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

57–977 PDF 2010

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

RECIDIVISM, AND USING ALTERNATIVES TO REINCARCERATION IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Serial No. 111–68

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

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

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

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 3, 2010 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Eichenlaub, Louis, Mid-Atlantic regional director, Bureau of Prisons;

Adrienne Poteat, acting director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency; Nancy LaVigne, director, Justice Policy Center, the

Urban Institute; Charles M. Reynolds, Jr., CEO, the Fairview Adult

Rehabilitative Center; Jeffrey Varone, CEO, Hope Village; and Michael

White, former Hope Village resident ........................................................... 14

Eichenlaub, Louis ...................................................................................... 14

LaVigne, Nancy ......................................................................................... 32

Poteat, Adrienne ........................................................................................ 23

Reynolds, Charles M., Jr., ........................................................................ 39

Varone, Jeffrey .......................................................................................... 47

White, Michael ........................................................................................... 61

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

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 5

Eichenlaub, Louis, Mid-Atlantic regional director, Bureau of Prisons, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 16

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 34

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

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

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

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

Poteat, Adrienne, acting director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of ......................................................... 25

Reynolds, Charles M., Jr., CEO, the Fairview Adult Rehabilitative Center, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 41

Varone, Jeffrey, CEO, Hope Village, prepared statement of ........................ 050

White, Michael, former Hope Village resident, prepared statement of ....... 63

(1)

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 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 a.m., in room

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich,

Connolly, Chaffetz, Bilbray, and Cao.

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

clerk/legislative assistant; Jill Crissman, professional staff; Dan

Ziedman, deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Howie Denis and Mitch

Kominsky, minority counsels; and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff.

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

to order.

I want to welcome Ranking Member Chaffetz, members of the

subcommittee, hearing witnesses and all those in attendance.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the effectiveness of

residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, on public safety

prisoner reentry and recidivism in the Nation’s Capital. The chairman, ranking member and subcommittee members will each have

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

5 days to submit statements for the record.

Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me welcome you to today’s subcommittee oversight hearing on the utilization and effectiveness of

Bureau of Prison-sponsored halfway houses in the District of Columbia, also commonly referred to as community correction centers.

Halfway houses play a critical role in Federal corrections policy; yet

this important phase of an ex-offender’s road to recovery and reentry often goes unregulated. And in the case of the District, at

times, under-used.

According to the Bureau of Prisons program and policy statement

on community correction centers, whenever possible, eligible inmates are to be released to the community through a community

2

correction center [CCC], unless of course there exists a reasonable

impediment. It is estimated that every year, nearly 2,500 ex-offenders return to the District after completing their sentences. There

is an average of five ex-offenders per day and with many inmates

regularly returning to the District, it is imperative that the Bureau

of Prisons and its halfway house providers are equipped and adequately prepared to help these individuals successfully transition

from confinement to community.

To that end, today’s hearing is intended to ascertain how well

the Bureau and its partners are doing in meeting that objective.

Currently, the District is home to three BOP, Bureau of Prisons—

I will try to reduce the number of acronyms that we use during the

hearing. But it is unavoidable, apparently. Currently, the District

is home to three Bureau of Prison-affiliated halfway houses: Hope

Village in ward 8, Efforts From Ex-Convicts in ward 2, and Fairview, the District’s only halfway house for women, in ward 7. And

I am glad to have both the BOP officials and representatives from

each of these particular centers here with us this morning to help

us get an update on the role that halfway house are playing in reducing crime and recidivism in the Nation’s Capital.

Since adoption of the Revitalization Act in 1997 and the massive

restructuring of D.C.’s criminal justice system, both the city and

the Federal Government have worked diligently and collaboratively

to increase public safety by implementing sound felon reentry systems and practices. Halfway houses serve as an instrumental element of this overall approach and therefore warrant serious and

ongoing oversight.

I would like to thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, for continuing to place an emphasis on prisoner re-integration issues, and for recommending today’s hearing. I look forward to the testimonies of our invited witnesses, and now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz of

Utah, for any opening remarks he may have.

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

3

4

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Eleanor

Holmes Norton for her work on this and for encouraging this hearing to happen. I do support the idea and the notion that it is supposed to be the Department of Corrections, and that pathway back

is an important one and I am glad we are diving into that today.

This particular hearing provides an excellent opportunity to discuss the Federal Bureau of Prisons and its relationship to halfway

houses in the District of Columbia. The Bureau of Prisons is vested

with the authority to house D.C. code felons under the National

Capital Revitalization Act. And upon release, most convicts are

automatically housed in a BOP-based halfway house in D.C. under

the jurisdiction of the Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency [CSOSA]. The National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1977 fundamentally restructured

the relationship and the responsibilities between the Federal Government and the District Government, including its courts, prisons

and parole supervision. The District’s Lorton correction facility in

Virginia, which had housed D.C. code felons, was closed in 2001.

This resulted in such convicts being placed in various Bureaus of

Prisons throughout the country.

CSOSA, which supervises D.C. ex-convicts, is also a Federal entity. I would specifically like to learn about how the Bureau of Prisons and CSOSA work together to curb recidivism rates. We all

want ex-offenders to return safely to their communities. Halfway

houses are critical to the success in this effort. A good halfway

house can help save lives. They can provide a safe place where

someone can learn the skills and get the tools they need to live in

a healthy lifestyle.

A halfway house is a transitional facility. It is needed to ease the

difficult task of going back from prison or drug recovery straight

back into the community. Ex-offenders can best succeed if they are

sober, employed and have a good place to live. Otherwise, they are

highly likely to go through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, something nobody wants to have happen.

Again, Mr. Chairman, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, I thank you

both for holding this hearing and insisting that it happen. I look

forward to hearing from our witnesses.

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:]

5

6

Mr. LYNCH. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to simply summarize my

testimony and ask that it be put into the record, only to emphasize,

Mr. Chairman, first, my sincere appreciation for this hearing.

There has not been a hearing involving halfway houses now for almost 10 years. And yet, these houses are or should be critical to

reentry.

I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because we are dealing

with a fairly complicated agency here. These are local D.C. code offenders, yet they are in a Federal prison. And CSOSA, the Court

Services Offender and Supervision Agency, is of course a Federal

agency. So it requires some coordination and understanding of

what is a unique situation in our Federal system, where essentially

BOP is a State prison for the District of Columbia, yet is a Federal

agency with Federal rules. We are very concerned that the 6,500

D.C. code felons are now spread to 75 BOP facilities in 33 States.

You can’t run a State prison system that way.

And I will be looking, Mr. Chairman, for a solution to that problem. We don’t understand precisely what the effect of these halfway

houses is on the most important part of their mission, which is reducing recidivism and public safety. I will be particularly interested, Mr. Chairman, to learn this morning as much as I can about

those two issues, and I thank you very much again for this hearing.

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

7

8

9

10

11

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman

from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I take

great interest in this hearing.

As a resident of the inner city of Baltimore, and as one who used

to voluntarily run an after-care program for young men who were

being released from our juvenile facilities, I take tremendous interest in this subject. So therefore, I want to thank you for holding

this hearing, and I want to thank Ms. Norton for all that she has

done in regards to these kinds of issues and so many others. I have

said to many people many times that she is one of the finest public

servants I know, working tirelessly to address so many, many

issues of the District.

Ex-offenders need help to make a smooth transition into day to

day civilian life. Once they make that transition, they have the potential to serve as critical resources to our communities, acting as

mentors to our young people, and working to unravel the same

criminal network to which they once belonged. While the Nation’s

crime rates have fallen over the last decade, there has been an unprecedented explosion in prison and jail populations. Upwards of

650,000 men and women are released from State and Federal prisons each year, and an even larger number of people are being released from our local jails.

In my home town of Baltimore, approximately 700 to 800 former

prisoners are re-entering our neighborhoods from prison every

month. Unfortunately, we are failing to integrate far too many of

these returning neighbors into the economic and social life of our

communities. Nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are expected

to be re-arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3

years of release. Such high recidivism rates translates into thousands of new crimes each year, at least half of which can be averted through an improved prisoner reentry efforts.

I might add that it is not, when I return to my district, it is not

unusual, Mr. Chairman, for me to be approached by anywhere from

five to six people a day who tell me something like this: ‘‘Mr.

Cummings, I have just gotten out of prison or I have been out for

a few months, I simply cannot find a job, cannot find opportunity.

And if you can’t help me, then I am going to have to do something.’’

And what they mean by that is that they are going to have to commit a crime. This is the real deal, to survive, that is. And I am certainly not sitting here excusing them for that. I just want us to be

aware of that.

These programs have to address the issues of education, housing,

treatment, training and employment. In these economic times, this

is very difficult, when you look at it from the employment standpoint. When we had our jobs fair just recently, Mr. Chairman, we

had a number of people who came through. And one of their major

complaints was that nobody wanted to, the people with records,

that is, said that nobody wanted to give them an interview. And

I tried to make them realize that for every person who had a

record, there were probably 100 who didn’t have a record who were

trying to get the same job. And a lot of employers just don’t want

to hear from anybody who has a record.

12

So they face a very difficult situation. Reentry programs, such as

halfway houses or community correction centers produce successful

outcomes for our communities and our citizens. I am proud to have

been one of the original co-sponsors of the Second Chance Act of

2007, which is now law, that extended the amount of time that

prisoners can stay in a halfway house from 6 months to 1 year.

