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

64–926 PDF 2011

FEMALE D.C. CODE FELONS: UNIQUE CHALLENGES

IN PRISON AND AT HOME

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27, 2010

Serial No. 111–122

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

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

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

——— ———

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 27, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Lappin, Harley, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Adrienne Poteat, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency; Nancy LaVigne, Justice Policy

Center, the Urban Institute; Ashley McSwain, Our Place; Zandononi

Day, ex-offender; and Juanita Bennett, ex-offender .................................. 17

Bennett, Juanita ........................................................................................ 68

Day, Zandononi .......................................................................................... 63

Lappin, Harley ........................................................................................... 17

LaVigne, Nancy ......................................................................................... 39

McSwain, Ashley ....................................................................................... 50

Poteat, Adrienne ........................................................................................ 31

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

Bilbray, Hon. Brian P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 14

Day, Zandononi, ex-offender, prepared statement of ..................................... 65

Lappin, Harley, Federal Bureau of Prisons, prepared statement of ............ 19

LaVigne, Nancy, Justice Policy Center, the Urban Institute, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 41

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

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

McSwain, Ashley, Our Place, prepared statement of .................................... 53

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

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 7

Poteat, Adrienne, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 33

(1)

FEMALE D.C. CODE FELONS: UNIQUE

CHALLENGES IN PRISON AND AT HOME

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Davis, and Bilbray.

Staff present: Jill Crissman, professional staff; Aisha Elkheshin,

clerk/legislative assistant; Ian Kapuza and Rohan Siddhanti, interns; William Miles, staff director; Dan Zeidman, deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for

oversight and investigations; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant and clerk; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; and

Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel.

Mr. LYNCH. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Federal Workplace, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will now come

to order.

I want to thank Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton for attending. We

are waiting for our ranking member. He is in another meeting. I

understand that, but we will begin with the opening statements

anyway.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the distinct challenges faced by female D.C. Code felons and what is being done to

ensure their proper progression through the prison system, as well

as their successful reentry back into society.

The Chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members

will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and all

Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you to the Subcommittee

on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia oversight hearing entitled, Female D.C. Code Felons:

Unique Challenges in Prison and at Home. Today’s hearing gives

the subcommittee the opportunity to examine the distinct challenges commonly faced by female D.C. Code felons, such as regaining custody of their children, maintaining and managing complex

social relationships, and generally reintegrating back into society.

There are roughly 250 female D.C. Code felons scattered up and

down the East Coast in various Federal prisons. In terms of placeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:55 May 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64926.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
2

ment, the Bureau of Prisons generally houses D.C. female inmates

at facilities in nine States and the District of Columbia, with the

majority residing in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

There are several issues that arise relating to female D.C. Code

felons. These challenges range from the ease of access to Bureau

of Prison programs to the difficulty of keeping D.C. Code felons

connected to their families and community resources. While the

subcommittee has previously explored some of these concerns as

they pertain to the D.C. male offenders specifically, today’s oversight hearing is intended to discuss how these issues impact D.C.

female offenders.

Female D.C. Code felons face a myriad of difficult problems and

different problems than do their male counterparts. For one, children play a much larger role in the lives of female offenders. Studies have shown incarcerated women exhibit high levels of attachment with their children and are more likely than men to live with

their minor children, both pre- and post-incarceration. This attachment makes separation from their children one of the most damaging aspects of prison life for women. Furthermore, the lack of contact can have a profound negative effect on these women’s emotional and psychological state.

In light of this finding, the Bureau of Prisons, much to their

credit, has taken steps to alleviate some of these drawbacks by offering classes on parenting, managing incarceration, and increased

communication. However, these services are not available at all

Bureau of Prisons facilities, and certainly not at all facilities where

female D.C. Code felons are housed.

After release, poverty plays a large role in many ex-felons’ lives.

According to a Bureau of Justice statistics report, 37 percent of female felons had incomes of less than $600 per month prior to arrest.

In addition to economic challenges, many female felons suffer

from physical abuse, sexually transmitted disease, and drug abuse;

therefore, it is clear that more needs to be done to ensure the successful reentry of these women.

To that end, this hearing seeks to review the ways in which the

Bureau of Prisons, the court services, and offender supervision

agencies, various local agencies, and community service providers

are working collaboratively to address the unique needs of female

D.C. Code felons, both while imprisoned and after release.

I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor

Holmes Norton, for her tireless work in this policy area. The subcommittee looks forward to working with you as we continue to

work with various Federal agencies tasked with the carrying out

of what is traditionally a local governing function.

Again, I thank all those in attendance this afternoon, and I look

forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.

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

3

4

5

Mr. LYNCH. I now yield 5 minutes to Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton

for an opening statement.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask that the entirety of my written remarks be included in the

record, in light of new developments that I would like to devote my

remarks to.

Mr. Chairman, your hearings on D.C. felons in the Bureau of

Prisons have been exemplary for the results they have produced.

This is a particularly important hearing because it is the first hearing since the transfer of D.C. felons to BOP for women. They are

small in number, but important to focus on.

Mr. Chairman, your hearings, alone, without additional language, have produced very important changes at BOP. For example, the District felons now have access to the state-of-the-art drug

program at the Bureau of Prisons. This is a very important program, not because it is an excellent program, but because it affords

early release for those who, in fact, complete it satisfactorily. In addition, for example, there is a new addition for a drug program at

Rivers, the closest of the prisons to the District of Columbia.

Now, the Bureau of Prisons improved conditions for prisoners

when Lorton closed in many ways, and BOP does valuable work

and has an excellent reputation. There are real advantages to D.C.

residents housed there, but there is a very serious disadvantage,

and that is the distance from home. We are talking about 5,600,

all told, D.C. Code felons housed in 115 facilities away from their

children and families and ministers and everyone who cares for

them, with no possibility that they can reach them except by phone

if they are able to do so.

Now, these 115 facilities are in 33 different States. These prisoners are sent, as their number comes up, it would seem, without

regard to where they are from.

In States, prisoners are far more likely to be closer to home, and

therefore to all important reentry services, but if you are in Alabama or North Dakota, you are not going to get reentry services,

even though BOP has important services while you are in prison.

From the point of view of District residents, the importance of reentry before our residents who are in prison hit the streets has to

do with, among other things, recidivism and preparation for a life

that is no longer subject to prison. But most of our inmates have

no access to what could be called reentry services until they cross

the District line, with or without housing, having not seen their

families sometimes for years.

We have not been able to measure the effect this particular distance from home has on recidivism, but nobody in this field would

say that there would not be a significant effect with no reentry

services available until post-prison.

The BOP is a Federal facility. Congress charged the BOP for the

first time with housing State prisoners. The BOP has done well,

but with your hearings, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the recasting

of some of what BOP has done, such as the drug program, to accommodate these State prisoners.

Our greatest challenge now is to make sure this recasting goes

the whole distance. We have just learned that the BOP has responded in a very significant way on two issues. We were very conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:55 May 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64926.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
6

cerned, Mr. Chairman, that juveniles convicted as adults were sent

as far away as North Dakota.

Now, these are children still, and at age 18 they are going into

a BOP facility. But these children could be as young as, I believe,

14. so to take these children that far from home to as distant a

State as you can find, with no access to their parents, loved ones,

or anyone else, is almost to presage what is going to occur to children hardened so early.

We make no excuses for the terrible crimes they have committed,

but we don’t need to commit a crime against them in return by not

treating them as children in at least some ways while they are still

children.

I want to commend Director Lappin and I guess it is Mr. Brown

of the D.C. Department of Corrections for a memorandum of understanding that will keep youth who have been convicted as adults

in the District jail until these young people are ready to go to the

Bureau of Prisons. This is a very important change, and I want to

personally thank Mr. Lappin even before his testimony for his

movement in this direction. Some of this was discussed at our last

hearing. It is a very important result.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we have learned that the Bureau will

transfer the first 200 D.C. felons to the custody of the D.C. Department of Corrections 90 days before the expiration of their sentences

will send them home in order to allow them to have access to reentry services. I cannot thank the director enough for this change.

What this means is that these D.C. residents will have access to

D.C. jail services, which are quite extensive. They include educational programs leading through the GED. Of course, we have

that at BOP. There is a drug rehabilitation and residential substance abuse program there. There is HIV counseling and treatment. There is comprehensive medical services.

Using a community model in the jail, there is a reentry unit, a

special unit called LINK. There is a job readiness program. There

is a permanent housing program that is a connected with the university legal services and fuse projects. There is a mental health

program in conjunction with the Department of Mental Health of

the District of Columbia. There is a trans-gender program, and

there is a juvenile program.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that the D.C. jail, I have always

indicated that I thought that the BOP was a particularly excellent

facility. I want to indicate that the D.C. jail also is. The D.C. jail

is accredited by the American Correctional Association, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. It has the largest

number of correctional officers who hold the credential of the ACA

professional certification program. The D.C. jail has received the

exemplary program award of the ACA in 2009 and 2008.

So I think what we will have is our residents who are now at

BOP transferred from one excellent facility to another 90 days before their true reentry so that they can reenter civil society and the

District of Columbia prepared to move forward in a new life.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the BOP in advance. And, of course, I thank the D.C. jail for its cooperation.

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

7

8

9

10

11

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady.

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Illinois,

Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first of all thank Representative Norton for introducing

this legislation. While it is specific to the District of Columbia, it

really has implications for the entirety of America. So while we

might be talking about the District of Columbia, the policies and

practices relate in a big way to the entire country.

I also want to commend Director Lappin for his sensitivities as

we continue to approach changing environments, changing needs,

changing problems, and the reality that this is much more of a

problem and an issue than it might have been a decade ago or 20

years ago, and so change is absolutely needed.

I also want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

hearing and for the hearings that you have held prior to now.

Many people know that I consider the whole question of criminal

justice and how we handle it as one of the major problems facing

all of America, but especially urban America, and especially African American communities where you find the greatest preponderance of individuals who end up being incarcerated.

I think that the specifics of looking at female entry and, of

course, we know that African American women happen to be the

fastest-growing part of the prison population in America. We also

know that, notwithstanding the fact that the overall African American population in the country is probably about 15 percent, but

more than 50 percent of all of the individuals who are incarcerated

in America are African Americans. And we know that African

American males are off the chart.

So the issues that get raised in this kind of hearing don’t, as I

indicated, just relate in a real sense to the District of Columbia.

The questions that I get from people all the time happen to deal

with the issue of how far away their relatives are. While you

wouldn’t be as far away in a State——

Ms. NORTON. At least in the State.

Mr. DAVIS. But that is a question I must get every week, at least

20, 30 people who want to know if there is some way that they can

get their relatives closer to home for any number of reasons.

So I think that as we remove some of the barriers to reentry—

and this is the very important part—if we are going to reduce the

overall prison population, we are going to have to reduce the rate

of recidivism, and the more barriers that we can reduce that prevent people from having successful reentry experiences, the more

impact we have on our overall system.

Again I want to thank you for your legislation. I want to thank

the chairman for holding this hearing. And my commendations to

not only Mr. Lappin, but I see there are other members of the

panel that we have had before us, and I want to commend you for

the work that you are doing.

I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.

Bilbray, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

12

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to introduce into the

record my written statement.

