U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–118 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1059 

OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY IN OUR 

STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 

Serial No. J–109–114 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

MARY CHESSER, Majority Chief Counsel 

MARK KEAM, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 1 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 3 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, 

prepard statement ................................................................................................ 79 

WITNESSES 

Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ........................ 7 

Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Washington, D.C. .................................................................... 11 

Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. ................................................. 5 

Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas .......................................................................................................................... 20 

Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer Foundation, 

Chicago, Illinois .................................................................................................... 22 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Mason M. Bishop to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ...... 33 

Responses of L. Carter Cormick III, for Robert J. Bogart to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ................................................................................... 43 

Responses of Cheri Nolan to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ............... 49 

Responses of Roger Werholtz to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ......... 58 

Responses of B. Diane Williams to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ..... 62 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bishop, Mason M., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., statement ..... 64 

Bogart, Robert J., Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, 

D.C., statement .................................................................................................... 75 

Nolan, Cheri, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Washington, D.C., statement ................................................ 81 

Schofield, Regina B., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement .............................. 88 

Werholtz, Roger, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas, statement ....................................................................................................... 101 

Williams, B. Diane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Safer Foundation, 

Chicago, Illinois, statement ................................................................................. 108 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR 

PRISONER REHABILITATION AND REENTRY 

IN OUR STATES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn, Sessions, Brownback, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Chairman COBURN. The Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

First of all, I want to take this moment to thank each of you who 

are participating on our two panels today. This is an oversight 

hearing on Federal assistance for prisoner rehabilitation and reentry in our States. 

What we do know is whatever, positive or negative, that prisoners learn in prison will be reflected in their behavior outside of 

prison. The statistics are somewhere around 9 million people go 

through our prisons in a year, and we have in excess of 2 million 

people incarcerated. 

The purpose of the hearing is to learn about every Federal tax 

dollar that has recently been spent on programs to aid State and 

local prisoner reentry initiatives. Since 2001, the Federal Government, through the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, Byrne JAG grants, demonstration 

grants, and various research initiatives, has spent over $400 million to help States and local governments provide programs to assist in prisoner reentry. Additionally, there are grants, technical information, and best practices provided by various agencies to help 

prevent crime and provide alternatives to incarceration. 

We have a large job in front of us today because to date Congress 

has not reviewed some of its larger investments like the Serious 

and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative or some of the pilot programs, like the Transition from Prison to Community Initiative employed in eight States or the demonstration program employed 

through the National Governors Association in seven States. 

2 

At the end of the hearing today, I hope we will, first of all, become more familiar with all the programs that are there, the funding opportunities available through the various agencies that assist 

in prisoner reentry, the goal of those programs, and the type of accountability that is built in to ensure that the tax dollars are well 

spent and meet the goals and the visions of those programs. Ninety-one-point-six percent of all inmates are held in State facilities 

for violating State laws. Additionally, we know that 16 States hold 

almost 71 percent of all inmates. While incarceration generates 

high costs, we know that States this past year had $57 billion in 

excess revenues. Thirty-eight States’ revenues exceeded their budget projections and 10 States’ revenues were on target. Unexpended 

revenues probably can and should be focused on one of the critical 

areas in our country that needs addressing, and that is the effects 

of incarceration. How do we make good, productive citizens of people who have made a mistake, paid the price, and do not go back 

in? 

What we do know is that the recidivism rate is high, and we 

know that two-thirds of that recidivism, that reincarceration occurs 

within the first 6 months following—actually, it is half occurs within the first 6 months following release from incarceration. We need 

to do a better job as a Nation. The States need to do a better job. 

Eighty percent of State prisoners report a history of drug or alcohol use. In fact, 55 percent of State prisoners report using drugs 

or alcohol during the commission of the crime that resulted in their 

incarceration. I am a big proponent of drug treatment and addiction treatment, and when we fail to do that, we fail to offer a hope 

and a chance for many people who are incarcerated. 

A study in Texas found that an unemployed offender is 3 times 

more likely to return to prison than one who is employed. Similarly, New York’s Department of Labor reports that 83 percent of 

offenders who violated probation or parole were unemployed. 

With the knowledge we have about the trends in recidivism and 

the commonalities among inmates, we can evaluate the programs 

we have to make sure they are targeting the right needs. 

I met with a number of groups and also a number of corrections 

staff. One program in particular that stands out to me as a phenomenal success is being executed by two U.S. probation officers— 

one in eastern Missouri and another in western North Carolina. 

These two officers are motivated to make a difference in the lives 

of inmates, and they have used their resources in very creative 

ways. They focus specifically on employment. 

Using job retention training, the Federal Bonding Program, employer tax credit, and job fairs for ex-offenders, they were able to 

reduce the unemployment statistics for the people in their charge 

from 12.1 percent in 2000 to 3.3 percent in 2006. The most amazing thing is that the unemployment rate for ex-offenders in their 

areas of coverage in 2006 was lower than the unemployment rate 

in their respective areas for all the citizens as a whole. 

As of this month, the unemployment rate is at an all-time low 

for ex-offenders in eastern Missouri at 2.54 percent, while the community’s unemployment rate is 5.1 percent. This incredible success 

has had a significant effect on revocation. Even though the released 

offender caseload has increased over the years, the number of revVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 May 06, 2009 Jkt 034118 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\34118.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3 

ocations has decreased. It is all related to employment, employing 

skills, getting out of an addictive habit and being employed and 

building self-esteem based on that. 

The success of the program is attributed to offender employment 

following release, offender education programs in prison, mandatory evening and weekend work for supervision officers, increased 

treatment options, search and surveillance team support, and 

credibility from the bench, passionate staff, and good press. 

After meeting these gentlemen, there is no doubt in my mind 

that the success of their program is because of the character of the 

men leading it. People make the difference in successful reentry, 

both the corrections officers and the incarcerated individuals. 

At the Judiciary Committee hearing this last Tuesday on the cost 

of crime, one Senator pointed out that the Residual Drug Treatment Program in Federal prisons is offered to all inmates who volunteer. In the followup question and answer period, the Director of 

the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, agreed that if all inmates 

with a drug treatment need were forced to participate in the program, the success of the program might be reduced because the volunteer nature of the program makes it more successful. We all 

know that you have to recognize the need before you are going to 

take the help for the need. But the total numbers might, in fact— 

the total numbers of people employed and out of a drug-addicted 

or alcohol-addicted position might actually increase. 

Our second panel today includes witnesses who work in the field 

of corrections. Both have received Federal grants and can report 

back to us about interactions with various agencies. Senator Durbin and myself look forward to learning about the grant process, 

the role of nonprofits, associations, or lobbies play in helping identify and achieve available funds, how federally funded programs 

interact with State programs, and accountability measures built in 

to followup with the grantees and their programs. 

Finally, we will look forward to hearing from our second panel 

about how States are handling the problems associated with recidivism. 

I thank all our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward 

to your testimony. I want to specifically thank the witnesses on our 

second panel. We know that you and the 750,000-plus Americans 

employed in corrections are making a difference in the lives of inmates. The work you do and your ability to impact inmates is tremendous. 

Senator Durbin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask 

that my entire statement be made part of the record. 

Chairman COBURN. Without objection. 

Senator DURBIN. I will just echo your remarks. There are 9 million people incarcerated today in the world. A fourth of them are 

in the United States, one out of four. We have seen a dramatic increase in incarcerations. Some 700,000 people are released from 

prison each year. On average, somewhere between 55 and 65 percent of them will commit another crime. 

4 

The obvious question is: What can we do to make people pay a 

price for those things that they have done wrong, but to make certain that we do not pay that price a second time as a society if 

those who are released from prison commit another crime? 

There are some things that are very obvious. Many people enter 

prison today with drug addictions and are never treated. We also 

know that many people enter prison with some vestige of a family 

life and see it disintegrate because of lack of opportunity to make 

a telephone call or to have a meaningful visit with a member of 

your family because of where your prison is located or what the 

prisoner visitation rights happen to be. 

We know that education is the single best thing that we can do 

to turn the life around of a prisoner, and yet we face this Faustian 

chance—I faced it as a Congressman—of what to do in a society 

where we have too few dollars for Pell grants to help low-income 

students go to college. So do you give the Pell grants to the kids 

who did not commit the drug crimes and want to go to college? Or 

do you give them to those youngsters who were incarcerated for 

committing a drug crime? 

A terrible choice. And we know if we do not provide this financial 

assistance, some of these inmates will never achieve the skills and 

education they need to turn their lives around. 

Too many people incarcerated today have a serious mental illness and get virtually no treatment for it while they are incarcerated. And that means that they leave prison perhaps in worse 

shape than they entered. 

We know that when it comes to returning to society, there are 

a lot of helping hands that can make a big difference, whether it 

is first a family or a church or a business or an organization. I have 

seen it all over my State of Illinois, and many people here have as 

well. We need to create incentives for that helping hand to give 

people a chance. 

I want to especially note before I close, Mr. Chairman, that we 

have one witness today, Diane Williams, who is President and CEO 

of the Safer Foundation, on our second panel. In my State of Illinois and perhaps regionally, maybe nationally, Safer Foundation is 

one of the most outstanding operations in terms of noting the nature of this problem and suggesting meaningful ways to address it. 

Thank you for this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. 

