U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

53–018 PDF 2009

DOING TIME: ARE DC PRISONERS BEING ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR REENTRY WITH

EQUAL ACCESS TO BOP SERVICES?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 16, 2007

Serial No. 110–201

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

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

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

COLUMBIA

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

JOHN M. MCHUGH, NEW YORK

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

TANIA SHAND, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 16, 2007 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Barnes, Kevin, previously incarcerated, Rivers Correctional Institution .... 10

Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; and George E.

Snyder, warden, Rivers Correctional Institution ....................................... 18

Lappin, Harley G. ...................................................................................... 18

Snyder, George E. ...................................................................................... 31

Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency; Stanley Jackson, acting president, University of District of

Columbia; Charles Jones, director, Employment Services, D.C. Department of Employment Services; Phil Holmes, vice president, career development, Goodwill Industries; Dennis Torbett, vice president, workforce training and employment, Home Builders Institute; and James

Austin, Ph.D., president, the JFA Institute ............................................... 62

Austin, James ............................................................................................ 102

Holmes, Phil .............................................................................................. 88

Jackson, Stanley ........................................................................................ 73

Jones, Charles ........................................................................................... 83

Quander, Paul A., Jr. ................................................................................ 62

Torbett, Dennis .......................................................................................... 89

Robinson, Douglas, previously incarcerated, Bureau of Prisons Facility ..... 8

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

Austin, James, Ph.D., president, the JFA Institute, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 104

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Jackson, Stanley, acting president, University of District of Columbia,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 76

Jones, Charles, director, Employment Services, D.C. Department of Employment Services, prepared statement of .................................................. 85

Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 21

Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency, prepared statement of .................................................................... 65

Snyder, George E., warden, Rivers Correctional Institution, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 33

Torbett, Dennis, vice president, workforce training and employment,

Home Builders Institute, prepared statement of ....................................... 92

(1)

DOING TIME: ARE DC PRISONERS BEING ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR REENTRY WITH

EQUAL ACCESS TO BOP SERVICES?

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Danny K. Davis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis of Illinois, Cummings, Kucinich,

Clay, Norton, and Marchant.

Staff present: Tania Shand, staff director; Caleb Gilchrist, professional staff member; Lori Hayman, counsel; Cecelia Morton, clerk;

LaKeshia Myers, editor/staff assistant; Eleanor Hudson, intern;

Howie Denis, minority senior professional staff member; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Let me welcome Ranking Member Marchant, members of the

subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all of those in attendance.

Welcome to the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District

of Columbia Subcommittee hearing, ‘‘Doing Time: Are D.C. Prisoners Being Adequately Prepared for Reentry with Access to BOP

Services?’’

The hearing will examine the manner in which the Federal Bureau of Prisons [BOP], provides educational, vocational treatment

and transitional programming to D.C. prisoners held at the privately operated Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, NC, as

well as at other BOP-run facilities. Correctional Research has established that participation in such core programs contributes to

substantial reductions in recidivism.

The subcommittee is seeking detailed information on the nature,

quality, availability, comparability, and effectiveness of these programs in the prisons where District prisoners are incarcerated.

Hearing no objection, the Chair, ranking member, and subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make opening

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

I shall begin.

Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s hearing to examine the rehabilitative services at Rivers Correctional Institution, a privately

2

run Federal Bureau of Prisons facility housing D.C. inmates and

foreign-born residents.

There are 2 million Americans in prisons in the United States.

Each year more than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from State

and Federal prisons. They will return to civilian life. These men

and women deserve a second chance to break the grip of a drug

habit, a chance to support a family, to pay taxes, and to be selfsufficient.

Many of these ex-offenders return to their communities unprepared and without the support they need to sustain their new lives.

This is why I have sponsored H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act.

It is a bipartisan deal that addresses reentry reform with a comprehensive approach to help eliminate barriers and increase access

to transitional services for ex-offenders.

A third of all departments provide zero services to released exoffenders, and most do not offer a transitional program, thereby

placing a heavy burden on families and communities. Without

structure and support to help ensure a lasting transition, we are

unwittingly creating a revolving door for former inmates. These individuals pay a price, as do their families and society.

Ex-offenders face many barriers that impede their return to society, which includes serious physical and mental health problems,

homelessness, and lack of education, or minimal qualifications to

hold a job. As a result, two out of three ex-offenders will be re-arrested for new crimes within the first 3 years after their release.

This hearing will help shed light on the importance of transitional services for ex-offenders, not only in the District of Columbia

but across the country.

Currently, 7,000 District inmates under Federal jurisdiction are

spread across 75 institutions and 33 States. Since the passage of

the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Congress has not conducted any hearings into

BOP’s management of D.C. prisoners.

My colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been to Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, NC, and the Federal Prison

Institution in Cumberland, MD. She spoke to inmates and prison

officials at both institutions. I commend her for her efforts to learn

more about the educational and transitional services offered to D.C.

inmates at BOP facilities.

I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Now I will yield to the ranking member,

Mr. Marchant, for any comments that he might have.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Chairman Davis. Thanks for holding

this hearing today.

I was not yet elected to Congress when the Lorton Facility was

shut down in 2001; however, from what I understand, a number of

congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle worked together

with both the Clinton and Bush administrations to facilitate the

transfer of the D.C. prisoners to the newly built Rivers Correctional

Facility in North Carolina. I understand this change was much

needed and a high priority for the local congressional delegation because of the extremely sub-par conditions at the Lorton facility.

In transferring inmates to Rivers Correctional, the District of Columbia got a safe, new facility with no cost to the city coffers. Since

the Federal Government absorbed the cost, I am anxious to hear

of the conditions and programs in the Rivers Correctional Facility

today and look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.

Delegate Norton, do you have anything?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank Mr. Marchant for his work in cooperating with this hearing,

but especially you, Chairman Davis, for holding the first oversight

hearing concerning the conditions and circumstances of the District

of Columbia felons since the Lorton, VA, facility was closed almost

10 years ago.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons [BOP], took jurisdiction over inmates from the District at the request of the District of Columbia

during the city’s financial crisis. This hearing parallels the chairman’s own ground-breaking work as the lead sponsor of the pending Second Chance Act that I have been pleased to join in cosponsoring. Today’s hearing will add to the national record that shows

overwhelmingly the urgency of passing the Second Chance Act this

year.

We welcome all of today’s witnesses, and particularly thank

Chairman Davis and his committee staff for the care with which

this hearing has been put together, including their willingness to

travel with me and my staff to the facilities controlled by BOP.

Today’s witnesses, including the leader from Rivers and from the

BOP, the agencies that are responsible for assisting the successful

reentry of our inmates, and practitioners and experts who have had

success in assisting inmates to reconstruct their lives upon release,

all will help open the door to the fuller investigation that is required.

Among the additional urgent issues that will need attention is

the affect of the Federal Parole System on D.C. inmates’ length of

sentence when they are on parole or when their parole is revoked.

Despite efforts of the D.C. Council to clarify the issue under D.C.

law, the time served on parole is not counted toward the length of

an inmate’s sentence upon returning to prison. That is quite exceptional and unusual.

Except for appropriations hearings related to annual funding,

there has been no oversight of D.C. inmates in Federal prisons,

where they have been housed since the District requested a Federal takeover of the costs of felon incarceration and several other

6

State functions for which cities in the United States are not responsible except for the District of Columbia. In turn, Congress enacted the 1997 Revitalization Act transferring responsibility for

D.C. prisoners, among other costs, to the Federal Government.

The title of today’s hearing, ‘‘Doing Time: Are D.C. Prisoners

Being Adequately Prepared for Reentry with Equal Access to BOP

Services,’’ indicates our concern that legal and structural issues

may have had the unintended result of providing unequal access

for D.C. prisoners to BOP services even though once sentenced they

become Federal inmates as much as any other BOP prisoners, notwithstanding the finding of guilt pursuant to the D.C. Code.

D.C. inmates and criminal aliens are the only Federal prisoners

housed in private federally contracted facilities with services that

do not mirror those available at BOP-run prisons. Although the Revitalization Act required some D.C. prisoners to be housed in private facilities, the statute did not contemplate a unique exception

to uniform Federal policies concerning available services.

The fact that the BOP, itself, houses the vast majority of D.C.

inmates and the abandonment of the private option by the Federal

Government, as mentioned in the Revitalization Act, except for Rivers, constitutes strong evidence of congressional intent to treat D.C.

prisoners like others in the BOP system. However, our investigation thus far shows that even in BOP-run facilities this is not always the case, apparently because of legal issues.

We are particularly concerned that, although almost 90 percent

of D.C. inmates are in BOP facilities, 65 percent who have had

their parole revoked were recommitted to prison for drug-related

offenses. No serious effort to help these inmates or to reduce crime

permanently here will be possible without the congressional oversight we begin today with today’s hearing and without considerably

greater attention by the District of Columbia government and our

own residents to our prison population while they are incarcerated

and after.

Often, thousands of miles away under Federal rather than the

usual local jurisdictions, D.C. inmates have been left out of sight

and out of mind. They and their families have few advocates and

almost no visibility.

To its credit, Rivers provides a free bus each way Thursdays

through Sundays, but this means 8 hours of travel time, which is

particularly difficult for families, whose visits experts have long

documented as important for successful reentry.

About 7,000 D.C. prisoners are housed in an incredible array of

75 different facilities in 33 States in groups of a few hundred and

often far fewer. Rivers, with about 831 D.C. inmates, has the highest concentration of any single institution.

The services available at BOP-run facilities staffed by Federal

employees are more extensive with higher standards than those

available at Rivers, apparently because the same services are not

required or funded by the BOP contract. The absence of comparable

substance abuse services, particularly at Rivers, almost guarantees

problems for the inmates and for our city when they return.

A limited non-certified program at Rivers is available to only 60

of the 800 or so inmates, although 50 to 80 percent have substance

abuse problems. District residents even in BOP facilities do not

7

qualify for early release incentives upon completion of a highly regarded 500 hour drug treatment program which is altogether unavailable at Rivers.

The Rivers drug abuse program has little in common with the

500 hour program, but is available to so few inmates that it, nevertheless, has a waiting list.

The issues our investigation have thus far uncovered have less

to do with BOP and Rivers as institutions than with the challenges

Congress has not yet faced concerning what is necessary to integrate State felons into the life of a Federal prison system for the

first time in U.S. history.

Both the Rivers private facility and Cumberland that we visited

appeared well-kept and orderly, and Rivers Warden George Snyder

and Cumberland Warden Lisa Hollingsworth are both highly qualified prison experts who rose to their present positions through the

merit system at BOP.

As we toured every part of both facilities along with the wardens,

we were impressed that D.C. inmates felt comfortable to walk right

up to me at will and to speak freely about their concerns, without

any fear or sense of intimidation. The most frequently mentioned

concern related to drug abuse treatment.

Our oversight must be circumscribed by issues of law that Congress can correct or practices that we can help BOP revise. Until

now, Congress has never looked to see how the absorption of State

prisoners into a Federal prison system for the first time has even

operated, whether spreading D.C. prisoners throughout the country

in so many different institutions has served the purposes of the Revitalization Act and the interests of inmates and the D.C. government in successful reentry, or whether there are other options for

housing.

