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

54–385 PDF 2009

THE LOCAL ROLE OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION: INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY, REDUCING

RECIDIVISM, AND USING ALTERNATIVES TO REINCARCERATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

Serial No. 111–30

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

——— ———

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

——— ———

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 22, 2009 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Fulwood, Isaac, Jr., chairman, U.S. Parole Commission; Adrienne Poteat,

Acting Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;

Laura Hankins, special counsel, D.C. Office of the Public Defender;

Jesse Janetta, the Urban Institute; Martin F. Horn, distinguished lecturer, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; and Charles Thorton,

Returning Citizens United ........................................................................... 9

Fulwood, Isaac, Jr. .................................................................................... 9

Hankins, Laura ......................................................................................... 38

Horn, Martin F. ......................................................................................... 74

Janetta, Jesse ............................................................................................ 59

Poteat, Adrienne ........................................................................................ 27

Thorton, Charles ........................................................................................ 85

Parker, James, D.C. Code offender under USPC/CSOSA Jurisdiction; and

Samuel Green, D.C. Code offender under USPC/CSOSA Jurisdiction ..... 109

Green, Samuel ........................................................................................... 111

Parker, James ............................................................................................ 109

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

Fulwood, Isaac, Jr., chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 11

Hankins, Laura, special counsel, D.C. Office of the Public Defender, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 41

Horn, Martin F., distinguished lecturer, John Jay College of Criminal

Justice, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 76

Janetta, Jesse, the Urban Institute, prepared statement of ......................... 61

Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 3

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 6

Poteat, Adrienne, Acting Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of ......................................................... 29

(1)

THE LOCAL ROLE OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION: INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY, REDUCING RECIDIVISM, AND USING ALTERNATIVES TO RE-INCARCERATION IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch and Norton.

Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha Elkheshin,

clerk/legislative assistant; and Daniel Zeidman, deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Howie Denis, minority senior counsel; Mitchell

Kominsky, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member.

Mr. LYNCH. The subcommittee is now in order. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia hearing has now come to order. I welcome all the Republican and Democratic members of the subcommittee, witnesses, and

all those of you in attendance.

As you are all aware, the purpose of this afternoon’s hearing is

to examine a host of issues related to offender reintegration, recidivism, and overall public safety in the Nation’s Capital.

The Chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members

will each have 5 minutes to make an opening statement. All Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record. In evidence of the absence of several of our Members, I will allow Members to submit any statements for the record during the course of

this hearing and for, as I said, 3 days beyond.

Ladies and gentlemen, again, I thank you for your attendance

here at the subcommittee’s fourth D.C.-related Oversight Committee hearing entitled, ‘‘The Local Role of the U.S. Parole Commission: Increasing Public Safety, Reducing Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-Incarceration in the District of Columbia.’’ Today’s

hearing gives the subcommittee the opportunity to examine the impact of the U.S. Parole Commission and other related Federal agencies on public safety in the District of Columbia.

2

Currently the District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction where

the control over aspects of its local criminal code offenders is determined by the policies and practices of Federal agencies such as the

Parole Commission or the Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government

Improvement Act of 1997 [Revitalization Act], transferred the responsibility for and the cost of certain State criminal justice functions such as house parole and the supervised release of adult felons convicted under the D.C. criminal code from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government.

While considerable progress has been made over the past 10

years since the enactment of the Revitalization Act, the District of

Columbia continues to confront the host of challenges regarding the

implementation of effective felon supervision, reentry, and revocation systems and practices. With nearly 6,500 D.C. Code felons in

the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and over 15,000 offenders on supervised release with the CSOSA, it is critical that

the subcommittee conduct the requisite oversight to ensure that

the hybrid mix of Federal and local criminal justice responsibilities

in the District of Columbia is being carried out as seamlessly, consistently, and effectively as possible.

This is the context in which today’s hearing has been called. I

thank our witnesses for agreeing to join us in conducting such a

dialog.

Today’s hearing is also intended to address other related policy

challenges such as the difficulty of keeping D.C. Code felons who

are housed in Bureau of Prisons facilities miles away from the District of Columbia connected to their families and communities, the

use of graduated sanctions versus automatic revocation, and the

pending agenda of the USPC given its newly appointed leadership.

I would like to again thank my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her tireless effort in this policy area and for

recommending today’s hearing topic. Again, I thank all of those in

attendance this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the testimony

of our witnesses.

This concludes my opening statement.

In the absence of the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, I now recognize Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia for 5

minutes.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]

3

4

5

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Lynch. With your

permission, I will simply summarize my opening statement and

ask that the remainder be placed in the record.

All the thanks are due to you, Chairman Lynch, for scheduling

this hearing on the U.S. Parole Commission, the first since President Barack Obama appointed former D.C. police chief, Isaac

Fulwood, Junior Chair of the U.S. Parole Commission.

The unprecedented local responsibility of the U.S. Parole Commission gives this agency important responsibility for public safety

in the District of Columbia today. In 2009, approximately 6 percent

of the crimes have been committed thus far by offenders while on

parole or supervised release, accounting for 4 percent of violent arrests, 3 percent of weapons arrests, and 6 percent of drug arrests.

While the Parole Commission is a Federal agency created and

funded by the Congress since 1930, today it fits squarely within the

subcommittee’s jurisdiction under the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act which transferred certain function to the Federal Government. And of course

it is squarely within our Federal jurisdiction over Federal parolees.

This transfer of the function and the cost from the District of Columbia was made during the District’s most serious financial crisis.

It means that the Bureau of Prisons now has jurisdiction over

9,500 D.C. Code felons. All of them will 1 day pass through the

U.S. Parole Commission. Many of them are doing so now from the

U.S. Bureau of Prisons in facilities located across the United

States.

I will be particularly interested to hear about, if I may say, new

approaches, not just existing approaches but new approaches, that

can meet the Commission’s unique local responsibilities to the District of Columbia to increase public safety and reduce recidivism.

I believe what we hear today will be instructive to jurisdictions

all across the United States, Mr. Chairman, because jurisdictions

are releasing people from prison because they can’t afford to hold

them. In the good times they just took in everybody they could find

who looked like he had committed a crime. Now they are putting

people out on the streets without the kind of careful work that is

being done by the U.S. Parole Commission and that is recommended by the experts that you have called before us.

The serious changes in the economy today mean that today’s

hearing, while particularly important to the District of Columbia,

needs to have the attention of the Nation. Incarceration and re-incarceration are very expensive and have very poor crime reduction

records. Incarceration separates and strains families and communities with little crime or recidivism reduction to show for it.

We are pleased to welcome all of today’s witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I look forward as I know you do to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

6

7

8

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady.

At this time I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to take

their assigned seats as we begin this portion of our hearing. Is Mr.

Cornell Jones here? I know we have changed the order of the witnesses.

Welcome. It is committee policy that all witness to provide testimony are to be sworn in. Could I ask you to please rise and raise

your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record indicate that all of the witnesses have

responded in the affirmative.

Your entire printed statements are already included in the hearing record. Let me begin by introducing panel one.

Mr. Isaac Fulwood is chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission.

On November 20, 2004, Isaac Fulwood was appointed as a U.S. Parole Commissioner by President George W. Bush. He served 29

years as member of the Metropolitan Police Department and in

1989 became the 25th chief of police.

Ms. Adrienne Poteat was named the Acting Director for the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in July 2008. In

this position, Ms. Poteat oversees a Federal agency that was created by the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997.

Ms. Laura Hankins is special counsel to the director at the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. She represents

PDS in commenting on legislation before the D.C. City Council, the

District of Columbia Sentencing Commission, and on the committee

responsible for drafting the District patent criminal jury instructions. Her management responsibilities include supervising the Defender Services Office, the PDS division responsible for determining the eligibility of defendant to receive court appointed lawyers

and for initially assigning lawyers to criminal cases.

Mr. Jesse Janetta is a research associate for the Urban Institute.

He has research and evaluation experience addressing issues related to prisoner reentry, parole, probation supervision, and risk prediction. Prior to coming to the Urban Institute, Mr. Janetta was

the research specialist at the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the University of California at Irvine.

Mr. Martin Horn is a distinguished lecturer in the Department

of Law and Police Science at John Jay College. He was appointed

by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to serve as commissioner of the New

York City Department of Probation effective January 1, 2002. One

year later, Mayor Bloomberg appointed him to serve as commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections. He held

both positions simultaneously until coming to John Jay College in

September 2009.

I understand now that Mr. Charles Thorton will be appearing in

place of Mr. Cornell Jones. Mr. Cornell Jones is the chairman of

the Returning Citizens United, Inc., a D.C.-based advocacy group

for the formerly incarcerated. Under Mr. Jones leadership, Returning Citizens United has made great strides in redirecting many at

risk youth and adult men from self-destructive behavior to positive

and self-directed behaviors.

Again, I welcome all the witnesses. I invite Mr. Fulwood to offer

a summation of your statement for 5 minutes.

9

STATEMENTS OF ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; ADRIENNE POTEAT, ACTING DIRECTOR,

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY;

LAURA HANKINS, SPECIAL COUNSEL, D.C. OFFICE OF THE

PUBLIC DEFENDER; JESSE JANETTA, THE URBAN INSTITUTE; MARTIN F. HORN, DISTINGUISHED LECTURER, JOHN

JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AND CHARLES

THORTON, RETURNING CITIZENS UNITED

STATEMENT OF ISAAC FULWOOD, JR.

Mr. FULWOOD. First let me say good afternoon. Thank you to

Chairman Lynch for inviting us to the hearing. I especially thank

Congresswoman Norton, who is my Congresswoman, for inviting

me and taking an interest in the U.S. Parole Commission.

The Parole Commission today, as mandated by Congress, carries

out the following duties: making parole and revocation decisions for

parole-eligible Federal offenders, making parole and revocation decisions for parole-eligible D.C. Code offenders, setting and enforcing

the conditions of supervised release for District of Columbia Code

offenders, and making release decisions for U.S. citizens convicted

of crimes in another country who wish or elect to return to the

United States for the service of sentence.

Most of the Commission’s day to day work involves the D.C. Code

offenders. As of the end of fiscal year 2008, about 70 percent or

9,236 of the persons under the Commission’s jurisdiction of 12,696

were D.C. Code offenders. Of the 1,842 revocation hearings conducted by the Commission during fiscal year 2008, 87 percent of

them or 1,608 were D.C. Code offenders. In the 12 months ending

August 31, 2009, roughly 90 percent of the 2,020 warrants issued

by the Commission were for D.C. Code offenders.

The Parole Commission is a public safety agency charged by Federal and District common law with the duties of enforcing public

safety. The Commission keeps in mind for all of its decisions that

the public safety is paramount.

For our work involving parolee decisionmaking, the Commission

uses guidelines that look at the severity of the crime for which the

person has been sentenced, the likelihood that the offender will

commit another crime if released, prison conduct, and prison program performance. The Commission is presently involved in redefining the instrument to improve its predictive powers. In other

words, we have done a study.

The area of the Commission’s work that is growing is setting conditions of release and conditions of supervision. The Commission

works closely with the Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency to ensure that offenders under supervision are carefully

monitored and are given an opportunity to acquire skills and receive treatment that will enable them to become good citizens.

CSOSA has established a Reentry and Sanctions Center to provide

assessment and reentry programing for offenders, as well as residential sanctions for offenders who violate release conditions.

The Commission fully supports the program by ordering as a condition of release from prison the offenders identified by CSOSA as

meeting the programs be assessed by the Reentry and Sanctions

Center. The Commission also imposes on such offenders a condition

10

of supervision that requires participation in treatment programs

recommended as a result of the Reentry and Sanctions Center assessment.

CSOSA reports regularly to the Commission on each offender it

supervises for the Commission. If it becomes necessary to remove

someone from the community, CSOSA will ask the Commission to

issue a warrant.

We would like to see people under supervision succeed and become good citizens. If persons under supervision have become a

risk to the public, we will issue a warrant. To avoid having to issue

a warrant by intervening when the behavior of someone under supervision starts to deteriorate, CSOSA and the Commission have

established a reprimand sanction program.

When CSOSA becomes concerned that an offender’s behavior is

becoming questionable, a reprimand sanction hearing is scheduled.

A commissioner conducts an internal and informal hearing with

the offender. A representative of the Public Defender Service and

the supervising officer discuss the matter. An improvement plan is

worked out for the offender with the goal of motivating offenders

to change whatever behavior has caused concern before that behavior requires the Commission to take an action.

It has been my experience both as chief of police in Washington,

DC, and as a commissioner that a major problem faced by returning offenders is drugs and alcohol. Addiction makes it difficult for

returning offenders to be law-abiding and to stay out of trouble.

The Commission is involved in two programs designed to address

addiction problems in the District of Columbia offender population.

