U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–401 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS AND 

INMATE REENTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 

Serial No. 115–95 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

SEAN BREBBIA, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 13, 2017 ...................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark S. Inch, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department 

of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Ms. Diana Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Ms. Jennifer Doleac, Assistant Professor of Public Policy & Economics, Director Justice Tech Lab, University of Virginia 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Ms. Cynthia W. Roseberry, Executive Director, Council for Court Excellence 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 69 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 72 

Mr. Glenn E. Martin, President and Founder, JustleadershipUSA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 84 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 86 

APPENDIX 

Representative Darrell Issa Statement for the Record ........................................ 138 

October 3, 2017, Democratic Bicameral Letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons submitted by Mr. Clay .................................................................................. 139 

October 27, 2017, Federal Bureau of Prisons Response Letter submitted by 

Mr. Clay ................................................................................................................ 144 

Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Mr. 

Grothman .............................................................................................................. 146 

Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Mr. Comer . 147 

Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Ms. Watson 

Coleman ................................................................................................................ 148 

Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Questions for the 

Record ................................................................................................................... 149 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS 

AND INMATE REENTRY 

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Jordan, Amash, Gosar, Massie, 

Walker, Blum, Russell, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, 

Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, 

Watson Coleman, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Welch, Cartwright, 

and DeSaulnier. 

Chairman GOWDY. Good morning. The committee will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

I will recognize myself for an opening statement, and then the 

gentleman from Maryland. 

First of all, welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for being here. 

A criminal justice system that is both fair and perceived as fair, 

that is both respected and worthy of being respected, is one of the 

foundations of our country. Next door, even as we are meeting 

here, the Deputy Attorney General is appearing before the Judiciary Committee. Last week, the head of the FBI appeared. Two 

weeks ago, the Attorney General himself appeared at Judiciary. 

So while Judiciary does have principal jurisdiction over matters 

related to our justice system, Chairman Goodlatte and, frankly, 

Ranking Member Cummings deserve our appreciation and gratitude for recognizing that this issue cuts across several aspects of 

government, and a hearing in this committee could be and, hopefully, will be constructive as well. 

Our justice system must both be fair in reality and perceived as 

fair. Our justice system must be proportional. It must protect the 

innocent. It must punish those who have not conformed to societal 

norms, with those societal norms being reflected and codified in 

what we call the law. 

Fair, even-handed, proportional, just, equal in intent and application, those are expectations. Those expectations are lofty. Some 

might argue they are aspirational, but I would rather aspire to 

fairness and fail than set any lower standard. 

Part of our justice system includes correction, rehabilitation, and 

acknowledgment that the vast majority of those who are incarcerVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

ated will be out, back in society. So for the benefit of all—society 

as a whole, those who are likely to come in contact with those 

former incarcerated folks, and those formerly incarcerated themselves—we must find a common sensical plan rooted in fact and 

evidence for reentry, for assimilation, for rejoining an ordered community and avoiding the tyranny of recidivism. 

It is in all of our interest these reentries be successful. It is in 

all of our interest these transitions back into society are successful. 

Those leaving incarceration for reentry into society will often find 

society has changed. Anyone reentering society, even after the 

shortest of absences, will find things have changed dramatically. 

Speaker John Boehner was not in prison, although he may have 

felt like it when he was the Speaker of the House. He recently reentered society after a lifetime of public service. And hearing him 

tell stories of clicking on the wrong Uber ride and sharing a ride 

with lots of different people that he did not intend to share the ride 

with, hearing him tell stories of not being able to find the latch 

that opens the gas tank on his car because he hadn’t driven in 

years, those may be funny stories because he is a quick learner, 

and he had people to help. Imagine having to get a job to pay your 

restitution. Needing clothes for an interview. Needing a ride to an 

interview. Knowing how to interview. And dreading the whole time 

when the question comes up of ‘‘Have you been arrested or convicted?’’ 

I doubt anyone will ever accuse me of being soft on crime. To the 

contrary, there would be very few Members of Congress ever who 

have sent more people to prison. As much as I believe in law and 

order and respect for the rule of law, we also have a deeply held 

conviction that paying your debt to society pays the debt. 

We are a nation of second chances. We love redemption stories. 

It would be nice if our criminal justice system produced more of 

them. 

With that, I would yield to my friend from North Carolina. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Families are the building blocks of communities. It is hard to 

imagine anything more disruptive to a family than losing a parent 

or a spouse to incarceration. To have a loved one removed from 

your life and sit in a prison must be an overwhelmingly difficult 

experience for both the inmate and the family. 

I can still remember as a young child, being the son of a pastor 

who was also a prison chaplain, still sitting on the bunks of those 

inmates, in many cases hearing the sad stories. Now make no mistake, I firmly believe that when people break the law, there must 

be consequences, and incarceration is oftentimes the appropriate 

consequence. 

However, the justice system and the Bureau of Prisons also have 

a responsibility to help rehabilitate that person and help the inmate have a successful reentry back into our communities. This 

makes sense from both a public safety perspective and borne out 

of compassion for our fellow citizens. 

Because what is clear is that virtually all of the inmates in Federal prisons are going back and returning to their communities and 

their families. When they are released, the question should be 

asked. Will they be better, or will they be worse? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

See, redemption has always been an American ideal. We need 

former prisoners to integrate back into society, restore stability to 

their families, and contribute to their communities. Inmate release 

preparation and programming is essential to developing and restoring hope—hope that they will never return to prison, hope that 

they will find a job, hope that they will one day be able to support 

their family, and hope that they will build a good life after prison. 

For that reason, rehabilitation and reentry efforts must be real, 

and they must be effective. Three weeks ago, I spoke in WinstonSalem, North Carolina, at a wonderful nonprofit organization, the 

Winston-Salem Prison Ministry, doing a great job. But the Bureau 

of Prisons must also make successful inmate rehabilitation and reentry a priority. The Bureau must also evaluate its programs and 

reentry decisions so that their effectiveness can be measured based 

on evidence of success. 

We have got to figure out what reentry and rehabilitation strategies work best. Does release to a halfway house improve an inmate’s chances at successful entry? Are some halfway houses more 

effective than others at assisting inmates to succeed? Would placing more inmates directly into home confinement reduce recidivism? Do certain education or life skills tend to lead to more successful inmate recovery? 

These are all questions I look forward to discussing today. I believe that evidence-based assessments are essential to determine 

what programs work, especially those that work well at reducing 

recidivism and what programs simply do not work very well. 

I am grateful for all the witnesses here today. Appreciate your 

expertise. Reducing recidivism and improving inmate reentry services is a challenge, but it is one we must all be committed to 

achieving. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from North Carolina yields 

back. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Cummings. 

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

I want to thank you, Chairman Gowdy, for calling today’s hearing to discuss the Fair Chance Act and other ways to address barriers faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. 

This is a very important hearing to me because I live in a neighborhood where many of these people return, and I see what they 

go through. While they may spend time in prison, they find that 

there are so many barriers to their moving forward that they remain in prison in a sense until the day they die. 

Congressman Walker, I want to applaud you for what you said 

and what you do in this area, and you said some very important 

words. You said whatever we do with regard to these folks, we 

have to be—it has to be real, and it has to be effective. These are 

people’s lives. 

They come home, can’t get a job. Can’t do anything. And in many 

instances, not trained to do anything and coming into a world 

which is not the world they left. So, therefore, this is a critical 

hearing and the latest in our committee’s efforts to examine these 

questions. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

I also appreciate this opportunity to hear from the new Director 

of the Bureau of Prisons, General Mark Inch, and we welcome you 

to our committee. Study after study has shown that finding and 

keeping a job is the single most significant factor for reducing recidivism and for helping formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reenter our society. 

I used to run voluntarily a reentry program, and we found that 

if we could get a person a job and could direct them away from the 

corners that sent them there, and get them more involved in their 

families and give them some kind of support group, they were usually successful. Steady and meaningful employment is a proven 

way to give these people a real second chance and to increase the 

contributions they make to our communities. 

Unfortunately, many people who have paid their debt to society 

are never given a fair chance at getting a job. You try not having 

a job for a month or 2 months or 3 months. Try it. And no source 

of income. Try it. And you got to feed three children. Try it. 

And every door that you knock on, people are saying, uh-oh, yes, 

you may have served your time, but we got to put a bar up. So you 

can’t get past this bar because now you have this record. Many employers automatically screen out these applicants, even those who 

are highly qualified. These individuals never make it to an interview. 

The Fair Chance Act is a bipartisan legislation that I introduced 

with Representative Darrell Issa to address these challenges in the 

Federal Government. In the Senate, Senator Cory Booker and Senator Ron Johnson have shown strong bipartisan leadership on this 

bill, and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved the bill earlier this year by voice vote. And again, 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for all you have done to try to push this 

along. 

Our bill allows Federal agencies and contractors to ask about 

criminal histories at the final stages of the hiring process after a 

conditional offer has been made, rather than automatically screening people out from the beginning. It does not require any agency 

or contractor to hire anyone if they don’t want to, and of course, 

it includes important exceptions for national security, law enforcement, and positions for which criminal history information is required by law. 

Unfortunately, we are not at the forefront of these efforts. We 

are actually lagging behind. Already 30 States and more than 150 

cities and counties have instituted, and I quote, ‘‘ban-the-box’’ policies. These include States ranging from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Indiana, and Utah. That is right, I said Utah. 

In addition, companies like Walmart, Koch Industries, Target, 

Home Depot, Starbucks, Bed, Bath, and Beyond have embraced 

ban-the-box, as well as the number-one employer in Baltimore, 

Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, where we have about 

30,000 employees. They have made it a part of their mission to address this issue in this way. 

I want to thank Glenn Martin for being here today to discuss the 

proven success of ban-the-box policies. Mr. Martin is a leading advocate for the formerly incarcerated, and he knows firsthand what 

it is like to face barriers to reentry. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

We must also face the reality that our Federal prison system is 

not doing enough to prepare inmates for reentry. That is very, very 

important. There is a bipartisan consensus in Congress and among 

States that we must do more in this area. Recent reports from the 

Department of Justice Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections have raised alarming concerns about the lack of sufficient 

services and a failure to track and measure the effectiveness of existing services. 

If the system is providing ineffective service in areas such as employment skills training, postsecondary education, healthcare, and 

substance abuse treatment, Federal inmates will have great difficulty readjusting to life outside prison when they are released. 

I am also concerned about the recent reports of closures of Federal residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, and the cutbacks in other transition services, including at a Baltimore location. We need to know more about the reasons for these closures. 

If the Bureau of Prisons is not tracking data on these services or 

measuring their effectiveness at reducing recidivism, then it cannot 

know if its programs are working or if cuts are, indeed, justified. 

We cannot do our work effectively and efficiently if information 

is not available or does not exist. I am heartened that the Bureau 

agreed to implement many recommendations to improve reentry 

services and better track their effectiveness. I look forward to hearing from Director Inch, Inspector General Horowitz, and Ms. 

Maurer about the progress of that implementation. 

I also want to thank Cynthia Roseberry for her work on the 

Colson task force. I am particularly interested in the task force’s 

recommendations to improve BOP oversight, including the creation 

of a new performance, accountability, and oversight board. 

Finally, I am troubled by the decision by the Trump administration earlier this year to reinstitute the use of Federal private prisons. Following a critical Inspector General report documenting numerous health and public safety issues, Deputy Attorney General 

Sally Yates announced that the Department would end the use of 

these facilities in August of 2016, but Attorney General Sessions 

reversed this decision. 

Director Inch, I look forward to hearing from you and your views 

on these topics and your plans for the Federal prison system. I 

know Chairman Gowdy shares many of these concerns, and I look 

forward to continuing a productive and open communication to ensure the transparency, the accountability, and the effectiveness of 

our Federal prisons. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Maryland yields back. 

Before I introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses, I do 

want to acknowledge that there is precedent, and I understand the 

precedent and I understand the rationale behind it, for some Government witnesses, particularly in the past, have had single panels 

as opposed to what we have this morning. So I want to thank all 

of the Government witnesses that in the past may have had a single panel. I do understand the rationale behind it. 

What I have fully learned in 7 years of being in Congress is that 

the Members benefit from single panels. The attendance is better. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Therefore, the issue is more fully developed. The issues are more 

fully developed. 

So I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and for allowing 

the Members to have a single panel, which is infinitely better for 

the issue. 

With that, I will introduce you en banc from my left to right, and 

then I will administer an oath, and then we will recognize you individually for your opening statement. And to the extent you can, 

keep it within 5 minutes. Just keep in mind, we have your full 

opening statement. So nothing you wanted us know will not be 

known. It will just be communicated in writing, as opposed to orally. 

We are fortunate to have the Honorable Mark Inch, Director of 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Equally fortunate to have the Honorable Michael Horowitz, Inspector General for the Department of 

Justice; Ms. Diana Mauer, Director of Homeland Security and Justice at the Government Accountability Office; Ms. Jennifer Doleac, 

assistant professor of public policy and economics at University of 

Virginia’s Batten School and the director of Justice Tech Lab; Ms. 

Cynthia Roseberry, executive director of the Council for Court Excellence; and Mr. Glenn Martin, president and founder of 

JustLeadershipUSA. 

If I could get you to all please stand and raise your right hands, 

I will administer the oath, as we do for all witnesses. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

[Response.] 

Chairman GOWDY. May the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. You may take your seats. 

With that, and again, with the reminder that we have a lighting 

system to help you—green means go, yellow means speed up. Try 

to get under the light before it turns red. 

With that, we would recognize Director Inch. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK S. INCH 

Mr. INCH. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and to 

discuss the mission and the operation of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons. I am humbled to serve as the agency’s ninth director, and 

I look forward to being part of what the Bureau does for our Nation 

and for the corrections profession. 

I’m also honored to speak on behalf of the nearly 39,000 Bureau 

staff, corrections professionals who support the agency’s law enforcement mission. These dedicated public servants are on the job 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, operating Federal prisons that are 

safe, cost-effective, and humane. 

It is through their hard work and dedication that the Bureau has 

earned its excellent reputation. This is an agency I have admired 

for years from the other side of the Potomac. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Cummings, I want to 

thank you for your support of the Bureau. Our mission is challenging—protecting the safety of the public, our staff, and inmates, 

while also providing inmates with skills needed to successfully return to the communities. 

Our prisons hold tens of thousands of drug traffickers, many 

weapons offenders, and other dangerous individuals. We house 

nearly 23,000 gang-affiliated inmates who pose a threat in and outside our facilities. More than 40 percent of our inmates classify as 

high and medium security, due in large part to extensive criminal 

histories, severity of the current offense, and the histories of violence. Yet and still, our staff answer the call to duty every day. 

I also wish to thank the Office of the Inspector General in the 

Government Accountability Office for their hard work. Their audits, along with the Bureau’s own internal auditing process and the 

regular accreditation audits by the American Correctional Association, are critical to ensuring that we remain focused on performing 

corrections to nationally recognized standards. 

I come to the Bureau with a great appreciation for our mission. 

I have a well-developed set of principles about our individual responsibilities as corrections professionals. I applaud the Bureau’s 

philosophy that all staff are correctional workers first. I am convinced that this philosophy is a critical element in the long-term 

effectiveness and success of the agency. 

One of the things I love about the corrections profession is the 

selfless service demonstrated by those who choose this career. They 

dedicate their lives to helping and protecting others, yet receive little recognition and even less praise. Every day, Bureau staff run 

into situations from which others would run away so that they can 

ensure the safety of the public, the staff, and the inmates for whom 

they are responsible. 

As the leader of the country’s premier department of corrections, 

I am committed to ensuring the Bureau of Prisons staff exhibit the 

highest ideals of our corrections profession through the shared values, established standards of individual and institutional performance, and commitment to the character and competence of our profession. And we’ve put those qualities to the service of our stakeholders, the public, victims, and inmates. 

I’ve spent these first 90 days on the job learning as much as possible about the Bureau. Although I’m not new to the corrections 

profession, I am impressed that all of the prisons I now oversee 

today are accredited by the American Correctional Association, as 

were the prisons I oversaw in the military. And all of our prisons 

are PREA compliant as well. 

I’ve already begun reviewing our major policies and procedures, 

and I’m poised to start identifying both strengths and weaknesses. 

My initial focus is on public safety and inmate reentry and also 

overall agency efficiency and effectiveness. The thorough work by 

and of the OIG and the GAO is certainly an important guidepost 

to me in this process. 

The Bureau looks forward to continuing to support the law enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice and the administration and fulfilling our critical role in the broader public safety efforts of the Federal, State, and local law enforcement professionals. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of 

the committee, this concludes my formal statement. I’d be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Inch follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31401.001

ileparlment of Justite 

STATEMENT OF 

MARKS. INCH 

DIRECTOR 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FOR A HEARING ENTITLED 

"OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS AND INMATE 

REENTRY" 

PRESENTED 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31401.002

Statement of Mark S. Inch 

Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

December 13,2017 

Good morning, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the mission and 

operation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau). I was sworn in as the Bureau's ninth 

Director just three months ago, and I am honored to speak on behalf of all Bureau staffcorrections professionals who support the agency's law enforcement mission. I have spent my 

first 90 days on the job learning as much as possible about the agency, and I am committed to 

reviewing all of our major policies and procedures to identif'y both strengths and weaknesses. I 

am compiling prioritized lists of areas for improvement with respect to public safety and inmate 

reentry and also overall agency efficiency and effectiveness. 

To that end, I wish to thank the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) for their hard work. Their audits on a variety of 

program areas, supported by the Bureau's own internal auditing process, are critical to ensuring 

that we remain focused on adhering to the highest standards for safety of staff, inmates, and the 

public. These audits will provide an important guidepost to me as I undertake my review of 

Bureau systems and operations. 

As the leader of the country's premier department of corrections, I am committed to 

ensuring that Bureau staff are guided by the fundamental principles of Character, Competence, 

Commitment and Courage. And we put those qualities into the service of our stakeholders: the 

public; victims; and inmates. 

Our staff carry out the agency's mission by running into situations from which others run 

away. Their first thought when breaking up inmate fights is the safety of others, not themselves. 

When a body alarm sounds, they rush to the side of their colleague. They perform CPR for 

inmates in distress, hoping to make the critical difference that saves a life. And as we saw over 

the past few months, our staff respond to crises brought on by weather and flooding, 

volunteering both in our institutions and in those affected communities. The work our staff do is 

truly inspiring. And they are quiet heroes--most people don't think about what goes on behind 

the walls and fences of prisons until something terrible happens to make them consider our 

worth. 

OUR MISSION- A HISTORY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND REENTRY 

The Bureau is the Nation's largest correctional agency; we house approximately 185,000 

inmates in 122 federal prisons, 11 private prisons, and more than 200 community-based facilities 

nationwide. Incarceration of criminals is a valuable crime-reduction strategy and an important 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31401.003

law enforcement tool that holds individuals responsible for their actions and deters others from 

committing similar crimes. As the committee recognizes, it is imperative that we effectively 

reintegrate individuals back into the community following release from prison to reduce the 

likelihood offuture criminal behavior and associated victimization. To that end, the mission of 

the Bureau, which dates back to 1930, is to confine offenders in prisons and community-based 

facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and secure, and to assist inmates in becoming lawabiding citizens when they return to our communities. 

The Bureau has had great success with respect to both parts of our mission: we have low 

rates of assaults, disturbances, and escapes, and our recidivism rate is half the states' average. 1 

These results are a testament to the hard work of our dedicated professional staff who support 

public safety and promote reentry. 

OUR POPULATION 

During the first five decades of the Bureau's existence, the number and type ofinmates 

we housed remained fairly stable. Beginning in the 1980s, however, federal law enforcement 

efforts and legislative changes led to a significant increase in the federal prison population; the 

Bureau inmate population doubled in the 1980s and doubled again in the 1990s. Between 1980 

and 2013 the population grew by approximately 800%, topping out at nearly 220,000. Despite 

our reliance on private corrections to house thousands of low security criminal aliens, crowding 

in federal prisons reached 36% in 2013, and our inmate to staff ratio stretched to 5:1, up from 

historic levels of 3: 1. 

Over the past few years the inmate population has decreased significantly, such that today 

our crowding and staffing levels are much more manageable. But, we continue to face 

challenges that threaten the safety and security of our institutions and the community, including 

synthetic drugs, contraband cell phones, drones, and gang influence and activity, to name a few. 

Almost half of the Bureau's inmate population is serving sentences for drug offenses, 

nearly 20% are convicted of weapons offenses, almost 10% are sex offenses and slightly fewer 

are immigration offenses. Violent offenders and property offenders, including white collar 

offenders, make up the balance. Sentence length varies greatly by offense type, but the overall 

average is 131 months-more than ten years, with half the inmates serving more than I 05 

months. The particular offense for which inmates are sentenced is of less importance to us in 

corrections than other factors such as gang affiliation, criminal history, propensity for violence 

and other serious misconduct, etc. More than 40% of our inmates classify as high and medium 

security, requiring close staff supervision and myriad safety and security precautions. We have 

nearly 23,000 gang-affiliated inmates. 

1 ln 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that only 34% ofthe inmates released from the Bureau of Prisons 

in 2005 were re-arrested or had their supervision revoked over a three-year period. 

2 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31401.004

OUR PROGRAMS- REENTRY BEGINS ON DAY ONE 

Reentry is a critical component of public safety. Public safety is enhanced when 

individuals leaving prisons have job training, treatment for mental illness and/or substance use 

disorder, an education, and a general understanding of what it means to be a productive law 

abiding citizen. The Bureau must help the nearly 44,000 inmates who are released back into our 

communities each year to not repeat their past mistakes. 

The Bureau uses an individualized risk assessment process to develop a reentry plan for 

each inmate to ensure the inmate participates in appropriate programs and treatment, in the 

appropriate order, during the term of incarceration. Institution staff reassess inmates every six 

months to determine if the individuals are making progress consistent with the plan or whether 

adjustments are needed. We recently completed and deployed a fully integrated online 

information system Insight - to record these ongoing, multidisciplinary reviews of each 

inmate. Insight allows for establishment of goals and monitoring progress towards these goals 

through user-friendly reports provided to the inmates as well as staff. Final reports regarding 

inmates' reentry efforts while in prison are provided to our criminal justice system partners, 

including United States Probation Officers and Residential Reentry Center (RRC) providers. 

This system has been implemented in 55 institutions thus far, and we anticipate rolling it out 

nationwide by late spring, 2018. 

Bureau inmate programs include work, education (including literacy), vocational training, 

substance use disorder treatment, psychological services and counseling, observance of faith and 

religion, and other programs that impart essential life skills. Federal Prison Industries (FPI), 

Residential Drug Abuse Programming (RDAP), education, and vocational and occupational 

training, are particularly effective in reducing recidivism. Inmates who participate in FPI are 24 

percent less likely to recidivate than similar non-participating inmates; they are also significantly 

less likely to engage in misconduct while in prison. FPI provides the greatest benefit to 

minorities, who are often at the greatest statistical risk for recidivism. Inmates who participate in 

vocational or occupational training are 33 percent less likely to recidivate, and inmates who 

participate in education programs are 16 percent less likely to recidivate. RDAP participants are 

16 percent less likely to recidivate and 15 percent less likely to have a relapse in their substance 

use disorder within three years after release. These programs are a critical part of the Bureau of 

Prisons mission to keep our communities safe. 

OUR GOAL- EFFECTIVE TRANSITION TO THE COMMUNITY 

The Bureau relies on RRCs (also known as halfway houses), and home confinement to 

assist inmates reintegrate into their home communities just prior to completing their prison 

terms. RRCs provide inmates (referred to as "residents") with a structured, supervised 

environment, and assistance in finding employment and housing, completing necessary 

programming (e.g., community based treatment services), participating in counseling, and 

strengthening ties to family and friends. Many inmates who transfer to RRCs spend the final few 

weeks of their term of imprisonment in home confinement, to which inmates may be assigned for 

3 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31401.005

the last 10% of their sentence, not to exceed 6 months. 1 These inmates reside in their homes but 

are subject to strict schedules, curfews, in-person check-ins, telephonic monitoring, and 

sometimes electronic monitoring. 

RRC placement decisions are individualized and based on each inmate's need for reentry 

services. For example, inmates serving long sentences and/or having limited employment skills, 

little family support, no established home to which they can return, and limited financial 

resources have a much greater need for RRC placement than do inmates serving short sentences 

and those having positive family support, a home, and job skills. 

RRC bed space is limited so we are judicious with our use of this resource. We balance 

the available capacity with the needs of releasing inmates so that all appropriate inmates have the 

opportunity to participate in the program. Maximizing the length of RRC placement for low-risk 

offenders, as some have recommended, would quickly absorb RRC capacity, thereby preventing 

high risk releasing inmates from having access to some period of pre-release transition through 

this program. Despite our continued efforts to seek additional RRC capacity in new and existing 

locations, there remains strong community resistance to RRCs and few vendors compete for such 

solicitations. 

OUR CHALLENGES 

The Bureau has little control over the number of offenders in our population. We have 

no role in determining which offenders are prosecuted, which offenders are convicted, and which 

offenders are sentenced to prison. Moreover, the Bureau has no role in determining the length of 

sentence imposed and only very limited impact on the amount of time served. We are 

responsible for ensuring that the term of imprisonment is served in facilities that are safe, secure 

and humane, and that offenders are provided ample opportunities for self-improvement. 

The Bureau houses significant numbers of very dangerous and disruptive inmates who 

engage in disruptive and dangerous misconduct, including assaultive behavior toward staff and 

other inmates. We have had success·in managing these individuals through a variety of means, 

including our Special Management Unit (SMU), where disruptive inmates are removed from the 

general population and provided programs designed to prepare them to return to an open prison 

population. 

As I noted previously, we have approximately 23,000 inmates affiliated with gangs in our 

institutions. Management of these groups requires a lot of attention and resources. Over the past 

few years we created institutions exclusive for inmates who have dropped out of gangs, or are in 

"bad standing" with gangs, or who have never had a gang affiliation. Many of the drops outs 

have provided valuable assistance to law enforcement in disrupting gang-related criminal activity 

in the community and even solving some big "cold cases." We now have seven such facilities 

for medium and high security inmates at various geographic locations across the country. 

1 Title 18 United States Code Section 3624( c )(2). 

4 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31401.006

We house several hundred international and domestic terrorists in our institutions. While 

the Bureau has always held some terrorists, after 9/ll the number of these inmates increased 

substantially. The Bureau works closely with the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other law enforcement partners to ensure we are doing 

everything possible to limit opportunities for inmates to be radicalized in our institution. We 

remain vigilant of security risks this population may potentially pose to our prisons and our 

Nation. 

The Bureau continues to face threats posed by dangerous contraband and their methods 

of introduction into our institutions; cellular phones, illicit narcotics (including the emerging 

threat of synthetic drugs), and drones remain chief among those. The Bureau is working closely 

with the Department of Justice's Unmarmed Aircraft System (UAS) Workgroup on strategies to 

detect and mitigate drones that pose a security threat. We have deployed new contrabanddetecting technologies, including thermal fences, walk-through metal detectors, and whole-body 

imaging devices, and have piloted wireless interdiction technologies that show promise for 

countering the contraband cell phone threat. And we have plans to conduct a test of micro 

jamming technology later this winter. Synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, 

MDMA (ecstasy), K2 (Spice) and bath salts, are introduced into our prisons through various 

means, such as the mail, where they are very difficult to detect. The Bureau is leading a work 

group in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Postal Inspection 

Service, and national testing laboratories to test new security technologies to address this 

problem. 

Inmate health care remains a challenge for us. With increasing numbers of older inmates 

in our institutions, many of whom have complicated and chronic medical needs, we face rising 

costs of health care and pharmaceuticals. At the same time, recruitment and retention of 

qualified medical professionals to staff our prisons - many of which are somewhat remotely 

located is hampered by incentives offered by the private sector. The Public Health Service is a 

strong partner with us, helping to fill critical positions, but shortfalls remain. Based in part on 

the important work conducted by the OIG and GAO, we are pursuing opportunities to develop a 

data analytics strategy to improve executive health care decision-making and thereby improve 

health and financial outcomes. 

Inmates with serious mental illness pose particular difficulties in prison. We now have 

two secure mental health units for individuals who have a history of violent behavior and suffer 

from serious mental health issues - one in Atlanta, Georgia and the second in Allenwood, 

Pennsylvania. These units allow us to safely provide treatment and avoid placing individuals in 

restrictive housing, with the goal of facilitating their return to general population in prison and 

ultimately to their community, following completion of their prison term. 

Finally, we now have three Reintegration Housing Units to allow greater opportunities 

for inmates who request protective custody. We are finalizing a new policy regarding these units 

to ensure we provide treatment and programming aimed at preparing inmates to leave these units 

and enter general population at another institution. 

5 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31401.007

CONCLUSION 

I look forward to continuing to support the law enforcement efforts of the Department of 

Justice. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee, this 

concludes my formal statement. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee with my 

formal statement, and would be happy to answer any questions. 

6 
16 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Director. 

Inspector General Horowitz? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify at today’s important hearing. 

The BOP is the largest Department of Justice component by 

number of employees, even larger than the FBI, and has the second-largest budget at the DOJ. Moreover, it now consumes 25 percent of the Department of Justice’s budget compared to 18 percent 

20 years ago. Yet despite the budget growth, the Federal prison 

system remains over capacity, particularly at its high-security institutions. 

Given the BOP’s size and its critically important responsibilities, 

the OIG has conducted and continues to conduct substantial oversight of the BOP and its programs. For example, we’ve recently 

issued reviews and audits of the BOP’s management of its aging 

inmate population, the monitoring of Federal contract prisons, efforts to interdict contraband, implementation of the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act, efforts to address the increasing costs of Federal 

inmate healthcare, use of the compassionate release program, and 

management of Federal Prison Industries, just to name a few. And 

throughout our work, the BOP has taken our reports seriously and 

has been responsive to our findings. 

Let me briefly discuss our oversight of BOP programs that are 

intended to prepare inmates for release from prison and back into 

the community. Whatever one’s view is of the Federal sentencing 

laws, whether you think they’re fair, too harsh, or too lenient, there 

should be agreement that it is critical for the BOP to have effective 

programs for transitioning Federal inmates back into society. 

The reality is that once an inmate completes their sentence, absent unusual or unique circumstances, the BOP must release that 

person from prison so they can return to our communities. That’s 

true whether—whether they’ve committed a violent crime or a 

white collar crime, whether they were sentenced to a long prison 

sentence or a short prison sentence, and whether they acted dangerously in jail or received good time credit. 

The need for effective transition and reentry programs is demonstrated by a recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report, which 

determined that nearly half of the Federal inmates released in 

2005 were rearrested within 8 years of their release for committing 

a new crime or for violating their supervising conditions—their supervision conditions. 

The OIG has conducted several reviews that identify ways the 

BOP can improve the management and administration of its reentry programs. The OIG’s recent review of the BOP’s release preparation program found significant deficiencies that the BOP needed 

to address and which the BOP has told us since our report that it 

has, in fact, undertaken. 

Another BOP reentry program involves the placement of inmates 

in residential reentry centers, RRCs, also known as halfway 

houses, and in home confinement while serving the remainder of 

their sentence. Pursuant to the Second Chance Act, all Federal inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

mates are eligible for RRC and home confinement placement. RRCs 

provide a supervised environment that supports inmates in finding 

employment and housing; completing necessary programming, such 

as drug abuse treatment; participating in counseling; and strengthening ties to family, friends, and community. 

The BOP spends about $360 million each year on RRCs and 

home confinement costs, yet a recent OIG review found significant 

issues with how the BOP was managing its RRC program. Once 

again, the BOP has been responsive to the recommendations we 

made and has reported to us on the steps it is currently taking to 

address them. 

Another area where we recently reviewed—that we recently reviewed involved BOP’s management of inmates with mental health 

issues. Our review identified several issues of concern, including 

that BOP mental health staff did not always document inmates’ 

mental health disorders, and therefore, the BOP was unable to accurately determine the number of inmates with mental health 

issues. 

In addition, we were concerned that BOP was using restrictive 

housing to house inmates with mental health conditions because 

those—that housing could negatively impact further their mental 

health treatment and, research shows, come out of those units further disabled and further ill-equipped to return to their communities. 

We also were concerned because we identified several instances 

where the BOP released inmates directly from restrictive housing 

units into communities, and we were particularly concerned about 

that. 

Again, the BOP is responding to our recommendations, and we 

look forward to reviewing them as we hear about them. 

That concludes my prepared statement. I’d be happy to answer 

any questions the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31401.008

Office of the Inspector General 

United States Department of Justice 

Statement of Michael E. Horowitz 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

concerning 

"Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

December 13, 2017 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31401.009

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify at today's hearing examining the Office 

of the Inspector General's (OIG) oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 

including the BOP's policies and programs to help incarcerated inmates successfully 

transition back into society. The BOP is the largest Department of Justice (DOJ) 

component by number of employees, with over 37,000 staff. And its fiscal year 

(FY) 2017 budget of $7.1 billion is the second largest budget of any DOJ 

component, after only the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, the BOP's 

budget has grown substantially over the past 20 years, from approximately $3.2 

billion in FY 1997 to about $7.1 billion in FY 2017, and it now consumes a 

significant percentage of the DOJ's budget, having increased from 18 percent of the 

DOJ's budget in FY 1997 to 25 percent of the DOJ's budget in FY 2017. Yet, despite 

this budget growth, the federal prison system remains over capacity: overall, it 

was 14 percent above its rated capacity at the end of FY 2017, with high security 

institutions operating at 25 percent over rated capacity. While these over-capacity 

figures have decreased significantly since 2013, when the BOP's population peaked 

at just under 220,000 inmates (its current population is about 184,000 inmates), 

the BOP is estimating that its inmate population will increase by about 2 percent in 

FY 2018. 

Given this size and growth, it is particularly important that the OIG conduct 

effective oversight of the BOP and its programs, which we have done and continue 

to do. For example, we have issued reviews and audits of the BOP's management 

of its aging inmate population, monitoring of federal contract prisons, efforts to 

interdict contraband, implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, efforts to 

address the increasing costs of inmate healthcare, use of the compassionate release 

program, and management of Federal Prison Industries, just to name a few. All of 

these reports and others concerning the BOP can be found on our website. 

Complementing the OIG's oversight of the BOP through our audits and 

reviews are the OIG's investigations of criminal and administrative allegations 

involving BOP staff and contractors. From FY 2013 to FY 2017, the OIG's 

Investigations Division opened more than 1,000 cases involving BOP staff or 

contractors, made more than 340 arrests, had more than 280 convictions and pretrial diversions, and investigated allegations that resulted in more than 700 

administrative actions. Through these efforts, the OIG enhances the safety and 

security of the over 38,000 BOP staff who perform their jobs with great skill and 

who help keep their institutions and the community safe. 

Let me turn to recent OIG reviews of BOP programs that affect the BOP's 

efforts to prepare inmates for release from prison and back into the community. 

Whatever one's view is of the federal sentencing laws - whether you think they are 

fair, too harsh, or too lenient - there should be agreement that it is critical for the 

BOP to have effective programs for transitioning federal inmates back into society. 

Every federal inmate, other than those who received a life sentence (which is rare 

for federal inmates), will be released from prison to return to their communities 

upon the expiration of the judge's sentence. That is true whether they received a 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31401.010

short prison sentence or a long prison sentence, whether they committed a violent 

crime or a white collar crime, whether they were in a maximum security prison or a 

federal prison camp, and whether they acted dangerously in jail or received good 

time credit. From 2013 to 2015, the BOP released approximately 125,000 inmates 

from its custody into Residential Reentry Centers (RRC), into home confinement, or 

directly into communities in the United States. The need for effective BOP 

transition and reentry programs that reduce recidivism rates is demonstrated by a 

recent report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission which determined that nearly 

half of the federal inmates released in 2005 were re-arrested within 8 years of their 

release for committing a new crime or for violating their supervision conditions. 