Mr. LYNCH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate being here. Mr. Chairman, you know, we sometimes

talk about the unique opportunity we have with our representative

form of government, and I think we grossly under-estimate how

much of a contribution our diverse backgrounds in Congress and

any type of representative government brings to it, not just situations of our past professional experience.

I mean, I operated a detention facility for a county of three million people. A lot of experience there. The flip side was my staff,

when I was chairman of the county, always pointed out that every

time I visited the detention facilities I knew half the people running the place and half of them that were in there.

But coming from a working class background, it does bring experience that a lot of our more affluent friends may not get, have not

learned. When I look at this item, it really strikes home in a lot

of ways.

Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize. I just came back from my

40th reunion, high school reunion. Going through the years of

watching my colleagues that I went to school with and how they

went into the criminal justice system and how many got in trouble

right out of school, if not even while they were in school, frankly,

I have to tell you, over the years I was very pessimistic about the

entire concept that once you are in the system can you ever get out.

But I would just like to add an optimistic note here. At a ripe

old age, ready to face 60 years old, and watching my colleagues

who were in and out of the system for years, I am very impressed

with how many people that I thought would never get out of the

system are successful, independent, family based. So I am much

more optimistic at this age than I was at a younger age.

I guess, as Bob Dylan once said, that was so much longer ago,

I was so much older then. I have to say that I hope, especially

those of us who have been challenged, gifted with the tougher

times in our neighborhoods than some people have, that we try to

take that experience and be practical about it. I think the biggest

thing that comes out is the ability to separate yourself from those

elements in your past that have helped lead you astray.

But also that economic independence, that a good job, a feeling

of success and economic opportunity brings, and hopefully working

at helping people out of the spiraling problem of always being

pulled back into the same negative components of our community

and moving toward a positive, because I just tell you there are

more individuals I see that I thought would never get out of an institution who are actually educating, coaching, involved. Some of

them are very successful, even during these tough times of unemployment, helping friends that have never known unemployment

actually know how to handle it.

I think that hopefully we will be able to learn from the panel

today about how D.C. is addressing this issue, how the Nation’s

capital, with all its great challenges, is addressing this, especially

when it comes to a population that we ignore for too much, and

that is girls and ladies and women are in the system too, but they

13

do not get the attention that we give the male counterparts. Hopefully, this hearing will help us to avoid that problem in the future.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray follows:]

14

15

16

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

I also want to thank the members of the panel for coming before

this committee and helping us with our work.

It is the custom of this committee to ask all witnesses who are

to offer testimony to be sworn. May I ask you to please stand and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Let the record show that all of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

I am going to actually read a brief introduction of each of our

witnesses.

Mr. Harley Lappin has served as Director for the Federal Bureau

of Prisons since April 4, 2003. A career public administrator in the

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Lappin is responsible for the oversight and management of the Bureau’s 115 institutions, and for the

safety and security of more than 210,000 inmates under the agency’s jurisdiction.

Ms. Adrienne Poteat serves as the agency head of the Court

Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA], for the District of Columbia. In this position, Ms. Poteat oversees a Federal

agency of nearly 1,300 employees which was created by the D.C.

Revitalization Act of 1997 to improve public safety through active

community monitoring and supervision of ex-offenders.

Ms. Nancy LaVigne is the current director of the Justice Policy

Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. LaVigne is an expert on crime

prevention and prisoner reentry and is the founding Director of the

U.S. Department of Justice’s mapping and analysis for public safety program.

Ms. Ashley McSwain is currently the executive director of Our

Place D.C. She holds a master of social work from Temple University and a master of organizational development from American

University National Training Laboratories program. She has

worked in the human services field for over 20 years.

Ms. Zandononi Day is an ex-offender and has served her time

fully. She is currently employed by Liberty Tax Service located in

Temple Hills, MD. Liberty Tax Service is an income tax prep service with multiple locations throughout the State of Maryland.

Ms. Juanita Bennett is an ex-offender. She is currently under supervised release and is unemployed. She has served her time fully

and is currently volunteering at Our Place D.C. Our Place is considering her for employment.

Welcome all. To some, Mr. Lappin, Ms. Poteat, and Ms. LaVigne,

welcome back. I think you have testified at least a couple of times

before this committee, and we appreciate your involvement.

Now we are going to have opening statements from the panel. To

begin, Mr. Lappin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an

opening statement.

17

STATEMENTS OF HARLEY LAPPIN, FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; NANCY LA VIGNE, JUSTICE

POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE; ASHLEY MCSWAIN,

OUR PLACE; ZANDONONI DAY, EX-OFFENDER; AND JUANITA

BENNETT, EX-OFFENDER

STATEMENT OF HARLEY LAPPIN

Mr. LAPPIN. Good morning, Chairman Lynch and members of the

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to

discuss programming and reentry for female D.C. offenders in the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

Before I get into my comments, let me just thank all of you.

There is nothing prison administrators like more than people like

you in leadership positions taking such an interest in reentry. Believe you me, it is long overdue.

It was about 5 or 6 years ago that many of you took such an interest, and, believe you me, we are feeling the impact, because at

the end of the day, as we release 42,000 inmates a year back into

our communities, there is nothing that satisfies us more than to

see fewer of them coming back to prison, living normal lives, taking

care of their family, have a job, and pay taxes just like the rest of

us.

So, again, we appreciate your support of this important issue.

The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the incarceration of almost 14,000 female offenders. Approximately 220 of these are female D.C. Code offenders. While the number of D.C. Code offenders

is quite small compared to our entire population, we remain mindful of our unique role in the District of Columbia, and we devote

substantial resources to meet the needs of these offenders.

Female offenders, as you referenced, Mr. Chairman, present different challenges than their male counterparts. They have higher

rates of mental disorders and higher rates of drug and alcohol use.

Histories of physical and sexual abuse and trauma are quite prevalent.

Finally, female offenders are often single parents. In such cases,

their incarceration means that their minor children are left to be

raised by extended family members or foster families. Those caring

for the children may lack the resources or ability to visit the incarcerated mother on a regular basis.

We have 28 facilities that house female offenders. Of these, eight

are Bureau of Prisons facilities that house D.C. female offenders.

We also house D.C. female offenders in the D.C. jail, Fairview Residential Reentry Center, and the Maryland Department of Corrections.

Crowding in the Federal prisons across the country has had a

profound impact on our inmate designation process. We have experienced significant increases in inmate population over the last two

decades. The Bureau of Prisons is currently operating 37 percent

over rated capacity system-wide, with our secure female facilities

operating at 52 percent over capacity.

We remain committed to the goal of housing the majority of the

female D.C. Code offenders within 500 miles of the District, and we

have been quite successful in meeting this goal.

18

Currently, almost 82 percent of the female D.C. Code offenders

are confined in institutions within 250 miles of the District, primarily at FDC Philadelphia, PA; the secure female facility in

Hazelton, WV; the Federal prison camp in Alderson, WV; the Federal correctional institution in Danbury, CT.

Inmates with significant medical needs requiring hospitalization

are housed at our only Federal medical center for females in

Carswell, Texas. While this facility provides state-of-the-art care

for our seriously ill female offenders, it is over 1,200 miles from the

District of Columbia.

We offer many programs for our female offenders, including prison industries and other institution jobs, education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, observance of faith and religion,

psychological services, counseling, release preparation, and other

programs that impact essential life skills. We also provide structured activities designed to teach inmates productive ways to use

their time.

Regarding specific female offender needs, we have enhanced

staffing of our psychology services programs at our female institutions to meet the increased needs of the mental health services for

female offenders. At 11 Bureau of Prisons facilities we offer the resolve program, a cognitive behavior workshop and treatment program to address trauma related mental health needs for female offenders.

Our Mothers and Infants Nurturing Together program is a residential program for pregnant females that provides parenting skills

and prenatal care, followed by a bonding period for the mother and

infant. The program is available at seven sites, including West Virginia and Connecticut.

Mindful of our role as the State Department of Corrections for

the District, we emphasize specialized programming and opportunities for D.C. offenders that will help facilitate their successful reentry. In addition to our ongoing reentry programming, we have

engaged in a fruitful partnership with Our Place D.C. to assist female D.C. offenders to successfully transition back to the District.

Our Place collaborates with BOP and FDC Philadelphia, the female

facility in Hazelton, and the Fairview residential reentry center

where our female D.C. Code offenders transition through the residential reentry center program.

Finally, we continue to collaborate with Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency on transitional issues.

Chairman Lynch, again, it is my pleasure to be here. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.

Before we continue with the testimony, I have just been called

to a second hearing on financial services where I have an amendment pending, so in my absence Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton will

preside. She has been intimately involved with this and will probably do a much better job than I would have, anyway.

Ms. Poteat, you are now welcome to take 5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT

Ms. POTEAT. Chairman Lynch, ranking member of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency’s role in

facilitating the successful reentry and community re-integration of

the District of Columbia women returning home from prison.

On any given day, CSOSA supervises 16,000 offenders, of which

15 percent, or approximately 2,400, are female. Of those women,

nearly 500 return to the community after serving a period of incarceration. The remaining 1,900 are probationers. Between 2006 and

2009 CSOSA experienced an 18 percent increase in the number of

women with post-release supervision obligations. Over the same period, the number with post-release obligations increased by just 7

percent. Of the 2,324 D.C. Code felons who returned home from

prison in 2009, 222, or 91⁄2 percent, were women.

The challenges faced by women on community supervision are

often exacerbated by history of physical, sexual, and mental abuse.

Approximately 32 percent report having been victimized as a child,

25 percent report victimization as an adult. Nearly 8 percent report

having either lived on the streets, in a shelter, or in transitional

living facility during the most recent 6-month period, and about 30

percent report having a current housing arrangement that is considered unstable or temporary.

Additionally, 45 percent do not have a diploma or GED. More

than 70 percent are unemployed on any given day. And more than

40 percent have a dependent child. Nearly half of the women report

having been diagnosed with and/or treated for a mental health disorder, and 82 percent self-report illicit drug use.

CSOSA’s supervision and treatment interventions are employed

based on a proven best practice and on the unique needs of the individual offender. All CSOSA offenders undergo an extensive

screening to identify their risk profile and their specific needs. Offenders are assigned to special mental health, domestic violence,

sex offender, high-risk, substance abuse, or traffic/alcohol teams as

appropriate. Our offenders receive a continuum of substance abuse

treatment from detox to residential treatment, as well as a wide

range of other support services.

Our gender-specific programming and our plans for the entry and

sanction center will be addressed alter in my testimony.

CSOSA also works closely with the Department of Corrections’

residential substance abuse treatment program, RSAT. We began

this effort in October 2009, targeting 18 female offenders in their

initial 90-day assessment and treatment readiness program. At the

correctional treatment facility we monitor RSAT female offenders’

progress and the prescribed community based treatment modality

32

and provide additional treatment and sanctions interventions to

support availability upon DOC resources.

Last year we partnered with Our Place D.C. on a reentry demonstration project to provide comprehensive pre-release planning to

women returning to the District of Columbia. To date, 16 women

from Hazelton and 26 women from FDC Philadelphia who are

going to be under CSOSA’s supervision have expressed an interest

in participating in this program. On June 28th we conducted our

first videoconference with Hazelton. In August we will have a videoconference with Philadelphia and followup with Hazelton.