I am going to introduce the witnesses and then we will swear 

you in. The first witness is Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney 

General at the Office of Justice Programs. Ms. Schofield was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for OJP on June 8, 2005. She 

is responsible for providing overall management and oversight of 

OJP, whose mission is to enlarge the Nation’s capacity to prevent 

and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. She also guides the development of that office’s 

policy and priorities and coordinates the activities of its bureaus 

and offices. 

5 

Next is Mr. Mason Bishop. He is Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

the Employment and Training Administration at the Department 

of Labor. He is responsible for overseeing key workforce investment 

programs, developing and implementing workforce policies and priorities, and assisting with congressional relations and legislative 

issues. He also plays a lead role in the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Next is Robert Bogart. He is the Director of the White House 

Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As the Director of 

the HUD Center, Mr. Bogart ensures that faith-based and community organizations have equal access to Federal dollars. 

Our final witness is Cheri Nolan. She is the senior policy advisor 

on criminal and juvenile justice issues to the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, also known as SAMHSA. 

She assumed her current responsibilities in September of 2005. At 

SAMHSA, she manages and oversees all criminal, juvenile, and 

faith-based issues that confront the agency. 

If you would each stand and repeat after me: I swear that the 

testimony that I am about to give before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Rehabilitation and Corrections is the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God? 

[Witnesses repeat oath.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Ms. Schofield, turn your mike on, if you would, please. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes 

STATEMENT OF REGINA B. SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Dr. Coburn, Senator Durbin, I am Regina B. 

Schofield, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice 

Programs. I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of Attorney General Gonzales, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the 

Office of Justice Programs to discuss the Department’s efforts to 

aid State and local reentry initiatives. 

I am also honored to be here not only with representatives from 

other Federal agencies, but also Diane Williams and Roger 

Werholtz. OJP has worked with both of them, and I know that they 

will contribute greatly to today’s hearing. 

Most offenders, including the most violent offenders, will eventually return to their communities. A study from OJP’s Bureau of 

Justice Statistics found that more than two-thirds of all released 

offenders were rearrested within 3 years. So, of the 650,000 people 

who are released from prison annually, over 400,000 are likely to 

be rearrested. 

Between the harm caused by their original crimes, the injuries 

inflicted by their new offenses, and the collective damage they do 

to both their neighborhoods and their communities, the path of destruction recidivists leave is wide and long. 

The issue of prisoner reentry has been of great concern to this 

administration since early in President Bush’s first term. In 2002, 

the Department of Justice, in an unprecedented partnership with 

6 

other Federal agencies, launched ‘‘Going Home: The Serious and 

Violent Offender Reentry Initiative,’’ or SVORI. Under SVORI, we have awarded more than $120 million to 69 

grantees, covering all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands. These grants helped to support States and communities as they developed and implemented their own reentry strategies. Although the strategies were designed by States and communities to meet their own specific needs, they all share a threepronged approach that covers every stage of the reentry process. 

First, while participating offenders are still incarcerated, reentry 

partners assess their needs, their skills, and the risk they pose to 

public safety, and develop formal reentry plans. Second, as soon as 

these offenders are released, they are closely supervised, often with 

the requirement that they report to a judge or corrections officer, 

and receive treatment and training. Finally, a network of public 

and private agencies provides long-term support as the offenders 

reintegrate. 

The SVORI reentry plans also include participation by the faithbased community, neighborhood residents, local police, and close 

consultation with State and local government officials, corrections 

staff, probation and parole officers, treatment providers, and others. 

The feedback to date has been very encouraging. We have completed the first phase of a two-phase, multi-year evaluation of the 

SVORI programs. The evaluation shows that these programs have 

been successful in bridging the gaps in existing State and local efforts. They are providing much needed transition services, such as 

counseling, mentoring, and job training. And they are closely coordinating pre-release and post-release services. 

The next phase of the evaluation is a 4-year impact study that 

will measure program outcomes. It will tell us what impact SVORI 

programs have had on recidivism and whether they are cost-effective. We will continue to share these findings as they become available. 

The SVORI grants expired this year, but we are taking what we 

have learned from these programs and applying it to the President’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative, or PRI. PRI is a Federal partnership that is intended to help ex-offenders find and keep employment, obtain transitional housing, and receive mentoring. It also 

harnesses the resources and experience of faith-based and community organizations in helping returning inmates contribute to society. 

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we awarded $12.9 million to 

States for pre-release planning and services for non-violent offenders, ages 18 and older. These grants were designed to complement 

the Department of Labor’s portion of the initiative, under which 30 

community and faith-based organizations in 20 States received 

awards to provide post-release services such as mentoring, employment assistance, and housing assistance. 

As the Subcommittee requested, I am submitting for the record 

detailed information on our reentry program. The President, the 

Attorney General, and I believe that successfully reintegrating offenders back into their communities is one of the most pressing 

criminal justice issues facing our country today. State and local 

7 

governments have demonstrated that thoughtful policies and programs can be developed to address this issue. We are committed 

to doing all that we can to continue to support their good work. 

We appreciate the interest that you and your colleagues have 

shown, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you 

may have. Thank you. 

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

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

STATEMENT OF MASON M. BISHOP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am 

pleased to have the opportunity to represent Secretary Chao and 

to discuss the Department of Labor’s considerable work on prisoner 

reentry initiatives. My written testimony describes in detail the 

programs and funding sources currently available for reentry efforts. 

Each year, more than 650,000 inmates are released from Federal 

and State prisons. These released prisoners face difficult challenges 

as they reconnect to society. Unemployment among ex-prisoners 

can be as high as 40 percent, and joblessness among ex-prisoners 

has been linked to recidivism rates. 

Prisoners also demonstrate low levels of educational attainment. 

Forty percent of adult State prisoners are functionally illiterate, 

and over half of State parole entrants are not high school graduates. 

In contrast, the fastest-growing jobs on average require a high 

school diploma and a post-secondary credential such as a vocational 

certificate, an industry-recognized credential, or an associate’s or 

higher degree. At the same time, the need for workers is increasing 

due to the retirement trends of the baby-boom generation and 

lower birth rates in recent years. 

To keep pace with the demand for skilled workers, every facet of 

the population, including ex-offenders, will be needed. Ex-offenders 

are an important supply pipeline for the unfilled high-growth jobs 

of today and for the jobs of the future and, therefore, must be actively engaged to take part in the labor force. 

Without intervention, many ex-prisoners will commit new crimes 

and be reincarcerated in the first 3 years after their release from 

prison. Research has also broadly documented the substance abuse 

and mental health issues of ex-prisoners—factors that are likely to 

contribute to poor education levels, lack of employability, and a return to criminal activity. 

In returning to criminal activity, ex-prisoners reduce their 

chances of living healthy and positive lives for both themselves and 

their families. On the other hand, ex-offenders who maintain 

strong family and community ties have greater success in reintegrating into the community and avoiding incarceration. 

Given these issues, the philosophical underpinnings of the Department of Labor’s reentry efforts include: first, having employment be the goal and at the core of all reentry efforts; and, second, 

8 

assuring the continued and strengthened role for faith-based and 

community-based organizations as primary partners since they 

often possess unique strengths and resources for delivering social 

services to ex-prisoners within their communities. 

A focal point of these reentry efforts is the President’s Prisoner 

Reentry Initiative, as well as a series of other programs and initiatives under the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders 

appropriation. All together the Department of Labor has invested 

more than $372 million in prisoner reentry efforts of various types. 

Under the President’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which he announced in the January 2004 State of the Union address, the Department of Labor has awarded 30 grants to strengthen urban 

communities characterized by large numbers of returning prisoners 

through an employment-centered program that incorporates mentoring, job training, and comprehensive transitional services. 

In implementing the grants, we have put much emphasis on job 

development, contacts with private sector employers, and highgrowth employment. The goal is to serve 6,250 released prisoners 

during the first year of the initiative. Grantees began operating in 

March of 2006, and as of September 8th of 2006, 2,874 participants 

had been enrolled and 1,469 have been placed in jobs. 

Under the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders appropriation, the Department has funded a variety of projects aimed 

at serving young offenders, at-risk youth, and youth in juvenile or 

adult justice systems. The projects focus on demand-driven strategies designed to move youth into high-growth occupations and provide education and training, employment, and community services 

to facilitate reentry. The funded programs also include State-operated juvenile justices aimed at improving the academic and work 

force preparation of youth in correctional facilities, among others. 

Much is being accomplished through these programs. Grants are 

serving large numbers of youth each year in high-crime communities. Local community grants have succeeded in placing youth in 

employment. State grants are increasing the reading and math 

achievement levels of youth, in large part because they can spend 

time while those youth are behind bars. 

The Department has also participated in the Department of Justice-led Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which reduces further criminal activity by violent ex-offenders, as was stated. 

Another program the Department initiated is the Ready4Work 

program, which uses community and faith-based organizations to 

help those returning from prison find jobs and assist their transition into society. Through this program, we have seen lower recidivism rates and success at placing participants in jobs. 

Finally, the Department manages other programs and initiatives 

that also contribute to the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, such as the 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the Federal Bonding Program, and 

the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program, all of which are included in my written testimony. 