The implications of placing residents, American citizens, in a facility with criminal aliens and the affect on services offered, and

whether Congress, in allowing D.C. residents to be placed in private facilities, intended to reduce the level of services rendered by

or through the Bureau of Prisons.

These and a litany of other questions deserve a full investigation

and answers after an investment of billions of dollars in Federal

funds without any accountability as to the effects and outcomes.

I appreciate the work of our subcommittee in beginning this effort today.

Once again, I thank all of today’s witnesses for their assistance

in helping us understand and think through the issues before us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.

We will now proceed with our first panel of witnesses.

I would like to ask Mr. Douglas Robinson if you would come. And

please continue to stand until we swear you in. It is the custom of

this committee that all witnesses are sworn.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witness answered in the affirmative.

Let me introduce Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson was incarcerated

in prison for 16 years. He spent 11 years in State prison and the

last 5 years in the Bureau of Prisons. He is currently employed as

8

a stock worker at Goodwill Industries, and he is the kind of person

that I think is the epitome of what we hope to see, and that is individuals who are able to find employment, individuals who are able

to move ahead and demonstrate that they are, in fact, contributing

members of society.

Mr. Robinson, we thank you so much. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS ROBINSON, PREVIOUSLY

INCARCERATED, BUREAU OF PRISONS FACILITY

Mr. ROBINSON. My name is Douglas Robinson, and this is my testimony concerning my experience and rehabilitation at the BOP.

While I was housed at McKean in Pennsylvania, they had the

programs there, but the problem was it was such a long waiting

list. A lot of programs were folding because of funds. So I was in

there for about a year and a half, and I moved to Petersburg. At

Petersburg, the same problem was going on. Staff was being laid

off. Programs were folding. A lot of programs they had, the guys

wanted to get, you couldn’t get. And the waiting list was so long

because they were telling us there was overcrowding in the prison

system. So you might be waiting a year or two before you could get

into a program. Like myself, I had other journeys, which was to enroll into a 500 hour drug program.

I left Petersburg and went to Butner. I think that was my best

experience, because for so long I had ducked and dodged that I had

a problem, and I learned that my behavior was causing my problem. It wasn’t just the drugs or whatever.

While I was there it was pushed upon me to get my GED, which

I did get. There they had college programs that were free. While

I was at Petersburg, the college programs you had to pay for. Like

myself, I couldn’t afford it, because you are in there, you are making $9 a month, $12, $13, $15 a month, and everything was revolving around funds. They didn’t have the funds to do this and do

that.

I am not speaking bad about the BOP. They have a lot of things

to offer. But the problem to me that I saw was the funds. That is

what I was told.

Like myself and I think a lot of other inmates, there are a lot

of us that do want to straighten out our lives, and it was a problem

at first but I had to take it upon myself. It didn’t stop there.

When I arrived home, I made a choice to move on with my life.

I am working now at Goodwill, and I am out there. I just came out

of the halfway house about a week ago. Now I can move on with

my life. I have more free time now. I can enroll in some classes and

try to do something else with my life.

Those are my concerns.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate not only your being here, but we appreciate your testimony.

I will begin the questions. I have some questions I would like to

ask you.

What got you in prison? I mean, why did you or why do you

think that you ended up going to prison?

Mr. ROBINSON. I learned to me it was my behavior. It started

from my behavior, my irrational thinking, you know, thinking that

9

what I was doing was right. It started from the streets and the lifestyle of drugs, fast lifestyle. For so long I was caught up in that

cage. It took me a long time.

I don’t blame anybody for that but myself. I had plenty of people

to help me along the way, but I was a closed-minded person. Today

I am a more open-minded person.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Were you using drugs or selling drugs?

Mr. ROBINSON. I sold drugs. I used drugs.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. How far did you go in high school?

Mr. ROBINSON. Eleventh grade.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And by then you had started to use

drugs?

Mr. ROBINSON. I started about that time, yes, and dropped out

of school.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so you dropped out because it just

didn’t appear to be the thing to do, or you needed to generate

money to get the drugs, or——

Mr. ROBINSON. No. Money in my family too much wasn’t the

problem. I think I just drifted off. I wanted to be with the crowd.

It was a stupid mistake I made.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Were you a good student?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, I was a pretty good student. I played sports

at Cardozo. I could have gotten a scholarship and go to college

playing football, but I dropped out and went down the wrong path.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And when you were arrested, it was finally for what?

Mr. ROBINSON. Distribution of heroin, armed robbery, and mayhem.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I noticed that you did mention the facility

that you thought you had your best time at, or the one that really

helped you. Could you tell us again which facility really helped you,

you felt really helped you get on the path?

Mr. ROBINSON. It was Butner. I took the 500 hour drug program,

and a counselor that was working with me was a pretty good guy.

Due to the death of my Mom while I was there, I was thinking

about dropping out of the program until 1 day he took me in his

office and talked to me. I thought about what he said and that is

what really changed me.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so you feel that when you came to

grips with your drug problem or recognized that you had a drug

problem and needed some help with it, that is really what changed

your approach to dealing with life, in a sense?

Mr. ROBINSON. That was my main problem, sir. Yes, sir. It was

the lifestyle that I was living that was in my way, that kept me

from moving forward.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So if you had a recommendation to the

Bureau of Prisons that said to them, here is what I think you can

do better than or more than, or here is what I think would help

more inmates, what would that recommendation be?

Mr. ROBINSON. It would be better programs, like reentry programs, and maybe I think make it mandatory or some way make

it that a person can get help for their problems, because a lot of

times your problems start with your behavior, and a lot of guys

10

don’t realize that. I didn’t realize it. That is basically where it

starts.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so you think that more emphasis on

helping inmates with their individual problem or finding out what

their individual needs are, that this would in all likelihood help

them more?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well thank you very much. I certainly appreciate your testimony.

I would suspect that we have been joined by Mr. Kevin Barnes.

Mr. Barnes, is that correct?

Mr. BARNES. I apologize for my lateness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We understand, especially if you are dependent upon transportation systems that sometimes you don’t

have control over.

What we would really like to do then is go back and give you the

opportunity to make your statement, and then we will continue

with the questions.

Before you do that, I need you to stand and get sworn in.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witness answered in the affirmative.

Now you might just be seated and tell us your statement, and

then we will pick back up with the questions.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN BARNES, PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED,

RIVERS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Mr. BARNES. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It is truly an

honor and a privilege to sit here before you today on behalf of the

inmate population at Rivers Correctional Institution.

Today I will speak briefly about the pros and cons of the program

structure at Rivers and attempt to shed a little light, and hopefully

make the whole situation a little better.

As a whole, the program structure is lacking. There isn’t enough

effort placed education or tools to help the inmates educate themselves. The library is about the size of an average living room in

the District of Columbia. Most of the books for inmate use are

mostly novels, and the law library is grossly out of date. If you

were to ask about the athletic programs, I would say that they get

top priority over anything educational.

There is an HVAC course that deserves attention, but only for

inmates 24 and under. Where does that leave the other 70 percent?

I truly believe that the staff at Rivers, as a collect whole, doesn’t

care if the inmates are educated, because the inmates return to

D.C. The next time they have to see the inmate again is when they

return, getting off the bus to come back.

I was a participant in the drug program at Rivers, and I can honestly say I learned a few things, but it could have been better.

First of all, the program isn’t accredited. Second, most of the inmates from Rivers are from D.C., and no one is given any type of

good time earned, like the rest of the country gets for the same

type of program. The drug program is under-staffed and underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
11

equipped to deal with the overwhelming demand. The majority of

inmates are either convicted of drug dealing or drug-related crimes.

I believe that better drug treatment at Rivers could possibly reduce the high recidivism rate. In my opinion, anger management,

domestic violence, and parenting classes would also be of great importance to the inmate population.

I know Rivers, or any prison, for that matter, is not a college, but

better programs could possibly make a big difference in whether

someone stays out or returns back.

Once he leaves Rivers, the inmate is either placed in a halfway

house or directly back into society. Maybe with some type of transitional housing or better vocational programs inside, ex-offenders

might have better choices or be better equipped to succeed from

turning from criminal behavior.

In my opinion, there is more to be done at Rivers, and I hope

anything I said could help.

If we all work together we could make things more conducive on

the inside so that our fathers, brothers, and sons will be more productive on the outside.

Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. We really appreciate the effort that you made to get here, and we certainly appreciate your testimony.

We will go back to the questioning. I had just finished, and now

I would yield to the ranking member for his round of questions.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your testimony Messrs. Robinson and Barnes.

I think the main focus of the hearing today should be on is: what

can be done to improve the facility at Rivers Correctional so that

when the prisoners return to society they are better able to enter

back into the city if they choose to and be productive citizens?

Those are the main questions that I have, and I would ask each

of you to make a statement of maybe the most important things

that you think could be done at Rivers to make it the kind of facility that an inmate could get out of Rivers, come back to D.C., and

be a productive person in society.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. ROBINSON. Sir, I was never at Rivers, but just hearing Mr.

Barnes speak and from other inmates that I have talked to, he

spoke of better programs, because the majority of inmates in the

prison system are using drugs or sold drugs or dealing in crime.

Like I spoke before, what I learned is the behavior. Like I said, the

drug program should be more. It is not the type of care. The staff,

they are not interested. So if they are not interested, you have inmates there, and they really need somebody to push them.

And, like I said, funds is one of the problems, or better programs,

because most of the programs that were going on were shut down

because of the funds. That is what I was told as an inmate.

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Barnes.

Mr. BARNES. I believe, first, that some of the money, at least at

Rivers, I know a lot of the money from Canteen, where the inmates

are allowed to purchase things, I believe that the majority of that

money goes to athletics and things of that nature. That is not going

to help an inmate when he comes home, so I think they should diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
12

vert some of that money into vocational programs, because the programs that they do have at Rivers, as far as vocation, like HVAC

things that will help someone when they get back to society be able

to earn a living without turning back to criminal behavior, it

should be directed at that, because the program that was at Rivers

stopped at 24. You have to think, 70 percent of the whole compound, the place where the inmates are, is well over 24. Where

does that leave them? There should be more programs directed at

parenting skills, things of that nature, learning how to deal with

the anger issues, because all of those play a big part in someone

going back to their old criminal behavior.

If the money could be directed or just some type of program, period, that would just help someone deal with coming out of an institution into society, like the domino effect, you complete that, you

complete this. I mean, the rest is up to the inmate, but if you at

least put the tools there for them to use I think that would be a

big help.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could I just first say to both of you thank you. I am proud of you.

I appreciate your coming forward so we can have some idea from

people who have served time. One of you has served time only in

a BOP facility, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Barnes has served time in Rivers.

Have you also ever served time in a BOP facility?

Mr. BARNES. Not really, just the D.C. jail, CTF, and then Rivers.

Ms. NORTON. So you really do give us a picture of some of the

differences just in what you have said already.