The programs offer inpatient addiction treatment in a secure environment of offenders arrested on the Commission warrant charging

relatively minor violations of conditions of supervision.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Fulwood.

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes?

Mr. LYNCH. Sir, you are over by a couple of minutes. Could I ask

you to just sum up? I think a lot of the information you want to

provide will be through the question and answer. I appreciate the

comprehensiveness of your statement.

Mr. FULWOOD. OK, let me give you the two programs. The two

programs that we talked about are the Residential Secure Substance Abuse Program, which is run by the D.C. Department of

Corrections. It is a program that is designed for a 90 day period

of behavioral modification to deal with the problem of addiction.

The second program is the Secure Residential Treatment Program,

which is run by CSOSA along with the U.S. Parole Commission.

That is good for 180 days to try to change the offender’s behavior.

Those are the two programs.

When you think about the reprimand sanction hearing, another

program designed specifically to address not putting people back

through incarceration, that is trying to figure out the best method

to get them to be motivated to do a better job.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulwood follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much.

Ms. Poteat, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT

Ms. POTEAT. Chairman Lynch, Congresswoman Norton, and

other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this

opportunity to testify. I am pleased to appear before you today on

behalf of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to

discuss the work of CSOSA and its connection with the U.S. Parole

Commission.

CSOSA is a Federal law enforcement agency with a unique local

mission. The Agency supervises approximately 16,000 men and

women on probation, parole, or supervised release in the District

of Columbia. Two thirds of these offenders are probationers who

have gone to prison and are accountable to the D.C. Superior Court

rather than the U.S. Parole Commission. Most of the remaining

third, about 6,000 offenders, are on parole or supervised release

from a term of incarceration in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and

are accountable to the USPC.

Our offenders face many challenges. Thirty percent have a history of violent crime. Sixty-four percent have a history of substance

abuse. Thirteen percent have a formally diagnosed mental illness.

Many others have undiagnosed mental health conditions. Nearly 40

percent do not possess a high school diploma or GED. Only 47 percent of our population is employed. On an average day, 800 offenders reside in D.C. homeless shelters or have housing situations that

are considered unstable. Stable housing and employment are critical factors affecting the likelihood that an offender will commit a

new crime, violate the terms of their release, and ultimately whether or not they will be revoked to incarceration.

We partner with numerous local and Federal agencies and community-based organizations to access the education, training, employment, family services, mental health and substance abuse

treatment, and other services that our clients need. Yet, while we

recognize the critical importance of these services, CSOSA’s critical

mission is public safety. Our main strategy is in support of the

public safety mission for close supervision.

Through a system of graduated sanctions, CSOSA imposes increasingly restrictive penalties on offenders for violating their release conditions. Sanctions can involve increased office visits, drug

testing, GPS monitoring, or residential placement in halfway back

or the 102 bed Reentry and Sanctions Center [RSC], that we

opened in 2006.

Our Office of Research and Evaluation is currently working with

the U.S. Parole Commission on the development of a new violation

sanctions matrix and the integration of that tool with CSOSA’s own

graduated sanction matrix. The alignment of these tools will provide uniformity in the response to supervision violations by parolees and supervised releasees in the future.

In May 2006, in conjunction with the USPC, we created an alternative sanction option called the reprimand sanction hearing for offenders on parole and supervised release. This program permits the

USPC a face to face opportunity to address an offender’s nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
28

compliant behavior as a last step before a formal parole revocation

hearing. From May 2006 to July 2009, 259 hearings were conducted. Participating offenders have shown a higher level of compliance following these hearings.

USPC and CSOSA are in daily contact regarding the adjustment

of the 6,000 offenders under their jurisdiction and our supervision.

Routine communications include both recommendations to reward

compliant behavior as well as placement on inactive supervision.

We also do the submission of AVRs on offenders that are noncompliant.

Just yesterday CSOSA launched the new Secure Residential

Treatment Program [SRTP], which will serve as an alternative

placement for eligible D.C. Code offenders on parole or supervised

release who face revocation for technical violations including substance abuse and, in some cases, new criminal violations. We are

partnering in this endeavor with the USPC, the Department of

Corrections, and the Public Defender Service.

The initial pilot program will consist of a 180 day treatment regimen including and involving 32 offenders. It is scheduled to run

until March 2010. During this pilot demonstration, CSOSA will

fund and operate the Treatment Intervention Center.

The USPC has been an integral partner in our efforts to establish the SRTP program and to implement the pilot demonstration.

We look forward to the continuation of our close collaboration

with the U.S. Parole Commission as well as our local and Federal

partners as we work together to enhance public safety while reducing the rate of incarceration as one of our alternate goals.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much.

Ms. Hankins, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF LAURA HANKINS

Ms. HANKINS. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Laura Hankins,

special counsel to the director of the Public Defender Service for

the District of Columbia. Thank you for the invitation to testify

today on the local role of the U.S. Parole Commission.

The Public Defender Service has represented over 90 percent of

D.C. Code offenders who have faced revocation of parole or supervised release since the Parole Commission replaced the D.C. Board

of Parole. Thus we have a unique perspective on and a strong interest in the Commission’s increasingly local role.

Reducing recidivism increases public safety. One way to reduce

recidivism is to develop and appropriately use alternatives to re-incarceration. PDS commends the Commission and CSOSA on the development and increasing use of two drug treatment programs and

on the continuing work of the reprimand sanction hearings. My understanding is that those hearings are held approximately 3 days

a month. We are very gratified to hear the attention that they are

getting at this hearing and hope that signals that the Commission

will hold those hearings more often.

It should be noted, however, that the need to develop incarceration alternatives and to fine tune the systems concerning who

should get such an alternative and who instead should be re-incarcerated is becoming increasingly acute as the population over

whom the Commission has authority changes. As a result of the

Revitalization Act, parole was abolished in the District effective

August 5, 2000 and replaced by supervised release and revocation

terms.

Generally speaking, terms of supervised release are shorter than

the amount of time an offender is on parole. The revocation term,

the amount of time for which an offender can be sent back to prison if he is revoked, is also shorter. This determinate sentence supervised release scheme gives the Parole Commission and CSOSA

an opportunity to concentrate their resources on those persons

most likely to re-offend, that is persons recently released from prison. In the long run, this scheme should mean fewer people on supervision at any given time, particularly when compared with having to supervise people who are on parole for decades or for life.

But it also means that the Commission needs to examine how it

budgets the supervision and revocation time with which it has to

work. The question of whether it makes sense, for example, to send

someone back to prison for 12 months for having committed a low

level technical violation like testing positive for marijuana use is

more critical to answer when the offender can only be put back on

supervised release for 2 more years and if he violates again can

only be sent back to prison for at most 12 more months.

At a hearing on the Commission held by this subcommittee last

year, the director of PDS was afforded the privilege of testifying.

At that time, PDS noted a number of issues that we hoped to see

the Commission address. Two issues in particular deserve mention

today. One, the salient factor risk assessment tool needed to be reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
39

designed in order to account for factors that correlate to recidivism

and in order to be relevant to the population most often being assessed by the tool, offenders facing revocation, not offenders seeking a parole grant. Two, the corresponding guidelines that direct

the sanction for a parolee upon finding a violation needed to be recalibrated to shorten the re-incarceration periods and allow the reinstatement of low risk supervisees for low severity violations.

There might be reasons for the Commission not to address these

issues, though some specific fixes were recommended by an expert

the Commission helped to hire. And since the Commission voted to

adopt those recommendations, it is difficult to imagine what those

reasons might be. But even if one assumes that the status quo provides good reason not to follow through on the recommendations,

the climate change facing the Commission in the form of offenders

in a very different sentencing system should give the Commission

serious pause.

If D.C. offenders continue under the authority of the Commission, 1 day there will be no more parole grant hearings, the very

type of hearing for which the salient factor tool was designed. Instead, the Commission’s work will essentially be all revocation

hearings. But using the salient factor score at revocation hearings

is like forcing a square peg into a round hole at every hearing. It

is impossible for a parolee or a supervisee facing revocation to get

a perfect score. Therefore it is impossible under the corresponding

guidelines to get a recommendation of no re-incarceration.

In addition to changing some of its systems, how the Commission

exercises its discretion should also be examined. PDS noted last

year that while the Commission has the discretion to allow

supervisees to remain in the community pending their final revocation hearings, it essentially never exercises that discretion and opts

instead to detain at the jail virtually all persons facing revocation.

This is no small issue. Last week, roughly 600 people, approximately 20 percent of the D.C. jail’s population, were there for parole revocations. While according to Commission procedures the

time between an arrest on a violation and the final revocation decision should not be more than 86 days, the current wait is closer

to 4 months.

Even putting aside the justness of exercising its discretion to

allow some parolees and supervisees to remain in the community,

particularly those who are employed and have not lost contact with

their supervising officer, the climate change facing the Commission

should push it toward using its discretion to release people.

Supervisees get credit for time spent in jail. With shorter overall

terms of supervision and revocation, reflexively using jail time is

essentially wasting the resource of supervision and revocation time.

Using up 4 months in jail on a violation that is ultimately not supported or which results in reinstatement on parole means 4 fewer

months of supporting that offender’s reentry and supervising his

behavior to increase public safety and 4 fewer months as a sanction

should he later violate his supervised release conditions.

The Public Defender Service appreciates the opportunity for

treatment and success on supervision provided by the Commission’s new drug programs and continues to applaud Chairman

Fulwood on reprimand sanction hearings as he has championed

40

them. The climate change facing the Commission, however, calls

for a new look at how revocation proceedings and sanctions are carried out.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee and would be pleased to work with the Members in their

ongoing consideration of these issues. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hankins follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. Hankins.

Mr. Janetta, you are now recognized for an opening statement for

5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JESSE JANETTA

Mr. JANETTA. Thank you very much to Chairman Lynch, Congresswoman Norton, and the committee for the invitation and opportunity to share with you some of what we know about what constitutes best practice in parole supervision to the end of reducing

recidivism and facilitating successful community reintegration.

The parole field at this point in time is undergoing a tremendous

amount of flux. It is coming out of a period during which there was

a very heavy reliance on surveillance and monitoring which, while

foundational tools of community supervision, have repeatedly been

shown by themselves and in the absence of other interventions to

have little or no impact on recidivism. And there has been an increasing focus across the country on approaches to parole and parole supervision that seek to change the behavior of parolees.

So at this time I would like to highlight four broad principles

from the research and expert and practitioner consensus that

should guide best practices in parole in any jurisdiction.

The first is that there should be clear accountability both for

those conducting parole and for the parolees who are being supervised. There should be accountability for the parolers, the supervisors, in terms of making a clear focus on recidivism reduction as

a goal, setting targets, and measuring performance relative to that.

In parolees, it should be tailored their conditions and specific to

that individual’s circumstances so that all of their conditions of parole are tied to factors that put them at risk for recidivism and that

are in the whole realistic for them to abide by.

The second principle is that it is important to strategically allocate limited parole resources. In terms of people, focus on moderate

to high risk offenders. In terms of time, focus on the critical period

immediately after release when the risk of recidivism and other behaviors such as a return to substance abuse are highest. In terms

of place, structure supervision around the communities and neighborhoods where the highest proportion of parolees return and often

where the greatest risk factors for recidivism are present.

The third principle, which takes place at the case management

level or in the relationship between the parole officer and the parolee, is to build supervision around individualized supervision

plans that are informed by validated risk and needs assessment information. Involve the parolees in the work of setting their goals

so that you can increase their buy-in and their commitment to

what, after all, is their behavior change plan. Reaches out to also

engage their informal social support networks, their friends, families, and employers, the people who will continue to be in their

lives and must support the maintenance of their behavior change

long after the formal period of supervision has ended.

The fourth and final principle is to build into the way that parole

and parole supervision are conducted both a rewards and a sanctions structure. The rewards structure should recognize and reward

successes when they occur, based on research that indicates that

rewards and incentives are much more powerful in terms of changVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
60

ing people’s behaviors than the threat of sanctions. But also there

needs to be a sanctions policy that recognizes that parole violations

are going to occur; that they need to be responded to in a problem

solving way; that is graduated, as several of the members of this

panel have already mentioned; and that reserves re-incarceration

for cases where other options have been exhausted or where there

is a pressing need to do so.

With those four principles in mind, I would like to make two concluding observations.

The first is that in this work of successfully facilitating reintegration through parole supervision, partnerships are absolutely necessary. There must be broad partnerships incorporating law enforcement, the community, and community providers. But also

there needs to be a partnership between the three core entities, the

paroling authority, the parole supervision authority, and institutional corrections, who really need to come together around a common goal and purpose for reintegrating people who are leaving

prison. In many cases in jurisdictions across the country, this is not

the case. They may collaborate not closely or sometimes work in

ways that are at cross purposes.