Today, we examine the unique prisoner reentry program here in

the District of Columbia. The D.C. code felons are being housed in

75 different facilities, located in 33 States, meaning that they are

not able to visit with social workers, clergy, friends, and family,

which are crucial in preparing the prisoner for reentry into their

own community.

And so Mr. Chairman, as my time runs out, I ask that my entire

statement be placed in the record, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. And without objection, his remarks and his statement will be submitted to the record.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.

Kucinich, for 5 minutes.

Mr. KUCINICH. When we think about crime and punishment, our

society still doesn’t have it right. Because there is no way that we

can appreciably affect recidivism if we don’t make sure that when

people try to come back and participate in society that there is a

place for them. We are asking people to do something impossible.

When you look at it in a larger context, Mr. Chairman, I am

going to have to leave here to go over to a meeting with Secretary

Salize, who is talking about jobs right now. We have 15 million

Americans without any jobs. And in that market, you get released

from prison, you try to find a job, it’s harder than ever. So halfway

houses sometimes just leave people halfway. And if you want to get

the full distance, then a society has to be there with an opportunity. We can’t keep condemning people for going back to prison

if we don’t have a place for them in our society.

And it is famous, we have one of the largest prison populations

in the world, per capita, we are one of the highest in the world.

It is really a commentary on our society.

I don’t know about any of you, but I come from a family in Cleveland, OH, that some members of our family had some tough times,

and some of them did time. And maybe if they had had better lawyers, they wouldn’t have done time. But they did time. And when

they came back, it was very tough for them to find a way to get

back into the system, very tough.

So I want to thank the people who are involved in this effort to

try to really give individuals an opportunity to be able to rescue

their lives. But we have to have solid economic components. You

just can’t be expected to do this on your own. It is called a halfway

house. You can meet people halfway, but our society has to do

something about helping people get the entire distance.

I really am grateful for those who have dedicated their time and

effort to the endeavors in the District. I hope that we will be able

to address some of the issues of people being able to see their loved

ones who are incarcerated, sometimes at a great distance from the

District. Hopefully we will be able to do something about some of

13

the issues of oversight of houses that are essentially operated by

private contractors.

So I thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

The committee will now hear from today’s witnesses, after a brief

introduction. It is committee policy that all witnesses are to be

sworn before testifying. So may I ask you to please rise and raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record reveal that all the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

Your entire statements will be included in the record. A little bit

about the ground rules here. You will see a small box in front of

you. You might want to turn that one around so the witness can

actually see it. Thank you very much.

The green light will indicate that you have 5 minutes to summarize your statement; the yellow light means you have 1 minute remaining to sort of wrap up your statement; and the red light indicates that your time has expired and you should immediately summarize and end your statement.

I would like to introduce today’s panel. Mr. Louis Eichenlaub

serves as the Mid-Atlantic regional director for the Bureau of Prisons. Regional Director Eichenlaub joined the Bureau of Prisons in

1986 as a research analyst in the Office of Research and Evaluation and Information Policy and Public Affairs Division in the Central Office here in Washington, DC.

Ms. Adrienne Poteat was named as the acting director for Court

Services and Offender Supervision Agency in July 2008. 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 supervision for

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 Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety

program.

Mr. Charles Reynolds is currently CEO of the Fairview Adult Rehabilitative Center, the only all-female community correction center in Washington, DC. In addition to the Fairview Center, Mr.

Reynolds also operates a reentry facility in the Hampton Roads

area on behalf of Rehabilitation Services, Inc. Both sites incorporate state-of-the-art rehabilitation and correctional residential

services.

Mr. Jeffrey Varone is CEO of Hope Village, a nationally accredited community correction center which has been providing offender reentry services since 1977. Mr. Varone has over 25 years

of experience in the field of community corrections and in residential reentry programs.

Mr. Michael White is a third-generation Washingtonian and

former D.C. code offender. Mr. White was incarcerated at Petersburg prison from June 2007 until October 2008. And thereafter, he

was a resident of Hope Village halfway house from October 2008

until January 2009.

14

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their willingness to come

before this subcommittee and help us with our work. Mr.

Eichenlaub, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

STATEMENTS OF LOUIS EICHENLAUB, MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADRIENNE

POTEAT, ACTING DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; NANCY LaVIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE;

CHARLES M. REYNOLDS, JR., CEO, THE FAIRVIEW ADULT REHABILITATIVE CENTER; JEFFREY VARONE, CEO, HOPE VILLAGE; AND MICHAEL WHITE, FORMER HOPE VILLAGE RESIDENT

STATEMENT OF LOUIS EICHENLAUB

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Good morning, Chairman Lynch and members

of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before

you today on behalf of Bureau of Prisons Director Lappin to discuss

the role of residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, in the

District of Columbia.

As regional director for the Bureau of Prisons Mid-Atlantic Region, I am well aware of the unique role that we play in the District of Columbia. While the number of inmates sentenced in D.C.

Superior Court is relatively small compared to our entire inmate

population, which is less than 3 percent, we devote substantial resources to ensuring they receive appropriate care and treatment.

And, mindful of the unique relationship between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia, as an organization we work

hard to maintain a variety of collaborative relationships with the

local criminal justice community.

The mission of our community is to house offenders in institutions that are safe, secure, humane, cost-efficient and provide opportunities for offenders to prepare for a successful return to the

community. There are two corollaries to this mission. First, offenders come to prison as punishment, not for punishment. And reentry

begins on the first day of an inmate’s incarceration.

In coming into the Federal prison system, District of Columbia

offenders have available to them a broad variety of opportunities

for self-improvement. Every Federal prison offers inmate programs

that stress the development of work skills and life skills needed to

enhance employment upon release and to help inmates maintain a

crime-free lifestyle. These programs include work, education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, observance of faith and

religion, psychological services and counseling, release preparation

and other programs that impart essential life skills.

Rigorous research has found that inmates who participate in programs are less likely to commit future crimes. For example, inmates who participate in Federal prison industries are 24 percent

less likely to recidivate and substantially less likely to engage in

misconduct. Inmates who participate in vocational or occupational

training are 33 percent less likely to recidivate. Inmates who participate in education programs are 16 percent less likely to

recidivate. Inmates who complete the BOP’s residential substance

15

abuse program, which includes a community transition component

and is available at the rigorous correctional institution, are 16 percent less likely to recidivate and 15 percent less likely to relapse

to drug use within 3 years after release.

We recognize that as inmates approach release, there are a variety of immediate needs to address. Through the release preparation

program, we provide assistance in resume writing and job seeking

and retention skills. We have employment resource centers at all

of our institutions. We offer mock job fairs, where inmates learn job

interview techniques and community recruiters learn of the skills

available among inmates. During these events, qualified inmates

are afforded the opportunity to apply for jobs with companies that

have job openings.

Finally, our staff helps inmates secure identification, apply for

benefits, compile education and training certificates, diplomas,

transcripts and other significant documents needed in the community. Community-based programs, or halfway houses, complement

the Bureau’s reentry efforts described above. Research has shown

that inmates who are released through halfway houses are more

likely to be employed and less likely to recidivate. For this reason,

the BOP places most inmates in community-based programs for the

final portion of their term of imprisonment to help offenders gradually re-adapt to their community environment. Many of the programs and treatments that offenders receive in the correctional institutions are reinforced during their stay in the community-based

programs.

Additionally, offenders receive assistance in finding a job and a

place to live and access to services they may need following release.

The BOP does not operate any halfway houses. Rather, all of them

are operated by private providers under contract with the BOP. We

are committed to ensuring that our programs, including halfway

houses, buildupon the body of knowledge about what is effective in

reducing recidivism. For halfway houses, these evidence-based

practices are articulated in our statement of work. Halfway houses

must, one, conduct an assessment to identify the crime-producing

behaviors to target; two, develop an individualized case plan based

on the assessment; three, offer effective interventions; and four, implement the program consistently.

We regularly monitor our contracts for RRC services, frequently

visiting both Hope Village and Fairview in the District. We work

closely with the providers, as well as the staff from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, to refine our operations and

those of the providers.

I look forward to hearing from our partners in the D.C. criminal

justice community today and to continue to collaborate on how best

to address the needs of the District and its incarcerated population.

Chairman Lynch, this concludes my formal statement. Again, I

thank you, Mr. Chaffetz and the subcommittee for your support of

our agency. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any

other members of the subcommittee may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eichenlaub follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

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

STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT

Ms. POTEAT. Thank you, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member

Chaffetz and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before you and testify on behalf of the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to discuss the role

of halfway houses in reducing crime and recidivism in the District

of Columbia.

CSOSA was certified as a Federal agency in 2000 and charged

with the unique responsibility of supervising men and women on

probation, parole or supervised release in the District of Columbia.

On any given day, we supervise 16,000 offenders, 6,000 of whom

are on probation, parole or supervised release, and have served a

period of incarceration in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Each

year, approximately 2,400 offenders return to the District of Columbia from BOP facilities.

The demographic profile of the returning offender suggests enormous challenges for us. In fiscal year 2009, 44 percent of them had

a history of violent crime, 70 percent had a history of substance

abuse, 30 percent had a diagnosed mental health illness, and nearly 40 percent did not have a GED or high school diploma. These

offenders arrived in the District of Columbia with an immediate

need to find housing and employment services, to develop positive

social networks and reconnect with their families. They also have

needs in mental heath and medical services.

The challenge is compounded for offenders released after long periods of incarceration in the Bureau of Prisons facilities. Sometimes, once they are released, their support networks have been

dissolved.