Finally, one of the unheralded efforts has been this administration’s efforts to break down agency and system silos and work together as Federal agencies to solve this problem. During the past 

few years, the Department of Labor has worked closely with JusVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 May 06, 2009 Jkt 034118 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\34118.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

tice, Health and Human Services, Education, and HUD in support 

of the overall vision to ensure ex-offenders are integrated into communities and become productive members of society. This collaborative approach is reflected in all of our strategic investments 

whereby we leverage each other’s resources and fully coordinate efforts. In addition, each of the agencies before you are breaking 

down system barriers at the State and local levels to foster a more 

integrated approach to serving ex-offenders. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks, and I have submitted written remarks for the record. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bogart. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. BOGART, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

FAITH BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BOGART. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

Dr. Coburn, Ranking Member Durbin, Senator Sessions, it is a 

pleasure to be here today on behalf of Secretary Alphonso Jackson, 

and thank you for the opportunity to testify on Federal assistance 

for prisoner reentry. 

Every year, more than 650,000 men and women are released 

from America’s prisons, many of them without a place to go, without a place to call home. The result is that many of those who leave 

our prisons go directly to the streets where they are extremely vulnerable to the temptations that exist there. The challenges of reentry are great, especially for those without the safety and stability 

of a home. 

Dan Buck, the CEO of the St. Patrick Center in St. Louis, an exceptional organization that is the recipient of Departments of Justice and Labor prisoner reentry funds, explained the situation this 

way: You get a job interview. What address do you put down? What 

phone number do you list? You get kicked out of your transitional 

housing center at 6:30 in the morning. Your interview is at 11. 

Where do you go? What do you do? How do you stay clean? How 

do you stay out of trouble? And how do you succeed? 

The answer to the last question is very clear. Many don’t, as approximately two-thirds of recently released men and women are rearrested within 3 years of their release. Dan Buck would say that 

the glaring hole in their reentry program is housing. 

The system needs to be broken, not only for the sake of those in 

the community victimized by crime, but also for the sake of the 

men and women who are reacclimating back to society. Only comprehensive solutions that provide opportunities for self-sufficiency 

and dignity will be an effective catalyst for change. 

Again, the St. Patrick Center is an exceptional example that provides these comprehensive, pragmatic, and dignified wrap-around 

services. With limited Government support, the center serves over 

10,000 individuals and families annually and is Missouri’s largest 

provider of homeless services. Nearly 60 percent of the men and 

women St. Patrick Center serves have a criminal record, and those 

10 

that participated in privately funded focus groups, receiving at 

least 2 months of clean, stable, dignified housing, experienced a 

100-percent job placement rate. The rest of their client base experienced a 50-percent success rate, which is admirable but is still not 

100 percent. 

In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush proposed 

a 4-year, $300 million Prisoner Reentry Initiative to reduce recidivism and help ex-offenders contribute to their communities, rebuild 

their lives, stay out of trouble, and stay out of the many paths that 

lead to prison. The objective of this initiative would be achieved by 

harnessing the resources and the experience of faith-based and 

community organizations like the St. Patrick Center and providing 

newly released prisoners with comprehensive services, such as job 

training, mental health counseling, transitional housing, and mentoring support. 

Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has requested PRI funding, it has yet not received any. A 

critical component of a successful Prisoner Reentry Initiative is 

providing housing because, as stated earlier, many newly released 

men and women need a place to reside immediately upon their release from prison, at a minimum on a temporary basis. If HUD 

were given PRI funding, it could then provide this very fundamental need to this at-risk population. 

HUD’s budget request for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 

called for the provision of transitional housing as part of PRI funding. PRI funding is needed because HUD lacks the requisite authority to use the funds for the discharge planning of individuals 

from institutions. Therefore, the advantage of funding for the PRI 

is that HUD would be given authority to fund grantees providing 

housing specifically for ex-offenders who are not defined as homeless. 

Given that adequate housing is an important component of successful reentry into society for these men and women, HUD respectfully urges Congress to appropriate $25 million for this important initiative, as requested in HUD’s fiscal year 2007 budget request. These funds would be made competitively available to faithbased and community organizations with established, proven success addressing the special needs of these men and women who 

have already struggled so much and have paid their debts to society. Organizations considered may already be involved with the Departments of Labor and Justice prisoner reentry efforts, thus building on their success. 

This is a landmark opportunity. The strategic partnerships will 

help these men and women know the meaning of accomplishment, 

rebuild their dignity, and become taxpayers and not tax burdens. 

Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak with you today, 

and I will look forward to your questions. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. 

Ms. Nolan. 

11 

STATEMENT OF CHERI NOLAN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND 

MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, Senator Sessions, I 

am pleased to be here on behalf of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to discuss our efforts in support 

of the important national issue of prisoner reentry. 

During my tenure of Government service, I have seen firsthand 

the cycle of crime, arrest, incarceration, reentry, rearrest, and reincarceration, and the horrible costs this cycle has caused society, 

not only the direct costs of criminal behavior to law enforcement, 

prosecutors, and the jail and prison system, but the cost to victims 

of crime and the impact on the quality of life and communities all 

across the country. 

Recidivism is not just a statistic but an action that has a ripple 

effect across many individuals, families, and institutions. It is because of my expertise and commitment to this issue that I was 

brought to SAMHSA last year to facilitate the connection between 

public safety and public health. 

Studies have shown a significant number of these men and 

women have substance abuse and mental health treatment needs. 

A study recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms that large numbers of inmates display symptoms of depression, mania, or psychotic disorder. In State prisons, 73 percent of 

female inmates and 55 percent of male inmates had mental health 

problems. In local jails, the numbers are similar. More than one in 

three State prisoners, one in four Federal prisoners, and one in six 

jail inmates who had a mental health problem have received treatment since admission. 

The findings clearly indicate the tremendous need to connect released prisoners with mental health treatment in the community. 

The study also found that prisoners with mental health problems 

were more likely to have repeated periods of incarceration and substance abuse problems. 

In the area of substance abuse among the jail and prison population, studies over the past two decades have consistently found 

that 60 percent of offenders tested at the time of arrest have admitted to or been found to have used at least one illicit drug. 

SAMHSA is actively involved in a number of public safety/public 

health initiatives that deal with addressing individuals with substance abuse and/or mental health disorders who are involved in 

the criminal and juvenile justice systems. SAMHSA is also committed to partnering with other Federal agencies and to assisting 

the States and local communities through our criminal and juvenile 

justice grant programs. 

SAMHSA was an original partner with the Department of Justice surrounding the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative that Assistant Attorney General Schofield discussed, contributing more than $16 million to the effort. In addition, we are providing criminal justice, substance abuse disorder cross-training to 

all the grantees to improve the delivery of substance abuse prevention and treatment services. 

12 

We at SAMHSA are encouraged by the early measures of success 

of the initiative, and we anxiously await the findings of the impact 

evaluation. It is important to know what works surrounding prisoner reentry and the costs and benefits of various approaches. The 

most recent data on recidivism is almost 10 years old. 

In the last few months, an exciting new partnership with the Department of Labor-led Prisoner Reentry Initiative was formed by 

bringing together the grantees of our Access to Recovery Program 

with the Department of Labor grantees. As a result of this effort, 

clients under PRI who have substance abuse treatment needs are 

eligible for treatment and recovery support services provided by our 

Access to Recovery grantees. Ten of our 14 ATR grantees match 

with the Department of Labor, including Illinois. This is another 

example how Federal agencies are leveraging dollars to support reentry efforts. 

SAMHSA efforts also included funding 12 Young Offender Reentry Program grants in fiscal year 2004 and an additional 11 

grants were awarded in fiscal year 2005. YORP is designed to provide funds to expand and/or enhance substance abuse treatment 

and related reentry services to youth populations under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. 

SAMHSA also funds 16 adult and juvenile drug court programs 

and nine family drug treatment courts, which provide a successful 

alternative to incarceration for defendants who cycle between addiction leading to crime, incarceration, release, relapse, and recidivism. Close supervision, drug testing, and the use of sanctions and 

incentives help ensure that offenders stick with their treatment 

plans while public safety needs are met. 

Since fiscal year 2002, SAMHSA has funded jail diversion, targeted capacity expansion grants that divert persons with mental 

illness from the criminal justice system to community mental 

health and supportive services. At this point we have funded 32 

such awards of up to $400,000. These programs must build service 

capacity using four areas known to yield sustainable results: evidence-based services, creating service linkages, community outreach, and engaging in program evaluation and dissemination of 

those findings. 

SAMHSA is committed to reducing recidivism by supporting recovery efforts. The connection between public health and public 

safety is a critical one, and we appreciate the interest of this Subcommittee in our efforts, and I will be happy to respond to any 

questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nolan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Schofield, one of my questions is: Why are we using 1994 

data that took 3 years, 1997, and we get the data last year? And 

when are we going to see data that is more timely? Have we set 

up anything that says we are going to have a continuing monitoring of this that will be statistically valid so that we are not depending on, in essence, 12- or 13-year-old data? 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Senator, that is a good question. I actually have 

it myself on several BJS studies, and the answer is it is human 

subject research and it takes a really long time to gather the data. 

13 

The 3-year mark is a gold standard for recidivism. So what happens in a typical study is that after 3 years of release, you ask the 

State for names. It takes about a year to compile the names, to find 

people, to locate them. You try to get enough of a sample size so 

you will have a correct sample size. It takes you another 3 years 

to monitor those individuals. So now you are 6 years out. It takes 

another 2 years to evaluate that information, follow up. You know, 

if you have necessary—I think the last time we did a study of this 

magnitude, it started in 1994. In 1998, we got more funding. It 

took States 2 years to provide us with the additional information, 

and you are still, you know, hounding people and looking for that 

information. And so it was 2002 before we got the study out. 