The final thing I would like to leave you with is that we can look

around the country and we can see signs of promise for success in

implementing these kinds of approaches to parole supervision.

Look at the pilot proactive community supervision model in Maryland which realized success in reducing re-arrests and warrants for

parole violations. Look also at some of the outcomes realized by

States participating in the Transition from Prison to Community

Initiative including Missouri, Georgia, and Michigan which have all

seen improved outcomes in terms of recidivism and returns to prison.

I think that the take-away message is that there is hope for

these kinds of approaches to do the kind of work relative to recidivism reduction and community integration that we all want to see.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Janetta follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Martin Horn, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN F. HORN

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Norton. I would

like to talk about just a couple of things that I think will help us

to fulfill the goal that Chairman Fulwood put forth, which is to see

people succeed.

It is my experience that all individuals leaving prison, as a

group, have some statistical probability of success of failure. The

challenge to us as a community is to increase the odds that they

succeed. I think that the manner in which we release people matters. Another thing that I think matters greatly and that we need

to talk about if we are interested in improving public safety, particularly as it relates to individuals released from Federal prisons

back to the District, is that how they experience prison matters.

Let me say first of all that I think there are three critical issues

that must be addressed to promote success. Those are sobriety, employment, and housing.

I believe that sobriety is a primary issue. It is a primary condition. I am not a teetotaler. I am not making a moral judgment. But

I know this after 40 years, if an individual leaves prison or jail and

starts getting high, they will not succeed. In order to promote sobriety, we must ensure that their experience in prison is an experience of sobriety, that our prisons and jails are drug-free, that while

in prison and in jail individuals learn how to stay sober, and that

upon release they are provided with connections to those agencies

and organizations that can assist them in achieving sobriety.

It is my understanding that CSOSA has available to it approxi- mately $15 million for drug treatment. Nonetheless, it is further

my understanding that this meets only approximately 25 percent

of the need among the persons under their supervision. It is further my understanding that while in the Bureau of Prisons approximately 40,000 individuals annually are afforded exposure to

their drug and alcohol treatment programs. On any given day,

there are only 100 D.C. Code violators enrolled in these programs.

If we are serious about reducing crime committed by persons

upon their release from prison, we have to ensure that they leave

prison sober, that they know how to stay sober, and that we provide continuous access to treatment because recovery does not proceed in a straight line.

With respect to employment, it is my understanding that approximately 40 percent of the D.C. Code violators who are released

are released without a high school diploma. This makes the challenge of finding work even more difficult as they are entering a

work force market where 80 percent of the work force in the District has high school diplomas. I think that we must question why,

given that D.C. Code violators as I understand it have a rather

lengthy stay in the Bureau of Prisons, we cannot get them educated while they are imprisoned.

In today’s world, in order to work one must have certain documentation. One cannot, as we all know, work without proof of citizenship or a legal permission to work and a social security number.

Despite the best efforts of CSOSA through their VOTEE program,

75

I believe it is called, nonetheless large numbers of offenders leave

prison today without the documents necessary. It is unconscionable

in today’s day and age that individuals leave prison without the Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, or other documents that would

make them legally eligible to begin working upon their release

from prison.

I think this should become a performance standard within the

Bureau of Prisons. We should ask them to report on the number

of persons leaving prison who leave with the requisite documents.

Finally, with respect to housing, all of these issues are of course

made more difficult by the great distance that D.C. Code violators

are held from the District in Federal prisons. It makes obtaining

a job all the more difficult. One way of ameliorating this problem

is by releasing individuals back into the community through some

form of halfway house.

Despite the fact that roughly 25,000 individuals return to the

District from Federal prisons, there are only three residential Reentry Centers, as I understand it, in the District. I believe that despite efforts to open more of them, the District like my own city of

New York experiences what we refer to as NIMB, not in my backyard. No one wants it. It will take a great deal of political will by

the political power structure of the District and the Congress to

create the requisite number of halfway houses so that individuals

leaving prison leave in a rational way.

I also want to point out that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

imposes restrictions on the access to public housing and Section 8

vouchers by individuals who are convicted of drug crimes. This is

something that does stand in the way of reentry. It complicates reentry. It is something that Congress should reconsider.

I also want to finally say that data is critically important. I think

that CSOSA has an excellent data collection and management capability. I think that we ought to adopt the idea that if you can’t

measure it, you can’t manage it. We ought to look at how we manage our workloads and our caseloads, focus on the high risk cases,

and pretty much leave the low risk cases to themselves.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Thorton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES THORTON

Mr. THORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Norton, for

giving us the opportunity to come and speak today. I must say I

did not prepare a statement because this was a last minute opportunity.

Mr. LYNCH. I understand and I apologize for that.

Mr. THORTON. It is fine.

I will say that Returning Citizens United is a group of formerly

incarcerated activists who have taken up the role of getting involved with how District residents reenter society and what we can

do as activists and role models to take part in these conversations

and be represented.

I must say, I agree with a lot of the things that I have heard.

I personally have worked with CSOSA and I think we are on the

right track.

Personally, I know sobriety directly relates to reentry. I don’t

think it is by mistake that I have had 19 years of sobriety and

have been home and have been reentered into society successfully

for 19 years. I know it goes hand in hand. One of the things that

my experiences have taught me is that when you can deal with

your addiction, you stand a much better chance of staying in society.

Education is really big. Personally, as a direct result of education, I have been able to establish a life for myself. I am a home

owner now and have been married for going on 10 years.

What we are trying to do is to be the example for other people

coming home and reentering society. What we have seen happen is

that a lot of times when these meetings take place and when people are called to hearings, a lot of times there are not returning

citizens involved in these meetings. There are not formerly incarcerated people who are at the table when all of these decisions are

being made. I want to emphasize that we are talking about successful formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals who have reentered society successfully and who are beyond the right path

now.

Personally, as I said, I am a home owner, a tax payer, and married. I am doing all the things that denote citizenship. Now I want

to be a role model, having the avenue to do that and having the

means to be able to be that role model.

One thing I will say is that in any successful reentry, usually

there is a hand that was reached out from a formerly incarcerated

person to show another person the way. I think we have a unique

ability to meet a person where they are as a result of having been

there. What we at Returning Citizens United are trying to do is

have that used. We are looking to be role models and mentors and

to take part in the conversations that are being had.

One of the things is that in the District of Columbia there is an

Office that as of right now doesn’t even have a Director whose goal

and role it is, from my understanding, to look at reentry and recidivism and at how the District of Columbia is dealing with it. I think

it is almost criminal that no one is even here representing the DisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
86

trict of Columbia. Where are their beds? What are they doing?

What is their strategy? What is this Office even doing to advance

this conversation? What strategies are in place from that Office to

assist in this conversation?

One of the things, also, is that there are a lot of rules in the

books right now that are just not being carried out. I am involved

with several nonprofit organizations. I am a trainer with Sasha

Bruce YouthBuild and I do trades training. I was just at a Section

3 meeting. There are rules in the books. A lot of development that

is taking place in the District of Columbia is mandated to use District residents, returning citizens, but there is no oversight and

that is not happening. Developers are continuously finding loopholes and ways to get around that happening. It is just an ongoing

process.

But again, as a successful person who has successfully reentered

society, I know we have a role for this to take place. There is a role

for us in this. That is why we are here today.

Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Thorton. I thank you for your testimony and for your example. I think you did pretty well without a

prepared statement.

Let me begin. I am going to yield myself 5 minutes for some

questioning.

I have had a fair amount of dealings with the houses of correction in the Boston area and in Massachusetts as well as our prison

system. My own experience from talking with the inmates and visiting the prisons is that at least in the prisons that I have been

to, only a handful, maybe four or five, the addiction rate to alcohol,

cocaine, or heroin is probably, one or the other, close to 80 or 90

percent from the inmates that I have talked to. Ms. Poteat, Mr.

Horn, Mr. Thorton, you have all hit on that. I know there are some

differences here in the population and in the administration.

Ms. Poteat, you mentioned the non-compliance hearings that you

conduct. What are the most common violations that might have a

person re-incarcerated? What do those violations usually consist of?

Or are they so far across the map that you can’t pin any one down?

Ms. POTEAT. No, the most common ones are new arrests, repeated drug violations with uses of various drugs, and loss of contact procedures where the offenders fail to report to their CSOs and

are unaccountable for. We do even have a small magnitude of those

that have violated the GPS process.

Mr. LYNCH. I am supposed to be managing four bills on the floor

in about a minute.

In my limited experience, sometimes the connection to the community and to other people who have gone through this process

successfully, that is a very important element of success. If we are

shipping people outside of the community and breaking that connection between the support systems, the families, and the parolee,

I think that is counterproductive. How do we step back from that,

take that into consideration, and try to give these parolees the best

chance of success?

Ms. POTEAT. One of the things that we have done at CSOSA was

when the Bureau of Prisons transferred a large portion of offenders

to Rivers Correctional Facility, we took a tour and a visit down

87

there with staff. We listened to some of the issues or concerns that

the offenders raised. Part of those problems were they were away

from their families, they were without resources, and there were a

lack of programs and support systems.

As a result of that, we elected to start a mentoring program

where we would do video conferencing from our offices as well as

going down there. We would take a pool of staff as well as employment vendors and other community resource activists to the prisons so that they could hear what these offenders were in need of

prior to their return to the facility. In addition, we did some case

management training onsite with their staff so that they recognized some of the challenges these men would face coming back to

the District of Columbia with some of the resources that we have

and some of the problems facing them with housing or employment.

We tried to keep them in connection with CSOs so that there was

communication for the offender to have a smooth transition once

they come back to the District. So upon their return, we had some

idea of what these men needed before they arrived. And we could

hook them up with some of those resources prior to their arrival

here.

Now, we couldn’t meet with all of them because there were some

offenders at other sites in the Bureau of Prisons that were so far

away that there was a lack of contact.

Family support is very critical for these men’s success. Some of

them have been without support systems for so long, have burned

bridges, and as a result need to reconnect with their families.

The substance abuse history is a critical issue. We know many

of them are abusers as well as just frequent users. They need to

get in some type of substance abuse program. We recognized that

we could not meet all of their needs. With those where we could

do it onsite, we hooked them up with those services as well as outpatient or inpatient treatment. I talked about the family integration system.

I will talk about employment. We had employers sit in the audience when we did video conferencing and talk to the offenders at

Rivers. Some of them were interviewed right then in terms of the

types of jobs they had, the credentials you needed in order to work

at these particular jobs, and what they needed to do once they returned home.

Those are just some of the things that are so important for these

men and women.

Clothing, some of them were without clothing so we worked very

closely with our place for women as well as others for the men so

that they had suitable clothing.

It is recognized in one of the testimonies that we submitted that

we have worked with the Department of Motor Vehicles. As was indicated, these men need driver licenses or some type of identification so that they can get employment. Along with that, we were

able to get a non-driver identification so that they could come and

get the identification so when they showed up to their employers

they had some form at that time.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

88

My time having expired, I will now recognize the distinguished

gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I will ask to take the Chair if you would. I have some

questions that the committee wanted to have asked as well as your

own.

I am going to run over to the floor. I have four bills and hopefully

I will be back as soon as possible. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. I thank all of you again for your testimony.

I want to start with a question that goes directly to public safety.

I think the residents of the District of Columbia would believe a

2008 District Court for the District of Columbia decision in Sellmon

v. Reilly. The decision said that the Commission was not applying

the correct standard in making parole decisions and that there

were excessively long sentences. As a result, it is said that we

could see the release of between 500 to 1,000 offenders, on pre-release, of course, within the next 18 months from the time the decision in 2008. Most of these will have been incarcerated serving excessively long sentences for at least 15 years.

I would like to know whether any of these inmates are now released from the 2008 decision. Have they had an effect upon either

your workload or public safety? They would come immediately

under CSOSA and, of course, get to the Commission only later so

I have to ask both of you what the effect of this 2008 District Court

Federal decision has been. Is it a decision involving only those sentenced as Federal violators? Does it affect D.C. Code violators?

Mr. FULWOOD. It impacts D.C. Code violators primarily. The

Sellmon decision requires us to use the D.C. Board of Parole guidelines that were developed in 1987. We have subsequently met with

Gladys Mack and Walter Ridley to talk about the D.C. parole

guidelines.

There are about 500 offenders under that decision. We are in the

process of reviewing those cases now. Our plan is to have it completed by January 31, 2010. There are people who are being released. As you know, because of the equitable street time statute,

we are in the process of terminating people from supervision. It

will have somewhat of an impact but we are still only talking about

500 people.

