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

58–479 PDF 2011

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECOND CHANCE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Serial No. 111–154 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 2 

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Le’Ann Duran, Director, National Reentry Resource Center, Council of 

State Governments, New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

Ms. Michele Banks, Richmond Second Chance Reentry Program Manager, 

Richmond City Sheriff’s Office, Richmond, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Ms. Nancy G. La Vigne, Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, 

Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

Mr. David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation, Washington, 

DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

Ms. Gladyse Taylor, Acting Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Chicago, IL 

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

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

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

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

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Nancy La Vigne, Director, Justice 

Policy Center, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC ...................................... 78 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

SECOND CHANCE ACT 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, and Gohmert. 

Also Present: Representative Davis of Illinois. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Keenan Keller, Counsel; 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) Kimani Little, Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Legislative Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. Good afternoon. Welcome to the oversight hearing on 

Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act. 

In April, 2008, the historic Second Chance Act was signed into 

law. It authorized Federal grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations in order to better address the needs of the 

growing population of ex-offenders returning to our community. 

Although the 2-year authorization for the Second Chance Act will 

expire on September 30, there are still grant funds that were appropriated under the original authorization that the Department of 

Justice will award over the next year. 

As Congress continues to evaluate and implement the Second 

Chance Act, today’s hearing will examine some of the programs 

that have been funded under the law. According to the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, in 2008 more than 7.3 million people were on 

probation or parole or in prison, which equals 3.2 percent or one 

in every 31 adults. This is the highest rate in the world. The number of prisoners have quadrupled over the past two decades to more 

than 2.3 million, and the number of adults under the criminal justice system through parole and probation agencies has more than 

tripled, to more than 5 million. 

The growth of the incarcerated population has resulted in over 

700,000 people being released from prisons and jails every year. 

These people must successfully reintegrate in our society or be at 

risk of going back to prison. The bipartisan Second Chance Act was 

established to provide resources to local communities to help 

former offenders transition back to their communities. 

2 

Today we will hear about a program in the Richmond Virginia 

Sheriffs Office funded by the Second Chance Act that provides 

wraparound services, including substance abuse treatment, education, employment readiness, and life skills to people returning 

home from jail. This program serves up to 50 participants and assists them in successfully reuniting with their community or otherwise improving their lives. 

One of the problems we have with the Second Chance Act programs is that funding of the programs has not been made available 

long enough for the programs to show enough activity and results 

to credibly evaluate their impact. Moreover, with a 2-year authorization period, the Act’s reauthorization is about to expire before 

there is sufficient basis to evaluate its impact in the normal way 

we do it. But we know there are reentry programs across the country that are successful in stopping the cycle of incarceration. So I 

hope that we can provide for a longer period for evaluation for the 

next reauthorization. 

The reentry programs funded by the Department of Justice prior 

to funding being made available under the Second Chance Act does 

give us a basis for evaluation, except that we had a July Department of Justice Inspector General’s audit report that found that, 

while DOJ has apparently established appropriate procedures for 

oversight and evaluation for Second Chance Act grants, it did criticize DOJ oversight of prisoner reentry programs that were established prior to the Second Chance Act. 

Although this report found flaws in the Department’s design and 

performance measures of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry 

Initiative and its Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the audit was clear 

about the fact that these problems were being addressed in the 

context of the Second Chance Initiative. 

Several of the today’s witnesses will discuss reentry programs 

funded by the Second Chance Act that are making great progress 

in keeping former offenders from returning to prison. Another of today’s witnesses will discuss the audit and how the Department of 

Justice has responded to those criticisms. I look forward to hearing 

more from our witnesses about the good work that is being done 

with the Second Chance Act funding, and I would like to hear how 

we can improve the Second Chance Act during this reauthorization 

process to provide more opportunities for the rehabilitation of offenders. 

We have several witnesses today, but, before I introduce them, 

I will yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing does focus on reauthorization of the Second 

Chance Act signed into law by President Bush on April 9, 2008. 

The goal of the legislation was to provide Federal assistance to help 

State and local governments implement programs to ease the transition of offenders from prison back to the community. The Act authorizes up to $330 million for prison reentry programs during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

Reentry programs are essential in assisting the nearly 700,000 

individuals who are released from incarceration each year. Studies 

show that, unfortunately, about two-thirds of these ex-offenders 

3 

will recidivate within 3 years. Higher recidivism rates not only decrease the safety of the neighborhoods affected by the crime but 

also increase government expenditures on prisons and criminal justice systems. 

To combat recidivism, the Second Chance Act authorizes the Department of Justice to provide Federal grants to State and local 

government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family 

programming, rendering victim support and other services that can 

help reduce recidivism. 

When we debated the Second Chance Act of 2007 in the last Congress, I supported including a provision to fund faith-based initiatives because of their proven success and cost efficiency. Faithbased programs are frequently less expensive than other reintegration initiatives. 

Further, faith-based prisoner rehabilitation and post-relief programs have proven successful in reducing the likelihood that a 

prisoner will reoffend. In a previous hearing on the collateral consequences of incarceration, one witness noted that some faith-based 

groups have created reentry programs that reduce recidivism 

among its participants by over 50 percent. 

As Federal deficits continue to skyrocket, Congress needs to continue to identify successful programs as we cannot afford to just 

fund programs blindly, especially if they only provide mediocre results. As Congress considers whether to reauthorize the Second 

Chance Act, we need to gather as much information as possible to 

ensure that the prisoner reentry programs funded by the DOJ actually result in the goal of reducing recidivism. Unfortunately, we do 

not have very much information about whether these programs reduce recidivism, because many reentry grant recipients are not 

closely monitored by the DOJ. 

In July of this year, the DOJ Inspector General released a report 

concluding that the Department did not establish an effective system for monitoring recipients of grants made under the Serious 

and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and the Prisoner Reentry 

Initiative, two programs that were precursors to the Second Chance 

Act. The audit did not find specific flaws with the Second Chance 

Act reentry grant programs because its audit only covered programs funded from 2002 to 2009. 

That said, other observers have not been able to fully evaluate 

the Second Chance Act programs as the programs are still very 

new. There has not been sufficient time to examine and evaluate 

the programs for effectiveness. However, the Second Chance Act 

does not require grant recipients to track and report baseline and 

ongoing recidivism data. As we consider reauthorizing these programs, Congress should contemplate including directives to the 

DOJ to collect this information and improve its monitoring of reentry grants. 

Lastly, I understand that some proponents of the Second Chance 

Act are not only actively seeking its reactivation but also pushing 

for an expansion of the reentry programs funded by DOJ. At this 

time of economic hardship, it is not prudent to expand these programs to increase their level of authorization, especially considering their effectiveness has not been yet proven. 