CSOSA created a specialized unit to deal with the offenders coming from the Bureau, and that is a Transitional Intervention Team

[TIPS]. We work solely with the offenders returning from prison.

The TIPS CSOs begin this transition period 6 months prior to the

offender returning to the community. They investigate home and

employment plans prepared by the BOP case managers. They ensure that the proposed plans for home and employment are successful for reentry into the community and do not pose a risk to

a prior victim, or in the case of sex offenders, children living in the

home.

Offenders who transition through a halfway house undergo a

comprehensive risk and needs assessment by the TIPS CSOs. This

includes a substance abuse history, criminal behavior patterns, history of violence, educational or vocational deficits, physical or mental health challenges. Armed with this information, the TIPS CSO

develops an individualized plan for each offender. During the

course of a halfway house stay, an offender may be enrolled in

Unity Health Care, be referred to Goodwill Industries for job placement, receive skills from opportunities industrialization centers,

and be connected to a mentor from an area faith-based program.

The offender will also be oriented to his supervision requirements.

Unfortunately, of the 2,400 offenders who will return to the District, last year, only 40 percent of them transitioned through halfVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:56 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57977.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
24

way houses. This average stay for our CSOSA offenders was 45 to

60 days. Our experience suggests that a longer period of stay may

be effective in stabilizing offenders during this critical period.

In general, offenders who experience halfway house placements

are 20 to 40 percent more likely to find themselves in stable employment and housing during their 180 day stay period, and some

of them are considered to be our riskiest population. Employment

and housing stability have long been associated with greater supervision compliance.

Research conducted by the Bureau of Justice statistics in 2002

supports the need for a comprehensive strategy for addressing offender needs during the first 180 days after release from prison.

That study found that the offenders are at a greater risk of committing new crimes or serious supervision violations prior to being

sent back to prison during the first 6 months in the community. Of

the nearly 68 percent of the offenders who will be re-arrested within 3 years of their release, less than half of them will be arrested

during the first 180 days. Clearly, this is the most critical intervention period to slow down the likelihood of the offender re-offending.

Now I would like to just turn your attention to an immediate

challenge facing CSOSA. We will have approximately 500 offenders

who will be returning to the District based on the U.S. Parole Commission in correctly applying parole guidelines to these men and

women that were D.C. offenders that were sentenced during the

1985 time for drug offenses. And it was the epidemic of the crack.

So therefore, some of them have spent more than 10 years in the

prison system and will probably come home with a lot of challenges

that they will be facing at that time. Therefore, we will be working

very closely with our partners to address those needs for those men

and women returning to the District of Columbia.

In closing, CSOSA has been collaborating with our criminal justice partners, researchers and academics to develop strategies to

reverse the pattern of recidivism. That consistent theme emerging

from our shared work is that the offender reentry must begin before inmates leave prison, and intervention services must be frontloaded. Halfway houses accomplish this goal. We look forward to

continuing our close collaboration with the Bureau of Prisons, our

halfway house providers, and other local and Federal partners to

enhance public safety while also reducing recidivism.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and will

be open to any questions that you have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. Poteat.

Ms. LaVigne, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF NANCY G. LAVIGNE

Ms. LAVIGNE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the role of halfway houses in transitioning people from prison to the community.

I am director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute.

The bulk of our research is on prisoner reentry, and for good reason. The successful transition of people returning home from prison

is critical, not only for them, but for the safety and well-being of

their families and the communities to which they return.

Yet the path to successful reentry is rarely a smooth one. People

exiting prison face tremendous challenges to leading sober and lawabiding lives on the outside. Few have housing or jobs lined up.

And many struggle with substance abuse, health problems and

mental illness. While they may receive treatment, training or assistance behind bars, far too often prisoners are released without

the support and services critical to their successful reintegration.

Prisoners returning home to the District face an additional challenge of having been incarcerated sometimes hundreds of miles

away from their families and potential employers. They return

home in need of health care, drug treatment, jobs, and importantly,

safe and affordable shelter.

That is where halfway houses come in. When designed and operated well, halfway houses can serve as a nurturing way station,

easing what would otherwise be a stark transition from the prison

environment to the free world. Now, I wish I could tell you that

halfway houses are a definitive success in reducing recidivism. But

it is just not that clear-cut. For every study that finds that halfway

houses are effective, another one finds that they have no effect at

all.

Why is that? I think it is because not all halfway houses are created equal. Some house only low-risk inmates, while others welcome inmates of all risk levels. Some offer a full complement of

programs and services, while others function strictly as work release centers. These variations in populations and services are I

think what explains the mixed findings in the research on their effectiveness.

In fact, the most definitive evaluation of halfway houses suggest

that medium and high risk residents are most likely to benefit

from living in these homes, demonstrating a significantly lower

likelihood of re-offending than matched comparison groups that do

not transition through halfway houses. What is really interesting

is that the same study found that low risk residents using halfway

houses actually have higher rates of recidivism than comparison

groups. What this means is that housing low risk prisoners in transitional facilities takes them out of the environment that makes

them low risk to begin with.

Research has also found that the type and quality of programs

in halfway houses makes a big difference in preventing re-offending. Effective halfway house programs have qualified who use such

evidence-based practices as needs assessments and tailored wraparound services.

33

So what does this mean for the District? Well, as we know, less

than half of the prisoners, close, but less than half of the prisoners

returning to D.C. transition through residential reentry centers,

D.C.’s term for halfway houses. This raises some questions that the

committee may seek answers to, and I am pleased to observe that

some of these questions have already been answered in the affirmative by the previous witnesses. They include, are the right people

housed in the halfway houses? Are risk assessment tools used to

ensure that medium and high risk prisoners, those most likely to

benefit, end up filling those beds? Do the centers assess the needs

of their residents? Do they target services to those needs? Do they

hire and retain well-trained, experienced staff? Do they engage in

self-evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of their programs?

These measures will enable the District to yield the best possible

public safety impact from its halfway houses.

D.C.’s halfway houses are a scarce but potentially valuable resource in improving prisoner reentry, reducing recidivism and increasing public safety in the Nation’s Capital. I urge this committee to ensure that these facilities are used as effectively as possible

to make the most of their potential for successful prisoner reentry

and improved public safety.

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. LaVigne.

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

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. REYNOLDS, JR.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

it is an honor to appear before this August body to discuss the role

halfway houses play in reducing crime and recidivism in the Nation’s Capital, collaborate on alleviating the problems that face returning female citizens and providing what we believe are some

viable solutions.

I am especially grateful to Congresswoman Norton for her support of community reentry programs in the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your continued work on behalf of those

clients whom much of society tends to forget or ignore. Your visit

to the Fairview on March 30, 2009 was truly an inspiration to the

residents that we serve and the staff that supports your reentry efforts.

Reynolds and Associates operates a 60-bed residential center

known as Fairview, located in the District of Columbia, the only female facility of its kind, serving returning female citizens under

the authority of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We serve more

than 1,000 returning females annually. This testimony focuses specifically upon those clients who are under the authority of BOP and

housed in the residential, dormitory type facility with 24 hour supervision.

Upon arrival at the Fairview, the residents are assessed and

then placed into appropriate counseling, educational, vocational

and job placement programs. As a result of these assessments, several issues have been identified. Approximately 70 percent of the

clients have mental health issues. Half of that number relies on

prescribed medications and roughly 30 percent suffer from physical

ailments, with the most common being asthma, allergies, diabetes

and hypertension. Approximately 30 percent of the clients are either HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS, and a significant number of them are recovering from some form of substance abuse.

Approximately 20 percent of the residents are housed with family

members upon release, who are not always fully prepared for the

issues that might occur when their loved one comes to live with

them, after having been gone for so long. Unfortunately, too many

of our clients are homeless, and many of the programs that offer

transitional housing have long waiting lists, and far too many are

released to shelters, rather than stable environments that would

contribute significantly to their successful reentry.

In the current economy, many highly qualified individuals are

entering the job market and taking jobs that were previously filled

by our clients. Therefore, despite the fact that Reynolds and Associates, as a full employment placement specialist who provides job

skills, job readiness training, GED and computer skills courses,

only about 5 percent of our clients are currently employed. When

a client is released from Fairview, there is no process of tracking

their progress and provide additional case management services for

them.

A significant number of the BOP residents indicate that they

would benefit from post-release case management, which could asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:56 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57977.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
40

sist them in not returning to prison. Some of the proposed solutions

are, placing a psychologist or psychiatrist and a nurse practitioner

at the facility and providing comprehensive dental care. Providing

for enhanced onsite substance abuse counseling, in addition to community after-care component, to aggressively address their addictive behavior. Include family members in more activities to enhance

communications, especially where their children are involved, and

custodial concerns are present. Enhance partnerships with transitional housing providers to increase housing availability for the returning citizens. And a need for more incentives for partnerships

with local employers, to encourage and reward employers that provide job-specific training, so that a resident is able to move into a

position immediately before and after release. Providing some postrelease tracking for at least 18 months, so that post-release issues

could be regularly addressed. And establishing a mentoring program that collaborates with the case managers to assure that the

after-care needs of the clients are addressed and monitored after

release.

In conclusion, I ask that you thoroughly read this testimony in

order to assess the full impact of the issues on returning females

to the District. In addition, if additional services are mandated and

funded to meet the unique needs of the female citizens returning

to the District, it is our sincere belief that recidivism can be significantly reduced and that our overwhelming majority of our clients,

your constituents, can become good, productive citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

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

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY VARONE

Mr. VARONE. Good morning, Chairman Lynch and members of

the subcommittee.