BOP Reentry Programs 

The OIG has conducted several reviews that identify ways the BOP can 

improve the management and administration of its reentry programs. 

Every BOP institution offers, and most inmates are required to participate in, 

a Release Preparation Program (RPP), which includes courses for inmates in the 

categories of health and nutrition, employment, personal finance and consumer 

skills, information and community resources, release requirements and procedures, 

and personal growth and development. At the time of our review, the BOP's 

objectives for the RPP were to enhance inmates' successful reintegration into the 

community through RPP participation; to enter into partnerships with various 

groups to provide information, programs, and services to releasing inmates; and to 

reduce inmate recidivism. However, we found that less than a third of the inmates 

required to participate in the RPP actually completed the entire program. Moreover, 

we determined that because of inconsistencies in the content and quality of RPP 

courses, the BOP could not ensure that all inmates received the information they 

needed to successfully transition back into the community. In addition, we found 

that the BOP did not ensure that RPPs across its institutions met inmate needs. The 

BOP also did not adequately leverage its relationships with other federal agencies to 

enhance RPP efforts. Further, the BOP did not measure the effect of the RPP on 

recidivism, which limited our ability to assess the program's overall effectiveness. 

The OIG made seven recommendations to help improve the implementation of the 

RPP, and all but one of those recommendations remain open. The OIG report can 

be found at the following link: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1607.pdf. 

Another reentry program facilitated by the BOP is the placement of inmates 

in RRCs, also known as halfway houses, and in home confinement while serving the 

remainder of their sentences. Pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007, all 

federal inmates are eligible for RRC and home confinement placement. RRCs 

provide a supervised environment that supports inmates in finding employment and 

housing; completing necessary programming, such as drug abuse treatment; 

participating in counseling; and strengthening ties to family and friends. Home 

confinement provides similar opportunities, but is used for inmates BOP believes do 

not need the structure or level of supervision provided by RRCs. In FY 2015, the 

BOP spent $360 million on RRCs and home confinement costs and reported having 

181 RRCs operated by 103 different contractors as of September 2016. 

2 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31401.011

The BOP's RRC and home confinement placement decisions are supposed to 

be driven by an individual assessment weighing an inmate's need for reentry 

services against the risk to the community. However, our review found that 

contrary to BOP policy, guidance, and relevant research, the BOP's placement 

decisions were not based on inmates' risk for recidivism or need for transitional 

services. Rather, the BOP was placing the great majority of eligible inmates into 

RRCs regardless of whether they needed transitional services, unless the inmate 

was deemed not suitable for such placement because the inmate posed a significant 

threat to the community. As a result, high-risk inmates with a high need for 

transitional services were less likely to be placed in an RRC or home confinement, 

and were correspondingly more likely to be released back into society directly from 

BOP institutions without transitional programming. Moreover, low-risk, low-need 

inmates were being placed in RRCs even though BOP guidance, as well as the 

research cited in the guidance, indicates that low-risk inmates do not benefit from 

and may in fact be harmed by RRC placement because of, among other things, 

their exposure to high-risk offenders in those facilities. We also found that the BOP 

was underutilizing direct home confinement placement as an alternative to RRCs for 

low-risk, low-need inmates, which results in fewer RRC resources being available 

for high-risk, high-need inmates. 

Further, the BOP did not have performance measures that evaluated the 

efficacy of its RRC and home confinement programming, or procedures that 

adequately assessed the quality of services provided by RRC contractors. 

Moreover, the relevant, albeit dated BOP recidivism and RRC research generally 

found that RRCs did not appear to have a significant impact on recidivism, although 

RRC placement generally was found to be beneficial for high-risk offenders and to 

facilitate an inmate's transition back into society. The OIG made five 

recommendations to improve the BOP's management of this program, and two 

remain open. The OIG report can be found at the following link: 

https :1/oig.justice.gov /reports/2016/a 170 1.pdf. 

BOP's Handling of Prisoners with Mental Illness 

An important part of BOP's responsibilities is to ensure that inmates with 

mental illness receive the necessary treatment. One of several important reasons 

for doing so is because those inmates will eventually be released back into their 

communities. A recent OIG review concerning the BOP's use of restrictive housing 

for inmates with mental illness identified several issues of concern, including that 

BOP mental health staff did not always document inmates' mental disorders and 

therefore the BOP was unable to accurately determine the number of inmates with 

mental illness. We also found that while the BOP has taken a number of steps to 

address the mental health concerns for inmates in restrictive housing, significant 

issues remain regarding the adequacy of the BOP's policies and its implementation 

efforts. 

In addition, we are concerned that confining inmates with mental illness in 

restrictive housing units (RHUs) could have a negative impact on mental health of 

3 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31401.012

the inmates and inhibit their ability to successfully reintegrate into society. 

Research shows that time spent in solitary confinement contributes to elevated 

rates of recidivism and that many inmates released into the community from RHUs, 

which can be functionally equivalent to solitary confinement, come out of these 

units disabled and ill-equipped to reintegrate into the community. Of note, in a 

sample of 239 inmates with mental illness housed in Special Management Units 

(SMU), which are a form of RHU, we found that 31 inmates (13 percent) were 

released directly into the community from the SMU. We also found that, on 

average, these 31 inmates had spent nearly 29 months in the SMU prior to their 

release. 

The OIG made 15 recommendations to the BOP to improve its screening, 

treatment, and monitoring of inmates with mental illness who are assigned to 

restrictive housing, and all but one of the recommendations are open. The OIG 

report can be found at the following link: 

https ://oig .justice.gov /reports/20 17 /e 1705.pdf. 

Conclusion 

The OIG will continue to conduct oversight of the BOP's programs in order to 

help them improve their effectiveness and efficiency, and investigate allegations of 

misconduct by BOP employees or contractors to ensure a safe and secure prison 

environment. This concludes my prepared statement, and I am pleased to answer 

any questions the Committee may have. 

4 
23 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Inspector General. 

Ms. Mauer? 

STATEMENT OF DIANA MAURER 

Ms. MAUER. Well, good morning, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking 

Member Cummings and other Members and staff. I’m pleased to be 

here today to discuss the findings from our oversight efforts of offender reentry programs at the Bureau of Prisons. 

Every year, thousands of Federal inmates complete their sentences, leave prison, and reenter society. The hope is they will reunite with family, become employed, and rejoin their community as 

a peaceful, law-abiding member. And preparing people for this reentry is one of the main goals of the Federal correctional system. 

It’s also one of the most difficult to accomplish. And as was already mentioned, one recent study found that nearly half of former 

Federal inmates were rearrested within 8 years of release, and 

about a quarter were reincarcerated. 

Now people who have served time in Federal prison face significant challenges. They often have less education, less employment 

history, and less family support than the rest of society. They also 

have to contend with various penalties and disadvantages after 

completing their sentences. And as we reported in September, 

these collateral consequences can limit many aspects of a person’s 

life, such as employment, education, housing, and access to Government benefits. 

Our analysis found 641 Federal collateral consequences that can 

be triggered by a Federal nonviolent drug conviction. Over threequarters of these consequences last a lifetime, and 80 percent lack 

a prescribed way for a person to obtain relief from the consequence. 

Now, of course, GAO is not taking a position on whether we have 

the right number of collateral consequences. That’s—that’s not our 

role. But we did interview 14 stakeholders from across the criminal 

justice spectrum, including judges, prosecutors, and victims’ rights 

advocates. And we heard a striking consensus. Thirteen of 14 

agreed on two key points. 

First, they believe the Federal Government should take action to 

mitigate collateral consequences and, second, doing so could reduce 

the likelihood that people with prior convictions reoffend. They also 

agreed that any review of collateral consequences should factor in 

the paramount goal of public safety. Many of the stakeholders we 

spoke to believe that reexamining the current mix of consequences, 

their duration, and the ability to seek relief could have a positive 

impact on recidivism. 

And breaking the cycle of recidivism is what successful reentry 

programs are all about. Over the past several years, we’ve seen increased focus on reentry at BOP. For example, BOP created a Reentry Services Division and developed a list of reentry programs. 

However, when we looked at that list, we found that BOP could 

not clearly demonstrate whether the reentry programs were actually working. And in response to our recommendation, BOP has developed and begun implementing a plan to evaluate these programs. 

BOP has also made great strides determining the cost of home 

confinement. BOP used to charge a flat rate that was simply half 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

the cost of local reentry—residential reentry centers, or RRCs. But 

in response to our recommendation, BOP has issued 184 solicitations with a separate service line-item for home confinement services. As a result, BOP is now better positioned to weigh the cost 

and benefits of home confinement. 

But they still need to take action on two of our recommendations 

that really get to the very heart of this morning’s hearing. Two 

years ago, we found something all too common in Federal programs. BOP was tracking program outputs, not outcomes. Specifically, they had detailed data on the number of inmates in RRCs 

and home confinement, but BOP was not tracking the far more important outcomes from placing people in RRCs and home confinement, and it lacked measures to know how—to know whether those 

outcomes indicated success. So it’s still unclear how these programs 

affect recidivism. 

BOP has recently made progress implementing our recommendations. They started taking track—steps to track how individuals do 

during and after their time in an RRC, including surveying residents to get their perspectives on their experiences. While these 

are encouraging steps, they’re still in the early stages, and we’ll be 

monitoring BOP’s progress until they fully implement our recommendations. 

In conclusion, we all hope the thousands of people who leave 

Federal prison every year are able to rejoin their families and gainfully contribute to their communities as law-abiding citizens. Continued attention and focus from the Bureau of Prisons, continued 

congressional oversight, and full implementation of recommendations from GAO and the Inspector General will help make that 

more likely. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Mauer follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31401.013

GAO 

For Release on Delivery Expected 

at 10:00 a.m. ET 

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

GA0-18-275T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

Continued Action Needed 

to Address Incarceration 

Challenges and Offenders' 

Reentry 

Statement of Diana Maurer, Director, Homeland Security 

and Justice 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31401.014

: ,::i ' i~':',::~:':: ': 

.

Wt\y.· .. s.·.···.·~.6£11ftr~i~ ~to~. Y· \<',': ,': ,,,, 

retlt\ce li\G)~\~l'\t\:1 t~rb~gl\ Jl\e, t\sji <>f 

re~nt(Y :Pf91!"iifl18 ~ heiR oft<,wrers suc~sf!,!IIY;~l>!U<~ to !he ~mm."'nily. 

Jtg 

inearter~!ionri!atic!iO() inltiatl\ies, an¢ 

· (2) B()f;> reeh!ry prQgtams. 

T!iiit stat~!lle~Vi~sli¢ qliipn'Qr 'GJ\o · pr<>ducts•Tssll!>d from f!1lltu~IY 2012 

thrO\lghJuno·~l)l6, alopg Wlllt \)pdates 

ontl:le ~tatus.o~rec.ornlTI~ilations. • Phtalne<h•l! tif Decal!lfl"r.20.fl, !'or. the updata~ on,q()j<s picigress.in. . i!Tlplertierlt!!l!l "'oom!ll'ltlill>tions, ,GAO 

analyzed.inl'olfTlalionp~?~lded by DOJ 

off!qia~ unaliuons taken a!)~ planne;!. 

WllatGAOReeomlne:tlds ,,' :"''" ' 

GAOhas~de 10,nicommel1d~~ons 

to DOJin poorreportslohelj)'ii)1Prov~ 

performance mes~ur<!n:lef!t'l'n~ . . . · resouree.l)lan~gemiin!Ltl()J l)enerally • 

concurred and~~·,;,c~<~r~ss~ ortlii<M 

steps l() address saverat.c(?Atl> 

continue~ tq.lle~<>v:elllldfth~$e, 

recomrneiJ(lati~mli,shoutl! be fullY' 

implemented: · 

Vie\y GA~:~s:275T:,Jli9i-fu9,~tnro(m~l0n , 

~=~~;~~~~~:~rat (202)'512.S777 Or 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Continued Action Needed To Address Incarceration 

Challenges and Offenders' Reentry 

What GAO Found 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has fully addressed two of six GAO 

recommendations related to its incarceration reduction initiatives. In June 

2015 and June 2016, GAO reported that to help address challenges associated 

with incarceration, DOJ had, among other things, taken steps to reduce the 

prison population by pursuing initiatives to use alternatives to incarceration for 

low-level nonviolent crimes. GAO made six recommendations to DOJ related to 

these efforts. As of December 2017, DOJ has implemented two of the six 

recommendations and has not fully addressed the remaining four. Specifically, 

to enhance efforts to measure program outcomes, OOJ issued guidance on 

proper data entry and began tracking data on different types of pretrial diversion 

programs that allow certain offenders to avoid incarceration if they satisfy 

program requirements. In addition, as of December 2017, DOJ has taken steps 

to partially implement GAO's recommendation to address unnecessary delays in 

reviewing inmates' petitions to commute their sentences. 

DOJ has not taken action to address recommendations to better assess the 

results of pretrial diversion programs or another effort to prioritize prosecutions 

and reform sentencing to eliminate unfair disparities, among other goals. Further, 

in December 2017, DOJ noted there had been policy changes since GAO made 

a recommendation related to enhancing measures to monitor prioritizing 

prosecution and sentencing reform. Although DOJ reported taking some actions 

to implement GAO's recommendation, these actions did not include establishing 

measures that incorporate key elements of successful performance 

measurement systems. 

DOJ has addressed two of four GAO recommendations related to its 

reentry programs. As part of its mission to protect public safety, DOJ's Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides reentry programming that aims to facilitate 

offenders' successful return to the community and reduce recidivism (a return to 

prison or criminal behavior). These reentry efforts include programs offered in 

BOP facilities as well as contractor-managed residential reentry centers (RRC)-

a!so known as halfway houses-and home confinement services that allow 

inmates to serve the final months of their sentences in the community. GAO 

issued three reports in February 2012, June 2015, and June 2016 and made four 

recommendations to BOP in this area. 

As of December 2017, DOJ has implemented two of the four recommendations 

and has begun to take action to address one of the remaining two. Specifically, 

to implement one of GAO's recommendations, DOJ established a plan to 

evaluate the effectiveness of all the 18 reentry programs it offers to inmates in 

BOP facilities. To implement another GAO recommendation to improve cost 

management, DOJ began requiring contractors to submit separate prices for 

RRC beds and home confinement services. As of December2017, DOJ noted it 

has taken initial steps to address a recommendation to track outcome data for its 

RRC and home confinement programs; however, it has not taken action to 

develop measures to assess the performance of these programs. 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31401.015

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in Ieday's hearing to discuss our 

prior work on ways in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) can better 

assess incarceration reduction initiatives and reentry efforts. This 

statement reflects prior GAO products issued from February 2012 through 

June 2016, along with recent updates on the status of our 

recommendations. 

As of December 2017, DOJ's Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was 

responsible for about 184,000 federal inmates and operating 122 

institutions (prisons) across the country. BOP's rising costs and offender 

recidivism present incarceration challenges to both DOJ and the nation. 

For example, BOP's operating costs have generally increased over time, 

and in fiscal year 2017 amounted to more than $6.9 billion, or 24 percent 

of DOJ's total discretionary budget In addition, from 1980 through 2013, 

BOP's prison population increased by almost 800 percent, from 24,640 to 

219,298. While the prison population began to decline in 2013, DOJ has 

continued to identify prison crowding as a critical issue, particularly in high 

security institutions. Further, while BOP reports that recidivism rates have 

declined over the past two decades, the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

found that of federal offenders released in 2005, 49 percent were 

rearrested, 32 percent were reconvicted, and 25 percent were 

reincarcerated during the eight year follow-up period.' 

During the course of our prior work, DOJ was taking steps to slow the 

growth of the federal prison population by pursuing alternatives to 

incarceration at various stages of the criminal justice process for 

nonviolent, low-level offenders, in part to help reduce the size and related 

costs of the federal prison population. 2 Knowing the outcomes of these 

efforts can help BOP adjust its policies and procedures, and ultimately 

optimize their benefits. 

My testimony today is based on our work examining DOJ's efforts to 

manage the federal prison system. This statement addresses two key 

1

United States Sentencing Commission, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders.- A 

Comprehensive OveNiew (Washington, D.C.: March 2016). 

Low~level offenses include offenses below thresholds established for specific offenses, 

such as fraud-related offenses under a certain amount of money and drug offenses that 

did not involve violence, firearms, or large scale trafficking conspiracies. 

Page 1 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31401.016

Background 

Key Stakeholders in the 

Federal Criminal Justice 

Process 

areas in which we have issued reports and highlights our 

recommendations to DOJ to enhance program performance 

measurement and resource management. Specifically, this statement 

addresses (1) DOJ:s incarceration reduction initiatives and (2) BOP's 

reentry programs. 

This statement is based on several reports we issued from February 2012 

through June 2016, and includes updates on selected aspects of these 

reports as of December 2017. 3 For our prior work, we reviewed relevant 

laws and DOJ and BOP policies, and analyzed documentation and data 

on the use of incarceration alternatives at or before sentencing. In 

addition, we interviewed DOJ and BOP headquarters and district officials, 

and conducted site visits to selected BOP institutions (which were chosen 

to cover a range of characteristics, including but not limited to inmate 

gender and presence of relevant BOP programs). More information about 

the scope and methodology of our prior work can be found in those 

reports. 

To update the status of DOJ's efforts to address the recommendations we 

made in these reports, we collected and analyzed information from DOJ 

and BOP program officials on actions they have taken or planned in 

response. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Various DOJ and federal judiciary stakeholders play key roles in the 

federal criminal justice process, and as such, they can also have key 

roles in considering whether to use incarceration alternatives for a given 

3

GAO, Federal Prison System: Justice Has Used Alternatives to Incarceration, But Could 

BefferMeasure Program Outcomes, GA0-16-516 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2016); 

Federal Prison System: Justice Could Better Measure Progress Addressing Incarceration 

Challenges, GA0-15-454 (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2015); and Bureau of Prisons: 

Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates' Time in Prison, 

GA0-12-320 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2012). 

Page 2 GAQ..18-275T 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31401.017

Federal Criminal Justice 

Process 

offender or inmate. For example, in the course of the federal criminal 

justice process, a U.S. attorney is involved in the process of investigating, 

charging and prosecuting an offender, among other responsibilities. 

Federal defenders are called upon to represent defendants who are 

unable to financially retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings. The 

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office (PPSO), an office within the 

judiciary, also has responsibilities including supervising an offender 

pretrial or after conviction. Federal judges are responsible for determining 

an offender's sentence, and, in the case of incarceration, BOP is 

responsible for caring for the inmate while in custody. 

Federal laws and guidelines determine what, if any, incarceration is 

appropriate for offenders. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 

established the independent U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) within 

the judicial branch and charged it with, among other things, developing 

federal sentencing guidelines• The guidelines specify sentencing 

guideline ranges-a range of time (in months) that offenders should serve 

given the nature of their offense and other factors-but also permit 

sentences to depart upward or downward from guideline ranges because 

of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In 2005, the Supreme Court 

found the sentencing guidelines, which had previously been binding for 

federal judges to follow in sentencing criminal defendants, to be advisory 

in nature. 5 Regardless of the guidelines' advisory nature, judges are still 

required to calculate sentences properly and to consider the guideline 

ranges as well as the nature and circumstances of the offense, the 

defendant's history, and the need for deterrence, among other sentencing 

goals6 

As we reported in June 2016, alternatives to incarceration were available 

at various steps in the federal criminal justice process. from charging and 

prosecution through incarceration (see figure 1). 7 

4 Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 217, 98 Stat. 1987,2017. 

5

See United States v. Booker. 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

618 U.S. C.§ 3553(a). 

7We scoped the review (GA0~1€)..516) to focus on alternatives available once the case is 

considered by a U.S. Attorney's Office; therefore, we did not review alternatives prearrest, or those used by law enforcement. 

Page3 GA0-18-275T 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31401.018

Figure 1: Steps in the Federal Criminal Justice System Process with Alternatives to Incarceration 

Somce GAO analys;s of Department of Justice component roles and respoOSibt~tles I GA0.18-275T 

Note: Alternatives to incarceration are shown in the bottom row. Except for the referral to state and 

local prosecutors, defendants can still be incarcerated federally after being provided these 

alternatives if they fail to meet the specific terms and conditions of the alternative. 

For instance, at the front-end of the criminal justice process, there are 

pretrial diversion programs that can provide offenders an opportunity to 

avoid prosecution or incarceration if they satisfy program requirements. In 

addition, toward the end of inmates' periods of incarceration, BOP may 

place inmates in residential reentry centers (RRC, also known as halfway 

houses), in which inmates are housed outside of a prison environment 

prior to their release in the community. During their time in RRCs, inmates 

are authorized to leave for approved activities, such as work; are 

monitored 24 hours a day, such as through sign-out procedures; are 

required to work or be actively seeking work; and are required to pay a 

percentage of their salaries as a subsistence fee to cover some of their 

expenses at the RRC. 

In addition, BOP may place inmates in home confinement toward the end 

of their sentences. While in home confinement, inmates are required to 

remain in their homes when not involved in approved activities, such as 

employment, and are supervised and monitored, such as through 

Page4 GA0-18-275T 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31401.019

Overview of BOP's 

Institutions and Role in 

Transitioning Offenders 

into Society 

curfews, random staff visits, or electronic monitoring. 8 RRC staff may 

provide the supervision of inmates in home confinement. Through an 

interagency agreement, BOP and the PPSO also established the Federal 

Location Monitoring Program, through which PPSO officers provide 

supervision for BOP inmates on home confinement under certain 

conditions. Among other things, to qualify inmates ordinarily must be 

classified as minimum security level: seek and maintain employment; and 

pay for all or part of the costs of the Federal Location Monitoring 

Program. 

BOP is responsible for the custody and care of federal inmates. As of 

December 2017, there were a total of about 184,000 federal inmates, 

according to BOP. According to BOP data, 83 percent of these inmates 

are in the 122 institutions managed by BOP. The remainder are confined 

in secure privately managed or community-based facilities, local jails, or 

in home confinement 

BOP has a role to help ensure that offenders properly transition into 

society and avoid a return to prison or criminal behavior (recidivism) after 

they have completed their terms of incarceration. Among other activities, 

BOP provides reentry services to inmates within federal prisons that may 

include drug treatment programs, education and vocational training, and 

psychology services. BOP also is to facilitate the transfer of inmates into 

RRCs, which provide assistance as inmates transition into communities, 

to include home confinement RRCs provide employment counseling and 

job placement assistance, financial management assistance, and 

substance abuse treatment or counseling as well as other services, which 

may vary by facility. According to BOP, approximately 180 RRCs provide 

housing for over 7,500 federal offenders prior to release into their 

communities. 

8

For additional information on the technologies and systems used to track individuals 

through electronic monitoring, see GAO, Electronic Monitoring: Draft Nat;ona/ Standard for 

Offender Tracking Systems Addresses Common Stakeholder Needs, GA0-16~ 10 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26, 2015). 

PageS GA0-18-275T 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31401.020

Federal Collateral 

Consequences Can Affect 

Reentry 

As we reported in September 2017, individuals convicted of a crime may 

have limitations placed upon them that can affect their reentry. 9 

Individuals convicted of a crime generally face a sentence, which can 

include fines, probation, and incarceration in jail or prison. In addition to 

the sentence, individuals may also face collateral consequencespenalties and disadvantages, other than those associated with a 

sentence, which can be imposed upon an individual as a result of a 

conviction. For example, collateral consequences may prohibit people 

who committed crimes involving a sex offense or offense involving a child 

victim from working in a child care facility. Collateral consequences can 

be contained in federal and state laws and regulations. Notably, federal 

collateral consequences can serve various functions, such as enhancing 

public safety or protecting government interests. In 2012, the American 

Bar Association began compiling the first nationwide inventory of 

collateral consequences, known as the National Inventory of the 

Collateral Consequences of Conviction (NICCC). As of December 31, 

2016, the NICCC contained roughly 46,000 collateral consequences 

established through federal and state laws and regulations. 

We reported on collateral consequences contained in federal laws and 

regulations (i.e., federal collateral consequences) that can be imposed 

upon individuals with nonviolent drug convictions (NVDC). 10 Our review of 

the NICCC found that, as of December 31, 2016, there were 641 

collateral consequences in federal laws and regulations that can be 

triggered by NVDC. The NICCC data indicated that these 641 collateral 

consequences can limit many aspects of an individual's life, such as 

employment, business licenses, education, and government benefits. For 

example, individuals may be ineligible for certain professional licenses, 

federal education loans, or federal food assistance. Moreover, we found 

that the NICCC identified that 78 percent of these 641 collateral 

consequences can potentially last a lifetime. 

9

GAO, Nonviolent Drug Convictions: Stakeholders' Views on Potential Actions to Address 

Collateral Consequences, GA0-17-691 (Washington. D.C.: Sept. 7, 2017). 

1

°For the purposes of our 2017 report, we defined NVDC as violations of laws prohibiting 

or regulating the possession, use, distribution, or manufacture of illegal drugs which do not 

include (a) offenses that have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 

physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that by 

its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of 

another may be used in the course of committing the offense. See GA0~17~691. 

Page6 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31401.021

We also reported on selected stakeholders' views. We spoke to 14 

individuals who were leaders of organizations representing judges, 

victims of crime, and states, among others-on actions the federal 

government could consider to mitigate these collateral consequences. 

Most of the stakeholders that we interviewed-13 of 14-said it was 

important for the federal government to take action to mitigate federal 

collateral consequences for NVDC. Thirteen stakeholders said that 

mitigating federal collateral consequences could potentially reduce the 

likelihood that individuals with NVDC reoffend. Similarly, 11 stakeholders 

said that mitigation could potentially increase the likelihood that 

individuals with NVDC successfully reenter the community after jail or 

prison. The text box below identifies some of the statements made by 

stakeholders during our interviews from our prior work regarding federal 

collateral consequences for NVDC. 

Stakeholder Perspectives on Federal Collateral Consequences for Nonviolent Drug Convictions, as Reported in GA0~17-691 

~The breadth of federal collateral consequences for nonviolent drug convictions is so massive and affects so many aspects of a 

person's life, such as family life, immigration, jury service, housing, employment, and voting, that they contribute to an underclass 

of people.~ 

«Many instances wherein the federal collateral consequences for nonviolent drug convictions end up making it hard for people to 

live a law abiding life. For example, they may not be able to live in public housing or may be barred from getting an occupational 

license or doing a particular job. This may push them to tum back to committing crimes to make some money.~ 

" ... some federal collateral consequences for nonviolent drug convictions are sensible and appropriate. If we abolish [all that] exist 

you could imperil public safety ... ~ 

We can't just say we're going to err on the side of public safety and implement a wide range of collateral consequences strictly 

across the board. The problem is that public safety is undermined by making it impossible for individuals to move on from the 

criminal offense.H 

"It is important not to assume that nonviolent means that there is no victim." 

Source Selected stakeholders mtervuowed by GAO 1 GA0~18-275T 

DOJ Has Fully 

Addressed Two of Six 

GAO 

Recommendations 

Related to Its 

Incarceration 

Reduction Initiatives 

Since 1980, the federal prison population increased from about 25,000 to 

about 184,000, as of December 2017. In June 2015 and June 2016, we 

reported that in part to help address challenges associated with 

overcrowding in certain institutions and related costs of incarceration, 

DOJ had taken steps to reduce the prison population by pursuing 

initiatives to: use alternatives to incarceration for low-level nonviolent 

crimes; prioritize prosecutions to focus on serious cases; and commute, 

or reduce, sentences of qualified federal inmates. In these reports, we 

highlighted potential areas for continued oversight of these initiatives and 

made six recommendations. DOJ concurred with five of these 

recommendations and partially concurred with the other. As of December 

2017, DOJ has implemented two of the six recommendations and had not 

fully addressed the remaining four. 

Page7 GA0~18·275T 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31401.022

DOJ could better measure effectiveness of pretrial diversion 

alternatives. In June 2016, we reported that DOJ had taken steps to 

pursue alternatives to incarceration for certain offenders, but could 

improve data collection and efforts to measure outcomes resulting from 

the use of pretrial diversion alternatives.'' Our review examined two 

pretrial diversion programs on the front-end of the criminal justice process 

that provided offenders an opportunity to avoid incarceration if they satisfy 

program requirements. Title 9 of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual permits U.S. 

Attorneys' Offices to divert, at the discretion of a U.S. Attorney, certain 

federal offenders from prosecution into a program of supervision and 

services administered by the PPSO. Under the Title 9 diversion program, 

if the offender fulfills the terms of the program, the offender will not be 

prosecuted, or, if the offender has already been charged, the charges will 

be dismissed. 

In addition to the Title 9 Pretrial Diversion Program, federal criminal 

justice stakeholders within some judicial districts have voluntarily 

established court-involved pretrial diversion practices. Court-involved 

pretrial diversion allows certain federal offenders the opportunity to 

participate in supervised programs or services, such as a drug court to 

address criminal behavior that may be linked to addiction to drugs or 

alcohol. Program participants are to meet regularly with court officials 

including a judge and pretrial services officer to discuss their progress in 

the program. If the offender satisfies program requirements, the offender 

may not be prosecuted, charges may be dismissed, or the participant 

may receive a reduced sentence. 

While DOJ had collected some data on the use of pretrial diversion, we 

found that the data were of limited usefulness and reliability because its 

case management system did not distinguish between the different types 

of diversion and DOJ had not provided guidance to U.S. Attorneys' 

Offices as to when and how pretrial diversion cases are to be entered into 

the system. In addition, we found that DOJ had not measured the 

outcomes or identified the cost implications of its pretrial diversion 

programs. To address these deficiencies, we made four 

recommendations to DOJ. The first two relate to tracking and entering 

pretrial diversion data, while the second two relate to assessing outcomes 

based on the data. Specifically, we recommended that DOJ (1) separately 

identify and track the different types of pretrial diversion programs, (2) 

11GA0-16-516. 

Page 8 GA0-18·275T 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31401.023

provide guidance to its attorneys on the appropriate way to enter data, (3) 

identify, obtain, and track data on the outcomes and costs of pretrial 

diversion programs, and (4) develop performance measures to assess 

diversion program outcomes. DOJ concurred with all four of our 

recommendations. 

In October 2016, DOJ took actions to fully implement the first two 

recommendations. Specifically, in September 2016, DOJ provided 

guidance to staff in its U.S. Attorneys' Offices that outlines (1) the use of 

two new pretrial diversion codes-one for Title 9 pretrial diversion and 

another for court-involved diversion and (2) the appropriate entries to 

create and dispose of each type of pretrial diversion. Attorneys were 

instructed to use the codes starting on October 1, 2016. However, as of 

December 2017, DOJ has not implemented the third and fourth 

recommendations. We continue to believe that by obtaining data on the 

costs and outcomes of pretrial diversion programs and establishing 

performance measures, DOJ would gain multiple advantages in its ability 

to manage these programs and optimize their outcomes and cost 

implications. 

DOJ could better assess initiatives to address prison overcrowding 

and costs. In June 2015, we reported that DOJ could better measure the 

efficacy of two incarceration initiatives designed to address challenges 

related to overcrowding and rising costs. 12 One of these was the Smart on 

Crime initiative, announced in August 2013 as a comprehensive effort to: 

prioritize prosecutions to focus on the most serious cases; 

reform sentencing to eliminate unfair disparities and reduce 

overburdened prisons; 

pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-level nonviolent crimes; 

improve reentry to curb repeat offenses and re-victimization; and 

surge resources to prevent violence and protecting most vulnerable 

populations. 

In our report, we found that DOJ had established indicators that were 

well-linked to these goals; however, the indicators lacked other key 

elements of successful performance measurement systems, such as 

clarity, a measurable target, or context. For example, none of the 

12 GA0-15-454. 

Page9 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31401.024

indicators had numerical targets by which to assess whether overall goals 

and objectives are achieved. To address this deficiency, we 

recommended that DOJ modify its Smart on Crime indicators to 

incorporate key elements of successful performance measurement 

systems. DOJ partially concurred with the recommendation, and agreed 

to continually refine and enhance the indicators to improve their clarity 

and context. However, DOJ did not agree that establishing measurable 

targets for its indicators was appropriate. We recognized that it might not 

be appropriate to create targets for every indicator. Nevertheless, we 

maintained that measurable performance targets that are properly 

developed, communicated, and managed, can aid Department leadership 

in the admittedly challenging task of assessing progress in the Smart on 

Crime Initiative. 

In March 2017, DOJ noted that, due to a change in administration, the 

status of the Smart on Crime Initiative was uncertain. In May 2017, the 

Attorney General issued a new charging and sentencing policy to all 

federal prosecutors that effectively rescinded any previous policy of DOJ 

that is inconsistent with the new charging and sentencing policy, including 

certain aspects of the Smart on Crime lnitiative. 13 1n December 2017, 

DOJ stated it would start to collect data on and monitor the 

implementation of this new policy. However, DOJ did not provide 

information on how it plans to modify its indicators to incorporate key 

elements of successful performance measurement systems. To the 

extent that DOJ continues to implement other aspects of the Smart on 

Crime initiative, such as improving reentry and surging resources to 

prevent violence we continue to believe this recommendation is valid. 

The second initiative we addressed in our June 2015 report was the 

Clemency Initiative, which encourages nonviolent, low-level federal 

offenders to petition to have their sentences commuted, or reduced, by 

the President. Commutation of sentence, as we reported, has long been 

considered to be an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. 

According to DOJ, in 2013, then-President Obama expressed a desire to 

review more petitions, and DOJ pledged to expedite the review of such 

13See Memorandum For All Federal Prosecutors, Attorney General Jefferson B. Session 

Ill, Department Charging and Sentencing Policy (May 10, 2017) (available as of 

December 1, 2017 at https:/Jwww.justice.gov/opa/press-re/easelfile/965896/download). 

The new policy directed prosecutors to return to the practice of charging the "most serious 

readily provable offense." It also provided for exceptions under some circumstances with 

supervisory approval. 

Page 10 GA0-18-275T 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31401.025

DOJ Has Addressed 

Two of Four GAO 

Recommendations 

Related to its Reentry 

Programs 

petitions in order to provide them to the President for consideration. 

However, we found that DOJ had not adequately assessed the extent to 

which the Clemency Initiative is expeditiously identifying meritorious 

petitions because it had not tracked how long it takes for petitions to clear 

each step in its review process or identified and addressed any processes 

that may contribute to unnecessary delays. We made a recommendation 

to DOJ to address this deficiency. DOJ concurred, but in March 2017 

DOJ stated that it had no standard review process to evaluate. In 

December 2017, DOJ reported to us that it has taken steps to accelerate 

the review of commutation cases, such as assigning two attorneys to 

spend additional time on commutation cases. Although DOJ's actions are 

consistent with our recommendation, DOJ has not tracked how long it 

takes for petitions to clear each step in its review process. This makes it 

unclear whether DOJ's actions are addressing the processes that 

contribute to unnecessary delays. 

As part of its mission to protect public safety, BOP provides reentry 

programming that aims to facilitate offenders' successful return to the 

community and reduce recidivism. These reentry efforts include programs 

offered in BOP facilities, as well as RRC and home confinement services 

that allow inmates to serve the final months of their sentences in the 

community. In our February 2012, June 2015, and June 2016 reports we 

highlighted potential areas for continued oversight and made four 

recommendations to BOP. As of December 2017, BOP has implemented 

two of the four recommendations and has taken action to address one 

other recommendation. 