Ms. NORTON. So it is not 1,000 people? It is really at the out end

only 500?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Let me just ask you as a matter of the data, do people who have served longer sentences like this tend to be older

when they get out? I guess this is for you as well as the Chief who

has a long record in law enforcement. Do they tend to be more compliant than younger ones once they are under the supervision either of CSOSA or of the Parole Commission? Or does the fact that

they were convicted of more serious crimes, perhaps, make them

more difficult for you to handle when they all get out at one time?

Mr. FULWOOD. As you know, we commissioned a study done by

Dr. Jim Austin. The study found that the D.C. population was serving twice the time of the national average.

Ms. NORTON. That was a matter of D.C. law?

89

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes, by the courts. The courts were sentencing

people to longer sentences.

Ms. NORTON. Was this pre-Home Rule law or are they just kind

of sailing off into the wind into this period as well?

Mr. FULWOOD. No. Not being a lawyer, it is a little bit of both.

I think that what you had is that back in the 1980’s when the

crack cocaine epidemic came, you ended up with greater sentences

because of the crack disparity. The Justice Department is looking

at that now to try to figure out how to better manage this.

Ms. NORTON. We did that in the District as well, you are saying?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes. So that was an issue. The study has shown

that is an issue.

But the study also points out something that was said by one of

the panelists about people who are committing lesser offenses, that

we need to do something about that group and not focus on that

group. We need to focus on the group who are violent offenders, to

take our resources and put them in there. We need to figure out

what is the best way of managing this group. Ms. Poteat talked

about some of the things that they are doing.

As you know, you and I held a hearing with the people at Rivers.

What we found is that there weren’t programs. It is a privately

owned facility for persons who were incarcerated. So we ended up

with now the 500 out program at Rivers. We are still trying to get

a solid unicorp program there now so that people have the opportunity when they come out to be successful.

One of the things that we have at the Parole Commission, 80

percent of all the people that we end up having revocation hearings

for are there for technical violators. They are low level offenders.

They either test positive, fail to take the test, or fail to report for

supervision. Those are the three problems that we face.

Ms. NORTON. Let me stop you right there. Here is where my interest in public safety really wakes up. You know, Chief, what it

means to have violent offenders out here because we don’t get to

them because we are getting to the dirty urine people now. Dirty

urine people can lead to big problems if they have continuing drug

problems so I am the last person to want to deprecate that. I think

Mr. Horn or Mr. Janetta also testified about this distinction.

Does CSOSA and then the Commission prioritize in any way offenders based on the offense to public safety of the offender given

the large number of folks under supervision that you have out? I

ask that particularly of the three of you at the table. Is there any

priority so that you get to the ones who are likely to be out here

and do violent crimes, I cited some statistics thus for 2009, or do

you take them, excuse me, first come, first serve?

Ms. POTEAT. The answer to that question is yes. We have a risk

screener that we apply to all of the offenders who are released.

Therefore we can determine who is at the intensive level or who

is at the minimum level. We supervise them accordingly.

When I say that, the high risk offenders will have to report more.

They will be engaged in the accountability tours with the Metropolitan Police Department with more frequent home visits and

more frequent office visits. All of them are usually subjected to routine substance abuse testing. We will also probably put some of

those on GPS to monitor their behavior based on their risk level.

90

As they progress and do well, then their supervision level can be

lessened.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask about GPS. I am fascinated by that.

Does GPS work so that when you put someone on GPS, most of the

time is that technology effective, not effective, or highly effective?

How would you rate it?

Ms. POTEAT. I would say that it is very effective. We have approximately 812 people on GPS right now. We have trained not

only the Metropolitan Police Department but the Capital Police and

the Park Police. They all have the ability to go in and look and

monitor our GPS system. We have been able to assist the police department in solving crimes because we are able to detect if offenders are in close proximity to an offense that has transpired or on

the scene.

Ms. NORTON. So do you have a backlog of warrants? I guess it

would be actually CSOSA that issues the warrants. Do you have

a backlog of warrants for offenders that are out on the street

today?

Ms. POTEAT. Yes, we do have a backlog of warrants. However, we

have been working very closely with the Parole Commission in addressing all of those warrants. And the Metropolitan Police Department has an initiative now where they want all of our warrants

and all of the PSAs so that they can go out and pick some of them

up as well.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about the Superior Court Marshal

and, to some extent, the District Court Marshal. Under the senatorial courtesy that the President has given me, I have now advertised to go before my commission first people who wish to be Superior Court Marshal, because that is a Federal appointment, and

District Court Marshal.

Now, I called in the Superior Court Marshal and I was, I must

say, amazed to hear how we are doing. It is a position that hasn’t

been filled for a very long time, apparently. There are Marshals

that come from all over the United States to fill in as needed because, after all, this is Federal and Marshals can fit in. It looks like

an Office doing the best it can but without any leadership.

If it is hooked up to what you do, I must ask you, how dependent

are you on the Marshals to proceed once you have a warrant out

for an offender?

Ms. POTEAT. We have had some positive results with the warrant

units in both Superior and District Courts. We do have a staff

member that is detailed over there and works in collaboration with

the Marshal Service. Therefore some of our warrants that need to

be picked up, they are able to look at and retrieve or act on immediately.

Ms. NORTON. Do you think the backlog has anything to do with

understaffing at the Marshal Service of the Superior Court?

Ms. POTEAT. I really can’t address that.

Ms. NORTON. So warrants are proceeding as you would expect,

then?

Ms. POTEAT. No, there probably needs to be some improvement.

Ms. NORTON. Well, if it is not improvement in management and

you can’t speak to whether or not there are enough Marshals, all

I can tell you, Ms. Poteat, is that I need some guidance. I am lookVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
91

ing for somebody who can staff that office as it should be staffed.

I have had complaints from people, from developers, that you can’t

get Marshals to go out even after the District is through with all

of its processes. So I am very concerned with any spill-over.

Continuing along with this violent offenders versus others, I am

not sure I even know what I am talking about. I commend the

Commission and the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

for the study you have commissioned that casts great doubt on this

so called salient factor score used by the Commission to assess an

ex-offender’s likelihood of recidivism after release. The study, as I

understand it, found at best a weak correlation to recidivism.

I must ask you, particularly when this salient score, as I think

you testified, Chairman Fulwood, is related to the guidelines, do

you agree with the findings of this study? Are you continuing to

use it? Do you intend to continue to use this salient factor score

as it now has been used for years?

Mr. FULWOOD. What we have done is, this week, as a matter of

fact, we are meeting with CSOSA and the study author to try to

come up with the rules to govern how we use the study. We believe

that the study is an important study. It will assist us in changing

direction. I support the study at this point because I think it will

get us to where we need to go.

Obviously, one of the difficulties whenever you have substance

abuse offenders is that it is one thing to say we shouldn’t do anything about them. That is OK if they are not in your neighborhood.

That is always the difficult part. If you live in Southeast Washington, you don’t want to look out your window and see people selling

drugs or see people using drugs. You don’t want your children to

see it. So that is the difficult part that we are trying to work out.

The study has a certain predictive power to it about looking at

offenders, looking at their history, what they originally were arrested for, what programs they used while they were in the institution. The salient factor score was developed over time for the Federal population.

Ms. NORTON. Not for the D.C. population?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes, it didn’t have anything to do with the D.C.

population. So now we are looking at how to better manage it.

Ms. NORTON. Do you think that you should be using or out of

this study will be using new guidance for predicting how whether

people should be on the street or not?

Mr. FULWOOD. I think it will help us because it assesses risk. It

looks at low level offenders and medium level offenders. It looks at

categories of what the offenses are and what the response ought to

be. The response of the attorney from the PDS talked about the

fact that we were giving people the 12 month hit almost automatically. That is not the way it should be.

Ms. NORTON. That is because of the salient factor score and

guidelines?

Mr. FULWOOD. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. So that is a kind of uniform approach to public

safety that results in a lack of public safety. There have to be some

differences among these people. That is what I talk about as a layman with high risk, etc. When you know that somebody is not a

violent offender, if we used a more scientific scoring they could be

92

at higher risk than somebody who has been in jail for 20 years and

has come out now, for example. So I am very concerned that you

move toward the best practices and the best data, the best information.

I know under your new leadership that you have been very concerned about this salient factor notion.

Here I make a point. This Commission is in the throes of a huge

transformation. What the U.S. Government did was to first say you

were going to go out of existence because Federal parole was abolished. Then Congress in its wisdom decided that if we are taking

public safety responsibilities from the District of Columbia for fiscal

reasons, we have to have someone to supervise. So it created

CSOSA for the first time and it gave new life to the Parole Commission.

When I ask the chairman about the salient factor score, I am

asking about the old system before Federal parole was abolished.

My grandfather’s system is what I am asking about.

What we are asking particularly the Commission and certainly

CSOSA, who must work in league with this, and again your partners like the Public Defender Service is to transform a Federal

agency, which will continue to be a Federal agency, into essentially

a local parole agency. There is no parole. I understand that. You

are not local. You are answerable to Congress and not directly to

the District of Columbia. This is unheard of in the history of the

United States. We do not give local functions to a Federal agency.

That is what we are asking you to do. That is why, Chief Fulwood,

that is always the superior title as far as I am concerned, Chairman Fulwood, I am always cognizant of the fact that we are not

asking you to simply make this thing better. We are simply asking

you to turn it on its head.

The greatest frustration of this subcommittee is seeing how little

a Federal agency can automatically be adapted to the new role you

have been given. For example, the Bureau of Prisons, which also

got this new responsibility, as bad as prisons are, this is the best

one in the United States and in the whole world. For me to say

that about a prison is to talk from how bad, perhaps, others are.

But I must say that this Bureau of Prisons has been responsive to

us. All we had to do was hold a hearing and we got a state-of-theart drug program open to District residents. We got a new facility

built at Rivers. We did that without a law, without a change. We

did it with oversight. When we were in the minority there was no

oversight of this D.C. matter.

But I am interested in those at risk first and how often in this

country we ignore risk in providing for remedy. Now, there is data

from the Justice Department on people with mental illnesses who

may not appear as the people who are at highest risk, they haven’t

committed, for example, a violent crime, but here I am quoting

from the U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections MacArthur Foundation study, ‘‘People with mental illnesses,

most of whom have co-concurring substance abuse disorders and

face significant clinical, legal, and socioeconomic challenges are

twice as likely as people without mental illness to have their community supervision revoked.’’

93

Knowing just that bit of information, it seems to me that they

almost surely would go to the front of the line in need for supervision and perhaps in need for something to keep them from going

over the top since they are more likely than others. Can I ask you

how they would rate, CSOSA, in your risk categories? Thirteen percent of the offenders under your supervision are in this category.

Whether they are high risk or not, their mental illness and substance abuse apparently puts them at some risk of failing probation.

Ms. POTEAT. Congresswoman, yes, they are a risk. But we treat

this population a little differently because we recognize the fact

that they sometimes are dually diagnosed not only with the mental

illness but with the substance abuse. Therefore one of the things

that we did do was to create additional teams to supervise this population. They have lower caseload ratios and offer more treatment.

Ms. NORTON. But now this re-offending in the sense that they

lose their probation status, does that occur in the District twice as

often? That study, I believe was a national study.

Ms. POTEAT. I am sorry?

Ms. NORTON. For the loss of their probation status, they are

‘‘twice as likely as people without mental illnesses to have their

community supervision revoked.’’ That was from a national study,

I believe. Does that occur in the District of Columbia today? These

people who have mental disorders coexisting with their other problems, are these people twice as likely? Do you know, Ms. Hankins?

Are these people twice as likely to fail probation?

Ms. HANKINS. I am unfamiliar with that specific study.

Ms. NORTON. I am just interested in the District of Columbia experience.

Ms. HANKINS. I understand from talking to advocates and from

talking to my colleagues that many of our clients do have mental

health issues and could use increased support and assistance in

being successful on parole and supervised release.

Ms. NORTON. This data may not be available. I am asking this

off the top of my head. I was interested in this study. I wish you

would get to this committee within 30 days the number of offenders

who have diagnosed mental illnesses, perhaps with other

undiagnosed conditions. The study says most have undiagnosed

conditions. Somebody has said that they have a mental illness of

some kind. If they have been in the BOP, I think those diagnoses

are reliable.

I would like to see what happens with those people because I

don’t know where they would fall on anybody’s list of violent or

nonviolent. All I know is that this national study disturbs me. I am

very pleased to hear you say that they do get increased supervision

and the rest. I would just like to know what the outcomes are for

that very high risk group.

Mr. Horn, your testimony seems to say that New York City has

given special attention to such offenders. Is that true? You, of

course, have just the kind of background we would look to. You

have been commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation. You have been the commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections. You are deeply in touch with New York’s

parole restoration work. I had understood that New York paid speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
94

cial attention to these parolees with very special needs. I wonder

if you think that could be used, for example, in a system of the

kind you have heard testimony about today?