I also congratulate you both for kind of facing up to the responsibility you are taking for your own crimes. That, like everything,

is the first step to moving forward.

Mr. Barnes, you are employed?

Mr. BARNES. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Where?

Mr. BARNES. I work for Hunt Consulting. I am an electrician. I

am an electrician by trade, and I am also in the process of trying

to start my own nonprofit organization targeted to youth, at-risk

youth. It is going to take a little work, but right now I am just an

electrician.

Ms. NORTON. How did you learn to be an electrician, Mr. Barnes?

Mr. BARNES. On-the-job training. I just picked it up. I used to be

the guy that cleaned up behind the electricians; now I am the top

electrician at my job.

Ms. NORTON. Did you know how to be an electrician, as it were,

before you went to prison?

Mr. BARNES. I wasn’t as good as I am now, but there was a foundation, but I came out and did more.

Ms. NORTON. Well, the most-voiced complaint from inmates,

former inmates I meet in my job fairs and as I go around the city,

is the difficulty in finding any employment. How were you able to

find employment, Mr. Barnes?

13

Mr. BARNES. I wanted it. I worked hard for it and it came. A lot

of times people make excuses but they don’t make an effort. If you

make more of an effort as opposed to an excuse, you probably

would get what you wanted. I mean, I can’t speak for everybody,

but I just wouldn’t take no for an answer.

Ms. NORTON. How old are you, Mr. Barnes?

Mr. BARNES. I am 30.

Ms. NORTON. How long have you been incarcerated?

Mr. BARNES. Three years.

Ms. NORTON. All right. Let’s go to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson,

you are also employed. Where are you employed?

Mr. ROBINSON. I am employed at Goodwill.

Ms. NORTON. Where?

Mr. ROBINSON. Goodwill.

Ms. NORTON. How were you able to obtain employment, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I was out looking for a job at the time I was

in the halfway house, and I came back 1 day and they sent me out.

The halfway house sent me out to Goodwill. While I was there, I

told the guy that I had a serious violent crime.

Ms. NORTON. You had what?

Mr. ROBINSON. A serious violent crime.

Ms. NORTON. You told him that right off?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, right off the break. And he said, Man, don’t

even worry about it. He said, I am going to give you a chance. So

I filled out the application and started the job and I have been

there ever since.

Ms. NORTON. Now long is that you have been there, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. ROBINSON. I have been there about 5 months. I have been

home 6 months. I have been there 5 months.

Ms. NORTON. How long did you look for work before you were

able to obtain this position?

Mr. ROBINSON. About 3 weeks. I was turned down because of my

record.

Ms. NORTON. How long have you been incarcerated?

Mr. ROBINSON. Sixteen years.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I consider it very important that both of you

have jobs. This is the main issue. I want to get on to the next issue.

Mr. Robinson talked in his testimony about the HVAC program.

Mr. Barnes indicates that at Rivers the HVAC program—now this

is a program having to do with heaTing and air conditioning; is

that correct?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. That was limited to people 24 to what? Under?

Mr. BARNES. Twenty-four and under.

Ms. NORTON. That was not the case, or was the case, Mr. Robinson, where you had access?

Mr. ROBINSON. That was not the case. In the BOP there was no

age limit.

Ms. NORTON. So there is a difference I don’t understand and we

will have to find out. It may have to do with apprenticeships and

what you have to do once you get out, but, Mr. Barnes, I am impressed that you said 70 percent of the people couldn’t even begin

14

to qualify because of the age limit. We will have to ask why the

age limit was there.

What do you do at Goodwill, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. ROBINSON. Right now I work on the docks. I load up tractor

trailers right now. This is something temporary until another job

comes up, and I am waiting on another job position to come

through pretty soon.

Ms. NORTON. So you applied for another position?

Mr. ROBINSON. No. I talked to a friend of mine, and I have a

trade refinishing tubs and tiles.

Ms. NORTON. Because Goodwill Industries has a record of hiring

people with records throughout the United States.

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. And you figure that, having worked there and attained a good record, you will be able to go to other employment?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. They are going to testify here, as well, so we would

be very interested in that.

Now, you mentioned that there were long waiting lists at

McKean and programs were limited. What services did you have in

mind that were limited?

Mr. ROBINSON. That were limited?

Ms. NORTON. You said the services were limited and the waiting

lists were long.

Mr. ROBINSON. They had very few vocational programs there.

They had just opened up an agriculture class, plants and stuff, and

I had enrolled in it. The problem was that you had guys that might

be at the prison 5 or 6 years. I had just arrived, so their names

are already on the list. The wait list was so long, by the time—I

never got a chance to enroll into the class, basically.

Ms. NORTON. And part of this, of course, is that Congress has not

fully funded or has not funded perhaps all of the BOP facilities as

much as we would like, and that is something we were interested

in, as well, in talking about cuts and the rest, and you seem to understand that had to do with availability of funds.

The HVAC or heating and air conditioning training, how much

of that did you have?

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I did it before when I was at Lorton, and

I was doing it while I was there, but, like I said, I was moving

around so much, I was there for about a year and then I had enrolled into the 500 hour drug program, and my time came that I

had to leave to go to Butner, so I was there for about a year and

they took me into the program.

Ms. NORTON. Now, you were fortunate. You did get access to the

500 hour program?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. And you spoke highly of the 500 hour program. Do

you believe that it was instrumental, was helpful to you in overcoming the use of drugs when you got out?

Mr. ROBINSON. I think it was very helpful. But, like I said, before

I was pretty closed-minded to the fact about my problem, and I was

the type of person I wouldn’t open up and talk to just anybody

about my problems, so they had a thing in the class that you had

to open up and share with others. I think that helped a lot. BasiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
15

cally, I think just being open-minded, learning that my way wasn’t

the way.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Robinson, I must tell you, when we went to

Cumberland I got to see the 500 hour program in operation. I have

never seen anything like it. There was no authority figure, as it

were, intervening. The inmate spoke about what he had done,

where he was, and the other inmates got up and criticized him, and

he had to respond. All I can say is I wish the whole world out here

to go through a 500 hour program, particularly all of us who are

used to making excuses, because the honesty that wrung out of inmates was extraordinary to behold. I got some sense of the program.

Are you free from drugs now? Do you feel confident that you will

be free and remain free from drugs?

Mr. ROBINSON. I am doing my best to stay free. I know it is going

to be a struggle. It is a lifetime thing, you know. I deal with the

demons every day, but I am determined to beat it. I am tired of

living that type of life. I am through.

Ms. NORTON. As a D.C. resident—we will get into this later as

to the reasons—but you did not get any time off, did you, for participating in this program?

Mr. ROBINSON. No, I didn’t get any time off.

Ms. NORTON. This, of course, is an important ingredient of this

program. In addition to the candid back-and-forth——

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, I know.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Kind of talk among peers. Completion

of the program could qualify an inmate for time off, unavailable to

D.C. residents, and yet D.C. residents try their best to get in the

program, and you did.

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Even without the incentive, you sought to get in

the program. Why?

Mr. ROBINSON. Why?

Ms. NORTON. Even without the incentive of knowing you would

get some time perhaps deducted from your sentence, you, nevertheless, wanted to get in the 500 hour program?

Mr. ROBINSON. I knew I wasn’t going to get any time off before

I even enrolled into the program. It was basically I had determined

that I needed it. I knew, talking to other positive inmates had told

me about the program, and a lot of guys were, like, Why are you

taking the program when you are not getting a year off? So I basically needed help. That is why I enrolled into it.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Robinson, do you mind telling us your age?

Mr. ROBINSON. My age? I am 52.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Barnes, your testimony about the HVAC program is important to us, and your testimony about good time, as

it were, and the absence of any such time related to the Rivers program. Did you have any contact with the Rivers’ drug program?

Mr. BARNES. Yes. I completed the 500 hour program.

Ms. NORTON. Tell us about that program.

Mr. BARNES. Well, the program is fairly new, so that is why in

my testimony I said it was under-staffed, because the staff that

was working the program, they weren’t working as a team. I got

a lot out of the program because I put a lot into the program. I

16

really wanted to really understand why I thought certain ways or

why I saw things a certain way to participate in such behaviors.

But that was majority of me. The program could have been a lot

better.

D.C. inmates, we don’t get time off. I already knew that going

into the program, that we didn’t get a year off or any time off. I

knew that, but I wanted to look into myself. But as a whole it could

be more done into the program, like programs such as in the BOP,

those programs are sectioned off from other inmates. Our program

was right there, like our drug program block was right here, and

then you have all the other right there.

Ms. NORTON. What you are referring to is what is in BOP called

a residential program——

Mr. BARNES. Right.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. For those in the 500 hour program.

You are calling this a 500 hour program. it is a different program.

Mr. BARNES. No, it is the same thing. It was supposed to be the

same thing. The therapeutic community, that is what they called

it, the TC, the therapeutic community, but it wasn’t.

Ms. NORTON. Yes. I am saying that the BOP program is a certified program that is different from the program offered at Rivers,

but Rivers does offer this program. We understand that very few

inmates get to take the program, to be a part of the program. Is

that your experience?

Mr. BARNES. To some extent.

Ms. NORTON. Now, what most interested me in going to these

two institutions—and I finally got to understand the difference in

a way that seems to me is central—at the Cumberland institution,

a BOP-run institution, the life of the inmate was structured, not

unlike the way our lives out here are structured. We get up, we go

to work, we do certain things in the morning. So the BOP at that

institution essentially sent inmates from activity to activity. Sometimes there was not enough work but they still had them out there

doing some work. That was part of what they were to do. But what

we saw at the BOP facility was a structure so that one’s life imitated life out here in the sense that you don’t simply sit around

and ‘‘serve your time’’ or wait for your time to be over.

Do you recall your time being structured, your BOP time, which

is the only time, of course, that we are asking you about, your time

in Federal prison being structured where you went from one activity to the other activity, etc.?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Did you have any work to do there?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. We worked, but, like you said, it was due to

the overcrowdedness, but they did. Instead of working 8 hours,

they worked us 4 hours, like half a day, so other inmates could

work. From there, on to school, to school, work, and taking up

other little classes and stuff. To me, that is the only way I could

do my time. I just can’t lay around, because I just had to do something to keep going, you know. Most of the time when you lay

around doing nothing, most of the time you are going to get involved in something.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We are going to have to go and vote in

a minute, and I have a question that I wanted to ask also.

17

Ms. NORTON. I am almost through.

The contrasts between these two, you, on the other hand, Mr.

Barnes, testified that the athletic program was there, but you did

not testify about activities of the kind that Mr. Robinson has just

described.

Mr. ROBINSON. I wasn’t here to hear what he described, but, like

I said earlier in my testimony, at Rivers it was more about athletics. It was about the baseball tournament or the football tournament or flag football tournament, and that was the extent.

Ms. NORTON. So you could spend all day kind of hanging out in

the athletic facility?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. The gym is open from the time that they

serve breakfast. Right after they serve breakfast, the gym is open.