4 

As a former State judge, I strongly support efforts to reduce recidivism by assisting ex-convicts in their reentry into communities. 

However, we can no longer afford to wantonly spend Federal 

money on programs that may or may not be inefficient and ineffective. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to develop a sensible, cost-efficient Federal policy to reduce recidivism and to improve ex-convict reintegration into communities 

and families. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. This is an 

important topic regarding the safety of our country. So I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony and yield back my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. We are joined by the Chairman of the full Committee, a strong supporter of the Second Chance Act, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like my statement to be put into the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Conyers follows:] 

5 


JCJ-1.eps
6 


JCJ-2.eps
7 


JCJ-3.eps
8 

Mr. CONYERS. Then I would just like to talk about the environment in which this bill was brought forward and created. And the 

whole theme under it is that people with different views can work 

together. 

Look, when Conyers and George Bush can land on the same subject, when Judge Gohmert and Bobby Scott can land on the same 

subject, when Danny Davis and Rob Portman can land on the same 


JCJ-4.eps
9 

subject, this illustrates that there may be other areas that we may 

be able to come together on. 

One of them is the Performance Rights Bill which I have a number of conservative members working with me on. And this is 

heartening because, well, I was just asked on the floor during the 

last series of votes by—I’m pretty sure she was a freshman Member—and she said, have you ever seen it so partisan since you’ve 

been here? And I said the short answer is yes. And I’m amazed 

when people say the atmosphere has never been so vitriolic. 

Look, when I came here, Strom Thurman and Bilbo—there was 

a long list of people who—there was no chance of us talking to even 

see if we could come together. There was very serious divisions. 

And I say that not to make it seem that it is okay for what is going 

on now but to say that the nature of the political process is that 

there are sharp divisions and certain—some individuals go to different ways to express the strongness of their convictions that are 

held. 

So what this bill represents is the combined thinking of moderates, conservatives, and liberals together. And it is probably to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee that much 

of that emanated from. 

Sure, I was surprised on April 9, 2008, in the White House when 

President George W. Bush signed this bill into law. And he was unreservedly enthusiastic about it. And I was just as surprised that 

he was enthusiastic as he was enthusiastic about it. 

So I think that is a very important backdrop on the work that 

Danny Davis and Rob Portman began. We have come a long way 

on a very important subject. 

So I will return the balance of my time. 

I will yield to the judge. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have been asked that question, too: Have you 

ever seen things so vicious between parties? 

I explain historically around the 1800’s there was one senator 

that called the other liar. And that one spit on the one who called 

him a liar and whacked him with his cane. The one that got 

whacked went over and got fire tongs and they beat each other and 

eventually were broken up. 

And then of course Senator Sumner on the floor of the Senate 

was nearly beaten to death with a cane. Senator Sam Houston was 

involved in a caning for a guy that called him a thief and liar or 

fraud. 

I tell people, we haven’t had a good caning since I’ve been here. 

So, as bad as it has been here recently, it is not as bad as it was 

historically, and it will always be a pleasure and an honor to serve 

with you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. I will have to make a note of all of these incidents. 

I didn’t know anybody was keeping track. Very good. Thank you, 

Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have several witnesses to help us consider the 

issues today. 

Our first witness is Le’Ann Duran, who is the reentry project director for the Council of State Governments and the Justice Center. 

She oversees efforts at the Council of State Governments to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:40 Jan 05, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092910\58479.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
10 

prove the likelihood that people’s transition from prison to the community are safe and successful. In this capacity, she manages the 

National Reentry Resource Center, which is funded by a Second 

Chance Act grants. 

After she has testified, our next witness will be Michele Banks 

from the Richmond Second Chance Reentry System. She is the 

grant manager for the City of Richmond, Virginia. In addition to 

managing a diverse grant portfolio, she also writes and administers 

grants from a variety of funders for the City of Richmond. We are 

delighted to have you here, and particularly I look forward to your 

testimony on what the sheriff has been doing on behalf of reducing 

recidivism. 

Next will be Nancy La Vigne, who is the director of the Justice 

Policy Center of the Urban Institute, where she leads a staff of 

over 30 researchers and oversees a research portfolio of more than 

three dozen active projects spanning a wide array of crime, justice, 

and public safety topics. Before being appointed as director, she 

served as senior research associate at the Urban Institute, directing projects on prisoner reentry, crime prevention, and the evaluation of criminal justice technologies. 

Next witness will be David Muhlhausen, who is a leading expert 

on criminal justice programs in the Heritage Foundation’s Center 

for Data Analysis. A senior policy analyst at Heritage, he has testified frequently before Congress on the efficiency and effectiveness 

of law enforcement grants administered by the Department of Justice. 

Our final witness will be Gladyse Taylor, the acting director of 

the Illinois Department of Corrections. She has been involved in all 

areas of the Department of Corrections policy, procedure, and operations. She left the Department in 2005 for a position in the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget where she served as deputy director. She returned to the Department in February as chief 

fiscal officer and director of the Public Safety Shared Services Center before being appointed as acting director. 

Each of our witnesses’ written statements will be entered in the 

record in its entirety. I ask the witnesses to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less; and to help stay within that time there 

is a timing device before you that will start green, change to yellow 

when you have 1 minute remaining, and change to red when your 

time has expired. 

Ms. Duran. 

TESTIMONY OF LE’ANN DURAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REENTRY RESOURCE CENTER, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. DURAN. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing 

on the Second Chance Act. 

My name is Le’Ann Duran. I am the director of the National Reentry Resource Center. When the Second Chance Act was passed 

in 2008, I had been working for 5 years to design and implement 

a comprehensive reentry effort called the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative. 

11 

Second Chance came at a critical time in Michigan’s work. For 

the first time, there was Federal legislation and a clear message 

from Congress that improving reentry policy and practice is vital 

to public safety. This message fueled public and legislative support 

for Michigan’s reentry initiative, which enhanced public safety by 

reducing recidivism and ultimately allowed the State to reduce its 

prison population by 12 percent, saving an estimated $900 million. 

The establishment of a National Reentry Resource Center was an 

important step to advance the reentry field. 

Congress and the Bureau of Justice Assistance are strengthening 

government, community, and faith-based organizations receiving 

Federal funds to ensure the most effective use of those investments. 

Following a highly competitive process, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded the contract for the National Reentry Resource 

Center to the Council of State Governments Justice Center. 

We have learned a great deal from our work with Second Chance 

grantees, though it is still very early in the process. 

Second Chance Act programs have been incredibly popular. In 

the first year of the program, over 950 applicants applied for Second Chance funding. Of those applications, 67 grantees were funded across 31 States. This demand establishes the Second Chance 

Act as one of the most competitive justice programs with only a 7 

percent funding rate in the first year. Over 170 2010 awards were 

announced this week, representing the best of almost 1,000 applications. The demand for continued and expanded funding is strong. 