I have to tell you that the same thing will happen in another 

study if you are following people, as you would the ex-offenders. If 

they do not have a house to stay in or consistent housing, that is 

going to be a problem. 

If we were to start a study today, 2006, it would be 3 years before we had the information from the States, probably another year 

to gather that information, and another 3 years to study those individuals. So you are talking—I did go to college—2012 before you 

would even get the information that you need in order to do that 

evaluation and research. 

Chairman COBURN. Well, what would be wrong with all the 

grantees, all the States that get Federal money, saying you know 

this is going to happen, keep the data, knowing in anticipation we 

are going to be asking for it? In other words, there should be some 

strings—what I am getting to, and I am going to ask each of you 

this, is: What is the metric that we use to measure the grant programs that we are giving on whether or not they are successful? 

What is the metric and when will we know? And I would tell you 

on almost any scientific study, when the data is 9 or 10 years old, 

it does not really mean anything anymore. If we are talking about 

from 1994 to 1997 on recidivism rates—and rearrest rates really do 

not mean anything because if you have a criminal record and you 

are in the area, oftentimes you are rearrested for a short period of 

time until you are excluded, which says a whole other thing about 

some of our policing. But the point is that the rearrest record—it 

is the reincarceration or the reconviction record that we are really 

interested in. And why couldn’t we make sure that signal goes out 

ahead of time with all these grants? 

One of the things we are going to be looking at as a condition 

of the grant is that you will keep track as a State, here is who is 

coming out, here are the ones that are on parole, here are the ones 

that are incarcerated. I mean, the States have the numbers. They 

have the names. It is anticipating what you are going to need. Why 

could we do that to shorten that period of time where we have good 

data? 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. We are trying to make sure that our National 

Criminal History Improvement Program has all of the funding that 

we have requested from Congress to make sure that States are able 

to build on that information. The system is not complete. I mean, 

I cannot sugarcoat it for you and tell you that. We work with 

grantees on a regular basis. You know, the Federal Government 

has gotten a lot better at evaluating programs and making sure 

14 

that the funding goes toward the stream that we have asked it to 

go. The States are getting much better at keeping that sort of information. But we do have a lot of work to do in order to make sure 

that NCHIP is a sustainable program and that we have gotten the 

data that we get. 

The first answer I gave you was strictly about human subjects, 

so I misunderstood your question. 

Chairman COBURN. So of all the grants that DOJ makes, you all 

now have a metric attached to that, so you are going to be able to 

make a decision on those grants, on whether or not they are actually accomplishing what you want? 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Every single grant that I have signed since I 

have been at the Department of Justice has performance measures, 

and, yes, sir, we are tracking and evaluating those programs. 

Chairman COBURN. And so how often do you release that data? 

How often do you come to a conclusion about that data? 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Well, our Office of Comptroller, what we do in 

the Comptroller’s Office or CFO’s Office is, as we gather that information on the grantees on a regular basis, you know, they decide 

how many of the grantees they are going to evaluate and audit this 

year, and so we go through that process. You know, you have to 

go through like a rolling basis to make sure you are getting to all 

the grantees. But that is part of our evaluation program. 

Chairman COBURN. Well, will you supply to this Committee what 

you have seen thus far, here is what we have granted, here is what 

we have gotten back, here is how we evaluate that specifically? 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Absolutely, yes. 

Chairman COBURN. All right. Thank you. My time has expired. 

We will go on the early-bird rule, if you do not mind, 

Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we will all agree that if a person has a mental illness 

that is part of the burden they are carrying in life, and they also 

commit a crime and then leave a corrections facility, that is still 

a challenge. That is an issue that still has to be dealt with. The 

same thing is true with substance addiction, whether it is alcohol 

or drugs. These are things that have to be dealt with. 

Some people may have the will to cure themselves of certain addictions, and I pray to God more people will. But most of us need 

a helping hand. 

But I want to go to another issue, and that issue is education. 

I think everyone here in some way or another has said that if we 

will educate and train the people who are incarcerated, they are 

less likely to commit another crime. Is there anyone who disagrees 

with that premise? That is kind of an accepted—I think it has been 

proven out over and over again. 

Having said that, though, we have created some interesting—I 

call them ‘‘Faustian choices,’’ impossible choices, when it comes to 

policy, and let me give you a couple of examples. There was a time 

when a person incarcerated in my State, and most States, could go 

to a community college while incarcerated and pick up courses to 

prepare them for a job when they are released. But, of course, they 

do not have a regular income of any value, and so they had to borrow the money or apply for a Pell grant. 

15 

And so years ago, we made a decision—and I was part of that 

decisionmaking—that since we have a limited pool of Pell grant 

funds and cannot take care of all the kids who have not committed 

a crime and want to go to college, we were not going to provide Pell 

grants for those who were in correctional institutions. And the 

same thing with student loans. 

Then we took it a step further and said if you have been convicted of any drug offense after you leave the correctional facility, 

you are still disqualified from receiving a Pell grant or a student 

loan. 

As I understand it—and my staff is running back and forth to 

double-check that this is still the case. I think it is. And so for any 

drug conviction, large or small, we are basically reducing the possibility or opportunity for additional education to avoid recidivism. 

So is it time to change this law? 

Mr. BISHOP. I am from the Department of Labor. I will take a 

crack at addressing this. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Even though Pell grants are out of the Department 

of Education. I cannot address the Pell grant issue specifically, but 

I can address the issue of access to employment and training. 

One of the things we have been working on—Senator Sessions 

knows this well because he sits on the Senate HELP Committee— 

is trying to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. Under the 

Workforce Investment Act, roughly $15 billion from various Federal agencies go to States and local communities to supply individuals, citizens, with employment training services. And one of the 

problems we have identified, the administration believes, is too 

much of that money goes to infrastructure and duplicative programs. And what we have essentially asked Congress to do is reform this act to allow for what are called career advancement accounts of up to $3,000 per year so that individuals like ex-offenders 

can get access to the education and training they need. 

Now, one of the issues we— 

Senator DURBIN. If I can interrupt you, I am sorry. So we have a program that will offer some $3,000 to the ex-offender— 

Mr. BISHOP. We are asking for that. 

Senator DURBIN. Asking for that. And that would allow them to 

take, let’s say, a community college court. Is that correct? 

Mr. BISHOP. Correct. And that is about the average of a community college education for 1 year. 

Senator DURBIN. While at the same time we are saying in the 

law no Pell grants, no student loans, this program would say 

$3,000 to ex-offenders for that purpose. Since I do not have a lot 

of time, if you will allow some others to comment. I think, Ms. 

Schofield, you were going to respond to my question about Pell 

grants and student loans. 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Actually, sir, what I was going to say is that I 

believe that by the time offenders come out of jails and prisons, we 

have failed them already as far as the educational system is concerned, because a lot of them do not have high school diplomas, 

which is why, you know, most people still, for robberies—I mean, 

the highest numbers of crime that are committed by people are 

people that steal for money, whether it is motor vehicle thefts or 

16 

robberies or simple assaults or other types of things like that. And 

they do that because they do not have a way of obtaining money. 

So I think by the time people get to a point where they are in 

a community college, we may have failed them at an earlier age. 

Senator DURBIN. I went into Englewood, which is a pretty tough 

section of Chicago, because a local group called CeaseFire brought 

together gang members for me to meet with. And I sat down with 

10 African-American males all under the age of 20, all high school 

dropouts, all who had been incarcerated. And I asked them, ‘‘How 

do you get by? ’’ And they say, ‘‘We hustle.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, what does 

that mean? ’’ ‘‘It means we live off the street.’’ ‘‘Well, how do you 

live off the street? Do you sell drugs? ’’ ‘‘Oh, that has been exaggerated.’’ I am sure. 

You know, but the point is no marketable skills, 20 years of age, 

already incarcerated, dropped out of school. Some of these will 

never put their lives on the right track. I am thinking of some others, though, given a chance with a GED and perhaps some college 

courses or training courses of value, can come out of the prison experience ready to really step forward in life. And I worry because 

I think we have cross-purposes here. I think you have a good idea, 

Mr. Bishop, some of the things you are talking about. But I think 

some of the laws we pass make it more difficult. 

Now, we get back—and I will end, Mr. Chairman, very quickly 

by saying we get back to the ultimate moral dilemma here. There 

is not enough money for the kids who did not commit crime. Okay? 

It has been stuck at $4,015 a year for 6 years. The cost of higher 

education has gone up 44 percent in the last 6 years. We have just 

raised student loan interest rates by 2 percent on every student in 

America. We will not let them renegotiate lower interest rates on 

their loans. They are piled up with debt. That is the other side of 

this equation. 

So we are playing less than a zero sum game here, but we understand if we are serious about recidivism, some of these things have 

to be addressed honestly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman COBURN. Just one note of clarification. The Workforce 

Investment Act has in excess of $1 billion that is not spent every 

year now. So we have the money to do this, and I will pledge to 

you I will work with you to try to get this money redirected in that 

direction for education. 

Senator DURBIN. Good. 

Chairman COBURN. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 

hearing. I think it is very, very valuable. 

My experience, having seen it up close for quite a number of 

years, is that we have an incredible amount of money being spent 

that is relevant to dealing with crime but is not spent in a coherent 

fashion. 

Now, my housing man here, I am not sure he is talking to the 

probation officer for the guy who just got released from prison. The 

job man, I am not sure who knows what is available. We have got 

the Office of Justice Programs here that is running programs, but 

I guess the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, do they run the tests? 