In this fall, in response to the growing population of females with

co-occurring substance abuse and mental health issues, we expect

to expand the scope of our women’s programming with four major

initiatives. The first, we will be opening a 115-bed floor on the reentry and sanction center for female offenders. The RSC provides

high-risk offenders with a comprehensive clinical assessment and

treatment readiness program.

At capacity the RSC can serve up to 180 women per year.

Women will complete the 28-day program and have an individualized, long-term treatment plan that they can agree to complete.

Many of the women will report to the RSC immediately following

their release from prison. In addition, women who begin testing

positive for drugs and who meet the program’s eligibility criteria

may be assigned to the RSC as a supervision sanction.

The second initiative will be the reorganization of our mental

health branch to establish two women-only supervision teams.

As our third initiative, we will launch day reporting center exclusively for women. The women’s day reporting center will provide a

productive alternative to idle time for our unemployed female offenders.

Finally, we are expanding our women in control, a program for

women suffering from substance abuse and mental illness. This

cycle educational and therapeutic thus far has served 91 women in

fiscal year 2009. The expanded program will target high-risk female offenders who have at least 6 months remaining under supervision and who are at risk for violent weapons, sex, or drug

charges.

We are excited about the potential of these four initiatives to improve the reentry experience and support the successful supervision of our female population.

This concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today and am prepared to answer any questions

that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. Thank you very much, Ms. Poteat.

The next witness is Nancy LaVigne of the Justice Policy Center

at the Urban Institute.

STATEMENT OF NANCY LAVIGNE

Ms. LAVIGNE. Thank you, Representative Norton.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about the incarceration and release of female D.C. Code felons.

As you know, the Urban Institute has conducted extensive research on the topic of prisoner reentry, and perhaps our largest

study is called, Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of

Prisoner Reentry. It is a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry and

includes both men and women who are navigating the challenges

of returning to their homes and communities. For that reason, we

are able to discuss in detail the differences in experiences between

men and women who are reentering society.

So what do we know about women reentering society? Well, each

woman’s story is unique. The broad brush strokes, however, are

quite similar in that women are typically incarcerated for property

or drug possession offenses, and they are likely to have long-term

substance abuse histories. In Maryland, in fact, half of the women

we interviewed reported daily heroin use in the 6-months leading

up to their most recent incarceration, this compared to about a

third of the men we interviewed.

In terms of supporting themselves financially, women are much

less likely to have been legally employed prior to their incarceration, they are less likely to receive job training or have gained vocational skills while behind bars, and they are less likely to participate in job placement services, and ultimately to be legally employed after their release.

This employment hurdle may explain why women exiting prison

report more difficulties meeting their day-to-day financial needs,

are almost twice as likely to report earning income through illegal

means, and are much more likely to rely on public assistance as

a source of income than are men.

Even among women who are able to find jobs, they earn, on average, $1.50 less per hour than their employed male counterparts.

Lack of employment opportunities may also explain why women

are more likely to report difficulties in paying for housing. These

difficulties lead to higher rates of residential mobility, with women

more likely than men to have lived in more than one place since

their release. They are also more likely to report difficulty in finding housing due to their criminal records.

The unique obstacles that women face during their reintegration

contribute to their subsequent criminal behavior. In the study we

did in Texas, we found that women we almost twice as likely as

men to be back behind bars in a year’s time.

Now the data I have presented so far paints a pretty grim picture for women’s prospects of successful reintegration and rehabilitation, but, while the challenges are great, the opportunities exist

that are often overlooked for this population, and chief among

those is the important role that family support can play in successful reentry.

40

Our reentry studies have found that families can favorably influence the reentry process, with higher levels of family support

linked to higher employment rates and reduced recidivism following release. Fortunately, women report roughly the same degree of

family support as men, although they are more likely to rely on

children as that source of support than are men, who typically rely

on mothers, aunts, grandmothers, and so forth.

Indeed, incarcerated women’s relationships with their children

represent the single greatest difference between them and their

male counterparts. When we interviewed men and women behind

bars prior to their release, we asked an open-ended question.

We said, what are you most looking forward to after your release? The differences between male and female respondents were

pretty stunning. What men said, the top answer was tied between

calling my own shots and pizza, and I am not kidding, while the

overwhelming majority of women responded, reuniting with my

children.

Clearly, women’s ties to their children can serve as an incentive

to refrain from substance abuse and criminal behavior, but these

ties to their children and their support from family are closely

linked to the type of contact they have behind bars.

Representative Norton, as you correctly noted in your opening remarks, there is no definitive research that links distance from prison to recidivism, but there is research that links contact with family members behind bars to reintegration outcomes.

So the question here is: are incarcerated D.C. female felons able

to have contact with their family members? And I was encouraged

to hear that the numbers of women who are incarcerated close to

D.C. has increased over time, and yet it sounds like as many as

one in five are still incarcerated as far away as Texas. It stands

to reason that the farther away these prisoners are housed from

their homes, the less contact they will have with family.

I therefore encourage members of this subcommittee to continue

your efforts to ensure that female D.C. Code violators are housed

in prisons close to their homes. Doing so will enhance the ability

of incarcerated mothers to maintain contact with their children,

which research indicates is a critical factor in successful reintegration.

Doing so will also aid women in connecting to the communitybased substance abuse treatment and mental health services that

they so critically need to successfully reintegrate. In the meantime,

efforts to connect prisoners to post-release service providers

through videoconferencing should be supported and expanded to include communications with family members.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. LaVigne.

We will next hear from Ashley McSwain, who is the executive director of Our Place here in D.C.

Ms. McSwain.

STATEMENT OF ASHLEY MCSWAIN

Ms. MCSWAIN. Ms. Norton and members of the subcommittee, I

am honored by this invitation to appear before you to discuss the

issues facing female offenders as they transition back into the D.C.

community after incarceration.

I would like to begin with a story about one of our clients. After

almost 1 year in custody, one of our female clients—let’s call her

Hope—heard an Our Place presentation in the Federal detention

center in Philadelphia. Upon her release she visited Our Place and

found guidance, support, and friendship void of the judgment she

expected. She got a resume and e-mail address, clothes, suits for

interviewing, and legal advice to get her driver’s license reinstated,

which had been suspended while she was in custody because she

was not notified of the hearing.

Hope now works for Our Place and serves in a vital role and feels

that her dignity and self-esteem has been restored.

Our clients represent the breadth of challenges that women face

as they reenter society from prison. They have a host of unique

medical, psychological, and financial problems and needs that distinguish them from male offenders. And while male offenders experience some of the same problems, several factors set the needs of

female offenders apart. Many have histories of substance and sexual abuse, and over half have been victims of domestic violence.

This all creates a unique challenge for the female offender.

When a woman is sent to prison, the entire family structure is

impacted differently than when a man is sent. It is said that when

a man goes to prison he loses his freedom, but when a woman goes

to prison she loses her children. While women are incarcerated,

their families suffer, children are sent to live with relatives or

friends or placed in foster homes, sometimes separated from their

siblings.

Additionally, because D.C. Code felons are forced to serve their

sentences far away from home, family units and the female offender is further burdened. Many of the women we serve tell us

that Our Place is the only connection they have to the D.C. community since their family members did not have the funds or the

transportation to visit them while in custody.

Our Place began offering services in 1999 upon hearings women’s

stories of incarceration and their struggles to reestablish themselves in the community upon their release. Since opening its

doors, Our Place has served over 7,000 D.C. women, but over the

last 2 years we have seen a 30 percent increase in females that

visit our programs for services. Currently, an average of 90 women

walk into the doors every single week. Of our staff, 66 percent has

been formerly incarcerated, which brings a perspective that keeps

us informed of the needs and experiences of the women we serve.

The success stories of our staff members become a testament to

what is possible for our clients.

51

Our primary service is the drop-in center, where women can visit

us directly from prison to begin to gain direction for their next

steps after their release. We provide funding for birth certificates,

police clearances, tokens, and identification. We also have a clothing boutique, drinks and snacks, computer, faxes, copy machines,

and other administrative support.

Our services also include a legal education and support, including direct representation, employment and education, HIV/AIDS

prevention and onsite testing, condom distribution. Our case managers sit in on team meetings with the Bureau of Prisons, the female inmate, and various BOP staff. This is unprecedented, and

further allows us to fully understand what the offender will need

when she is released upon her release.

We also recently began videoconferencing with women in custody

in collaboration with CSOSA. We offer transitional housing for

women living with AIDS. We work closely with the local jail and

a variety of Federal prisons, specifically Hazelton, FDC Philadelphia, and Alderson. We run a family transportation program to

take family members to Danbury and Hazelton each and every

month so the children and loved ones can visit their family members. We offer a scholarship program that helps children pay for

their training while in custody and after their release. This program is also extended to their children. And we also accept collect

calls from the women who are in custody.

A felony conviction comes with shame and stigma that can be difficult to manage alone. Offering a comprehensive team of wraparound support can be the difference between success and re-offending. At Our Place we create a sense of community and connectedness. Additionally, the sheer volume of relationships that female

offenders need to maintain can overwhelm women, marking the beginning of their path to recidivism.

For example, most women must work with a drug treatment

counselor, attend NA or AA meetings, work with a mental health

counselor, medical doctor, family counselor, probation officer, housing counselor, welfare counselor, employment counselor, academic

instructor, children, family members, husbands, boyfriends, and

many more, all at the same time. We help the women put their obligations and needs into perspective.

We are fortunate that Our Place is granted unprecedented access

to the women while inside the prisons so that when they return

home they will have a plan that can be implemented as they relearn the community they have been away from, sometimes for decades.

We are sincerely grateful to the Bureau of Prisons and our many

other partners for their commitment to assisting these women during their transition home.

The work being conducted at Our Place offers a unique opportunity to develop a model of service delivery for female offenders

all over the country. Every women being released from prison

needs supports as she reenters the community. They are great organizations doing effective work; yet, they struggle every single

month to make payroll to support their efforts.

Given adequate funding, can impact the needs of many more individuals who sincerely want to make change within their lives.

52

Today, Hope is building a stable future for herself and her family

and serves as a role model for many women who enter the doors

of Our Place. She is lighting the torch for all women who come behind her. Let us give every D.C. woman the same support and opportunity that Hope had.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our story.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McSwain follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. McSwain.

The next witness is Zandononi Day.

Ms. Day, we are glad to receive your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ZANDONONI DAY

Ms. DAY. Good morning, Chairman Norton.

I am really, really nervous. I was OK until Ms. Tindel called me

yesterday. Anyway, my name is Zandononi Day.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Day, you have no reason to be nervous.

Ms. DAY. I am. My hands are sweating really, really bad.

My name is Zandononi Day. I am a 47-year-old mother of three

adult children who had been a convicted felon since 1986. These

challenges and obstacles I have been facing for years. I am just one

of those kind of people that like to put people to the test. If you

tell me you are going to do something, then I want to know that

you are going to do it.

My last conviction was August 2007. I was convicted of distribution of cocaine. I was housed at SFF Hazelton from April 21, 2008,

where I was released in June, where I entered the halfway house,

Fairview halfway house, from June 30th to September 15, 2009.