Two types of grant programs were funded in 2009. The first category, demonstration projects, was for State, local, and tribal governments interested in advancing their reentry initiatives. For example, the Florida Department of Corrections is partnering with 

the City of Jacksonville to implement a comprehensive reentry 

model designed to reduce the risk of men and women returning to 

Jacksonville. 

The second program category, mentor grants, is available to nonprofit organizations to advance their pro-social support efforts. In 

Texas, Volunteers of America is using their grant to implement a 

new reentry initiative targeting incarcerated mothers and will provide mentoring and family case management services to improve 

the outcomes of these moms and their children. 

The resource center and its partners have designed three core 

strategies to respond to grantee needs as well as the field at large. 

First, we’re creating a number of Web-based tools to help practitioners help themselves; second, we are building a more cohesive, 

knowledgeable reentry field by facilitating peer-to-peer learning; 

and, third, we are providing individualized assistance to grantees 

to respond to their emerging needs. 

We are also working with the Urban Institute to develop an online what works library for policymakers and reentry practitioners. 

So the big question is, how is it going? While still very early in 

the process, the program is thriving, both in the immense demand 

for grants, the establishment of a resource center for the field, and 

early accomplishments by the first cohort of grantees. 

It is apparent there is good work happening; and government, 

community, and faith-based organizations are working together to 

12 

address the needs of this population. It is an exciting time to be 

working in the field of reentry which has existed for barely more 

than a decade but is vibrant with innovation. 

Also, through this process, several challenges have emerged. 

First, around program design. Grantees in the reentry field generally are becoming increasingly familiar with the body of evidence 

about the strategies that reduce recidivism, but they continue to 

struggle with translating these concepts into policy and practice. 

The Second Chance Act is a strong first step to providing the reentry field with guidance about smart program interventions, but 

it will take time to turn the battleship of corrections in a data-driven direction. 

Second, tracking recidivism. The Second Chance Act sets appropriately high expectations for sites that receive Federal funding to 

reduce recidivism, but grantees will need assistance understanding 

what to measure and how to obtain and routinely track quality information. BJA and the Resource Center will continue to work 

closely to implement the recommendations outlined in the Inspector General’s report of Federal programs. 

Key to effectively addressing the OIG’s concerns is working with 

grantees to track outcomes, but it will take time. 

We appreciate your leadership and your work through the Second Chance Act. It is a monumental step in changing how we address reentry. We hope you will reauthorize the program quickly to 

help further advance the field at large and expand our knowledge 

about reentry evidence and the practice of smart reentry strategies 

nationwide. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Duran follows:] 

13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LE’ANN DURAN


LED-1.eps
14 


LED-2.eps
15 


LED-3.eps
16 


LED-4.eps
17 


LED-5.eps
18 


LED-6.eps
19 


LED-7.eps
20 


LED-8.eps
21 


LED-9.eps
22 


LED-10.eps
23 


LED-11.eps
24 


LED-12.eps
25 


LED-13.eps
26 


LED-14.eps
27 


LED-15.eps
28 


LED-16.eps
29 


LED-17.eps
30 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Banks. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELE BANKS, RICHMOND SECOND 

CHANCE REENTRY PROGRAM MANAGER, RICHMOND CITY 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE, RICHMOND, VA 

Ms. BANKS. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today on the matter of reauthorizing the Second 

Chance Act. 

The Richmond City Sheriff’s Office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, was one of 15 localities to receive the 2009 Second Chance 


LED-18.eps
31 

Adult Demonstration Grant. Under the leadership of Sheriff C.T. 

Woody, Jr., we have had the privilege of providing our returning 

citizens with evidence-based, comprehensive, and individualized 

case management because of the Second Chance Act. 

The Richmond city jail’s total inmate population averages 1,400 

or more, but the facility was built to hold less than 900. The Second Chance Act has allowed our team to effectively address the 

root causes of a high recidivism rate and overcrowding among the 

disproportionate number of offenders that are returning to the 

Richmond community. 

We have been able to provide a sustainable and relevant reentry 

program with our pilot focusing on 30-year-old female and male inmates. While addressing the high criminality across generations, 

often correlated with poverty and separated families, our program 

has focused on treatment of the whole person. The approach has 

made a much wider impact, not only reducing recidivism and improving quality of life among the inmates but also among their 

family members and, consequently, the larger community. 

The City of Richmond, Virginia, has been able to effectively partner with local government agencies, community based service providers to assist ex-offenders with issues surrounding substance 

abuse, homelessness, mental and physical health, unemployment, 

educational challenges, and family instability. Our three-pronged 

approach of Getting Ready, Going Home, and Staying Home consists of integrated pre- and post-release services that include substance abuse treatment, transitional housing options, connections 

to mental and physical health services, GED and vocational education, responsible financial management and job-readiness skills 

training as well as mentoring and family reunification services. 

It is quite a sight to see an inmate who arrived at the jail coming 

down off a binge of drugs and alcohol, homeless, jobless and not 

supporting his family in any way to leave a recovering addict, 

equipped with a GED, and equipped with a vocational training certificate. He is prepared to work hard, manage money, pay restitution, and become a leader in his home. 

As I am sure some cynics will believe this is unrealistic, one of 

our faith-based programs has graduated 21 participants with only 

one returning to jail or prison. It was our community partnership 

and the Second Chance Act that has allowed the program to continue in our jail. 

Through the Second Chance Act, the Richmond jail and our close 

community partners have been able to collaboratively design and 

implement a comprehensive reentry model that uses risk and need 

assessments to link our returning citizens to much-needed services 

at each of the various stages of reentry. We now have the capacity 

to provide a continuum of service as well as maintain close contact 

with both the program participants and service providers to ensure 

successful service delivery and performance measurement tracking. 

The success of our program is evidenced by our recent work with 

a 45-year-old woman who, at age 8, was drugged by her father and 

used for child prostitution. Coming to us with only a third grade 

education, she can now stand before a room of her peers and program staff to confidently articulate her well-thought-out transition 

32 

plan that consists of supportive services provided by our Second 

Chance Program. 

We are confident that the reauthorization of the Second Chance 

Act will enable the production of increased positive outcomes 

among this disadvantaged and high-risk population. With reauthorization lies the ability to replicate this model into other areas of 

Virginia with similar demographic and risk profiles. The idea is to 

continually maximize efficiencies among collaborative partners as 

the model expands, developing increased options for this developing 

population to become hardworking, personally responsible, tax-paying and law-abiding citizens. This will virtually assure stronger 

families and safer communities. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

including me in this valuable discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Banks follows:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELE BANKS


MB-1.eps
34 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. La Vigne. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY G. LA VIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE 

POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LA VIGNE. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, Mr. Conyers. It is a pleasure to be here today. 