Do they run the studies for accuracy and completeness? 

17 

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Actually, it is our National Institute of Justice 

that runs the programs and evaluates them. 

Senator SESSIONS. NIJ runs them. Well, there we go with a lot 

of different studies. And so then we have got mental health. 

Now, the one program—and I know Senator Durbin also is interested in all of this, but the one program that seems to me to come 

closest to a workable model is the drug court program. You mentioned that, Ms. Nolan, and this is what happens: They come in 

and, for the most part, they plead guilty, if they are guilty of a 

drug offense. In some programs they do not enter a plea. They 

enter a conditional plea. And they go into this voluntary program 

in which they are, as you said, supervised, drug testing—and I forgot your third one, but that— 

Ms. NOLAN. They are held accountable, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Held accountable. They are held accountable. 

So the person is now released. 

Now, somebody is monitoring that person by name. They know 

that person. The judge has released him. He knows that person by 

the name. The person has been called before that judge, and he is 

told, ‘‘We will release you. You are out, but you have got to be accountable to these standards, and you are not going to get back on 

drugs, and you are going to have a curfew.’’ 

They did this a bit in Boston and had this incredible drop in 

teenage murders in Boston. The probation officers went out at 

night to make sure they were complying with curfew, not just the 

way it really works is you have got a curfew, you have to be in at 

10 o’clock, and nobody ever goes to check if they are in at 10 

o’clock. 

They say do not use drugs, but many places still do not test to 

see if they are using drugs. If they are using drugs, they are getting into trouble. Sooner or later they are going to be arrested. 

So you have got all these mental health moneys that we are 

spending, a lot of housing moneys we are spending, a lot of Education and Labor money we are spending. If that is all available 

to the parole officer or probation officer who supervises the individual, then something can happen, because the judge now is looking right at it, and if they do not comply with the probation officer’s requirements and the judge’s requirements, really, then he 

puts them in jail for a weekend or 2 weeks or gives them one more 

chance, or a month or throws them back in the slammer to serve 

their full time, whatever he decides is the appropriate response. 

I see some nods. Ms. Nolan, do you think—and mental health, 

I mean, we know people have got mental problems, and that probation officer should be able to call on mental health, shouldn’t he, 

and develop a post-incarceration plan that fits the needs and capacities of this individual? 

Ms. NOLAN. Yes, sir. And one of the things that we are doing— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, would you agree that one of our problems is a lack of coordination and application of all these resources 

in a coherent way? And wouldn’t the best person to be able to handle that would be the person like a parole officer who is assigned 

to this individual when they are released? 

Ms. NOLAN. Yes, sir. We have seen tremendous success with the 

case management approach with our programs at SAMHSA that 

18 

are not only—they work with these individuals that need substance 

abuse treatment or mental health services. They work with them. 

They are able to help counsel them. They are able to help refer 

them to treatment when needed. And it is very important, and we 

do hold our grantees accountable for making sure that they are 

linking with the criminal justice side of the operation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Some mental health programs, they get State 

money and Federal money. 

Ms. NOLAN. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Sometimes they say they are too busy, they 

have got a waiting list, they do not have time for this new prisoner 

that just got released, come back in 6 months and we will put you 

on the list, are some of the things that happens. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. NOLAN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, in housing, just briefly, because my time 

has already gone over. 

Mr. BOGART. Absolutely, sir. One of the constraints that we have 

at HUD is we do not have specific funding for prisoner reentry. So 

as a result, because of statutory reasons, we do not have funds to 

spend on this particular issue, and that is why we are asking Congress to appropriate the $25 million to do that, because if you talk 

about coordination, you know, when we go out and do— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, how do you start this program? Do you pick out $25 million, do you pick out 30 cities in America and run 

this program? 

Mr. BOGART. Well, sir, that was one of the things I was going to 

get to. The Departments of Labor and Justice have already done 

a lot of the heavy lifting. They have identified 30 organizations in 

a number of cities where they are combining their resources. So 

here we have a situation where, with the right funding, it is feasible that we could partner with them. They are already threequarters of the way there or halfway there. We come in and provide the transitional housing services that these men and women 

who have just come out of prison desperately need. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are coordinating that with the Department of Labor? 

Mr. BOGART. I am sorry? 

Senator SESSIONS. You are coordinating with who, the Department of Labor? 

Mr. BOGART. We would take that— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not the person to coordinate because 

he does not know the name of the person that got out of jail. I 

mean, that— 

Mr. BOGART. But the— 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is over, and I hate to—I know, Mr. 

Bishop, if you could point out, am I on to something here? 

Mr. BISHOP. You are. I think the premise of your question, as I 

understand it, is each of us funds, to the tune of billions of dollars, 

various systems. I fund a work force investment system— 

Senator SESSIONS. Fifteen billion on— 

Mr. BISHOP. Out of agency it is about 9.5, but under the one-stop 

career centers, HHS has moneys, the Department of Education has 

moneys that are all supposed to be accessible by individuals 

through the one-stop systems, and it is to the tune of about $15 

19 

billion per year. HUD has its system of housing authorities that it 

helps fund, and HHS and Justice. 

So what we have been trying to work on at the Federal level is— 

and many of us meet on a continual basis, and our career staffs 

are meeting on a continual basis, to try to institutionalize this notion that we have to break down these system barriers from Federal to State to local to institutionalize change, because I think you 

are exactly right, that the issue isn’t always do we or do we not 

have enough money. The question becomes how is the money currently being used that we fund at the Federal and State and local 

level. 

Senator SESSIONS. Exactly. I hate to run, and I have something 

I have got to go do at this moment. But, Mr. Chairman, the only 

person, I think, that can handle this is the parole officer whose responsibility is for post-incarceration supervision. And the way this 

system is so simple that it should work is that person should evaluate the person being released before they are released. If they have 

got a mental health problem, they deal with it. If they do not have 

a house, they deal with it. If they need job training, they deal with 

it. They call these agencies, and they should respond to them and 

put them high on their list because these are at-risk people, and 

existing moneys out there ought to be enough. To create one more 

program is difficult. 

Chairman COBURN. Senator Sessions, you missed my opening 

statement where I praised western North Carolina and eastern 

Missouri because the parole officers have done exactly that. Their 

unemployment rates are less than the community as a whole and 

the recidivism rate is down, and so you point is well taken. 

I also would put in for the record what Minnesota is doing 

through MinnCorps because they have coordinated everyone, and 

their recidivism rate is half the national average because they are 

coordinating everything. So I am just going to ask—I am going to 

submit some written questions to you because of our time constraints today, but one of them that is coming to you: What are the 

programs? What are you measuring? And what are you finding? 

And the second question that is going to go to each of you is: How 

are you coordinating with every other agency in the Federal Government to make sure those grants go to the same people so that 

it can be coordinated? 

Let me thank you. We could go on for hours. I have got a list 

of questions, and you will get all of those questions as well. And 

if you would be as timely as you can, somewhat more timely than 

OMB in terms of screening your testimonies today, I would very 

much appreciate it. This is not something that we are going to give 

up on. If we want to make an impact on our society, a major impact, the way we are going to do that is the care and treatment 

of prisoners. What they learn in prison they are going to apply on 

the outside. And so we have to make sure that that is a positive 

experience rather than a negative experience. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Chairman COBURN. I call up our next group of witnesses. 

Our second panel, we have Mr. Roger Werholtz. He is the Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections. Mr. 

Werholtz was appointed Acting Secretary of Corrections by GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 May 06, 2009 Jkt 034118 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\34118.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

ernor Bill Graves on September 30, 2002, and was appointed Secretary of Corrections by Governor Kathleen Sebelius on January 

13, 2003. He served as Deputy Secretary of Corrections since 1987 

and has supervised all three divisions of the Kansas Department 

of Corrections: Community and Field Services; Programs and Staff 

Development; as well as Facilities Management. Thank you for 

traveling all the way here to do this. 

Next, and not least, is B. Dianne Williams, President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Safer Foundation. She was named President of the Safer Foundation in February 1996. The Safer Foundation is one of the Nation’s largest private, nonprofit providers of social services, education programs, and employment training and 

placement exclusively targeting people with criminal records. 

Under her leadership the Safer Foundation has incorporated the 

‘‘What Works’’ principles adopting evidence-based program designs 

and evaluations. Under contract with the Illinois Department of 

Corrections, Safer manages two large adult transition centers with 

a total of 550 beds. 

If you would both stand and be sworn in, and I will do it the 

short form: I swear that the testimony I am about to give before 

this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help me God. 

[Witnesses repeat oath.] 

Chairman COBURN. Or you can say ‘‘I do.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COBURN. Mr. Werholtz, please give us your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER WERHOLTZ, SECRETARY, KANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TOPEKA, KANSAS 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Thank you, Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member 

Durbin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is 

Roger Werholtz, and I currently serve as the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections. I appreciate the chance to comment 

on funding for prisoner reentry and the relationships between Federal agencies and the State Departments of Corrections. 

Every year more and more people are coming out of prison and 

jail, and the way we have traditionally released and returned them 

to the community is making neighborhoods less safe, less healthy, 

and less stable. Prisoner reentry also impacts our State and Federal budgets. Spending on prisons and jails has soared from $9 billion to $60 billion over the past 20 years, and despite all of this 

spending, recidivism rates are as high as ever. 