I have employable skills. Unfortunately, my CDL expired while

I was incarcerated and I didn’t have the funds to get one, so I requested that the halfway house give me a referral to D.C. Our

Place. Our Place came to Hazelton very, very often, and it made—

I actually just wanted to put them to the test, for real.

Being incarcerated was really, really stressful for me. My mom

is disabled. I got a daughter that is in the Air Force, and I had two

sons, and nobody had transportation to come see me. Well, Our

Place made that less stressful because they provided transportation, so I was able to see my family. I was glad to be close to

home, opposed to being sent far away.

Our Place helped me. Even though my children are grown, please

don’t think that we don’t go through the reunification process, because we do. You know, we fight harder to be reunified with our

kids because they can make their own decisions, because they can

choose whether they want to deal with us or not, and my kids were

willing to do whatever it took to get back in with me.

Our Place helped me with the reunification process. Even though

my kids are grown, it was harder to reunify with them than it is

to reunify with smaller kids, because they could make their own

decisions, because they could decide whether they wanted to deal

with me or not. I went through a whole lot of ups and downs, didn’t

know what I wanted to do, and Our Place provided that support

for me.

After being released from Fairview, I went to a training program

because I needed to get skills that I could get employment back

into the administrative field. I needed to go through a training program. I went to Our Place and I got my resume done and I sat with

the employment counselor and they helped me find a training program. They helped me with clothing and getting identifications and

everything that I needed for training.

While incarcerated, I got training through Our Place. I got certified with HIV and AIDS education where I can actually teach

HIV and AIDS education.

64

Not only did I receive service from Our Place, I also received

services from a whole lot of community organizations. I went

through DOE. That is where I got my training from. I got services

from Suited for Change and Dress for Success. But I wouldn’t have

been able to get those services had it not been for the referrals

from D.C. Our Place. They actually did not judge me.

Like I said before, my crimes ranged from distribution of drugs

to simple assault to taking property without a right, so I have a

long criminal history. I just made the decision that I needed to do

something about it. I take full responsibility for everything that I

did, and when I walked into Our Place doors I didn’t walk into it

blindly, I walked into it with an organization that said that they

would help me. I applied for two scholarships and got it. Then I

got a computer, thanks to D.C. Our Place. I was able to take my

P & C class, thanks to Our Place.

Not only do I work for Liberty Tax, actually, I am a supervisor

for Liberty Tax now. I also am an office manager for the Herberta

J. Jones Insurance Agency. Without getting a scholarship from Our

Place, I would not have been able to get my position because I

needed that P & C course, property and casualty insurance, so I

am also licensed to sell insurance now. But I still can’t be appointed with Nationwide or State Farm because of my criminal

background. I don’t have no crimes against insurance companies.

I don’t have any crimes against banks, but I can’t be employed because I am a convicted felon.

To sum this up real nicely, I have had the opportunity of working

with the entire staff of D.C. Our Place, from the executive director

to the receptionist. Everybody at Our Place knows me. They provide a great service, both inside and outside. I think mainly because I am the kind of person that don’t trust a lot, I actually always put people to the test. Our Place did not fail me. They actually gave me everything I need, and they still support me to this

day.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Day follows:]

65

66

67

68

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Day. See, you had no reason to be

nervous, did you? That flowed very easily.

The final witness is Juanita Bennett, who also has been incarcerated. We are pleased to welcome you.

STATEMENT OF JUANITA BENNETT

Ms. BENNETT. I want to thank everybody here today. My name

is Juanita Bennett. I was born in Washington, DC. I have one

daughter, age of 29.

I was sentenced for distribution of cocaine. I served 96 months,

which is 8 years. I was sentenced May 2004. I served most of my

time at Coleman Camp. That is where I went at. They said when

I got there that I was only housed out there to do straight fair time

because I was under the D.C. Code, which I wasn’t too much familiar with the D.C. Code, and that I didn’t reap any benefits being

out there to do the drug program and everything until I was transferred to Tallahassee, because I still requested the treatment program. When I got there, Dr. Marcellas told me that he never heard

of a D.C. Code, and he wrote the Justice Department, and they

signed it back saying that I was eligible for the time off. This was

in 2007.

After that, I was released and I went to the halfway house,

where I was at currently, where they allowed me to keep structure

in my life and had access to go different places and had the opportunity to go to Our Place so that I could get my credentials, police

clearance, vital records, and everything. By being there, the ladies

were very open, you know, very concerned.

All the staff is beautiful there at Our Place. They make you feel

like you are somebody, you know? They make you feel human. So

I enjoyed it, just being there. And when I had the opportunity to

volunteer and come back, it felt like I was just giving something

back and helping the ladies by volunteering.

And after leaving the halfway house I went to KA. That is a

transitional for women and treatment program where I was referred by my CSOSA, and that is where I am at now.

I don’t have a lot because I was just, like I said, this was my first

experience, and I really made up in my mind that I had to make

a better choice for my life, because I am not getting any younger.

I am getting older. I have a daughter who, like I said, is in the Air

Force, and she is very proud of me for making this step in my life

and as far as changing myself around. So as far as the choices and

as far as being under the D.C. Code, I think we should provide

more housing, job opportunity, training, mentors, and means of

transportation. That is the only thing I see as far as D.C. felons

need for females, need more of, as far as their needs to be met.

Thank you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Bennett, for that helpful testimony.

Ms. BENNETT. I am a little nervous, too, because I was excited

because I didn’t know what to expect and I didn’t want to overdo

it.

Ms. NORTON. This is not a jail, this is just a Congress.

Ms. BENNETT. I know.

Mr. BILBRAY. We only bite the heads off of executives. Don’t

worry about it.

69

Ms. BENNETT. OK. [Laughter.]

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, that does not include you.

I do want to start with a question for Mr. Lappin. Are D.C. Code

felons who receive sentences of 180 days or less typically housed

at the D.C. jail?

Mr. LAPPIN. The memorandum of understanding that you referenced will allow that. In fact, I think there are 65 or 70 currently

at the jail. That includes some men and some women. I think right

now the group is 90 days or less, but it does go to 180 days, and

we are working through that. So my guess is the majority of the

offenders who are serving 180 days or less or thereabouts, contingent upon bed space being available, will be housed at the jail.

This is noteworthy, because previously being transferred to a

Federal prison, by the time they got to the Federal prison it was

almost time to transfer them back.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. Which is commonplace. Many of the urban jails

around the country we have this relationship, so we are thrilled

that we are able to accommodate them at this jail such that, while

they are there, they can receive services, as well as begin to work

with the staff from CSOSA.

Ms. NORTON. It is an excellent change. Now, was D.C. reimbursed before the MOU for the cost of these prisoners being housed

in the D.C. jail?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. The MOU includes a reimbursement.

Ms. NORTON. But before they were simply sent out. So Federal

funds were paid to send people. How far did you send them? I

mean, just in the next available space, it could be halfway across

the country?

Mr. LAPPIN. Typically, these that were very short-term offenders,

we tried to put it at Cumberland, the institutions in closest proximity of Washington, DC, given the fact we know that we are going

to be putting them on a bus back to Washington, DC, within the

next few weeks. So, again, it is noteworthy that there is now

enough space at the jail and we have come to an agreement with

the leadership there, and we appreciate that, such that we can

have them serve their time at the jail in lieu of being transferred

to one of our institutions. It is a really great way to do this.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Now, I just want to make sure. There will be reimbursement

now? These people were not, in fact, you say, retained; they were

simply shipped out before? Because the District reported to us that

some of these people were retained for some period at cost to D.C.

taxpayers, although they were, the moment they are convicted,

supposed to be in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. LAPPIN. There is an MOU that lays out when the D.C. Department of Corrections pays and at which point the Bureau of

Prisons or Federal Government takes over paying.

Ms. NORTON. Now, shouldn’t the Bureau of Prisons pay from the

moment, according to the Revitalization Act, that these felons are

convicted and in the custody under Federal law now of the BOP?

Mr. LAPPIN. We can provide to you the specifics. I believe the

Federal Government begins to pay once the inmate is designated

to a facility, but I don’t have it here in front of me.

70

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, there used to be a long period or a fairly long period before designation occurred. It has been reported to

us that period has been shortened. Is that so? And how long does

it take to designate?

Mr. LAPPIN. The last time I checked it was on average of about

25 to 27 days.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. So you are correct. At one time it was 50, 60, 70

days. I think we are down to 26 or 27 days. Actually, many of the

offenders are designated in a much shorter timeframe. The more

challenging ones are those that have significant mental health or

medical concerns, and it takes us a little more time to gather that

information we need to properly place them on the first designation. So we can provide for the record our current average period

of amount of time it takes for a designation to occur and some

breakdown on the more challenging cases.

Ms. NORTON. So when a prisoner serves 180 days or less, is that

prisoner designated in the same way that a prisoner that is to

serve 10 years is designated? Do you designate——

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, they would be designated——

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Within these 20 days, or whatever.

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. So they would be designated to the jail, and we

would assume financial responsibility for that.

Ms. NORTON. That is important, because this has been the subject of some confusion in the city.

Now, you heard Ms. Bennett’s testimony. I want to make sure I

understand. She was a female in Florida and apparently that Tallahassee staff were unfamiliar with the D.C. Code and initially denied her services which were later, I think, rendered to her. Could

you tell us whether or not, given the 115 different facilities where

D.C. inmates may now be housed, whether all are now familiar—

what is it, 10 years?—with D.C. Code prisoners and whether we

would have this situation to occur again.

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I am sorry that did occur. There are times

when confusion did take place. However, as you now know, we

have all of the female offenders at eight facilities. I am confident

that our staff there are knowledgeable of the D.C. Code and, as a

result of recent legislative changes, they have the same opportunities as Federal female offenders.

So the one confusion was the eligibility for time off, for example,

for drug treatment. They have always had the opportunity or

should have to drug treatment. At one point they didn’t have the

legal authority to time off, but that is no longer the case, and that

has clarified things and they are treated just like everyone else is

treated in regard to drug treatment time off and things of that nature.

Ms. NORTON. I certainly congratulate you for that. The time off

gives an extraordinary incentive for the inmate to straighten out

his life while in jail, really preparing for reentry.

I am going to go. I have additional questions, but I am certainly

going to go to the ranking member, Mr. Bilbray, at this time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair.

71

I absolutely agree with you. It is really kind of sad that we talk

about things like substance abuse being a major social and cultural

problem, and how do we expect to be able to control the general

population when we can’t even address the issue within a control

population? That is kind of scary.

We are not going to get into how it is getting in and back out,

because I think that there is a lot we can do more among ourselves

who are operating the facility on that issue. I don’t think we look

at ourselves or our employees enough critically. We always figure

it was the inmates, visitors. It is somewhere. The inmates are

going into it. I think we have to look at our own operation a little

stronger on that.

Staying away from controversial issues, do we test for literacy

level when we take the ladies into custody, when they are introduced into the system?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. Today when an inmate arrives they take an inmate skills test. That includes literacy assessment, vocational assessment. It addresses nine skill areas that the Bureau of Prisons

has identified that we find many inmates lack, to include their

ability to manage a mental illness to their ability to cope with medical ailments, what they do or don’t do in their leisure time.