MB-2.eps
35 

I believe all of us in this room are here for the same reason. It 

is because we care about public safety. And I think that perhaps 

the biggest way to achieving increased public safety is by focusing 

on the men and women who are leaving prison and returning to 

their communities. They have many needs. They have many issues. 

So the goal here is to give them the support and the services they 

need so that they can successfully reintegrate. If they don’t, they 

end up committing new crimes, creating new victimizations, and 

costing us more money because they ultimately end up back behind 

bars. We know that that is a very expensive alternative. 

We all know that that is the purpose of the Second Chance Act. 

It is to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. But the question remains how best do we use the Second Chance Act dollars. 

This is particularly important in light of the conversation about reauthorization. How do we get the best impact out of those dollars 

and how do we know if we are really making a difference in public 

safety? 

I am happy to note that we have already made great strides in 

this regard through existing Second Chance Act investments. The 

Bureau of Justice Assistance has implemented a performance 

measurement system that warms this evaluator’s heart because it 

requires grantees to input data on who they are serving, the characteristics of those individuals, what their needs are, what kinds 

of services they received, and what were their outcomes. 

This is very important. It is important for accountability of 

grantees, it is important for us to be able to measure the impact 

of their programs ultimately on recidivism and other important reentry outcomes like employment housing and substance abuse. 

I also think it is really important that the Second Chance Act 

through the National Reentry Resource Center is delivering muchneeded technical assistance to the sites. At the Urban Institute, we 

have been working with the States and counties for the last decade 

helping advise them on how to develop empirically based programs 

and also evaluating those programs; and the single biggest challenge that we have observed with these sites is their lack of data, 

their lack of information on who the returning prisoner population 

is, what are their needs. 

There is a limited ability to understand their needs and their 

risks; and, without that data, they are unable to target resources 

to those who most need them. And so, in that sense, if they can’t 

make those important decisions in spending these scarce resources—because even with Second Chance Act funding these resources are still limited—if they can’t do that, they are essentially 

investing money in programs that may not work even theoretically 

because they might not be treating the right people. 

Another area of the Second Chance Act is one that Ms. Duran 

already referenced, that is the what works resource. It is something we are working on at the Urban Institute in response to the 

call from the field to say what do you all mean by evidence-based 

practice? We keep hearing that we are supposed to be implementing evidence-based practice and we have a sense of what that 

means is what rigorous research has determined works. But there 

is no one place where we can go to get that information. 

36 

There is a lot of research and scholarly journals, and I think it 

is quite unrealistic to expect practitioners in the field to read those 

journals. There are different studies that often conflict, and there 

is no one place that they can go for those resources. 

So we at the Urban Institute are compiling all of that information. We have identified a thousand individual studies that we are 

now coding and assessing both for their findings and the quality of 

the research, and we are going to be distilling that information and 

creating a Web site that is searchable and accessible to the field 

so they can use that information to inform the development of their 

programs. 

So those are all of the good things that are happening right now. 

But, in consideration of reauthorization, I just want to touch upon 

a recommendation and that is to consider funding future grantees 

in phases. 

Phase one would fund the grantees for some preliminary granting work and also have a research partner at the table also funded 

at the same time who can help him with these data challenges that 

I already referenced. The researcher can help them identify the 

population to serve and the very data that they need to do that will 

also support a rigorous evaluation. 

Having the evaluator in at the beginning can also enable us to 

assess whether the program that is being designed is worthy of 

evaluation. Can it meet evaluation at its highest rigor? Is it amenable to what we often refer to as the gold standard, which is a 

randomized controlled trial? We talk a lot about that as the goal 

in evaluation, and yet that is often hard to implement in the field. 

So having a researcher there at the outset can determine that but 

can also determine an alternative and yet rigorous design that 

could be employed. 

I also think it is important to note that if for whatever reason 

there is no opportunity to work with the sites in a way that you 

can get the data that you need and that they are willing to explore 

their data and participate in an evaluation, the phased funding enables grant makers makes a decision or perhaps not funding them 

further past phase one. 

In summary, I think this phase funding combined with the technical assistance and the research support that is already in place 

holds great promise to achieving the goal that I think we all share, 

and that is public safety. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. La Vigne follows:] 

37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY G. LA VIGNE


NGLV-1.eps
38 


NGLV-2.eps
39 


NGLV-3.eps
40 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Muhlhausen. 


NGLV-4.eps
41 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D., 

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. My name is David Muhlhausen. I am a research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and 

Mr. Conyers for the opportunity to testify today on the Second 

Chance Act. The views I express in this testimony are my own and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of the 

Heritage Foundation. 

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

prisoners is easy to understand. In 2008 alone, over 735,000 prisoners were released back into society. Federal, State, and local governments need to operate effective reentry programs. Preventing 

former prisoners from returning to prison is a worthy goal. 

When Congress first passed the Second Chance Act in 2008, little 

was known about the effectiveness of these prisoner reentry programs. The same holds true today. We simply do not have enough 

knowledge about what works and what doesn’t work. Given the 

lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of the Second Chance Act 

programs and the severe burden of the Federal Government’s debt, 

Congress should be wary of substantially increasing spending for 

these programs. 

However, a major goal of reauthorizing the Second Chance Act 

should be to greatly enhance our knowledge about the effectiveness 

about these programs. For this reason, I will outline five keys to 

successful promotion of scientifically rigorous evaluations of these 

programs. 

First and foremost, Congress needs to expressly mandate in the 

reauthorization of the Second Chance Act the experimental evaluation of prisoner reentry programs. By experimental evaluation I 

mean evaluations that use random assignment to allocate individuals to treatment and control groups. This method is considered 

the gold standard because random assignment is most likely to 

yield valid estimates of program impact. Less rigorous designs 

often yield less reliable results. 

Second, the mandated experimental evaluations need to be largescale, multi-site studies. When Congress creates programs, especially State and local grant programs, the activities funded are not 

implemented in a single city or town. Federal grants fund numerous programs across the Nation. Congress should require that 

these programs be evaluated using national, multi-site experimental evaluations. 

Third, Congress needs to provide instructions on the types of outcome measures that will be used to assess effectiveness. When assessing the impact of reentry programs, the most important outcome measure is recidivism. While intermediate measures such as 

finding employment and housing are important, these outcomes are 

not the ultimate goal of reentry programs. If former prisoners continue to commit crimes after going through a reentry program, 

then the successful effects for intermediate outcomes will still matter little to judging whether these programs are effective. 