Mr. HORN. Let me say a couple of things. I have been listening

to the conversation. I want to make an observation. I think it is

a mistake to assume that there is necessarily a relationship between mental illness and dangerousness and violence.

Ms. NORTON. Well, this study says twice as likely, not to dangerousness.

Mr. HORN. Twice as likely to fail under supervision.

Ms. NORTON. That is the point.

Mr. HORN. That is right. In my experience, many of the people

in prison and jail who are diagnosed with a mental illness are as

likely to be diagnosed with depression and anxiety as with some

form of a psychosis that leads to violence.

Ms. NORTON. No, I believe that they include mental conditions

and not just psychosis.

Mr. HORN. Yes. What we have found, for example, is that many

of these individuals fail because their mental illness may cause

them to use illegal drugs as a substitute for legal medications, either because they cannot get access to the necessary psychotropic

medications or because the side effects of those psychotropic medications are unpleasant. They choose to self medicate and so that

is why you see this high incidence of co-occurring disorders, if you

will.

Ms. NORTON. They self medicate why?

Mr. HORN. Their mental illness causes them discomfort, whether

it is hallucinations, voices, or whatever or simply depression or

anxiety. They can relieve it by using cocaine or heroin or alcohol

or marijuana, which are more pleasurable, if you will, than some

of the very powerful psychotropic legal pharmaceuticals.

The other thing that we have found is that there is a very high

correlation between individuals who are mentally ill and individuals who are both homeless and in and out of jail. Oftentimes we

refer to them as street users. We found that 10 percent of our jail

population of New York City, for example, had over a 5-year period

been both in jail for times and in homeless shelters four times in

that 5 year period.

Ms. NORTON. Were you able to get people with mental conditions

to use their pharmaceuticals?

Mr. HORN. Well, there are several challenges. The first is we

have to make sure that there is a way of paying for their access

to that treatment in the community. That means making sure they

are eligible for Medicaid.

Ms. NORTON. Aren’t they almost surely eligible?

Mr. HORN. They probably are. But many of them may have lost

their eligibility while in prison because they failed to register or because Federal law requires that their Medicaid be suspended while

they are incarcerated. Oftentimes we don’t do a good job re-enrolling them.

Ms. NORTON. Do we re-enroll them in the District of Columbia

for Medicaid?

Ms. POTEAT. In CSOSA, the health teams work with the offenders in possibly getting these people re-enrolled in Medicaid.

95

Ms. NORTON. Go ahead, Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. The other thing is they need assistance with housing

and they need intensive case management. What we have done in

New York is what we call intensive case management, that is

workers who work exclusively with the mentally ill offender in

caseloads of no more than 10 clients in the community. The other

thing we have done is we have given them priority for subsidized

housing. And we have found a way, both using Medicaid as well

as private foundation funds, to give them wraparound services.

They require a great deal of support in the community following

release. You cannot deal with them the way you would deal with

the average non-mentally ill offender and expect them to succeed.

They require a great deal of important attention.

Ms. NORTON. Let me go to Ms. Poteat, then, because that is important to note in light of your testimony. I must say, it is perplexing to me that the secure residential treatment program is only

available to male parolees and supervisees. I have to ask, considering that drug abuse is two thirds of those under your supervision

and I can’t believe that all of those are men, why is this program

available only to men?

Ms. POTEAT. Well, with the CTF program we had initially designed, we were going to have a women’s unit. However, during the

stages we determined and found that we had an increasing population of co-occurring mental health problems so we elected to open

another unit of mental health.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, but only for men?

Ms. POTEAT. For men. However, with the new pilot program at

the CTF, even though it is a pilot for 32 men, we are in negotiations with CTF and the Department of Corrections to open a women’s unit when we go full blown.

Ms. NORTON. CTF?

Ms. POTEAT. The Correctional Treatment Facility. That is the

pilot program we just started. We will have a women’s unit and

they are endorsing a women’s unit.

Ms. NORTON. Let me tell you, Ms. Poteat, you have been in violation of Federal law. I don’t care what the reason was. From the

time that they are children, girls offend less often. It is too easy

to overlook them. Yet the harm done to women may be far greater

since no matter what you are talking about, a woman who wants

to get back her children is most likely to get them back, if at all

possible, when she is released. It is simply a violation of Federal

law to have a unit paid for by the U.S. Government that excludes

women.

In 30 days, this committee and the chairman need a plan. Yes,

I understand you are talking. I want a plan that would be implemented beginning this fiscal year which begins October 1st. This

Member of Congress has worked very hard to get CSOSA money.

I would like a plan within 30 days. I would like a plan that will,

remember you get your new funds on October 1st, begin its implementation no later than January 1st to pull you out of violation of

Federal law, not to mention out of bypassing women who may be

in need of treatment.

96

I think frankly that there will be far fewer. It would have taken

nothing to set aside a few places for women. That needs to be done

right away.

Let me quickly go on. I am very concerned to hear about the detention for 2 to 4 months for the parole revocation hearings. I want

elaboration on that. Does D.C. pay for the time that they are held

in the D.C. jail? Does the D.C. government pay for that?

Mr. FULWOOD. The D.C. Department of Corrections, yes.

Ms. NORTON. Well, these people have had their parole revoked by

Federal agencies. That is something we have to do something

about. The whole point of transferring these responsibilities to the

U.S. Parole Commission and creating CSOSA is to take all the responsibility for public safety, for detaining and maintaining them,

from the D.C. government. As far as I am concerned, this is a violation of Revitalization Act. So what you do is to transfer to the District of Columbia essentially the responsibility, meaning that the

District budget pays for detention for 2 to 4 months while you are

waiting for parole revocation hearings at the jail and designation

to the Bureau of Prisons. And BOP is also, of course, a Federal

agency.

Now, I think it is Ms. Hankins who testified that you have the

discretion whether to hold them in jail or not. I certainly want to

make sure that they are not simply let out of jail without the appropriate factors and circumstances being provided. But if you have

the discretion, if these people are being held and have not yet gone

back to BOP or been adjudicated back, what determines whether

you are going to jail these offenders pending the final revocation

or not? How do you determine? How do you make that difficult

judgment? What percentage of your offenders are held as opposed

to some other use of detention?

Mr. FULWOOD. If we determine that there is probable cause and

the person goes over to the D.C. jail, they stay there until we have

a hearing for revocation purposes. Then they are designated to the

Bureau of Prisons to be transferred to a Bureau of Prisons facility.

Ms. NORTON. Suppose the person has been arrested for, let us

say, a minor violation like driving without a license. That is very

bad to do, but let us say that they are arrested and later found not

guilty. Maybe they left it at home, for example. Is their parole or

release revoked even if these charges are later dropped?

Mr. FULWOOD. It may be depending upon the totality of the circumstances.

Let me get to what we need to do. What we need to do is to use

a greater number of summons. That way the person is not incarcerated.

Ms. NORTON. How would that work?

Mr. FULWOOD. We are looking at it now.

Ms. NORTON. A summons as opposed to what?

Mr. FULWOOD. As opposed to an arrest warrant for minor offenses. With a greater use of summonses, the person wouldn’t be

over there at the jail. They wouldn’t stay there for a long period

of time. But we would still get the advantage of bringing them in

to find out about their behavior.

We are looking at it now as to a greater use summonses for the

purposes of not incarcerating people. The PDS agrees with it. They

97

have brought it to our attention also. But we have had this discussion about it.

The second thing is that we talked about mental health. One of

the problems that we have is that we don’t utilize all of the support

systems that are available in the community now. We just had

Legal Services people that came up and talked about greater use

of these services that are available in the community.

Ms. NORTON. Such as what, Chairman Fulwood?

Mr. FULWOOD. Referring them to doctors for treatment, looking

at their crime and the relationship to their crime, looking at

whether or not we can supervise them in the community, and putting them into halfway houses. There are a variety of things that

you can do.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Poteat, are your halfway houses full?

Ms. POTEAT. The halfway house determination is by the Bureau

of Prisons. If there are beds available, then they determine——

Ms. NORTON. Do you know whether there are beds available at

the moment?

Ms. POTEAT. At Hope Village? Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Why are they not being used? Do you know?

Ms. POTEAT. No. We can’t make the final determination of who

they accept into the halfway house. The Bureau of Prisons does.

Ms. NORTON. Don’t you ask them why they have empty beds at

the halfway house? Would it help you therefore to get people back

into the community? What do they tell you?

Ms. POTEAT. Yes, ma’am. In fact, sometimes we have to go back

and ask them if they will reconsider some of the cases. We even

have staff at the halfway houses that are there to work when the

offenders transition out.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Horn, did you have something to say on that?

Mr. HORN. Yes. I have to get back to the city to teach a class

tonight so I am going to have to run off, but I do want to make

an observation. It is not uncommon for halfway houses to be reluctant to accept individuals with mental illness. They may not be

equipped to deal with them.

Ms. NORTON. But she is saying accept them period, empty beds

with or without mental illness.

Mr. HORN. But it was following from the conversation you had

with Chief Fulwood about the mentally ill.

I wanted to draw your attention to a program in Philadelphia

called First, which is run through the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections. It is a halfway house expressly for individuals with

mental illness. I believe it has been replicated in Erie, PA as well.

I would just commend it to the committee as a model that you may

want to pursue.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is something that in the next appropriations cycle I might want to suggest to the appropriators for CSOSA.

But I am very concerned if there are halfway house beds that are

not being filled. Those people are coming out of jail. It is not like

CSOSA won’t get them. There are beds that are not being filled.

I don’t know if it is for fiscal reasons or whether you know what

the reasons are. I am asking staff to find out within 30 days from

the Bureau of Prisons why we are not bringing more people

through halfway houses if the beds are available.

98

Mr. FULWOOD. We know that evidence-based practice has shown

that one of the things that helps people to be successful is for them

to go to a halfway house.

Ms. NORTON. Chief, I remember that when we first got this responsibility, we showed huge declines in recidivism through the

halfway house mechanism. Then there got to be the NIMBY notion

and there got to be fewer and fewer funded. But what bothers me

is the notion that there are empty beds. We will deal with the Bureau of Prisons if that is the case.

Mr. Thorton, you asked the question about the elephant that

isn’t in the room. I have to say, the District of Columbia was not

invited to this hearing because we couldn’t pinpoint either the data

or their work.

Now, we are in touch with Empowerment. We commend the city

for its work on Project Empowerment.

But we are not sure that when the Federal Government took

over imprisonment and parole whether or not that left the city feeling that there was not the kind of responsibility that they had before, indeed any responsibility, except that if people offend criminally or otherwise, if they are to use services they are going to be

our services.

I would like your view of what you think the city, facing huge

problems with funding of programs for law-abiding citizens, what

the city might do to be more helpful in this regard. Is it simply

funding? Does the city pay attention but it simply doesn’t have the

funding? Remember that CSOSA has the major responsibility for

supervision, not the city. As someone who brought up the city, I

thought I ought to ask you what further the city should be doing

so that I could speak with the Council and the mayor to see if new

things might be possible from the city working with CSOSA and

the Commission.

Mr. THORTON. One thing is that there should be some type of

strategy in place with the city.

Ms. NORTON. A local strategy quite apart from what the Federal

agencies are doing?

Mr. THORTON. Apart from CSOSA. It should be local.

Ms. NORTON. You don’t see such a local strategy?

Mr. THORTON. I don’t see such a local strategy that exists.

We brought up recovery and the role that recovery plays in successful reintegration. Right now, there are about five buildings that

I am aware of where recovery meetings take place that are being

closed down.

Ms. NORTON. What do you mean?

Mr. THORTON. Recovery centers. Buildings where individuals go

in for substance abuse meetings.

Ms. NORTON. Do you have to go into a city building in order for

those meetings to take place?

Mr. THORTON. Most of them take place in city buildings, churches, or others.

Ms. NORTON. Why should those be abolished or closed down? I

can understand that they may not have the physical premises for

it.

Mr. THORTON. You brought up a good question. Why?

Ms. NORTON. You mean the programs are being abolished?

99

Mr. THORTON. The specific buildings I am talking about, one is

on 24th Place. Right now, there are 12 meetings that take place

throughout the week in that particular building.

I went through detoxification. When you go into treatment, one

of the things you are told is to find NA meetings and AA meetings

and places to go.

This particular building I am talking about I believe is operated

by APRA. The building is closing down so what happens is that

now you have about 1,300 people who generally go there for meetings that have no place to go.

Ms. NORTON. This is very serious. Staff will be in touch with the

city. The city is under tremendous pressure from the Great Recession, as we are now calling it. I can understand that programs have

to be closed down, but AA is usually done without city help. In fact,

it can’t get any city help because it is a religiously based program.