The school is open, but that is just for GED for the most part, GED

and light computer skills. The library is extremely small, like the

size of a living room in a D.C. apartment. That is one of the biggest

gripes I had with the institution, because if you don’t give somebody to put their mind on, they are going to put their mind on anything. I mean me, personally, I ordered all my own books from outside the institution because I was very upset with the lack of reading material. I didn’t want to do my time reading novels.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important point, the

real difference between the institutions. I yield back the rest of my

time.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right. Thank you very much.

The question that I had, Mr. Robinson, you mentioned staff relative to the substance abuse program or the drug program, that

you didn’t get the impression that staff were as interested.

Mr. ROBINSON. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. What made you think that?

Mr. ROBINSON. What made me think that?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. Because like what she was saying, being at Cumberland, because a lot of the programs that inmates went to besides

Butner, they are just riding the time away. When I left to go to

Butner, everybody said, You are going to one of the strictest programs in the BOP, so it speaks for itself.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And, Mr. Barnes, do you feel that if there

had been more direction toward the educational programs, that inmates may have pursued those more than just the pursuit of the

athletic programs; that seemingly people would go in the athletic

programs of their own volition, but not necessarily pursue the educational programs as much on their own?

Mr. BARNES. Yes. I believe, given more opportunity for education,

I believe a lot of inmates would choose education, at least some of

the time, as opposed to just sports all the time.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you are recommending in a sense that

the institution place more emphases on educational program

spending?

Mr. BARNES. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you both very much. There

is a vote, and I am going to have to go and vote. We appreciate

your testimony. We appreciate your coming. I think you have been

very helpful.

18

I will recess until I get back from voting.

[Recess.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

We will now hear from our second panel. I will introduce them

first, and then swear them in.

The Honorable Harley G. Lappin joined the Bureau of Prisons in

1985 as a correctional treatment specialist at the Federal correctional institution in Texarkana, TX. He held a variety of positions

at eight Bureau of Prisons institutions across the country and several correctional institutions in Butner, NC, in 1996. On April 4,

2003, he became the Bureau of Prisons’ seventh Director. He is responsible for the oversight and management of the Bureau of Prisons’ 114 institutions and for the safety and security of more than

200,000 inmates under the agency’s jurisdiction.

We welcome you, Mr. Lappin, and thank you very much for being

here.

Mr. George E. Snyder has held a variety of positions in the criminal justice system. He has served as warden of various prison facilities for over 15 years. He became warden of Rivers Correctional

Institution in 2003. He is responsible for the administration, operation, and correctional training of offenders at Rivers. And I must

confess that he is a man after my own heart because he has also

functioned as a school teacher, and I happen to believe that teachers in many instances and in many ways are the salt of the earth

in our society.

Let me welcome both of you gentlemen. Please stand and raise

your right hands and be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Gentlemen, we are, indeed, again delighted to have you, and we

will begin with Mr. Lappin.

STATEMENTS OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL

BUREAU OF PRISONS; AND GEORGE E. SNYDER, WARDEN,

RIVERS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN

Mr. LAPPIN. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be here. Good

afternoon, Congressman Davis and members of the subcommittee.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss

the role of the Bureau of Prisons in the confinement, care, and

treatment of offenders from the District of Columbia.

The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the care and custody of

more than 200,000 inmates in 114 Federal institutions and a number of contract facilities throughout the United States. We are responsible for the incarceration of inmates who have been sentenced

to imprisonment for Federal crimes and the detention of individuals awaiting trial for sentencing in Federal court.

In addition, based on a 1997 Federal law, our agency is also responsible for the District of Columbia’s sentenced felon inmate population. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government

Improvement Act of 1997 required the Bureau of Prisons to assume

responsibility for the incarceration of the District of Columbia’s

19

sentenced felons by December 31, 2001. Immediately after passage

of the act, we began working with the Department of Corrections

in Washington, DC, to ensure that the transfer of inmates would

be orderly and efficient. Our ambitious construction schedule and

our use of some State correctional institutions and some privately

operated facilities allowed us to meet the actual requirement prior

to the deadline. The transfer was completed in November 2001.

After the Revitalization Act passed, we initiated a process to procure private contract beds as required by the statute. We divided

the procurement into two phases for two separate contract facilities. The first phase of the procurement resulted in a 1999 contract

award for a facility in Philipsburg, PA. The second phase of the

procurement resulted in a contract with the Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, NC.

In February of this year, we transferred all of the D.C. inmates

out of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center in Philipsburg.

The vast majority of these D.C. inmates were redesignated to Rivers Correctional Institution.

Currently, Rivers Correctional Institution confines approximately

1,300 inmates, approximately 700 D.C. inmates and 600 criminal

aliens.

The mission of the Bureau is to provide safe, secure, humane,

and cost-effective confinement of inmates and to provide opportunities for offenders to gain the skills they will need to return to society as productive and law-abiding citizens.

Our programs stress the development of work skills and life

skills needed to enhance employment upon release and to help inmates maintain a crime-free lifestyle.

Our inmate programs include work, education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, opportunities for religious observance, psychological services, and counseling, release preparation,

and other programs that impact essential life skills and social values.

We also provide a variety of other structured activities that are

designed to teach inmates productive ways to use their time.

Preparation for reentry begins in the first days of an inmate’s incarceration. The vast majority of our inmate programs and services

are geared toward helping inmates prepare for their eventual release.

We also continue to implement our inmate skills development

initiative. This is a strategy the BOP has undertaken to unify our

inmate programs and services into a comprehensive reentry strategy.

D.C. inmates confined to the Rivers Correctional Institution are

offered the opportunity to participate in a variety of programs.

Based on some recent reviews, we intend to enhance the vocational

training programs and to enhance and certify the residential drug

abuse treatment program to be consistent with our residential

treatment program.

In addition, we have composed a final rule to implement the law

that allows non-violent D.C. co-defenders to receive a reduction of

up to 1 year off their term of imprisonment upon successful completion of the residential substance abuse treatment program. We will

20

publish the rule in conjunction with issuing our own updated policy, which is currently in the final review and clearance process.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lappin.

We will proceed now to Mr. Snyder.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Chairman Davis and distinguished members of the

subcommittee, my name is George Snyder, warden of Rivers Correctional Institution located in Winton, NC. On behalf of the GEO

Group, Inc., I thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the various programs offered to inmates housed in our facility.

I would like to briefly introduce my wife, Jeannie, who is here

with me today, as well as David Farmer, the Assistant Warden for

Programs at Rivers Correctional Institution.

The GEO Group, Inc., is a world leader in the delivery of correctional, detention, and residential treatment services to Federal,

State, and local governmental agencies around the globe, including

68 correctional and residential treatment facilities with a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds.

Rivers Correctional Institution is accredited by the American

Correctional Association and by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations.

A little bit about my background. I have roughly 27 years of experience in public safety and correctional services. I have a bachelor’s degree in law enforcement, a master’s degree in criminal justice, and a certificate in public administration. I was proud to be

named the 2006 Warden of the Year by the GEO Group. I have

taught courses on correctional services at four different universities. I have dedicated the bulk of my adult life to administering

correctional services in the most effective manner possible for the

public good.

Mr. Chairman, I share the subcommittee’s interest in ensuring

that inmates at Rivers Correctional Institution have access to the

most effective programs possible under the resources available. In

my long career, I have come to recognize the important role such

programs can plan in the lives of inmates who take advantage of

them.

Rivers Correctional Institution offers inmates several substance

abuse, educational, and vocational programs designed to help participants become productive and responsible members of their community. Let me highlight just a few.

Under the direction of a licensed doctoral-level psychologist, the

Rivers Correctional Institution Psychology Department oversees

the substance abuse program and a residential drug treatment program. The 40 hour substance abuse program is conducted in a

classroom setting and provides inmates with information on alcohol

and drugs and the physical, social, and psychological impact of

these substances.

The program challenges inmates to honestly look at consequences of alcohol and other drug use in their life. The course is

considered a prerequisite for the New Beginning drug treatment

program.

The New Beginning drug treatment program is a 9-month residential drug treatment program that provides a continuum of

treatment services to inmates with a documented history of substance abuse problems. This comprehensive program is conducted

32

within a highly structured regimen of a modified therapeutic community composed of inmates with similar problems living and

working together, elements critical to building a sense of community and cohesiveness among participants and staff.

After completing the program, inmates are provided with an opportunity to continue their involvement in treatment through the

after-care program. Participation in weekly after-care meetings

provides a forum for inmates to practice skills acquired during

treatment and prevents inmates from slowly returning back to old

behavior patterns.

Participation in the RCI residential drug treatment program does

not preclude transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for participation in their 500 hour drug treatment program.

Our education and vocational programs are also designed to help

participating inmates be responsible citizens upon returning to

their communities. Education programs include English as a second language, adult basic education, pre-general equivalency degree, general equivalency degree, and life skills/parenting.

Our vocational programs include computer technology I and II;

wood working; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and one

of our newest programs that we are real excited about that we are

working in conjunction with the University of the District of Columbia, CSOSA is a work force transition program.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summation of a few of the programs offered at Rivers. I look forward to answering any questions

the subcommittee members may have on this very important subject.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snyder follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Snyder. I

want to thank both of you gentlemen for your statements. Please

know that your full statements will be included in the record, and

we appreciate your summations.

Let me begin, Director Lappin, trying to understand the contract

and the provisions of the contract with the GEO Group.

The contract requires the Bureau of Prisons to conduct reviews

for contract compliance and quality assurance based on performance requirements outlined in the contract. In fact, the GEO Group

may earn up to 5 percent of their contract amount based on contract performance. The Bureau of Prisons’ contracting office may

also reduce payments for non-compliance. Let me ask, How often

has the Bureau of Prisons conducted performance reviews?

Mr. LAPPIN. Congressman, our contracts with all private contract

organizations are performance based, so let me just make sure we

understand. This is not a contract that lays out specifically line-byline exactly what the contractor will provide. It is performance

based. We give general guidance and we oversee the implementation of that contract through a number of ways.

No. 1, we have staff full time at each of our contract facilities,

so of the 200,000 inmates at the Bureau of Prisons there are about

22,000 in private contract facilities, 13 private contracts, one of

which is Rivers. We have staff full time at those institutions—that

is 5 days a week. They will go in on the weekends if necessary—

monitoring the general oversight of the contract.

We then also have contract folks coming in addressing specific

issues with the contract yearly, and then we have an ‘‘audit process’’ by which a team of our staff go into each of the contract facilities twice a year and evaluate the programs, the contract, and so

on, and determine their compliance.

So there is a combination of ways that we monitor the contract

through the Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Has the GEO Group received any performance-based awarded fees?

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, I don’t have it with me. We could provide

for the record what award fees occurred. I don’t have that specific

information, but early on in the process I know there were some

deductions. Practice makes perfect. Whenever something is new, it

takes a little time to work through the procedures. But we have

been in there. I checked the last four performance monitoring assessments, of which they received good ratings. I am not sure if

they received an award or not or were subject to some deduction,

but we can certainly provide that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So there were some areas where they

were probably up and maybe some areas that may have needed

some correction or additional conversation?