Fourth, Congress needs to institute procedures that will encourage government agencies, often possessing entrenched biases 

against experimental evaluations, to carry out these studies. One 

42 

recommended method is that not later than 1 year after the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act, and annually thereafter, the 

Departments of Justice and Labor be required to individually submit a report on the progress that the Departments are making in 

evaluating the programs authorized under the Act through the Appropriations Committees and Judiciary Committees of both Chambers of Congress. Thirty days after the report is submitted to Congress, it should be made available on the Web site of the Departments of Justice and Labor. 

Last, congressionally mandated evaluations upon completion 

must be submitted to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees 

of both Chambers of Congress in a timely manner. Thirty days 

after any evaluation is submitted to Congress, the evaluations 

should be made available on the respective Web sites of Departments of Justice and Labor. 

Prisoner reentry programs need to be rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness and reduce their recidivism. I believe 

the need for more evaluations transcends political party lines. Both 

Democrats and Republicans should agree on this issue. Policymakers should not implement prisoner reentry programs because 

advocates of Federal funding believe these programs are effective. 

There has to be a solid base, a scientific knowledge demonstrating 

that these programs are effective. Thus, Congress needs to do more 

to ensure that the reentry programs it funds are rigorously evaluated. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen follows:] 

43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN


DBM-1.eps
44 


DBM-2.eps
45 


DBM-3.eps
46 


DBM-4.eps
47 


DBM-5.eps
48 


DBM-6.eps
49 


DBM-7.eps
50 


DBM-8.eps
51 


DBM-9.eps
52 


DBM-10.eps
53 


DBM-11.eps
54 


DBM-12.eps
55 


DBM-13.eps
56 


DBM-14.eps
57 


DBM-15.eps
58 


DBM-16.eps
59 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Taylor. 


DBM-17.eps
60 

TESTIMONY OF GLADYSE TAYLOR, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHICAGO, IL 

Ms. TAYLOR. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert. I am Gladyse Taylor from the Illinois Department of 

Corrections, and I am here today in support of reauthorization of 

the Second Chance Act. 

I have listened to my colleagues provide testimony this afternoon 

about research-based support for reauthorization. I have listened to 

some of the programs that have been funded with Second Chance 

authorization. My written testimony speaks to some of the programs that Illinois has been engaged in with respect to Second 

Chance Act funding. I think those programs have been successful. 

If I have a choice of whether I spend $120 a day on incarcerating 

an individual for minor crime versus spending $20 a day on keeping that person on the street, I think my choice is very obvious. So 

that is the way I look at it. 

And I think that in the State of Illinois we recognize that research is important. The State approved a Crime Reduction Act in 

2009 that includes a risk assessment tool of our criminal population. It includes a sentencing policy advisory consult. It includes 

an adult redeploy mechanism so that we are not channeling all of 

our criminal populations into the Department of Corrections. 

So I think a combination of the information that has been provided from the other members testifying before this Committee is 

appropriate and relevant. However, I wouldn’t say that these programs are not supported by funding or shouldn’t be supported by 

funding. I would say the contrary, that funding and reauthorization 

of the Second Chance Act is important. It will assist these people 

in becoming productive members of society. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:] 

61 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLADYSE TAYLOR


GT-1.eps
62 


GT-2.eps
63 


GT-3.eps
64 

Mr. SCOTT. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

One of the things we look at as cost effectiveness is have any of 

you done studies to show that you save money in the long run or 

even short run by funding Second Chance programs. 

Ms. LA VIGNE. We have not conducted a cost effectiveness of Second Chance Act programs, but we have done similar studies of 

other programs, and we found that even marginal decreases in recidivism can be cost effective. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you give us some numbers? 


GT-4.eps
65 

Ms. LA VIGNE. I can supply them later. I don’t have them in my 

head. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Duran, you had given us the number of people 

who had applied for funds and how many of them got them, 7 percent of the people, 93 percent of the applications. Did you get to 

see any of the applications to see how strong those programs were? 

Ms. DURAN. Certainly. We are very familiar with the current 

2009 grantees that were funded this year and are very familiar 

with those applications. We have had a chance to do a preliminary 

review of some of the new 2010, the second cohort of Second 

Chance grantees that will be coming on line on Friday, October 1; 

and we are beginning to get to know this new class of grantees as 

well. 

What we have found in the 2009 cohort, both with demonstration 

grantees and with mentor grantees, is practitioners are still struggling with translating evidence-based practices into their program 

designs. So a lot of our technical assistance and our partnership 

with the Urban Institute has focused on really trying to connect 

the research with this program design to make sure that they are 

targeting the right people with the right interventions that are 

likely to reduce risk and have an impact on those recidivism rates. 

That’s a big priority for technical assistance for us. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are most of the programs new or existing programs 

that apply? 

Ms. DURAN. Most of the programs have a history of implementing reentry efforts in their jurisdiction. Some of the mentor 

programs, it is their first time to operate a mentor model with returning offenders although some of them have had experience 

working with other—doing mentor programs with other populations or youth and are now translating that knowledge to adults. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is the evaluation requirement in the Second Chance 

Act effective so we know which ones are working and which ones 

are not working? 

Ms. DURAN. As I understand it, the National Institute of Justice 

will be conducting an evaluability assessment of the current 2009 

adult demonstration grantees and will use that information to determine which of those 2009 grantees are selected for the NIJ evaluation of Second Chance Act programs. 

So certainly after that evaluability assessment we will know 

more about how these grantees are progressing in terms of their 

ability to be able to be part of an evaluation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. We do appreciate your observations, 

your testimony here. 

Ms. Banks, what was the faith-based group that you had mentioned had 21 successes and only one recidivist? 

Ms. BANKS. It is a leadership development program. They come 

into the jail several times a week to teach our inmates leadership 

skills. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You had mentioned it was a faith-based group, 

and I was curious what group it was. 

Ms. BANKS. It is called Freedom Inside and Out. They are a 

grassroots organization and very local. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Are they sponsored by some faith? 

66 

Ms. BANKS. Absolutely not. Just a group of volunteers that our 

Sheriff had allowed to come into the jail, and they have been quite 

successful, and because of Second Chance we have been allowed to 

have them come in more often. 

Mr. GOHMERT. What makes them a faith-based group? 

Ms. BANKS. Their affiliation with their church. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what I was trying to get at. 

Well, did Richmond look to other jurisdictions for their best practices to create their reentry programs? 

Ms. BANKS. Absolutely. Our reentry program was actually in existence before the Second Chance Act. The Second Chance Act actually allowed us to take it from pre-release into transitional and 

post-release. So we did look at some other models that were on our 

CSG Web site, and they were also instrumental in helping us find 

some best practices at other localities. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Ms. Duran, I appreciate your testimony and your 

observations and your recitation of the money that is saved, clearly, by avoiding recidivism. But since a program that works does 

save a State so much money, why do the States not put more 

money into such programs in order to save money? 