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the effectiveness of residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, on public

safety, prisoner reentry, and recidivism in the Nation’s Capital. Of

course, I will be speaking from experience we have garnered over

the past 30 years at Hope Village, Inc., helping offenders reintegrate into the Washington, DC, community.

Hope Village is a private, adult community correction center, also

known as a community-based Residential Reentry Center, located

in southeast Washington, DC. Since 1977, Hope Village has provided transitional services to offenders to assist their transition

and positive reintegration back into the Washington, DC, society.

The Bureau of Prisons awarded Hope Village the first private

pilot community correctional center program in 1982 to house offenders returning to the Washington, DC, area. This program became so successful that other similar programs are operating in

many other areas within the United States. Currently, Hope Village has two contracts with the BOP, serving offenders reentering

the community in the Washington, DC, area who are generally referred for placement within 6 months of the remainder of their sentence. Both contracts are performance-based, and for a period of 10

years, which includes a 3-year base period and 7 additional award

term/option years. We also have a contract with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections to serve offenders who are pretrial inmates, court-ordered misdemeanor, and sentence misdemeanor inmates.

Hope Village is the second largest employer in ward 8 of the District of Columbia. Hope Village employs 104 dedicated, full-time

staff to facilitate our program and provide comprehensive transition services to offenders. Our staff includes a senior operations director, 2 program directors, 35 Charge of Quarters, 8 case managers, 5 vocational counselors, 2 certified substance abuse counselors, and 4 social workers. Within our facility, we operate separate departments for correctional services, training, programs, computer services, personnel, facility maintenance and food service.

Our very low offender recidivism rate is tangible testament to

the effectiveness of our programs for offender reintegration. In

2009, we reported 1,157 positive offender releases into the community. Of all the offenders who participated in our programs in 2009,

only nine persons were re-arrested, which is statistically insignificant given the total offender population.

Historically, Hope Village has been a work release program,

where participating offenders were required to secure employment

as part of their placement at Hope Village and transition into the

community. Hope Village has adapted to changes in the community

and the employment market, and has tailored its program to meet

the evolving needs and goals of program participants. Each week,

Hope Village accepts approximately 25 to 30 new offenders from

various Federal prisons to participate in the Hope Village program.

48

Every offender is required to complete a 7-day orientation to the

facility, including an orientation class, assessments for medical and

mental health issues, a 12-hour mandatory life skills program, covering topics relating to substance abuse, job readiness, heath

awareness, life safety, financial management, parenting and computer skills.

Offenders must complete the orientation program before they are

allowed any movement outside of the Hope Village premises. Offenders are required to attend the orientation class within 24 hours

of their arrival at Hope Village. During this orientation, the offender meets with representatives from Hope Village, the Bureau

of Prisons, and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to review the regulations and rules of Hope Village that we previously sent to the offender while he was at a Federal institution.

The representatives are available to discuss the rules and procedures and answer any questions the offender may have about the

program or his time at Hope Village. This meeting is critical to ensure offenders understand their obligations during their participation in program, and the serious consequences of rule violations,

which includes a recommendation for the return to the Federal institution or extended services.

During the first week of arrival, each offender meets with a program review team, consisting of his program director, case manager, vocational counselor, social worker, drug treatment provider

and a CSOSA representative. Our program staff closely monitor

this individualized plan and review it every 2 weeks to assess the

offender’s progress or lack thereof, and where necessary, address

implementation of additional strategies to meet the offender program goals.

At Hope Village, we know that employment plays a large part of

evaluating an offender’s self-esteem and a key factor to reducing

recidivism. As such, we make it our priority and place a premium

on assisting Federal offenders with their employment needs,

whether this involves improving their skills by sending offenders to

specific job training programs, like Project Empowerment, or referring them to offsite career centers. Given that many of the offenders come to Hope Village after lengthy periods of incarceration,

they are long disconnected from the work force, and some never

had a record of employment before incarceration.

Moreover, many offenders do not have basic forms of identification, such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, driver’s license, or even a picture identification card.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Varone, you have grossly exceeded the allotted

time. I notice you have a lot more to go there. Could you please

wrap up and we will move on to the next witness?

Mr. VARONE. Absolutely. I want to talk a little about the public

safety and accountability. Offenders who are referred to Hope Village remain under the supervision of the Attorney General. Therefore, we take our direction and enforce our guidelines set by the

Government. On the facility grounds, we account for the residents

or inmates every hour, approximately every hour. CSOSA is a valuable partner with us. We have, at least weekly, the Hope Village

staff and CSOSA conduct intake and orientation.

49

We have found an active engagement with the community plays

a pivotal role in deterring crime and maintaining public safety. For

the past 20 years, we have formed a significant partnership with

the local community to improve the overall quality of our life and

offenders through support from citizens, local elected officials and

religious leaders. We collaborate with four faith-based organizations, Faith Tabernacle, Alan AME Church, Samaritan Ministries

and Congress Heights United Methodist Church.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Varone, I am going to accept your full statement

into the record. You do not need to read it, sir. Will you please sum

up?

Mr. VARONE. Sure. In addition, Mr. Chairman, Hope Village

pledges to continue to work closely and cooperatively with our contractors, BOP, D.C. Department of Corrections, CSOSA, and the

community to deliver quality and meaningful programs and services to offenders at the point of reentry, thereby fulfilling our mission statement, changes lives.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the subcommittee, to provide this statement, and we welcome the

opportunity to respond to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Varone follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Varone. Your entire statement will

be accepted into the record. We appreciate your testimony.

Welcome, Mr. White. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITE

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Lynch, Congresswoman Norton and other esteemed members of the subcommittee.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this public hearing

on halfway houses in the District of Columbia. I feel that my firsthand experience may be something that a lot of times gets swept

under the rug, or not get shed good light on. So I am glad to be

able to offer that today.

And I also find it fortuitous to be sitting behind Mr. Varone, because he was able to shed some light on a few of the issues that

I will be addressing.

I arrived at Hope Village on October 7, 2008, after having served

a sentence at FCC Petersburg in Hopewell, VA. This was my first

and only stay in a halfway house. And it was my expectation that

it would be a way for me to transition smoothly back into society.

I was processed fairly quickly after I got there, and immediately

shuffled to my quarters, a converted two-bedroom apartment,

which I shared with seven other men. Later in the week, I was

classified by the appropriate staff and informed of their expectations of me, including rules and regulations, the set number of inhouse classes or life skills courses I would have to complete before

being able to seek employment or visit my family or even receive

visitation from my family, money I would have to pay from each

pay check, and also the appropriate channels I would need to navigate in order to begin job hunting and what have you.

It seemed to be a very straightforward program, and I assumed

that if I followed these things set before me, everything would be

pretty simple and painless. I fulfilled my life skills course hours

and was granted a pass of several hour to obtain a non-driver’s

identification card. Shortly thereafter, I began seeking employment

in various hospitals and private health care offices, since that was

my background. I set up interviews, and after following the appropriate avenues, had very little trouble obtaining approval to go to

my interviews.

Despite my professionalism, appearance and experience, I was

turned down several times due to the fact that I am a convicted

felon. I was finally able to find a private internal medicine office

in Fairfax, VA, that was willing to look past what was on paper

and hire me. I explained to them immediately in my interview my

situation and gave them a few details about the circumstances surrounding my incarceration. I explained to them that even my start

date would ultimately be determined by their communication with

Ms. Wilson, the job coordinator in my particular building.

I had a very rigid time that I was allowed to leave Hope Village,

based on a rough calculation by the job coordinator, not really factoring in unexplained or unplanned deviations from the route,

maybe trains shutting down, late buses, missed buses, what have

you, and being so far away from Hope Village and traveling by bus

and train and bus again, it was difficult to get there on time, and

62

then I had to leave right at the moment I was off, with no real

room to breathe.

I was also required to take a drug class at Harbor Lights, at the

Salvation Army Building on New York Avenue in Northeast, which

forced me to have to leave 21⁄2 to 3 hours early from work each

week in order to make it there in time. And it was a hike. I was

told by the facilitator that lateness to the program would not be

tolerated and would subject me to injunctions such as loss of the

privilege of even being able to leave the Hope Village premises,

which would automatically cause me to lose my job, if I can’t go

to work. I was in a very precarious and uncomfortable position,

which I felt was causing me to make unreasonable demands on an

employer who hired a convicted felon.

When I received my first pay check, I was told that I would have

to pay a subsistence of 25 percent of my gross pay, which would

continue until my official release date, even though I would not be

housed at Hope Village. This was a lot, in my opinion, considering

that I was in essence starting over from ground zero, trying to find

housing for myself and my children and not to mention the other

expenses that are incurred simply by virtue of having a family.

I talked to my counselor, Mr. Tyson, and my case manager at

Hope Village, and they explained to me that I would be able to get

my subsistence reduced or even waived if I navigated another set

of appropriate channels, which I did. And after making several payments and inquiries, I was shuffled around yet again. I am not

going to continue to go into the issues, I see my time is winding

down.

I found a lot of the procedures difficult and some contrary to one

another. It was a tough impediment to me, but I was lucky to have

a strong support system in my family and great community resources. Unfortunately, most people in that situation don’t have

those, and for them it can be very frustrating and cause them to

lose sight of really what their ultimate goal is. But when the policies are enforced correctly and on a case by case basis, halfway

houses like Hope Village are a great benefit and useful to those

coming back into society who need help making their way. I personally was grateful for that opportunity to spend the last leg of

my incarceration at Hope Village, setting myself up for the rest of

my life.