When such a large percentage of people released from prison fail, 

it places a greater financial burden on taxpayers without substantially increasing public safety. Corrections officials face the challenge of reinventing our corrections system to drastically reduce recidivism rates, and together we can improve public safety, generate 

savings, and strengthen neighborhoods. 

Federal agencies providing funding to organizations such as mine 

that allows us to pursue innovations or put in place resources that 

would otherwise be beyond our reach. In the current State fiscal 

year, my State of Kansas will expend $1.9 million in Federal grant 

funding. Now, that comprises only 0.71 percent of the Kansas Department of Corrections’ annual budget, but for that less than 1 

21 

percent of our budget, the impact on our agency and the citizens 

of our State is huge. With these Federal funds and a blend of State, 

local, and private revenues, we will be able to provide a variety of 

services to crime victims and assist in the successful reintegration 

of offenders into their families. 

Grant programs such as the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in 

Sentencing Program have significantly influenced State-level correctional practice and State sentencing policies. In Kansas, the 

small reentry program initiated with SVORI funding has served as 

a model that has heavily influenced the training of KDOC parole 

and facility employees regarding effective strategies for offender supervision. It has helped us to dramatically reduce the number of 

parolees being revoked and returned to prison. Our SVORI-funded 

program is being evaluated by the University of Kansas and is also 

part of a larger national evaluation funded by a separate Federal 

grant. Our results to date are so encouraging that the State and 

one of our largest counties have invested significant amounts of 

money to replicate the strategies in other cities in Kansas, but I 

must caution that these numbers are still preliminary and we will 

need to observe the impact over time to accurately judge the effectiveness of these efforts. 

Eighteen months ago, Senator Brownback challenged a bipartisan group of elected officials and community members gathered 

in Wichita by saying, ‘‘I want to see recidivism in this Nation cut 

in half in the next 5 years, and I want it to start in Kansas.’’ 

Using the model developed with SVORI resources, the Department of Justice technical assistance and technical assistance from 

National Institute of Corrections and research and technical assistance from the Council of State Governments, we are well into that 

initiative. We have made significant progress over the last year. 

We have reentry programs underway or being established in our 

three largest metropolitan counties, and the Shawnee County reentry program is receiving national recognition. 

The State has established the Kansas Reentry Policy Council, an 

interagency and intergovernmental branch coordinating body, and 

the State’s efforts are achieving measurable results. The number of 

parolees who failed to meet conditions of supervision and were returned to prison dropped significantly, by 26 percent in the last 2 

years, and in the last 4 months those numbers have been cut in 

half. As a result, the overall prison population shrank rather than 

increased, and Kansas has been able to avoid spending revenues on 

increasing prison capacity. 

I also appreciate the Committee’s interest in our interaction with 

Federal agencies around reentry. Federal agencies such as the National Institute of Corrections, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Office of Justice Programs 

regularly provide opportunities to improve correctional practices 

through very modest investments. These agencies provide technical 

assistance and training opportunities in which State and local leaders can have direct access to the most current research and thinking on current correctional practice. The research and analysis performed and disseminated by Federal groups such as the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics are invaluable in assisting us and informing our 

22 

own Governors, legislators, the media, and the public about the 

true nature of the problems we face and the most effective responses to those problems. 

Recently, the Association of State Correctional Administrators 

and the Bureau of Justice Assistance entered into a joint project 

to establish a clearinghouse that would assist State corrections 

agencies to track Federal funding opportunities and compete more 

successfully for those resources. 

In summary, I would like to characterize our overall relationship 

with our Federal agency partners as highly collaborative, productive, active, and respectful. We are actively engaged with many of 

those Federal agencies with whom we most closely associate, to further enhance our ability to carry out our respective missions. I am 

grateful for the opportunity to brief the Committee and would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

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

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF B. DIANE WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAFER FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Senator Coburn, and my great 

Senator Durbin. I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the community-based organizations that are on the front 

line. They are addressing the needs of former prisoners as they return to their communities. 

I thought I would start by sharing a story about one of our clients. After all, reentry is about real people with real families and 

from real communities. 

Joshua Hodges is one of our stars. He is almost 21 years old and 

is attending Chicago State University, with a goal of going on to 

earn his MBA so he will be able to support himself, a future family, 

and help others in the community. Joshua believes he is an entrepreneur. 

Joshua had been living at Aunt Martha’s House, a homeless shelter that accepts teens, and working for some time when something 

happened that changed his whole life. He got arrested and spent 

3 months in the Cook County Jail. Josh had no previous record and 

received 2 years’ probation. 

While he was incarcerated, one of his cellmates told him that 

Safer helped ex-offenders obtain a GED and find employment. 

When he was released, he immediately enrolled in our Harvey Employment and Learning Center, which is a federally funded program, and embraced the program and the staff with a fury. At the 

end of the 2-month GED session, Josh passed with a score of 2,780. 

He only needed 2,250. So he did not pass by the skin of his teeth. 

He did a great job. 

Working with our staff, he completed his individual service plan, 

college financial aid forms, enrolled at Chicago State, and at the 

end of his first semester had achieved a GPA of 4.0. At Safer, we 

have been working to reduce recidivism for 34 years by supporting 

23 

the efforts of people like Josh with criminal records to become productive, law-abiding members of their communities. 

I am pleased the Subcommittee is taking up the issue of Federal 

support of prisoner reentry today. In the past, reentry has often 

been considered a State or local issue, and most national public 

policy decisions have been made out of the concern of supporting 

people with criminal records sends the wrong message. But I am 

encouraged that Washington is beginning to think differently, to 

recognize that we cannot continue to utilize incarceration as the 

answer to public safety. 

To truly impact the growing numbers of people going to prison, 

education, vocational training, and employment options that allow 

for a living wage must top the list. They are critical, but cannot 

be offered in a vacuum. Treatment, housing, and case management 

must be a part of the solution given the complex and multifaceted 

issues surrounding former prisoners. 

For example, Chicago has benefited from the importance the 

Ready4Work Program and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative both 

place on partnerships. These Department of Labor funds have enabled Safer to formally partner with nine smaller community and 

faith-based organizations and thereby support their capacity to provide mentoring and wrap-around supports to those returning from 

prison. We have been free to do what we do best, which is to specialize in job placement and retention. Our partners are also free 

to do what they do best: ensuring that the returnee’s more personal 

needs were being met. We believe that this unique partnership has 

been critical to the significant decline in recidivism for our 

Ready4Work and PRI clients. 

At the end of year three of Ready4Work, we have served over 430 

returning prisoners with less than a 10-percent recidivism rate. 

Congress must continue to provide leadership and the Federal Government must continue to fund experts to provide technical assistance and capacity building. Only then will States and local jurisdictions have the ability to implement program models that work and 

bring them to scale rather than spending precious resources reinventing the wheel and/or developing their own expertise. 

Legislation such as the Second Chance Act, authored by Senators 

Specter, Biden, and Brownback of the Subcommittee, begins to enable communities to have planned and coordinated support for people returning from prison. 

In closing, let me just underscore that no single intervention will 

solve the reentry problem, but the research findings are clear. Education and employment have the greatest impact on recidivism. 

The other reality is that the majority of individuals leaving prison and returning home or returning to communities that are disproportionately low-income, crime-ridden, home to racial minorities, and lacking in the needed social services and supports that 

are going to enable returnees to succeed. As a result, the majority 

commit a new crime or violate the conditions of their release and 

return to prisons to begin the process all over again, leaving our 

Nation to confront the highest recidivism rate in its history. 

While the success or failure of return falls most heavily on the 

returning individual, the decisions that lead to success or failure lie 

with that person. As a society, we must equip the individual. 

24 

On behalf of Josh, the communities in which Josh and his colleagues live, and people like Safer’s employees who work so hard 

on behalf of those returning from prison, I will leave you with six 

brief recommendations. 

One, ensure that Federal funds are used to support comprehensive reentry initiatives. Direct funds toward community-based 

groups that are in a position to provide coordinated services, with 

a focus on hard outcomes. 

Two, continue supporting what we know works via the Prisoner 

Reentry Initiative, with an added transitional employment component. And I hope you will ask me about that transitional employment component. 

Three, encourage innovative statewide solutions that utilize a 

justice intermediary to coordinate city, State, and county efforts 

under a coordinated umbrella. 

Four, reinstate access to Pell grants or Pell grant-like funding 

during prison so that prison time can be used for educational and 

vocational preparation. Make sure those efforts are tied to the 

labor market. 

Five, encourage the Department of Labor and Department-funded State agencies that review labor shortage projections to coordinate efforts of targeted training with prison systems. And, six, increase the Work Opportunity Tax Credit from $2,400 to $10,000 so that employers are more interested in hiring people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

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

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, Ms. Williams. 

A lot of what you said, Ms. Williams, and what I think you all 

are doing is a coordinated, comprehensive approach. And what we 

see—we actually talked yesterday to Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Montana, which are seeing some successes, much like what I think 

you are about to see in Kansas. 

Recognizing we live in a limited budget area—I mean, it is coming. It is going to get worse. It is not going to get better. What is 

your advice to us on how we make what we do—the limited amount 

of money that we put out there, how do we make it effective? Some 

of it was what you suggested, but how do we use that money to 

leverage that to get other States to do what you are doing? Because 

this is really an investment. In Kansas, every person you do not 

have incarcerated is a win-win. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. That is correct. 