Ms. DURAN. I think we are in the middle of observing a trend in 

State corrections agencies particularly where they are investing 

more in strategies that have evidence behind them of reducing risk 

and reducing recidivism. We are seeing increasing investments in 

reentry related services designed to target those reduction factors. 

Coming from Michigan, I can tell you, it is not easy. These are 

complicated systems working with folks that have complicated 

needs. And to get the systems to respond to those individual characteristics case by case by case every time to see the systemwide 

impacts is not an easy challenge, particularly inside corrections 

agencies that haven’t had a tradition of using evidence-based strategies to inform their policies and practice. 

So we are working hard. The field is working hard. You are beginning to see increasing understanding of those practices of how 

to put them in place, the systems level. And then we see that investment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I understand that. But if it saves money, then it 

would seem that since it is saving the State money that the State 

ought to be willing to invest the money to save the State money. 

And if I am understanding you correctly, it sounds like perhaps the 

States are not satisfied yet that there is enough evidence to show 

that it is saving them money or they would be investing more. 

Ms. DURAN. I think we see States investing more and more of 

their State general fund dollars in reentry related programs. That 

is a trend we have observed in many States around the country. 

Sometimes for the first time ever they have put their dollars into 

those policies and practices. 

So I think we are seeing that happen more and more, and the 

Second Chance Act has sort of led that example. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Some States feel like the way we save money is 

if we can talk the Federal Government into funding our programs 

then it saves us money. And what we really need to get to is a 

point where States say this is a good program, recidivism saves 

money, it saves, it protects the public, and so, therefore, this ought 

67 

to be where we invest our money, instead of continuing to have 

States come to the Federal Government to ask for the money. 

I can see my time is running out. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, you know, we do hear so much about evidencebased reentry programs, and I know you were discussing this. If 

there was one thing you would recommend above all other things 

that we do to ensure maximum efficiency, what would that be? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would say that would be mandating experimental evaluations. We need to have not just one evaluation or two 

evaluations done, but a lot of programs across the country need to 

be evaluated because you may have one you find to be successful 

here or there. You may find others that are not successful here and 

there. But we need to get a good picture. 

Because what happens often is you find one failed program, you 

can say that all these programs don’t work. Or you can find one 

successful program, and you can say all of these programs work. 

When the fact is, all you know is you have one failed program and 

one successful program. 

So we need to really look at these programs across jurisdiction, 

across service areas and really get down and use the most scientifically rigorous methods available. And in most cases I would recommend doing a randomized experiment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Before I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, I 

wanted to note the presence of the chief sponsor of the Second 

Chance Act, the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, has joined 

us on the podium. 

The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent 

that we allow Danny Davis to make some comments here as an author of the bill? 

Mr. SCOTT. I was going to confer with the Ranking Member while 

you were speaking. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is what I want to do. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I don’t think there will be any canings if we don’t 

consent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Member Gohmert. I want to thank both of you for your kindness 

and consideration. I want to thank Mr. Conyers and this entire Judiciary Committee for the effectiveness of its approach to dealing 

with the whole question of criminal justice from my vantage point 

and especially the question of reentry. 

I have got a couple of questions that I would just like to ask. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, I am a real fan of evaluation. I think it is very 

important that we get as much mileage out of everything that we 

do, especially when we are spending public dollars. And we certainly want to make sure that things work. Are there any approaches to reentry that you think are maybe more effective than 

others or any programs that you have taken a good look at or approaches that you think work better than perhaps some others do. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think one thing to consider is I think 

prisoners when they come out of prison they need to develop attachments or reattachments. It could be to family. It could be to 

68 

work. And I think that establishing somehow to get people as fast 

as possible into a working environment, where they are attached 

to it, where the perception or the belief comes I have something 

here that is worthwhile. I can build a life. Therefore, I don’t want 

to do anything risking that life. I think work and family as well 

can do that. 

So I think there is not a lot of research—there is a program 

called—it is Center for Equal Opportunities in New York. It was 

a prisoner reentry program, and it found it had no affect on arrests. Whether or not you are in the control group or the treatment 

group, people were still being arrested. It did find people who got 

into the program faster and quicker and got a job were less likely 

to recidivate. So I think that rapid attachment is something to look 

at. 

So I think that is important, but I don’t think we know—right 

now, we don’t have, at least from the literature that I have read, 

enough information about whether or not that can be successful. I 

think it could be promising, and I think it needs to be investigated 

further. 

Mr. DAVIS. I certainly agree that if one can find a job that becomes the very core I think of one’s existence, so I certainly 

wouldn’t quibble in any way with that. 

Ms. Taylor, we were on the plane together this morning—early 

this morning, as a matter of fact—so I know you have had a long 

day. But let me, first of all, congratulate you on your recent appointment as the director of corrections for the State of Illinois, 

which is obviously one of the great big correction agencies in the 

country. And the number of individuals that we have coming out 

of the Illinois prisons each year are somewhat staggering, which 

means that the numbers going in are also somewhat staggering. 

I have been very pleased with the direction of the Illinois Department of Corrections over the last half a dozen years or so, and I 

think tremendous progress has been made. Which program activities do you think have been working best? I mean, I know the Department does a number of different things. Which of those do you 

think actually work best, from your vantage point. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, two immediately come to mind. I think our 

substance abuse treatment center models for Sheraton and House 

Western have very favorable recidivism rates. Our State’s average 

recidivism is approximately 51 percent, but participants through 

those two substance abuse treatment programs, the outcomes, the 

performance outcomes are like in the 25 to 28 percent recidivism 

rate. So I know they are successful. That is one. 

And the second one is that we do have transitional jobs programs 

that have been in existence for maybe the past 4 years, and we are 

starting to get the performance outcomes for those. But I would say 

to the doctor’s comments, yes, jobs are important. 

So we are starting with a preplanning program within the institutions, carrying it through the agents of release and we are hoping that the employers in the State of Illinois recognize that it is 

critical to public safety that they continue working with these offenders. So I think that program is very successful. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, the Ranking Member, and Chairman Conyers for the opportunity to participate. 

69 

Again, I think that you have just been incredible as a Committee 

in advancing the concepts of reentry so that we can take advantage 

of the great opportunities that exist in our country. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, and thank you for your strong work. 

Just looking at the numbers that Ms. Taylor gave us, when you 

have a hundred people and an average recidivism rate of about 50 

and you drop it below 30, that is about 20 people that didn’t return 

to prison. What is your annual per prisoner cost? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, my budget is $1.2 billion on an annual basis. 

The population count today is 48,000, and I have roughly about 

24,000. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what your marginal cost is? Because a 

lot of the cost is embedded, construction, things like that. 

Ms. TAYLOR. About $5,000 per inmate. 

Mr. SCOTT. $5,000 per inmate is marginal cost for an inmate? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the embedded cost? 