I am proud to report that I have been gainfully employed at the

same location since my third week at Hope Village, and am only

a few short weeks away from becoming a licensed realtor. So I

would like to think that I am one of the successful 1,157 people

that was released from Hope Village in 2009. I look forward to continuing in this path. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

63

64

65

66

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. White. Good to hear your testimony.

I will begin the questioning. I yield myself 5 minutes.

I noticed from a lot of the testimony that there is a certain overlap between substance abuse and incarceration, and in getting people back on their feet, dealing with that problem. That is sort of

the angle that, look, all the Members up here, all the members of

this committee, work this issue. We deal with the families, with the

inmates as well, trying to get them closer to home, trying to work

out the job situation. It is especially difficult right now, as a number of you have recognized.

In my district, we actually confronted this from the perspective

of an Oxycontin and heroin epidemic in my district. What we had

to do was, well, what I did was established two homes, two transition homes. But our offender group was getting so young that we

were dealing with adolescents. And you just can’t co-locate kids

with adult offenders.

So we ended up establishing two homes, like Mr. Reynolds, established the Cushing House for Girls, which was a rehab facility

for girls. Not all ex-offenders, but all with similar problems, and

one for boys. So I certainly understand what you are grappling

with. Sometimes it seems overwhelming. Fortunately, we do have

some employers, and I know you probably have your favorites as

well. Ironically, I have a brewery, the Harpoon Brewery, which is

located in my district. And it may sound like cruel and unusual

punishment to have somebody come out of a facility and then go

to work at a brewery. But I just want to say that they are someone

who recognizes, and I tell them, this person is coming out of a

rehab facility, and we are going to try them out and see if we can

get that first job to build a work history. And God bless them, and

I know you all have employers that you work with to get people

out to work. Sometimes that is the biggest hurdle, just getting that

sense of normalcy out, that first step, that transition, just making

that connection back to a normal life for some of the folks we are

trying to help.

Let me ask a general question of the entire panel. Maybe that

will be the best use of my time. I want to talk about the nexus,

and a number of you have mentioned this, about the connection between a prisoner’s geographical placement and their success at reintegration. Mr. White has picked up on this in his own personal

situation. Time and time again I hear about the way folks coming

out of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and they are D.C. code offenders, and yet they are placed in facilities that are significant

distance from their homes and that whole support system. So families can’t visit them. There is a disconnect between that support

system.

Can each of you, as briefly as possible, respond to this claim that

there is a significant disadvantage or detriment to offenders who

are coming out and are being located a significant distance from

their homes and from their families, and how does that play on the

halfway house situation, what you are seeing? Mr. Eichenlaub.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Thank you. I will say, first of all, we have 40,

we try and place the offenders, all offenders, including D.C. offenders, within 500 miles of their residence. We have 40 Federal facilities within 500 miles of the District of Columbia. Seventy-five perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:56 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57977.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
67

cent of D.C. offenders are in fact incarcerated within 500 miles. I

recognize that can be a substantial drive, even within 500 miles.

Mr. LYNCH. 500 miles is a long—they could be in Boston.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. It can be up to 8 hours. So the majority are

within 500 miles, perhaps even closer in West Virginia or Kentucky. Then a substantial number at the Rivers Correctional Institution down in North Carolina, which is much closer. The other 25

percent who aren’t within that 500 mile radius, the standard we

try to follow, may have been involved in some type of violence or

misconduct that resulted in them having to a higher security level

prison that may be farther away. If they need specialized medical

or mental health treatment, that may take them farther away as

well.

But having spent a number of years working in our facilities, I

recognize the importance of visiting and maintaining relationships

with families. It is great to see, in our visiting rooms, when those

relationships are there.

Mr. LYNCH. Ms. Poteat.

Ms. POTEAT. A large portion of the offenders are at Rivers. We

find it very beneficial. We have about 700 or so there, and we have

the opportunity to visit Rivers Correctional Facility at least two

times a year, and sometimes more, where our case managers go

down and we can do our preliminary assessments there. I know

that the families are able to travel there as well.

We also take some of our vendors or support systems down, so

the offenders have the opportunity to meet some of them prior to

being released. And we do video conferencing from there. We find

it is very important to link them to the services as well as the families prior to their release to the community. In some of our video

conferences, we have had the family present, as well as our mentors there, so we connect them there.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Ms. LaVigne.

Ms. LAVIGNE. I can’t underscore enough the importance of family

in successful reentry. At the Urban Institute, we conducted a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry in four different States. We

looked at all kinds of factors that might predict the reentry success

or failure, including the degree to which they had family available

to support them, both financially and emotionally. What we found

was that those who indicated that they had strong family support

were much more successful in staying crime-free, staying off drugs,

finding jobs and so forth.

What is important to note in this is that family support can be

enhanced through increased visitation, more access to the prisoners

when they are behind bars. I think it also relates to some of the

research I mentioned in my formal statement, where the researchers found that halfway houses were not effective for low risk offenders, they were actually more detrimental than having them

back in with their families and communities. I think we heard that

as much from Mr. White, that as much as there were great services

available to him, it also created additional barriers to him. I understand from his statement that he does have a supportive family.

So I just want to underscore again, thinking very carefully about

how you use the scarce resources of halfway houses, especially if

68

those house aren’t close to where people live, or create barriers

when they are trying to go to and from their jobs.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, when we look at distances in the

District, the problem is, I think, that for the women, the females,

females are a bit different from the male population. The females

are housed at Danbury, CT, Philadelphia, Hazelton, PA, Alderson,

WV, and Tallahassee, FL. And if you noticed in my official presentation, I talked about homeless shelters are where these people go.

And when you think about it, one of the problems and one of the

things that we get constantly from our females is that they are

mothers. They have been away from their children for so long, they

don’t know them. They have to regain that confidence. Usually an

aunt or grandmother or some other individual has taken care of

their children.

It is a very difficult situation. And one of the things is that most

of these individuals come from very menial positions. The families

don’t have money to travel to these locations to be able to visit

them, even if they wanted to. So we have a very difficult and

unique problem, as it relates to that.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. Varone.

Mr. VARONE. Mr. Chairman, I echo some of the same comments

that my colleagues here at the table have mentioned to you. I want

to just let you know that we at Hope Village also believe that family reunification is very important. We do it, and we promote it in

a couple of different ways. We promote visitation right at the facility several times a week to allow families to come in and reunite

with their loved ones. We have our social workers, there is a requirement in our program that requires our social workers to go

out and do host visits. So when the family, when the offender is

going to be releasing to that particular house, that they understand

what is all involved, from both angles.

We also have a transitional skills and journaling program. It is

a 9-week mandatory program that we started 3 years ago in our

program. Those sections, we cover such topics as social influences,

authority figures, anger and time management, creating a safety

net. And these residents are allowed, or offenders are allowed to

write in their journals, so that they would be able to then make

use of that with their own private thoughts.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. Well, there is, I guess, family visitation, that is one

of those things where there is a direct correlation between the prison and the coming home and possibly recidivising, I think. I know

I was in a relatively close Bureau of Prison place in Hopewell, VA.

Many people are much, much farther than that. But even to come

and see me, whoever it might be had to, in essence, wipe out an

entire day. They had to plan for the 21⁄2 to 3 hour trip up, spend

the time there, then the 21⁄2 to 3 hour drive back, which doesn’t

leave much, even if you had the energy, there probably just

wouldn’t be the time.

And then once, when it is time to go to the halfway house, we

are anticipating these visitations, which we only received individually 1 hour a week, depending on the building in which you stay

at Hope Village. And for some, the frustration comes if, I know my

69

first home visit was denied, even though I had followed the rules,

I had found employment and what have you. They said, ‘‘oh, well,

it is too close to the weekend to be able to approve your home

visit.’’ And that was a very great source of frustration to me, because I had already told everyone, and everyone had planned to

come over to the place where I would be staying, to spend the

evening, have dinner.

So Friday afternoon when they told me, ‘‘oh, you are not going

to be able to go home this weekend,’’ I was very frustrated. And

many other inmates may feel something beyond frustration, even

anger. I have seen it myself, they come back into the quarters, and

they are angry, they are cursing. They are just angry.

But family is very important. It is very important. It is one of

those hot buttons. So for those who have a support system, people

who are willing to visit them, it really could guide them in the

right direction.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. White.

I want to welcome Mr. Cao to the committee.

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

I have another meeting to go to, so if you don’t mind, I can just

go ahead and ask my question. I represent the Second District of

Louisiana, which is comprised of New Orleans. There is an interest

in building a halfway house in an area of New Orleans East which

was very much devastated by Katrina. The people are coming back

to rebuild. There is a lack of a police force out there in the New

Orleans East region. So people are somewhat anxious and fearful

of having a halfway house in an area where there is already a lack

of security.

My question to members of the panel is, what are some of the

security risks of halfway houses, even though I am pretty sure that

such institutions are beneficial and necessary? Would you recommend that a halfway house be built in an area recovering from

Katrina and lacking an adequate security force?

Mr. LYNCH. I think those questions are probably good for Mr.