Chairman COBURN. It is a double win. So what would be both of 

your advice to us in terms of Senator Durbin and myself? How do 

we stimulate, with the limited amount of dollars that are going to 

come from the Federal Government? And it is going to be limited. 

You should not have any expectation that it is going to increase. 

It is not. What should we do? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I will offer you two suggestions. And if you would 

let me, I would probably give you 40. 

Chairman COBURN. Well, I probably might even let you. We have 

a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and some of the Defense Department here in a minute, but I am willing to listen up until that 

time. 

25 

Ms. WILLIAMS. One of the things we need to do is we need to 

make sure that those partnerships are not just limited, quite frankly, to the Federal Government, to State government, and even to 

not-for-profits. We need to include the for-profit sector in those 

partnerships. 

The transitional jobs program that I mentioned to you earlier is 

one in which we have actually formed a staffing company. We 

formed a limited liability corporation under our not-for-profit, and 

we actually have a contract with a for-profit company to staff 220 

entry-level positions and the related supervisors for that staff, for 

that not-for-profit. We structured it just like a staffing company, 

and the for-profit sector would do that. So that as we get better at 

it and as we are able to grow, we will have dollars to reinvest on 

the program side, because what we know is that just finding somebody a job and sending them there for the first day is not all that 

is needed to make it successful. 

And so we do surround that person that we place in those transitional jobs with the services that they need: access to GED classes, 

what we call retention specialists and what other people might call 

case managers. And we actually provide that support onsite of the 

workplace for those clients. 

Chairman COBURN. Could we also not change the rules for housing through HUD to say that if you are coming out of a prison you 

can have access to HUD housing? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be— 

Chairman COBURN. Why couldn’t we do that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be tremendous to have that shift 

occur. 

Chairman COBURN. I can tell you, in Oklahoma we have a lot of 

empty HUD housing. Why should we say you are ineligible for 

that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I do not think we should say that. And just as you 

talk about Oklahoma, you can certainly imagine the communities 

in Chicago where there is housing that could be rehabbed. People 

could move into those houses. They could have, if you will, support 

to learn how to operate as perhaps a condo association. Some of 

that money that they are paying for rent could be used or held, if 

you will, in escrow as part of a downpayment. They could ultimately buy those units, and then they could build other housing to 

have the same sort of thing occur. 

Housing is critical, and you are absolutely right that we need to 

move from that. 

Chairman COBURN. Mr. Werholtz. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Let me make three suggestions and run through 

them quickly. I know your time is limited. 

One is funding innovations. The second would be improving 

States’ data systems. I know there was a discussion with the earlier panel about frustration with information. Part of that is because States like mine are working with extremely archaic data 

systems where there is a lot of information in there that is very 

difficult to get back out. And then the third piece is one that I do 

not think costs anything, but that is delivering a message. One of 

the reasons why we have been successful in what we have done 

over the last 2 years in Kansas is because it is a bipartisan effort. 

26 

My Governor is a Democrat, Senator Brownback obviously a conservative Republican, and both of them are saying the same message. And that has gone a long way to lower the temperature about 

the issue offender reentry and how to manage crime and corrections. 

I think oftentimes we get wrapped up in the issue, which Senator 

Durbin had alluded to, about what the men and women incarcerated in our system deserve. Well, we are mad as hell at them. They 

may not deserve anything. But I think we are asking the wrong 

question. It is what we deserve as taxpayers and law-abiding citizens, and what we deserve is for them to stop hurting us and stop 

victimizing us. And when we reframe the debate that way, I think 

it leads to a whole different set of answers that otherwise cannot 

be considered. 

The innovation funding that I mentioned, going back to the 

SVORI program, relatively small amount of investment in Kansas 

that allowed us to experiment with a new program which, as a result of what we learned in that, we retrained all of our parole staff 

and are in the process of retraining our facility staff and community corrections programs, which are county-funded programs, redefining the role of a parole officer to a case management kind of 

model, so that their primary responsibility is helping the offender 

succeed and comply with conditions of release in the first place, 

rather than catching them violating those conditions and reacting 

to that. 

But that is a large leap that takes some political cover for line 

staff to feel safe in doing that, because when there is a tragedy, 

people are going to sweep down, second-guess the decisions that 

were made, and it is that line officer that bears the brunt of the 

criticism oftentimes. 

Chairman COBURN. But the measurement of that is what do we 

expect, and what we expect is to have a correction take place during corrections and create opportunities so that it is not there 

again. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Precisely. 

Chairman COBURN. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, 

at the risk of throwing raw meat your way, Mr. Werholtz did not 

read his entire statement, and I want you to be sure to get to page 

5. 

My colleague here is a watchdog on earmarks, and since I am on 

the Appropriations Committee, I view this issue a little differently 

than he does. But I have argued that there are earmarks that have 

nothing to do with money but end up having a lot to do with 

money. And Mr. Werholtz gives an example of an effective lobbyist 

in Washington who stuck a word in a bill and—well, why don’t you 

explain it? 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. That is in my written testimony, and I am referring there—at least the piece I think you are referring to is in the 

VOI/TIS funding. One of the major frustrations that we experienced when we received our VOI/TIS grants and wanted to purchase prison capacity because we were over capacity at the time 

and were trying to expand our system, we learned that we could 

27 

only purchase that prison capacity from a private vendor. We could 

not purchase it from another Government entity. 

What that meant was that we had to ship inmates out of State 

further away from their families, where it was more difficult for us 

to monitor their care and confinement, because we could not use 

VOI/TIS funds to lease jail space from our local sheriffs who had 

available and adequate jail space to provide— 

Senator DURBIN. Which put a strain on families and cost a lot 

more. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Absolutely. 

Chairman COBURN. Which increases recidivism. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Correct. 

Senator DURBIN. Maybe I can join my watchdog on this effort 

here and maybe look at— 

Chairman COBURN. I have got a whole lot more for you to join. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. Ms. Williams, thank you for being here. Thank 

you for Safer. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. You are the best, and you have such a great 

reputation for what you do. 

I am going to open a subject which, sadly, we ought to devote 

more than one hearing to. But I think it is part of the reality of 

this conversation about recidivism. 

One in three black men in America with only a high school diploma will go to prison before the age of 40. In the city of New 

York, two out of five black men are jobless, and a key factor in this 

low rate of employment among black men is the high percentage 

of those with felony convictions. The statistics are grim, and I have 

used them in this room many times. African-Americans representing about 15 percent of our population and about 15 percent 

of the violations of drug laws are arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated at much higher percentage rates. I think the figure is 

more than half of those who go to prison for drug crimes are African-American men. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct. 

Senator DURBIN. Now, the analysis—and this comes out of New 

York, a man named David Jones from the Community Service Society. Are you familiar with Mr. Jones? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. This is something I want to read to you because 

I think it is worth your comment, and maybe Mr. Werholtz as well. 

An experiment was conducted where black men and white men 

with equivalent resumes of education and experience posed as applicants for entry-level jobs. The white men admitted to having a 

criminal record. The blacks had no record. The result? White men 

with criminal records had a better chance of getting a job offer or 

a call back after an initial interview than did black men without 

records. And black men with criminal records were only about onethird as likely to get a job offer as were white men with criminal 

records. 

Talk to me about the issue of race and recidivism. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. There is absolutely a correlation. If we look at the 

whole issue of the kinds of communities the people who are going 

28 

to prison come from, if we look at the poverty level, the education 

level, we look at, if you will, every aspect of that community, they 

are clearly inner-city communities populated with African-American men who have grown up in many cases not going outside of 

a four- to six-block radius and having no expectation that their 

lives would look anything like anything outside of that four- to sixblock radius, which means that they have an expectation that the 

only way they are going to have an opportunity for, if you will, 

wealth or some status is that they are going to be part of the drug 

trade or they are going to be part of some other sort of criminal 

activity. That is the only one that shows up that way in their community. 

When we come to actually looking at the kinds of crimes that are 

committed, to your point, they are no different in Chicago than 

they, quite frankly, are in Highland Park. How they get treated is 

what is different. What happens to a person once they have been 

identified as having drugs in their possession is different. So the 

arrest rate is different for those who are caught with drugs. Lots 

of studies have shown that the incarceration rate, as you are saying, is different for those who are convicted of having those drugs. 

And then we still have that population of people in the world of 

corporate America or employment that have with them prejudices 

that they were raised with, so they see a black person, they think 

they are not going to work. They see a black person—not only will 

they not work, they will not come to work. There are all of those 

stereotypes that are still sitting out there from many years ago 

that have not been cleaned up. And what we all know is that that 

is not necessarily true. 

Do you want to hear my personal story? I started out in public 

housing in the city of Chicago. I since that time have gone on to 

school. I have a master’s degree in business from Northwestern 

University. It has nothing to do with intelligence or capability. It 

has everything to do with belief that you can do it, that there is 

an opportunity for you to do it, and then to have the space to do 

it. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

I see Senator Brownback is here, and I know he has a witness 

he would like to ask a question of, so I am going to end at this 

point. Thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. Senator Brownback. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thanks very much, and thanks, Senator 

Durbin, for recognizing and passing this on to me. 

Secretary Werholtz, thanks for being here. I stayed in one of 

your facilities a couple months ago at my own volition. I was not 

convicted. And I came out at my own volition. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. I want to hasten to add that. 