So an assessment is completed and we are now making efforts

to ensure that every one of the 115 prisons, or all of those that

house individuals for a period of incarceration, have programs to

address each of those skill deficits, and we are encouraging inmates

to participate in programs to address those skill deficits, whether

it is making better use of your leisure time or getting a GED or

getting a vocational certificate. But every one of our facilities will

have programs to address those skill deficiencies. It was all part

of the Second Chance Act.

Mr. BILBRAY. We found with our testing, and it might have been

because there is so much second generation immigrants in our operation, that it was a much bigger problem than we ever dreamed

it was. And we are talking about the functionally illiterate problem. It is one thing to be able to function at a certain level, but

how tough that was. In the D.C. population is that still a problem?

I am just coming from my little corner of the world.

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t have the specifics across the board. In my

opinion, it is a problem throughout our population, whether they

are from the United States or from other countries.

Mr. BILBRAY. Have we integrated into the system before they get

over to Ashley having to address this, before they ever show up to

her front door step? Do we have a system that integrates the inmates into not only the learning process, but Ashley training them

to be in the training process, too?

Because one of our great successes down in the southwest corner

is we actually have inmates being trained in the literacy programs

to be able to then train inmates as they come in and detainees

while they are in the process. Do we integrate the detainees into

the teaching and the training program, or is it totally kept separate? In other words, the trainees are always outsiders coming in?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure I understand the question.

Mr. BILBRAY. The question is: do we have a program that trains

the inmates. I am trying to remember. I have a mental block. What

72

do you call the inmates that are given special supervising responsibilities? Come on, guys. Everybody knows about it.

Mr. LAPPIN. Trustees.

Mr. BILBRAY. Trustees. Do you have trustees that the trustees

have the ability to become literacy teachers and actually participate in the program, or do we just bring people in and try to teach

it from the outside?

Mr. LAPPIN. We have a combination.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you.

Mr. LAPPIN. I’m sorry I missed it there at first.

Mr. BILBRAY. That is OK. It has been a long weekend for me.

Mr. LAPPIN. The majority of our education classes and vocational

classes are taught by a Bureau of Prisons employee or a contractor.

They may have students who have completed the course who assist

them with tutoring and things of that nature.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK.

Mr. LAPPIN. However, we have another program called ACT,

Adult Continuing Education, that offers other opportunities to

learn, and many of those classes are taught by trustees or inmates

who have shown a proficiency in those areas. But the majority of

our GED and vocational classes are taught by our teachers or contract teachers who we hire from a community college or elsewhere.

They may have a group of trainees or inmates who assist them.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK.

Mr. LAPPIN. So it is a combination of both.

Mr. BILBRAY. I mean, I am of the belief that the more you integrate the trustees into the process, the more it not only helps the

inmates but also helps the trustee and really starts building that

bridge into a productive life outside. Because they have gotten into

the habit of taking on responsibility, being trusted with responsibility, the self-awareness and the self-esteem that comes with that.

But also the fact that who knows to teach better than somebody

who has been able to basically say I have walked that mile? I think

that we under-estimate the potential for somebody who is in detention to learn how to teach. Frankly, I think it makes the best

teachers in the long run. That is just from my personal experience

on that.

Ashley, do you have special emphasis for literacy programs? Do

you have contacts with the literacy groups to be able to make these

outreaches as people are coming out?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes, we do have relationships with literacy groups

and a GED program, and we also go into the facilities and offer

HIV and AIDS prevention training, where it is peer facilitated, so

the inmates are taught prevention and HIV and AIDS awareness,

and then they teach it to other inmates. So we facilitate that at

Hazelton and at Alderson.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. BENNETT. And the halfway house.

Ms. MCSWAIN. And the halfway house.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Lappin, since we know that at the base of incarceration for

many individuals is substance abuse, misuse, and, although there

73

are programs, I am often, I guess, called by individuals who indicate that they can’t get into a program, that there is not room in

the program.

So my question is: do we have enough facility in terms of substance abuse treatment, to accommodate the individuals who need

it and are seeking it?

Mr. LAPPIN. I assume you are asking me?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. We do today. It is a great question. It was an area

of enormous concern for us over the last 2 or 3 years. Soon after

the law was passed that mandated that we provide drug treatment

to any inmate who we determined needed drug treatment and volunteered for drug treatment, we were able to meet that requirement for all of the years until about 3 years ago when, in fact, our

waiting lists were too long and we did not have adequate funding

to hire enough treatment specialists or add enough programs to reduce the waiting list such that we would treat all of the inmates.

This past year we have been able to do that again. We are now

treating 100 percent of the inmates who we believe need treatment

and volunteer for treatment. So how many is that? If you would

like to know, about 52 percent of the inmates in Federal prison are

in for a drug-related offense, and about 40 percent of those we believe have a drug or alcohol addiction. Today, 92, 93 percent of

those inmates are volunteering for treatment. That is noteworthy.

About 7 percent are declining.

Last year I think we put about 18,000 to 19,000 inmates through

the 500-hour residential drug treatment program. They successfully complete it.

So yes, sir, we have this past year again been able to hire enough

people to treat all of those people who have requested treatment.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Maybe you can answer this question. During the health debate,

the health reform debate, we ran into situations where there was

a lot of discussion. I am not totally certain of what the answer was.

When individuals are in halfway houses and it is getting close to

time for them to be released, they have completed their sentences,

who pays or who is responsible for their health care at this point?

We have run into some situations where there was just a lack of

clarity in terms of who pays or who is responsible for the health

care at that point.

Mr. LAPPIN. As long as they are an inmate of the Federal Bureau

of Prisons, we are responsible for their care. So in that halfway

house, and actually even while they are on home confinement, we

have a responsibility there, and so we are paying for the health

care of the individuals who are in the halfway house. Now, I am

not sure if that is true in States, but it is in the Federal system.

Mr. DAVIS. So if they end up going to a county facility, does that

mean that the county facility can now bill the Bureau of Prisons

for that care and they will be reimbursed?

Mr. LAPPIN. That is a very good question. What we expect our

halfway house contracts to include is an arrangement with a local

health care provider. We don’t want this to be a surprise issue, so

part of the contract requires that they already have a contract with

74

someone so that if the person becomes ill there are services available.

Now, if the person is so ill that it cannot be provided, we will

bring them back to the Bureau of Prisons and we will put them

back—we have had this happen—put them back in one of our hospitals where we can provide that care until they are released. The

transition occurs when that sentence has ended. The next day they

have to be transferred to a family or social entity who can absorb

that expense.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I am really delighted to know

that we are able to provide the drug treatment for individuals now

who need it. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you particularly for your leadership on the

Second Chance Act.

Ms. Poteat, I believe in your testimony you indicated, and I don’t

have it before me, that women were now being treated in the drug

treatment center here in the state-of-the-art drug treatment facility. Is that the case?

Ms. POTEAT. No, ma’am. What I said was this fall this is where

we are going to now open a 15-bed unit at the RSC on the grounds

of D.C. General Hospital, so they will be housed there.

Ms. NORTON. This is a matter of major concern. We heard testimony. I think Ms. LaVigne said that half of these, greater than

half of these women who go to prison had a heroin habit before

coming into prison. Many of these women, frankly, were led into

such habits by the associations, particularly with males. Now, as

I understand from our last hearing, there were no beds set aside

for women; is that true?

Ms. POTEAT. No. There were beds at the RSAT program, which

was——

Ms. NORTON. The what?

Ms. POTEAT. At the D.C. jail, and we were working collaboratively with them for the 18 women that——

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. Let me understand. Where were

men treated?

Ms. POTEAT. That was at the RSC facility, and you are correct,

there were no beds initially. Now we are going to phaseout a unit

and place women in that center.

Ms. NORTON. This is very important testimony. And when did

you say that is going to begin?

Ms. POTEAT. This fall.

Ms. NORTON. Did you call that a pilot program?

Ms. POTEAT. No. This will not be a pilot program. This will be

a full stage program. We are in the process of moving out offenders

off a unit now that are already there. We have to work very closely

with the Bureau of Prisons for those folks that have been designated to the RSC program so that alternative arrangements will

be made there.

In addition, we have to amend our contract, our medical contract,

because we need to provide additional services for women that will

now be housed at the RSC and do some training for our staff.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. poteat.

Now, Ms. LaVigne, you indicted that distance may not be correlated or we may not have figures on correlation between distance

75

and recidivism, but you indicated that there has been research correlating family contact and recidivism. Would you discuss that,

please?

Ms. LAVIGNE. What we found is a couple of things. One, people

who have more contract with their family members are more likely

to report that they have stronger levels of family support upon release. We have also found that people with higher levels of family

support are less likely to engage in substance use after their release, and we know that those who refrain from substance use are

less likely to return to prison.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, what are the recidivism rates for D.C.

prisoners, for men and for women?

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know that I have off-hand the specific recidivism rates. The average recidivism rates for Federal offenders, of

which they are a part, is about 40 percent, 41 percent. But I will

check with our research staff to see if, in fact, we have specific recidivism rates for D.C. offenders. I am not sure that we do, but we

will check, and if we do we will provide it for the record.

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate it, and I appreciate your

keeping those figures, again because I was very pleased to note

that you began your—I have it marked here—testimony in a way

that I was very pleased to hear. You said on page 1 of your testimony, ‘‘while the number of female D.C. Code offenders is quite

small compared with the entire population, we remain mindful of

our unique role as the State Department of Corrections for the District of Columbia.’’

That is very important it seems to me, in everything that we are

discussing here, that yes, there is to be some important integration

into the facility, but Congress was mindful that it was putting a

very important challenge to you, that these are State prisoners

with very different kinds of needs. Sometimes they are more serious felons than the kinds you have been accustomed to, and there

are a number of other kinds of challenges and accommodations that

are going to have to be made for this to succeed, so I appreciate

that understanding.

Ms. McSwain, what caught my eye, among many things in your

testimony, was on page 10 where you say some inmates are placed

in home detention for a brief period at the end of their prison

terms.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. They serve a portion of their sentences at home

under strict schedules, curfew requirements, telephonic monitoring,

and sometimes electronic monitoring. Five D.C. Code offenders are

on home detention. Why aren’t there more? And would you tell us

something about home detention? Maybe you and Mr. Lappin can

enlighten us on home detention.

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me make a run at this.

Ms. MCSWAIN. OK.

Mr. LAPPIN. Inmates are eligible to serve a portion of their sentence on home detention. I believe it is up to 10 percent. We are

using this——

Ms. NORTON. I’m sorry? Up to 10 percent?

Mr. LAPPIN. Of their sentence.

Ms. NORTON. Can be served on home detention?

76

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. And we are using this more widely. When either inmates who we identify in advance of transfer from prison to

the community who we believe have the skills and the abilities and

the wherewithal, they have some family support, we believe they

have the skills to acquire a job.

We, in fact, are transferring some directly from prison to home

detention in lieu of putting them in a halfway house. The majority

of them are going to the halfway house for a period of time to get

established, reaffirm our belief that they could be successful on

home detention, and then we transfer them to home detention.

We are doing this for a couple of reasons. One, we want to free

up those halfway house beds for the most needy inmates we have,

those that don’t have the family support, those that don’t have necessarily the skills we would like them to have to acquire the jobs.