BOP has developed a plan to evaluate its reentry programs. In June 

2015, we reported that BOP had 18 reentry programs available to 

inmates in BOP institutions in the areas of inmate treatment and 

education. 14 We found that while BOP had plans to evaluate the 

performance of some of its reentry programs, it did not have a plan in 

place to prioritize evaluations across all of these programs. As a result, 

we recommended that BOP include, as part of its current evaluation plan, 

all18 of BOP's national reentry programs, and prioritize its evaluations by 

considering factors such as resources required for conducting 

evaluations. In May 2016, BOP provided to us an evaluation plan that 

was consistent with our recommendation. BOP has continued to update 

Page 11 GA0-18-275T 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31401.026

the evaluation plan to reflect changes in priority. For example, the most 

recent plan, updated in July 2017, lists BOP's Mental Health Step Down 

Unit program as its top priority, with a target evaluation date of fiscal year 

2018. According to BOP, this reflects the need for analysis of services for 

seriously mentally ill inmates. 15 

BOP has taken steps to assess costs of home confinement services. 

In February 2012, we reported that BOP did not know the actual cost of 

home confinement services. 16 To facilitate inmates' reintegration into 

society, BOP may transfer eligible inmates to community corrections 

locations for up to the final 12 months of their sentences. 17 Inmates may 

spend this time in a RRC and in confinement in their homes for up to 6 

months. 18 BOP contracts with private organizations to manage the RRCs 

and monitor inmates in home confinement. 19 At the time of our review, 

BOP was paying a rate of 50 percent of the overall per diem rate 

negotiated with the RRC for each inmate in home confinement. For 

example, if BOP paid a contractor the average community corrections per 

diem rate of $70.79 for each inmate housed in a RRC, BOP would pay 

$35.39 per day for that contractor's supervision of each inmate in home 

confinement. However, according to BOP, the agency did not require 

contractors to provide the actual costs for home confinement services as 

part of their contract and therefore did not know the cost of home 

confinement. To help BOP better manage its costs, we recommended 

that BOP establish a plan for requiring contractors to submit separate 

prices of RRC beds and home confinement services. BOP implemented 

this recommendation and determined that all new solicitations as of 

February 1, 2013, will have separate line items for RRC in-house beds 

and home confinement services. According to BOP, as of November 

2017, 184 solicitations with separate RRC bed and home confinement 

service line items have been issued since February 2013. 

15For additional information on BOP mental health services, see GAO, Bureau of Prisons: 

Timelier Reviews, Plan for Evaluations, and Updated Policies Could Improve Mental 

Health Services Oversight, GA0-13-1, (Washington, D.C,: July 17, 2013). 

16GA0-12-320. 

1718 U.S.C. § 3624(c). 

18!d. 

1

9rhrough an interagency agreement, BOP and the PPSO also established the Federal 

Location Monitoring Program, through which PPSO officers provide supe!Vision for BOP 

inmates in home confinement under certain conditions. 

Page 12 GA0-18·275T 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31401.027

BOP could better measure the outcomes of RRCs and home 

confinement. In June 2016, we reported that BOP was not positioned to 

track the information it would need to help measure the outcomes of 

inmates placed in RRCs and home confinement and did not have 

performance measures in place. 20 Specifically, we found that, as part of 

its strategic plan, BOP had two measures-one to track the number of 

inmates placed into RRCs, and another to track the number of inmates 

placed in home confinement. However, these measures did not help 

assess the outcomes of RRCs and home confinement, such as how 

these programs may or may not affect the recidivism rates of inmates. To 

address this deficiency, we made two recommendations to BOP to (1) 

identify, obtain, and track data on the outcomes of the RRC and home 

confinement programs; and (2) develop performance measures by which 

to help assess program outcomes. DOJ concurred with these 

recommendations. 

As of December 2017, BOP has taken steps to implement our 

recommendation to identify, obtain, and track data on the outcomes of 

RRCs and home confinement. In particular, BOP reported to us that it has 

developed a revised Statement of Work for use with its RRC contractors 

that requires the contractors to track and report quarterly to BOP on, 

among other things, the number of placements into and releases from 

RRCs and home confinement; revocations from RRCs or home 

confinement; and RRC and home confinement residents that have 

secured full, part-time, or temporary employment BOP plans to compile 

these data to track contractor performance and program outcomes. 

Further, BOP reported to us that it has developed a voluntary survey that 

asks RRC residents about their RRC experiences, including the amount 

of help they received in finding and keeping a job, and finding a place to 

live. These actions are in line with our recommendation and we will 

continue to monitor their implementation. However, as of December 2017, 

BOP has not provided evidence to us that it has developed performance 

measures by which to help assess program outcomes. We continue to 

believe BOP should do so. 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have. 

Page 13 GA0·18-275T 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31401.028

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(102462) 

For further information about this statement, please contact Diana Maurer 

at (202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement Other individuals who made key contributions to this 

statement include Brett Fallavollita (Assistant Director), David Alexander, 

Pedro Almoguera, Joy Booth, Billy Commons, Ill, Tonnye' Connor-White, 

Jessica Du, Lorraine Ettaro, Michele Fejfar, Christopher Hatscher, Susan 

Hsu, Tom Jesser, Matt Lowney, Heather May, and Jill Verret Key 

contributors for the previous work on which this testimony is based are 

listed in each product 

Page 14 GA0~18·275T 
41 

Chairman GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Ms. Mauer. 

Professor Doleac? 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER DOLEAC 

Ms. DOLEAC. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and other members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify in this hearing about prisoner reentry. 

I’m an assistant professor of public policy and economics at the 

University of Virginia. I’m also the director of the Justice Tech 

Lab, which works to find effective, scalable solutions to criminal 

justice problems. 

In addition to my roles at UVA, I’m a senior social scientist at 

the Lab at D.C., a research group in the mayor’s office here in the 

District, and a nonresident fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. I’m also a member of the Poverty, Employment, 

and Self-Sufficiency Network organized by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. 

To each of these roles, I bring my expertise in the economics of 

crime and discrimination. In recent years, I’ve been particularly focused on the issue of prisoner reentry. In addition to a number of 

ongoing studies testing the impacts of new interventions on reentry 

outcomes, I’ve studied the effects of ban-the-box policies, also called 

fair chance policies. This is the topic I’ll focus on today, though I’ll 

note that the views I express here are my own and don’t represent 

those of any of the organizations I’m affiliated with. 

Two-thirds of people who are released from prison will be arrested again within 3 years. This high recidivism rate signals our 

collective failure to help this group successfully reintegrate to civilian life. The question facing policymakers is what we can do to facilitate more successful reintegration and break that cycle of incarceration. 

Those who go through the criminal justice system face a wide 

array of challenges that make this task difficult. Those challenges 

include low education, limited and interrupted work histories, lack 

of stable housing, and high rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and emotional trauma. All of these factors help explain why 

this population has trouble finding stable employment upon release 

from prison. 

Ban-the-box aims to increase access to jobs by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants about their criminal histories 

until late in the hiring process. The hope is that if some people 

with records can get their foot in the door, those who are a good 

fit for the job will be able to communicate their work readiness 

during an interview before the employer runs a background check. 

But work readiness, the ability to show up on time every day and 

do a good job, is difficult to discern from a job application and even 

from an interview. Employers clearly believe that a criminal record 

is a negative signal about work readiness, and they’re also worried 

about negligent hiring lawsuits and bad press that might result 

from hiring someone with a record. 

Unfortunately, ban-the-box does not do anything to address the 

reasons employers might be reluctant to hire someone with a criminal record. It just tells them they can’t ask. Since many employers 

still don’t want to hire people with criminal records, especially 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

those with recent convictions, they may try to guess who has a 

record when they aren’t allowed to ask up front. 

In the United States, young black men without college degrees 

are much more likely than others to have a recent conviction that 

might worry an employer. And so employers who want to avoid 

interviewing people with recent convictions may simply avoid interviewing applicants from this group. As a result, we might see banthe-box hurt this group more than help them. Indeed, this is what 

has happened. 

In the written testimony I submitted to this committee, I summarized the empirical evidence from the best studies on this topic, 

as well as the broader literature on how information affects discrimination in the labor market. The evidence can be summarized 

as follows. 

First, delaying information about job applicants’ criminal histories leads employers to discriminate against groups that are more 

likely to have a recent conviction. This hurts young, low-skilled 

black men who don’t have criminal records. 

Second, the best evidence suggests that ban-the-box does not increase employment for people with criminal records and might even 

reduce it. 

Third, these findings are consistent with empirical evidence from 

other contexts, such as drug testing and credit check bans. Studies 

consistently show that removing information about characteristics 

that disadvantage protected groups actually hurts those groups 

more than it helps them. In the absence of information, employers 

do not simply assume the best about people. They try to guess who 

has the characteristics they’re trying to avoid. Rather than reducing discrimination, this approach effectively broadens it to the entire group. 

Finally, effective approaches to this policy problem are likely to 

be policies that directly address employers’ concerns, such as investing in rehabilitation, providing more information about applicants’ work readiness, and clarifying employers’ legal responsibilities in the hiring process. 

Overall, the academic literature provides strong evidence that despite the best intentions, ban-the-box has not helped people with 

criminal records and has harmed young, low-skilled black men 

without records, who already struggle in the labor market for a variety of reasons. Based on this evidence, I urge this committee to 

reject the Fair Chance Act and focus on other policy options that 

are likely to be more successful. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Doleac follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31401.029

Empirical evidence on the effects of 

Ban the Box policies 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

Jennifer L. Doleac 

University of Virginia 

December 13, 2017 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and other members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify in this hearing about prisoner reentry. My remarks will focus on the empirical evidence on one popular approach to improving reentry 

outcomes: Ban the Box policies (also called Fair Chance policies). This evidence can be 

summarized as follows: 

1. Delaying information about job applicants' criminal histories leads employers to 

statistically discriminate against groups that are more likely to have a recent conviction. This reduces employment for young, low-skilled, black men. 

2. This negative effect is driven by a reduction in employment for young, low-skilled, 

black men who don't have criminal records. When these men can no longer signal 

their clean record on a job application, employers assume there is a high likelihood 

that they have a record and do not interview them. 

1 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31401.030

3. The best evidence suggests that Ban the Box does not increase employment for 

people with criminal records, and might even reduce it. 

4. Effective approaches to this policy problem are likely to be policies that directly address employers' concerns about hiring people with criminal records, such as investing in rehabilitation, providing more information about applicants' work-readiness, 

and clarifying employers' legal responsibilities. 

1 Background on Ban the Box 

Two-thirds of people who are released from prison will be arrested again within three 

years (Cooper, Durose and Snyder, 2014). This high recidivism rate signals our collective 

failure to help this group successfully reintegrate to civilian life. The question facing 

policymakers is what we can do to facilitate more successful reintegration and break this 

cycle of incarceration. 

Those who go through the criminal justice system face a wide array of challenges that 

make this task difficult. These challenges include low education, limited and interrupted 

work histories, lack of stable housing, and high rate.s of substance abuse, mental illness, 

and emotional trauma (see Raphael, 2010, and Doleac, 2016, for more complete discussions; Appendix figures A.1 through A.3 show the most recent statistics on mental health 

and substance abuse for jail and prison inmates). All of these challenges can be made 

worse by the experience of incarceration. People with criminal records also have a history 

of illegal behavior, and to the extent that past behavior predicts future behavior this 

could be worrisome to potential employers. All of these factors help explain why this 

population has trouble finding stable employment upon release from prison. A lack of 

stable employment may be one reason we sec such high recidivism rates. 

There is surely heterogeneity within this population: some people with records are 

more work-ready1 than others. \Vhy don't employers hire at least those who are work1 I will use the term "work-ready" to refer to a combination of soft skills and job-specific skills that 

2 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31401.031

ready? Unfortunately, work-readiness is difficult to discern from a job application, so 

employers are forced to infer it based on the information they can observe, such as education and work history. Many also view a criminal record as valuable information of 

work-readiness. Anecdotally, some employers are so reluctant to hire people with criminal 

records that they immediately discard applications from anyone who checks the box on 

the application saying they've been convicted of a crime. This limits opportunities for 

people with criminal records who are work-ready, and imposes large costs on society if it 

contributes to the high recidivism rates mentioned above. 

Ban the Box (BTB) aims to increase access to jobs by prohibiting employers from 

asking job applicants about their criminal histories until late in the hiring process. The 

hope is that if some people with records can get their foot in the door, those who are 

a good fit for the job will be able to build rapport with the employer and communicate 

their work-readiness during an interview, before the employer runs a background check. 

This gives the employer a chance to decide if the person is qualified before knowing about 

their record, and this could increase the likelihood that the employer hires the applicant. 

BTB could also bring more people with records into the labor force, if the question on 

applications about past convictions had previously discouraged them from applying for 

jobs. Both effects could lead to an increase in employment for people with criminal 

records. Because people with records are disproportionately African-American, this could 

also reduce racial disparities in employment. 

Unfortunately, BTB does not do anything to address the many reasons employers 

might be reluctant to hire someone with a record: the challenges I listed above likely 

make the average person with a record less work-ready than the average person without a 

record. On top of concerns about productivity, employers may worry that hiring someone 

with a criminal record puts them at risk of a negligent hiring lawsuit or negative media 

make someone a reliable and productive employee. 

3 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31401.032

attention that could put them out of business. EEOC guidance instructs employers to 

use reasonable judgment in considering whether a prior conviction is relevant given the 

responsibilities of the job being considered. But if an employee commits a violent offense 

on the job, any previous conviction could look like a red flag, and the employer could 

be held liable in a court of law or the court of public opinion; either result could be 

catastrophic for a business owner. In this context, it makes sense that employers would 

avoid hiring people with records when they have qualified people without records to choose 

from. 

Since employers still don't want to hire people with criminal records - especially those 

with recent convictions - they may try to guess who has a record when they aren't 

allowed to ask. In the United States, observable characteristics such as race, age, gender, 

and education level are highly correlated with the likelihood of having a recent criminal 

conviction. Young black men who don't have a college degree arc much more likely 

than others to have a recent conviction that might worry an employer, and so employers 

who want to avoid interviewing people with recent convictions may avoid interviewing 

applicants from this group2 As a result, we might see BTB hurt this group more than it 

helps them. 

The direction and magnitude of the effects of BTB are empirical questions, and a 

number of recent studies shed light on what these effects have been. 3 Overall, they 

2Discrimination based on race is, of course, illegal in the United States. If one could prove that a 

particular applicant was not hired for a particular job because of his race, that would be grounds for a 

lawsuit. Unfortunately1 such a thing is difficult to prove. Because of this 1 our anti-discrimination laws 

are difficult to enforce in practice. Reasonable people can differ in their belief about how much we might 

be able to reduce racial discrimination if we increased enforcement efforts. Given this, readers should 

think of the results I will present as the effects of BTB and other policy interventions in the context of 

the level of anti-discrimination enforcement in effect during the past decade. 3 It is important to distinguish between BTB the policy and BTB the social movement. "Ban the 

Box" has become the slogan of a social movement in favor of second chances and against stigmatizing 

those with a criminal past. The social movement has humanized the formerly incarcerated, and led to 

a cultural change and greater political will to improve reentry outcomes. These are, without a doubt, 

positive developments. The issue I will address in my testimony is not the effects of BTB the social 

movement, but the effects of BTB the policy, which delays when employers are allowed to ask about an 

applicant's criminal record. Disentangling these effects is difficult but has been the goal of economists 

4 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31401.033

provide strong evidence that BTB has not helped people with criminal records, and has 

harmed young, low-skilled black men without records, who already struggle in the labor 

market for a variety of reasons. Based on this evidence, I urge this Committee to reject the 

Fair Chance Act and focus on other policy options that are likely to be more successful. 

2 The Effects of Ban the Box on employment 

2.1 The research challenge 

Measuring the effect of BTB policies on employment is not a straightforward exercise. 

To measure the effect of BTB in a particular place, we need to know what would have 

happened if that place had not adopted BTB. That is, what is the counterfactual? The 

problem, of course, is that we do not simultaneously observe both events either a place 

adopts the policy or not. So, when considering the impact of BTB in particular places, 

we need to find a good control group that can serve as the counterfactual. 

Ban the Box policies are not implemented at random, so places that adopt them are 

likely to be different from places that do not. Indeed, they tend to be more urban, and 

have larger black populations (Doleac and Hansen, 2016). Such differences are easily 

observed, but others are not. For instance, places that adopt Ban the Box are likely to 

be those where residents are more motivated to help people with criminal records, and to 

reduce racial disparities in employment. A simple pre-post comparison of employment for 

people with criminal records, or even a basic comparison of employment trends in places 

that do and do not adopt the policy, could therefore be misleading. 

For instance, a frequently cited report on BTB in Durham, NC, shows that the share 

of people hired by the city government who had criminal records increased after BTB was 

implemented in 2011 (Atkinson and Lockwood, 2014). What the report does not say is 

that the unemployment rate fell dramatically in Durham during that period (2011-2014), 

which coincided with a national economic recovery. Employment of people with criminal 

studying this topic in recent years. 

5 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31401.034

records surely would have increased even if BTB had not been implemented, because the 

tighter labor market meant employers had to dig deeper into their applicant pools to fill 

open positions. Without a control group people who would be subject to the same 

employment trends as those with criminal records, but who wouldn't be affected by BTB 

we can't tell whether BTB had any effect on employment in Durham. 

Another challenge in studying policies aimed at helping people with criminal records 

is that high-quality data on this group do not exist at the national level. There is no 

national dataset that links administrative data on criminal histories with employment 

outcomes. Our major national surveys, such as the American Community Survey and the 

Current Population Survey (CPS), do not ask about criminal records. 4 

The studies I'll describe below are thus forced to take other approaches to measuring 

the effects of BTB laws. Agan and Starr (2016) conduct a field experiment that generates new data. Doleac and Hansen (2016) use the CPS to study the effects of BTB on 

demographic groups likely to have a recent conviction, to consider net effects indicative 

of statistical discrimination, but we cannot separate effects on people with and without 

criminal records. Rose (2017) and Jackson and Zhao (2017) both link administrative data 

on criminal histories and employment at the state level, to measure the effect of BTB on 

people with criminal records. The lack of similar administrative data at the national 

level means that these state-level analyses are the best available for understanding policy 

effects on people with criminal records. 

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) is often used to study the relationship between 

criminal history and outcomes like employment, but there are two important drawbacks to using this 

dataset: (1) it's a relatively small sample, so statistical power to detect effects is limited, aud (2) criminal 

history information is self-reported. Researchers have shown that such self-reports are often wildly 

inaccurate, and that inaccuracy may vary with race (Kirk and ·wakefield, 2018). The accuracy of reporting 

might also change as the perception of stigma changes for instance, after BTB policies are passed, 

respondents might be less hesitant to admit their criminal records to interviewers. This makes the NLSY 

problematic for studying the effects of BTB. 

6 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31401.035

2.2 Recent research: Overview 

The following four papers represent the best evidence so far on the employment impacts 

of BTB. Two consider the unintended consequences of BTB for young black men without 

records. Both find evidence of statistical discrimination that is consistent with economic 

theory and with other work on the role of information in labor markets. Two other 

papers measure the effect of BTB on people with criminal records. Table 1 summarizes 

the findings of these four BTB studies. 

Since places that adopt I3TB are probably more motivated to help people with criminal 

records than places that do not, all of the estimates below are likely biased toward finding 

a beneficial effect of the policy. The fact that all find negative or zero results suggests the 

actual effects are even more negative than the estimates I will present. 

The studies described below represent the most rigorous evidence available on BTB. 

Other studies exist, and some find beneficial effects of BTB, but they do not meet the 

rigorous standards of the literature. More specifically, in their current form they do not 

credibly control for other factors that might affect employment outcomes, and so do not 

isolate the effect of BTB on employment. (All are currently working papers and so may 

change in response to suggestions from colleagues and peer reviewers.) Since the evidence 

specific to BTB is relatively new, and not all of the studies have been peer-reviewed, it will 

be helpful to consider the findings in the context of other work on statistical discrimination 

in labor markets. Together, this literature tells a consistent story. 

2.3 Recent research: Unintended consequences of BTB 

Agan and Starr (2016) ran a field experiment where they sent thousands of job applications from fake applicants, all of whom were young men without college degrees. They 

randomized whether the applicant was black or white, and whether or not they had a 

non-violent felony conviction. They submitted these applications before and after Ban 

the Box laws targeting private employers went into effect in New York City and New 

7 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31401.036

Jersey, and then observed which applicants received a call for an interview (a "callback"). 

Before Ban the Box, individuals with records were called back at lower rates than those 

without records. The racial gap was small: white applicants were only 7% more likely 

than black applicants to receive a callback. After BTB, that racial gap widened to 43%. 

(See figure 1.) While white applicants were called back at nearly the same rate as before, 

black applicants were called back at a rate in between the rates at which those with and 

without records were called before BTB. This may help black men with records, but it 

hurts black men without records; this tradeoff is consistent with the hypothesis that in 

the absence of information about a criminal record, employers statistically discriminate 

based on race and are less likely to interview applicants from groups that include lots of 

people with recent convictions. 

Figure 1: Callback Rates by Race and Criminal Record Before and After Ban the Box 

Notes: Figure source: Agan and Doleac (2017), based on results from Agan and Starr (2016). 

The advantage of this randomized experiment is that Agan and Starr were able to 

isolate the effects of race and criminal history from other factors that might affect callbacks 

for real applicants. The disadvantage is that they don't see who actually gets a job. That 

8 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31401.037

is especially important in this context, as some (perhaps many) applicants with criminal 

records who are now getting callbacks might ultimately be rejected when their criminal 

history is revealed. 

My own work with Benjamin Hansen (Doleac and Hansen, 2016) uses a different approach. We use data from the CPS and the the timing of BTB policies across the country 

as a natural experiment to measure the effects of BTB on actual employment. 5 This is 

a less clean experiment than the Agan and Starr study, as the timing of these policies is 

not random, but the advantage is that we are able to see actual employment outcomes 

(instead of just callbacks). We show that, after controlling for observable differences between places, as well as regional employment shocks such as the Great Recession, places 

with and without BTB exhibit "parallel trends" in employment outcomes that is, the 

pre-policy trends in employment look very similar. This is the empirical standard for 

arguing that the places without the policy are a good counterfactual for the treatment 

group: since employment trends were similar across the two groups before the policy 

change, we can reasonably assume that the trends would have continued to be similar if 

the policy change had not occurred. 

Having established a good control group, we then measure the effect of BTB on ernployrnent for young men without college degrees the group most likely to be helped by 

the policy if it helps people with recent convictions get jobs, or hurt by the policy if it 

leads employers to statistically discriminate. We find that BTB reduces employment by 

5% for black men in this group. (See figure 2.) This estimate is robust to a large number of additional checks: for instance, restricting the sample to only cities, or to places 

that eventually adopt BTB. We even find the same effect after controlling for monthly 

unemployment rates at the local level evidence that our results are not driven by local 

employment shocks that our controls might have missed. 

5The CPS does not include information about respondents' criminal records, so we cannot separately 

measure effects on those with and without records. 

9 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31401.038

Figure 2: Effect of Ban the Box on Employment for Young, Low-Skilled Men, by Race 

!JHOOKI'\GS 

Nates: Figure source: Doleac (2016), based on results from Doleac and Hansen (2016). 

During the period we studied, 2004-2014, the majority of BTB policies were targeted 

at the public sector. However, since human capital is mobile across sectors, it is not 

obvious where we would expect to see effects on employment. People who might have 

found jobs in the private sector and now spend their time searching (unproductively) for 

government jobs might now remain unemployed; that would result in a drop in private 

sector employment. We test the effects of the policy by sector and find that about half of 

the negative result for young black men is driven by a loss of private sector jobs, and the 

other half is driven by a loss of public sector jobs. This is evidence against the hypothesis 

posed by some that the government is somehow different and immune to discrimination 

concerns. 

Who do employers hire instead when they do not hire young black men without college 

degrees? If they want to avoid hiring someone with a recent conviction who is at risk for 

future criminal activity, they may statistically discriminate in favor of white applicants, 

older applicants, and/or women. It appears that when BTB targets public employers, 

those employers shift from hiring young black men to older black men. When BTB 

10 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31401.039

targets private employers, they shift from hiring young black men to young white men 

(consistent with Agan and Starr, 2016, who found that white men were helped by the 

private BTB laws in NYC and NJ). We cannot tell from our data whether the older black 

men and young white men who are now being hired at higher rates have criminal records 

themselves, or if they are simply individuals without records who are less qualified than 

the young black men without records who are no longer being hired. 

2.4 Recent research: Effects on people with criminal records 

Some might be willing to tolerate large negative effects for people without records if 

we see benefits for at least some people with records. But the two best studies on this 

topic find no such benefits. Both studies link criminal history records with employment 

data the ideal administrative data for this exercise. One study, Rose (2017), compares 

individuals with criminal records in Seattle, where BTB was implemented, with similar 

people in other parts of the state. The pre-period trends for these two groups are nearly 

identical, so it seems like the people from outside Seattle are a good control group in this 

context. vVhen Rose compares employment trends after BTB went into effect in Seattle, 

he finds the policy had no effect on employment for people with records. (See figure 3.) 

Another study, Jackson and Zhao (2017), compares people with criminal records in 

Massachusetts at the time BTB was implemented (the treatment group) with people who 

did not have records yet but would be convicted later (the control group). The motivation 

for this strategy is that both groups should be similar in terms of education, behavior, and 

other disadvantages that might result in a criminal conviction, but only the treatment 

group is immediately affected by BTB. Because these different populations have different 

age profiles those with records are older than those without - they weight individuals 

in each group so that the pre-BTB trends look similar. They then measure changes 

in employment for the treatment group relative to the control group. They find that 

BTB redv,ced employment for people with criminal records in Massachusetts, by about 

11 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31401.040

Figure 3: Effect of Ban the Box on recently-released offenders in Seattle 

A. Employment 

QlOr-------------------~--------------------, 

-o.to'---,_,"'"o---------s.,--------'-;;---------.--------,,o;;-' 

Quarters since BTB 

Notes: Figure source: Rose {2017). Figure plots the estimated coefficients on the interaction of 

event time and treatment indicators and 95% confidence intervals. See source for more information. 

5%. (See figure 4.) This is consistent with qualitative work showing that people with 

criminal records become discouraged when interviewing for jobs that they eventually do 

not get because of their records sometimes even after working for a probationary period 

(Augustine, 2017) . Removing or delaying information that employers find valuable makes 

it harder to identify good matches early, and so risks wasting everyone's time and giving 

job applicants false hope. This is costly to job-seekers as well as to employers. 

12 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31401.041

Figure 4: Effect of Ban the Box on people with criminal records in Massachusetts 

hnti'M:'8ox. 

lti'!P~~ 

Y•t'{)u6rter 

Notes: Figure source: Jackson and Zhao (2017). 

13 

Insert offset folio 42 here 31401.042KING-6430 with DISTILLER

Table 1: Summary of main results from studies on Ban the Box 

Employers Empirical Sample Outcome Main result 

covered strategy measure 

(public/private) 

Agan and Starr (2016) Private Audit study NYC and NJ, young Callbacks BTB increased the ra

men without a college in callbacks (favoring w

degree plicants) from 7% to 4

Doleac and Hansen Both Difference-in- National, young men Employment BTB reduced employm

(2016) difference without a college de- 5% for young, low-skill

gree men 

Jackson and Zhao (2017) Both Difference-in- People with criminal Employment BTB reduced employm

difference records in MA people with criminal re

5% 

Rose (2017) Both Difference-in- People with criminal Employment Seattle's BTB policy h

,__. difference records in WA feet on employment fo

*" with criminal records 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31401.043

3 Other evidence on statistical discrimination in labor markets 

{This sect·ion is drawn heavily from the text of Doleac and Hansen, 2016,) 

Ban the box policies seek to limit employers' access to criminal histories. This access 

itself is relatively new. Before the internet and inexpensive computer storage became 

available in the 1990s, it was not easy to check job applicants' criminal histories. A number 

of studies consider how employment outcomes changed as criminal records became more 

widely available during the 1990s and early 2000s, and their findings foreshadow those 

described above: when information on criminal records is easily available, firms are more 

likely to hire low-skilled black men (Bushway, 2004; Holzer, Raphael and Stoll, 2006; 

Finlay, 2009; Stoll, 2009). In fact, many of those studies explicitly predicted that limiting 

information on criminal records, via BTB or similar policies, would negatively affect lowskilled black men as a group. For example: 

[S}ome advocates seek to suppress the information to which employers have 

access regarding criminal records. But it is possible that the provision of more 

information to these firms will increase their general willingness to hire young 

black men, as we show here and since we have previously found evidence that 

employers who do not have such information often engage in statistical discrimination against this demographic group. (Holzer, Raphael and Stoll, 2004) 

Employers have imperfect information about the criminal records of applicants, 

so rational employers may use observable correlates of criminality as proxies 

for criminality and statistically discriminate against groups with high rates of 

criminal activity or incarceration. (Finlay, 2009) 

[Ban the box} may in fact have limited positive impacts on the employment 

of ex-offenders .... More worrisome is the likelihood that these bans will have 

large negative impacts on the employment of those whom we should also be 

15 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31401.044

concerned about in the labor market, namely minority especially black - men 

without criminal records, whose employment prospects are already poor for a 

variety of other reasons. (Stoll, 2009) 

There is also evidence from other contexts that statistical discrimination increases 

when information about employees is less precise. Autor and Scarborough (2008) measure the effects of personality testing by employers on hiring outcomes. Conditioning 

hiring on good performance on personality tests (such as popular Myers-Briggs tests) 

was generally viewed as disadvantaging minority job candidates because minorities tend 

to score worse on these tests. However, the authors note that this will only happen if 

employers' assumptions about applicants in the absence of information about test scores 

are more positive than the information that test scores provide. If, in contrast, minorities 

score better on these tests than employers would have thought, adding accurate information about a job applicant's abilities will help minority applicants. They find that 

in a national firm that was rolling out personality testing, the use of these tests had no 

effect on the racial composition of employees, though they did allow the firm to choose 

employees who were more productive. 

Wozniak (2015) found that when employers required drug tests for employees, black 

employment rates increased by 7-30%, with the largest effects on low-skilled black men. 

As in the personality test context, the popular assumption was that if black men are more 

likely to fail a drug test, then employers' usc of drug tests when making hiring decisions 

would disproportionately hurt this group. It turned out that a drug test requirement 

allowed non-using black men to prove their status when employers would otherwise have 

used race as a proxy for drug use. 

In another related paper, Bartik and Nelson (2016) hypothesize that banning employers from checking job applicants' credit histories will negatively affect employment 

outcomes for groups that have lower credit scores on average (particularly black individ16 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31401.045

uals). The reasoning is as above: in the absence of information about credit histories, 

employers will usc race as a proxy for credit scores. They find that, consistent with 

statistical discrimination, credit check bans reduce job-finding rates by 7-16% for black 

job-seekers. As with BTB policies, one goal of banning credit checks was to reduce racial 

disparities in employment, so this policy was counterproductive. 

The recent studies on BTB therefore contribute to a growing literature showing that 

well-intentioned policies that remove information about racially-imbalanced characteristics from job applications can do more harm than good for minority job-seekers. Advocates 

for these policies seem to think that in the absence of information, employers will assume 

the best about all job applicants. This is often not the case. In the above examples, providing information about characteristics that are less favorable, on average, among black 

job-seekers criminal records, drug tests, and credit histories - actually helped black men 

and black women find jobs. These outcomes are what we would expect from standard 

statistical discrimination models. More information helps the best job candidates avoid 

discrimination. 

This growing literature has important implications for anti-discrimination policy in 

the United States: \Vhen we discover that employers' use of particular information has a 

disparate impact on a protected group, we often tell them they can't use that information 

anymore. But it turns out that in all of these settings, removing that information simply 

leads employers to statistically discriminate instead. (Indeed, the statistical correlation 

that causes the disparate impact makes statistical discrimination more effective.) That is, 

rather than reducing discrimination, this approach effectively broadens the discrimination 

to the entire group. 

4 Alternatives to Ban the Box 

There are other policy options that are likely to have larger benefits for people with 

records, without unintentionally harming young black men without records. The key is 

17 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31401.046

figuring out what employers are worried about, and then finding a way to directly address 

those concerns. 

Most employers simply want to find applicants who will show up on time every day 

and do a good job. They appear to view a criminal record as a negative signal about 

that, and in the absence of better information they screen those applicants out. If we 

could give them better information, or address the problems that make this population 

less work-ready, employers will care less about the criminal record. 

Effective policies will likely do one or more of the following6 : 

1. Improve the average work-readiness of people with criminal records. 

2. Provide more information to employers about the work-readiness of job applicants 

with criminal records. 

3. Clarify employers' legal responsibilities in hiring to make clear which applicants do 

and which do not pose an undue risk. 

Improving the average work readiness of people with criminal records: This 

strategy could involve investment on several fronts, including education, job training, mental health treatment, and substance abuse treatment. Recent work by Wen, Hockenberry 

and Cummings (2017) shows that increasing access to substance abuse treatment through 

expansions of Medicaid reduced both violent and property crime rates. While this does 

not speak directly to the effects of substance abuse treatment on employment, it suggests 

that access to treatment has a meaningful effect on a driver of criminal behavior, which 

is also likely to affect work-readiness. 

Providing more information about work-readiness: F\1lly rehabilitating everyone who goes through the criminal justice system will take time. In the meantime, 

providing more information about applicants' work-readiness will help employers identify 

Doleac (2016) for a longer discussion of principles to guide policy in this area. 

18 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31401.047

those applicants who would make good employees despite their criminal record. One type 

of information that many employers find valuable is successful completion of a challenging 

rehabilitation or job training program, or even active participation in such a program. 

See Piehl (2009) for a description of a reentry program that employers trust to send them 

work-ready employees. 

Court-issued certificates of qualification for employment (also called employability or 

rehabilitation certificates) provide another example of how to provide valuable information 

to employers. In a growing number of jurisdictions, individuals with criminal records can 

go before a judge and present evidence of their rehabilitation and work-readiness. If the 

judge is convinced, he or she can issue a certificate of qualification. The recipient can then 

show that certificate to employers when applying for jobs. To the extent that employers 

view the judge as a credible evaluator of work-readiness, this could outweigh the effect of 

a criminal record. 

Clarify employers' legal responsibilities: Certificates of qualification could address liability concerns as well. For employers who worry about the legal liability or 

negative press associated with hiring someone with a record, finding a way to shift the 

risk involved from the employer to someone else can address this concern. Employers 

likely view certificates of qualification as insurance against negligent hiring lawsuits and 

negative press. If someone with a certificate of qualification later commits a crime on 

the job, the employer can credibly argue that there's no way they could have predicted 

such an event and deflect any blame to the court system. After all, a judge certified the 

applicant as being work-ready. 

There is empirical evidence that certificates of qualification are effective. Leasure and 

Andersen (2016) ran an audit study to test the effect of these certificates on callbacks for a 

job. They randomized whether a job applicant had a felony conviction, a felony conviction 

and a certificate of qualification, or no conviction at all. They found that applicants with a 

19 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31401.048

certificate were called back just as often as those with no conviction at all, suggesting that 

this type of intervention provides valuable information to employers that allays concerns 

about an applicant's criminal record. (See figure 5.) Since this intervention provides more 

information about the applicant, rather than taking information away, there is no reason 

to expect unintended consequences of the sort caused by BTB it should lead to less 

guessing about applicants' work-readiness, not more. 