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me be a little more specific. When we go in

there, a team goes in there twice a year. They look at correctional

programs that are provided specifically, they look at the correctional services operation—that is the oversight of safety and security—the correctional staff, education, recruitment, food service,

health services, human resources, inmate services, inmate systems,

safety and environmental health facilities, and then there are some

42

areas that are monitored more remotely, like education, recruitment, so on and so forth.

They received good or above reviews in each of those prior two

monitoring visits. There were some deficiencies in a few of the

areas, which is not uncommon. We have an audit process in the

Bureau of Prisons, as well, and we go out and review programs

routinely, and on occasions we find deficiencies which are provided

to the institution and they are instructed to make up corrections

and provide to us a plan by which those corrections will occur. So

there were a few areas that had some deficiencies, but nothing significant.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Have you or any members of your staff

noted or seen anything that would suggest that there might be

some differential between the way that inmates from the District

of Columbia are handled, treated, and inmates from other places

may be handled or treated?

Mr. LAPPIN. About a year, year and a half ago, we began dealing

directly with you, sir, on some of the reentry issues. I asked my

staff to go back and reevaluate the contract with Rivers specifically, because it is the only contract that houses U.S. citizens in

their population, compared to the contracts that had been let for

the other facilities which housed illegal aliens, the majority of

which were going to be deported.

At that time we realized that the contract wasn’t specific enough

applicable to vocational training and the drug treatment program,

and so we have been working with the GEO Group in rewriting,

revising, as well as the CSOSA, applicable to vocational training to

identify which vocational trainings would be most appropriate, and

then we will be working with the GEO Group to build that into a

revised contract to add some of those programs.

I was more concerned about the whole drug treatment process,

so just a few weeks ago I sent some of our staff to Rivers to evaluate—that is our drug treatment staff who oversee our program—

sent them to Rivers to evaluate the drug treatment program at

Rivers and this issue of certification. We found many similarities,

although there were some areas that weren’t quite at the level of

our program, and we are going to set about taking corrective action

to get that program to the same level as the Bureau of Prisons’ programs, consistent with our expectations and guidelines.

Again, practice makes perfect. We have been in the drug treatment business now for 15, 16 years, and today, to kind of put it

in perspective, we have 200,000 inmates. About 52 percent of those

inmates we believe we know are in for drug-related offenses. Of

that 52 percent, we believe that about 35 percent should have drug

treatment, drug or alcohol treatment. As of today, 92 percent of

those offenders are volunteering for treatment.

So over the course of a year, we are running about 15,000 inmates a year through drug treatment programs, so we get a lot of

practice. That has allowed our staff to develop and evolve into the

programs that Congresswoman Norton saw at Cumberland, which

we think are exceptional. In fact, we are seeing our research applicable to the inmates who complete drug treatment is very positive.

We are seeing fewer offenders come back to prison who participate

in and successfully complete our 500 hour drug treatment program,

43

and this recidivism research has been ongoing for 10, 12, 15 years

now, so it has enormous credibility.

We certainly have an interest in getting the program at Rivers

up to the same level so that not only will it be certified, but when

we put offenders there they can qualify, those that would qualify,

the non-violent offenders that qualify could also be offered some

time off of their sentence based on their participation and successful completion in that program.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Snyder, let me ask you, the contract

with Bureau of Prisons requires Jail to develop a specific release

plan, which includes a community-based program for each inmate

no later than 11 months before the inmate’s projected release.

Would you share with us what might be the specific components

of a typical release plan by Rivers?

Mr. SNYDER. Well, as the Director mentioned, we start preparing

for an inmate’s release the day that they walk in the door in looking at what types of programs we may be able to enroll them in

for that. As we get later on closer to the release, we have sessions

with them concerning and in conjunction with CSOSA who, by the

way, as Mr. Quander is going to testify later, has been a wonderful

partner with us in helping develop these plans of release for these

inmates.

So whether it be, for example, our work force transition program

or helping find jobs through CSOSA or through community initiatives that they have, we work in partnership actually from day one.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so the development of your plans are

actually done in concert with other external agencies?

Mr. SNYDER. Partly with external agencies and partly internal.

We say that the inmate does not have a high school diploma. We

encourage them to enroll in the GED program, for example. That

would be something that is not in conjunction with another program. But we do work in conjunction with other programs, also.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Before I go to Representative Norton, let

me just ask you, both of you are experts. Obviously, you have had

long careers and would be considered experts in this area. In spite

of whatever it is that we are doing, we are still experiencing extremely high rates of recidivism across the board. If you were to

say, in your estimation, what really could help more to get at this

question of recidivism? What would that be?

Mr. LAPPIN. First and foremost, I don’t care where you are, you

have to have a willing participant. It is just not a one-sided formula here. We certainly see those offenders that come to prison,

just like the young man you heard earlier who realized that he had

some problems in his past that he decided it was time to change.

It certainly helps our success when we have someone who is willing

to participate in programs that are offered. It is unfortunate sometimes that more of them do not.

I am not sure about the GEO Group, but we do not force inmates

into programs other than one program, and that is all offenders

who are medically cleared will work. If they fail to accept a work

assignment, they can be disciplined for that.

We encourage, we leverage, we nudge, we counsel, we push them

to get involved in GED, secondary education, vocational training,

44

and other pro-social value programs. We are quite successful with

many of them. Some offenders just don’t see the light.

It has been helpful, in my opinion, when you all or someone has

asserted some leverage on them, as well. I will give you a couple

of examples.

A few years ago some folks said if offenders don’t pursue a GED

you are not going to get all of your good time. Well, that wasn’t

us leveraging; that was somebody else saying, hey, folks, this is so

important that you should pursue this, and if you don’t there are

some consequences. So the inmates began to see the consequences

of decisions they would or would not make. That helped.

Let’s go back to the time off for non-violent offenders. That certainly encouraged more offenders who were kind of on the fence to

get involved in drug treatment. Once we get them into the program, then it is our responsibility to provide a program that meets

their needs, addresses those issues, but no matter what we do here,

if we don’t have a willing participant our programs will be less successful. Any way to leverage those folks into those programs, in my

opinion, is helpful.

Again, I told you just a couple of examples I think that are positive.

Do we have waiting lists? We have waiting lists. I assure you

today that even though one of our longest waiting lists is the RDAP

500 hour, we can still get everyone who needs treatment, treatment

before they are released. It is probably going to occur toward the

end of their sentence, because an offender comes in and has less

time, their name goes above that person so that we can get them

through the program before the end of their sentence. But we can

still get every offender currently coming into the Bureau through

the program. We would like to have a shorter waiting list. Certainly, some additional resources in that regard would help us get

more offenders through the process earlier in their sentence than

the end of their sentence.

Just a few things.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. Actually, I concur with about everything that Director Lappin said. There has to be some individual commitment from

the inmates, and we need to encourage that programs happen

there for them to participate in.

I think there is one other thing we are getting ready to roll out.

I am not sure we have done the best job. This will affect Jail some

time down the road. I mentioned our inmate skills development

program, and basically what we are doing is getting ready to ramp

up a particular where, when the offender comes into the institution

they will be assessed, and that assessment will determine what

skills that offender lacks, and every facility will be required to have

programs available that address those deficiencies we identify in

the offender.

We have not done as good a job in the past as we should have,

I believe, trying programs to the legitimate needs of the inmates.

Sometimes it was a little big of guesswork there. What do you like

to do, what do you want to do, rather than what do you need to

do. And so in the not-too-distant future when we roll this program

out, we will do a better job of identifying the deficiencies an ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
45

fender comes to prison with and having programs available for

them to improve in those areas.

Again, it requires a willing participant. We don’t force them into

those programs. But we will certainly carry that over to our contract with GAO at Rivers if, in fact, we still have U.S. citizens at

that facility.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

I will go to Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I suppose I should begin with Mr. Lappin.

Mr. Lappin, there are about 7,000 or so, give or take, inmates,

of course, from the District of Columbia, and facilities you control.

You heard me open saying that they were in, according to all the

figures we have access to, they were in 75 institutions in 33 States.

Now, we have some of the figures here. For example, there were

about 252 or so at Cumberland. There are about 800 some at Rivers. That is the largest number. There are 314 at Gilmer, about

300 at Coleman, 309 at Beach Sandy; 100 at Butner, 80 at Cleary;

50 at Lexington. These are all over the United States, of course.

There are 12 at Ashland.

Now, what I have just detailed, just nine institutions, that accounts for 1,728 D.C. inmates, plus the 831 at Rivers or 2,559 inmates.

These are where most of them apparently are. That means the

great bulk of the mare in dips and dabs somewhere out in the

United States. So few that, when you look for where they are, they

don’t even register.

You are world class prison experts. Do you believe this is the

best way to house prisoners from a State prison system, spreading

them far and wide this way out of the reach of family or anyone

else you they know?

Mr. LAPPIN. Actually, we can provide you a list specific to which

institutions house D.C. offenders and how many. It is going to

vary.

Ms. NORTON. We have been provided with that list, and I have

gone through where the bulk of them are, and most of them are

still scattered in smaller numbers here and there. I want to know

how you decide where to place D.C. residents.

Mr. LAPPIN. Not unlike other residents, we try to put the offender as close to home as we possibly can, with a couple of priorities. No. 1, the appropriate security level is No. 1. The first issue

is what is the security level of the offender, and we try to put them

as close to home based on that, if we can, we space available. Because you can imagine, at the hose institutions there are also offenders at those locations in close proximity to that facility, as well.

So in reality there are many, many offenders in the Federal prison system who are further from home than what you are going to

find in State facilities, given the fact that we have some States and

some geographic areas with no Federal prisons, and those offenders

are going to go to prison in some location.

Ms. NORTON. Although they would seldom be halfway across the

country. They are located in most regions of the United States.

Mr. LAPPIN. Of the D.C. offenders, 83 percent are within 500

miles, which is kind of our target, 500 miles or less. The exceptions

46

to those would be offenders who have medical or psychiatric illnesses that must be provided for in a hospital, and those folks are

going to go to one of our medical centers.

We then have offenders who have separate issues; that is, they

have either testified or have some conflict with other offenders in

the Bureau of Prisons, and therefore we have to put them at other

locations as a safety security issue.

And then we have offenders who misbehave, and oftentimes

when they misbehave it results in them being moved further from

Washington, DC.

Again, I think hopefully you will understand that many of the

Federal offenders, when you look at how far away they are from

home, are further from home than what most State offenders

would be.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that, Mr. Lappin.

Mr. Lappin, Congress has given the Bureau of Prisons a big challenge and didn’t give you all that you were entitled to, but it asked

you to do what has never been done before, and that is absorb a

State prison system. Whatever is the case, it said integrate them

but remember who they are. As a result, essentially what you have

had to do is to deal with your existing resources to try to place

them accordingly.