They need more structure, more direction than some who already

have those skills and have family support.

So we are trying to better utilize the beds that we have, and in

doing so we are trying to reserve those beds in the halfway house

for the individuals who have the most critical need, been incarcerated longer, lack family support, don’t necessarily have the skills

that we would like them to have to acquire jobs.

We have that wherewithal within this community, and I think

that is noteworthy, Congresswoman. I mean, many communities resist accepting the returning offenders and we can’t even get halfway houses. Here, we are fortunate to have Hope Village and Fairview and an organization like Our Place. We need more of them—

I applaud their work—such that when that transition occurs there

is support in the community from family, friends, or social organizations. Those we find are going to be far more successful offenders

than those who don’t have those kinds of services.

Ms. NORTON. Let me understand. How many women are in the

halfway house at the moment, at Fairview?

Mr. LAPPIN. There are——

Ms. BENNETT. About 60 or better.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Bennett knows all so well. All right. Sixty.

Now, there are only five D.C. Code offenders on home detention.

That seems like a quite small number, especially because women

have normally not been convicted for violent offenses. Why is that

number so small, especially given your over-crowding, the need for

the space at Fairview and the like? Only have one place in D.C.

for women, so you would think there might be more.

Mr. LAPPIN. My numbers reflect that right now we have 24 at

Fairview. There are three on home detention. Without a doubt,

when we compare the female D.C. Code offenders to our other female Federal offenders, they have many more challenges in the

way of support. Many of them are homeless. We can’t put them on

home detention unless we are satisfied—I am saying this is the

case, but without a doubt bigger challenge for us, because they

sometimes don’t have that family support or structure that we believe is necessary.

Again, I would have to go back—and I can certainly do that—and

look at the 21 that are there to see whether or not we are overlooking somebody that could go, but the halfway house has to have confidence, as do we, that if we put them out there in the community

77

they are going to be in a situation that is supportive and nurturing

of that transition. If we are unsure, we leave them in the halfway

house.

Ms. NORTON. That certainly makes sense, Mr. Lappin.

Do you, Ms. McSwain, supervise the women on home detention?

Ms. MCSWAIN. No.

Ms. NORTON. Who does?

Mr. LAPPIN. That would be the staff at Fairview, in this case.

They are not here.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, Our Place.

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a support organization for both Fairview and

the Bureau of Prisons.

Ms. NORTON. We had Fairview here at a prior hearing.

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Day, you say in your testimony, ‘‘I am a smart

and intelligent individual.’’ I must say, in your testimony you certainly demonstrated that.

Ms. DAY. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON. I hope that the initial nervousness was overcome,

I think, by the very intelligence you described.

Now, you say in your testimony, though, ‘‘To some degree I believe that being under D.C. Code was better than being a Federal

inmate.’’ What do you mean?

Ms. DAY. Well, when I got to Hazelton there were a lot, and I

think because it was a new facility. They put a whole lot of programs in place, and they didn’t differentiate whether you were a

Federal prisoner or a D.C. Code prisoner. Everything was open to

everything.

Ms. NORTON. You were a D.C. Code?

Ms. DAY. Yes, I am a D.C. Code prisoner, but everything was

open to us. The only thing that was not open to me was the drug

program, because I didn’t have the 24 months. By the time I got

to the Feds, I only had 14 months left.

Ms. NORTON. So what is the difference here?

Ms. DAY. The difference is that a lot of the prisoners that I was

incarcerated with that were not D.C. Code prisoners had longer

sentences. They were shipped way, way away from home. They

were not eligible for some of the programs because of what their

charges was. They have a program at Hazelton where the inmates

actually watch other inmates that are on suicide watch. I was able

to do that. Some of the other prisoners weren’t able to do that.

Ms. NORTON. But were you able to do that only because you were

a D.C. Code?

Ms. DAY. No. I don’t think so. I think it was because I expressed

an interest. They were shipping ladies out left and right. I stayed

at home. For whatever reason, I stayed close to home.

Ms. NORTON. So you benefited by staying——

Ms. DAY. Yes, I did.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Close to home?

Ms. DAY. I actually did benefit by staying close to home. I have

always had real good family support. The only reason why I didn’t

have visitors on a regular basis is because my Mom is disabled, but

I was able to call home every day. I e-mailed home every day. And

78

when I came home, my family was at the halfway house waiting

on me.

Ms. NORTON. Now, you have been in prison on more than one occasion?

Ms. DAY. No.

Ms. NORTON. No? Just once?

Ms. DAY. I have only been in prison once.

Ms. NORTON. Just once?

Ms. DAY. Only been in prison once. I have a lot of charges. I have

a lot of convictions.

Ms. NORTON. That is a difference. I see.

Ms. DAY. Yes. I do. I have a lot of convictions. But I have only

been in prison once.

Ms. NORTON. Those convictions came pursuant to this incarceration?

Ms. DAY. Yes. And all of my convictions are a direct result, I

have a 30-year drug history. I have a sporadic drug history, and

when I am not using I do exactly what I am supposed to do. I

maintain employment. I take care of my kids. I become a responsible member of society.

Ms. NORTON. What freed you from the drug habit?

Ms. DAY. You know what? I don’t know. I don’t know. I guess I

am tired. I honestly believe, because I have been in several different drug programs, unless you are tired, drug program ain’t

going to work anyway. If you get a year off or you get twenty years

off, if you ain’t tired it ain’t going to work. And I guess that I was

tired.

I got a whole lot of support from my family. I burned bridges. I

burned a lot of bridges, but my family didn’t see that. And then I

got support from Our Place that I got from no place else. You have

agencies that go through the motions, and they do according to

what their contract say that they do. I got an e-mail to everybody

at Our Place. It don’t matter what I am going through; all I need

to do is e-mail somebody and I get an e-mail right back, I get a

phone call right back. I got a mentor this time.

I don’t do NA and AA because something about listening to stories kicks up a feeling, so I don’t do them. But my mentor is actually my sponsor, and we talk about everything.

Ms. NORTON. And you were incarcerated where again, please?

Ms. DAY. SFF Hazelton.

Ms. NORTON. Hazelton?

Ms. DAY. Hazelton. Yes. And we had a conversation when you

came to Hazelton, and my question to you was actually why didn’t

people who had 24 months or less able for the drug program? I

didn’t care about the time off. I maxed out September the 15th

anyway, whether I went to the drug program or not. But I think

when a person with a drug history like mine, I used everything

from a Bayer aspirin to you name it. I think I should have been

entitled to the drug program because I asked for it.

Ms. NORTON. You say a certain number of months. Ms. Day says

a certain number of months are involved in access to the drug program.

Mr. LAPPIN. There are actually two different programs. There is

a non-residential program, which does not require any minimum

79

stay, and any inmate can participate in it. It is not nearly as intensive. It is more education based, and you don’t live in a unit with

the other inmates.

The residential program, the $500 residential drug abuse program, requires a minimum of 24 months. That is to get you

through almost a year-long, more intensive treatment, followed by

a period of time in a halfway house where that treatment continues, and then on to release. That is why there is a minimum requirement.

Ms. NORTON. I see. It is just more intense. You need the

time——

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. In order to complete the program.

Ms. Bennett.

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am?

Ms. NORTON. You were incarcerated far from home?

Ms. BENNETT. Yes. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. How many facilities?

Ms. BENNETT. Just straight to Coleman in Tampa, Florida.

Ms. NORTON. In Florida?

Ms. BENNETT. Yes. And that is where I did the majority of my

time down before they made me eligible to go to Tallahassee for the

drug program.

Ms. NORTON. And you did receive——

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. The intensive residential drug program?

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am, the 500. I successfully completed it.

Ms. NORTON. Do you believe it is that program that freed you

from drugs?

Ms. BENNETT. No, ma’am, I surrendered myself when I went to

prison, when I sat in a cell downtown, I knew that I was giving

up. You know, everything that I used to do, I knew I couldn’t do

it any more, so I surrendered myself.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, here is a D.C. resident. When were you

incarcerated, Ms. Bennett?

Ms. BENNETT. May 2004.

Ms. NORTON. Who was sent to Florida. Are there any women like

Ms. Bennett that far away from home? Now, you heard what Ms.

Day said, just being this close to home apparently was instrumental in her rehabilitation, so that now she is a tax preparer. Are

there any women outside of the facilities that are no more than 500

miles from the District of Columbia?

Mr. LAPPIN. There are. There are 11. I looked at all 11 of those.

Actually, there are 36 if you include the 25 that are at Carswell.

So there are 25 women outside the 500-mile distance who are at

Carswell, probably for medical care or because they volunteered to

participate in the life connections residential program, which is a

residential-based volunteer program. Beyond that there are 11 who

are outside the 500 miles. There are six at Tallahassee, there are

four at Waseeka, and there is one in Dublin.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. And the majority of them either have separatees at

one of the other facilities or more that are in closer proximity as

80

they can’t be housed with someone, or, unfortunately, they have

been disciplinary problems. One, in fact, has been moved 10 times.

And so those are the 11 we have currently that are outside the

500-mile, besides the 25 that are at Carswell.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it looks like, at least within the constraints

that you have, it looks like the BOP is making an effort. Could I

ask that you make a further effort so that no D.C. woman who did

not have special issues would be outside of the 500 mile or 250

mile?

Mr. LAPPIN. We will certainly make the effort. As I have shared

with you before, it is typically medical——

Ms. NORTON. We understand.

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Or they have many separatees who are

incarcerated, so they can’t be housed——

Ms. NORTON. Well, these 11, are all of these women in those special categories?

Mr. LAPPIN. I believe all 11 of these are. I will check to make

sure, but I think all 11 of them fall into one of those categories,

either health care, separatees, or discipline.

Ms. NORTON. Well, if these women were flagged so that only

those, and perhaps they have been if you say all 11 fall into these

special categories. Then, of course, we would be getting somewhere.

As you know, Mr. Lappin, while it would take a further effort,

it does seem to me, given the number of facilities that the BOP

has, that a facility could be converted to the District of Columbia

where men and women could, indeed, be placed. I recognize the difficulty, but other than the administrative difficulties and the issues

involved in such a conversion, would you regard that as at least

something of a possibility?

Mr. LAPPIN. We can consider that, although, as I have said before, I believe that it would be less safe than what we have today.

Ms. NORTON. Less safe?

Mr. LAPPIN. Less safe.

Ms. NORTON. Why would it be less safe, Mr. Lappin?

Mr. LAPPIN. I won’t say so much so for the women, but more so

for the men in that we, again, believe that facilities that are balanced, both racially and geographically, are safer than facilities

that are——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, 50 percent, as Mr. Davis indicated, of

felons are African American men. I mean, I understand that there

have been court suits and we want to make sure we are not segregating people, but of the values, penology values, the notion

that—I suppose I would have to ask you. I can understand the notion of safe, but, Mr. Lappin, these are State felons.

The Congress regarded BOP as capable of handling State felons,

so the notion that it would be more difficult to have people who are

more likely to be convicted of murder and armed robbery, yes, it

would be something special that perhaps you would have to conform to, but compared to being in 115 facilities scattered throughout the planet, as far as they are concerned, do you think the BOP

is incapable of handling violent State prisoners within a facility if

they were in the same facility?