Figure 5: The Effect of Certificates of Qualification for Employment on Positive Employer Responses 

Notes: Figure source: Leasure and Andersen (2016). Overall Likelihood Ratio x2 = 14.114, p < 

0.001. No criminal record vs. One-year-old felony Likelihood Ratio x2 = 12.691, p < 0.001. Oneyear-old felony vs. Certificate of Qualification for Employment Likelihood Ratio x2 = 9.151, p < 0.01. No criminal record vs. CQE Likelihood Ratio x2 = 0.339, n.s. "Positive response" refers 

to interview invitations or job offers. Circles indicate point estimates of percentages. Error bars 

indicate 95% confidence interval. 

Given the growing evidence that BTB is not having the benefits we'd hoped for people 

with criminal records, and is actually harming disadvantaged groups without records, 

it would be helpful to shift our policy focus to creative solutions like these that take 

employers' concerns seriously and find ways to address them. 

20 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31401.049

References 

Agan, Amanda, and Jennifer Doleac. 2017. "The Effects of 'Ban the Box 

on the Employment of Black Men." Econofact, available at http:// econofact.org/ 

the-effects-of-ban-the-box-on-the-employment-of-black-men. 

Agan, Amanda, and Sonja Starr. 2016. "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical 

Discrimination: A Field Experiment." Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming. 

Atkinson, Daryl V., and Kathleen Lockwood. 2014. "The benefits of Ban the Box: A 

case study of Durham, NC." The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, available at https: 

// www.southerncoalition.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/10/ BantheBox_ WhitePaper-2.pdf. 

Augustine, Dallas. 2017. "Working Around the Law: Navigating Legal Barriers to Good Work 

During Reentry." Working paper. 

Autor, David H., and David Scarborough. 2008. "Does Job Testing Harm Minority \Vorkers? Evidence from Retail Establishments." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1): 219--277. 

Bartik, Alexander W., and Scott T. Nelson. 2016. "Credit Reports as Resumes: The 

Incidence of Pre-Employment Credit Screening." MIT Economics Working Paper Number 

16-01. 

Bronson, Jennifer, and Marcus Berzofsky. 2017. "Indicators of Mental Health Problems 

Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12." Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 

NCJ 250612. 

Bronson, Jennifer, Jessica Stroop, Stephanie Zimmer, and Marcus Berzofsky. 2017. 

"Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009." 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 250546. 

Bushway, Shawn D. 2004. "Labor Market Effects of Permitting Employer Access to Criminal 

History Records." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20: 276-291. 

21 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31401.050

Cooper, Alexia D., Matthew R. Durose, and Howard N. Snyder. 2014. "Recidivism 

of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns From 2005 to 2010." Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, NCJ 244205, Available at http:/ /www.bjs.gov/indcx.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986. 

Doleac, Jennifer L. 2016. "Increasing employment for individuals with criminal records." 

The Hamilton Project, available at http:// www.hamiltonproject.org/ papers/ increasing_ 

employment-for _individuals_with_criminal_records. 

Doleac, Jennifer L, and Benjamin Hansen. 2016. "Does "ban the box help or hurt lowskilled workers? Statistical discrimination and employment outcomes when criminal histories 

are hidden." NBER Working Paper No. 22469. 

Finlay, Keith. 2009. "Effect of Employer Access to Criminal History Data on the Labor Market 

Outcomes of Ex-Offenders and Non-Offenders." In Studies of Labor Market Intermediation. , 

ed. David H. Autor, 89-125. 

Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll. 2004. "The Effect of an Applicant's Criminal History on Employer Hiring Decisions and Screening Practices: Evidence 

from Los Angeles." National Poverty Center Working Paper Number 04-15, University of 

Michigan. 

Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll. 2006. "Perceived Criminality, 

Criminal Background Checks, and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers." Journal of Law 

and Economics, 49: 451-480. 

Jackson, Osborne, and Bo Zhao. 2017. "The effect of changing employers' access to criminal 

histories on ex-offenders' labor market. outcomes: Evidence from the 2010-2012 Massachusetts 

CORI reform." Federal Reserve of Boston Research Department Working Paper 16-30. 

Kirk, David S, and Sara Wakefield. 2018. "Collateral Consequences of Punishment: A 

Critical Review and Path Forward." Annual Review of Criminology, 1(1). 

22 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 31401.051

Leasure, Peter, and Tia Stevens Andersen. 2016. "The Effectiveness of Certificates of 

Relief as Collateral Consequence Relief Mechanisms: An Experimental Study." Yale Law f1 

Policy Revie·w Inter Alia, 35(11): 11-22. 

Piehl, Anne Morrison. 2009. "Preparing Prisoners for Employment: The Power of Small 

Rewards." Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Civic Report no. 57. 

Raphael, Steven. 2010. "Improving Employment Prospects for Former Prison Inmates: Challenges and Policy." NBER Working Paper 15874. 

Rose, Evan. 2017. "Does banning the box help ex-offenders get jobs? Evaluating the effects of 

a prominent example." Working paper·, available at https:l I ekrose. github. io I files I btb _seattle_ 

ekr.pdf. 

Stoll, Michael A. 2009. "Ex-Offenders, Criminal Background Checks, and Racial Consequences 

in the Labor Market." University of Chicago Legal Forum, 381-419. 

Wen, Hefei, Jason M Hockenberry, and Janet R Cummings. 2017. "The effect of 

Medicaid expansion on crime reduction: Evidence from HIFA-waiver expansions." Journal of 

Public Economics, 154: 67-94. 

Wozniak, Abigail. 2015. "Discrimination and the Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment." Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(3): 548·566. 

23 
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 31401.052

A Appendix 

Figure A.l: Prisoners and adult general population who met the threshold for serious 

psychological distress, 2009-2012 

0 6 9 12 15 

Per<ent 

Notes: Figure source: Bronson and Berzofsky (2017). Includes persons with a score of 13 or more 

on the K6 scale. (See source for definitions.) 

* Comparison group. 

** Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. 

aGeneral population estimates were standardized to the prison population based on sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age. 

blncludes respondents from the 2009-2012 NSDUH who indicated they had not been arrested or on 

probation or parole in the past 12 months. 

cincludes respondents from the 2009-2012 NSDUH who indicated they had been on probation or 

parole in the past 12 months. 

dlncludes respondents from the 2009-2012 NSDUH who indicated they had been arrested in the 

past 12 months. 

Data source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 20112012; and Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 

2009-2012. 

24 
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 31401.053

Figure A.2: Mental health status of prisoners and jail inmates, by type of mental health 

indicator, 2011-2012 

Percent 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Notes: Figure source: Bronson and Berzofsky (2017). 

* Comparison group. 

** Diffcrmce with the comparison group is significant. at the 95% confidence level. 

aincludcs persons with a score of 13 or more on the K6 scale. (See source for definitions.) 

•Includes inmates who reported they had ever been told by a mental health professional they had a 

mental disorder. 

cincludes inmates with a score of 7 or less on the K6 and who had never been told by a mental 

health professional they had a mental disorder. 

Data source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011··2012. 

25 
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 31401.054

Figure A.3: Inmates and adult general population who met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse, 2007--2009 

Percent 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

!1111 Abuse 

!1111 Dependence 

Notes: Figure source: Bronson et aL (2017). (See source for definition of dependence and abuse 

based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition_) 

* Comparison group_ 

** Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence le\·el. 

aceneral population estinlates have been standardized to the state prisoner population by sex} race, 

Hispanic origin, and age. 

Data source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Surveys, 2007 and 2008-00; and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 

2007-2000-

26 
69 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Professor. 

Ms. Roseberry? 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA W. ROSEBERRY 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and members of the committee and staff, thank you for inviting me 

to participate in today’s oversight hearing on the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons and reentry. 

My perspective and understanding of the Bureau of Prisons 

comes from my experience as a Federal public defender, private 

criminal defense attorney in Atlanta and Chicago, as project manager of Clemency Project 2014, as executive director of the Council 

for Court Excellence, and as a member of the Charles Colson Task 

Force on Federal Corrections, a nine-person, bipartisan, congressional blue ribbon panel led by former Congressman J.C. Watts Jr. 

and former Congressman Alan Mollohan and supported ably by the 

Urban Institute. 

My comments are my own and not as a representative of any entity about which I speak. 

Since the sevenfold increase in its population in the 1980s, the 

Bureau of Prisons has been operating at crisis levels for decades. 

People of color and people from poor communities, not unlike the 

one in which I was reared, Mr. Cummings, are largely part of the 

population in the world’s largest incarcerated population. 

Despite recent reductions in population, overcrowding continues, 

spreading the staff thin, with staff members performing duties outside of their expertise. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons has not 

lived up to its goal of rehabilitation, missing the opportunity to improve public safety. 

As my former fellow Colson task force member John Wetzel, the 

Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, would 

say, public safety is a logical consequence of good corrections policy. 

Returning citizens need effective reentry programming, but BOP 

policies and practices have not kept up with best practices in the 

field. ‘‘One size fits all’’ does not work. Efforts must be, one, data 

driven; two, evidence-based and individualized with measurable 

outcomes; and three, transparent. 

Data-driven efforts. Coordinated consistency in standards, practice, and data collection are essential to BOP’s success. Crafting 

goals and measuring outcomes are accomplished by the collection 

of data. The Federal corrections system must also standardize assessment protocols and case management practices. 

As project manager of Clemency Project 2014, I witnessed the 

havoc wreaked by inconsistency throughout the system in something as simple as the coding of the statutes of conviction. As a 

practitioner, I have experienced firsthand how inconsistency in 

policies such as those where access to programming and client visitation and correspondence negatively impact reentry. 

It is critical that agencies within the Federal corrections systems 

work collaboratively to facilitate smooth transition home. The BOP 

must consistently coordinate with RRCs. Recently, one young 

woman who was scheduled for release to a halfway house had secured employment, only to be told that there was an error in her 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

release date for several months. And other families report extended 

stays because of errors in release dates. 

The current system lacks the highly coordinated cross-agency 

data-sharing platform and procedures that can improve the transition process. Critical information like completion of mental health 

evaluations is not always passed from the BOP to halfway houses 

through the supervision, leading to less effective reentry planning 

and support. D.C. Code offenders experience more difficulty because they are not housed close to D.C. before their reentry. 

Evidence-based. Although the evidence shows that individualized 

treatment and programs can improve outcomes, BOP’s own study 

shows that out of its approximately 16,000 available programs, 

only a handful are evidence-based. Evidence-based individualized 

programming would allow the BOP to establish priorities and make 

data-driven decisions like resource allocations and ways to maximize time outside of facilities for successful reentry. Educational, 

occupational, and other programs can respond to changes in demand through proper allocation. 

Recent reports of videoconferencing only has daunted some of the 

hopes of those who are incarcerated and their families. If BOP 

were to focus on the evidence that connections with families increases successful reentry, BOP could ease visitation difficulties 

without compromising security and expand programs designed to 

enhance family bonds, including those between incarcerated parents and children. 

As a 20-year defense lawyer, you might find it surprising to hear 

me say that I’m concerned about the safety of the staff at the BOP 

as well. They want to engage in professional corrections efforts. 

Evidence-based individualized program benefits BOP staff. If public 

safety is a natural outcome of good corrections policy, then safe 

working conditions result from the proper resource allocation that 

evidence-based individualized programming provides. 

Evidence-based program must begin at day one. The BOP 

mantra ‘‘reentry begins at one—at day one’’ is belied by the fact 

that the effects of incarceration are not measured. Through CP 

2014, I came to understand that returning people to society after 

long incarceration without evidence-based individualized programming is like sending someone to an alien planet. 

One gentleman who was released reported being confused when 

someone told him they would call him on their BlackBerry. Another woman reported that she experience indignity because she 

didn’t know how to wash her hands. When she was first incarcerated, sinks were not automatic. 

At most, we should send people home better. At least we should 

not make them worse. We also owe it to the victims of crime to 

make the people who committed crimes and served their sentences 

better before we send them home. If we take the extreme measure 

of removing someone from society because of their crimes, we 

should also take on the responsibility to first do no harm, especially 

since most hail from and return to marginalized communities. 

Far too often, measures like the mechanism to ensure effective 

implementation and assessment, it’s not clear, for example, that all 

individuals are receiving the appropriate support and treatment 

consistent with best evidence on what works to reduce recidivism. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

For example, studies have shown that under certain circumstances, 

halfway houses can be ineffective or even harmful to a person’s 

prospects for reentry. The right individuals, those who stand to 

gain from halfway houses, should matriculate through them. 

The Colson task force has recommended two oversight bodies. 

One would provide advice on the best corrections practice to ensure 

accountability and compliance, and the other would be a high-level 

working group to oversee and coordinate implementation of the reforms. The task force also recommended developing better systemwide performance measures that would be shared with the public. 

We need to know what’s going on inside our prisons. 

And lastly, as reentry must start on day one, reentry doesn’t end 

on the last day of custody. The myriad of collateral consequences 

that NACDL has counted, more than 5,000, must relate—most relate neither to the conduct for which people were convicted, nor to 

public safety. Looking through the lens of public safety, a working 

group could identify those found to unnecessarily impede successful 

reentry as candidates work for appeal. Once we send a person to 

prison and they come out, we should stamp their receipt paid-infull. 

This concludes my remarks. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Roseberry follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 31401.055

Written Testimony of Cynthia W. Roseberry 

Executive Director 

Council for Court Excellence 

Before the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry 

December 13, 2017 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 

me to participate in today's oversight hearing on the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and reentry. This hearing 

provides a timely opportunity to 1) discuss how the BOP can most effectively promote successful reentry 

and 2) encourage more transparency and accountability regarding BOP's current efforts to implement 

the many recommendations that have previously been made to improve reentry. 

My perspective and understanding of the BOP comes from my experience as a federal defender and 

criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, the project manager of Clemency Project 2014, and a member of 

the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections. The testimony I provide here is my own and not as 

a representative of any of these entities. 

For those who may not know, the Colson Task Force was established by Congressional mandate in 2014 

as a nine person, bipartisan panel charged with developing practical, data-driven recommendations to 

enhance public safety by creating a more just and efficient federal corrections system. led by its chair, 

former Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr., and vice-chair, former Congressman Alan B. Mollohan, the Task 

Force conducted over a year of fact-finding, rigorous data analysis, and discussions with key experts and 

stakeholders. The Urban Institute provided valuable research, analysis, and strategic support. The Task 

Force endorsed a broad set of reforms affecting all stages of the federal criminal justice system. 

The work of the Task Force was grounded in several principles, two of which are especially pertinent 

here: 1) correctional policy should improve public safety and 2) correctional interventions and 

programming should be individualized. This means that federal corrections policies should be designed 

to ensure that people involved in the federal criminal justice system are provided the tools for 

successful release and reentry, which will improve safety in our nation's communities. 

Based on its fact-finding, and consistent with these principles, the Task Force made a series of 

recommendations directed to BOP, which I'd like to discuss today: 

1. promote a culture of safety and rehabilitation in the BOP 

2. incentivize participation in risk-reduction programming 

3. ensure successful reintegration by using evidence-based practices, and 

4. enhance system performance and accountability through increased transparency. 

1 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 31401.056

1. Promote a culture of safety and rehabilitation in the BOP 

The BOP needs to create a culture of both safety and rehabilitation inside its facilities. Federal prisons 

have been operating at crisis levels of overcrowding for decades. Despite recent reductions, 

overcrowding remains high at medium and high security facilities to the detriment of BOP staff and 

those incarcerated. It is challenging to operate safe, rehabilitative environments with that level of 

crowding. 

Nonetheless, population reduction in recent years-- from a peak of almost 220,000 in 2013 to about 

185,000 in 2017- should enable BOP to reexamine its staffing levels and housing assignments. Making 

sure that individuals are housed in accordance with rated cell capacity and maintaining appropriate 

inmate-to-staff ratios are prerequisites to operating safe facilities. Reduced overcrowding should also 

enable staff to focus on rehabilitation. The Task Force learned, for example, that federal corrections 

staff were often pulled away from their professional positions to provide basic safety and security 

functions in facilities. 

In response to these findings, the Task Force encouraged BOP to implement new ways of doing business. 

Our assessment found that BOP's policies and practices had not kept up with best practices in the field 

and that much work needed to be done to create a culture of rehabilitation inside federal prisons. And 

let's be clear: public safety is a logical consequence of good corrections policy. A wealth of evidence is 

now available to identify correctional practices that lead to the best outcomes. 

Evidence shows that using actuarial risk and needs assessments to guide correctional treatment and 

programs can improve outcomes.' It allows practitioners to individualize treatment and services, an 

evidence-based practice that is essential to improving public safety. However, the Task Force found that 

the BOP did not adequately account for risk of recidivism or capture individual needs for treatment 

Because a validated risk and needs assessment is the foundation of prison-based services and 

treatment, the Task Force recommended the BOP adopt a similar tool. 

Risk and needs assessments wouldn't only improve individualized treatment efforts. They would allow 

the BOP to analyze its program capacity and make data-driven decisions about where resources are 

needed. Based on the information the Task Force and others have collected about insufficient 

programming, BOP should expand educational programs and occupational training opportunities 

immediately. 

The unique circumstances and attributes of each case and each person entering the BOP system should 

inform the rehabilitation programs, treatment, and services provided. The Task Force recommended 

that the BOP adopt best practices demonstrated by the states in assessing all federally incarcerated 

persons' risk of recidivism and programming needs. Delivering programming based on risk and needs is 

an evidence-based practice shown to reduce the risk of recidivism. Data and research should guide 

practice. 

The BOP should also take steps to create conditions of confinement that support rehabilitation. 

1 A:gisd6ttir et al. 2006; Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith 2006; Grove et al. 2000, as cited in Bonta and Andrews 

2007. 

2 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 31401.057

It should have housing and security procedures that consider the needs of its diverse population, 

including the aged, infirm and LGBT populations. 

2. lncentivize participation in risk-reduction programming 

Providing evidence-based programming based on risk and needs can only go so far in promoting public 

safety. The research suggests that effective treatment aimed at behavior change requires strong 

incentives and positive reinforcement. 2 The Task Force recommended that corrections policies 

incentivize participation in risk reduction programming. Evidence shows that encouraging more people 

to participate in programming while in prison can improve public safety and restore the lives of people 

returning to their communities. 

The Task Force recommended that people in federal prison be eligible to earn time off credits if they 

complete programs and treatment prescribed in their individualized case plans. Further, it 

recommended that those at higher risk of recidivism earn credits by completing intensive, evidencebased programs pursuant to their case plans. Lower risk individuals should be able to earn time off, but 

their case plans would be less onerous. 

The Task Force also recommended that earned time for the intensive Residential Drug Abuse Program 

be expanded so that all those who have demonstrated substance abuse problems be incentivized to 

participate in the program. Currently, people with histories of violence are restricted from benefiting 

from this incentive. But, all individuals should be strongly incentivized to participate in programming 

that addresses their needs, regardless of the nature of their criminal histories. This would require both 

the BOP and Congress to expand the criteria for this incentive. 

The BOP already uses some institutional incentives (such as reducing security level) to encourage 

program participation and completion. The Task Force recommended that the BOP review these policies 

and expand earned privileges further to include more recreation time, expanded visiting hours, and 

other institutional incentives. It further recommended that these be available to all those in federal 

prison, including those serving life sentences. 

The BOP has the discretionary authority to recommend early release for people that BOP staff deem 

rehabilitated. Under a transparent system with measurable outcomes, BOP staff are in a unique 

position to discern rehabilitation and make recommendations for release. 

Finally, the Task Force recommended that Congress establish a judicial second look function, to review 

and possibly reduce the sentences of people who have served at least 15 years behind bars. As the 

Project Manager of the Clemency Project 2014, I managed lawyers who reviewed the cases of many 

people who had served decades behind bars. Some had turned their lives around while in prison, 

contributing to the prison community by teaching classes and preparing others for reentry. The data 

suggests that as such individuals age, their risk of recidivism falls considerably. 3 

2 Andrews and Bonta 2010; Bonta and Andrews 2007; Cullen and Gendreau 2000; Drake and Barnoski 2008; 

Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau 2002; National Research Council 2008; Petersilia 2004, 2007; Taxman, Soule, and 

Gelb 1999. 3 Blumstein and Nakamura 2009; Sampson and laub 2004. 

3 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 31401.058

3. Ensure successful reintegration by using evidence-based practices 

Almost everyone confined in the federal prison system will return to their home communities one day, 

and BOP should do all it can to ease the transition back to the community. One important way the BOP 

can help people prepare for their return is by facilitating relationships with family members. The Task 

Force learned, however, that prison visitation procedures-which can change and vary by institutionsometimes hinder regular family visits. The Task Force therefore recommended that the BOP establish a 

central family affairs and visitation office to oversee prison visitation procedures, with a focus on easing 

visitation difficulties without compromising security. The office would also work to expand programs 

designed to enhance family bonds, particularly between children and incarcerated parents. Consistent 

with the research, by implementing these programs the BOP could help reduce recidivism rates while 

greatly improving the lives of family members. 

It's critical that all agencies within the federal corrections system- BOP facilities, federal halfway house 

contractors, and federal probation office- work collaboratively to facilitate a smooth transition home 

for people released from federal prisons. At present, the systems lack the highly coordinated, crossagency data sharing platforms and procedures to improve the transition process. Critical informationsuch as case plans, program completion and mental health evaluations-is not always passed along 

from BOP to halfway houses to community supervision agencies, leading to less effective reentry 

planning and support. Improving data sharing among these agencies could improve efficiency and 

system-wide outcomes. 

Residential reentry centers (RRCs) could also play a pivotal role in the transition from prison to the 

community in the federal system, but BOP needs to ensure that the right individuals-those who stand 

to benefit from a federal halfway house-transition through them and receive reentry services matched 

to their needs. Studies have shown that under certain circumstances, stays at halfway houses can be 

ineffective or even harmful to a person's prospects for successful reentry. 4 

A great deal of work was done over the last few years to assess the RRCs and develop recommendations 

for improvement. Recommendations from the Colson Task Force, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector 

General's office, Deloitte, and others culminated in a series of action steps laid out by DOJ in late 2016. 

There is a lack of transparency about the new Administration's approach to BOP and the RRCs, but some 

of the recent indications about the RRCs have not been positive. We have heard about modifications to 

the RRC contracts, including a shift away from the commitment to adopt performance based 

contracting, and a reduction in the number of contracts and available bed-space. DOJ and BOP 

committed to moving towards performance-based contracting in 2016, but we have since learned that 

the revised Statement of Work reflecting these changes has been revised or is not being fully 

implemented. For example, we understand that the provisions requiring certain types of programming 

(Cognitive Based Treatment) have been eliminated. If they have, in fact, backed away from this 

commitment, the potential improvements for those housed in RRCs will not be realized. 

4. Enhance system performance and accountability through better coordination across agencies and 

increased transparency 

4 Lowenkamp and Latessa 2002. 

4 
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 31401.059

The Task Force urged more collaboration among agencies, increased transparency about agency policies 

and practices, and additional mechanisms to hold agencies and the overall federal corrections system 

accountable for results. This starts with BOP being more transparent and accountable about its 

operations and programming. 

Experience from state criminal justice reform efforts suggests that far too often reform measures lack 

the mechanisms to ensure effective implementation and assessment. To that end, the Task Force 

recommended two new oversight bodies to improve accountability. One would be for BOP, and would 

provide advice on best corrections practice, ensure accountability, and promote compliance. The other 

would be a high-level working group headed by the DOJ and the Judiciary (Criminal Law Committee) to 

oversee and coordinate implementation of the reforms. It also recommended developing better systemwide performance measures that would be shared with the public. Regular reporting of recidivism rates 

was at the top of our list for improved performance metrics. 

Ultimately, coordinated efforts require consistency in standards, practice, and data collection. The 

federal corrections system must work towards standardized assessment protocols and case 

management practices. As the BOP develops its risk and needs assessment, it should consult with US 

Probation and RRC contractors to develop comparable measures. By improving the handoff across 

agencies, the Task Force believed the federal corrections system could further reduce recidivism rates. 

Finally, the Task Force expressed concern about the adverse impact of collateral consequences and 

recommended that the new Joint Working Group review them through the lens of public safety. 

Moving Ahead 

The road map for BOP reform is straightforward. I have attached a list of the recommendations from the 

Colson Task Force as well as references to other suggestions regarding RRCs. Given the size and 

complexity of the BOP, however, implementation will be difficult under the best of circumstances. The 

key question is whether BOP, working with its partners, is committed to adopting and implementing the 

changes. Last year, there seemed to be momentum to reform the BOP, including the RRCs, but it is 

unclear what is currently underway. Requiring BOP to be more transparent about its ongoing operations 

by issuing regular reports with agreed upon performance measures, would support effective oversight, 

improve accountability, and promote successful reentry. 

5 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 31401.060

References 

A:gisd6ttir, Stefanfa, Michael J. White, Paul M. Spengler, Alan S. Maugherman, Linda A. Anderson, 

RobertS. Cook, Cassandra N. Nichols, Georgios K. Lampropoulos, BlainS. Walker, Genna Cohen, and 

Jeffrey D. Rush. 2006. "The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project: Fifty-Six Years of Accumulated 

Research on Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction." Counseling Psychologist 34: 341-82. 

Andrews, D. A., James Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith. 2006. "Recent Past and Near Future of Risk 

and/or Need Assessment." Crime and Delinquency 52 {1): 7-27 

Andrews, D. A., and James Bonta. 2010. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 5th ed. Newark, NJ: 

Anderson. 

Blumstein, Alfred, and Kiminori Nakamura. 2009. "Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal 

Background Checks." Criminology 47 {2): 327-59. 

Bonta, James L, and D. A. Andrews. 2007. Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and 

Rehabilitation 2007--D6. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. 

http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/lnformation/Documents/Research/EBP7.pdf. 

Bonta, James L, and D. A. Andrews. 2007. Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and 

Rehabilitation 2007--Q6. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. 

http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/lnformation/Documents/Research/EBP7 .pdf. 

Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections. 2016. Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final 

Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force an Federal Corrections. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/transforming-prisons-restoring-lives/view/full report. 

Cullen, Francis T., and Paul Gendreau. 2000. "Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and 

Prospects." In NIJ Criminal Justice 2000: Policies, Process, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 

edited by Julie Horney, 109--76. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. 

Deloitte. 2016. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons Residential Reentry Centers Assessment: 

Recommendations Report. Washington, DC: Deloitte Development, LLC. 

https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/page/file/914006/download. 

Drake, Elizabeth K., and Robert Barnoski. 2008. Increasing Earned Release from Prison: Impacts of 2003 

Law on Recidivism and Criminal Justice Costs. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

http:/fwww.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1039/Wsipp Increased-Earned-Release-From-Prison-Impacts-ofa- 2003-Law-on-Recidivism-and-Crime-Costs-Revised Fuii-Report.pdf. 

Grove, William M., David H. Zald, BoydS. Lebow, Beth E. Snitz, and Chad Nelson. 2000. "Clinical versus 

Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Assessment 12 {1): 19-30. 

Latessa, Edward J., Francis T. Cullen, and Paul Gendreau. 2002. "Beyond Professional Quackery: 

Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment." Federal Probation 66 {2): 43-49. 

6 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 31401.061

lowenkamp, Christopher T., and Edward J. Latessa. 2002. Evaluation of Ohio's Community Based 

Correctional Facilities and Halfway House Programs Final Report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. 

https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/project reports/HH CBCF Reportl.pdf. 

Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2004. "life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime among 

Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70." Criminology 41 (3): 301-40. 

National Research Council. 2008. Parole, Desistence from Crime, and Community Integration. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Petersilia, Joan. 2004. "What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence." 

Federal Probation 68 (2): 3-9. 

---. 2007. "Employ Behavioral Contracting for 'Earned Discharge' Parole." Criminology and Public 

Policy 6 (4): 807-14. 

Taxman, Faye S., David Soule, and Adam Gelb. 1999. "Graduated Sanctions: Stepping into Accountable 

Systems and Offenders." Prison Journal 79 (2): 182-204. 

US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. 2016. Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 

Management of Inmate Placements in Residential Reentry Centers and Home Confinement, Audit Report 

17-01. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. 

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1701.pdf#page=l. 

7 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 31401.062

Recommendations by Authority 

Recommendation 1: Reserve Prison for Those Convicted 

of the Most Serious Federal Crimes 

Executive 

Recommendation Congress Branch Judiciary 

1.1 Mandatory minimums for drug offenses ~ ~ 

l.l.a Repeal drug mandatory minimum penalties, Congress 

except for drug kingpins; apply Fair 

Sentencing Act retroactively 

1.1.b Revise Sentencing Guidelines to reflect role ussc and culpability; prescribe alternatives to prison 

for lower-level drug trafficking offenses 

1.2 Mandatory minimums for weapon possession ~ -/ 

1.2.a Enable judges to sentence below the Congress 

mandatory minimum weapon enhancement 

for possession associated with nonviolent 

offense 

1.2.b Monitor impact of change and consider similar Congress ussc 

departure mechanisms for other mandatory 

minimums 

1.3 Mandatory minimum research and sunset -/ -/ 

provisions 

1.3.a Update report on mandatory minimum ussc 

penalties re: unwarranted disparities or 

disproportionately severe sentences 

1.3.b Apply sunset provision to any future Congress 

mandatory minimum penalties 

1.3.c Prepare prison, fiscal, and racial impact DOJ,other US Courts, 

assessments for proposed legislative and agencies ussc 

Sentencing Guidelines changes 

1.4 Alternatives to incarceration -/ -/ 

1.4.a Prescribe probation for lower-level drug ussc 

trafficking offenses and consider doing so for 

other offense types 

1.4.b Promulgate information regarding alternatives ussc to incarceration 

1.4.c Increase use of alternatives to incarceration US Attorneys Judges 

including front-end diversion courts, 

problem-solving courts, and evidence-based 

probation 

1.4.d Authorize and fund front-end diversion Congress OJP 

programs and problem-solving courts, 

evaluating alternatives 

1.5 Federal prosecution -/ 

1.5.a Review case selection and charging practices US Attorneys 

regarding federal interest and jurisdiction 

1.5.b Analyze data from all US Attorneys' offices to US Attorneys 

determine application of Smart on Crime 

Rl\<i'OM~I!;N~P, tl:!)f<s''!l¥;..11*!1hRI:t" 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 31401.063

Recommendation 2: Promote a Culture of Safety and 

Rehabilitation in Federal Facilities 

Executive 

Recommendation Congress Branch Judiciary 

2.1 Safety and security in BOP ~ ~ 

2.1.a Assess and reallocate staffing to ensure BOP 

appropriate inmate-to-staff ratios 

2.1.b Ensure individuals are housed in accordance BOP 

with rated cell capacity 

2.1.c Enable individuals to earn up to 15 percent off Congress 

sentence to incentivize good conduct 

2.2 Risk and needs ~ 

2.2.a Develop and implement an actuarial risk and BOP 

needs assessment tool 

2.2.b Develop case plans and deliver programming BOP 

based on individual risk and needs 

2.3 Programming ~ 

2.3.a Develop aggregate criminogenic risk and needs BOP 

profile of its population 

2.3.b Conduct a systemwide assessment of facility- BOP 

specific programming needs 

2.3.c Allocate programs and treatment offerings in BOP 

accordance with facility risk and need 

2.3.d Expand educational and occupational BOP 

opportunities in accordance with facility need 

2.4 Conditions of confinement and rehabilitative ~ 

culture 

2.4.a Train all staff on communication, problem BOP 

solving, and procedurally just resolution 

practices 

2.4.b Use segregated housing as punitive measure BOP 

only in extraordinary circumstances 

2.4.c Ensure housing and security procedures BOP 

respond to specific needs of diverse 

population 

2.4.d Develop appropriate and nonrestrictive BOP 

housing options for those in need of 

protective custody 

2.5 Family engagement ~ 

2.5.a House people close to home communities BOP 

2.5.b Establish visitation and family affairs office to BOP 

oversee and ease visitation procedures 

2.5.c Expand video conferencing and other visitation BOP 

programs 

2.5.d Enhance support for families of people in prison BOP 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 31401.064

Recommendation 3: lncentivize Participation in RiskReduction Programming 

Recommendation Congress Executive Branch Judiciary 

3.1 Risk-reduction programming .,.- .,.-

3.1.a Enable individuals not serving life sentences to Congress 

earn up to 20 percent off time served by 

complying with individualized case plans 

3.1.b Enable individuals, including those serving life BOP 

sentences, to earn facility-based privileges 

3.1.c Enable all Residential Drug Abuse Program Congress BOP 

participants not serving life sentences to earn 

up to one year off time served 

3.2 Second look provision .,.- .,.-

3.2.a Enable resentencing for anyone who has served Congress 

more than 15 years of their sentence 

3.2.b Develop guidelines for Second Look reviews ussc and sentence modifications 

Recommendation 4: Ensure Successful Reintegration by 

Using Evidence-Based Practices in Supervision and 

Support 

Recommendation 

4.1 Prerelease custody and Residential Reentry 

Centers (RRCs) 

4.1.a Make recommendations regarding allocation of 

RRC beds, alternatives to RRC placement, 

and performance-based RRC contracts 

4.2 Safe and seamless reintegration 

4.2.a Improve coordination by establishing a shared 

information system 

4.2.b Share information on risk and needs 

assessment, program participation, medical and 

mental health status, and aftercare information 

4.3 Supervised release and early termination 

Congress Executive Branch 

BOP Performance, 

Accountability, and 

Oversight Board 

(Board) 

.,.-

BOP 

BOP 

Judiciary 

.,.-

Probation 

Probation 

.,.-

Probation 

Jud es 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 31401.065

Recommendation 5: Enhance System Performance and 

Accountability through Better Coordination across 

Agencies and Increased Transparency 

Recommendation Con;ress Executive Branch Judicia!:Y 

5.1 Establish joint Department of Justice/ ., ., Judiciary working group (Joint Working 

Group) to oversee reforms 

5.1.a Monitor implementation of recommended Joint Working Joint Working 

legislative and policy changes Group Group 

5.1.b Submit an annual report on reform progress Joint Working Joint Working 

and performance metrics Group Group 

5.2 Caseload reporting and performance metrics ., ., 5.2.a Review and expand annual reporting of Joint Working Joint Working 

caseload data for the corrections and Group Group 

supervision population 

5.2.b Develop metrics and an ongoing review for Joint Working Joint Working 

performance measurement; disseminate Group Group 

recidivism data annually ussc 

5.3 Establish BOP Office of Victim Services ., 

5.4 Membership, role, and capacity of the USSC ., ., 5.4.a Expand voting membership of USSC to include Congress ussc 

representation of victims, formerly 

incarcerated individuals. defense attorneys, 

and experts in sentencing and corrections 

5.4.b Routinely monitor and report on the impact of ussc 

sentencing changes 

5.4.c Revise 2011 mandatory minimum report ussc 

5.5 Permanent BOP Performance, Accountability, ., and Oversight Board (Board) 

S.S.a Work with BOP to develop and promulgate BOP 

performance metrics Board 

S.S.b Monitor development of new risk and needs Board 

assessment and implementation of new 

earned time credits 

5.5.c Review BOP data on internal performance, Board 

safety, and security metrics for external 

consumption 

5.5.d Oversee development and implementation of Board 

comprehensive 10-year plan to restructure 

federal prison system 

S.S.e Review BOP oversight, accreditation, auditing, Board 

and compliance mechanisms 

S.S.f Conduct special studies such as review of Board 

prerelease custody practices and procedures, 

focused on RRCs 

5.6 Collateral consequences and barriers to ., ., reintegration 

5.6.a Review federal collateral consequence laws Joint Working Joint Working 

Group Group 

5.6.b Allow Pel! grants for incarcerated persons Congress 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 31401.066

Recommendation 

5.6.c Eliminate executive branch criminal history 

disclosure on employment applications for 

federal contractors 

5.6.d Codify criminal history disclosure changes for 

federal employees and contractors 

Congress Executive Branch Judiciary 

President 

Congress 

Recommendation 6: Reinvest Savings to Support the 

Expansion of Necessary Programs, Supervision, and 

Treatment 

Recommendation Con&ress Executive Branch Judicia!): 

6.1 Resources for reform -(' -(' -(' 

6.1.a Fund BOP to implement validated risk and needs Congress BOP 

assessment tool, catalog current program 

offerings and capacity, and expand necessary 

programs and treatment 

6.1.b Fund US Probation to increase staffing, Congress Probation 

programs, and services 

6.1.c Fund Courts to establish the Second Look Congress US Courts 

function 

6.1.d Fund USSC to expand capacity and training Congress ussc 6.1.e Fund DOJ Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to Congress OJP 

incentivize front-end diversion programs, 

problem-solving courts, and other alternatives 

to incarceration 

6.2 Develop recommendations for reinvesting Congress Joint Working Joint Working 

savinss from the reduced BOP E!!l!ulation GrouE! GrOUJ:! 

