s systems. 

When you have programs that provide opportunities for individuals, inmates, that incentives them to work hard, to comply with 

the program, to get stepped down, to get to that ability where they 

can be with their—visit with their children and to work, you are 

having more compliance in our correctional facilities. You are also 

doing what I think Senator Specter alluded, that you are providing 

a greater sorting mechanism. Those who are most violent, most 

risky, should be using that hardened cell. Those who don’t need 

that hardened cell, we should treat this as a scarce resource, can 

be managed in the community. Our metrics in 2008 is that collectively our prisoners earn $2 million. They paid taxes of $400,000. The same in program fees. 

They paid child support of $200,000. They paid restitution. They 

would not have paid any of that if they were incarcerated. We can 

manage some of our current—some of the individuals that are currently incarcerated with these types of intensive supervision programs and some of the programs with residential components. 

Senator CARDIN. And I would also point out, Mr. LoBuglio, that 

your incarceration rates in Montgomery County, which is a very diverse county, a very urban county, is much lower than the national 

average. So you are also showing success in that respect, and it is 

impressive. 

27 

I take away from this that we clearly need more information. I 

could not agree more with Senator Sessions and with the witnesses 

about evaluating the way programs are currently working. I think 

Senator Sessions’ point about these hearings have been going on 

for decades is absolutely correct. And we do lay on programs, and 

we do not evaluate programs, and I think that is a very valid concern that has been expressed by most of the witnesses here, and 

it is something we need to take a look at. 

I do, though, agree that we have a real shortage of residential 

programs available for inmates who are going to be released in our 

communities that can provide comprehensive services so that a person has the best chance for successful reentry. I think the Montgomery County model is the right type of model. I also think you 

need adequate supervision, and I think the Pennsylvania model is 

the type of model that I would like to see in more jurisdictions 

around the country. 

So I think there are good examples of—and, Sheriff, your program is very, very effective. If I could bottle Mr. Burris’ energy— 

he not only goes out at night and weekends; he gets up at 5 o’clock 

in the morning without an alarm clock, so this guy is—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. We need that type of energy in the probation office, and it is a tough job. Unfortunately, the budgets for a lot of 

the probation departments are so strained that you do not have 

enough probation officers to do the type of work that they need to 

do. And I think Senator Sessions’ point about budget is absolutely 

accurate. We have a problem in Maryland, as Mr. LoBuglio knows, 

that we could take more State prisoners into the county program, 

but the State does not have the budget to pay for it. And the State 

does not have the program. It is a county program. And the State 

is not encouraging other counties to develop these programs because the State is not really anxious to pay them the fees to deal 

with the reentry, even though it is going to cost our State a lot of 

money because we do not provide these services. 

So the budget accountability is certainly lacking in our system, 

and that is the main reason we wanted to hold this hearing, is to 

take a look at the local services. Senator Sessions is absolutely 

right. These programs are really local. I mean, our jails are local. 

The crimes are local. And it affects our Nation, and it is important 

that we establish a record here today, and I really do thank all of 

our witnesses for their participation. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have got mental illness questions, you have got alcohol. I remember a Department of Justice study that surprised me how many people commit 

serious crimes after being on a binge of 2 or 3 days of heavy, uncontrolled drinking, and they do something, like murder, and the 

next thing they are serving life in prison at the taxpayer’s cost. So 

anything we can do to see that, I do think that we ought not to 

forget also that punishment is a legitimate part of the incarceration process, and if you see the criminal is merely somebody that 

has got a problem with trying to help, sometimes that is not the 

only approach to it either. Discipline is a big part of success in 

these programs. 

28 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your depth of interest in this, 

and we need to do better, and I appreciate your openness, and this 

is a good panel. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

We have received statements from Chairman Leahy, Mary Lou 

Leary, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice; Hon. Stephen Manley, Superior Court of California; Goodwill Industries of Frederick, Maryland. Without objection, those statements will be made part of the 

record. 

[The statements appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. The record of the Committee will remain open 

for 1 week. Again, I thank our witnesses, and with that, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

29 


55985.001
30 


55985.002
31 


55985.003
32 


55985.004
33 


55985.005
34 


55985.006
35 


55985.007
36 


55985.008
37 


55985.009
38 


55985.010
39 


55985.012
40 


55985.013
41 


55985.014
42 


55985.015
43 


55985.016
44 


55985.017
45 


55985.018
46 


55985.019
47 


55985.020
48 


55985.021
49 


55985.022
50 


55985.023
51 


55985.024
52 


55985.025
53 


55985.026
54 


55985.027
55 


55985.028
56 


55985.029
57 


55985.030
58 


55985.031
59 


55985.032
60 


55985.033
61 


55985.034
62 


55985.035
63 


55985.036
64 


55985.037
65 


55985.038
66 


55985.039
67 


55985.040
68 


55985.041
69 


55985.042
70 


55985.043
71 


55985.044
72 


55985.045
73 


55985.046
74 


55985.047
75 


55985.048
76 


55985.049
77 


55985.050
78 


55985.051
79 


55985.052
80 


55985.053
81 


55985.054
82 


55985.055
83 


55985.056
84 


55985.057
85 


55985.058
86 


55985.059
87 


55985.060
88 


55985.061
89 


55985.062
90 


55985.063
91 


55985.064
92 


55985.065
93 


55985.066
94 


55985.067
95 


55985.068
96 


55985.069
97 


55985.070
98 


55985.071
99 


55985.072
100 


55985.073
101 


55985.074
102 


55985.075
103 


55985.076
104 


55985.077
105 


55985.078
106 


55985.079
107 


55985.080
108 


55985.081
109 


55985.082
110 


55985.083
111 


55985.084
112 


55985.085
113 


55985.086
114 


55985.087
115 


55985.088
116 


55985.089
117 


55985.090
118 


55985.091
119 


55985.092
120 


55985.093
121 


55985.094
122 


55985.095
123 


55985.096
124 


55985.097
125 


55985.098
126 


55985.099
127 


55985.100
128 


55985.101
129 


55985.102
130 


55985.103
131 


55985.104
132 


55985.105
133 


55985.106
134 


55985.107
135 


55985.108
136 


55985.109
137 


55985.110
138 


55985.111
139 


55985.112
140 


55985.113
141 


55985.114
142 


55985.115
143 


55985.116
144 


55985.117
145 


55985.118
146 


55985.119
147 


55985.120
148 


55985.121
149 


55985.122
150 


55985.123
151 


55985.124
152 


55985.125
153 


55985.126
154 


55985.127
155 


55985.128
156 


55985.129
157 


55985.130
158 


55985.131
159 


55985.132
160 


55985.133
161 


55985.134
162 


55985.135
163 


55985.136
164 


55985.137
165 


55985.139
166 


55985.140
167 


55985.141
168 


55985.142
169 


55985.143
170 


55985.144
171 


55985.145
172 


55985.146
173 


55985.147
174 


55985.148
175 


55985.149
176 


55985.150
177 


55985.151
178 


55985.152
179 


55985.153
180 


55985.154
181 


55985.155
182 


55985.156
183 


55985.157
184 


55985.158
185 


55985.159
186 


55985.161
187 


55985.162
188 


55985.163
189 

Æ 


55985.164