Eichenlaub and Ms. Poteat.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. We have, as Congresswoman Norton knows, we

have some difficulty placing halfway house around the community

here, because people don’t want them in their back yard in many

cases. We try and find a balance between addressing the release

needs of the offenders against the risk of placing them in the community. So we rely heavily on the accountability procedures that

the residential reentry centers have in place, which requires them,

under our contract, to have 24 hour a day accountability for the inmates. And whether that is at their job site or in the actual residential reentry center itself. I would leave it at that.

Mr. CAO. If you can address the question, because I have a very

specific question, do you recommend that a halfway house be built

in an area where people are recovering and lack an adequate security force to protect the people? I just want a direct answer.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Is that a question for me, for the panel?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that.

Mr. LYNCH. Sure, Mr. Reynolds. Take a crack at it.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Even though I am with a halfway house, and I

might get hit over the head, we have facilities that are located in

70

upscale communities and those that are in low risk areas and high

risk areas. I think the key to it is good communications with the

community, and working with the political and economic structure

within that area to get them comfortable with a halfway house or

residential reentry center. Whoever the supplier of those services

are, we have to go in and get them ready. When I say we, the halfway house owners, to get the community ready to accept it.

I just did an opening of a new halfway house in an area that was

of high risk. And what I did was, I went into the area, I met with

all of the community leaders, I met with all the political officials

and everyone that had a stake in what is going to happen there.

I was successful without having any opposition. At that time, there

were no halfway house regulations that provided for a halfway

house to be in that location.

So I think the answer to your question is, you need to be able

to pull all factions together. Because there is adequate security

within the halfway house and adequate follow-through. You would

not know that it is a halfway house, of those facilities that I run.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. In my opinion, the security issue is, I guess from my

experience, not too much of an issue from the inmate perspective.

By and large, the people who are residents at the halfway houses

are already used to a certain regimen, being on a short leash

through whatever prison they have come. And for the most part,

everyone is just looking to get through their time and get back

home. So while there is of course a small population of people who,

in any halfway house, will break the rules, will not come back, for

the most part, you don’t really have to worry about the inmates

running amuck in this neighborhood. I assume this is the direction

you are heading, the residents themselves as a security risk. Is

that correct?

Mr. CAO. The residents fear that the halfway house would increase crime in an area where there is already lacking security.

Mr. WHITE. And I think that is kind of where I am heading. The

residents of the halfway house, by and large, are not looking to

commit crimes while housed in the halfway house. They are looking to finish their sentence and go wherever it is that they need

to go from there.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. White.

The Chair recognizes Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, Mr. White’s testimony is, in a real sense, sets a predicate for some of what I want to ask, enforcement authorities. I

have found that even when people are very troubled, they come to

a community meeting and they are dead set on something they are

angry about, lay out the rules, be very transparent with them, they

help you enforce the rules. What they resent is not knowing how

the rules are applied and then of course, feeling that they have

been unfairly treated. And that is really dangerous when you are

talking about people who have just gotten out of prison. Your own

testimony says that is when they are most ready to be integrated.

Here is what I don’t understand. Who gets to decide who goes to

a halfway house and who doesn’t? Could I have a straightforward

answer, Mr. Eichenlaub? Who gets to decide? Is it you? And if it

71

is you, what specifically are the criteria for deciding who gets it

and who doesn’t get it?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Every inmate appears before his or her, what

we call their unit team, which is comprised of their correctional

counselor, a case——

Ms. NORTON. No, I am asking you, who gets to decide. Is it the

BOP? I only have so much time. Does the BOP get to make that

decision while people are in prison?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Yes, we make the referral.

Ms. NORTON. Does the BOP have written criteria that I could go

to tomorrow to say, these are the kinds of inmates that Ms. Poteat

and the halfway house leaders have to look forward to receiving,

and what are those criteria? Could you spell them out and just list

them for me?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. We have a policy that describes that, yes. And

each case is evaluated on the merits of the individual and the

needs of the individual.

Ms. NORTON. So—I hope they are. I hope it is individualized. But

I am looking for at least some baseline criterion that would make

me understand, high risk, low risk, been in jail a long time, like

the ones Ms. Poteat talked about, just been in jail. I am looking

for something other than what you just told me, Mr. Eichenlaub.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Congresswoman Norton, there is nothing specific that says, if you have been incarcerated for 20 years, you get

180 days, or 12 months. There is nothing specific that says if you

are incarcerated for this offense, you get this period of time. We

have the flexibility built into our program that enables us to assess

the needs of the offender and place him or her——

Ms. NORTON. OK, so there are no criteria for deciding. We have

heard testimony from Ms. LaVigne that low risk offenders tend to

do better in the community. I would have expected that at least

that criterion would be one the BOP would use. I am troubled by

no straightforward general criteria. Everything gets tailored. But if

there are not general criteria, then I have to assume that sometimes there are decisions made which may appear not to be fair.

But let me say to the halfway house leaders, do you get to choose

or select who gets admission to your halfway house?

Mr. REYNOLDS. We receive a dossier on each client that is proposed for the halfway house. And we have a right to accept or reject, based upon the certain criteria. But we do not have——

Ms. NORTON. Based upon what criteria? It is like getting admission or to Yale, you get to say thumbs down on some people, even

though the BOP has said, this is an appropriate person to go into

the halfway house.

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, what happens is in our location, we have people who review those particular things to make sure that they

would fit into the halfway house environment that we run.

Ms. NORTON. What about you, Mr. Varone?

Mr. VARONE. It is the same.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this is, it seems to me, a double

whammy here. I am concerned about what appear not to be even

rough criteria for placing people in halfway houses, and then wide

open selection criteria by the halfway houses. Do these halfway

houses all have to provide the same core services, Mr. Eichenlaub?

72

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So if they all provide the same core services, does

your contract mandate anything about who gets accepted or not?

Or is this a wide open selection process like being admitted to any

private institution?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. The contracts are negotiated based on six factors. And within that negotiation, there is some, there can be some

criteria established for who can and cannot be accepted. Aggressive

sex offenders, for example, there may be——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Eichenlaub, I am very concerned about what

seems to be wide open criteria on both ends. But let me give you

an example. There has been testimony here that one of the threshold problems for people getting out of prison is they don’t even have

identification. CSOSA saw that was a problem for getting anywhere, and CSOSA apparently worked out a situation with the District to get non-drivers i.ds.

Then the BOP terminated this program. Could you give me any

reason, if the District of Columbia, a few years ago, non-drivers

were allowed, now we are told they are not?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. I am sorry. I am not familiar with that issue,

but I would be happy to followup and provide a response in writing

to the subcommittee.

Ms. NORTON. I would appreciate it if you would.

I am concerned about Ms. Poteat’s testimony, because she said

that there were 500 additional D.C. felons returning here. Now,

what she is talking about, of course, are the infamous sentencing

guidelines. And that, I am not sure that was a mistake any of, if

you are talking about the felons who are going to be coming out

and they are Federal felons?

Ms. POTEAT. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. And indicated that, seemed to indicate there would

be some difficulty in receiving such a large number. Mr.

Eichenlaub, are those felons coming, do you know how those felons

are coming to the District of Columbia? Are they coming in large

numbers? Are they coming in small trickles? Have you been in

touch with CSOSA about how you will indeed handle these felons?

Have you been in touch with the halfway houses about how these

felons will be matriculated back into civil society?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. We have dealt with circumstances such as this

in the past when Federal laws have applied retroactively, and resulted in offenders being released. I am confident that with our relationship with CSOSA and the halfway house providers we can accommodate that.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Poteat’s testimony—I know I am at the end of

my time—she indicated, she raised the issue herself and indicated

concern about so many folks. Now, you could alleviate that concern,

for example, if you could tell us, yes, they are coming back but they

are not coming back all at one time, or they will be coming back

in small numbers. Can you tell us anything about these felons who

will be coming back to the District of Columbia in larger numbers

than usually come back in the form of D.C. code offenders?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. The rate at which they come out will be dependent upon the conditions and the release procedures that the

parole commission establishes for them. So I couldn’t say when

73

they are coming. Past experience suggests they are staggered when

they come out, and I am confident we can accommodate that with,

again, in collaboration with our partners here.

Ms. NORTON. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, thank you.

Ms. POTEAT. Excuse me, Congresswoman Norton, I would like to

clarify something for the record, in regard to the non-drivers identifications. There was a contract that we had with the city, but DMV

is the one that terminated that, and BOP will need to go back and

negotiate it.

Ms. NORTON. Why did they terminate the contract?

Ms. POTEAT. They said that because they are Federal prisoners

in a halfway house, they would not allow them to get the non-District driver’s license. But I have spoken with the Director of Bureau

of Prisons, and he said that he would do a memorandum of understanding with the District and possibly piggyback on ours so that

they can do that.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, memoranda of

understanding have often kept the BOP from simply doing what is

necessary to do. If all it took was a memorandum of understanding,

I don’t know why it would not have been considered a very urgent

matter not to have any cessation in getting the i.d.’s to people just

getting out of prison.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. I would simply, on that matter, with the driver’s licenses, I would just ask that be a three-way conversation between

this committee and the Bureau of Prisons and the DMV to make

sure that it is addressed in an expeditious manner. We can’t leave

this out there. OK? So we can sort of close that loop. And if it is

a memorandum of understanding that gets it accomplished, then

we will work that. It sounds like there may be a need for some regulatory refinement or legislation with respect to the standards that

are employed in terms of reentry. I understand the situation as you

mentioned, the circumstances with an aggressive sex offender. That

matter must be treated, distinguished. However, that is one outlier.