Many of these are done through churches and the rest. So I will

speak with city officials to see what we can do to make sure that

they work more closely, I think, probably with CSOSA to make

sure that premises are at least available for meetings that are not

government funded to continue to take place. That would be an important role for them to play.

The Public Defender says that, this for you Chairman Fulwood,

the Commission accepts the recommendations of the hearing officers almost always. What is the review process that the Commission engages in? What scrutiny results in so few reversals? I will

ask Ms. Hankins, truthfully, too. By the time you get to this point,

should we not expect, perhaps, few reversals?

Mr. FULWOOD. What happens is that when the hearing examiner

goes to the facility and has a hearing, they do a summary report.

They make a recommendation. Then there is what I call a peer review. A second examiner reviews the case and determines whether

or not he agrees or disagrees with the finding. If he agrees, it will

come upstairs to the Commission.

Ms. NORTON. So it has already, as it were, been appealed in a

manner of speaking because you got a second person?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes. There are times when there is a disagreement. Then there is a third review among the examiners. The supervisor examiners review the case until they get two people to

agree on the recommendation. It subsequently comes upstairs. The

first Commissioner reviews it. If he agrees with it, he signs off. If

he doesn’t agree with it and he puts in another recommendation

that is different than the hearing examiners’ recommendation, it

then goes through a second Commissioner until you get two Commissioners who agree on the recommendation. There is a pretty

good review.

They are reversed.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Hankins, you were concerned about this. You

heard the chief say that there are multiple reviews before it even

gets to the Commission level.

Ms. HANKINS. The 85 percent statistic may or may not be particularly impressive in comparison to, say, an appellate court review of trial judges. I don’t know.

What I thought was sort of more interesting was talking to my

colleagues who do have now a lot of experience before the Parole

100

Commission and have represented over 90 percent of parolees and

supervisees at revocation hearings. If you win a hearing and either

get a no finding where they are able to get the hearing examiner

to find that there was no violation or get a finding that there is

a violation but for some reason there is a mitigating factor that has

been decided so that they have gone below the guidelines, I have

asked my colleagues how often that is reversed. How often does an

appeal improve what has happened at the examination?

It is the 15 percent that pretty much always get decided against

our clients that I think is the more stunning statistic, not necessarily the 85 percent affirmance. But when error is found——

Ms. NORTON. How much overturning occurs in appeals in Federal

courts, for example? Isn’t it rare indeed?

Ms. HANKINS. Not in my Office. We win reversals. It is certainly

isn’t the case that every time there is an error.

Ms. NORTON. Fifteen percent of the time?

Ms. HANKINS. No, I am sorry. It isn’t the 85 percent and the 15

percent. It is of the 15 percent, which way does that go. What my

colleagues are telling me is that it is close to 100 percent of the

15 percent.

Ms. NORTON. By the time that they get to that many appeals,

then I would have to ask you how much overturning would you expect to occur by that time?

Ms. HANKINS. How about at least one in the past decade? It has

never happened. In fact, they always do it the other way. To sort

of do it in terms of the prosecution and the defense, it is always

the prosecution’s way.

Ms. NORTON. Here is where we would like to get this straightened out. We want to find out what is new and what has been happening. Now, CSOSA works for a long time with an offender. The

offender may go through a number of violations before it gets anywhere close to the Commission. Here I have been focusing and been

interested in what happens when it gets to the Commission.

I believe it was you, Ms. Poteat, who talked about kind of putting

these two parts of the process together so that we know what kinds

of sanctions are used at the CSOSA level and what kinds of sanctions are used when you get to the Commission level. Would you

help us understand how you are putting together a new system

that relies on sanctions to bring compliance before an offender offends repeatedly? I would call them graduated sanctions. Begin

with CSOSA and graduate, if need be, to the Commission level so

that we are talking about one system. I use the word sanction to

mean that if improvement is not made you are on your way back

to jail.

How would graduated sanctions work? How are they working

now? When Ms. Hankins says you would expect one in a decade to

be overturned, you could say more than what common sense tells

me. If you have gone through so many steps, maybe you wouldn’t

expect even one to be overturned. But I don’t know because I don’t

know what the graduation is up to the point where you have a

really serious appeal, I would say. By the time you get to the Commission, it ought to be a dead serious appeal and there should have

been corrections that perhaps would have been made but for certain complexities in the situation.

101

I need to know how this new system that we have been trying

to understand and that Chief Fulwood has made some use of even

at the Commission works. How you would knit that together with

CSOSA, using sanctions up the way so that ultimately the offender

with graduated sanctions would get to understand that he is deeply

now in trouble and either change his behavior or head toward the

ultimate sanction of being put back in jail?

Ms. POTEAT. All right. You talked about the graduated sanctions.

Just let me give you a brief example. Oftentimes you start with the

least type of sanction for the offender. It may be a verbal reprimand. Let us say an offender has positive urine and you continue

to do verbal reprimand after verbal reprimand. You are really not

addressing the problem. All the offender knows is that if they use

drugs, the only thing that you are going to do is give them a verbal

reprimand. This new sanction matrix will apply the appropriate

sanction to the correct behavior.

Ms. NORTON. For example, how many verbal reprimands are you

entitled to before you go to something else? Does an offender know

that? Does he know that now?

Ms. POTEAT. No because sometimes it may depend on the particular CSO even though we have a graduated sanction matrix.

Ms. NORTON. Should it depend on the CSO? I understand that

in the criminal justice system everything has some discretion.

Ms. POTEAT. Yes, it does.

Ms. NORTON. But if there is no rule to say there are X number

of verbal reprimand before you get graduated to the next thing, I

don’t know why anybody should take it seriously. These are very

smart people. Criminals aren’t dumb. They have eluded capture

and they have had some success in the criminal justice system. So

I am looking for sanctions that work and that are predictable. If

they are not predictable, then who cares?

Ms. POTEAT. That is what we intend to incorporate, sanctions

that are predictable. But I also must say that as part of that, even

though we may be applying the sanctions, it is up to the appropriate CSO to be able to enforce and relay that type of information

to the offender.

Ms. NORTON. But that is up to you as management to make sure

they are trained to do so.

Ms. POTEAT. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. I am assuming that. If that is a problem, then we

really have a problem.

Ms. POTEAT. It is not a problem. But we want to make sure, here

again, that it is the appropriate sanction so that by the time it gets

to the Commission they will be able to determine that we have exhausted everything conceivable.

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. I am not looking for a proxy for

sentencing guidelines here. I know that this terrible system that

we are trying to get rid of. I don’t want to see any version of it repeated in this system. But I think the chances for abuse by the

staff are greater indeed when, in fact, there is not appropriate

training on the one hand and when the offender does not predictably know that unless there is an extraordinary reason, X number

of this or that is going to get you to the next sanction, not back

to jail but to the next sanction.

102

When would a system at least predictably forecast to the released resident, bearing in mind that there has to be appropriate

discretion? When can we expect such a system matrix be in use

from CSOSA up through and including the U.S. Parole Commission?

Ms. POTEAT. Congresswoman Norton, there is a system already

in place. We are just only enhancing that system.

Ms. NORTON. Don’t give me bureaucratic talk. I know there is a

system and I compliment CSOSA on that system. But you cannot

tell me today, or at least you haven’t thus far told me, that someone who has had X number of reprimands knows he is on his way

to the next part, what the next part would be, or that it is written

down to tell him what the next part will be. I think part of the reason is this study that has just been commissioned would not enable

you to predictably do that yet.

The point is that by the time Ms. Hankins gets the case before

the Commission, I don’t know, you may represent people before

CSOSA as well, she ought to be able to point to something that was

in place that hadn’t taken place. You ought to be able to say that

the rule is that unless there are extraordinary circumstances, there

are X number of reprimands and then you now go on.

By the way, what would you go onto after a verbal reprimand?

Ms. POTEAT. It could be daily reporting into CSO’s office. It could

be GPS. It depends on the behavior and it depends on the violation.

Ms. NORTON. Are GPS and daily reporting at least as reliable as

one another?

Ms. POTEAT. GPS is more controllable. We can monitor what the

offender is doing or where they are going.

Ms. NORTON. Why would anybody have somebody come every day

if GPS is more reliable?

Ms. POTEAT. Sometimes we have people, like if they are unemployed, come and they may go to the Daily Reporting Center.

Therefore they would be seeing their CSO and they will be telling

them exactly what they have done or where they have gone

throughout the day.

Ms. NORTON. That works just as well as GPS?

Ms. POTEAT. It is a sanction that we utilize.

Ms. NORTON. I am asking the question, does it work as well as

GPS?

Ms. POTEAT. It works but GPS is probably more controllable.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know. Maybe if somebody is unemployed

you want to have somebody talk to them or something. But I am

looking for a way to keep track of people.

Did you want to say something, Ms. Hankins?

Ms. HANKINS. I did. I wanted to sort of talk about a slightly different type of case. It isn’t quite the graduated sanctions model, although the questions that you are asking are precisely some of the

arguments our attorneys might make.

A hearing examiner might say I am not going to give you a 12

month hit. I am going to reinstate you because your CSO maybe

needs to help you find treatment or something like that. One of our

concerns is that the final decision gets made and it is frequently,

in the 15 percent where it is overturned, that we are going to go

back to the 12 month hit. Forget that we were going to reinstate

103

you or that we were only going to give you 4 months. We are going

to take it back up to the 12 months. We don’t know how that decision got made.

But there is a slightly different sort of case. Take the example

you gave earlier of driving without a license. There are sort of new

offenses which aren’t about graduated sanctions. Maybe a case was

brought in the Superior Court and it was dismissed. Now there is

an allegation of a violation for having committed a new offense but

my colleagues are able to convince the hearing examiner that this

allegation is unsubstantiated. But the final decision is that we disagree with the credibility finding of the hearing examiner who listens to that officer or to that civilian witness. We just disagree

with it. That is probably legitimate in some cases. It just never

goes the other way.

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. You are saying that the Commission overturns the fact-finder?

Ms. HANKINS. Yes. In 15 out of 100 cases, based on their estimate.

Ms. NORTON. Is that why you want written decisions?

Ms. HANKINS. Written decisions and some assurance that maybe

they have at least listened to the tape as opposed to just read a

one page summary that we haven’t reviewed and so we don’t know

what they have based their decision on.

Ms. NORTON. Why haven’t you reviewed the summary?

Ms. HANKINS. We don’t get it. It isn’t made public. It is given

straight to the Commission and they make the final recommendation. So it isn’t even really the appeal process. It is the final decision. After that we can make a FOIA request to then appeal a decision.

Ms. NORTON. Have you made FOIA requests?

Ms. HANKINS. We have made FOIA requests. It is not, however,

an excuse or a justification for getting a continuance of the appeal

process if we haven’t gotten the summary in time.

Ms. NORTON. Chairman Fulwood.

Mr. FULWOOD. We sign reinstatements all the time where a person is restored to supervision when there are multiple allegations

against them. We do listen to the tapes. I have personally listened

to tapes. So that is not correct.

What we need to do is to figure out how to do this stuff better.

One of the things that we have done is that we just had Alinda

Moyer up to the Commission to talk to the hearing examiners

about her views on how we ought to review cases. We have just

gotten from Alinda Moyer a judge who is doing teaching on how to

evaluate credibility. He is going to come up and teach at the Commission. We know that we have to do this thing better.

But most of the time when an offender comes before the Parole

Commission, they have committed multiple violations. There have

been graduated sanctions all along. What we find is that we have

to find better ways to motivate people to not offend.

If you look at the sanction program, Dr. Calvin Johnson who is

sitting back here does some studies on it, when people come

through the sanction program, they generally don’t get locked back

up. They don’t. They don’t re-offend. Not only do they not re-offend,

but they don’t test positive. The positive rate starts to decline beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:46 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54385.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
104

cause we have developed through CSOSA a case management plan,

treatment modalities, and others to do this stuff better.

This is an imperfect system because we are dealing with imperfect people. As we continue to reach out to folks to figure out how

to do it better, we will do it better. There is no question in my

mind.

Ms. NORTON. Chairman Fulwood, as I have said earlier, you are

in the throes of recreating the Commission itself. That means looking at how the Commissioners make these decisions. If these graduated sanctions work in the new regime, it does seem to me that

it will have an effect here.

I am very concerned about having no basis. Even though that is

not a violation of the Constitution not to know how decisions are

made, I know as a lawyer I would always want to see what the

basis is. I am not sure what it would mean in terms of workload.

Chairman Fulwood.

Mr. FULWOOD. Can I give you another example? I had a sanction

hearing. The person had no D.C. permit. That was his first violation. His second violation was that he had no D.C. permit. He had

been arrested a second time. Not only that, he tested positive. But

in the sanction hearing when we got together with CSOSA and we

interviewed the guy, it was obvious that there were some mental

illness problems. He had some cognitive deficits. So I called the police and asked why they locked this guy up. Don’t you know that

he doesn’t understand this problem? The police took the ticket

back.