Ms. TAYLOR. About $23,000. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what the program costs are. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Of my—— 

Mr. SCOTT. No, the Second Chance Act program, the—— 

Ms. TAYLOR. We have in this current authorization—I haven’t 

looked at all of the awards. Particularly, I know there is one for 

the Moms and Babies program. And the other programs are actually for our juvenile division, so it is a separate entity. 

Mr. SCOTT. The ones that were successful, that reduced recidivism about 50 percent, do you know the cost of those programs? 

Ms. TAYLOR. The Sheridan program is approximately about $18 

million in programming costs. And the population at that facility 

that are receiving those services are roughly about 1,400 inmates. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. Muhlhausen, do you have any estimate, if we are going to 

do comprehensive evaluations, what an evaluation should cost? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, experimental evaluations are costly. 

Large-scale evaluations can cost $10 million if you are dealing 

with, you know, tens of thousands of people participating in the 

evaluation, as far as your control group or your intervention group. 

So I think that—maybe set aside 10 percent of overall funding for 

programs that actually receive funding in the fiscal year. That may 

be a way to do it. 

But the exact dollar figure I am not sure to give you. It depends 

on—it takes a lot of planning. You know, I think that NIJ’s efforts 

are good, but I think it could be doubled or tripled and we would 

find out much more valuable information than we would otherwise. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Ms. La Vigne, can you say something about how 

we should be going about evaluation, how much money we should 

spend on it, how much a good evaluation costs? 

Ms. LA VIGNE. I don’t disagree with Dr. Muhlhausen; it does cost 

a lot of money to do a good evaluation. Whether or not it is an experimental design—and, certainly, I think everyone agrees that 

that is truly the highest standard of evaluation—there are other 

methods out there. And I would like to encourage us all to consider 

other methods that are nonetheless considered quite rigorous. 

70 

There is propensity score matching; there are other methods out 

there. 

But the real cost, in my opinion, is in the interviews with the clients. Because if you are trying to really understand the impact on 

offending behavior, let’s face it, people re-offend, they cause new 

victimization, and they don’t necessarily get caught, they don’t necessarily get arrested, and they don’t necessarily return to prison or 

jail. 

So there is a great value in interviewing program participants. 

And you want to interview them over time so you can see whether 

the outcomes change over time. They are also the single greatest 

source of information for what types of programs they participated 

in and for how long. And they can also give researchers other information on intervening factors that might be contributing to their 

reentry success or failure, factors that can both help inform improvements in the program that is being delivered as well as help 

inform the impact evaluation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Conyers, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I haven’t had any questions yet, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlemen is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, I am wondering, as you have heard the other 

four panelists with you that have all talked about the benefits and 

the positive influence of this prisoner reentry concept, were you impressed with any of the benefits that they talked about that resulted from the programs? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I was impressed in the sense that I think 

there are good ideas being implemented, but we need to know if 

they are effective ideas. 

Mr. CONYERS. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. And I wear my hat—when I come here to testify, I wear my hat as a social scientist whose concentration is on 

the evaluation of programs. And, for me, the ultimate judge of 

whether or not programs work is a rigorous scientific study. And 

so, while we may have anecdotal examples of where programs can 

be a success, often those anecdotal stories are biased or sometimes 

mistaken, or sometimes they are—I am not saying any individual 

here is doing it, but they are people seeking additional funding, 

and so they are not going to say, ‘‘You know what? My program 

really stinks.’’ They are not going to say that. 

But I think that we need to have objective data. I think if you 

do an experimental evaluation and you find that it was a quality 

evaluation and you find a program works—you know, I look at it 

and I am going to say, you know what, I am going to chalk it up 

as one program that works. If it doesn’t work, I am going to chalk 

it up as a program that doesn’t work. That is how I look at it. 

So I think that we can have detailed and some really good stories 

about what works and what doesn’t work from practitioners, but 

we need to back that up with scientific evidence. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is great. I want to be as scientific as is 

appropriate, but that doesn’t discount all of the statements that 

have been made here today, does it? 

71 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I would say that, if the statements 

made today had been backed up by scientific evaluations, they 

would be that much more stronger. 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I think this takes me back to a case of a program that was implemented in Texas, where—it was a faith-based 

program. And what they did was they looked at people who participated in the program versus people who didn’t participate. And 

what they did was they only counted people who successfully completed the program. And the people who participated in the program but washed out because they were getting in trouble they 

didn’t count. 

And so they had this enormously effective success rate of reducing recidivism, but it was really a bogus study. And so they went 

around, they told people, they told me, you know, ‘‘You have to look 

at this. It works.’’ I looked at it, I am like, ‘‘No, it really doesn’t. 

Go back to the drawing board.’’ 

So I think that—I think we need to, when it comes to the public 

tax dollars, we need to have spending backed up by rigorous research. 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. La Vigne, you know something about the Returning Home study? 

Ms. LA VIGNE. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you have a comment to add to this conversation? 

Ms. LA VIGNE. Sure, yes. The Returning Home study is a longitudinal study that The Urban Institute implemented a few years ago. 

We interviewed people behind bars and tracked them over the 

course of a year in the community. We did those very expensive 

surveys that I was talking about. So we got a lot of rich information about what their challenges were and what their support systems were like. 

And the study produced some very interesting findings. One finding that we had was that family support seems to make a great 

difference in reentry outcomes. It is something that, when we first 

had the information and shared it, people looked at perhaps 

questioningly. They said, ‘‘Oh, we believe all these people have 

burned their bridges and they don’t have any support systems anymore.’’ What we found is that virtually everyone that we interviewed reported that they had someone that they considered to be 

a family member in their lives that could provide support, both 

moral support, emotional support, and tangible support in the form 

of housing and so forth, and that the higher that level of support, 

the better the reentry outcomes. 

We also found interesting findings when it comes to employment. 

We did find that people who had employment programs behind 

bars were more likely to be employed on the outside. And we also 

found that people who were employed were less likely to return to 

prison. 

But what is really interesting about our findings is that wages 

matter. So people who were employed earning $8 to $10 an hour 

were twice as likely to end up back behind bars in a year’s time 

than those employed $10 to $12 an hour. 

72 

So there were a lot of interesting findings that came out of this 

research that I think can help inform the current program’s, the 

Second Chance Act, grantees. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, I assume you may have not have had the opportunity to examine the Returning Home study. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No, I haven’t actually read the study. 

Mr. CONYERS. But it might satisfy some of your desire for more 

scientific rigor in the reporting. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think it helps to know why people fail 

when they are outside. And I think that if attachment to work is 

important, then maybe a transition program that helps people get 

into good jobs is helpful. 

And, you know, I frequently get called by reporters who want to 

know somebody who is anti-rehabilitative services and corrections. 