Note: For the following recommendations, congressional action, funding, or approval may be required before they can be fully 

implemented by the identified agencies: 1.1.b, 1.4.a, 2.1.a, 2.1.b. 2.3.d, 3.2.b, 6.1, and 6.2. 
84 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Roseberry. 

Mr. Martin? 

STATEMENT OF GLENN E. MARTIN 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the committee and staff. 

I’d like for you to describe in one word the last person who sold 

you a pair of sunglasses or a pair of glasses. You might say ‘‘man.’’ 

You might say ‘‘woman.’’ You might say ‘‘young.’’ You might say 

‘‘old,’’ ‘‘funny,’’ ‘‘enthusiastic.’’ 

Seventeen years ago, I left prison after serving 6 years, and I 

searched for a job. I visited 50 different employers. When I exited 

prison, I left with a quality liberal arts degree and about $100,000 

in fines, fees, restitution, and child support. 

The third employer I visited, his name was Michael. And after 

two interviews, he said to me, ‘‘You’re the perfect fit. You’re very 

articulate. I think you’ll be able to sell sunglasses and glasses better than anyone else I’ve interviewed. I’m going to offer you the 

job.’’ 

Within 2 hours I arrived at home after the second interview to 

a voice message saying that he hadn’t noticed that I put that I had 

a felony conviction on my application and that he was rescinding 

the job offer based solely on the criminal conviction. I should have 

applied for that job as a father, a brother, a son, a qualified job 

seeker. But those identities were taken from me because in America, everyone who stands at sentencing in a criminal court is sentenced to a lifetime of punishment. 

The fact of the matter is that we have a ceremony that brings 

people down in that moment, and we have no equal ceremony to 

bring people back up. We have left 70 million Americans in that 

moment. 

When I was released, policies like ban-the-box, policies like the 

ones the Fair Chance Act would promote did not exist. Today, I run 

an organization with over 50 staff positions and over 370 formerly 

incarcerated alums of our training seminars. Not once have I asked 

staff or trainees about their criminal history during the initial application process. I never needed to. 

I assess someone’s preparedness based on their experience and 

on something far more meaningful and powerful, their humanity. 

But I am the exception, and because of that, because most employers cannot or will not see past a person’s worst moment, the 6-plus 

million people who are currently under correctional control in this 

country will face the same barriers to reentry that I faced. 

One in three black men will relive the setbacks I was forced to 

endure, despite their best efforts at building towards redemption. 

We know reducing recidivism means eradicating these barriers, 

something that ban-the-box and the Fair Chance Act can help us 

to achieve. 

But Jennifer Doleac, despite lacking lived experience and the cultural competency needed to design and interpret her own research, 

wants to tell you what you should do to help us. In her research, 

Ms. Doleac says that the ban-the-box policy increases discriminaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

tion in employment. She blames these policies for creating what 

we’ve known to exist in our country since its founding, racism. 

Ms. Doleac argues that casting aside the scarlet letter of criminality hurts black people because then employers will just assume 

that all of us have something to hide. Her argument seems to rest 

on the idea that killing ban-the-box policies will help the few black 

men who have not been branded, shackled, and caged in our justice 

system because their comparative goodness will allow them to 

stand out. 

This argument against ban-the-box and the Fair Chance Act 

urges you to set aside these ideas—set these ideas aside so that the 

‘‘good and well-behaved black men’’ might succeed, while the millions of us who have been marginalized by decades of tough on 

crime policies are discarded like trash. Well, the piece of trash you 

see sitting in front of you now helps 50 people build families, 

strengthen communities, and contribute to our tax base in America. 

Discarding qualified and motivated job seekers is not justice. 

That’s not how to make America great again. This exclusion fundamentally contradicts the values enshrined in the document you 

are sworn to defend and uphold. 

The Fair Chance Act and ban-the-box policies work. They are 

part of the solution that will help all of us. They are crucial pieces 

of holistic reform needed to reduce recidivism and to start undoing 

decades of bad policy that have led to our current state of mass incarceration. They are the first steps in building a smarter and safer 

justice system. 

More importantly, to me and millions of others, ban-the-box was 

started by formerly incarcerated people in a storefront in Oakland, 

California, and made it all the way to the halls of power. The 

power of this policy as a tool to educate and inspire employers and 

policymakers is immeasurable. I urge this Congress to consider the 

Fair Chance Act before you adjourn and to hear and elevate the 

often-ignored voices of the people who have been most impacted by 

that law in your guiding deliberations. 

I’m happy to answer questions. Thank you for the opportunity. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 31401.067

~~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

To Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and the Committee: 

Today I respectfully submit testimony regarding the significant barriers to reentry faced by millions 

of formerly incarcerated individuals; the need to eliminate these counterproductive barriers; the 

policies you can implement to achieve that goal, including passage of H.R. 1905 - the Fair Chance Act; 

and how my personal experience as a formerly incarcerated American and the experience of other 

formerly incarcerated men and women can inform your actions. There are four key points I hope to 

convey in my testimony: 

1. Reducing recidivism requires successful reentry. 

In their 2016 report, the Federal Interagency Reentry Council reminded us that holistic 

reentry, which includes access to stable housing, education, and employment, reduces 

recidivism, and a period of stability that lasts just a few years can have significant, positive 

consequences on ensuring the long-term success of an individual's reentry.' 

2. Successful reentry requires access to meaningful employment opportunities. 

Transitioning out of and away from the criminal justice system necessitates the ability to 

transition into more stable opportunities in our community. As the Council of State 

Governments notes, research indicates that holding a job reduces one's chances to recidivate, 

and job stability over an extended period of time can reduce the likelihood that an individual 

will reoffend.2 

3. Access to meaningful employment opportunities requires implementation or 

expansion of Ban the Box policies and the passage of the Fair Chance Act. 

Approximately seventy million people in America have a criminal record, and there are over 

one-hundred million criminal records at the state leveJ.3 The insidious stigma of criminality 

disproportionately impacts black men, as one-in-three of us will be incarcerated in our 

lifetime. 4 Employers have a demonstrable and well-recognized reluctance to offer 

opportunities to the men and women with these records, 5 so a nationwide policy that both 

highlights how employers are systematically ignoring qualified job seekers and 

simultaneously levels the playing field is a key step in achieving equity of opportunity. 

4. Understanding the lived experience of formerly incarcerated people is vital for 

successful reform. 

The data, the analysis, and the academic research are compelling and should help guide your 

actions as elected leaders in our country. However, the lived experiences of those millions of 
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 31401.068

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

men and women who will be directly impacted by the decisions you make should also inform 

those actions and should empower your understanding of these issues by offering a vital and 

often ignored perspective. 

I offer this testimony as a national advocate for criminal justice reform and as President of 

justLeadershipUSA, a national advocacy organization, and also as someone whose personal 

experiences have shaped and defined my views of practices and solutions in this field. 

I have not only studied, analyzed and debated the policies that you are considering. I have also lived 

with the consequences of the decisions local and national policymakers have made over the past five 

decades - decisions that have led to mass incarceration, the unjustifiable and unrelenting 

consequences of that incarceration, and the creation of a new underclass of citizenship in America. 

Six years in prison and, to date, seventeen years of post-incarceration reentry have taught me that 

those closest to the problem are closest to the solution, but often farthest from the power and 

resources needed to drive necessary change. 

I have experienced the problem of government-sanctioned discrimination from our nation's 

employers, and know what can and must be achieved so that the people who are returning from our 

prisons and jails do not face these same, unjustifiable challenges. 

Today, I am speaking with the people who have the power and resources needed to bring proposed 

solutions to fruition immediately. I ask that you continue to hear my voice and the voices of the 

millions of others under correctional supervision in this country as you discuss, debate, and 

determine your next steps after today's hearing. 

Reducing recidivism requires successful reentry. 

There is a strong bipartisan consensus at all levels of our government that we must make a concerted 

effort to reduce recidivism.6 The question is not if we should achieve this goal, but how. 

Simply put, successful holistic reentry- a reentry process that prioritizes access to stable housing, 

healthcare, education, and employment- is the key factor in reducing recidivism.? 
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 31401.069

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Govern~ent and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13,2017 

There is an unmistakable urgency to addressing this issue. Today, two-plus million Americans are 

incarcerated in our country. Another four-plus million men and women are under some form of 

correctional supervision. Over six million Americans will have their ability to reenter into their 

communities determined, in part, by the decisions you make today.8 And while there has been a lot of 

emphasis on what we can do to prevent incarceration moving forward, we have not done enough to 

deal with the fact that millions of people presently suffer the injustices related to incarceration. 9 

This lack of concrete action is especially alarming considering that at least 8% of working-age people 

in our country are labeled by others as "ex-felons," meaning that nearly one-in-ten of the people who 

are in our workforce have their access to employment impeded by the stigma of justice 

involvement1° This stigma disproportionately impacts people who look like me. Young black men 

are ten times more likely than their white counterparts to have been incarcerated, and black men 

who do not have a high school education have a 50% chance of being incarcerated in their lifetime.ll 

Butthis problem is not limited to black America. Our nation has 5% of the world's population and 

over 20% of the world's incarcerated population. Our prison population grew by 408% between 

1978 and 2014.'2 All of us are disproportionately impacted by the policies that drive mass 

incarceration. Moreover, the fastest growing prison populations today are in rural areas, a surge 

fueled by a large increase in the number of incarcerated white women.t3 

Our widening state of mass incarceration has created a second class of citizens. We have already built 

the world in which millions suffer at the hands of discriminatory polices and practices. It is up to you 

to decide whether or not we are going to take steps to undo these policies and dismantle an 

infrastructure that has created unbearable, untenable, and unjustifiable obstacles for too many of us. 

Anything short of fully and forcefully removing the barriers that exist in the reentry journeys of these 

Americans will result in your tacit approval of the fact that we, as a nation, believe that there are 

some people who are worthy of opportunities for growth and transformation, and many who are not. 

This Congress must enact laws and promote policies that eliminate the barriers to successful reentry. 

From my own experience and from the experience of the hundreds of formerly- and currentlyincarcerated men and women that justLeadershipUSA works with and learns from every day, I know 

that there are several components required to build a comprehensive reentry process. One of the 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 31401.070

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Hebting to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, Deccmba 13, 2017 

most vital of those components is the one we're discussing today: employment. 

Successful reentry requires access to meaningful employment opportunities. 

Employment is more than a piece of the reentry puzzle. Employment is, in many instances, the 

primary determinant of whether or not a person's reentry will be successful.14 Access to employment 

is the bridge to other aspects of holistic reentry and reintegration, including the ability to afford 

housing, pay for medical and family needs, pay child support, and care for our loved ones, who- due 

to our own involvement in the criminal justice system and the similarity in circumstances between 

their lives and ours - are especially susceptible to being intercepted and entrapped by the justice 

system.lS Furthermore, maintaining employment is the only way that the millions of men and women 

who are on probation or parole can pay the burdensome fees associated with that supervision -

payments that are crucial since missing one payment could send someone back to jail or prison for a 

sentence that's even longer than the one associated with their underlying charge.t6 Simply put, 

employment can and in many cases does empower and accelerate successful, permanent reentry.'7 

While people who do not have lived experience with these issues will say that self-motivation is 

required on our part before you fulfill your responsibilities in easing reentry, those of us who have 

had to endure the painful branding of the criminal justice system and the stigma associated with it 

will all tell you: we will seize any opportunities we can to ensure the cessation of our involvement 

with the justice system. But, far too often, our motivations to succeed are overshadowed by the lack 

of motivation from elected officials and employers to eradicate the barriers that prevent that success. 

We can and do apply to jobs as soon as we are able to. But 56% of employers will not consider any 

applicant with a criminal record.ta Consider that while remembering the statistics cited above about 

how many people who, like me, must carry a criminal record with them throughout their life. Yet, 

even when we do not have a criminal record, black applicants receive callbacks in the job application 

process at a rate that is 20% less than our white counterparts.!• In fact, a white man with a criminal 

record actually has a better chance of landing gainful employment than a black man without any 

record at all. And for the millions of black men and women who do have a criminal record, positive 

outcomes in the job process for are reduced by 57%.20 We have less than 5% chance at earning a 

callback in an interview.2t Motivation is not the problem. Opportunity is, and until you take 

meaningful action to eliminate that gap between us and the jobs we are trying to fill, these disparities 

and the related consequences will worsen.22 A key step in that action is implementation of the Fair 

4 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 31401.071

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform.' Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

Chance Act and promotion of Ban the Box policies for public and private employers in this country. 

Access to meaningful employment opportunities requires implementation 

of Ban the Box policies and the passage of the Fair Chance Act 

In my ardent support for Ban the Box policies and the passage of the Fair Chance Act, let me be 

unmistakably clear on this point: these measures will not on their own eliminate the challenges faced 

by formerly incarcerated men and women who are seeking access to employment upon their release. 

More specifically, these measures will not erase the racism in our employment systems that is a 

direct consequence and carry-over from the structural, entrenched, and - in some cases - deepening 

racism of our criminal justice system. 23 

In light of my first point, I refer you to an oft-circulated graphic that depicts three young children 

standing behind a fence attempting to watch a baseball game on the other side of the fence. One child 

is tall and can see over the fence; one is of medium height and can barely see over the fence; and one 

is the shortest of the three and cannot see over the fence. That small child represents the millions of 

formerly incarcerated individuals, and the game the children are watching represents what would be 

considered a successful reentry back into the community for those millions of Americans. 

Equality Equity On one panel of this graphic, each child is 

standing on a box that is the same size, 

and the caption says, "Equality." However, 

with each child having the same sized box 

upon which to stand, the tallest child has a 

better view, the middle child has a good 

view, but the smallest child still cannot 

see. The second panel of this graphic 

depicts the tall child having no boxes to 

stand on, the middle child standing on one 

box, and the small child standing on two 

boxes. The caption here is "Equity," with the idea being that equity - our ultimate goal - is not 

achieved by one-sized-fits-all solutions. Those solutions tend to benefit the people who do not need 

the extra support at the expense of people who are already most harmed by our current policies. 
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 31401.072

~~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau 

lJclivcrcd to the Committee on Government and Oversight RefOrm: 

fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

December 13, 20l7 

jennifer Doleac and a small number of others24 without lived experience with these issues will argue 

that Ban the Box and the Fair Chance Act are these 'one-sized-fits-all' solutions that we acknowledge 

will not, on their own, be sufficient. They will argue that these policies will result in what the first 

panel on that graphic represents: worsening systematic racism and discrimination. Their argument 

rests on findings showing that when employers cannot inquire into criminal history, they will make 

discriminatory decisions based on the perceived race of an applicant, instead. In other words, giving 

everyone one box just sets us back further- it hurts the people that you're trying to help the most. 

What Doleac and others miss, however, is this: we cannot give the smallest child -that black man or 

woman who has been released from incarceration - two boxes to stand on unless and until we give 

him one box to stand on, first. Ban the Box and the Fair Chance Act are that one box. These are the 

policies that can lay the foundation to do what must be done. They are a first step in the process. 

More work will be required to achieve true racial equity in post-incarceration employment and 

reduce the barriers that black and brown men face in attempting a successful reentry process, but 

the need for future steps cannot and should not obviate your willingness to take step one. 

As United States Representatives, understanding this means understanding the moral obligations of 

the positions that you hold, and not allowing the power of those positions to be curtailed by 

misguided and limited empirical analysis that sets out not to derive a conclusion but to prove a 

conclusion that has already been formed. So, while I acknowledge that Ban the Box is not a cure-all 

solution, I also urge you to recognize that the work being done to undermine its value is flawed. 

In some sense, Doleac's conclusions are predictable. They are the result of allowing preconceived 

notions of blackness and criminality to define an outlook on reality, and they are the product of an 

analysis totally lacking in the cultural competency that is required for accurate data interpretation. 

But when that cultural awareness is factored in and when a study is conducted with an open mind, 

the results are startling: we have seen, in some areas ofthis country, a nearly 300% increase in the 

amount of applicants with criminal records who receive a call-back interview when Ban the Box 

policies were implemented.2s 

Moreover, while the impact of these policies is most readily felt in the early stages of a job application 

6 
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 31401.073

J~ JLUSA 

!:Lm the Box 

process, several other studies have shown that moving past those stages and actually gaining 

personal interaction with an employer has a significantly positive impact on determining whether or 

not someone will ultimately land the job.26 Again- Ban the Box and the Fair Chance Act are not 

sufficient, but their necessity is obvious and cannot be overstated. 

Beyond this data-driven refutability of its central findings, Doleac's argument is fundamentally 

flawed in two important respects. First, it attempts to reverse causality and allege that Ban the Box 

policies are creating something that has existed in our national hiring practices for centuries: 

racism,27 Ban the Box does not create racism in hiring practices. If anything, it exposes how deeply 

that racism is entrenched.28 Second, Doleac relies on this erroneous causal reversal to claim that Ban 

the Box is detrimental to the cause and that we, as black job applicants actually fare better when the 

stigma of our criminal justice involvement can be brought front-and-center in the job application 

process, because we are assumed to have that involvement, anyway. 

What is truly stunning about this half of Doleac's argument is the inference contained therein: for the 

few black men who have not been wrongfully arrested, tried without due process, convicted to an 

overly harsh sentence, or mired in the unnecessarily burdensome traps that are our probation and 

parole systems, doing away with Ban the Box will help them because it will allow them to promote 

their comparative 'goodness' over the criminality that, for researchers like Doleac, defines everything 

about us, our potential, and our commitment to an employment opportunity.29 

Doleac's argument seems premised on the idea that you should only seek to help the 'good', 'wellbehaved' black men, and that trying to help the others -us - hurts our brothers and sisters who, for 

reasons that go far beyond the scope oftoday's hearing, are not victimized by our justice system. Not 

only is this demonstrably untrue, as most black applicants fare worse than our white counterparts, 

but also it speaks to an ignorance of the scope of our incarceration problem.3o The problem is too big 

for marginal, cultural reforms to serve as our go-to solutions. Bold policy transformation is vital. 

Ban the Box and the Fair Chance Act are crucial components of creating a racially just and equitable 

employment situation for the millions of black and brown men who have a criminal record. These 

policies are an integral part of comprehensive and unapologetically bold criminal justice reform that 

will be necessary to undo the decades of racist, myopic, and erroneous policies that were enacted 

through this body. The Fair Chance Act and a requirement for all employers to Ban the Box in their 
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 31401.074

J~ JLUSA 

application processes will open up job opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals who might 

otherwise steer clear of potential opportunity for fear of how the stigma of justice involvement will 

set them back not just in that application, but in their overall reentry.3 1 

Additionally, as this hearing seeks to understand what the United States Government and the Bureau 

of Prisons can do to lower the barriers to successful reentry, l urge each of you to understand that the 

Fair Chance Act and the message its passage would promote are essential not just in removing those 

barriers, but also in preventing those barriers from reemerging as future reforms take hold. There 

are myriad reasons that black and brown men face unique challenges in seeking gainful employment, 

and these challenges are only increased when we have been deemed by the systems you put in place 

to be criminals, or- worse yet- irredeemable and unemployable. The Fair Chance Act, while not 

sufficient to undo the cumulative effects of your collective inaction on this front, would be a crucial 

step forward in increasing access to employment for formerly incarcerated individuals, which- along 

with other vital reforms - will reduce recidivism and result in a safer, fairer, more cost-efficient 

criminal justice system.32 

And to speak to Doleac's central thesis one last time, I would urge you to leverage her misguided 

conclusion to improve your work: if Ban the Box policies do expose the deep-seated nature of racism 

in our nation's employers, use the knowledge gained from their implementation to develop other 

tools that can be used in collaboration with the Fair Chance Act to end these abhorrent practices for 

good. Use the power and resources at your disposal to do what you know must be done based on the 

experiences of people like me- people who have been closest to the problems we must solve. 

Understanding the lived experience of formerly incarcerated people 

is vital for successful reform. 

If you want to step in my shoes and walk on the paths that led me here, I ask each of you to think 

back to the last time you brought a pair of sunglasses. I ask each of you to go back to that moment 

when the salesperson showed you the latest styles and rang you up after you chose a pair that you 

liked. And I ask you, now: describe that salesperson in one word. 

Most of you would probably say they were a "person," or perhaps a "man" or "woman." Some of you 

might say "old" or "young." I am willing to bet, though, that none of you would say "criminal." And 

that's ironic, because my being branded a criminal by a system that Congress helped to build is the 
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 31401.075

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relatli1g to 

Delivered to the Ca~mittee on Government and Oversight Reform: 

Box 

reason that I could not get a job selling sunglasses after serving six years in New York State Prison. 

That was the first job for which I applied as I was coming out of prison. I walked into the shop in 

downtown New York and applied to be a salesperson. I was excited just to be out of prison and to be 

this close, so quickly, to what felt like a first step toward home and away from the cages, walls, and 

barbed wire fences that had been my existence for most of the previous ten years. 

The manager at the store said he'd be excited to hire me, and that he would call me the next day with 

more details. I could not have been prouder- I was going to be one of the lucky ones who got a job. 

Having a job meant everything. I was going to be one of the guys who never went back. 

That feeling came crashing down later that night when the manager called me and told me that he 

ran a background check and found a felony conviction on my record. There was no point denying it. 

He was right I'd lost an opportunity because of something that I did six years ago- something that I 

thought I'd been punished for, already. Isn't that why I was incarcerated - to punish me and to teach 

me a lesson? It turns out that my sentence did not end when I stepped beyond the prison walls. In 

many ways, the second half of my sentence was just beginning. 

I applied to fifty jobs in thirty days. N~ one was willing to hire a convict or a felon or an inmate. They 

may have been willing to hire a son or a brother, but those were identities that were taken from me 

by the stigma of conviction and incarceration. Those were identities that I was forced to set aside 

because Ban the Box was not something I could benefit from. It did not exist then. So, instead, I was 

forced to confront the identity that had been given to me by a system designed to keep me trapped. 

The setbacks were more than an immediate problem. They were an agonizing reminder that six years 

of planning may have been fruitless. They were the crushing body-blows that force young black men 

like me to reconcile with the fact that our incarceration is not limited to the physical boundaries of 

our cages. The setbacks proved that preparedness was pointless -that in the face of the hurdles I was 

forced to confront, years of learning, healing, and transformation meant nothing when all the labor 

market cared about was the fact that I bore a scarlet letter alerting them to my status as a criminal. 

Our government is complicit in this. Unless our government takes meaningful action, including 

passage of the Fair Chance Act, our government will continue to protect and promote the revictimization of men and women - especially of men and women of color- who have already fallen 
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 31401.076

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. MJrtm: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Ati, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Governme11t and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

prey to a justice system that does less to restore our humanity than it does to repackage and 

perpetuate past forms of racial discrimination and segregation. 

When you are sentenced in a court of law, there is a ceremony involved. The other men and women 

from throughout the community get to come watch as another young black man is shackled and 

taken away, his voice drowned out by the chorus of his oppressors. But when you are released from 

that sentence, you find yourselflooking up at towering cement wall and looking back through the 

doors at the only friends and family you've known for the past several years. There is no ceremony to 

welcome you back. There is only the constant reminder that too many people in the community did 

not want you back in the first place. 

There is a moment where the world sits us down. 

There is not a moment where the world helps us stand back up. 

While passage of the Fair Chance Act will not be tantamount to having a ceremony for someone's 

return, and while it will not, on its own, be the hand that reaches out to us to get us back on our feet, 

it will be a meaningful step in that direction. 

It would be, for many of us, the first time that the very same systems that held us back are now going 

to be the systems that help propel us forward. It would signal to us that you recognize the challenges 

we face and that you intend to do something about those challenges. It would make clear to the sixplus million Americans who must endure the collateral consequences of our criminal justice system 

that you still represent them and are willing to fight for and protect their best interests. 

I know how meaningful your action could be because I work with the men and women whom your 

decisions will most directly affect. I am the founder and President of justLeadershipUSA, a national 

advocacy organization that seeks to cut the correctional population in the United States in half by 

2030 by empowering the people most impacted by the criminal justice system to drive criminal 

justice reform. In an organization with over 50 staff positions and that runs leadership trainings that 

now have over 370 graduates, I have never once asked any applicant about a criminal conviction. I 

have never needed to, because I am able to assess their preparedness by seeing something much 

more powerful and meaningful: their humanity. 

10 
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 31401.077

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. M~rtin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act anct Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reforrn: Wednesday, Dcccml!cr 13, 2017 

I have often said that the hardest day in prison is the last because you know you're leaving behind 

some of the best and the brightest that this nation has to offer. Fortunately, today,! am able to work 

with and help elevate the voices of many of these men and women. But there are millions of people 

who my work will not reach - millions of people whose hope for redemption rests in your hands. 

I urge you, as members of this Committee and your colleagues, as our elected Representatives in 

Congress, to Pass the Fair Chance Act and do everything in your power to promote Ban the Box 

policies. I, and millions of others, are counting on you. 

- Glenn E. Martin 

Founder and President of]ustLeadershipUSA 

11 
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 31401.078

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Hox 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13, 20l7 

Endnotes 

'Lynch, L. and Munoz. C. (Eds.) (2016). The Federal Interagency Reentry Council: A Record of Progress 

and Roadmap for the Future. Washington. D.C.: United States Department of justice. 

z Duran, L., Plotkin, M., and Potter, P. (2013). Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing 

Recidivism and Promoting job Readiness. New York, NY: Council of State Governments justice Center; 

Vis her, C., Debus, S., and Yahner, j. (2008). Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees 

in Three States. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; Sampson, R. and Laub., j. (1993). Crime in the 

Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

3 Friedman, M. (2015).just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College Diplomas. New 

York, NY: Brennan Center for justice at the New York University School of Law. 

• Lyons, C., Pettit, B. (2011). Compounded Disadvantage: Race, Incarceration, and Wage Growth. 

Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for the Study of Social Problems. 

5 Lynch, L. and Munoz. C. (Eds.) (2016). The Federal Interagency Reentry Council: A Record of Progress 

and Roadmap for the Future. Washington. D.C.: United States Department of justice. Citing: Albright, S. 

and Denq. F. (1996). Employer Attitudes Toward Hiring Ex-Offenders; Giguere, R. and Dundes, L. 

(2002). Help Wanted: A Survey of Employer Concerns about Hiring Ex-Convicts; Holzer, H., Raphael, S., 

and Stoll, M. (2004). The Effect of an Applicant's Criminal History on Employer Hiring Decisions and 

Screening Practices: Evidence from Los Angeles; and Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, Crime, and 

Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. 

6 Khan, S. (2016). Crimina/justice Reform: A Rare Area of Bipartisan Consensus. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley 

Political Review. 

7 Bowman, S. and Travis, R. (2012). Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism According to the Formerly 

Incarcerated and Reentry Service Providers: A Verbal Behavior Approach. San Marcos, TX: School of 

Criminal justice at Texas State University; Bouffard, j. and Bergseth, K. (2008). The Impact of Reentry 

Services on juvenile Offenders' Recidivism. Greenbelt, MD: Youth Violence and juvenile justice. 

12 
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 31401.079

j~ JLUSA 

Glenn R Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 

s jacobson, M. and Schiraldi, V. (2017). Less is More: How Reducing Probation Populations can Improve 

Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: john F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

• Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, lL: Northwestern University. 

10 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University; jacobson, M. 

and Schiraldi, V. (2017). Less is More: How Reducing Probation Populations can Improve Outcomes. 

Cambridge, MA: john F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

11 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University; Pettit, B. and 

Western, B. (2001). "Inequality in Lifetime Risks of Imprisonment." Paper presented at the annual 

meetings of the American Sociological Association. Anaheim, August. 

12 ACLU. (2017). The Prison Crisis. Online: https:/ fwww.aclu.orgfprison-crisis; Liptak, A. (2008). U.S. 

Prison Population Dwarfs that of Other Nations. New York, NY: New York Times. 

13 Huling, T. (2002). Building a Prison Economy in Rural America. New York, NY: The New Press; 

Yurkanin, A. (2017). Poor, Rural, and Addicted: Drugs Drive Surge in White Women in Prison. 

Birmingham, AL: AL.com. 

14 Laub, j. and Sampson, R.. (2001). Understanding Desistance from Crime. Cambridge, MA: Crime and 

justice. 

15 Duran, L., Plotkin, M., and Potter, P. (2013). Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: 

Reducing Recidivism and Promoting job Readiness. New York, NY: Council of State Governments 

justice Center; Rose., D. and Clear, T. (2001). Incarceration, Reentry, and Social Capital: Social 

Networks in the Balance. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

16 jacobson, M. and Schiraldi, V. (2017). Less is More: How Reducing Probation Populations can 

Improve Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: john F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

13 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 31401.080

J~ JLUSA 

Glt>nn E. Marlin: Testimony on Policies Relating to 

Delivered to the Comrnittee on Government and Oversight Reform: 

17 Duran, L., Plotkin, M., and Potter, P. (2013)./ntegrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: 

Reducing Recidivism and Promoting job Readiness. New York, NY: Council of State Governments 

justice Center. 

18 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University. 

19 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University; Bendick, M., 

jackson, C., and Reinoso, V. (1994). Measuring Employment Discrimination through Controlled 

Experiments. Review of Black Political Economy. 

2o Pager, D., Western, B., and Bonikoswki, B. (2009). Discrimination in a Low Wage Labor Market: A 

Field Experiment Thousand Oaks, CA: American Sociological Review. 

21 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University; Bendick, M., 

jackson, C., and Reinoso, V. (1994). Measuring Employment Discrimination through Controlled 

Experiments. Review of Black Political Economy; Pager, D., Western, B., and Bonikoswki, B. (2009). 

Discrimination in a Low Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment. Thousand Oaks, CA: American 

Sociological Review. 

22 Hetey, R. and Eberhardt, j. (2014). Racial Disparities in Incarceration Increase Acceptance of 

Punitive Policies. Washington, D.C.: Association of Psychological Science; Lyons, C., Pettit, B. (2011). 

Compounded Disadvantage: Race, Incarceration, and Wage Growth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University 

Press on behalf of The Society for the Study of Social Problems. 

23 Hetey, R. and Eberhardt, j. (2014). Racial Disparities in Incarceration Increase Acceptance of 

Punitive Policies. Washington, D.C.: Association of Psychological Science. 

24 La Gorce, T. (2017). As 'Ban the Box' Spreads, Private Employers Still have Questions. New York, NY: 

New York Times; Semuels, A. (2016). When Banning One Kind of Discrimination Results in Another. 

Washington, D.C. The Atlantic. Agan, A. and Starr, S. (2016). Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and 

Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Law School. 

l4 
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 31401.081

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act. and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform.· Wednesday, December13, 2017 

2s Atkinson, D. and Lockwood, K., (2014). The Benefits of Ban the Box: A Case Study of Durham, NC," 

The Southern Coalition for Social justice. 

26 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University; Fahey, J., 

Roberts, C., and Engel, L. (2006). Employment of Ex-Offenders: Employer Perspectives. Boston, MA: 

Crime & justice Institute. 

27 Hernandez, P. (2017). Ban-the-Box "Statistical Discrimination" Studies Draw the Wrong Conclusion. 

New York, NY: National Employment Law Project 

2s Hernandez, P. (2017). Ban-the-Box "Statistical Discrimination" Studies Draw the Wrong Conclusion. 

New York, NY: National Employment Law Project; Emsellem, M. and Avery, B. (2016). Racial Profiling 

in Hiring: A Critique of New "Ban the Box" Studies. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project 

29 Emsellem, M. and Avery, B. (2016). Racial Profiling in Hiring: A Critique of New "Ban the Box" 

Studies. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project. 

3o Pager, D., Western, B., and Bonikoswki, B .. (2009). Discrimination in a Low Wage Labor Market: A 

Field Experiment. Thousand Oaks, CA: American Sociological Review; jacobson, M. and Schiraldi, V. 

(2017). Less is More: How Reducing Probation Populations can Improve Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: 

john F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

31 Hernandez, P. (2017). Ban-the-Box "Statistical Discrimination" Studies Draw the Wrong Conclusion. 

New York, NY: National Employment Law Project; Emsellem, M. and Avery, B. (2016). Racial Profiling 

in Hiring: A Critique of New "Ban the Box" Studies. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project 

Rainsford, W. (2016). No, 'Ban-the-Box' Does Not Worsen Raciallnequalit;y. 

32 Hernandez, P. (2017). Ban-the-Box "Statistical Discrimination" Studies Draw the Wrong Conclusion. 

New York, NY: National Employment Law Project; Emsellem, M. and Avery, B. (2016). Racial Profiling 

in Hiring: A Critique of New "Ban the Box" Studies. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project. 

Rainsford, W. (2016). No, 'Ban-the-Box' Does Not Worsen Raciallnequa/it;y; Stapleton, M. (2016). Ban 

the Box Laws Are Working. Chicago, IL: Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. 

15 
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 31401.082

J~ JLUSA 

Glenn E. Martin: Testimony on Policies Relating to Bureau of Prisons Reentry, Fair Chance Act, and Ban the Box 

Delivered to the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform: Wednesdqy, December 13, 2017 

See also: The New York City implementation of the Fair Chance Act provides penalties for per 

se violations of the Fair Chance Act. Penalties for small companies range from $500 to $3,500 

for first violation, and $1,000 to 10,000 for a second violation 

(https:ffwww.ebglaw.com/ contentfuploads/2017/09/ Act-Now-Advisory-New-York-CityFinalizes-Rules-to-Fair-Chance-Act.pdf). 

In Minneapolis, less than 6% of applicants whose background checks were flagged for 

concern were hired by the city, but after the adoption of Ban the Box, that jumped to 54.7% 

(http://www.nelp.orgfcontentfuploads/2015/03/Seizing-Ban-the-Box-MomentumAdvance-New-Generation-Fair-Chance-Hiring-Reforms.pdf; 

https:/fnewrepublic.comf article/121775/ban-box-people-criminal-records-it-works ). 

Minneapolis also found that the policy reduced the time and resources needed to process 

applicants for municipal jobs by 28 percent (https:/fnewrepublic.comfarticle/121775/banbox-people-criminal-records-it-works). 

16 
102 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Martin. 

I usually ask my questions last. So I would ask the indulgence 

of my colleagues on this side. There is another hearing next door 

that I am expected at. 

Professor Doleac, I received a phone call over the weekend from 

Cory Booker, who is very interested in this bill. He took a little different approach than one of your former panelists—or one of your 

current panelists in critiquing your research, but I think the underlying questions are the same. 