The standards for everyone else are still fairly vague, as Congresswoman Norton has noted.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes—I am sorry, I

am out of order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Chaffetz for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here. I truly do appreciate it. I particularly want to thank Mr. White for your composure and your courage for being here. I am sure a few years ago if somebody had suggested to you that you were going to be testifying before Congress,

you would have said, yeah, right, and the New Orleans Saints are

going to be in the Super Bowl, too. [Laughter.]

I applaud you both. I really do appreciate it. I am sure we can

hear about all the positive attributes from all the other members

on the panel, not to take away anything from them. But in the few

minute that I do have, what I would really like to hear from your

heart, and as candidly as you can, offer some suggestions and perspectives, in somewhat of a critical way, but in a constructive criticism, if you would, of things that you think should happen or

things that weren’t quite flowing as well as you could, all in the

74

spirit of trying to make it better, because I think that is what we

are all here to help do.

So can you share that, your personal perspective on what yourself went through, but maybe others went through as well, and

things that can be done to improve the system?

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. Well, unfortunately, there is no quick fix,

no band-aid for this. It is a very difficult thing to do. In my experience, I think that everything should be taken on a case by case

basis. And just based on the numbers of people coming out, and I

guess the ratio of staff to resident or staff to inmate, depending on

how you want to say it, it is just not that easy. But change is never

easy, especially when you are really trying to shift, really make an

overhaul of a situation and curb recidivism at a significant rate.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you could do one thing, what would be the No.

1 thing you would like to see done?

Mr. WHITE. The No. 1 thing that I would see done is just to simply have it seem that the halfway house system cares.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Tell me about the flexibility here. Because here

you go and you find a job. And I recognize the need to go through

the drug, I don’t know if that was counseling or testing or whatever

it might be, but you have to leave work early. You finally got a job,

you got an employer who is gracious enough to, in a very tough

economy, to hire somebody. Expand a little more about that experience and what should be done in that way to help the employer,

help you, and also do the training and things that they need to do.

Mr. WHITE. One thing that was of concern for me was that they

didn’t offer these programs over the weekend, when I didn’t necessarily have to work. Of course, that would cut into my home visit

time, but they are required programs. And at least I would have

that option, it would either cut into my work, which as I said, my

employer, they look the other way, but like I say, you have to leave

early twice a week, this early. Or I could take this 11⁄2 hours to

2 hours during my weekend. I would have that option. I would opt

to take it over the weekend, because I need my job. At some point,

I will be going home for good. So I wouldn’t mind cutting into those

visitations a little bit, even though they were important to me.

But that was an issue with that. And as I said, they give you

a set limit of time from destination, from point of origin to destination, from halfway house to work, and from work to halfway house.

Working in Fairfax, I had to take a bus and then a series of trains

and then another bus each way. So it didn’t allow for any missing

of buses or missing of trains. My bus came about 10 minutes after

I was due to be off work. So I really had to run four or five blocks

to the bus to make it, because it only ran every 45 minutes in that

area of Fairfax. So a little more flexibility in the time. As I said,

based on a case by case, you just can’t lump everyone into one box.

We all have different needs. And they need to be met.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would just suggest, if you have any other

thoughts or anecdotes or any other suggestions along the way, I appreciate your being here, but if at some point you do have other

suggestions, if you would submit those to this committee, they

would be invaluable. I appreciate your perspective. I wish you

nothing but the best, and thank you very much for being here. I

yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

75

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

holding this hearing.

Thank you to the panelists for participating, and especially you,

Mr. White. I thank you for your courage in sharing your story, and

I am proud of the fact that my home county, Fairfax County, is a

place willing to invest in you and others. I pray and hope you will

stay in the righteous path.

Mr. Eichenlaub, picking up where Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton left off, did I understand you in response to Representative

Norton to say that there are no criteria by BOP in terms of who

goes into a halfway house?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Let me clarify that if I may.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am going to ask you to pull that mic closer, because I cannot hear you.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. There are some criteria. For example, if an offender has pending charges or detainers, they can’t go to a halfway

house.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Those are criteria for not going.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Right.

Mr. CONNOLLY. What are the criteria for screening people and

saying, here is a good candidate for rehabilitation and the avoidance of recidivism?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. That is correct, and I would respectfully——

Mr. CONNOLLY. What is correct?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. That is correct that there are no specific criteria that says, if you are this type of offender, this is what you

get.

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is amazing. There are no criteria for who

goes into a halfway house? So you are just rolling the dice?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. I would respectfully submit that our policy enables us to do the kind of thing that Mr. White is suggesting, which

is each offender is evaluated on a case by case basis, to make an

assessment as to what his or her specific needs are and then we

place them based on what their needs are.

Mr. CONNOLLY. If I understood Ms. LaVigne’s testimony, and correct me if I am wrong, Ms. LaVigne, you indicated that individuals

who were deemed medium and high risk actually derive the greatest benefit from halfway house participation. And let me ask Mr.

Eichenlaub and Ms. Poteat, that seems counter-intuitive.

What would you comment? I think for the average citizen, the

person at lowest risk would be the best candidate for going, not a

violent crime or whatever it may be, that is the person who is probably going to benefit the most from a halfway house and have the

highest chance of success of reintegration. And yet, if I understood

Ms. LaVigne, not necessarily. And by the way, that is a heartening

thing to hear, but I am just wondering if you would comment a little bit. Because I think for the average citizen, including myself,

that seems a little counter-intuitive.

Ms. POTEAT. Yes. I continue to say it would be your high risk offenders, for instance, someone who has spent significant period of

time in prison, someone that has nowhere to live because the family ties have been broken. Someone without employable skills, did

76

not take the benefit of the service in the prison system, and is coming out unemployable. Someone that lacks financial support and

family support. Someone that is, has a violent crime, you may want

to put them in the halfway house for a gradual transition before

they are going out into the community.

And then we can have a time to assess and determine and link

them up with their services before they are actually sent home. Oftentimes these men may, I am speaking particularly to the men

right now, may be coming out, and they have burned their bridges.

And their families even have moved. So there is nowhere for them

to live in the District of Columbia. Then we have to put them in

a shelter or find alternative housing, whether it is transitional

housing and so forth.

So it gives us adequate time to link them up and better prepare

them to a positive reintegration into the community before just

coming right out.

Mr. EICHENLAUB. I agree.

Mr. CONNOLLY. One of the things that bothers me, we closed the

Lorton prison, an absolutely correct thing to do. However, there

were understandings at the time that efforts would be made to try

to make sure that inmates from that prison and future visitors to

that facility would be housed relatively close to the District of Columbia, for all the right reasons, in terms of family visits and so

forth. But as a matter of fact, D.C. prisoners are now scattered on,

as I understand it, as many as 33 States?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. I don’t know that number specifically, but that

is feasible.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is that good public policy, from your point of

view, Mr. Eichenlaub?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. We try to keep them as close to home as possible. Many are in Rivers Correctional Institution in North Carolina, our correctional institutions in western Maryland and Virginia. So the majority, I think, are actually closer than that.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, what would be the reason why somebody

would be many hundreds of miles away?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. If they need specialized medical or mental

health treatment, they could go to one of our medical facilities

where they get that treatment. If they have been in a fight with

another individual from whom they need to be separated, that may

result in them traveling farther away. If they have been disruptive,

and we don’t have a facility that is appropriate for their level of

supervision that is necessary. That may result in them going farther away.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it also a capacity problem?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. That space is tight.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell whether I have any

time left or not.

Mr. LYNCH. You don’t.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. That is quite all right.

Mr. Varone, I wanted to ask you, you have a commendable

record, especially over the last year, couple of years. And the rearrest record, post-release. I was just trying to drill down on some

of that data. How many of the folks that you are talking about,

77

there were like 1,157 people that you had come in and go through

Hope Village, and only 9 of them were re-arrested in the following

6 months after release, how many of those folks are the Bureau of

Prisons folks?

Mr. VARONE. I am not, at this point, Mr. Chairman, able to give

you that information. I can research that.

Mr. LYNCH. OK.

Mr. VARONE. But I believe that most, if not all of them, were

BOP.

Mr. LYNCH. Really? That is a commendable record. I am just trying to figure out if we can replicate some of the things that you are

doing over there. You mentioned the 7-day orientation, when people come in, you spend a lot of time figuring out what the nature

of their needs are. Maybe, and you can explain this, maybe you are

finding out what they need in a more thorough fashion, and by addressing those specific needs, maybe that is paying off on the other

end, so that the time they spend with you is more meaningful.

Do you have any thoughts about that? What is the magic of your,

well, it is not magic, it is hard work, but what is the key component of your success? I deal a lot with the recovery and rehab community. And those numbers are stunning. But what do you think

are the, I mean, all of you are doing wonderful work, don’t get me

wrong. But I just think that is a remarkable outcome that you are

achieving there.

Mr. VARONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My only direct answer

to you is, commitment and dedication to helping people. Because at

the end of the day, we are all citizens of the United States of America. We live in the greatest country in the world. And when an individual commits a crime, they serve their sentence, they are coming

back, they are coming back to our communities. So we have to figure out ways to help that individual make a good transition, so

that they are and they do become productive members of society,

like you and I.

I believe that we have taken our job, we take it very seriously.