And I am like, I am all for incarcerating really dangerous people, 

but if you put them behind bars, I am also not against trying to 

help them out while they are behind bars, providing services. 

Now, a lot of these services may not work; some may work. And 

they are not going to be a magic bullet, probably, in solving these 

problems. But I am for helping people. 

Mr. CONYERS. Uh-huh. So you are not anti-rehabilitation? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No. What I am anti is substituting rehabilitation for the incarceration of serious and violent offenders. Putting 

the two together is okay, but letting violent criminals roam the 

street without being behind bars is something I am not a fan of. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, now, when we boil all this down, you are 

anti-rehabilitation or you are not anti-rehabilitation? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I am for rehabilitation—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN [continuing]. Under appropriate circumstances. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Now, that brings up the question of why you didn’t make any 

comments in your prepared statement about the fact of the prison 

experience sometimes making it more difficult for rehabilitation, 

especially since you have had a prison correction experience yourself. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, you know, one of the things that—when 

I worked in juvenile corrections, one of things that just really stuck 

out to me was that, when I was with some of these youth, some 

of them would just put a big smile on your face, interacting with 

them, but when they would be on the outside, they were absolute 

terrorists. 

And I would sit down with one of them who always behaved well, 

staff trusted him to take care of chores, gave him extra benefits. 

You know, I asked him, you know, ‘‘You were here 6 weeks ago, 

and you came back. Why?’’ And a lot of times, they have—some 

people don’t have the support networks back home. In this individual’s case, he was just—you know, ‘‘I go back home, and I don’t 

have—my parents aren’t really around, and I am hanging out with 

my friends.’’ And what are the friends doing? They are selling 

drugs. And so that is why he was always coming back. 

73 

So I think some way to help people transition back is important. 

And I think that there is a lot of talk about evidence-based programs, but one of the problems with the whole concept of evidencebased programs is they assume that, once a program has been 

found to be effective, anytime it has been replicated anywhere else, 

it is going to have the same result, and that is not true. So that 

we need to have continual research. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what about The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center research findings on challenges of prisoner reentry? 

Have you ever run across this document? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I actually haven’t read all of the document. I 

am familiar with it a little bit. And I think that The Urban Institute does a lot of good research and provides a lot of useful information, because I have cited it in the past, as well. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good. And do they research the scientific levels 

that you established for it to be valid and significant? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think the difference is that what I am 

concentrating on is program evaluations of where you are taking 

people and you are assigning somebody to treatment and non-treatment and you are finding out what the results of treatment are. 

In many cases, a lot of the research being done is, sort of, interviewing people afterwards. There isn’t necessarily—there wasn’t an 

experiment going on. You are trying to find out why people 

recidivate, whey they didn’t recidivate, and you are not necessarily 

doing an experimental evaluation. You are still doing research, and 

very good research. 

But what I am concentrating on is a different type of research, 

where you are evaluating—trying to find the effectiveness of these 

programs. 

Mr. CONYERS. But this still is pretty authentic research that is 

going on. It may be in a different category from what you would 

prefer, but—let me ask you like this: Do you think The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center’s findings are meaningful and useful 

on prisoner reentry? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would say yes. But, without knowing the 

findings on top of my head, I would be cautious about endorsing 

any one of them. But I think that, you know, their institute has 

received a lot of funding to do this type of research, and I think 

it provides useful information. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, could we make this available to you and 

then see if you could submit afterward—and it may not be in time 

for this hearing to be reported, but it could help us. Because we 

have had, in this Subcommittee alone, five hearings on this subject. 

And I think that if you and I were to go over all of the witnesses, 

you would find additional scientific research on prisoner reentry 

that would satisfy you as to the quality of this research, and it 

might affect your opinion about prisoner reentry. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I am open-minded, so I would definitely love 

to answer a follow-up question on this issue. 

Mr. CONYERS. You would do what? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would definitely love to answer a follow-up 

question on this issue. 

Mr. CONYERS. You would like to work with—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yeah. 

74 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I work with you on this—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Definitely. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. And provide you with you the scientific information and see where you end up on this? Because I 

think you have the experience and the approach that would—that 

we could reach some kind of agreement. 

We reached an agreement with President Bush. We reached 

agreement with a number of conservative leaders in government. 

As a matter of fact, we haven’t found anybody that is critical of it. 

And you have made it clear that you are not critical of it; you are 

just saying that you haven’t seen the scientific research that validates prisoner reentry. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, there is not much research that I am 

aware of that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I know. Wait, that is the problem, though. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN [continuing]. Shows these programs are effective. 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course there isn’t. But you haven’t—look, I am 

going to help you research it. So, of course you haven’t found much, 

but I am going to help—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I appreciate your help. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. You find a lot more. 

Ms. LA VIGNE. If I may, thank you for holding up The Urban Institute’s research. That is flattering. 

But in addition to that, as I mentioned in my formal testimony, 

we are in the process of documenting assessing for level of rigor 

and combining and distilling all the individual research studies, 

evaluations out there that fall under the larger umbrella of prisoner reentry. So that is correctional education programs, employment programs, substance abuse treatment programs, housing, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

We have identified a thousand studies that we think might— 

might—meet some level of rigor. Of those, I am certain that there 

is a much smaller percentage that meet the level of rigor that Dr. 

Muhlhausen is asking for. 

But I would argue that the information is out there; it just has 

not been compiled and distilled and presented back to the field in 

the way that they can use that. And so that is what we are trying 

to do at The Urban Institute with Second Chance Act funding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, will you join me and help me, as well? 

Ms. LA VIGNE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CONYERS. So both of us will be helping Dr. Muhlhausen. 

Now, there is also a fourth person I would like to involve, and 

that is attorney Demelza Baer, who is now a member of this Committee, who was one of the researchers on The Urban Institute 

study on prisoner reentry. She would make a great companion to 

work with us and Dr. Muhlhausen, don’t you think? 

Would you be willing to accept this assistance—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Sure. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Muhlhausen? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Definitely. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

75 

I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

And it is going to be extremely—the follow-up is going to be extremely helpful, because, as Mr. Davis said, there are some good 

programs and some bad programs and very relatively little money. 

So we want to make sure that all of the money goes to the programs that actually work and not waste it on programs that don’t 

work. So we appreciate the witnesses’ willingness to help us evaluate the programs so we fund the good ones and don’t fund the bad 

ones. 

We may have additional written questions which we will forward 

to you and ask that you answer as promptly as you can so that 

your answers can be made part of the record. The hearing record 

will remain open for 7 days for the submission of additional materials. 

And, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(77) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

78 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM NANCY LA VIGNE, DIRECTOR, 

JUSTICE POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 


A-1.eps
79 


A-2.eps
80 

Æ 


A-3.eps