So why don’t you take a minute and explain to us why you think 

what is being proposed has the opposite impact? 

Ms. DOLEAC. So there have now been two very good studies looking at the impacts of the unintended consequences of ban-the-box 

and two studies looking at the impacts of ban-the-box on people 

with criminal records. Both meet the very high, rigorous standards 

of the academic literature here where the primary concern is isolating the effect of the policy from underlying and completely separate economic trends and other factors that might be driving employment outcomes. 

The main concern about ban-the-box is that if employers don’t 

want to hire people with criminal records and we tell them they 

can’t ask, then they are going to try to guess. And because having 

a criminal record is so highly correlated with race and, especially 

a recent conviction, with age and having—whether you have a college degree, in the United States, it’s pretty easy to statistically 

discriminate against young black men who don’t have college degrees. 

And you know, with all due respect to Mr. Martin, the evidence 

simply contradicts what he thinks is going on. The idea that—that 

our research is simply revealing that racial discrimination is a 

problem, of course, racial discrimination is a problem. But before 

ban-the-box, more young black men were getting jobs than were 

after ban-the-box. This seems to have reduced—reduced employment for this group and not helped them. 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. Well, I am in a very unusual spot 

among Members of Congress, which is I am open-minded. I haven’t 

made up my mind. I have watched men leave State and Federal 

prison and desperately try to get a job, and the only job they could 

get in my hometown was washing other people’s cars. 

And thank God for William Hunt and other people who took a 

chance on these guys that have already paid their debts to society. 

I am not talking about people convicted of violent offenses. I am 

not talking about people being convicted of crimes against children. 

I am not even talking about bad check writers and others who have 

a hard time rehabilitating themselves. I am talking about nonviolent drug offenses. 

And we say, okay, you have served your sentence. You have got 

to go get a job. You have got to meet your societal and familial obligations. And they can’t. 

So let us assume your research is correct. Let us assume there 

is a reason you are a professor and I am not. That you are smarter 

and that you know how to do studies and interpret other people’s 

studies. Let us just assume that. I don’t think there will be any 

contradiction on any of that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
103 

What do you propose? What would work? For those of us who 

don’t want—we just passed a bill on evidence-based rulemaking not 

a month ago. Congress, I think almost unanimously, passed a— 

passed a bill that we are going to use evidence and facts upon 

which to base our policies. And what you are arguing is if you do 

that, you won’t take this approach. 

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are right. What 

approach works? 

Ms. DOLEAC. Great question. So, so what this policy is hoping to 

achieve is that we’re hoping that by preventing employers from 

asking about a criminal record, they won’t care about the criminal 

record anymore. That’s really the goal of, I think, everyone in this 

room. We want employers to be willing to hire people with criminal 

records, and the question is how do we—how do we help them do 

that? 

So, so the real goal is to try to figure out what employers actually care about, what they’re worried about when they see the box 

checked on a job application, and then find policy interventions 

that can directly address those concerns. If employers are worried 

about work readiness, if they’re worried that—that, you know, the 

average person coming out of prison has much higher rates of substance abuse and mental illness and is very likely to be rearrested 

in the near future, finding ways to—to really invest in rehabilitation so that they don’t have those associations with a criminal 

record anymore. 

That’s going to take time. That’s the longer-term goal of, I think, 

everyone here, and it’s going to take investment of real resources. 

In the shorter term, I think the best way to reach the goal that 

ban-the-box and the Fair Chance Act would have reached in helping those who are qualified for jobs get jobs is finding ways to provide additional information about their work readiness to employers. 

One—one policy intervention that’s been tried in a few different 

places, and it seems very promising, and research evidence is supporting that it’s having the effects we hoped for, is employability 

or rehabilitation certificates. So if you have a criminal record and 

you can go in front of a judge and argue that you’ve been rehabilitated, there have been very nice audit studies showing that if you 

send out job applications randomizing if you have a felony conviction or a certificate of rehabilitation or no conviction at all, those 

with the certificate are called back at equal rates as those without 

any conviction. 

I’ve heard that those are extremely difficult to get. That can be 

changed. That’s obviously something that is adjustable. But the 

very—the basic idea of providing more information rather than taking information away seems far more promising. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I am out of time. I hope you will continue to do your research. You know, most of us live in a world of 

anecdote. We don’t have the luxury of doing studies. 

I can tell you in my own life, including with one of your panelists, the very first time I met Inspector Horowitz, he told me something that I otherwise never would have known. Never would have 

known. It wasn’t an important thing. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
104 

But the fact that he was willing to tell me something that I really wasn’t entitled to know, he went up 10 stages in my mind just 

because he was willing to tell me something. It actually had the 

opposite—it made me trust him, like him, want him to get the job 

even more. 

Has there been any research into that? Into people who say, you 

know what, you are going to find this out at some point, let me be 

the one to tell you. Because I can imagine employers, even if it is 

the law, human nature being what it is, may wonder at the end, 

why didn’t you tell me this up front? 

Is there any—is there any—and I know you are not a psychologist, but is there any research into how the listener hears information volunteered from the very person that it could hurt being the 

one who volunteers it? 

Ms. DOLEAC. I don’t know of any research on that. Anecdotally, 

I’ve heard that the guidance that individuals coming out of prison 

are given is generally to be upfront. When they get the interview, 

to be upfront about their criminal history and to explain, you know, 

what happened and what they’ve learned from it and the steps 

they’ve taken to change. But I don’t—I don’t know of any research 

on that. So —— 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. 

Ms. DOLEAC.—at this point, just anecdotal. 

Chairman GOWDY. I really mean it when I say this is my last 

question, all right? Negligent hiring is a civil cause of action in 

some States. So for employers who don’t want to wait on the Government, who want to do it themselves, what protections are afforded them when plaintiff’s attorneys, as they do from time to 

time, find even an isolated incident where an employer didn’t ask 

and something—something bad happened, and they are confronted 

with a negligent hiring case? 

How do we protect those employers that want to—that want to 

do what Mr. Martin and Ms. Roseberry are advocating for? With 

or without us doing it, they want to do it. How do you protect them 

from civil causes of action? 

Ms. DOLEAC. I don’t think we have a really clear answer to that 

yet. It’s another area where these employability or rehabilitation 

certificates seem very promising. You know, these are court-issued 

certificates that say this person has been rehabilitated and is no 

longer a risk. And so to the extent that a negligent hiring lawsuit 

is accusing an employer for putting their customers and other employees at undue risk, if the worst happens and someone that they 

hire who has a criminal record commits a violent crime on the 

job—I think that’s the worst nightmare of any employer—then they 

can take that certificate and say, look, I did everything I was supposed to do. This judge said that this person wasn’t a risk. There 

is no way I could have known. 

So thinking of creative solutions that, in effect, shift the risk 

from employers to the courts or to government I think is probably 

the best way to deal with this negligent hiring concern. And it’s not 

just the legal liability, but it’s also worries about bad press. Even 

if they know that they wouldn’t actually lose a lawsuit, they could 

face very negative media attention that could put them out of busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
105 

ness, and that—that’s the catastrophic risk that employers are worried about. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Maryland? 

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

Now come on, let us not kid ourselves. The elephant in the room 

is racism, and it is a big elephant. Now, Mr. Martin, I don’t have 

it at my hand—I wish I did. But I have read studies where it 

showed that a white person with a record had a better chance of 

getting a job than a black man without a record. Are you familiar 

with that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I’m not only familiar with that study, I —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you keep your voice up, please? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sorry. I’m not only familiar with the study, I served 

as the project manager on the study. It was the audit—the largest 

audit study ever conducted in America to date, when that research 

happened. The principal researchers were Bruce Western and 

Devah Pager of Princeton at the time. 

And we visited 3,500 different employers in the entry-level labor 

market. We actually hired young men—white, black, Hispanic—to 

serve as job seekers. And so we sent them out into the labor market with resumes that were manufactured by us that showed some 

evidence of them having involvement in the criminal justice system. 

And after visiting 3,500 different employers and doing thousands 

of audits, yes, the finding was that a white person with a criminal 

record has a better chance of getting employed than a black person 

without a criminal record who is similarly situated with respect to 

their employment history. And you know, the question by Chairman Gowdy about how do we respond to employer concerns about 

liability? Those concerns are legitimate. I’ve done many focus 

groups to really dig in on what employer concerns are, and liability 

ranks number one. 

But for instance, the New York City Bar Association was able to 

draft a piece of legislation that gives employers rebuttable presumption when they consider the EEOC guidance and New York 

State’s anti-discrimination law, which somewhat mirrors each 

other, essentially saying that you should be giving qualified job applicants a chance to explain evidence rehabilitation, how long since 

the criminal conviction, what have they done since the criminal 

conviction to rehabilitate themselves, and so on. So there are other 

policy prescriptions that we can have in place to respond to employer concerns. 

Certificates of relief I would totally discount, particularly because 

they are so difficult to get, and to suggest that we can sort of easily 

change that, I’ve doing this work for 17 years, much of it legislative 

reform, many bills that I have drafted and advanced in legislatures 

myself, it is not easy to change those pieces of legislation. I have 

not been successful with one in my 17-year career, to be quite 

frank. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, as you were talking, I couldn’t help 

but think about years ago, when I—maybe about 3, maybe 4 years 

ago, I visited Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. And so I drove 

up, and I noticed they had this security firm checking everybody 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
106 

out. They were better—to me, they were just as good as the Secret 

Service. 

And so I asked the guy, I said, ‘‘Is this a new firm?’’ And it was 

a firm which was established by former inmates, and all the employees were former inmates, and they were doing a hell of a job. 

You know, Mr. Martin, how important is it to be free of the stigma of a criminal record when applying for a job? How important 

is that? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you for that question. 

Thirteen years after exiting prison, I was invited to the White 

House to meet with senior policy advisers to the then-President. 

And after 2 months of background checks and everything else it 

takes to get into the White House, when I got to the White House, 

I find out that my 21-year-old conviction meant I couldn’t enter the 

White House. 

And while most formerly incarcerated people may not ever get 

invited to the White House, I was struck that day by what the implications were for a person who is 21 years away from his conviction, invited to the White House, has done work to help so many 

people at places like the Fortune Society supported by Member 

Maloney and others, couldn’t get access to that place. And I wondered what it meant for the men and women who were exiting prison that day who were trying to get a job at the local Starbucks or 

McDonald’s or somewhere else. 

The fact of the matter is that we have created an entire 

underclass of citizenship in this country, and this Government has 

a responsibility to respond to that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how important is ban-the-box policies in reducing recidivism? You know, I heard Ms. Doleac, and she doesn’t 

seem to feel, based on her research, that this is—that it helps. She 

says it hurts. I mean, I just want to know your response to that. 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. Well, first of all, we need to parse her research because if I give her research credit, then it’s only one small 

section of job seekers with criminal records where she found evidence that they’re being hurt by this. There are many other categories where she actually admits that those folks did better as a 

result of the policy. 

But I don’t want to lose the fact that we would not be having this 

discussion again today if formerly incarcerated people did not create this ban-the-box policy in Oakland, California, as a way to educate policymakers about the importance of creating job opportunities for people with criminal records. I cannot understate what it 

means to want to apply for a job, to know that you’re qualified, and 

to have the chilling effect of the question about the criminal record 

on the application. 

Remember, we—there are things that we actually cannot measure, and it doesn’t mean that they’re not important. But you cannot 

measure the job seeker who has a quality 2-year liberal arts degree 

that he or she learned—or earned in prison as a result of Pell 

Grants, when they were eligible actually not applying for a job because of the fact that we live in a country where the labor market 

doesn’t create access for job seekers who have a criminal conviction. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
107 

We can’t measure that, but it should be important to this country. The chilling effect alone of the criminal record would be removed if we had this ban-the-box policy in place. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. In 2015, I first introduced the Fair Chance Act 

with then-Chairman Issa and Senator Booker and Senator Ron 

Johnson. This bill would codify the existing OPM rule that prohibits Federal agencies from requesting criminal histories for certain nonsensitive jobs until after conditional offer of employment. 

Mr. Martin, do you think that OPM’s current guidance has had 

a positive impact on ex-offenders? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think it’s had a positive impact. You know, granted, my response here is anecdotal. I’ve spoken to people who have 

found the courage to apply for jobs based on the fact that this policy is in place. I also recognize that efforts made by the Federal 

Government, the Federal Government speaks with a megaphone 

and sends a very strong message to States and cities, where the 

majority of people in this country are actually incarcerated and 

under correctional supervision. 

And so if for no other reason alone, a message from the Federal 

Government about the importance of qualified job seekers having 

a chance to compete for employment, I think it was President Bush 

that said it well during the 2004 State of the Union address that 

this is the land of second chances, and we should give an opportunity for people to turn their lives around and be contributing 

members of society. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It would be—it would be political or legislative 

malpractice if I didn’t ask this question. In the African-American 

community, there is a term that I hear over and over again, ‘‘the 

prison industrial complex.’’ There is a belief that there are folks 

who are making money and trying to create private prisons or 

whatever in their neck of the woods so that they can keep the economy going. 

And we have, of course, seen some 60 Minutes stories that bear 

some of that out. But I just want your comment and then yours, 

Mr. Inch, on that. 

Mr. MARTIN. You know, prisons throughout the ’80s, ’90s, and 

early 2000s were the most effective stimulus program for rural 

communities that lost industries. The fact of the matter is that 

many governors across the country promised prisons to communities that were losing other industries. 

I have a brother—I grew up in poverty. I grew up on public assistance, single mother, two brothers. My older brother fought in 

four tours of duty, active, in war. Ultimately became a correction 

officer for 10 years and is now a U.S. Marshal. My brother is one 

of the 3 million people who benefit from the criminal justice system 

that we’ve currently created because it propelled him from poverty 

into upper middle class. 

I think that, yes, there are private prisons that exist that benefit 

from the incarceration particularly of people of color and who 

have—in the past, there is much evidence of them promoting policies that have led to increased incarceration and mass incarceration. But I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that the perverse 

incentives that have led to that commercialization of punishment 

exists and started in our Government-run prisons and jails. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
108 

And so everything has grown alongside each other. While we 

have said we are working to end mass incarceration, the fact of the 

matter is that we have grown everything—probation, parole, electronic monitoring, you name it. And so the footprint of the criminal 

justice system has disproportionately impacted people of color, yes. 

But it also disproportionately impacts particularly poor white 

Americans. 

When you compare us to any other country in the world, white 

Americans are equally disproportionately impacted by mass incarceration in the criminal justice industrial complex. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Inch, and then I thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. INCH. Ranking Member Cummings, just so I can have clarification, are we talking the private prison industry or the array of 

our Federal prison system? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Both. 

Mr. INCH. Both. Okay, thank you, sir. 

One can certainly look—and I’ll focus really on those private 

prisons we use and then the array of 122 Federal installations. One 

can look over time and location and see that the placement of the 

facilities was based on a variety of reasons that may have been 

above and beyond the most effective and efficient use of that particular facility. 

If I were speaking only as a practitioner, only as a practitioner, 

which, you know, would be inappropriate for all the decisions that 

go into the placement of Federal installations, we certainly look at 

the population base of the location to ensure large enough population base to hire not only the correctional officers, which would 

be an entry level to the facility, but also the technical psychologists 

and the like of the facility. That’s a consideration. 

There’s a consideration of placement. Certainly, it’s already been 

mentioned here and was mentioned in opening comments, the aspect of connection with families, the importance of that. In my 

opening comments, I talked about victims. There’s victims of crime. 

There’s victims among us, staff, and there’s the forgotten victims, 

which are the families of the offenders. 

So the placement where visitation can be facilitated with the inmate population, certainly that’s an aspect, too. There’s even logistics reasons. 

All that has to be balanced with other considerations that are 

placed at least in the Federal system in which then the money is 

certainly authorized and the placement decided. So I can only 

speak then from the practitioner. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The chair will 

now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate all 

of you being here, sincerely, and the topic of this hearing. 

Prior to Congress, I ran a think tank for 25 years, and this is 

one of the areas that the last 2 or 3 years that I was there we were 

focused on. And looking at the material and particularly the release preparation program, one of the things that I didn’t see was 

a concerted effort to help inmates achieve either a high school diploma or a vocational degree or an associate’s degree that would 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
109 

really—it would do two things, Mr. Martin. It would prepare people 

to enter the workforce, but it also gives them that ceremony. 

I mean, it is—I really appreciate what the chairman has said 

about, you know, you don’t want to be soft on crime. But at the 

same time, when someone has paid their debt, that debt is paid, 

and they ought to be able to reenter society. 

Ms. Roseberry, I was looking at the information in the Colson 

task force report, and the thing that I didn’t see in it was recommendations for a program to help inmates achieve a high school 

diploma or another degree. And when you look at who is in prison—again, back to what Mr. Martin said—it is disproportionately 

poor people, regardless of color. And it is disproportionately people 

who are high school dropouts. 

And one of the reports shows that 68 percent of State inmates 

are high school dropouts. And that is regardless of race, gender. 

This is something I am more focused on finding solutions, and I 

think the solution is before they go in the prison door, and then 

unfortunately, we have got to focus on how we get them out the 

prison door. 

And looking at the Colson task force, one of the things that I was 

looking for is one of the things that we have suggested in Alabama, 

to this point to no avail, was to utilize online learning programs. 

I mean, there are excellent opportunities for people to achieve a 

high school diploma, to get an associate or vocational degree, networking with businesses who are prepared to hire these people 

when they come out. 

We are at a point in our economy right now where there is competition for workers and particularly workers with certain skills. 

But also—and going back to the Colson task force, I had the great 

privilege to know Chuck Colson, a godly, wonderful man—to integrate into that these faith-based groups that can help prepare them 

for reentry. Do you want to comment on that? 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. Yes. First of all, I’d like to say with respect to 

your comment about the front end, you’re absolutely right. If we’re 

talking about, for example, ban-the-box creating the presumption 

that African-American men have more connections with the criminal justice system, perhaps the solution is to stop overpolicing 

those communities and incarcerating those individuals to begin 

with. 

But the Colson task force did look at the fact that the Bureau 

of Prisons staff were spread thin by virtue of overcrowding, and we 

made the recommendation that because we found waiting lists, for 

example, for GEDs to be years long and the opportunity to be eligible for programs to be put on the back end of the serving of a sentence, and also for lifers, there was no eligibility. We made the recommendation that the Bureau of Prisons incentivize participation 

in these programs—of course, after reallocating resources—so that 

those programs could be provided to everyone. 

Also in our recommendation that programming be individualized, 

be evidence-based, data-driven, and individualized, you would see 

that folks who needed educational programming would have an opportunity to get it by virtue of it having been identified for them. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me address that. There was a report from the 

Alliance for Excellence in Education that reported on underserved 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
110 

students. They are disproportionately poor, regardless of race. 

There is over 1,200 of those schools. In New York, there were 199 

of them. These are schools that have very high dropout rates. 

And again, going back to the dropout rate and then the information from the Bureau of Prisons, it shows that inmates who leave 

prison who do not have a high school diploma, their recidivism rate 

is 60.4 percent. So when I talk about on the front end, this is outside of the purview of the Bureau of Prisons, obviously. It is all 

about how do we put more emphasis on helping particularly young 

African-American males stay in school? That is a pathway to a better future. 

But for those who are incarcerated, I really believe we ought to 

look at a way to incentivize. If I may, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Horowitz, you were talking about there is no incentive for them to enter 

the program. To incentivize by looking at if these inmates who 

have not committed violent felonies who are going to be paroled, 

that if they achieve a high school diploma, they are eligible for an 

earlier release. If they achieve an associate or vocational degree. 

That creates an incentive, Mr. Martin. It gives them a goal. It 

gives them a vision for a future that, frankly, I don’t think exists 

right now in our prisons. Would you like to comment on that, anybody? 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. I’d just like to reiterate that the task force did 

recommend incentivizing these programs, even for those who are 

serving life, and suggested that the reward for them could be better 

confinement conditions, et cetera. And for others who have a release date, that the release date would be moved back with good 

time. 

Mr. MARTIN. Just briefly, two things. One, it was a correctional 

counselor who said to me I should go to college after I got my GED. 

Mr. PALMER. You were a high school dropout? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. And so I earned that GED. And while he was 

looking at those test scores, said to me, ‘‘You should go to college.’’ 

So as important as the degree was, you’re right. There was a bit 

of a moment where another human being in a position of authority 

who was seeing hundreds of people that day saw something in me 

that I might not have even seen in myself in that moment. So there 

is the value of that and everything else that comes from education. 

There’s also the piece about the conditions of confinement. The 

fact of the matter is that facilities that have more programs do better with respect to safety of correction officers. Why? Because the 

people who are serving time there want to take advantage of those 

opportunities, and also the folks who may not yet be college ready 

or even ready to get their GEDs have something to look forward 

to and to look up to. I can’t tell you how many people I helped to 

actually get their own GED after being in college while I was incarcerated. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, there is a report—and I am sure 

Mr. Martin and Ms. Roseberry, maybe everyone on the panel is familiar with—from Pew, the Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect 

on Economic Mobility. It is the very thing that Mr. Martin has 

been talking about. 

There is also an article that young black men without a high 

school diploma are more likely to be found in a cell than in a workVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
111 

place. And I just want to emphasize that I think we want to make 

sure that our society is safe, that law enforcement is able to do its 

job. But at the same time, there is a reality that we have got to 

recognize that most of these people are going to reenter society, 

and I don’t think we are doing enough to prepare them for that. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of 

Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate this 

hearing from the ranking member and the chairman. 

I have a question for Mr. Inch, but I really also want to get to 

these, what I see are some competing studies here because I very 

much respect scholarship. I was a tenured professor of law, and so 

I have got to somehow reconcile with them. 

Mr. Inch, the Bureau of Prisons is considered the best prison in 

the world, and there are many thoughtful programs. You hire people in the Bureau of Prisons who have advanced degrees. In light 

of the quality of personnel at the Bureau of Prisons, and I know 

I will be seeing you about D.C. inmates shortly, until recently—this 

is before you came, people on home confinement even were charged 

25 percent of anything they happened to make, imagine people who 

have just gotten out of prison, to pay back to the Bureau of Prisons. 

Some of that was gotten rid of before you came. But now if you 

are in a halfway house, which is, of course, imprisonment, you are 

still not released from prison, you are still charged 25 percent. I 

don’t know why you don’t just charge them 25 percent for being in 

jail. 

How can you possibly reconcile charging people who happen to 

get a job 25 percent of anything they make to give back to you, the 

Bureau of Prisons, rather than to their children, rather than to 

their families, and rather than to keeping themselves out of jail? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congresswoman Holmes Norton, and I’m 

sorry we had to delay our meeting. 

Ms. NORTON. That is quite all right. It was my fault. 

Mr. INCH. It actually was a loss in my family. 

So the use of RRCs, actually, this is something new I’m learning. 

In the military corrections, we did not avail ourselves of the Federal program, and I need to bound my comments by of our 223 facilities, I’ve been to one during this first 90 days. It was actually 

in Baltimore and really appreciated the reception I received there, 

the insights, and the contract provider that actually runs quite a 

few of our residential reentry centers, they were kind enough to 

come up as well. 

The aspect specifically that you asked for in terms of —— 

Ms. NORTON. Paying 25 percent of it, if you happen to get a job, 

which most people don’t get one. 

Mr. INCH.—25 percent if —— 

Ms. NORTON. What is the rationale, given how research-based 

most of your policies are? What is the rationale? Because I got to 

get to this —— 

Mr. INCH. Yes. So the rationale—I’m sorry. Then the rationale is 

real-life budgeting. The aspect that —— 

Ms. NORTON. Is what? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
112 

Mr. INCH. Real-life budgeting. That with employment —— 

Ms. NORTON. I see. 

Mr. INCH.—that a portion of that employment actually has to go 

to living expenses and all that. So, say, at the end of the 4-month 

period —— 

Ms. NORTON. But he doesn’t give 25 percent of his—25 percent 

of his salary to an outside party. So if he has got to budget, 

wouldn’t you rather him budget for his family? 

Mr. INCH. Well, the aspect is—I would argue the aspect is that 

real aspect of our budgeting upon then release from the residential 

reentry center is, in fact, going to be for housing and for food. And 

so building that into the budget during the period of transition 

seems appropriate to me. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t understand that you have answered my 

question, but I am going to see you shortly. 

Look, there are—Ms. Doleac, I respect your study, and I particularly respect studies that contradict one another in the academic 

environment. And there is a study by Terry-Ann Craigie for banthe-box even with what are some of the findings you have made. 

Now, for me, I am going to need more rationale than I thought I 

would need for ban-the-box. 

You say the best evidence—this is your testimony—suggests that 

ban-the-box does not increase employment for people with criminal 

records and might reduce it. I got to take that seriously. 

You also say, and again, I am reading from your testimony, 

‘‘While white applicants were called back at nearly the same rate 

as before, black applicants were called back at a rate in between 

the rates at which those with and without records were called back 

before ban-the-box. This may help black men with records, but it 

hurts black men without records.’’ 

So my question for you is, do you believe your sample was broad 

enough? And with the Craigie study, the study that I just indicated, essentially her response was, look—I would agree with her. 

Look, racial discrimination is even worse. So you got to deal with 

racial discrimination. But as I see it, both forms of discrimination 

are captured in your study, and you don’t find that anybody gets 

helped with ban-the-box. 

Would you somehow reconcile what you are saying with what she 

is saying? 

Ms. DOLEAC. Sure. So just to clarify, the studies that I’m talking 

about in my written testimony, there are actually four different 

studies. So I’m not finding all of those things in my own study. 

The—the evidence that ban-the-box reduces employment or reduces 

employment for black men or, at the very least, doesn’t help them 

comes from two very nice studies now that link criminal history 

records with employment records, one in Massachusetts and one in 

Seattle. 

The study in Massachusetts compares people who are affected by 

ban-the-box when Massachusetts implemented the policy with folks 

who—with a very similar control group that is not affected by banthe-box, and they find that employment falls for individuals with 

criminal records after ban-the-box goes into effect. 

This is consistent with new qualitative evidence from a graduate 

student at UC–Irvine, Dallas Augustine. She’s been spending the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
113 

last couple of years talking to people coming out of jail and prison 

and finding that, you know, what I think a lot of us would know 

anecdotally. It’s extremely frustrating to go through a job process 

and build rapport with an employer and get a conditional offer, 

maybe even work for a probationary period, and then not get the 

job when they finally check your criminal record. 

And ban-the-box increases the likelihood that that happens for 

anyone who actually does get their foot in the door. And so to the 

extent that that discourages people and they just give up and stop 

looking, you know, I think a lot of people would rather know up 

front if they’re not going to get the job because they have a criminal record. 

The study by Terry-Ann Craigie I know well. It’s a working 

paper. I think it at this point does not credibly isolate the effect 

of ban-the-box from other employment factors. There is—this is the 

main challenge that economists work very hard to—to overcome is 

figuring out what the impact of a policy is separate from the impact of just underlying economic trends and other factors that 

might drive employment. 

At this point, she has a treatment and control group, and I think, 

to get a little bit wonky, the challenge is to show that your treatment and control group look very similar before the policy is passed 

so that you know you have a good counterfactual. So you know you 

have a good idea of what would have happened in a place that 

passes ban-the-box if the place hadn’t passed that policy. 

At this point, her study is not able to show that. You know, it’s 

a working paper, still a work in progress. I’m sure she’ll figure that 

out. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that study introduced into the record, and I would like to say that the notion 

has to be taken very seriously that ban-the-box ends up with race 

being used as a proxy for discrimination. So I am very interested 

in the kinds of research that your hearing has uncovered and in 

further research into this area. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back, and without objection. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are going to be directed toward Director Inch. Recently, there have been closures of some reentry centers and a significant number of inmates whose referral dates to the reentry centers have been shortened or canceled. What is administration’s 

commitment to reentry services going forward? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congressman Comer, for that question. 

Of course, as I came on 3 months ago, it was at this time where 

certainly in media and in the framework or what was being presented was a perception of changing administration focus. I can assure you that’s not the case, certainly not in my first 3 months of 

experience. 

We had a lot of learning in the RRC administration, actually 

with the help of OIG and, of course, the good look, the good recommendations that we received. The closing of the 16 facilities, 

which really the correct way to say it is the not executing option 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
114 

years of contracts, or not renewing contracts, really was dealing 

with the efficiency of the system. Underused facilities or facilities 

that were of a contracting type that it really wasn’t the optimal. 

We’ve done a lot of work to create a standard statement of work 

in contracting. So we are looking to the efficiency of the system. 

Those 16 facilities accounted for about 1 percent of the bed space. 

Coupled with that perceptions that come was bringing other RRCs 

back within capacity gaps that our contracts added. 

Mr. COMER. I am going to switch gears now. Next questions are 

going to be about drug abuse. How big a problem is drug abuse in 

the Federal prisons, and what are you doing to curb drug abuse 

and addiction in the Federal prisons? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you for that question. 

So in my experiences in corrections, certainly again that’s been 

on the military side and then very active interaction with professional organizations in corrections. The aspect of decision-making 

is obviously influenced by—can be influenced by addictions, drug, 

alcohol, other addictions. And so, as I do an assessment of the Bureau’s reentry programming writ large, you know, the aspect of 

cognitive behavioral therapy with other aspects, frankly, I’m very 

impressed with RDAP, the Residential Drug Abuse Program. We 

have both nonresidential, residential within the facility. 

In my early visits to different facilities, I’ve made a point to go 

to both English and Spanish-speaking RDAPs and am impressed 

with the program both in my discussions with staff and the inmates. 

Mr. COMER. What role do residential reentry centers have in inmates obtaining drug treatment? 

Mr. INCH. Congressman, if it’s possible if I could get back with 

you specifically on that? 

Mr. COMER. Absolutely. 

Mr. INCH. I think it ties in with our new statement of work, but 

I probably need to —— 

Mr. COMER. Okay. No problem. My last question, how big of a 

challenge is preventing drugs or other contraband from entering 

into prisons, and what is the Bureau doing to prevent this? 

Mr. INCH. Oh, thank you for that question. 

It is a reality in the corrections profession since the start to this 

day, of course, is the aspect of countering the introduction of contraband. The seriousness of the type of synthetics primarily, not 

primarily, but certainly the seriousness of the introduction of synthetic drugs absolutely affects safety. And so our commitment to 

both using technological and procedural ways to address the introduction of contraband is a daily commitment and effort within the 

Bureau. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all the panelists for joining us today. We 

have had a fascinating discussion. 

And I want to—I want to thank you, Ms. Roseberry, for mentioning our Secretary of Corrections in Pennsylvania, John Wetzel, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
115 

who was appointed by a Republican governor and was kept on by 

the succeeding Democratic governor. I know Secretary Wetzel to be 

a very competent and capable head of our prison system in Pennsylvania. 

And I also appreciate your mentioning, Ms. Roseberry, the importance of keeping correctional staff safe, and it is a particular concern of mine. We have had some ugly incidents in Federal prisons 

in Pennsylvania, and so I want to take it up with you, Director 

Inch, if I may? I realize you are still pretty new on the job, and 

maybe this is the right time to catch you while you are still wrapping your head around the process. 

But this is something that I am very deeply concerned about. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has previously testified that the 

mission-critical staffing levels established by the Bureau are the 

bare minimum employment levels necessary safely to operate a 

prison. 

Right now, the administration of the Bureau is mandating to all 

facilities that they must lower their staffing levels to 88 percent of 

mission critical. First off, were you aware of that? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. 

First, just bringing to attention the issue and in terms of staffing 

levels, I am, yes, very aware of our staffing levels. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. So why is the administration mandating 

reducing staffing levels to 88 percent of mission critical, which is 

defined as the bare minimum employment levels to safely operate 

a Federal prison? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. 

So to—really to frame my answer, part of my first 90 days was 

actually to go to Pennsylvania. I was able to go to the regional 

headquarters that’s in Philadelphia, to visit also Lewisburg and 

Allenwood. The—I also took the opportunity—and Mr. Don Williams was very gracious also to sit down with me and give a personal anecdote. For those who may not know Don Williams, his son 

Eric Williams was a Federal Bureau of Prisons correctional officer 

who was killed in the line of duty. And so I very much appreciated 

how gracious he was to meet with me. 

So the aspect of staffing, as I’ve done staff recalls throughout 

those facilities I’ve been to in these first 90 days, and that’s 5 out 

of 6 regions, that is a consistent concern of staff as well as the leadership of the facilities. Though I cannot specifically answer on the 

process that resulted in the mission-critical staffing positions by facility, it is certainly a priority that I’ve already set is a relook at 

our staffing numbers —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Excellent. Excellent answer, and I want you to 

relook at that because we are talking about the safety of people 

like Eric Williams —— 

Mr. INCH. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—and his coworkers. Now after the Federal hiring freeze policy was implemented, a large number of Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities are operating well below authorized 

strength. Many of these same facilities will, in the very near future, lose even more corrections officers and other critical staff due 

to normal attrition—retirements, relocation, things like that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
116 

This situation leaves some institutions in a potentially dangerous 

situation without the ability to resolve it by hiring more staff. Does 

the Bureau currently have a plan to remedy this, and if not, why 

not? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you. 

So in the current hiring freeze, my ability to gain waivers back 

up to the cap, I believe it was January of 2017, we’ve been very 

successful in obtaining our waivers, are in that process. And with 

that process of achieving the waivers, of course, from the front end, 

that starts the aspect of going through, you know, initial training 

and the like. 

But you’re correct in identifying the importance of proper staffing 

in our facilities for safety and the—I would argue from a practitioner’s, again, perspective is the challenge is it’s facility by facility. 

You know, you just can’t cookie cutter this because our facilities 

were built over a 100-year period. And so the safe application of if 

we want to use the term ‘‘mission-critical positions’’ does have an 

impact of the facility as well as the type of prisoners and programs 

we have at those facilities. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I thank you for that. And I want to just 

mention again. My other committee is Appropriations, and I am on 

the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee. We funded the 

Bureau’s salaries and expenses funding level at just under 99 percent of what you asked for. So I urge you to do that relook on 88 

percent of the bare minimum. By definition, that is woefully inadequate. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Sure. I will start with Mr. Inch, but anybody 

else can jump in if they want to. 

The first question, what percentage of inmates that you release 

have jobs within a month of their release? 

Mr. INCH. Mr. Grothman, I don’t have that statistic with me, but 

I’ll work with staff and get that figure to you, your staff. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Hmm, does anybody know the answer to that 

question? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Within a month of when they were—people 

were—I don’t know how you can solve a problem if you don’t have 

the data. 

But okay, next question. Among those people who get jobs, what 

type of jobs do they get? I mean, I was told—I was a legislator for 

a long time in Wisconsin, and we were told for a while that there 

were certain kind of tough jobs that, you know, employers were— 

would grab anybody coming out of prison to take because they 

couldn’t find people to take these unpleasant jobs. 

But could somebody comment on the type of jobs the average person coming out of prison is getting? Mr. Martin? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

In my experience, particularly while I worked at a public interest 

law firm speaking to not just formerly incarcerated job seekers, but 

also employers who were interested in hiring them, typically 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
117 

they’re low income. They’re high turnover. There are no benefits. 

Retail —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. That is not answering what type of jobs they are 

getting. 

Mr. MARTIN. I was getting there. I’m sorry. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN. Retail, construction, hospitality. However, I think 

the caveat there is that things change when the labor market gets 

tighter. So when it becomes a job seeker’s labor market, I find that 

people have better opportunities. I also find that when people are 

credentialed, then employers are much more willing to consider a 

qualified applicant who has, say, a driver’s license that has a certain credential that allows him to drive a truck. 

If that person has a clean CDL is the name I’m looking for. 