It is all these kinds of things that happen when you do this. This

is where you have to do this kind of stuff.

Ms. NORTON. So the Commission level is when this problem gets

straightened out?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. It should have been straightened out, obviously,

long before that. It gets back to mental health, mental condition.

Here, low cognition on the part of a releasee.

Mr. FULWOOD. There is one other thing. There is a young lady

sitting behind us, and I am sorry, I apologize for not knowing her

name, Gretchen, who came up and talked about wraparound services for people who are in the system that have mental illness problems and how we ought to utilize them more. We are getting ready

to invite her up to talk about this whole thing of mental health.

I just don’t think that the system is designed to deal with people

who have mental health problems. We ought not to be locking

these folks up. That is just my personal view.

Ms. NORTON. We certainly ought not to be re-locking them up

once they are out of prison.

Could I ask you all, is it your impression that we are sending offenders back to jail for parole violations who have managed to get

themselves a job?

Ms. HANKINS. Yes, we are sending them back.

Ms. NORTON. Have mercy. Shouldn’t that be a factor? How often

does that occur? If you have managed to hold a job, even though

there is a violation, how large a factor does being employed weigh

in whether or not to put you back in jail?

105

Mr. FULWOOD. It weighs pretty heavy from the Commission’s

standpoint. We look at whether or not the person is employed and

whether or not they have a stable residence. We see that in the reports. We see the reports from CSOSA. They will note that this

person has a stable residence that they have been living in for 2

years. They have been employed for 2 years. We should not lock

them up; we should send them through the sanction program. So

they come to the sanction program.

Ms. HANKINS. Yet many of them are locked up.

Ms. NORTON. Well, why are they locked up? You can have a job

and rob people, too, Ms. Hankins.

Ms. HANKINS. Well, we have a number of clients who have jobs,

who have stayed in contact with their community supervision officer, but who make some other mistake. Maybe they have tested

positive for marijuana.

Ms. NORTON. Can you really say that somebody has tested positive, has a job, and that they are going to send them back to jail?

Ms. Hankins, I have a hard time believing that.

Ms. HANKINS. They are detained and 4 months later, if they are

reinstated, they probably have lost that job. Everyone is detained.

Ms. NORTON. Let us go back to that, Ms. Poteat and Commissioner Fulwood. Isn’t that counterproductive? That a person is unlikely, is he not, to flee if he has managed to get a job? If you lock

him up for 2 to 4 months, how is he going to retain that job? God

knows, he may even not be sent back ultimately. Is he in danger

of flight? Why must he be detained, I might add, at the expense

of the District of Columbia at the D.C. jail?

Ms. POTEAT. I am sorry. As the chairman and I were talking,

those types of offenders we try to recommend for the sanction hearings or the CTF project.

Ms. NORTON. Let me tell you what the discrepancy is here. The

sanctions hearings have been done almost exclusively, have they

not, Chief Fulwood, by yourself?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Chief Fulwood was appointed at my request when

I was in the minority as a Commissioner. He became the only Commissioner who would do sanctions hearings. So Ms. Hankins is left

here with some people going through this process, the old process,

because there is only one Chief Fulwood.

The reason that having you all at the same table is important

is because it says to the committee that we probably ought to have

more people doing sanctions hearings rather than having the precious loss of a job through detaining a releasee. It seems counterproductive, going against CSOSA’s and the Commission’s own view

that employment is the most important thing, perhaps, besides

housing that you can have if you are released from jail.

Mr. FULWOOD. Look, I agree that employment is important and

that we ought to do everything short of arresting somebody initially. The greater use of summonses would help to rectify some of

that.

As we look at what group of people we are going to use summonses for, we have to be careful that we don’t disregard encouraging people to be successful or allow them to thwart the process so

that they just will disregard what we are doing.

106

We have had cases, and I am sure Ms. Hankins is aware of

them, when guys tested positive 20 times. They didn’t go to jail. We

tried to put him in treatment. We put him in treatment and he

walked away because there is no requirement that you stay there.

The person can walk away. That is one reason why these secure

residential treatment programs become an important part of the

process. Even at the Sanctions Center, there are people that go in

the Sanctions Center who walk away from the Sanctions Center

and test positive while they are in the Sanctions Center.

Ms. NORTON. Chief Fulwood, on the basis of your testimony and

the testimony of Ms. Hankins, I am going to ask the appropriators

in the next appropriations cycle, by which time, of course, we will

already have females in treatment in the District of Columbia, to

let you to testify before them so that we can get enhanced appropriation for treatment that could keep somebody who has a job

from finally just walking away because he is so addicted.

Yes, Ms. Hankins? I only have one more question before I let this

panel go.

Ms. HANKINS. This exchange has been amazing. I think it lends

to fixing the salient factors. With employment, as shocking as it is

that we might send someone back to jail who has a job, it happens.

It happens all the time because having employment isn’t a salient

factor score. So it leads right in to how it is impossible for someone

on parole or supervised release to get a perfect score, meaning that

they get a 12 month hit.

Ms. NORTON. I can’t understand that. Even under the old Federal guidelines, the whole notion that having a job wouldn’t be

worth anything comes as a tremendous shock to me. It says to me

that we should throw the whole thing out. If you have managed,

even in the best of economies, to go to the front of the line against

all of my constituents who are unemployed and law-abiding and

gotten yourself a job, it shouldn’t be possible that doesn’t count for

anything. I don’t care whatever else the salient factors had to tell

me. They have just told me everything that I need to know.

I want to ask you to set a date on it. You know, Ms. Poteat and

Commissioner Fulwood, that we will be waiting to see that go byebye very soon. I will ask you to tell me what is the soonest that

can be implemented. Since the study has only recently come out,

I will be asking you shortly to tell me how soon that can be.

Let me ask a question about the last big injustice that caught my

attention when this matter first came to our attention a few years

ago. It is about street time, which required that the District of Columbia to adopt a new law. That struck me in the face. It said that

District of Columbia residents have longer sentences than any inmates in the United States of America. I said, how can that be? It

is a progressive jurisdiction. How did that happen? I come to find

out that time spent on parole before revocation just didn’t count.

If you have been out clean and good for how many years and

something terrible happened. I don’t know what happened. Maybe

the woman you had been with or your wife left you. I don’t know

what happened in your life. Maybe I won’t even assume it is one

of Ms. Hankins 15 percent, one of whom should have somehow got

overturned. I am assuming that you had to go back.

107

I understand that D.C. changed the law. They can at least keep

their street time after revocation. Now, make me understand the

following: It is for except when an offender is convicted of a felony

or sometimes a misdemeanor while on parole and in situations

where offenders do not ‘‘respond to any reasonable request’’ by the

Parole Commission or CSOSA. That looks like a lot of discretion on

the part of the Commissioner or even CSOSA when it comes to

street time for misdemeanors. And it looks like you can’t get it for

a felony. I am not even sure how that decision was made but since

it is a Home Rule decision I think it must have some meaning.

How has this new law been implemented? It just passed in May

of this year. Could you give me some examples?

Mr. FULWOOD. It became effective on May 20th.

Ms. NORTON. May 20, 2009.

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes, 2009. The implementing rules became effective June 17th. What the Good Time Credit Act did was to eliminate automatic revocation of street time. The new rule permits the

Commission to do several things. One is early termination of supervision. If you have 5 years of good time, then we terminate your

supervision so you are free to go. You haven’t created any problems. We have looked at the record. We have a hearing.

Ms. NORTON. Even though ordinarily you would not be free to go?

Mr. FULWOOD. Right.

Ms. NORTON. That goes to putting more attention on the high

risk people or the people with mental conditions?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes. One of the impacts is that if you are a sex

offender or somebody of that nature, you shouldn’t be released from

supervision.

Ms. NORTON. So you are the ones we need to look at. Go ahead,

sir.

Mr. FULWOOD. Early termination was a good thing. As a matter

of fact, when the law went into effect, the Public Defender Service

had a conference about this whole issue. I had seven people approach me. Five of them got released from supervision immediately

because the law had taken effect. They sent me a letter. I wrote

a letter back.

Ms. NORTON. Were these people with misdemeanors where it is

in your discretion?

Mr. FULWOOD. No, they had committed felonies in the original offense but they had 5 years of good time. They had to go so we released them from supervision. As you indicated, if it is a felony,

then they lose their time if they commit a new offense. It is all

about whether they commit a new offense. If they are certain kinds

of misdemeanors, they will lose it.

Ms. NORTON. Like what? Give me examples.

Mr. FULWOOD. Domestic violence. Domestic violence is not always a felony. They may get an assault for domestic violence. That

is a misdemeanor. We pay attention to domestic violence. We are

not going to release them automatically but we have a hearing to

make those determinations. You may not agree with the hearing,

but we do have a hearing to try to sort through all of the facts and

make an appropriate decision.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Hankins.

108

Ms. HANKINS. With respect to new offenses, this is one area

where it is a little different from how regular revocation works. My

understanding is it requires a conviction in court. It isn’t that a

case can get dismissed in court. If there is a new conviction in

court, that person is probably going to be sentenced on that anyway. So the question of whether they need to lose their street time

on top of getting sentenced on a new offense and getting, perhaps,

a sanction for the time that they still have, to lose their good time

is a third punishment for the same offense.

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. You don’t get sentenced for all misdemeanors.

Ms. HANKINS. I am sorry?

Ms. NORTON. You don’t get sentenced for all misdemeanors.

Ms. HANKINS. It would strike me that if the offense is serious

enough that someone should lose their good time for it, then they

probably have gotten a sentence for it, whether misdemeanor or a

felony.

Ms. NORTON. I know. What I worry about is that the Council, in

its wisdom, did say misdemeanors.

Ms. HANKINS. If I could say, it actually wasn’t the Council’s wisdom. The bill that was proposed was a lot broader. It got essentially seriously cut back to mirror the Federal system because a little part of the Revitalization Act said that the District cannot

change its own parole laws without the concurrence of the U.S. attorney general. So while the hearing before the Council was unbelievably moving, and I think absolutely the votes were there to

pass a broader bill, we had a meeting with the Department of Justice and a number of the agencies in the Department of Justice.

They said you are not getting that much and they were able to

trump the Council. So it is not really fair to call it the Council’s

wisdom when it was the wisdom of the attorney general who

trumped it.

Mr. FULWOOD. But they passed it.

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. They passed it.

Ms. HANKINS. They took the bird in the hand. It is true, they

took the bird in the hand.

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. This law was passed in May of this

year based on consultation with what Justice Department? The

prior Justice Department or this Justice Department?

Ms. HANKINS. The prior Justice Department.

I do want to say the authority for early release was the suggestion of the Parole Commission. It is a fantastic part of the law and

we are so happy it is there.

Ms. NORTON. Now that we are in the throes of transformation,

Chief Fulwood and Ms. Poteat, I am going to ask the new Justice

Department to review this as well. If the District was caught having to get the existing Justice Department to agree to whatever it

did, that is fair. Under administrative law, if there has been a

change in the administrative agency, that can be reviewed. I am

asking staff to have that matter reviewed by the Justice Department to see whether any changes might be allowable at least by

the City Council, in which case we would so advise them.

I thank each and every one of you for being here. We use these

hearings for a purpose. We are trying to get something done, not

109

just find out what you know. What you know has been exceedingly

helpful to us.

We understand that the subcommittee chairman has under his

jurisdiction not only the District of Columbia but four bills on the

floor that cover multiple jurisdictions of the subcommittee.

I thank Chairman Lynch for calling this hearing and for allowing

me to go on so long with questions that will help us as we try to

help the Commission, CSOSA, and all who work with them to redesign the U.S. Parole Commission to fit the residents of the District

of Columbia. Thank you very much.

We will prepare for the next and final panel.

Mr. FULWOOD. Thank you for having us.

Ms. NORTON. Let me introduce the next panel. Mr. Samuel Green

is on supervised release with CSOSA. Mr. James Parker, is also on

supervised release. Mr. Parker is an employee of the District’s Department of Public Works.

I am going to ask Mr. Parker and Mr. Green or Mr. Green and

Mr. Parker in whichever order you desire to testify.

I want to thank you before you speak for being willing to come

forward to assist this subcommittee and the U.S. Congress. This

subcommittee tries, whenever possible and whenever appropriate,

to hear from the agencies whose job it is to tell us what the agencies are trying to do and how successful they think they are. We

heard from some agencies who are trying very diligently for us. But

we can’t get a true picture without talking to the clientele of the

agency, the public that acts with the agency. That is why your testimony is as important to us this afternoon as the testimony you

have just sat through to hear.