Mr. LAPPIN. Many of our inmates are violent offenders——

Ms. NORTON. You have some notorious——

81

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Drug offenders who have shot up the

world. You have the worst bank robbers in the United States. Now,

you are able as a Federal facility to spread them out, and it is a

Federal facility. Excuse me, they have been convicted of a Federal

crime, and so they are not entitled to be treated, it seems to me,

as D.C. residents are, because they are Federal felons. Once you

are a Federal felon, those are the rules.

The rules, however, have to take into account what it means to

be a State felon who, unlike a State felon in Maryland or Virginia,

could at least get to see a relative or a minister every once in a

while, and to be a State felon in Florida, and then to be expected

to come home and do right and be right. That is the kind of accommodation that, if one is thinking about this with fresh eyes, one

has to at least begin to contemplate.

Mr. LAPPIN. Reality is though, Congresswoman, that all of the offenders we have who are U.S. citizens are residents of a State that

they are going to return to, so they have the same reentry challenges as the D.C. offenders have. So I——

Ms. NORTON. Congress has made——

Mr. LAPPIN. I struggle——

Ms. NORTON. Congress has made a judgment that when you have

a Federal rap you are going wherever we send you. Congress has

made a judgment that when you are a D.C. felon we are going to

try to bear in mind you are a State felon and we are housing you

in Federal facilities only because the District can’t house you any

longer. That is the only difference here. So I think it is very, very

dangerous to simply equate somebody who has been convicted of a

Federal felony with the State prisoners that you are charged with.

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me just finish the response. Although they are

from the District, I see them with similarities as far as reentry

needs, but beyond that, in the day-to-day operations of running a

prison, we have the benefit in the Federal system, unlike States,

to be able to distribute this population such that we believe it creates a safer environment. Can we run a facility with inmates from

one location? We could. I am just saying to you that I believe, as

do our other managers and administrators, that it would not be

run as safely as what we run today.

Ms. NORTON. Accepted. So the two values involved here are the

specific pains and steps that the BOP administratively would have

to take if these prisons were housed together versus the difficulty

of reentry and the recidivism and the other issues that attend it

when these people are scattered all over the country. One has to

put those together and then decide which is the prime value: safety

of residents in the District of Columbia who these felons will affect

their own possibility of successful reentry, or the administrative

difficulties the BOP has in housing a more violent set of prisoners.

Those are the two values, Mr. Lappin.

Mr. LAPPIN. I think the one that takes precedent is the safety in

the prison.

Ms. NORTON. And you say you can——

Mr. LAPPIN. If we can’t run it safely——

Ms. NORTON. Can you maintain a safe prison of D.C. felons

housed together, or not? Are you capable of doing it or not?

82

Mr. LAPPIN. Not as safely as we do——

Ms. NORTON. As safely. Yes, you know, I can tell you it can be

even more safe if you put them all in confinement by themselves

so that nobody—you know, it would be real safe for everybody if

you can never see the day of light until they get out. In life we

have to make judgments. There is no perfect world.

We do know, however, that if you are in Alabama or Florida or

North Dakota and you have not seen a soul for 10 or 20 years, that

it is going to be very difficult for you to cross the District line and

be a law-abiding citizen and fit in just like everybody else, Mr.

Lappin. That is a value that you have to at least consider when deciding whether or not the present system accommodates sufficiently D.C. residents who are housed there.

All I am asking you to do is consider it. I want your mind to be

open, sir. We didn’t put D.C. residents in a Federal prison just to

fit them into some slots.

Mr. LAPPIN. We will certainly consider it.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Let me just ask you, Ms. Day and Ms. Bennett, if each one of

you would respond, What would you say has been most helpful to

you in your effort to successfully reenter as a regular citizen?

Ms. BENNETT. As doing what I am supposed to as far as doing

what I need to do to get back into society, and that is staying away

out of trouble and doing what I need to do to move forward.

Mr. DAVIS. That is what you have determined——

Ms. BENNETT. Yes.

Ms. DAY [continuing]. And what you have done. Is there anything that any program or the system, as we call it, has been helpful or any external force?

Ms. BENNETT. Especially Our Place and Federal City and the

CHIPS recovery treatment program that I just graduated for has

kept me on the right track, so I’m like where I’m at in my recovery

is just moving forward.

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying the program has been helpful——

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. In terms of helping the way you

think——

Ms. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. And the way you think about life and

doing things?

Ms. BENNETT. In general, yes.

Mr. DAVIS. And that has been beneficial to you?

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Day.

Ms. DAY. First I have to say that I made a decision. I made the

ultimate decision that I just didn’t want to, whether it is safe or

not in the BOP, I didn’t want to be there. So when I came home,

like I said before, I am the kind of person that will put you to the

test. If you tell me that these are the services that you are going

to offer for me and this is the help that you are going to give me,

then I am going to put you to the test.

83

And Our Place was really, really instrumental in helping me

stick to my decision, because I had some rough times. I did. Of

course I told you my Mom is disabled. She has been disabled for

20 years. My daughter just kind of threw grandchildren in my lap.

It was, ‘‘you need to do, you are supposed to do.’’ And I stayed at

Our Place complaining. I got a mental place. I complained to all of

my case managers from DOES.

Our Place helped me with getting my domestic violence counselor. My significant other tried to kill me. As a direct result, he

stabbed me. I took all of that to Our Place and I threw it in their

lap. They said they was going to help me with it, so I gave it to

them. And they did. And they did. They have not failed me yet.

I know that there are other organizations out there that provide

support for individuals, but when you have a person like me—and,

again, I am a very intelligent person. I am actually working on my

degree. I got all the support I needed from Our Place. If I e-mailed

them a piece of paper and asked them, ‘‘can you read this and give

me some suggestions?’’ I get it right back. I don’t do nothing without going through them first, because they have been so instrumental in helping me put the pieces together, where I would have gave

up a long time ago. Our Place didn’t let me.

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying essentially the same thing, that

things helped you with the way you think about yourself and about

life and what you will do, notwithstanding what any programs or

anybody else is saying?

Ms. DAY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. That ultimately you have to decide that you are going

to do certain things?

Ms. DAY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. And, of course, I think programs can help people to

do that.

Ms. DAY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. I mean, it sometimes changes the way that they

think, and once they reach the threshold now they are OK because

they are going to do what is necessary to be more in compliance

with societal expectations.

Ms. DAY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you both, and thank all of the witnesses.

Madam Chairman, thank you.

I yield back.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

Ms. McSwain, I think it is a tribute to you and Our Place that

Ms. Day would say what she said.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. You say you can do it? Here. Here are a bunch of

problems. And she said you never failed her. This is very heartening to hear.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. It is the kind of personal testimony that does indicate that programs that are as deeply committed as yours can have

an affect.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes, thank you. We see quite a few Ms. Days

come through the doors of Our Place.

Ms. NORTON. Do you receive Federal funding?

84

Ms. MCSWAIN. We don’t. We receive funding from the Justice

Grants Administration, which come through the D.C. Government,

but we don’t receive funding directly from the Federal Government.

We do not. We could use it though. [Laughter and applause.]

Ms. NORTON. OK. Mr. Lappin, I was very interested in your testimony beginning at page 2 where you talk about the crowding: 93

percent of our high-security cells, 100 percent of all medium security are double bunked?

Mr. LAPPIN. That is right.

Ms. NORTON. Medium security, 15 percent triple bunked. Now,

you are going to have some relief because these short-term D.C. felons are going to be here, and I congratulated and commended you

for the MOU in my own opening remarks. The next step would

seem to be, since all felons come back home, to do the 90-day program with as many of them as possible who are not short-term felons but who could get access to the long and very excellent list of

reentry services if they, too, assuming space could be brought back.

You have to pay for them to come back, anyway. It would relieve

overcrowding.

Is there any reason not to begin also, if space is available, to

move people like Ms. Bennett from Florida 90 days before the expiration of her sentence to the D.C. jail to give her access to reentry

programs there?

Mr. LAPPIN. We will certainly look at that. Our first objective is

to address the short-term offenders. We have to accept the fact

there is a limit on how many beds are available. I think within a

few months we will be able to determine where we stand with the

short-term offenders, have everything in place, work out any concerns, and at that point we can consider that we would.

There will be additional expense. We can’t deny that. But we will

certainly look at that.

Ms. NORTON. What is the additional expense?

Mr. LAPPIN. It is cheaper for us to transfer them back to D.C.

to a halfway house via public transportation.

Ms. NORTON. Couldn’t they still go to a halfway house?

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. They may still. We continue to do that.

Ms. NORTON. Via public transportation meaning how would they

come back?

Mr. LAPPIN. They normally come back on a Greyhound bus or

something.

Ms. NORTON. I see. Because they are released?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. We buy them a ticket, they come back.

Ms. NORTON. I see.

Mr. LAPPIN. They arrive at the halfway house. Whereas the 90-

day transfer would require the Federal Government to move them.

Ms. NORTON. I see.

Mr. LAPPIN. It is more expensive.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. It will also cost more money to house them at the

jail, so there are additional costs.

Ms. NORTON. No. You relieve some of the money cost. That is relieved of some of what it costs you in food and lodging, not to mention this horrific, horrific crowding you talk about.

85

Mr. LAPPIN. It is actually cheaper for us to keep them in one of

our facilities than to house them at the jail.

Ms. NORTON. Triple bunked? Triple bunked? Double bunked? You

know, it is better for us, so let’s go us first. Is that safer, double

bunking and triple bunking people?

Mr. LAPPIN. I said that, space available, we would look into it.

Ms. NORTON. All right, sir. I am only asking for an open mind

here. Penology is a developing science based on circumstances. You

have an enormous challenge, and that challenge is: can BOP in fact

successfully house State prisoners? Or will this statute be a failure? You are doing well, but challenges are becoming more and

more clear the longer we have people at the Bureau of Prisons.

On May 5th we asked you, because we are so concerned, about

our men and women being spread across the country. We asked

you about placing videoconferencing equipment at every BOP facility that houses D.C. Code felons, so at least you can say, Hi out

there D.C. I don’t know what it is like here in Wyoming, but I am

glad to see a face there that I know.

You can see this bothers me tremendously, because I think you

are dumping some problems in our lap, Mr. Lappin. When you give

them a bus ticket, send them home homeless, there is not enough

room for them in a halfway house, who do you think is going to

pick up that slack?

So I am trying to deal with this the best way I can, in keeping

with your rules, so let’s start with videoconferencing. Any progress

on investigating whether you could do more videoconference? We

have it at Rivers. I don’t think we have it anywhere else. If we do,

I would be glad to hear about it.

Mr. LAPPIN. We do not, and we are exploring what technology is

available that would allow us to connect. It is going to be complicated a little bit because this has to go through the Justice network program, so there are security requirements that are going to

be burdensome, but we are certainly exploring that, not only for

people from Washington, DC, but other offenders who are far from

their homes, as well.

Ms. NORTON. I am glad to hear it, because I think, given the fact

that you have Federal prisoners who are in the same position as

D.C. prisoners, although incarcerated under different code, under

different circumstances. Anything that helps people go home and

reintegrate into civil society would be, I think, welcome.