Sorry, a clean CDL license, for instance, an employer is much more 

willing to give them consideration and puts less emphasis on the 

criminal record. But traditionally, it’s the sort of jobs that I just 

mentioned in those industries. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Next question, I guess I wouldn’t know 

how you would know this if you don’t know what is going on in 

your own system. But do you know which State systems do the best 

job of getting people a job within 1 month after they leave incarceration? Does anybody know? 

I mean, to me, it should be easy for the Federal Government to 

know what to do because we have 50 States out there who are operating things different ways. Does anybody have—take a shot at 

which States do a good job? 

Ms. DOLEAC. Well, I don’t know the answer to that question, but 

I think the real issue here is that the data that we would need to 

answer the questions that you’re asking don’t exist. We don’t have 

data on—we don’t have certainly at a national level criminal history data linked with employment data. And so we don’t even know 

how many people in the United States have a criminal record, 

much less where they live or what jobs they have when they can 

get them. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, it is kind of appalling, isn’t it? We have got 

all these universities, all this graduate student stuff, and we don’t 

even know the—I mean, it is kind of almost pointless to even have 

the hearing unless we know the answers to those questions. We 

should know, you know, the percentage of people who leave Federal 

prison, a month out of prison, what job do they get? 

We should know, we got 50 States, and this doesn’t work in Tennessee or this does work in Iowa or whatever. And given the sea 

of money that is floating around here and the sea of money that 

we send to our colleges and universities to do studies, I just find 

it shocking that we don’t have the most basic data that you need 

before you even address this problem. Isn’t that kind of amazing? 

Kind of amazing. 

Ms. DOLEAC. Could I comment on that? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes. 

Ms. DOLEAC. I mean, I think that the—this is a challenge for the 

Federal Government. Honestly, the data would need to be collected 

and—and investment needs to be made at the Federal level. I know 

the Census is working on this. They have people who are spending 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
118 

a lot of time and money trying to look at these datasets. This is 

not—not —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. But even they don’t because they are not going 

to break it down by State, okay? We should say X number of people 

were released from Illinois State prison system last year, and X 

percent had a job 30 days after they got out. We should have that 

information, but apparently, we don’t. 

Looking—there have been some criticisms of the people, number 

of people in prison, and I want you to comment on this. I was just 

playing around because you have got everything on the Internet, 

and the murder rate kind of was really kind of wonderful like in 

the ’50s in this country, and then it began to skyrocket up to the 

’80s. And then we began to put more people in prison, and the murder rate dropped again. 

Is it possible one of the reasons we had such a drop in the murder rate from the early ’80s to, say, 2013 or whatever is because 

we put more people in prison? That it wasn’t entirely a bad thing 

to have more dangerous people in prison. Is that possible? Is that 

one of the reasons why the murder rate dropped so much in this 

country, more bad people were in prison? Anyone care to comment 

on that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I’ll take a swing at it. I live in New York, where 

we’ve cut our jail population in half in the last 20 years. We’ve cut 

our prison population by 28 percent, and our crime rate, particularly our violent crime rate, is down to levels of 1961. So I think 

that actually contradicts the idea that you put more people in prison, you get more public safety. 

Having said that, I think your question was a little bit more 

nuanced about who we actually put in prison. I think that if we 

had more data, we’d be able to tell a story about whether locking 

up certain people for longer periods of time gets us better outcomes. But there is some research now that said—that says that 

there is the sort of law of sort of diminishing effect. The longer you 

have a person in prison, the more difficult time they have reentering society, and 95 percent of the people who go to prison come 

home at some point. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. 

Watson Coleman. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Inch? Is it Inch? I am so sorry. I didn’t hear them say your 

name. 

Mr. INCH. It is. Mark Inch. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Inch at a time. Okay. Is it true that the 

majority of the prisoners in the Federal system are there for nonviolent drug offenses? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you for that question. 

You know, during my opening statement, I identified the categories by which we had Federal inmates and recognized about 40 

percent we have at a custody grade of medium or high based not 

only on their current conviction, but their histories of—histories of 

criminal history. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I am not sure you are answering. Could 

you just answer my question? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
119 

Mr. INCH. Yes. So in terms of the actual statistics, my staff can 

provide your office the exact statistics —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Do you have any sense that the majority 

of the prisoners that are in the system are there for nonviolent 

drug-related offenses? 

Mr. INCH. There’s a philosophical aspect here is drug trafficking 

a nonviolent or a violent crime? 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Okay. I can’t have a colloquy with you. 

I am just going to ask you questions. You answer me questions. 

Mr. INCH. Yes. Okay. That’s —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So I am just going to ask you, however 

you categorize those prisoners in your system, if you can’t answer 

that question, could you please, through our chairman, supply that 

information? 

Mr. INCH. Yes, I’ll certainly supply the exact statistics of our inmate population. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Okay, thank you. All righty. Thank you. 

What is your feeling about the change in the administration’s position with regard to the use of private prisons? 

Mr. INCH. Okay. Thank you for that, that question as well. 

So within the Federal system, when I was in the military and 

doing military corrections, we did not use private prisons. So do not 

have an informed opinion from that experience. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Okay. 

Mr. INCH. But I am obviously aware that we do use private prisons as one of the tools kind of in our toolbox addressed primarily 

to low inmates, alien low, though, of course, we also use a private 

facility for D.C. inmates. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

My understanding is that there are other sort of entities and 

partners who look at this and observe this situation, including the 

IG, who said that these prisons, these private prisons are less safe, 

less secure, are more problematic for the safety and security of not 

only the inmate, but the staff. Do you have an awareness of that, 

and are you in agreement with that? 

Mr. INCH. So I’m certainly aware of the report, the experience 

that we have on the Federal side with our contracts and with the 

population. The challenge, and I believe the report identified that, 

is the challenges of doing comparisons. When you try to compare 

different types of inmate populations, it’s just an apples-to-oranges 

comparison. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So since you think that there are less 

violent, less problematic inmates placed in the private prisons, you 

would think that there would be less incidences of insecure activity. So I am going to ask Mr. Horowitz what your finding was? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, our private prison review, which identified 

a number of the issues that you reference, Congresswoman, caused 

us concern about BOP’s oversight of the contract prisons, as you 

know from the report. Concerns about staffing that was going on 

at these private contract prisons not meeting the contractual requirements. The contracts not being reviewed for quality assurance 

purposes and those sorts of things. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
120 

So we found very significantly that, at a minimum, if private 

prisons were going to be used, BOP needed to do a better job of 

overseeing them. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

You know, I have exactly one minute left. And this is an issue, 

this whole issue of prison, prison reform, criminal justice reform, 

reentry, making sure we have evidence-based programs that we are 

moving our inmates through so that when they come back—and 

the majority of them do come back—they are ready, willing, and 

able to take on their positions as good citizens. 

Thank you, Mr. Martin. You are a fantastic witness. And thank 

you for your work. 

And Dr. Doleac, is that right, Doleac? Your work concerns me, 

or your conclusions concern me because it is almost as if let us not 

do anything that makes sense for those who are vulnerable because 

that would just create greater discrimination against those who are 

vulnerable but have no record. And I say that has to do with the 

enforcement of the law against discrimination, and we ought to be 

more diligent and vigilant in that. And to do otherwise is to throw 

the baby out with the bath water. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this is a very 

important hearing that we need to explore from various levels, 

from what is happening when you are in prison, how do you divert 

from the prison, and what do you do on the way out? And so I ask 

you, through my ranking member, that we devote a whole hearing 

to that. 

And I thank you very much, and I yield back because I am over 

my time. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And I thank the gentlelady. And I think, given the 

bipartisan interest in this matter, that we certainly could use a lot 

more time for deliberation. And the gentlelady yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. 

Demings. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of our witnesses who are here with us 

today. 

First of all, I want to say I cannot agree more with my colleagues 

who talked about the importance of education and keeping persons 

from going to prison in the first place and, if they do, giving them 

a fighting chance once they are released from prison. As a former 

police chief, it is an issue that I looked at quite a bit, and I have 

asked the question over and over again, could reducing our prison 

population be as simple as ensuring that our young men in particular have the ability to graduate high school or receive an equivalent if they do not? 

We have also talked quite a bit today about information, data, 

the importance of it or the lack thereof. You all know that last 

year, the Government Accountability Office released a report that 

basically said the Bureau of Prison lacks adequate information to 

effectively evaluate its programs. And based on the lack of answers 

that some of my colleagues were able to receive this morning, it 

looks like the GAO office is correct. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
121 

Ms. Mauer, I would like to ask you, how effective do you believe 

the Bureau of Prisons has been in collecting and tracking key program data? 

Ms. MAUER. Thank you for that question. 

We found that that’s tended to vary depending on the type of 

program. As a general proposition, the BOP is very good at keeping 

track of the number of individuals they have within the system, 

where they’re located, what their security level is, sort of the basic, 

fundamental information you need to run a correctional system. 

However, where we—a common theme we found across a number 

of our reports is that BOP and the Department of Justice have 

often lacked the ability to assess the impact of their programs. 

They don’t necessarily know whether they’re working effectively. 

And we found that specifically when it came to residential reentry 

centers and home confinement, as well as reentry programming. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Director Inch, do you agree with those—with that 

statement? 

Mr. INCH. Ma’am, I think it’s a very compelling argument. I do 

understand the difference between a measure of performance. You 

know, we say this is what we do, and here is the facts, as opposed 

to a measure of effectiveness. It’s a very legitimate comment. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. How important—or has improve in oversight and 

accountability been part of your review of the major policies within 

the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Yes. You know, within my first 90 days, the taking a very close 

look, especially within our Reentry Services Division, of how we not 

only address programs and focus the priorities of the program. I 

think the better way to describe it, though, is, and I’m just starting 

to spiral into that. There’s level upon level upon level because of 

the complexity, frankly, of that. But, yes, it certainly has my focus. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Ms. Roseberry, as a member of the task force, I 

know you all as well made several recommendations. How important do you believe those recommendations are to the overall success of what we are trying to do? And if you could talk a little bit 

about your perception of those recommendations that have been 

implemented or not? 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. Thank you for that question. 

We think that our recommendations are integral to the success 

of the Bureau of Prisons and ultimately to the citizens who matriculate through them. We’ve not found that many of them have been 

implemented up to this point specifically with respect to programming and individualized assessments, which, of course, has a direct 

impact on reentry. 

We did find that one of the largest drivers of overincarceration 

were the low level or the nonviolent drug offenders and recommended that prison beds be reserved only for those who are very 

serious offenders and that we use diversion and other programs to 

provide corrections measures to people who have committed infractions. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. I know one of your recommendations was to establish an oversight board. Has that board been implemented as of 

yet? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
122 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. It has not. And as I mentioned in my comments, 

transparency is an important part of our prisons. We need to know 

what’s going on in our prisons. 

I recently spoke with a professor who’d studied both French and 

American prisons who said to me that the only way we know 

what’s going on inside American prisons is if some lawyer files a 

lawsuit or if a reporter takes a look at it. We deserve to know what 

is going on inside our prisons. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Director Lynch—or Inch, I am sorry, I know that 

90 days can be a short time or a long time depending on where you 

are. But do you intend to implement this recommendation to have 

an oversight review board? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Actually, that particular recommendation isn’t for the Bureau of 

Prisons to implement. Certainly that would be a departmental decision above me. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. What is your opinion of the oversight review 

board and the purpose that it would serve? 

Mr. INCH. So my initial impression seeing that, one, this is my 

first hearing I’ve ever been at, and it’s called an —— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Congratulations. 

Mr. INCH. Yes. And it’s called an oversight committee. I recognize 

I’m under oversight. The reports that I’ve certainly read by—from 

the Office of Inspector General and from the GAO, I find that they 

are very direct in their observations and very detailed, and I value 

that. I would argue that’s oversight, and I can assure you my boss 

is involved in my life. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So you have not ruled out that possibility? 

Mr. INCH. I have personally not requested an additional oversight mechanism, bureaucratic or otherwise, at this point. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Almost done. Director Inch, I wanted to know, have 

recent cuts in halfway house services affected inmates’ ability to 

transition back to their communities at a facility close to home? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you again for the question on our residential 

reentry centers, a very important part of our program, and we are 

absolutely committed to it. 

The reports, of course, of not executing option years or contracts 

of underutilized RRCs got a lot of attention in the past few months. 

That was primarily done for the efficiency of the system. You know, 

we have a clear spend plan. And the underutilized facilities are 

where we had facilities that were of a contractual type that was, 

frankly, not efficient, and we had other facilities within the region 

to pick up the requirements. I assure you it was not to signal any 

less commitment to the use of that program. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. And what is being done to ensure that inmates 

are sent to prison facilities within a reasonable distance of their 

home. I am from the State of Illinois, the Chicagoland area, even 

though mostly in the south suburbs of Chicago, and I hear that 

complaint a lot. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
123 

I am not just saying about Federal prisons, but a lot about there 

is a lot of people from the Chicagoland area that get sent 

downstate, and it is very difficult for their families to visit and a 

lot of different things that go along with that. 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Well, I grew up in Wheaton, and you’d probably call me 

downstate, too. 

Ms. KELLY. No, I live in Matteson. So I don’t —— 

Mr. INCH. So, of course, with our array of Federal facilities, and 

in Illinois, I believe we have five, I’ve visited Thomson here in my 

first 90 days. But drawing back to the general, the whole aspect 

of inmate designation, we have consolidated that within the Bureau of Prisons, our designation center is actually in Texas, Grand 

Prairie. That takes into consideration absolutely the—well, a variety of aspects. But as you would expect, being close to home is a 

positive. 

In my initial statement, I talked about one of our stakeholders 

being victims, and I divide the victims between victims of crime, 

and there is aspects of what we do that it relates to those victims. 

Victims among us. That’s the staff and inmates that are victims. 

And what I would call, personal term is forgotten victims, and 

that’s the family members of the offenders. 

And so having very strong bonds between the offender and their 

family. Sometimes there’s reasons why that can’t be, but is important. So, but we look at programs, custody grade, health requirements. We have four levels of health requirements. It’s quite complex. But the aspect of being close to family, that’s one advantage 

of our Federal system of 122 facilities is it improves that capability. 

Ms. KELLY. So, I mean, is it a very low percentage of people that 

aren’t within the 500 miles or a great distance away, or do you feel 

like you have a handle on that issue? 

Mr. INCH. So I feel we have a handle. But allow me to get back 

with—to staff on the exact statistics of the number of inmates that 

are within 500 miles, recognizing if they are outside that, there’s 

often a very good reason for that. 

Ms. KELLY. Did you want to say something? 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. Yes. I’d like to just say that, you know, to these 

poor and marginalized communities, 500 miles might as well be 2 

million miles away from home. 

Ms. KELLY. I know. That is a long way. 

Ms. ROSEBERRY. And also with respect to D.C. Code offenders 

who are housed within the Bureau of Prisons, they are typically 

farther away than 500 miles. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Thank you. 

And I think my colleague from Wisconsin brings up a good point. 

I would like to know which States, you know, we feel have best 

practices. And when I think about Illinois, and you said you were 

from Wheaton. So there is something called the Safer Foundation, 

I don’t know if you guys are familiar, that help people coming out 

of jail get jobs, and they seem to do a good job at that. And it 

seems like we need to study and research and analyze, you know, 

what is working because, I mean, it is ridiculous the amount of 

people we have in jail and the reasons, you know, they are in jail. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
124 

I think about the State of Washington and Colorado and what 

people are allowed to do there. Then we have people in jail, you 

know, for, you know, smoking marijuana. Now, you know, in some 

places, it is okay to do it. 

So, but I do think we need to look at each State and look at best 

practices and what can be duplicated. Some things can’t. Like in 

Illinois, we have ban-the-box, which I think is excellent that we did 

that. So, you know, that helps. But I think we definitely need to 

take a closer look and hear recommendations from you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

We do appreciate the panel being here today, and with six of you, 

obviously, we have been indulgent a little bit on time. So I appreciate you doing that, but you are not done yet. I have my own sets 

of questions. 

But I am grateful. I think everybody here not only is committed 

to helping solve the problems. It might come from different viewpoints or angles. 

And General Inch, thank you for your continued service to our 

country not only in your previous life, but now you are doing something easy like taking on the Bureau of Prisons. So we are grateful 

to your continued selfless service, and welcome to your first hearing. 

It seems to me that coupled with recidivism, overincarceration, 

my State, in Oklahoma, we have one of the highest rates of incarceration per capita. But we also have, at least with State agencies, 

a ban-the-box provision, where we have tried to address and look 

at this. But I think coupled with that is—is our judiciary branch 

and its examination on how we look at sentencing. You know, we 

seem to have an incarcerative justice system rather than a 

restitutive justice system. 

And until we address that—and then, as lawmakers, many 

times, I think we—wanting to be tough on crime and all of these 

things, I think ofttimes we tie the hands of the equal branch of 

Government being the judiciary, where judges can have latitude in 

their courts. Not every case is the same. Not every background is 

the same. Not every propensity for future criminal behavior is the 

same, even though the crimes might be identical. We have to take 

that on as well as a part of that. 

I think, if I may start with you, Mr. Martin, and thank you for 

your work in highlighting these issues, you know, as a business 

owner that manufactures firearms, I have even made a hire where 

we had somebody with a criminal record, which is—you know, can 

be risk taking and complicated, given what we manufacture. You 

know, I am thinking as from an employer end, okay, say we have 

a ban-the-box provision, but then it is like, ‘‘Okay, Mr. Russell, tell 

me about your work history in the last 5 years.’’ And then I am 

like, ‘‘Well, you know, I haven’t been working in the last 5.’’ ‘‘Well, 

why not? Where have you been?’’ 

I mean, so how do we—yes, we have a ban-the-box type of provision. But at the same time, we also are kind of placing the applicant in a situation where really the applicant is going to have to 

divulge what has been going on if they are in that first 2-year atVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
125 

risk period trying to come out and look at employment. Could you 

address that? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. So here is where I give credit for—to the Second Chance Act and the sort of reentry infrastructure that it’s created around the country because programs like Safer, Fortune Society, a number of others around the country are in the business of 

helping job seekers understand how to have that conversation with 

employers. If you asked me if I were an applicant now for a job just 

out of prison, yes, I would take ownership over the conviction, but 

I’d spend a lot more time talking to you about what I’ve done since 

then by way of evidence of rehabilitation, whether it was drug and 

alcohol treatment programs or, in my case, access to a liberal arts 

degree or those sort of things. 

So we’re not going to solve all of the problems with ban-the-box, 

and I’m actually glad you brought up the fact that a conservative 

State has moved forward with ban-the-box because there’s actually 

a number of more conservative States that have done so. But I 

think that, you know, we got here through a million cuts, and it’s 

going to take probably just as many antidotes to get us out of this. 

And one of them is ban-the-box, but another one is investing—continuing to invest in reentry programs through the Second Chance 

Act that do the job of preparing people for that interaction. 

And what I don’t want to get lost in this conversation is something that the chairman said before he departed, which is let’s talk 

about human beings and how they operate, right? Like we can look 

at the research, we can look at the data, but we also know that we 

have done a great job of dehumanizing the people that go into the 

system, whether it’s violent, nonviolent, and everything else on the 

spectrum. 

And that continued interaction between prospective employer 

and prospective employee, I think ultimately we will look back and 

realize that we have done a lot to rehumanize those folks, even if 

it means that every single person doesn’t get the job. 

Because people will—I visited 50 different employers. I guarantee you that maybe a third of them I probably wasn’t even qualified, but just very desperate for a job opportunity. But at the same 

time, the interaction, I don’t want to devalue the value of that. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, thank you for that. And I do have some additional questions as we close out, but I will go ahead and yield back 

and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me first associate myself with the ranking member’s beginning comments. I am afraid that historians will look back in our 

policy towards corrections and look at it like Michelle Alexander 

expressed in The New Jim Crow, that this is a period clearly driven by policy that had a lot to do with fear and racism and the challenge this country continues to have. And all, based in my opinion, 

on one very important political TV ad in a presidential campaign 

of which the author of, Lee Atwater, apologized on his deathbed. 

So in that context where we have come to realize that we have 

made a mistake, I think, in a bipartisan way, Mr. Horowitz, having 

spent a lot of time in my previous job in California knowing that 

we were going to have a Supreme Court decision that said that we 

had to let 45,000 of our almost 200,000 State inmates out, knowing 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
126 

that the system was driving the State towards bankruptcy at that 

time, knowing that all the outcomes were bad, having spent time 

in various State correctional facilities and talked to people who 

would tell—who had worked there for 35 years and told me with 

pride what the department used to be like when they had vocation 

programs. 

When, jokingly, people would want to get in a vocational program 

that was in a prison, and they would have to tell them the only 

way they could get in was to get arrested and sentenced to that facility. And then talking about how policy and politics changed those 

institutions. 

And then because of that decision, we were required to change, 

and so far the history that we have done, based on everything I 

have heard from the panel today, is implementing evidence-based 

research, making sure that when those inmates go back to mostly 

urban counties that they have transitional housing, that they have 

behavioral health, that they have vocational training. And lo and 

behold, our recidivism rate is going down. 

So how do we share that information? Part of what changed California was Washington State. So how does the Federal agencies 

look at what other countries and specifically what other States 

have done for 20, sometimes longer. In Washington State, we 

would bring their Institute of Public Policy down and tell California, its neighbor who was supposed to be so innovative, what we 

needed to do to change. And we pretty much just copied what we 

already knew worked in Washington State. 

So how are we sharing all this robust information in a nonpolitical, objective, and here is the real point, and doing it in a 

quick period of time? I am actually sort of shocked that California 

has done it as quickly as it has because changing those cultures is 

seems to me to be the largest obstacle. So can you tell me a little 

bit about how we share what should be obvious? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s an excellent question, Congressman, and 

something we’ve been doing more of, and I think it’s incumbent on 

the BOP to do more of, what we’ve talked about today. There are 

50 State correctional systems out there, and frankly, many of them 

are far ahead—excuse me, far ahead of the Federal system. 

One of the things our teams have been doing as we’ve been doing 

these reviews, and I know GAO does this as well, we’re going to 

the largest State systems to see what they’re doing, California generally being among them. But we’ve got Texas, Florida, Georgia, 

New York. I can go on and mention several other States that are 

both in more conservative parts of the country, less conservative 

parts of the country, and you see them moving forward on reentry 

programs. 

Some of the programs the congressman just mentioned, Oklahoma, other States that are moving forward in the way that I think 

the Federal Government has not done a good job of recognizing, realizing are out there, and need to do. And we’re certainly committed continuing to do that, whether it’s on reentry, whether it’s 

on preventing contraband. We’ve looked at also—I’ll just add, we 

haven’t talked much about this—Federal Prison Industries. Giving 

people a vocation. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
127 

We did a review on this a couple of years ago and the dramatic 

drop at the BOP in the use of the Federal Prison Industries. And 

study after study will tell you that giving inmates who’ve never 

had the kind of training we’ve all talked about, vocational skills is 

critical. Yet that program has not been sufficiently supported, and 

I’m not sure, frankly, the fault is entirely on the BOP. 

I think there’s a lot that needs to be discussed about that with 

Congress as well. That has been troubled and challenged because 

of various laws, funding, et cetera, but I don’t—I don’t think anyone would disagree that if people go to jail without a skill, it’s in 

all of our interests to get them a skill. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair— 

Mr. Chairman. I apologize for that. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And if I may, before I recognize the ranking member, Ms. Mauer, 

do you have some comments along that line as well? Because I 

know you all have been working hand-in-hand on a lot of that? 

Ms. MAUER. Yes, absolutely. I definitely agree with what the Inspector General said. In the reviews that we’ve been doing at GAO 

on things like solitary confinement, correctional officer safety, overcrowding, we were looking predominantly at the Bureau of Prisons. 

But as part of our audit work, we also looked at what the States 

were doing, and we found that that was valuable and insightful information. 

I’d also like to give a shout-out at the Federal level to the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. You know, GAO doesn’t typically 

issue reports where we talk strictly about good news, but we had 

a report about 3 years ago that looked at positive examples of 

interagency coordination, and that interagency council was one of 

four across the Federal Government that we highlighted as exemplary in terms of its best practices at coordination. 

It brought together all the different Federal agencies who have 

some role in reentry. So I’d like to mention that as well. But I 

think the broader issue is definitely one I’d like to agree with, 

which is that there are a lot of innovative practices that are going 

on at the State level that can be instructive for the Federal prison 

system. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you for that. 

And the chair now recognizes the ranking member for his additional comment. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I just—I want to go back to something, Mr. Chairman, if you 

don’t mind. The halfway houses, it is my understanding that there 

is some efforts to cut back on halfway houses, and can you explain 

the rationale with regard to that, Mr. Inch? 

You may have already said it. Maybe I was out of the room, but 

I didn’t—I don’t remember hearing it. 

Mr. INCH. The—I did, but certainly saying it again. There is absolutely no intent to cut back in the program. It’s an essential program to our system and reentry. The 16 facilities that were certainly reported in the media really was an aspect of creating efficiencies within the system. 

These were aspects of not renewing option years or contracts that 

were not efficient in areas where we had capability in other faciliVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
128 

ties. Coupled with that, and this was, again, based on the Inspector 

General report, was that we need to do a better job of managing 

our contracts with the RRCs. So those 16 does not signal any lessening of our belief of the importance of the program, and I’m committed to running it very efficiently and to the capacity that is necessary for the population. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, the Baltimore RRC is the largest such facility on the east coast. 

Mr. INCH. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, but the occupancy has fallen sharply due to 

recent BOP cuts. The facility was given essentially no notice to prepare for these cuts. Now this facility is struggling to meet its costs. 

Director Inch, can you explain the decision to cut services at the 

existing RRCs, such as Baltimore facility, and does the BOP intend 

to close more RRCs? 

Mr. INCH. Again, thank you for asking that question. It’s a very 

fair —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that—that is where you visited, right? 

Mr. INCH.—question, and I did visit it. And I have personal 

knowledge on that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay, good. 

Mr. INCH. So, first, is it our intent to cut back on our program? 

Absolutely not. Specifically with the Baltimore facility, very impressed with the facility and the contract provider that runs that 

facility and others and fully recognize that that particular organization, of course, actually built a new facility to run their programs, and I think it’s very well structured. 

So the overbuilt capacity, and frankly, because we had poor management controls at a time, we overfilled the contractual capacity. 

So we have in that particular facility, fully within the statement 

of work of the contract, we have brought it back down to that number. I suspect this is probably not an appropriate area to talk about 

actual contracting stuff. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No. 

Mr. INCH. But I’d be happy to come by your office later —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, please do. Please do. 

Mr. INCH.—and really talk. But you know, I think that is a great 

facility, and I really —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think so, too. 

Mr. INCH.—appreciate the work they do. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Let me close by saying this. I want to 

thank all of you for what you have had to say today, and I think 

that, you know, as I listen to the testimony, I think we all—we 

need to get back to the human side of all of this because it is extremely painful. It is extremely damaging to so many people. 

And by the way, it is just not the former inmates. It is their families that suffer too, big time. And so we can look at statistics here 

and statistics there, but let us not forget the human element of all 

of this, you know? And I often tell my children whatever happens 

to you, whatever has happened to you—good, bad, or ugly—before 

this moment prepares you for this moment. And you know, as I am 

sitting here, I just remember I taught in the penitentiary, State 

penitentiary. I taught inmates that had very long sentences. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
129 

But I know, Mr. Martin, going back to something that you said, 

they had a sense of hope, and they got—I mean, these guys got degrees. Then we have Goucher, which is one of our small State colleges in Maryland, that has a program which I think President 

Obama started experimenting with using Pell Grants so that they 

could get their college degrees. 

And when we went to visit them, we discovered that a lot of the 

inmates were just so excited because there were inmates that were 

already going through the program in their second or third year, 

and then other ones were saying you know what, we’re going to do 

everything in our power to get in the program, too. So that, too, 

when we think about things like public safety, I mean the people 

have a sense of hope, and they can see an avenue to getting to 

where they have got to go. 

And I believe—and just one second, Mr. Chairman, I will be finished. I believe that a lot of people are like going—our inmates, our 

former inmates are like going in circles. They come out, and they 

are on this circle, right? And they are looking for an exit to get to 

where they have got to go. They have dreamed dreams. They have 

said I am going to do better. I am going to take care of my family. 

I am going to do all these things. 

And then when they get out, not only are they—as has already 

been said, not only are they facing a new world. I mean, in today’s 

world, you can be in prison for 5 years and the world has changed 

drastically. But they come out and face a new world, but then they 

are not equipped to do anything. Many are not educated. 

So some kind of way, I think it was Ms. Roseberry said we find 

a way to bring them down, but we don’t find a way to bring them 

up. After we bring them—I mean, you get them there. And it is 

without a doubt, we become a part of the problem. 

You know, you say you don’t want recidivism. You don’t want recidivism. Well, you send somebody out—you send—you go out there 

and not—and every employer turn you away. And let us say you 

don’t have more than a 10th grade education. Try that one. 

And then, and please don’t be black. Try that one. Or poor. Try 

that one. And the next thing you know, you go—and so I have people come to me almost every—we do jobs fairs in my district. I have 

people come to me almost every week, probably sometimes three 

times a week, and this is what they say. 

They say, ‘‘Mr. Cummings, Mr. Cummings, I can’t get a job, man. 

I can’t get a job. I want to do for my family. I can’t get a job’’ because of a record or whatever. And so all I am saying—and these 

people—and I want to be clear because I know some people will 

say, oh, he doesn’t care about public safety. I do care about public 

safety. There are some people that need to be in prison and probably for a very, very long time. 

And the public needs to be protected, but at the same time, there 

are a lot of good people who make mistakes. All of us make mistakes at some point. Some of us just didn’t get caught. And so, so 

we have got to figure out—figure this thing out. 

Other than that, we are working against ourselves. We put them 

in jail. Then they come out, and there is absolutely nothing that 

they can do. So why is it that I see people at 2:00 in the morning 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
130 

selling drugs in 20-degree weather, probably not making much 

money. I mean, that is a job. 

And so I beg you, as the new guy on the block, new head of the 

team, I hope that you will look at some of the things that are being 

done, some of the really constructive things. And you know, I want 

us to be effective and efficient in what we do. You know, we can 

go, I mean, forever and forever and forever, going in circles, and 

never achieving a damned thing except going backwards. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all very much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the ranking member for his comments. 

Along this theme of recidivism, one of the things that the Federal 

system has come under criticism on has been with faith-based educational and outreach opportunities. The States seem to do much 

better and are more open-minded toward these programs than we 

see in the Federal system or, by extension, the private prisons that 

are allowed to accommodate Federal. 

What—and this would really just be a general question for those, 

but I would like to start with you, General Inch. Where will this 

go? Because when you examine the recidivism rates for these that 

have been engaged in these programs, whether it is educational or 

to a degree or towards others, they are actually much higher than 

the general, the general population. So they are obviously working, 

to some extent. 

Could you comment on that? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congressman Russell. Great question. 

So drawing back from previous experiences in military corrections, and I was the commandant of the disciplinary barracks, 

which is the Department of Defense’s maximum security prison, we 

had a very robust volunteer program, both secular and faith-based. 

And I saw great value in that. 

The DB is kind of a one facility microcosm of what is now 122 

facilities. And both through education programs, amazing treatment programs, vocational training, I’ve certainly seen a framework, and I would add in—and this harkens a little bit back to the 

issue of cross-fertilization—I’ve been very active in the American 

Correctional Association for much of my career and only recently 

active in the Association of State Corrections Authorities that do a 

lot of cross-fertilization of these programs. So I’m very receptive to 

these programs. 

In my second week, when I was in Dallas visiting our regional 

headquarters, had the opportunity, for example, to go to the Texas 

Offender Reentry Initiative. I believe Bishop Jakes is—his church 

is the one that runs that particular one, just to see and learn. And 

I’m open to doing like things. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, that is good to hear because I think, you 

know, as we explore all the possibilities, we certainly want to seize 

upon the things that work. None of them necessarily are compelled 

any more than, you know, some secular program. An inmate can 

choose not to get a GED completion, or he can choose not to get 

college courses. There is a number of things like that. 

Mr. Horowitz, home confinement. Going back to the theme on the 

restitutive justice vice incarcerative justice that our Nation seems 

to be so enamored with, what is the maximum amount of time a 

person can serve outside of prison once sentenced? And maybe GenVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31401.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
131 

eral Inch will know this, but—and then, whatever the answer is, 

in your studies, I know in your report, you had noticed an underutilization in home confinement. So could you speak to that? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Do you want to give the numbers first? 

Mr. INCH. Yes. Certainly on the statutory aspect of the home confinement, it’s 6 months or 10 percent of the sentence, whichever is 

less. So that kind of bounds it in there. 

When you couple that with the residential reentry center, most 

programming that we target, though we can certainly take it up to 

a year, is a 4-month target. The idea is that in that 4-month period, it provides the opportunity to make that connection in the 

community and—and work to find a job, then with that amount, 

of course, basic math is 4/4/4. That’s the three people participate 

in that program for one bed space of the contract per year. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. So —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. If I —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, please. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Just briefly on the underutilization issue, BOP 

has three choices with regard to inmates whose sentences are close 

to expiration. Keep them in jail and release them straight into the 

community, send them to an RRC, or send them to their home with 

an ankle bracelet so they can reconnect to their community from 

home, as opposed to an RRC. That’s obviously far cheaper than either prison or an RRC. 

Our concern in our study was—in our review was that it seemed 

like the BOP’s default was either keep people in jail or send them 

to an RRC even if there wasn’t a demonstrated need for an RRC. 

And the result being that important bed spaces in RRCs were 

being taken by people who were low need, low risk instead of 

thinking —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. If you could pause just a moment? Whoever has 

that, please silence the —— 

[Telephone ringing.] 

Voice. Sounds Irish. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Is that somebody here in the hearing? Yes, please 

turn it off. That is disrespectful to the witnesses. 

I am sorry, Mr. Horowitz. Please continue. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you. 

The problem we saw was that the BOP wasn’t thinking about 

who needed to be in which of the facilities. And so, in our view, 

they were sending people to RRCs who really should have been, it 

seemed to us, either staying in prison or going to home confinement. And the consequence of using the RRC was to take a valuable bed space for others who might need it, but never could be 

considered for it because the bed space was being taken by someone else in that position. 

And frankly, and many of the studies show that low-risk individuals like white collar offenders who don’t need the services of an 

RRC, sending them there with other individuals who do could actually be more harmful than helpful to those individuals, and so we 

were concerned about that as well. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, they would see it as a delay to the support 

base that they already have and don’t have that need. 

Ms. Maurer, would you care to comment on that as well? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
132 

Ms. MAUER. Yes, just very quickly. In some of our work, we were 

looking at the role the Federal judiciary can play in home confinement, and we found that there were instances where BOP had 

worked on an arrangement with the pretrial and probation services 

office at the Federal courts for the courts to provide home confinement services that at the time of our review seemed to be significantly less than what BOP was paying its contractors to provide 

home confinement services. 

That’s an option that could be explored for additional capacity 

and potential cost savings as well. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, thank you for that. 

And I will now defer and recognize the gentleman from Missouri. 

However, this will be the last member that I will recognize out of 

respect to our witnesses and maybe their comfort. And so, with 

that, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank the witnesses for your indulgence. 

Director Inch, earlier this year, I joined several of my House and 

Senate colleagues in writing to you to request information about 

prison education programs, specifically the Second Chance Pell program and the Roadmap to Reentry Initiative. We received a response from BOP on October 27th, and Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be made part of the official 

record of this hearing. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Director Inch, BOP’s response indicated that some of those initiatives have been abandoned. Can you elaborate which initiatives 

have been eliminated and why? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 

I believe the aspect of that, and certainly this was prior to my 

arrival, was the planning that had been done with the idea of creating at central office level of a kind of a school board type arrangement, probably about 40 people. The decision was made prior to my 

arrival to not grow the central headquarters by those numbers, to 

use that as a structure by which to work our education program. 