May I hear from whoever wants to speak first? Would you identify yourself? Tell where you are employed and then tell something

about yourself.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES PARKER, D.C. CODE OFFENDER

UNDER USPC/CSOSA JURISDICTION; AND SAMUEL GREEN,

D.C. CODE OFFENDER UNDER USPC/CSOSA JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JAMES PARKER

Mr. PARKER. Greetings. My name is James Parker and I am an

ex-offender assigned under the supervision of CSOSA.

I would like to first thank you, Congresswoman Norton, and your

cohorts for allowing me to present.

I had been charged with distribution of heroin in 2003. I did 26

months at Rivers Correctional. I got out in 2007 and I am still

here.

I was listening to everything that was going on and basically I

can just give you my experience. Being on parole has been a pivotal

part in my live, pivotal meaning that——

Ms. NORTON. What has been a pivotal part? I am sorry.

Mr. PARKER. Being on parole has been a pivotal part in my life,

pivotal meaning that a lot has transpired in my life since being on

parole. There was a death in my family with my daughter. There

have been sanctions. A lot of different things have been going on.

Being on parole has especially helped me keep from using excuses for the choices and actions I made in my life. My actions are

110

more accounted for now and I owe my respect to being on parole.

Having a parole officer has made my journey this time a more

smooth transition back into society. We all have heard the stories

of people coming out and not being able to maintain a normal lifestyle, whether it is from issues of unemployment, substance abuse,

family matters, or daily interactions. I pride myself in sustaining

from the jug juices and plan on keeping it that way forever.

My transition has gone really well because of my parole officer.

She has really heightened my ability to stay focused. I highly recommend this added supervision because we all fall short in our

shortcomings.

But you also know that there are still some things that I think

need to be worked on as far as improving CSOSA and the things

that are going on to help people be successful in society. I think

it is very important that the—you have to excuse me. I am a little

bit nervous.

Ms. NORTON. You are doing well. Just keep talking naturally.

Mr. PARKER. It is very important that your parole officer is really

into you as an individual instead of it just being a job for her. Although being on parole and having a parole officer has many

positives, I found that the program needs improvement. As for me,

I was fortunate to have a good parole officer. But there are not as

many as fortunate as me. Being a good parole officer should not

just be a job for them but a mission to have these men and women

get back on their feet after being incarcerated.

I also think parole officers should be more optimistic in their

mindset in dealing with parolees as they would want to be treated

themselves. We are sometimes boxed in a negative notion that

needs to be broken. A lot of us are striving to make a second

chance in society worth it. We just want parole officers to treat us

the way that they would want to be treated. This is not in my case.

I am just speaking on some of the parolees that have talked to me

and who wanted me to bring to your attention what is going on

with them.

I think some of the key points were made today about a lot of

the things that I wanted to say.

As far as being positive in society, it really has a lot to do with

employment. A lot of parolees are getting out and they are finding

it very hard to find jobs. Even though we all know about our economic structure—it is harder for just people without a felony to get

a job, but with a felony, it is a little bit harder.

Also, the housing situation for ex-offenders just getting out is terrible. When they get out, they might have to go to an environment

where the people that they are going with are just as bad off as

they are. Then you are putting them back into an environment

where they really have a messed up choice. They are coming home

to their home environment where there might be people on drugs

and very high poverty. Then once they get into that environment,

they might not come home to a house. There might not be a house

there when they come home. So there is that.

I just want to close. I want to thank you very much for having

me here. I want to apologize for my nervousness. I haven’t been

around a big crowd and spoken in front of a big crowd. I just want

to thank you all for having me.

111

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Parker, for testimony that was full

of information and experience that has enriched us.

Mr. Samuel Green.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Good afternoon. My name is Samuel Green.

I would also like to thank Congresswoman Norton and your

peers for giving us a forum to talk about community supervision.

As you know, I am an ex-offender being supervised by CSOSA.

In 2007, I was convicted for robbery and attempted robbery. I was

sentenced to 22 months in prison. I served 19 months before being

released into the community.

As a 22 year old African American male living in Washington,

DC, on supervised release, I have found that it is oftentimes difficult to make adjustments to reenter in society. The difficulties I

found in employment, housing, and educated increased with the

criminal record.

However, through the assistance of CSOSA and my CSO I have

been able to make pro-social changes such as remaining drug free,

actively seeking employment, and being currently enrolled in the

Sasha Bruce YouthBuild program.

I want to say that my supervision hasn’t been squeaky clean. I

had drifted back into using drugs again, influenced by my environment. On occasion I have used illicit substances. When that happened, my first thoughts were that I would return to jail. But

through sanctions I was able to stay on the street.

I have had sanctions such as a verbal reprimand, a CSSO conference, GPS, and a USPS issued letter of reprimand.

As a result of these sanctions, I have been in compliance with supervision with no positive urine. And, as I said earlier, I am involved in the Sasha Bruce Youth program.

I would like to thank my community supervision officer for believing in me and CSOSA for providing me with an opportunity to

succeed. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you again as well, Mr. Green, for testimony

that I have already found helpful even before we ask you any questions. Thank you again for your courage in coming forward.

Now, you both were convicted of pretty serious felonies. Yet here

you are in the hearing room of the U.S. Congress able to testify

about your lives.

I was interested, Mr. Parker, to hear Mr. Green talk about his

sanctions. Did you ever have a CSOSA or the Parole Commission

apply sanctions to you?

Mr. PARKER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Green, did you see those sanctions as more and

more of a warning and more and more serious restraints on your

release?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. What made the sanctions finally work? Both of you

have credited your supervisors. I must say it says a lot about

CSOSA’s staff that each of these young men have given great credit

to those who supervised them. In the case of Mr. Parker, I have

to ask him what the sanctions were. Mr. Green told us what his

sanctions were. What made the sanctions finally hit home to you?

112

Mr. PARKER. I got tired of making excuses about doing this.

Ms. NORTON. What sanctions were applied?

Mr. PARKER. I had dirty urine.

Ms. NORTON. What did they then do to you?

Mr. PARKER. When they caught my dirty urine I was on what

they call random. I took the urine out like once every 2 months.

So what they did was they brought it back to twice a week. They

heightened it up. They brought it back to twice a week.

Ms. NORTON. That was helpful, wasn’t it?

Mr. PARKER. Oh, was it. I work and I am married and now I

have to come back in and go through all this stuff. It just made

me realize how much of a fool I was and how far I had come.

Ms. NORTON. Because now you had this greater inconvenience.

Mr. PARKER. I had to come back twice a week.

Ms. NORTON. And you know that if you didn’t come back this

time——

Mr. PARKER. They already told me that if I didn’t, if I had gotten

another one, then they were going to put me into a GPS system.

I was near enough 40. I will be 42 in 2 more weeks. I just couldn’t

even imagine somebody telling me what time to be in the house

and knowing where I am going.

Ms. NORTON. So this graduation of sanctions so that they got

more and more serious and more and more restrictive, that worked

for you as well, then?

Mr. PARKER. Definitely.

Ms. NORTON. You both are employed?

Mr. PARKER. I am. I am with the Department of Public Works

but it is seasonal. I start back at the end of October.

Ms. NORTON. How did you get the job, Mr. Parker?

Mr. PARKER. Through Project Empowerment, which is a terrific

program.

Ms. NORTON. This is important because this is a completely D.C.-

funded program.

Mr. PARKER. It is outstanding.

Ms. NORTON. And here we have the District on its own, quite

apart from CSOSA. Of course, it has had this terrific burden taken

off of it, but it is a city program with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country also trying to find employment. The city

gave you a job in the city?

Mr. PARKER. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. We know that there are quite a substantial, significant number of city jobs that now go to those who have been released on parole. We will ask CSOSA to try to help us pinpoint

that, though we commend the city for leading by example on that

matter.

You work for Sasha Bruce, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. What do you do?

Mr. GREEN. It is a GED and you can achieve a trade there, job

readiness.

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t have a job. You go to that program?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Is that also a Project Empowerment program?

Mr. GREEN. Kind of, yes. I would say yes.

113

Ms. NORTON. I am not sure who runs that program but it is important. Mr. Green does not have a job now. However, I suppose

it is CSOSA that gives him credit for going to get his GED and for

doing job readiness so that he is not on the street competing with

people who have no record. He is out here trying to be ready to

compete with people who have no record.

Could I ask you, in your own opinion and leaving aside the excellent employees, Federal employees, who have guided you, which

programs have been most supportive or effective for you? I mean

programs you have been through like the parts of CSOSA or the

Commission or any city program? Which has been most helpful to

you?

Mr. PARKER. I think for me it would probably be the supervision

at CSOSA.

Ms. NORTON. Really?

Mr. PARKER. Yes. I think that to really get myself back on track

before I really go off the edge, it guided me to where I really need

to be and got me totally focused on what I want to do in life. The

job and stuff is good, don’t get me wrong. It is seasonal. I have

been there for 2 years. It is seasonal and it is good. But without

me going in the right direction, who is to say I would have even

been there as long as I have been or even right now. So I would

have to go back to where it begins.

Ms. NORTON. How about you, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. For me, I say Sasha Bruce for the weekly meetings,

giving me a sense of home court advantage, and just making me

feel like a good way is a better way.

Ms. NORTON. What I think you demonstrated is that when people

hear about people who have commited crimes, they assume we all

start at the same starting line. How did you start life, Mr. Parker?

Mr. PARKER. I would say probably a dysfunctional family, my environment, wanting to fit in with the crowd.

Ms. NORTON. Where did you live, sir?

Mr. PARKER. Southeast. That is where I grew up.

Ms. NORTON. You were raised by a mother and a father?

Mr. PARKER. It was my mother, grandmother, uncle, whoever.

Ms. NORTON. Whoever is the important point here. That is the

difference between your starting line and most people’s. So the

street got to help raise you.

Mr. PARKER. It raised me. It just took me until this point in my

life to feel that drugs and getting high, there is so much more to

life than that.

Life is so beautiful when you are sober. It is so beautiful when

you can go and take your urine and you don’t have to worry about

trying to find anything to take and drinking all this water. You can

just go on in and just be comfortable. You are able to see your

grandkids run and play and do little stuff with you being a part

of their lives when you aren’t all drugged out or don’t want to be

around them.

All in all, being incarcerated for most of my life, just being able

to see how beautiful life is is a major adjustment for me. That is

what keeping me focused. That is what is keeping me to not even

do drugs anymore or be a part of it. I am just thrilled with where

I am at right now.

114

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Green, how did you start out in life?

Mr. GREEN. Most of the same as him, trying to be cool.

Ms. NORTON. Were you raised by your mother and father?

Mr. GREEN. Just my mother. I tried to live up to my father.

Ms. NORTON. What section of the city, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. Southeast. Like my father, he was in and out of jail

all his life. He is in jail now, but that is another story. I was just

trying to be cool. I just idolized the bad guys when I was little. Do

you know what I am saying?

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I do know what you are saying, Mr. Green.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GREEN. My bad. That is all to my story.

Ms. NORTON. I ask you to tell those two painful stories because

we are so inclined to be judgmental and to assume that here we

all are and all we have to do is what I did. I had a mother and

a father and grandmother and everyone else surrounding me.

Changes in family life and in circumstances in big cities leave their

issues. CSOSA and the Commission, not to mention the Bureau of

Prisons, are left to deal with those issues.

I just want to say as your Congresswoman who represents you

that I am proud to represent you.

Mr. PARKER. We are proud of you for all you have done for us.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I had a whole lot more advantages in life just

starting out with Coleman and Vela Holmes as parents. That was

all the advantage that most people need. You start there and then

life takes care of itself. It wasn’t in the most crime-ridden part of

the city either. So I have to judge you from where you started.

You have been willing to come forward and tell us where you are

now. But you didn’t start with your life story. You could have said

first, let me tell you about having no daddy and how my mama had

to raise me by herself and growing up in Southeast. I had to bring

that out of you because I want that on the record, too.

You have been invited here as visible evidence of how society

benefits from putting a little resources into you now that were not

put into your early lives by your own families, perhaps, and certainly not until you got through the criminal justice system.

Now, Mr. Parker, you are a tax-paying resident of the District of

Columbia. Mr. Green, if you stay in that program where you are

learning a trade and getting your GED, I look forward to your

being a tax-payer. We are looking increasingly in the employment

sector for people who have been through it and for whom a job

means everything. That is why you will find that there will be people looking for you when this Great Recession is over.

I appreciate that when we came looking for you, you were willing

to step forward so that we would know what these services mean.

You gave me ammunition to go before the Appropriations Committee to make sure that there are more of those services available to

the District of Columbia, to CSOSA, to the U.S. Parole Commission, to the Public Defender Service, and to those who work in

partnership with them. Thank you very much for coming forward.

Thank you to all our witnesses. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

Æ