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I believe in years to come this will be used

widely. But, again, there are some limitations on technology and

we have to make sure we abide by the security limitations.

Ms. NORTON. Let’s do this, Mr. Lappin, because I asked you

about this on May 5th. We are 3 months later. Thirty days I would

like you to submit to the chairman of this subcommittee what

progress you are making on videoconferencing and in what facilities. Thirty days.

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure.

Ms. NORTON. Just progress. We don’t say have in place; we just

want to know progress.

We were concerned that the Correction Information Council, that

is a local D.C. Council that was set up by the District so that the

District could go into BOP facilities, was, in fact, not functioning.

86

I think they gave up even appointing people. You were going to see

what was necessary so the members of this Council could visit BOP

facilities in the normal course. What progress has been made in

that regard?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure that anyone has reappointed members. It was my understanding that someone was going to alert

them that we are willing to move forward. We have a program

statement or a memorandum of understanding in draft form.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is true that we would need a memorandum

of understanding between the CIC or the District government and

the BOP. Could you initiate that memorandum of understanding so

that we could proceed here?

I would ask CSOSA, Ms. Poteat, if you would work with Mr.

Lappin and the appropriate D.C. officials to see if something of the

kind was possible. In that case, at least there could be some officials from the District who could report back and forth.

There is lots good to report. I have visited your facilities. But our

folks just don’t have any idea about them.

Mr. LAPPIN. We will reach out to the District government and see

if we can arrange a meeting to see where we are going to go. We

have the MOU. We just need some people appointed. We will reach

out to them and respond back to you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Lappin.

You indicate on page 7 of your testimony that you need new legislation to expand the Federal Prison Industries. What did you

mean by that?

Mr. LAPPIN. As you know, Federal Prison Industry was created

back in 1933, and it gave certain statutes and mandates for the operation of that. Over the course of years, some of the requirements

have been watered down by other legislation, the mandatory source

requirement being one, that has resulted in fewer opportunities for

us to employ inmates in prison factories.

Ms. NORTON. So this is statutory?

Mr. LAPPIN. This is statutory.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. I tell you, this can get complex.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. We would love to meet with you and/or your staff,

address the details, rather than burdening the entire group here

with this. It has been ongoing for 15 or 20 years. We believe we

run safer prisons, because we have inmates productively employed

and we know, based on our research, that those who work in Prison Industry are less likely to recidivate and more likely to get a

job.

On the other hand, some are critical of the fact they believe we

may be taking jobs away from law-abiding citizens, businesses. We

don’t want to do that, either.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. So we kind of need to figure out how we can move

forward and provide the jobs without having as much of an impact

on other citizens’ businesses. But I would offer you the opportunity

to sit down and chat about Prison Industry.

Ms. NORTON. I would very much like to do that, because I see

two legitimate concerns here.

87

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. Very legitimate concerns, especially in this kind of

job climate, if people feel you can go to jail and get a job.

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. There might be people lining up to get into the

BOP these days. There are five people for every job available out

here, and so there is legitimate concern. On the other hand, if

there are some things you do, and I know I have some idea from

visits, some of those things, then I would very much like to meet

with the appropriate staff. Some of this may not require statutory

change.

Mr. LAPPIN. We would love to work with you. I mean, they learn

work skills, not necessarily vocational. They learn to come to work

on time, they learn to work with peers, they learn to work with a

supervisor. These are skills that many of them lack because they

have not been in that type of environment prior to incarceration.

So, again, we would love to work with you on this issue.

Ms. NORTON. Now, I have one final question. As I understand,

Ms. McSwain, you work in the prisons, as well?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes. We go into the facilities and implement programming, so we just——

Ms. NORTON. That is what I would like to discuss finally, the relationship you have with effective reentry organizations like Our

Place. How does that work, and how can we get more of it?

Mr. LAPPIN. Would you like me to start?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Sure.

Mr. LAPPIN. We think this is a great opportunity, and in fact in

our opinion this kind of sets the example of what could occur if

there were more willing participants like Our Place and correctional organizations that are willing to allow this to occur, and so

the more contact that a local entity, support group, can have with

the inmate during reentry, I believe the more successful we are

going to be.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, what I am trying to find out is the mechanics. How did Our Place get into the prisons?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Well, the founder was working in the prison doing

programming, and she built Our Place to respond to the needs of

the women reentering. Through that process, she began to build relationships with the prison officials, and during my term I have

reached out to the programming directors within the prisons,

talked about our work, and because they are very interested in the

needs of female offenders they have invited our programs in.

Ms. NORTON. So what do you do?

Ms. MCSWAIN. So we go to FDC Philadelphia, Hazelton,

Alderson. We offer employment programming, so we talk about

how do you talk about your employment history, your incarceration

history, to an employer. We have an HIV and AIDS awareness program, where it is a program called SISTA where we teach the inmates about HIV and AIDS awareness and prevention. We train

them. They train other inmates. We offer legal——

Ms. NORTON. Are these D.C. inmates or general?

Ms. MCSWAIN. All D.C. inmates.

Ms. NORTON. Are there other places, other programs like Our

Place in Federal prisons?

88

Mr. LAPPIN. There is another organization called Hope House operated by Carol Fenley.

Ms. NORTON. I know her.

Mr. LAPPIN. She actually facilitates weekend retreats or events

where parents and the children of the incarcerated can go to institutions and spend 2 or 3 days interacting. So there are several

other organizations. It is not widespread around the country. I see

the most of it here in Washington, DC, which is encouraging. But,

again, I don’t know what is happening at every one of the local 115

prisons, but this is noteworthy work.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Also, our newest program was to bring case management into the facilities 4 months before a woman is released,

and then also follow her 6 months after she is released. With that

project, the prisons have been very open to allowing us to support

the woman while she is still in custody, and that program is done

at Hazelton and FDC Philadelphia and Fairview Correctional

Treatment Facility.

We have also built a relationship with CSOSA so that we can

also continue to support the woman when she is released. So it requires a collaboration with all of the institutions that are touching

the women before they are released and once they are released into

the community, having Our Place provide some guidance and some

coaching as they manage all of these various relationships.

Ms. NORTON. You do this work pursuant to grants from the D.C.

government?

Ms. MCSWAIN. I have one grant from the D.C. government. It

was a recent grant, and that has allowed us this pilot project. We

don’t have a lot of grants from the D.C. government.

Ms. NORTON. So is it private philanthropy?

Ms. MCSWAIN. A lot of foundation grants. We have the HIV and

AIDS Administration—I guess that is D.C.—also funds our prevention program. But we are struggling for funding.

Ms. NORTON. It sounds to me as though you have multiplied your

effect in quite extraordinary ways. You serve 1,324 women, 634

were in custody.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And 241 at Fairview.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So most of the women you served were in custody?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes. We go into the facilities every single month.

Every single month we go to Philadelphia. Every other month we

go to Hazelton. Every single week we are either at Fairview or

CTF.

Ms. NORTON. In light of the fact that even these facilities are not

within walking distance or easily accessed, we need to know more

about this in-prison work because it is reentry work.

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Poteat, is CSOSA in prison?

Ms. POTEAT. We go to the Rivers Correctional Facility and we do

resource day there, where we take a host of not only potential vendors or employers, we take mentors, we take the Department of

Housing, medical services, and we start working with the offenders

prior to their release.

89

In my testimony I indicated now we will be working very closely

with Our Place in doing the mentoring right now with Hazelton

and FDC Philadelphia, and so we will do resource days with them,

as well, in the future.

Ms. NORTON. Well, to tell you the honest-to-goodness truth, Ms.

Poteat, I would like to see you have the kind of presence in institutions that apparently this small organization has. I mean, have you

served 1,324 prisoners in the kind of way she is talking about, with

HIV/AIDS and—here she says 634 were in custody, 241 were at

Fairview, and the balance was in the community; 60 percent received legal counseling, 23 percent received birth certificates. What

does that mean?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Meaning that when the women are released from

custody and they are trying to get into a housing program, they

need birth certificates.

Ms. NORTON. Their own birth certificates?

Ms. MCSWAIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Twenty-one received funding for identification, and

17 percent received funding for police clearance. Are you doing that

in prisons, in the Federal prisons, Ms. Poteat?

Ms. POTEAT. We help people get the Social Security cards and we

help them get the non-driver’s identification. We work with Department of Motor Vehicles.

Ms. NORTON. Once they get back here?

Ms. POTEAT. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Poteat, I would like to see a greater presence

of CSOSA in prisons. To do that, you would probably need additional staff. Ms. McSwain I’m sure needed some, too. She’s a whole

lot smaller. This is something I would like to work with you, with

the appropriators. Pending trying to deal more forthrightly with reentry, we have to do something about these 115 facilities.

Now, I can’t expect CSOSA to go across the country, but Rivers,

for goodness sakes, that is only one facility, and it does seem to me

that if we have a small organization like this which has put itself

right in the prison, put itself there, that we ought to investigate

giving CSOSA more of a presence so that your job isn’t made doubly hard because you can’t touch prisoners, most of them, can’t

have a touch with them until they get back home.

She has some early and systematic contact, albeit it with far

fewer, although I am telling you the numbers here are fairly impressive.

We have to find ways to bridge this gap, and it means thinking

more creatively than we have done. CSOSA does a fine job once

people get back here, but you are already behind the eight ball.

You can’t affect facilities that are some distance away.

But there is more than Rivers to affect. And there is more that

we should be doing to push videoconferencing. It shouldn’t be just

me at hearings pressing this. Mr. Lappin is going to see what he

can do, but the lack of communication between our people and

home is clearly a big issue in this town, and we have to do better

in finding a way to, in fact, incorporate everything we do to increasing that contact.

Mr. Lappin.

90

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me just clarify. I think that the opportunity for

videoconferencing with CSOSA is much more viable and likely than

videoconferencing for visiting. That is more complex.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again.

Mr. LAPPIN. The videoconferencing with another Federal agency

like CSOSA is very doable, which might facilitate some of that in

lieu of travel.

Ms. NORTON. Certainly. That is how you have been doing it before, I think, anyway.

Mr. LAPPIN. I want to clarify. The dilemma with

videoconferencing is more so with trying to offer that to citizens to

visit with their family who are in prison, so that is going to be a

little more complex.

Ms. NORTON. But CSOSA should be the intermediary that facilitates that.

Mr. LAPPIN. But I think the videoconferencing opportunities between us and CSOSA are much more an option that could put

them into more of those facilities to have more direct contact with

people, if that is amenable.

Ms. NORTON. That is excellent. You see, there is a marriage right

there, Ms. Poteat.

Ms. POTEAT. Yes. And we have already started that marriage, as

we have expanded that. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

I want to thank each and every one of these witnesses. There are

six of you. Obviously, the officials get asked more and tougher

questions, but I assure you that the testimony of each of you is

very valuable to us.

I do have a special word for Ms. Day and Ms. Bennett. You break

down stereotypes when you agree to appear at a hearing like this.

You enlighten us in ways most of us have no other way to discern.

We just do not have enough contact. And yes, the whole world is

judgmental when it doesn’t have contact. It took guts to come here.

You have plenty of guts, and I thank you for your guts.

[Applause.]

Ms. BENNETT. It sure did.

Ms. DAY. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