So, for me personally, as I look at it, I’m absolutely committed 

to education. It’s essential. It’s important. You know, when I think 

of the story of Mr. Martin, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard his 

story, it was absolutely inspiring that when he had an opportunity 

to speak to all the State corrections authorities last month and I 

was present, it was very inspirational. 

The importance of education I’m absolutely committed to. In this 

first 90 days, in this first year, frankly, as we are organized within 

our Reentry Services Division, I’ll use the assets, I’ll understand 

the strengths and weaknesses. But my commitment to education, 

you know, please don’t worry about that. 

Mr. CLAY. So creating a school district concept was rather expensive, to say the least. And so I guess that it is about resources. How 

would you stand up a program? And maybe you could share with 

us how many resources you would need in order to stand up some 

type of effective educational program? 

Mr. INCH. Sir, very fair question. I probably would not be able 

to do it any justice in my first 90 days. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
133 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. 

Mr. INCH. This will take, as in all the programs that I’ve been 

observing and as I—though I’m not new to corrections, the profession, at all, I am new to the Bureau of Prisons. So —— 

Mr. CLAY. Okay, that is fair. But now there was a person in 

place to oversee BOP’s educational services, and have you all had— 

do you have a timeline for replacing Amy Lopez? 

Mr. INCH. We do. The hiring process for our education director 

is ongoing, nearing—nearing completion. 

Mr. CLAY. And so is that coming soon or —— 

Mr. INCH. Yes, nearing completion. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. And you have replaced Amy Lopez? 

Mr. INCH. With the position and—in our current structure of how 

we supervise education, the senior person, that hiring action is ongoing right now. 

Mr. CLAY. You know studies show that inmates who participate 

in correctional education programs have 43 percent lower odds of 

returning to prison than those who do not. Every dollar spent on 

prison education saves $4 to $5 on the cost of reincarceration. And 

so that should—should make you want to direct resources to effective education program, and hopefully, that is what your administration will be looking towards doing. 

Mr. INCH. I’m absolutely committed to education. 

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask Inspector General Horowitz, are you satisfied with BOP’s progress to date on the recommendations that were 

made in a report? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I—I’m sorry. 

Mr. CLAY. Go ahead. No, go ahead. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. They are making progress. There are several 

more steps they need to take to effect implementation. We will continue to oversee it, but I will say that we have long had a very 

good, close working relationship with BOP and them being responsive to our recommendations. So we certainly look forward to continuing. 

Mr. CLAY. All right. I see my time is up. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the witness. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

And my final question, General Inch, you are uniquely suited, 

given your military experience, given your experience in corrections 

and then now on this side. States have been trying to deal with 

veteran incarceration a great deal, even on the judiciary side. Do 

we have special courts that deal with special sets of circumstances? 

Do we look at the types of offenses and put that, you know, allowing once again our judiciary branch to have a little more latitude? 

Do you have any plans in your goals and objectives, as you come 

in with this kind of understanding, to try to address some of the 

issues? And then how we would reenter those veterans who unlike 

in the military prison system, where they may actually lose rights 

of an honorable discharge or different things, many of them outside 

after being honorably discharged are still entitled to their benefits 

and their decorations and things of that nature. So they could reenter under a bit different circumstances than if they were incarcerated in the military. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
134 

Have you given much thought to this or about the direction to 

deal with that population? 

Mr. INCH. Thank you, Congressman Russell. I have, and thank 

you for your service as well. 

So I was actually pleased to find out that we have piloted a concept that in the corrections profession has been discussed for several years, and that’s having veterans housing units. I had the 

good fortune, again in my previous life, but in association when I 

attended an American Correctional Association conference, that a 

facility—in this case, it was in the State of Indiana—where I was 

able to see their program and see how they ran their program. 

I spoke with the inmates in their housing areas. So I’m very interested in that program. I think, you know, in the aspects of treatment —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Would that be not the halfway houses, but actually 

—— 

Mr. INCH. No, that’s inside the facilities. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Inside. So that you would —— 

Mr. INCH. It would be an actual housing unit. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Kind of like the commonality of barracks and routines and disciplines and that sort of thing? 

Mr. INCH. So, anecdotal, it was when I spoke with the inmates 

at that one facility in Indiana, actually a privately run facility, that 

the inmates talked about the aspect of trust and that they were 

then able to focus on their programming. And several that had 

been in different environments in housing talked about how that 

was different for them. 

So I think there’s a lot of validity in looking at that concept. I’m 

always afraid to talk about that in the presence of a social scientist 

that will bring out the metrics. She intimidates me. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. INCH. But that—but certainly, there is anecdotal aspects 

that are worth pursuing. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And Ms. Doleac, you don’t look terribly intimidating, but intellectually, we may all find ourselves on the wrong 

end, as the chairman has alluded to earlier. Would you like to comment on any of that? 

Ms. DOLEAC. No, I defer. I defer to the expertise of the Director. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Well, I want to say, you know, how grateful I am. This is a team 

effort. It is about our country. Mr. Martin, you bring out the 

human element of it, and I agree with the chairman and the ranking member that I think we forget that sometimes. 

But this can’t be the gift that keeps on giving. As people pay 

their debt to society, it truly needs to be a forgiven debt. But unfortunately, culturally, we have a lot of work to do there. As people 

reenter, they have paid that debt. It just can’t be the gift that 

keeps on giving and puts them in a difficult position. 

And with that, I would like to defer to the chairman for his comments. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, Congressman, I want to thank you for 

filling in so ably for me while I was next door. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses. It is a super important 

hearing. I was bemoaning the fact next door that how important 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
135 

this issue is and how little attention there is in this hearing room. 

All of the attention is next door for important reasons, but this is 

important also. 

Professor Doleac, I want to ask you to do one thing I couldn’t do 

myself, which is you have access to the brain power and the studies. If what is being proposed does not or cannot accomplish what 

I think everyone agrees is the ultimate goal, then what will work? 

Because I think there is a lot of sensitivity, regardless of politics, 

on helping people who have paid their debts to society have a 

chance to go on and have a constructive life that we all claim we 

want them to have. But if you can’t get a job, all the other obligations in life are really hard to meet. So if this won’t do it or can’t 

do it, what can? 

And with that, I don’t want to single you out. Inspector General 

Horowitz, from what I read, you have been busy lately, too. So I 

appreciate you coming. 

Everyone is busy. Everyone has very hectic schedules. I appreciate your expertise. I appreciate your comity with the committee 

and your collegiality and professionalism with each other. 

And I thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(137) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
138 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 31401.083

Rep. Darrell Issa Statement for the Record 

"Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

December 13, 2017 Full Committee Hearing 

Mr. Chairman, as the leading Republican sponsor of the Fair Chance 

Act, I want to emphasize that the issue that this legislation seeks to 

address is far from partisan. 

In many states across the country, we have seen "ban the box" policies 

implemented and, like other criminal justice reform policies, they have 

enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. In states that include Indiana, 

Georgia, Kentucky, and Arizona, Republican Governors in recent years 

have championed the objectives that this bill seeks to achieve. Our 

counterpart bill in the Senate also enjoys Republican sponsorship from 

Senators Ron Johnson, Joni Ernst, and Rob Portman. And in the private 

business world, organizations ranging from Koch Industries to Walmart 

to Starbucks have all supported these policies and put them into practice. 

Mr. Chairman, all of us who have worked in or ran businesses have 

witnessed the value and dignity that a job can bring to a person's life. 

The best way to prevent people from returning to lives of crime is to 

ensure that those leaving the criminal justice system have reasonable 

opportunities to become productive members of society. 

When we shut the door on this group of individuals, the message we 

inadvertently send is that those who commit a crime will never be given 

a second chance. The Fair Chance Act will go a considerable distance in 

helping to break the cycle of crime, by restoring hope and giving many 

Americans opportunities to tum their lives around. 

Mr. Chairman, it is time that the federal government caught up with 

many of the states and the business world and, for these reasons, I urge 

my colleagues to join us in supporting the Fair Chance Act. 
139 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 31401.084

«nngr£55 nf t}fe ltlnite(l §tate5 

illllasfringtnn, il<!r 20515 

General Mark S. Inch 

Director 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

320 First St., NW 

Washington, DC 20534 

Dear Director Inch: 

October 3, 2017 

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the implementation of programs that promote 

successful reentry, specifically prison education programs. Education programs have a 

documented record in reducing recidivism, yet educational opportunities are sorely lacking in 

federal prisons. 

In 2015, the Department of Education (ED) created the Second Chance Pell program, a pilot 

program that reinstated access to Pel! Grant aid for eligible incarcerated students in Federal and 

State penal institutions. These incarcerated students-over 12,000 individuals-who otherwise 

meet Title IV eligibility requirements could access Pel! Grants to pursue higher education or 

training. During the 2016 to 2017 academic year, 67 institutions of higher education partnered 

with over I 00 penal institutions-7 of which were Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities-to 

provide higher education for incarcerated students in over 28 states. Over 10 percent of these 

colleges and universities were Minority-Serving Institutions and about 37 percent were offering 

prison-based education for the first time. 

In 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its "Roadmap to Reentry" initiative to 

improve education, programming, and reentry preparation for people in federal prisons. The 

initiative included supporting the Second Chance Pel! program. It also created a semiautonomous "school district" within BOP that would offer better post-secondary education 

programs, as well as adult literacy and basic skills, high school diplomas, and expanded 

opportunities for individuals with learning disabilities. 

To accomplish this goal, BOP hired Amy Lopez to be the first superintendent of its school 

district. Described by DOJ as a "veteran correctional educator" from the Texas prison school 

system, Ms. Lopez's hiring was announced in November 2016. Together, these actions by ED, 

DOJ, and BOP signaled their evolving views on the role of incarceration and the best ways to 

reduce federal prison spending without impacting public safety. 

Education helps to ensure that when incarcerated people leave prison, they have the requisite 

tools to return successfully to their communities. Education for people in prisons has a clear 

public safety benefit, reducing recidivism rates by over 43 percent according to a 2010 Pew 

Charitable Trusts report. In addition, these programs are cost-effective: a 2013 RAND 

Page I of5 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPEA 
140 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 31401.085

Corporation report found that higher education in prisons offers a 400 percent return on 

investment over 3 years, saving taxpayers $5 for every $1 spent. 

While the public safety and cost-saving benefits of prison education are clear, recent actions by 

DOJ signal a potential shift in policy away from promoting education in federal prisons. DOJ 

has not formally announced changes to the Roadmap to Reentry initiative, but in May 2017, 

Amy Lopez was fired from her position as superintendent. There has been little subsequent 

information regarding the terms and rationale for her firing, and neither DOJ nor BOP have 

issued a formal statement. 

Considering these actions, we ask that you provide the following information regarding changes 

to BOP's prison reform efforts. 

I. What is the status of the Roadmap to Reentry initiative? If there are changes to the 

BOP's prison education programs, what are those changes? What is the rationale for 

those changes? 

2. Why was Amy Lopez fired? Is there a replacement for her position? If her position is 

not being filled, what is the rationale? Are there plans to abolish BOP's unified school 

district? If so, what is the rationale for such action? 

3. How is BOP ensuring that people in federal prisons receive access to adequate secondary 

and post-secondary education, as well as adult literacy services and programs for people 

with disabilities? If BOP is not continuing its previous efforts to improve public safety 

and reduce prison spending by focusing on education and other reentry preparation 

programs, what is the rationale for this policy change? 

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to your response. 

~:_?~~ BRIAN SCHATZ 

United States Senator 

RIC RD J. D RBIN 

liM . ~-

United States Senator 

Sincerely, 

nber of Congress 

Page 2 ofS 
141 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 31401.086

United States Senator 

-~ BENJAMIN L. CARDIN 

United States Senator 

Un' ed States Senator 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS 

United States Senator 

~~ United States Senator 

WMJ::J\cYCLJ\ uJ~~c&; Member of Congress 

~?--- STEVEN COHEN 

Member of Congress 

~ Pt.,.ltii: G.., .... v 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS 

Member of Congress 

MA~til£~ Member of Congress 

Page3 of5 
142 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 31401.087

w I 

z::.# 

CO ABOOKER 

United States Senator 

-

~.~~R~ United States Senator 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

COLLEEN ANABUSA 

Member of C ngrcss 

Member 

~u~ of Congress 

~ BARBARA LEE 

Member of Congress 

~ SEAN PATRICK MALONEY 

Member of Congress 

Page4 of5 
143 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 31401.088

A ~ -K- MAZIE~RONO United States Senator 

RONWYDEN 

United States Senator 

BERNARD SANDERS 

United States Senator 

~H~ United States Senator 

RO~BY"SCOTT Member of Congress 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON 

Member of Congress 

BOBBY 

&112~/ L. RUSH 

Member of Congress 

TIM RYAN 

Member of Congress 

~.J.~ FREDERICA S. WILSON 

Member of Congress 

PageS of5 
144 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 31401.089

li.S. Dcpartn)('nt of justice 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

H;l\hin!..'!"n. /JC 2115{..J 

October 27, 2017 

The Honorable Elijah E. CUmmings, Jr. 

Member, U. S. House of Representatives 

2163 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Cummings: 

Your letter dated October 3, 2017, was referred to me for 

response. You requested information concerning the Bureau of 

Prisons (Bureau) reentry initiatives focused on education. 

The Bureau of Prisons remains committed to its mission to 

protect public safety and promote successful reentry. Education 

programs are one of the cornerstones of our reentry efforts and 

we continue to provide many effective reentry programs including 

GED, ESL, vocational training and apprenticeship programs. 

Additionally, we understand the difficulties faced by 

individuals with learning and other disabilities and fully 

acknowledge our responsibilities to address these needs. 

The Roadmap to Reentry provided a framework for making a 

variety of changes in Bureau reentry programs including 

education. While we continue our efforts to expand and improve 

programs, some of the specific aspects of the Roadmap were 

impossible to pursue without significant resources that are not 

available to us. For example, the tablet computer-based pilot 

program was anticipated to cost as much as $1 billion. Those 

projected costs were prohibitive, so the project was cancelled. 

The adoption of a school district model contemplated the 

addition of many staff, a resource that is also not available to 

us. On the other hand, the Department of Education's Second 

Chance Pell Grant Pilot Initiative continues at the selected 

institutions. 

Amy Lopez was hired to oversee educational endeavors 

specifically related to the Roadmap to Reentry. While it is 

true that a determination was made to terminate her limited term 

Senior Executive Service appointment, our work to enhance our 

educational services continues. We have an interim Education 
145 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 31401.090

Admjnistrator who has more than 15 years of correctional 

experience and a doctorate-level degree. The selection of a 

permanent replacement to oversee education programs is pending. 

For inmates who require extra assistance in education and 

other programming, including inmates with learning disabilities, 

the Bureau employs 76 special education teachers who provide 

educational accommodations as appropriate. Also, we are 

evaluating a curriculum for inmates who function at lower 

educational levels, and we recently hired a National 

Disabilities Manager to coordinate services for inmates with 

disabilities. 

The Bureau is continually assessing its education strategy 

and looks forward to working with Congress to support the 

educational needs of the inmate population. We remain committed 

to improving reentry outcomes for all inmates in the custody of 

the Bureau of Prisons. I trust this is responsive to your 

concerns. 

Acting 

:~u~ Assistant Director 

Reentry Services Division 
146 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 103 here 31401.103

Response from Director Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Representative Grothman 

December 13,2017, Hearing: "Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

This is in response to Cong. Grothman's question to Bureau Director Inch during the 

HOGR hearing on oversight of the Bureau. The Congressman asked about employment 

data for individuals who have released from the Bureau. 

Currently, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts- Federal Probationmaintains employment data on released federal offenders who are on federal supervision 

(which is the vast majority of federal releasees). This data is collected as part of their PICRA 

assessment tool. They would be best positioned to address employment data for federal 

releasees at this time. 

The Bureau has an ongoing project to merge Bureau inmate records with employment and 

earnings data for a subset of released federal offenders. This project involves access to 

several data files and therefore it is still in the planning stages. We are optimistic that it will 

be an important part of the process to understand post release employment for federal 

inmates. 

I trust this is responsive to your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need 

anything additional. 
147 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 92 here 31401.092

Response from Director Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Representative Comer 

December 13, 2017, Hearing: "Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

This is in response to Cong. Comer's question to Bureau Director Iuch during the 

HOGR hearing on oversight of the Bureau. The Congressman asked, "What is the role 

of RRCs in obtaining drug treatment?" 

Community-based drug treatment services are procured nationwide by the BOP specifically 

for inmates in Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) and on Home Confinement (HC). The 

primary role of the RRC contractors is to work collaboratively with the contracted drug 

treatment providers to ensure inmates are made aware of their treatment sessions, and are 

able to get to the treatment location, i.e., providing passes and/or, providing transportation, if 

applicable. BOP works in concert with the RRC staff to coordinate services for any inmates 

in need of treatment. 

I trust this is responsive to your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need 

anything additional. 
148 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 93 here 31401.093

Response from Director Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

to Representative Watson Coleman 

December 13,2017, Hearing: "Oversight ofthe Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

This is in response to Cong. Watson Coleman's question to Bureau Director Inch 

during the HOGR hearing on oversight of the Bureau. The Congresswoman asked, 

"Are most inmates nonviolent drug offenders?" 

Using snapshot data collected at the end of the calendar year, the Bureau was housing 

183,951 inmates for whom drug and violence data were encoded (the total Bureau population 

was slightly higher, but we eliminated from the analysis those inmates for whom 

drug/violence data was missing). 

Of those inmates, 73,729 were serving sentences for drug-related offenses - the vast majority 

of those (96%) were for drug trafficking charges. Of those offenders serving sentences for 

drug-related offenses, 39,989 were considered non-violent offenders. 

I trust this is responsive to your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need 

anything additional. 
149 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 94 here 31401.094

Questions for the Record 

Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Hearing before the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

"Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons and Inmate Reentry" 

December 13,2017 

Questions from Ranking Member Cummings 

1. In a 2014 internal memorandum, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) acknowledged 

that abstinence-based programs to treat drug addiction "only offer a 1 in 10 

chance of success for opiate-dependent participants."1 

a. What are the current treatments provided to prisoners with opioid 

dependence? 

Response: The Bun:au of PriSons (BOP) drug abuse treatment protocol includes four programs: 

the Drug Abuse Education Course, the Non-Residential Treatment Program, the Residential 

Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), and Community Treatment Services. And, as recently announced 

by President Trump, BOP is implementing a medication-assisted therapy (MAT) program for 

releasing inmates in the near futun:. 

b. To what extent does BOP provide prisoners with buprenorphine, methadone, 

suboxone, or other evidence-based medication-assisted therapies? Hit does 

not do so, why not? 

Response: BOP supports evidence-based MAT for inmates as they transition to the community. 

Consistent with the recent Presidential announcement, BOP will use naloxone (brand name, 

Vivitrol), as it is not subject to diversion, and does not have high abuse potential. Vivitrol is also 

longer-acting than other MAT drugs and can reduce alcohol cravings. Methadone, 

buprenoiphine, and Suboxone can have abuse potential and therefore are not used in a Federal 

correctional setting. · 

2. Based on the findings of that internal memorandum, BOP has reportedly 

instituted a "field test" initiative for medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in 

federal prisons. 

a. Please explain in detail the field test to provide MAT to inmates. 

1 Prisons A7e Making Amuica's Dnlg P..oblem W07se, Politico (Mar. II, 2015) (online at 

www .politico.com!magazine/story/20 15/03/federal-bureau-of-prisons-medication-assisted-therapy-115998). 
150 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 95 here 31401.095

Response: BOP conducted a field trial in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 to determine the feasibility of 

providing MAT for inmates transitioning to Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs or halfway 

houses). The field trial identified needed resources and operational requirements for providing 

MAT. The field trial was conducted in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area. Eligible participants 

at the Federal Medical Center Carswell and the Federal Correctional institutions in Fort Worth 

and Seagoville were transferred to either of two halfway houses in the DFW area. Overall, ten 

inmates were identified for the field trial. 

b. How are opioid dependent inmates selected for this trial program? 

Response: individuals with a history of opioid abuse but who are riot currently opioid 

dependent, who were released from the three institutions listed above, and who were transferred 

to the two selected RRCs were interviewed and assessed by BOP's Chief Psychiatrist to 

determine appropriateness for the program. Additionally, the individuals were medically cleared 

for ~e program. 

e. What findings have been produced from the trial to date? 

Response: Several issues were identified during the trial, including staffing needs for clinical 

pharmacist telehealth appointments and coordination for the provision of the medication (to 

include shipment of the medication to the contractor who would administer the Vivitrol 

injection), scheduling the appointments for the injection and community treatment counseling 

services, and subsequent follow-up with the contractor providing those services. 

d. Will this trial program be put in place permanently for inmates? H so, please 

provide a timeline for implementation. 

Response: BOP has approved expansion of MAT treatment for the Boston area, with an 

expected implementation date of the Fall of2018, and then, consistent with the recent 

Presidential directive, to all releasing individuals with a need who transfer to a RRC. 

3. The criminal justice system is also a point of potential intervention for hundreds 

of thousands of Americans in need of mental health care, particularly for 

conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. 

a. Please detail the current tracking system for inmates with mental health 

concerns. Additionally, please provide a detailed description of the eurrent 

transition services for those inmates with mental health concerns leaving 

prison. 

Response: BOP's Mental Health Classification System is designed to promote accurate 

identification and tracking of mentally ill inmates and to facilitate the effective use of mental 

health resources in treating inmates. During initial designation of an inmate to BOP, BOP staff 

review available inmate records and determine a mental health screen assignment to ensure the 

inmate is matched with the institution best situated to meet their mental health needs. Upon 

arrival at the designated facility, the inmate meets with a psychologist who conducts an interview 

2 
151 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 96 here 31401.096

and record review. Based upon this, the psychologist assigns the inmate a mental health care 

level and documents clinical findings in the inmate's electronic medical record (Burean 

Electronic Medical Record or BEMR). For inmates with mental health needs, a Diagnostic and 

Care Level Formulation note provides additional documentation of the record review and clinical 

interview, the diagnosis, and the mental health care level assignment. 

A Mental Health Care Level 1 (CAREI-MH) inmate is a healthy inmate with a limited 

need for psychological services. A Care Level 2 (CARE2-MH) inmate is a stable mentally-ill 

inmate with a need for periodic, but not intensive, psychological services. A Care Level 3 

(CARE3-MH) inmate is a seriously mentally-ill inmate with a need for intensive psychological 

services. In general, a CARE3-MH inmate reqnires weekly contacts with Psychology staff. A 

Care Level4 (CARE4-MH) inmate is acutely mentally-iii and in need of psychiatric 

hospitalization. Mental health care levels can only be changed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or 

qualified mid-level practitioner. Inmates' mental health needs may be reassessed at any point 

and their mental health care levels adjusted to ensure they receive the proper frequency and 

intensity of care. Mental Health Care Levels are tracked in SENTRY, BOP's inmate 

management database. All treatment contacts are tracked in BEMR. These clinical notes and 

Mental Health Care Level system provide the ongoing tracking and treatment system during the 

inmate's term of incarceration. 

Returning to the community can be a particularly stressful and challenging process for 

mentally-ill inmates. To meet the needs of inmates releasing to RRCs or home confinement, 

BOP enlists a comprehensive network of community-based providers who offer mental health 

evaluation and treatment on a contract basis. The following individuals warrant referral for 

community-based treatment services: 

• Inmates who are taking psychotropic medications upon release from a BOP institution; 

• Inmates who had regular contact with institution psychology, psychiatry, and medical 

staff for ongoing mental health concerns; and 

• Inmates referred by institution or RRC staff. 

The referral process begins before the inmate transfers from the BOP facility to the RRC 

(or home confinement). Psychology Services staff screen inmate records, including the Pre-· 

sentencing Report and BEMR, to determine appropriateness for referral. Ordinarily, inmates 

with advanced care level assignments are automatically referred for treatment. If an inmate 

meets the screening criteria, staff send a referral to the community-based treatment provider 

servicing the inmate's release destination. Based on the results of an evaluation, treatment 

services are arranged. Psychology Services staff monitor each inmate's clinical progress through 

frequent interaction with the contract provider and review of monthly progress reports until the 

inmate completes his or her RRC or home confinement placement. 

b. What steps is BOP taking to ensure inmates who have mental health 

concerns are receiving proper care? 

3 
152 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 97 here 31401.097

Response: BOP ensures inmates with mental health concerns receive proper care through a 

combination of quality control audits, clinical oversight, staff training, and evidence-based 

protocol development. 

Psychology Treatment Programs, mental health interventions, and individualized 

treatment plans for inmates with mental illness rely on evidence-based clinical practices that 

reduce the symptoms of mental illness. Inmates with the most severe forms of mental illness are 

given priority treatment, though institutions provide a balanced offering of programs that address 

mental illness and criminal thinking for the entire inmate population. 

Psychology Services staff also provide training for mental health treatment staff inperson, as well as via video, web-based training sessions, and a multitude of BOP online courses. 

Trainings are accredited by the American Psychological Association, the National Board of 

Certified Counselors, and the Association for Addiction Professionals. 

BOP employs a rigorous quality assurance process known as Program Review. Each 

discipline operates under stringent guidelines intended to ensure compliance with agency 

policies, as well as correctional and discipline-specific best practices. Each institution's 

Psychology Services department is reviewed at regular intervals. Psychology Services Program 

Review Guidelines address a wide range of content areas, including treatment and care of the 

mentally ill, suicide prevention, mental health assessment and treatment, and specialized services 

such as treatment for substance abuse and sexual offending. The Program Review process 

includes scrutiny of clinical records, interviews of staff and inmates, and analysis of the 

SENTRY inmate records system. ' 

Psychology Services staff at BOP's headquarters ensure compliance with BOP policies 

and best practices for the discipline of psychology. They perform remote audits of inmate 

clinical records, to include suicide risk assessments, extended restrictive housing reviews, and 

Diagnostic and Care Level Formulation notes. The findings are used to intervene as needed and 

to develop or modify staff training plans. They also conduct peer reviews of all Chief 

Psychologists to assess clinical and leadership competencies. 

4 
153 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 98 here 31401.098

Questions from Representative Hurd 

1. What is the Administration's commitment to Re-entry services going forward? 

Recently, there have been closures of some Residential Re-entry Centers (RRCs) 

and a significant number of inmates whose referral dates to the Re-entry centers 

have been shortened or cancelled. The need for the Re-entry services continues to 

grow. 

Response: BOP continues our long-standing commitment to providing transitional services to 

inmates as they are released back into our communities. BOP remains committed to providing 

quality inmate programs to reduce recidivism and prepare inmates for reintegration into the 

communities to include the use ofRRCs. The recent closures were all for underutilized or 

inefficient locations and reflected less than one percent of our total RRC bed space. 

2. In the past, BOP policy has been "everyone has the option of a Re-entry center 

placement". Has that policy changed? Has the number of inmates being denied 

consideration for a re-entry placement increased? What factors are impacting 

those decisions? 

Response: All inmates are reviewed and considered for RRC placement. BOP has historically 

transferred approximately 77 percent of all eligible releasing offenders through RRC placements 

and expects no change in the placement rate. Those offenders who typically do not transition 

through RRCs include illegal aliens; individuals with detainers or active warrants from another 

jurisdiction; those who require inpatient medi<;al, psychological, or psychiatric treatment; those 

whose current offense or behavioral history suggests a substantial or continuing threat to the 

community; and those individuals who refuse placement. 

3. Your August 2016 report on alternatives to ineareeration found that the Bureau 

of Prisons could better traek and analyze data surrounding its use of Residential 

Reentry Centers and home confinement. Can you describe what that status was 

at the time you wrote the report and whether, since then, things have changed? 

Response: In April2017, BOP implemented a new Statement of Work (SOW) for RRCs. This 

revised SOW includes the collection of data that BOP anticipates will assist us in tracking and 

analyzing statistical data surrounding RRC and home confinement use. This includes 16 discrete 

benchmarks, to include placement rates and average length of stay, staffing ratios, employment 

statistics both on arrival and on release, and average hourly wages earned. 

5 
154 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 99 here 31401.099

Questions from Representative Lawrence 

1. Treatment of women in immigration detention centers: 

Non-citizens make up around 20 percent of the total Bureau of Prisons inmate 

population, but according to BOP, they are a majority. of the 18,000-plns individuals 

held in BOP's privately operated prisons. AU 13 of BOP's privately-owned prisons 

as Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons, designated mainly for non-citizens 

who have entered the eountry without papers. Most of the roughly 23,000 

immigrants held each night in CAR prisons have committed only the offense of 

crossing the border to eseape often-dangerous situations in their home countries. 

I am concerned about conditions in these facilities, particularly for pregnant 

women. An ACLU report revealed that some pregnant inmates faee prolonged 

solitary confinement that adversely impacts the mother's health and endangers her 

pregnaney. Civil society groups have also revealed dangerous practices such as the 

shackling of pregnant women, including horrific instances of women shackled 

during labor. It has been reported that mothers are sometimes separated from their 

newborns less than 24 hours after birth. There are also concerns about lack of 

access to pre- and post-natal care, nutritious food, and vitamins. 

a. Do you believe BOP has adequate guidelines and enforcement of policies to 

protect pregnant detainees and inmates? 

b. How do those guidelines and policies address the issues raised in these 

reports, such as shackling, separation of mothers and newborns, and 

inadequate health services? 

Female inmates and pre-trial detainees who are placed into the custody of BOP are 

housed in BOP-operated prisons, not in private contract prisons. BOP has policies that 

specifically guide our care and treatment of pregnant detainees and inmates, to include the 

extremely rare circumstances where shackling might be considered for safety of the inmate, the 

fetus, or staff. As a practical matter, BOP virtually never shackles pregnant females. BOP has 

an internal auditing process by which headquarters staff and subject matter experts do an inperson review of each institution housing females to ensure policy-mandates are being followed. 

Requirements include educating pregnant women about prograois that will allow the mother and 

l;>aby to stay together during critical early bonding periods (e.g., The Mother and Infants 

Together and the Residential Parenting Program). Women in BOP custody have access to 

prenatal and post-natal care through qualified medical providers both within our facilities and at 

community-based hospitals and treatment facilities. 

c. Do you have plans to change BOP policies to address these concerns? If so, 

what changes will you make? 

It is BOP's understanding that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report was in 

reference to State prisons and jails, not BOP. As noted above, BOP has strict policies in place 

regarding shackling, use of restrictive housing, health care, and nutrition for our inmate 

6 
155 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 100 here 31401.100

population. and specific guidance for pregnant females. Further, as noted above, BOP provides 

programs to allow for co-housing of mothers and their infant children. 

2. On November 9, 2017, 31 Members of Congress sent a letter asking the Government 

Accountability Office to report on the situation of pregnant women in BOP 

detention facilities. It asked GAO to address questions including: whether privately 

contracted prisons regularly provide data to BOP on conditions for pregnant 

women; whether BOP is complying with existing anti-shackling policies for 

pregnant women; and whether pre- and post-natal healtheare services are accessible 

to pregnant detainees. 

a. How are you cooperating with GAO to report on the questions asked in the 

November 9 letter? 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has not notified BOP of initiating an audit 

on these matters. 

b. Are you conducting any further internal reviews of these matters, and if so, 

what are these reviews? 

BOP does not house any women in privately-owned prisons. In BOP operated facilities, 

there are policies that protect pregnant detainees and inmates. These policies are enforced 

through the internal auditing process described above. 

e. Please report or reference any data you currently have on conditions for 

pregnant women in BOP facilities. 

As of March 15,2018, there were 52 pregnant women in BOP custody. Under current 

policy, a social worker meets with the inmate upon notification of her pregnancy and educates 

her on available programs and services. Additional information about the BOP's policies for 

pregnant women cau be found on the public website in Program Statement 5200.02, Female 

Offender Manual 

(https://www.bop.gov/Publiclnfo/execute/policysearch?tod<F-guery&series-5000#). 

3. Second Chance Pell Grants: 

Education programs have a documented record in reducing recidivism, yet 

educational opportunities are sorely lacking in federal prisons. Education programs 

reduce recidivism by 43 percent and are cost-effective: higher education in prisons 

offers a 400 percent return on investment over 3 yean, saving taxpayers Ss for 

every $1 spent. The Second Chance Pen program, part of the Department of 

·Education since 2015, reinstated aceess to Pen Grants for over 12,000 incarcerated 

students who are qualified for grants. 67 higher education institutions partnered 

with 100 prisons, including 7 BOP facilities, to help students get a higher education 

and suceeed after reentry. This includes 3 coneges in Michigan, partnering with 19 

facilities to provide Pen Grants to over 1,400 incarcerated students in 2016-2017. In 

7 
156 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 101 here 31401.101

my district, the DetroitReentry Center partners with Jackson CoUege to help 

students achieve certificates and associates degrees. 

a. Do yon support Second Chance Pell Grants? If not, why not? 

The Second Chance Pell experiment, which provides Pell Grant funds authorized by the 

Higher Education Act to eligible incarcerated individuals, is part of the experimental waiver 

authority administered by the Department of Education. Access to Pell Grants to participate in a 

postsecondary education program is an excellent opportunity for inmates. Approximately 260 

BOP inmates are currently enrolled in certificate, two-year, or four-year programs. Eleven 

inmates were awarded an Associate of Science in Business degree in December 2017. 

b. Do you plan any changes to the prison education programs, including Seeond 

Chance Pell Grants? If so, what is your rationale for those poticy changes? 

The Second Chance Pell experiment is administered by the Department of Education. 

BOP will continue to assess best practices and enhance our educational services for all inmates. 

BOP is committed to providing services not only at the post-secondary level, but is also working 

to strengthen high school equivalency and adult basic education services. Based upon current 

enrollments, additional inmates are anticipated to earn a post-secondary certificate or degree in 

FY 2018 and FY 2019 via the Second Chance Pell experiment. 

c. Under your direction, how will BOP ensure that people in federal prisons 

receive access to adequate secondary and post-secondary education, adult 

titeracy services, and programs for people with disabilities? 

BOP recently hired a new National Education Administrator, who is assessing our current 

practices to ensure BOP is using the most innovative and evidence-based approaches. BOP also 

recently hired a National Disabilities Manager, who coordinates services for inmates with 

cognitive and other types of impairments. In addition to the educational programs offered to 

individuals with disabilities, BOP includes accommodations for communications with the 

community and/or modification of programs to increase accessibility. 

4. If there is limited funding available for BOP reentry programs, we must also 

acknowledge that we do not need more funding for prison construction. In fact, the 

President's FY 2018 Budget proposed to rescind $444 million originally intended to 

construct a new high-security federal prison, and Deputy Attorney General Rod 

Rosenstein testified that there is no need for another such prison. 

a. Do you agree that it is a higher priority now to invest in successful reentry 

programs rather than new prisons? If not, why not? 

Reentry programming and prison construction come from two separate appropriations 

from Congress. The first is provided by Congress in BOP's Salaries and Expenses appropriation, 

and the second is provided by Congress in BOP's Buildings and Facilities appropriation. BOP 

continues to fulfill our mission and carry out Congressional directives. 

8 
157 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 102 here 31401.102

b. How much will you spend on education versus on new prisons? 

For FY 2018, BOP anticipates spending approximately $137.6 million on education. The 

anticipated expenditure for new prisons in FY 2018 has not yet been determined. 

9