Quite apart from what you were left to do, would it not be your

opinion that the inmates from a State prison system would be better off if they could be housed in a facility, since there are 7,000

of them, enough to fill a facility, that was closer to the District of

Columbia, quite apart from what is possible? You are not in charge

of what is possible and I am not in charge of what is possible. A

lot of that has to do with money. I am asking you and I am going

to ask Mr. Snyder as corrections experts to say, if you are dealing

with a State prison system and you know how State prison systems

operate and you know where prisoners are placed in States, so I

am asking you would it be, if all things were equal, better for these

prisoners to be housed in a facility closer to their home base?

Mr. LAPPIN. In my opinion, I am not sure that it would be.

Maybe this is just a difference philosophically on how to safely run

prisons, but we believe we run safer prisons when we have a balanced population of offenders racially, as geographically as we can,

but primarily racially, so we have found ourselves——

Ms. NORTON. Who are you fooling, Mr. Lappin? Mr. Lappin, almost 50 percent of those in prison today are African Americans.

Good luck for your balance. You just said that you have to look at

the features having to do with the nature of the offense, etc. Moreover, everybody knows that what happens in schools—which is kids

bunched together based on race—happens much more so in the

prison environment. So this notion about racial notion when you

have a prison system in the United States largely controlled people

of color it is not going to wash with this Member. I am not even

asking you that.

I am saying, considering that these are State prisoners, and

again, you know, if you want to tell me what the Federal Government does, fine. I have asked you to speak as a correction expert,

and I am not asking you to contradict administration policy or any

47

such thing. If you can’t take your hat off as a corrections expert

and answer my question, I will just go on to the next one.

Mr. LAPPIN. I can answer your question.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAPPIN. Of our inmates, 56 percent are White, 40 percent of

our inmates are African American, 27 percent of our offenders are

Hispanic. We can create balance in our institutions. From my position and for my 22 years in the Federal prison system, I have

found us running safer——

Ms. NORTON. What is the racial——

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And more secure prisons——

Ms. NORTON. What is the racial composition——

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. When we have a balanced institution.

Ms. NORTON. What is the racial composition at Cumberland and

what is the racial——

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know exactly what it is, but we certainly try

to monitor that as best we can to have a more balanced population

of offenders racially——

Ms. NORTON. I am going to move on.

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. At the institution.

Ms. NORTON. I am really going to move on, because I tell you one

thing: one of the things that hurts most for somebody like me who

comes from a majority African American city and sees the waste

of Black men in jail is the notion of the kind of imbalance that neither you nor anybody else could do anything about until we do

something about the march of African American manhood into

State and Federal prisons.

I am looking at the characteristics here, and this is Cumberland:

72.2 percent Black, 1.5 percent other, and 26.3 percent White. That

is not your fault, but the notion to tell me that therefore what we

are trying to do is racial balance, when I ask you as a corrections

expert and not what you do within the Federal prisons, does not

respond to my question. But if you cannot speak as a correction expert, I am holding the hammer at that point and I just want to get

to some facts here.

I am not going to ask Mr. Snyder, who has a contract, and therefore may feel that he had better watch himself.

Let me just say that this Member has looked at prison systems

around the world and I happen to believe that the Bureau of Prisons is the best prison system in the world. When was the BOP

started as a system?

Mr. LAPPIN. In 1930.

Ms. NORTON. It was started perhaps in the Depression when people were willing to build prisons and there was a kind of rehabilitation view of corrections. You know, you are talking to somebody

who has great respect for BOP, particularly when compared to

State prison systems, like Lorton was for the most part. So when

the District asked the Federal Government to take some State

functions and it turned out the BOP and we knew they were going

to be scattered, the good news at least was, well, at least they have

access to services they never could have gotten at Lorton.

You have described at pages 5 and 6 some very good what you

call core inmate programs, and they are really exceptional work

programs, occupational training, vocational training, substance

48

abuse. I think I am looking at yours. Yes, substance abuse, observance of faith, psychology services, etc. When you let the contract

initially for District of Columbia residents, did you follow this core

set of services in putting out the contract and funding the contract

for the private contractor?

Mr. LAPPIN. You are asking me?

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know what occurred at the time this contract

was let specifically. What I did was compared the contract to what

we were providing in our institutions. My sense is this contract for

Rivers was more consistent with contracts we had been offering at

our other private contract facilities that primarily house illegal

aliens. So in my evaluation——

Ms. NORTON. Do you think illegal aliens are entitled to the same

services as American citizens?

Mr. LAPPIN. Obviously, our contracts at the private contract facilities do not offer the same level of services that we are providing

in our own institutions that primarily house U.S. citizens.

Ms. NORTON. I am talking now about the Rivers contract.

Mr. LAPPIN. I think it was more consistent with those contracts

rather than one that would specifically address these issues.

Ms. NORTON. Well, why wasn’t it, since most of the inmates are

American citizens, why wasn’t it based on the BOP model as opposed to the criminal alien model?

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know for sure why. That is why I mentioned

in my opening testimony that we had gone back——

Ms. NORTON. You are aware that the statute does not say, in prescribing what has now been abandoned by BOP and the Federal

Government, that is that some residents would go into private facilities, it says nothing about those facilities being of a lesser quality or different in any way from BOP services. That is not in the

statute, is it?

Mr. LAPPIN. No, it is not.

Ms. NORTON. You say, indeed—and I was pleased in your testimony—that you have recently asked GEO Group to increase programming at these facilities. Will that programming reflect your

own model, the BOP model that you tout around the country with

good reason, indeed around the world, as a model for how corrections should be done?

Mr. LAPPIN. As I indicated, yes, we are working with Jail, who

is working with CSOSA, on identifying what vocational trainings

would be appropriate, and we will be working——

Ms. NORTON. No, I am asking you whether you will mirror what

you do.

Mr. LAPPIN. As closely as possible, but, again, we don’t tell the

contractor exactly how to do——

Ms. NORTON. I am not asking you how to do. If you have—and

I am using your words—a core set of programs, these are American

citizens. Are they not entitled to the same core set of programs as

other American citizens? And is there anything in the statute that

would exempt them from what other American citizens in prisons

are entitled to, in BOP prisons are entitled to?

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, we will try to mirror as closely as we can the

programs we offer in the Bureau.

49

Ms. NORTON. When you put the contract out, the contract was

not funded for these services.

Mr. LAPPIN. I think many of the things that are listed here the

GEO Group already does at Rivers.

Ms. NORTON. What? I am sorry.

Mr. LAPPIN. I believe many of the things we have listed here the

GEO Group already provides in the current contract. The areas

that we found were lacking was vocational training and the certification of the drug treatment, but many of the programs you have

mentioned here—observance of faith and religion, psychological

services, visiting, telephone, correspondence—many of those things

are already in the contract and, according to our monitoring, the

GEO Group is already providing.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, we are aware of the ones that are in the contract and we are aware that some of them have been added on in

time, and we are very grateful for that, but you are testifying that

you intend, to the greatest extent possible, to mirror the core program of the BOP for the American citizens who are confined in private facilities; is that your testimony?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, ma’am.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Norton, let me do this. Let me go to

Mr. Clay, who has some questions, and then we can certainly come

back to you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, sir. Glad to yield.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always interesting to follow my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

She always has intriguing questions.

Mr. Lappin, let me ask you your followup to one of her questions.

In regard to BOP, are there any plans on the drawing board to

build a facility or to contract out and have a facility built in the

D.C. metropolitan area for D.C. prisoners?

Mr. LAPPIN. There are no plans at the present time.

Mr. CLAY. Do you plan on having a 10-year plan, 5 year plan to

increase capacity?

Mr. LAPPIN. We do have a plan for increasing capacity. To be

quite honest with you, we don’t get a lot of say in where prisons

are built, so it oftentimes takes a lot of partnership with the Congress, the administration. So we have a construction plan to keep

up with the growing population. As you know as well as I do, there

are a lot of priorities right now and it is not easy to come up with

funding to build prisons, but certainly there is a plan. There are

issues being addressed at the appropriate times with the appropriators about our needs for the future. But certainly there is a building plan based on our population projections over the next 3 or 4

years which we believe will, if things stay as they currently are

today, will add about 15,000 inmates over the next 3 years to the

Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. CLAY. I really hope you are wrong about that.

Mr. LAPPIN. I do, too.

Mr. CLAY. What region has the most need? Is it east, west, north,

south?

Mr. LAPPIN. The east, the west, and the southeast probably we

see our greatest need, but it varies from time to time, but those

typically are the areas that we have the greatest need, because we

50

prefer to put institutions in close proximity to where the inmates

are coming from, which increases our ability to keep them closer

to home.

Mr. CLAY. Yes. In the area of reentry, the 8th Circuit, which is

based in St. Louis, their Office of Probation and Parole, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, has a unique program as far

as matching up those recently released and future employers. They

hold a career fair for those recently released and match them into

jobs. How successful has BOP been in matching up recently released inmates? And do you do programs like that in this region?

Mr. LAPPIN. Actually, we partner with the folks in St. Louis nationally on offender work force development. That is the initiative

you are referencing.

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. So yearly there is a conference that we participate

with the probations staff, with parole staff, with our staff in developing programs at all of our institutions that assist in transition

from prison to the community, one of which is work force development initiatives.

All of our institutions have job fairs so employers can come in

and inmates can be interviewed and resumes can be reviewed,

more in the way of a practice because, again, many of our offenders

are not releasing locally. So the difficult challenge here is reaching

out from a distance to find providers in certain areas. We have

community corrections centers in many locations that help us with

the transition from prison to the community through halfway

houses. The young man that was here was in a halfway house here

in the District of Columbia. They suggested he go to Goodwill and

apply for a job. That occurs in that fashion more so than from the

individual institution, given the fact that oftentimes the offender is

some distance from their home.

But, again, there is a correction between the staff in our institutions and what the inmates’ needs are, what their accomplishments

are, and the transition to halfway houses.

Our preference is to send all eligible offenders out through halfway houses, so this past year, of the eligible offenders, about 84

percent of the offenders did transition out through a halfway

house, which helped facilitate that transition from prison to the

community to secure two real important aspects: a place to live,

and a job.

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. Critically important.

So, again, the Bureau, given its size, geographically uses these

transition halfway house centers to assist us with that.

Mr. CLAY. And all halfway house residents have to be employed?

Is that right?

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we certainly do our best. As you can imagine,

when unemployment rates are high, it is more difficult, but we certainly, as part of that period of time in a halfway house, a primary

component of that halfway house is to try and secure employment

prior to release.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that.

Mr. Snyder, real quickly, how successful is jail in placing inmates

into employment opportunities?

51

Mr. SNYDER. Actually, our facility is not responsible. We work in

conjunction with CSOSA and they handle the placement.

Mr. CLAY. Who is CSOSA?

Mr. SNYDER. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Mr. CLAY. I see.

Mr. SNYDER. And they will be testifying later.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask you about your drug treatment program.

How often do you find inmates that test positive for drug use in

the institution?

Mr. SNYDER. We do random drug testing, and we have less than

1 percent positive drug testing rate. In comparison, that is very

good.

Mr. CLAY. What is your testing matrix?