We look at assessing this individual, from a day to day standpoint,

we put them in a position to be successful. That is not always the

case with all individuals. Some individuals come to us with agendas already formulated. So I believe that for those individuals that

want to do a good job, want to take the program seriously, want

to become a better productive member of society, open up to our

case managers and our specialized people that we have on staff,

and the partnerships that we formulate in the community, I think

when you encompass all that, you put out a good product.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. Reynolds, having been involved with

programs and actually established a home to help women making

that transition, as you mentioned in your initial testimony, a lot of

these folks coming out, the females, are moms. And that creates a

dynamic that is sometimes very difficult to address, especially

when there is a distance here between their homes and where they

are at a halfway house.

What do you think are the most important changes that we

might make in order to achieve better outcomes for the women that

we are trying to serve?

78

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think the first thing that we have to look at,

Mr. Chairman, is the length of time that the females spend within

the facility. Also to make sure that we have the wraparound services that are needed right at the facility. I will give you an example, and probably God made this happen and you asked the right

question, this morning we were at the facility about 7:30. A young

lady came stumping up the steps and passed me, and I asked her

to stop for a second. I asked her about four or five times, she

wouldn’t stop, she continued. Then I went downstairs and I stood

with her and talked with her. She wouldn’t acknowledge me at all

for about 5 minutes.

Finally, I got through to her. And one of her problems was anger,

anger within herself. We have a lot of that. And we have a relationship with the mother to the children, they have been divorced

from the children. They still have a desire to be with the male. So

there is a lot of complications that we need to deal with. And we

need someone like a psychiatrist or psychologist right onsite to be

able to help them deal with those issues immediately. That would

be some of the things that I would look at, and then the aftertracking.

Mr. LYNCH. That is great. Thank you.

Ms. Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The chairman has spoken about some of the statistics that were

in the testimony. You yourself, Ms. LaVigne, testified that halfway

houses appear to have quite different effects. In your view, do halfway houses make a difference? Does it matter to matriculate people

through a halfway house?

Ms. LAVIGNE. I think they can make a difference. Not to beat a

dead horse, but this whole issue of risk level I think is a really important one. Mr. Connolly asked about the low risk offenders, and

how come they weren’t getting any benefit out of the halfway

houses. Well, it is by definition of the fact that they are already low

risk. So you are putting people in places where they don’t need to

be, because they already have good odds of being successful.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you testified, and it was very important to

hear this testimony, because Mr. Connolly was right, perhaps for

lay people like ourselves, it is counter-intuitive. I understand that,

but I am not sure BOP does. Because BOP did not testify that it

is using those criteria. In fact, could I ask you, and I ask this very

respectfully, Mr. Eichenlaub, I have been impressed with the use

of best practices within the BOP. Do you use best practices when

it comes to halfway houses? I don’t hear the metrics. I don’t hear

the criteria. So it is hard for the committee to know how we should

evaluate halfway houses.

So I must ask you, how do you evaluate halfway houses? How

would you rate these halfway houses? And on what metric are you

basing that evaluation? And do you tell them how you have evaluated them and what they need to do to improve or what they have

done that is best?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Thank you. We absolutely do that. At the time

that we establish the contract with these organizations, as I mentioned previously, we have six factors on which they are evaluated:

accountability, programs, community relations, site validity and

79

suitability, safety issues, life safety issues, personnel and communications. Those are the criteria on which we evaluate these organizations. We audit those regularly, three times a year. Then a comprehensive evaluation once a year.

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask the halfway house leaders here, given

the testimony of Mr. White, testimony reinforced by work the committee did in trying to, in visiting the halfway houses and trying

to get witnesses, could you commit to this committee that some of

the rigidity that Mr. White testified to, for example, when an inmate has a job, or is willing on the weekend to in fact do what

would otherwise be required to do during job time, would you be

willing to commit to a second look at some of the rigidities that apparently are to be found in halfway houses in light of particularly

the job situation, and how frustrated an inmate can be when, yes,

surrounded by rules, but rules that keep him from contact with his

family or keep him from in fact getting the kind of job record that

we all believe is necessary? Are you willing to look at your own procedures to make sure those rigidities are not simply built in?

Mr. VARONE. Absolutely, Congresswoman Norton. In order to be

a better program, in order to be a better organization, you have to

continually look at those types of things. If I may, just to go into

a little bit of detail, the privatization part of this business is such

that if you don’t do well, you are not going to be in business. It is

just the way the Federal Government works.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. But I also understand, look, let’s

be clear. We can’t get halfway houses in other communities in the

District, as badly as we need them. Therefore, BOP is going to have

to do the best job it can in order to make sure you do the best job

you can. This is not like the ordinary contract, and you know it.

The fees, I was curious about fees. I understand the personal responsibility associated with the rules. And for that matter, with the

fees. But Mr. White testified that he had to pay a fee for living

there, even until his release date, even if he wasn’t living there.

Would you clarify that for me, please, how that could possibly be

the case?

Mr. VARONE. I believe the fee that Mr. White is referring to is

the subsistence fee that the Bureau of Prisons requires all Federal

inmates to pay for a portion of their cost of care.

Ms. NORTON. Well, maybe Mr. White should clarify. Mr. White,

were you saying you were no longer living or eating or receiving

subsistence from the halfway house, but were required to pay,

what is it, 25 percent, or whatever is the amount? And by the way,

who sets that amount? Go ahead, Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, that was correct. Even when I went to finish the

rest of my halfway house time living at home, I wasn’t receiving

any services from the halfway house, but I was still required to

pay.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you are going to have to explain that to me,

to make me understand that, given how few resources these ex-offenders have. Could you explain that? You were living at, I guess,

Hope Village. So let me ask you to explain it, Mr. Varone.

Mr. VARONE. Again, Congresswoman, we take our direction from

the Bureau of Prisons.

80

Ms. NORTON. OK, now, the buck has been passed to you, Mr.

Eichenlaub. So catch it here. Why would an ex-offender who had

a family, good enough to feed him while he is looking for a job, to

help him with his subsistence, be paying money to a private contractor who is providing nothing toward his subsistence? Wouldn’t

that turn you off if you were in the position of this ex-offender?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. One of the things we try and encourage among

our offenders is acceptance of personal responsibility for their conduct.

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment, sir. I pay because I live, well, that

is where I pay my mortgage. I pay rent because I live there. Now,

how does it increase the personal responsibility of the inmate to

pay for what he is not receiving?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. We believe they are demonstrating personal responsibility and accepting responsibility by paying a minimal subsistence amount for their residence.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, you indicated that we may need

some, if we are not able to get the Bureau of Prisons to give us

a better answer than that, then it may be that we need a statutory

change here. The notion of making an inmate pay for what he does

not receive runs counter to personal responsibility. That is exactly

what the inmate was doing before. He was taking what he wasn’t

supposed to take for what he wasn’t receiving. If it makes me

angry, I can’t imagine what people who have anger problems must

feel when they say, you don’t live here, you don’t eat here and you

are going to pay anyway.

All I can ask you to do is this, I understand that you are not the

Director of the Bureau of Prisons. I will be writing the Bureau of

Prisons. The chairman has already indicated that we will be doing

followup. But I ask you to review this policy, so that if anything

can encourage families to take over the subsistence responsibility,

and if I can say so, Mr. Eichenlaub, so that we can save the taxpayers of the United States some of the funds. After all, CSOSA

will continue to have jurisdiction, because this person is on supervised release.

So I find it hard to understand, given all we know about modern

penology, how this requirement does anything but run counter to

all we understand about modern penology. So I ask you, are you

willing to review this policy?

Mr. EICHENLAUB. I respect your opinion. We will take a look at

it.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

I have to confess, I do struggle with the concept that someone

might serve their sentence, submit to a halfway house and complete that program, and then return home and yet still pay into a

system that they have already completed. I am not sure with just

this exchange that I understand the whole situation.

So I would ask you, Mr. Eichenlaub, Ms. Poteat, Mr. Varone and

Mr. White, if I could get a sense of your own personal view of this

and what is required. It does seem counter-intuitive at this level.

But again, we haven’t really drilled down much on the issue. I

would like to find out what the policy is that we are following

there, and whether or not this is an anomaly in Mr. White’s case,

81

or if this is something that happens across the board with all of

our inmates and those who are trying to gain reentry. I just don’t

understand enough about it.

And we have a call for votes.

The other piece I want to say in conclusion is that I understand

the statement that there are no hard and fast standards that we

apply to each individual. But you also say that we take each case,

each person on a case by case basis. But there needs to be standards applied on a case by case basis, I would imagine. It can’t be

simply random and thinking up new standards every time a new

person is assessed. So I think it would be helpful in tracking and

identifying best practices if you said, OK, this is a group that we

look at and we think they are most suitable for halfway houses.

Then here are some groups that we identify that would be poor

choices for that system.

And then we would be able to get data from that and figure out,

what are the best practices. I think it would help our friends who

are operating these halfway houses to know what type of analysis

has been made prior to the person showing up on their doorstep.

It might help us in the future. I just think that it introduces a little

bit of accountability. It is not perfect, it is not rocket science, either. But it may help us in serving the people that we are trying

to serve, and it may use the taxpayer money in a more efficient

manner, which is always desirable.

We have had a very good exchange here. I think this panel has

suffered enough from the questions of the committee. I would assure you that all of your testimony has been entered into the

record, with the exception of what I have asked you to supply in

the coming, let’s say, 2 weeks I would like to have some of that information regarding the payments that Mr. White has asserted

that he is making for no services after departure.

I want to thank you for your willingness to come before this committee. I want to thank you all for your good work. This is a tough,

tough area. You are doing God’s work out there, trying to help

folks. And we appreciate that. With that, this hearing is adjourned.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