As I was taken off and I stayed there overnight in the facility, 

as I was leaving home with a bag packed, my 8-year-old daughter 

said, ‘‘Bye, Daddy who is going to prison.’’ And I unfortunately then 

told that story in the prison, which was a story that a lot of the 

men there could identify with, and they were not laughing about 

it. So I did not know my audience well in saying that, because a 

29 

number of them have children on the outside. It is a very painful 

and very difficult thing. 

I want to compliment you on what you are doing, and I want to 

compliment those around the country that are doing these innovative type of programs and really working on mentoring with the individuals before they leave prison and then staying in that relationship once they get out of prison. 

It strikes me that the guys I have met, both in the facilities 

there, in homeless shelters here in D.C. and other places, that one 

of the big things that happens to them is they get separated. They 

get isolated. Something happens. They start using drugs or alcohol. 

They break away from their family. They break away from their 

friends or they get separated, and then they start more criminal activity and it just goes down. And they need connections. They need 

people to invest in their lives. 

That is what I saw in your facility. We have these people coming 

in from outside, investing in their lives, investing not only when 

they are there but also just before they are leaving, and then after 

they leave the facility. And I think, Chairman, what the whole 

thing really requires is us to just say that these people have worth. 

Yes, they have committed a horrific crime. They have done a very 

bad thing. They owe a debt to society. They have got to pay that 

debt to society. We have got too many people in prisons, and at 

some point in time, most are going to come out. And we do not 

want them to do it again. And we have not, I think, answered that 

question adequately. 

So that is why, you know, I compliment some of the work. I do 

not think we are doing enough of it that we are going on to see 

that they do not go back in and do it again. And one sure way as 

well is saying, you know, if you did the crime, you have a debt you 

will pay to this society, you should not do that, it is wrong, and you 

are going to pay a debt to that. But now once you have paid it, we 

want to work with you to make sure you do not go back into this 

system again. 

That is what the Second Chance Act is that you and a number 

of other people have been strong supporters of and helping the system, and I want to encourage you on continuing to do that and providing that model, building a relationship on both the left and on 

the right, because we can all identify this is a problem. Getting to 

the right solution is going to be somewhat difficult to do. 

Do you have numbers on the recidivism rates that have occurred 

in the programs where you have worked on building these relationships and job skills of what it has done to recidivism rates? 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. We do. I need to caution you that they are very 

preliminary numbers because the history of the programs is so 

short. But what we have been able to do in the last 2 years is cut 

recidivism for parolees, those people being released from prison, by 

about 25 percent, and over the last 4 months we have actually met 

the challenge that you gave in Wichita in April of 2005, and our 

recidivism rates have been cut in half. 

The question that I think remains is whether we can sustain 

those numbers over time, because a lot of what we have achieved, 

we have achieved through relationships, either through the retraining of our staff to perform a new function or through the relationVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 May 06, 2009 Jkt 034118 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\34118.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
30 

ships that you described in the program that you visited, whereby 

people from the community—in this instance, a faith-based program, but we also have police officers, we have treatment program 

people, folks from our community mental health centers and our 

employment centers who actually begin working with the prisoners 

while they are still incarcerated, typically 12 to 14 months prior to 

release. And so, in fact, at this point the majority of the people that 

they are working with are still incarcerated and preparing for release. 

But I think you hit a critical point, and that is that we have got 

to understand that the problem is larger than our own system. One 

of the things that is unique about what has happened in Wichita 

is that the county and the city were so impressed with what was 

going on and the leaders there believed so strongly that this was 

important that they appropriated funds and in-kind services to 

match our State general fund budget to replicate the Topeka program in Wichita. 

One other set of numbers that I might be able to share with you 

is the Topeka program, which is Shawnee County, the one that has 

the longest history, it targets the most serious, highest-risk offenders who are exiting our prisons and going back to our capital city. 

We would expect those individuals, because they are at such high 

risk, to return to prison somewhere at the rate of about 70 or 80 

percent within the first 3 years. 

Now, we have only got a little over 12 months of history for those 

folks in the community, but they are returning at the rate of about 

20 percent instead of the 70 to 80 that we would predict, or the 

standard 50-percent number that— 

Chairman COBURN. Yes, the national average is 50 percent in the 

first 6 months. 

Mr. WERHOLTZ. Correct. So, again, I would not want to hang my 

hat on those numbers and say we have proved our case yet, but 

they are hopeful enough that the State and some local units of government are investing money and trying to expand this effort. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I am glad they are doing that. This is— 

Chairman COBURN. Senator, can I interrupt? 

I am going to ask Senator Brownback to close out our hearing 

for me and take over the gavel. We have unanimous consent that 

the statements by Senators Biden and Feingold be placed in the 

record, which will be done. And we will announce a week before 

closing for questions for the members of this Committee to be submitted, and I would appreciate it if you would close out this hearing for me. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I would be happy to do that. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. I thank our witnesses. 

Senator BROWNBACK [PRESIDING.] Thank you very much. And I 

will not be long on this. 

I do want to point out that the program that I visited was with 

a faith community, and what I am very pleased to see is that people are willing to integrate that, and the facility I visited in Ellsworth, it was a Christian faith community, but there was also a 

Native American faith community that was involved, and there 

were a couple of others. I am not sure what all else was there, if 

there was an Islamic community and a Jewish community or not, 

31 

but I saw the Native American one that was there as well. So it 

was not anything that is exclusive to any one, but it did have to 

be reputable, it did have to be based in the prisoner’s belief system. 

And I think that is important to be able to integrate in with this 

as well. 

The other thing, I just want to comment on this as I close because I need to get over to the floor as well. I saw an article yesterday or the day before about the militant radicals in Europe penetrating the prison system and recruiting radical terrorists out of 

the prison system. I think that is something we should be aware 

of, A. 

B, if we do not want that to happen, I think we need to really 

go in our own system and work with men—men in particular, 

women, too, but men in particular—in a positive fashion to really 

try to give them some hope back in their lives if we do not want 

to see our prison system turn as well into some recruitment ground 

for real radical terrorist type elements to be able to come out of in 

a homegrown fashion. So I think it is good also for our security and 

our future. 

Thank you for these efforts. I hope you can continue to support 

our Second Chance Act. It is my hope and will be prayer that we 

would get it across the line this legislative session. It is not going 

to be a big bucket of money, but it is going to be some, and we hope 

to incentivize these types of programs, with the target of cutting 

recidivism rates in half in 5 years. I want us to have a hard number on this thing so that people, when they go into it, you know 

what you have got to hit, and this is what we are after. 

And also it says to the rest of society at large, this is not a softheaded program. This is not us just kind of being mushy on crime. 

This is being very realistic and this is being very hard-nosed, and 

bottom line, we do not want these guys coming back to prison. We 

want them out, productive members of society, and if your program 

can produce that, God bless you. We are going to help support it. 

If you do not, we are not going to fund it, period. We have got to 

hit the number, and it is important. It is important to society, and 

it is important to these individuals. 

And I hope as well we can work with their families, too. The 

numbers on family members of people that are incarcerated that 

then end up going to jail is way too high. I think it is 5 times the 

likelihood if your parent is in jail that you will go to jail. I had personal experience of that as an attorney in Manhattan, Kansas, 

when I was representing criminal indigents, and I would go to my 

senior partners, and I would say the name. They would say, ‘‘Oh, 

yes, I represented his Dad’’—or his uncle or something. And you 

would say, ‘‘Well, why is that?’’ Well, I am not sure why. But it 

does happen, and I think we need to really work with these families. I have seen some pretty innovative programs of starting to 

work with the family members, too, to prevent this from continuing 

to happen. 

So I appreciate your work. God bless you for doing it, and I hope 

we can get this bill across the line and we can continue to show 

those good results. Thanks for shining my State. 

The record will remain open the requisite number of days. I believe they did say there were some questions that were going to be 

32 

submitted for the record, and these will be within a week’s period 

of time. I do appreciate your willingness to testify and to look and 

to answer these. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follows.] 

33 


34118.001
34 


34118.002
35 


34118.003
36 


34118.004
37 


34118.005
38 


34118.006
39 


34118.007
40 


34118.008
41 


34118.009
42 


34118.010
43 


34118.011
44 


34118.012
45 


34118.013
46 


34118.014
47 


34118.015
48 


34118.016
49 


34118.017
50 


34118.018
51 


34118.019
52 


34118.020
53 


34118.021
54 


34118.022
55 


34118.023
56 


34118.024
57 


34118.025
58 


34118.026
59 


34118.027
60 


34118.028
61 


34118.029
62 


34118.030
63 


34118.031
64 


34118.032
65 


34118.033
66 


34118.034
67 


34118.035
68 


34118.036
69 


34118.037
70 


34118.038
71 


34118.039
72 


34118.040
73 


34118.041
74 


34118.042
75 


34118.043
76 


34118.044
77 


34118.045
78 


34118.046
79 


34118.047
80 


34118.048
81 


34118.049
82 


34118.050
83 


34118.051
84 


34118.052
85 


34118.053
86 


34118.054
87 


34118.055
88 


34118.056
89 


34118.057
90 


34118.058
91 


34118.059
92 


34118.060
93 


34118.061
94 


34118.062
95 


34118.063
96 


34118.064
97 


34118.065
98 


34118.066
99 


34118.067
100 


34118.068
101 


34118.069
102 


34118.070
103 


34118.071
104 


34118.072
105 


34118.073
106 


34118.074
107 


34118.075
108 


34118.076
109 


34118.077
110 


34118.078
111 


34118.079
112 

Æ 


34118.080