Mr. SNYDER. Last year in 2006 we did 100,945 random tests. We

had 1,088 positive tests for a percentage of 1.1 percent of our population. We did 21,097 suspect tests; that is, something led us to believe the offender was using drugs, the inmate. Of those, 900 were

tested positive, which is a 4.3 percent positive test rate. So a 1 to

2 percent rate is very good.

Mr. CLAY. I see.

Mr. SNYDER. Very low.

Mr. CLAY. All right. I thank you both for your answers.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Clay.

Let me just ask Director Lappin, did I understand that you are

working on a good time policy for individuals who may be involved

in or who complete the drug program?

Mr. LAPPIN. The time off?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. On May 24, 2005, the D.C. City Council passed

the Omnibus Public Safety Ex-Offender Sufficiency Reform Amendment Act of 2004, which granted the authority for non-violent D.C.

offenders who successfully complete 500 hour D.C. treatment program eligibility for time off their sentence. We have now taken that

through the rules process. We have drafted the final rules. The

final rule, in fact, is at OMB for review. They should decide by October 20, 2007, next week or this week, at which time, assuming

no concern on their part, we would then publish the final rule, we

would finalize our program statement and we would begin the implementation of that law for D.C. offenders.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Does that mean that there are other

kinds of good time policies within the Bureau? I am saying are

there other incentives for individuals who have gone through any

kind of special program or special training or anything else?

Mr. LAPPIN. To my knowledge, this is the only program that offers a reduction in their sentence other than the authority of the

Director of the Bureau of Prisons to allow or propose to the sentencing court a reduction of sentence typically based on terminal

illnesses or some significant health concern or issue, which we do

utilize. To my knowledge, those are the only two that allow a ‘‘reduction in sentence.’’ Most all offenders are eligible for good time.

That is typically driven by the statute under which they are sentenced, so it would be different for D.C. offenders possibly than offenders from Federal correct. I don’t know the specifics of those,

52

but as far as something similar to the reduction of sentence consistent with the 500 hour drug program, I am not sure. I am not

aware of any other programs that offer some reduction in sentence

other than the two I mentioned.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Is any crime committed in D.C. a Federal

crime?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am sorry?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Is any crime committed in the District of

Columbia a Federal crime?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. I have the number here, I believe. I could give

you the exact number of offenders who are sentenced out of District

Court, but I believe there are about 1,100. I think there are about

1,100 offenders who come out of District court. Of the 7,816 D.C.

offenders, as of August, 6,698 were sentenced in D.C. Superior

Court, 1,118 were sentenced as a result of Federal crimes out of

U.S. District Court.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lappin, how many Federal facilities, BOP facilities, have been built since 1997, approximately?

Mr. LAPPIN. I hate to guess. I will get it for the record and submit it to you in writing.

I hate to even guess. Probably 30 or 40.

Ms. NORTON. Has the BOP ever, given its corrections background, suggested to OMB that one of those prisons might be built

to house D.C. residents? That is a lot of prisons.

Mr. LAPPIN. We have tried to place institutions closer to Washington, DC.

Ms. NORTON. That is not my question.

Mr. LAPPIN. We have not asked or pursued an initiative to build

a prison to house just D.C. offenders. We have not.

Ms. NORTON. That was really my question.

You see, the figures I laid out before when you tried to tell me

they were all about balance, where we had 2,559 inmates in 10 institutions, understand they are in 75, sir. If there are 2,559 in 10

institutions, that means that there are 5,441 in 65 institutions. You

have to understand what my point is, sir. Whatever the balance

point is, since the figures that I called out were where you will find

them in any numbers, it really means sprinklings of men around

the United States. I just want you to know that is my concern, and

that is why I asked how many prisons since 1997.

How many prisons have been built since 1986 when the mandatory minimums which have incarcerated an entire generation of

Black men, how many prisons since then have been built?

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, I could submit that for the record. I know

that in 1980 we had about 26,000 inmates in the Federal prison

system. We operated about 35 institutions. Today we have 200,000

inmates. We operate 114 Federal prisons that we own and operate,

and we contract out for 13 other private facilities.

Ms. NORTON. Now, for criminal aliens—and yet District of Columbia residents are the only American citizens in such private facilities.

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, as you know, the law that passed in 1997

mandated——

53

Ms. NORTON. It did not mandate and it was not necessary to put

D.C. residents in a prison with criminal aliens where you know you

do not have to provide the same services. It said private facility.

It said Bureau of Prisons. It says these are inmates.

The fact that you have 800 in a private facility means it was in

your discretion to fill it up with D.C. residents, but you did not do

so, and that raises the problem. If you are an American citizen living in the District of Columbia, you get tired of not having rights

even when you go to jail, sir, particularly when it was in your discretion, your, BOP at large, discretion to do something about it,

and particularly since these men have to come home to the District

of Columbia.

I am here trying to divide what we have to do, sir. I know I have

a lot of work to do to convince my colleagues, and what you, it

seems to me, had at least some discretion to recommend.

Again, this is a grand experiment. The Congress has said, look,

BOP, you are a great prison system. We are going to ask you to

do something that has never been done before. Therefore, Congress

looks to you to say, can this be done? Can it be done better? That

is what I am impressing upon you that we need to have happen.

I want to ask you about the testimony you heard from the prisons, the ex-prisoners. It was important in reinforcing what we saw

when we went to the two prisons. I said they were both well-kept.

Everybody felt free to come up and talk to me. There was a marked

difference in the activities available. Let’s leave aside the services

for a moment. The BOP prisoners had not only structure but had

times when they went from one place to the next place, and it looks

like the BOP has a theory of corrections that says that you let a

man lie around doing what we would all like to do—what would

you like to do today? Sit in a hearing, or would you like to hang

out? Sir, I would hang out, and I have been working all my life.

Do you say to somebody, hey, here’s a nice facility, here is a gym.

They hang out in your private facility, but Mr. Robinson, I believe

it was, testified that he was in a very structured environment, that

he had to work, and of course he has work now. You saw Mr.

Barnes, a young man, obviously very self-motivated early in life,

very intelligent, already could pick up a craft, talk about what it

was like to be in an unstructured environment.

Why, given the fact that the BOP model is tried, has been tested,

is seen as one of the most effective in the world, why would you

not try to replicate at least the structure, which you could have

done even if you didn’t have the money, at least the structured environment that leaves a man or woman to have some sense of what

is going to be expected of him out here. Why was that model abandoned in the private facility at Rivers?

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t think that model was abandoned. I am very

pleased that you had a good visit to the institution in Cumberland

and you left there pleased that the inmates were productively occupied. That certainly is a mainstay in our safely running prisons.

Again, I don’t think the contract at Rivers didn’t take that into

consideration. I think it did. Other than——

Ms. NORTON. I really don’t want to argue the facts here. I don’t

have a lot of time. The facts are that most of the inmates—and you

heard testimony here, we saw it ourselves—spend most of their

54

time on weights and in the yard, and we don’t blame them. Men

will not engage in structured activities, even when they are available, unless you draw the incentives such that they really think

that this is what we are supposed to do. Of course, men have to

work in BOP facilities. You don’t have to work there, so please

don’t make me lay out not what I saw but what I have documented

as to the difference between the unstructured environment at the

private facility which is 180 degrees unlike what the inmate will

find out here and the very structured way in which he must live

his life in a BOP facility, because I saw it. We documented it. I

didn’t just go there. I asked questions—how many hours they have

to work, what if they decide not to do this, then what do they do.

I got very specific answers from the warden.

Now I am asking one question only: if structure works in a BOP

facility, why would you, in putting out a contract, not say do it the

way you want to do, but the structured life is necessary to prepare

these men that you are going to get to enter the real world.

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, I think our contract that was let at Rivers

has that framework. Our contract oversight folks who are there

routinely throughout the course of the contract observe that behavior. Granted, there can be improvements, but I beg to differ that

we have completely abandoned that theory or philosophy in the

contract.

Again, the warden here can address probably those day-to-day

issues that——

Ms. NORTON. You know, I really don’t want to keep us here.

Mr. Snyder, does a man, besides the GED program, is he compelled to work, for example?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am. They are required to work in our facility.

Ms. NORTON. What are their work assignments for how many

hours a day?

Mr. SNYDER. Again, like many BOP facilities, it may be a short

period of time, 4 hours. They may work 4 hours and may be enrolled in some other program for 4 hours.

Ms. NORTON. You know what, Mr. Snyder, I talked to lots of men

down there. None told us that he had any assignment whatsoever.

Now you are telling me that every man at Rivers has a work assignment?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am, the majority do.

Ms. NORTON. I am going to ask you to submit to the committee

what my own eyes contradicted, what you heard the prisoner, the

ex-offender testify. I want you to submit to me the work day of

prisoners. I want you to submit to me how your program is structured on paper. I would like to see that.

Mr. SNYDER. I can submit to you the number of inmates that we

have working in the facility.

Ms. NORTON. You just said these people have every inmate working.

Mr. SNYDER. Well, the majority——

Ms. NORTON. Now, we saw some people working.

Mr. SNYDER. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. We know that there are some people who work. Everybody at the BOP facility we saw. In fact, if you want to know

55

the truth, Mr. Lappin, the warden told us that it sometimes gets

to be difficult because the facility has so many people coming in

and so much work to do, but they still say you have to put 4 hours

in to work. That is what you told me. You have to put 4 hours in

to work, every last man at Rivers?

Mr. SNYDER. The vast majority. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Four hours of work a day?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Forgive my skepticism, but you are under oath.

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Let me quickly go through the rest of this, because

we have just heard testimony that this is just like BOP, which contradicts what we saw with our naked eyes. How in the world are

we going to improve things if we get this kind of testimony?

Now, you have programs in carpentry, HVAC. We are glad to see

the air conditioning and the heating. But then you heard testimony

from a prisoner that it was limited by age. Why is it limited by

age? Indeed, Mr. Robinson said it was not limited by age at BOP,

but of course these programs are exactly the same. Why was it not

limited by age at the BOP prison where he also had that training

and it was limited by age at Rivers?

Mr. SNYDER. I can only speak to the program at Rivers. I am not

familiar with——

Ms. NORTON. That is all I am asking you for.

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am. The program at Rivers is a grant program through the D.C. State Department of Education, and

through that grant the ages of participants must be in the age

range of 18 to 25.

Ms. NORTON. But that is not true, Mr. Lappin, at the BOP HVAC

program?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not aware of a limitation on age; however, we

provide programs located at institutions that sometimes have some

limitations. That is, we contract out at some locations for those

services. Although I have not seen an age limitation, there are

sometimes some limitations based on what is agreed to within that

local contract. If it is a Bureau-provided program by Bureau staff,

we do not limit age.

Ms. NORTON. Almost all your programs are Bureau provided,

though.

Mr. LAPPIN. We have a number of locations where we contract

out vocational training programs because there is a community college or some service locally that really offers a great deal for us.

That is how you heard testimony that some locations we still can

offer college programs. It is only because we can get those programs locally.

Ms. NORTON. College programs I understand, because Congress

has put some limitations on you there.

Mr. LAPPIN. Right.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Snyder, do the criminal aliens have access to

the same programs?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, they do.

Ms. NORTON. I have nothing against criminal aliens, God bless

them, but I hope I made my point. I would not like to see any discrimination against them. Who has been discriminated against?

56

The D.C. residents who are American citizens who would get different levels of services if they were in BOP facilities.

We were very disappointed to find out all the time it has taken

for D.C. to be qualified for the incentive, and now that processes

you are assuring me is well under way, so when you are going

through that program, that 500 hour program, that incentive,

which has apparently been useful to making the program so effective, would be available then.

Since we have composed a final rule, you say on page none of

your testimony, and will publish the rule in conjunction with

issuing our own updated policy, which is currently in the final review and clearance process, in light of the fact that we think this

should have been the case from the beginning, and if not it should

certainly, given the effectiveness of the program, should by now be

operative, in light of the fact that the proposed rule to implement

the law was published a year ago in November, or almost a year

ago, November 2006, that the Council made the necessary changes

in 2004, I have to ask you, given the vagueness of the language,

to testify when this policy will finally be operative.

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, we will implement it as soon as we hear from

OMB and we can finalize the—I don’t have the date this will go

into effect until I get the information back from OMB.

Ms. NORTON. So you have done all you can do?

Mr. LAPPIN. We have done all that we can do until we hear back

from OMB. At this point——

Ms. NORTON. One thing we would like you to do is to urge OMB,

and we will back you up on that, sir.

Mr. LAPPIN. And I will report to you as soon as I hear back from

them the status. Once I have that back, I can better give you a

time line for when we will implement this Bureau-wide.

Ms. NORTON. We are particularly concerned to get the 500 hour

program, the certified program, at Rivers. Can we anticipate that

program will be available at Rivers?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. The one with the incentive?

Mr. LAPPIN. The vocational training, as I mentioned, and the

drug treatment program, we are going to address at Rivers through

the contract. Again, we will keep you informed as to how that progresses.

Ms. NORTON. That is so important, and I thank you for the, Mr.

Lappin. You speak it is about 50 to 80 percent having drug abuse

problems, a great concern to us. Particularly of concern to us was

that 65 percent of those whose parole is revoked are revoked on

drug abuse problems, so the effectiveness of that program could not

be more important.

I am concerned about some of the HVAC programs, the carpentry

programs, not because they aren’t excellent programs, but if they

are certified through the Department of Labor, then a man or

woman can perhaps expect to be at least recognized because he will

be able to say I have been through this program. I am concerned

whether or not persons are able to say something, to have a piece

of paper to show that Prison Industries has a very good reputation,

has certified them as being able to do X, Y, or Z, whether it is

HVAC, carpentry, or any of the rest of it. Is that available?

57

Mr. LAPPIN. We make a point that those vocational programs we

provide, to have some type of certification. I want to be careful on

this, because there are varying types of certifications. Let’s take

the DOL apprenticeship program. There are many locations we

don’t offer that, not because we don’t think it is a good program,

it just takes thousands of hours for the offender to become certified

in that program.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. Like at Rivers, the offenders on average spend about

2 years. Most of them, if they began that program, probably

wouldn’t be able to finish it, so we look for other programs that are

shorter in nature that give them some type of certificate so that

when they leave prison and they go to apply for a job they have

a document that says yes, I have had this training in this program

to this level of proficiency. So we try to gear those programs and

the length of those programs based on the amount of time we believe the offenders at a given institution on average are going to

spend at that facility so that we can get more people through and

have them with the certificate upon release.

In your medium- and high-security institutions where offenders

are serving a longer time, you will find a greater array of the DOL

apprenticeship programs, because many of those offenders are

spending a long enough time in prison that if they begin the program they can finish it before they are released.

Ms. NORTON. Makes sense.

Our figures show that for BOP low-security inmates, it costs the

BOP $52.57 per day. At the Rivers low-security program it costs

$67.36 per day. Is that approximately correct?

Mr. LAPPIN. I didn’t hear the last figure.

Ms. NORTON. It is $52.57 for low-security BOP, $67.36 per day

for Rivers low-security. Is that the case?

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me give you the number that I use publicly, because there is sometimes two numbers floating around. Our average cost per day for low-security inmates in the Federal prison system is $57.08. That is all-inclusive. That is overhead, training, administrative staff, everything that goes into housing that inmate,

including central office costs, everything—$57.08. I believe the contract at Rivers is $72.

Ms. NORTON. OK, because obviously the private contractor——

Mr. LAPPIN. It is $72.23 per inmate per day.

Ms. NORTON. So $72.23, so if we could get past the capital cost

and we were just looking at the efficiency of the BOP operation,

you have a more efficient operation than private contractors have,

because he has to build in the cost, the capital cost, and he’s got

to have a profit and the rest of it.

Mr. LAPPIN. But I think you have to realize, I mean, I am averaging thousands of inmates in this average.

Ms. NORTON. I certainly do recognize that. That is one of the reasons you are more efficient. The more you have, the more you are

able to have the efficiencies that come with the large numbers.

Mr. LAPPIN. There are some variations geographically, though,

that we have to acknowledge, some higher-cost of living areas

where it is more expensive to run prisons than other locations.

58

Ms. NORTON. I understand. If you want to play down your own

efficiency, you are welcome. I am talking about efficiencies of scale,

and that is all I am talking about. That is something that you don’t

have any control over. That is why I read you the raw statistics.

Finally, let me ask you what is the profit margin for the Jail

Corp., which is the corporation that, of course, built Rivers?

Mr. LAPPIN. Are you asking me?

Ms. NORTON. You or Mr. Snyder. You ought to know it as much

as Mr. Snyder knows.

Mr. LAPPIN. What their profit margin is?

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. LAPPIN. I have no idea.

Ms. NORTON. That is not built into the contract?

Mr. LAPPIN. I have no idea.

Ms. NORTON. So they can make any amount of profit they want

to?

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, I have no idea what their profit margin is.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. I am unaware of our profit margin at this point.

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you, Mr. Lappin, to get that information to me? I don’t think that contracts let out by the Federal Government say you can make whatever profit you want to from housing these Federal prisoners. If they are, then the Congress needs

to know if that is the case.

Mr. LAPPIN. If that information is available to us, we will certainly provide it to you.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it has to be available to somebody in the

BOP.

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure that it is. I am not sure it is stipulated

in our contract what the profit margin is.

Ms. NORTON. So you are therefore testifying that profit doesn’t

matter to you and you can make any profit you desire so long as

you give us a facility?

Mr. LAPPIN. It is competitive bid.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. I am talking about profit. I am

talking about profit.

Mr. LAPPIN. If there is a profit margin available, we will provide

it to you.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Snyder, you know more. You are closer to the

profit margin than even Mr. Lappin. These are 100 percent Federal

dollars. Within 30 days we want to know what the profit margin

is.

One final question. It has to do with phone calls. How much does

it cost in a Federal prison to make a phone call, or how do you calculate those costs?

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t have the exact numbers. I will provide them

on the record, what our charges are nationally for phone calls

throughout the Bureau to the inmates.

Ms. NORTON. If phones are to be used in a private facility, would

there be a profit available to the facility for allowing the calls to

be made, or would that facility have phone calls available in the

same way and for the same cost to the prisoner as a BOP facility?

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, I would have to go back and look at the contract, what it says specific to phone calls. My guess is it is pretty

59

broad and says phones will be made available to the inmates. How

those costs are determined, I am not sure. If it is in our contract

I will provide to you specifically what the contract indicates regarding their applying that aspect of the contract to housing those offenders there, and I will provide to you our charges to offenders for

phone calls in the Bureau of Prisons.

Ms. NORTON. It is very important to have that within 30 days.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the latitude you have given me in examining these witnesses. They have really been very helpful. The

testimony we have heard seems to me, to summarize, to say that

the BOP is now trying to bring the same services to the private facility where D.C. residents are housed as they would have if they

just happened to be in a low-security, for example, public facility.

Sir, subject to what we learn about structure, we will take that to

mean that the same kind of structure imitation of the way life is

in the real world we will obtain at Rivers, as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.

I see we have been joined by Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions of this panel?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just a few. Just a few, Mr. Chairman. I am

sorry. I was in another hearing.

I just am curious. I was just sitting here just thinking how we

have folks who go to prison and it is like they go in and in many

instances they come out worse off. I am just wondering, at your facility, Mr. Snyder, and to you, Mr. Lappin, is there any followup

on say, for example, they get this training, and is there any followup on how they do in life? I mean, it may have been answered earlier. I don’t know. Is there any followup on that, because it seems

to me that if we are going to be paying for these various courses

that I see listed here, that we would want computer classes, woodworking, heating and air conditioning. It seems as if we would

want to see how our money is being spent, so when you followup

on it what do you come up with?

Mr. LAPPIN. The Bureau of Prisons does recidivism research on

all of the programs we offer, not specifically every VT, but VT programs in general, as well as GED, inmates who work in Federal

prison industry, inmates who we do recidivism research to determine if, in fact, the programs we are offering are having the intended outcome—that is, reducing recidivism.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right.

Mr. LAPPIN. Nationally the Federal recidivism rate, our Federal

recidivism rate is 40 percent within the Federal system, which in

the last 10 years came down from 44 percent, so we went from 44

percent to 40 percent in about the last 10 years. We see that certainly as very favorable.

I couldn’t agree with you more: when we invest money in programs, we want to be assured that those programs are having the

intended outcome. So in groups like this—vocational training, prison industry, GED—we do long-term recidivism research assessment. And if we find a program is not having the intended outcome, we discontinue that program.

I will give you an example. For 10 or 15 years we operated boot

camps. Our research for 10 of those years reflected no impact on

60

recidivism for the offenders identified who participate in that program. We brought those types of programs to an end. We were not

getting the intended value, the outcome we desired based on the

investment. That is the way we continue to assess our programs.

So today, besides these programs, we have faith-based residential

programs, we have other pro-social value programs. I have the

acronyms. You don’t know what they mean, but basically the residential programs that target anger management, stress management, getting a GED. We are doing recidivism research on those

programs, as well.

They have not been around quite long enough for us to come out

and say yes, this works. We are close. But as soon as that is available we will be able to make that public, as well.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me be very specific. I am impressed that

there are computer classes, because that makes sense. I don’t see

how one can operate in this society. The janitor in my church, everything is run by a computer. If he didn’t know how to run a computer, he has a problem.

I am just wondering, if you look at something like computer

classes, do you say 3 years after the person is out did he get a job

operating computers? do you follow what I am saying? In other

words, I don’t see how you can even make the determination

whether something is working unless you can kind of see whether

it led to somebody having an occupation in that area. Do you follow

me?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I do, but we don’t do it on a case-by-case basis,

given the volume. We release 61,000 inmates a year, and so we

don’t have a system that tracks each and every one of those individuals. Again, if you would like more detail, I am not a researcher,

but my staff could come by and provide the research that we have

done on this and explain to you how we go about determining

whether or not these programs work and how we track the offenders and do the assessment. I would prefer, if you have the time,

that I bring some folks along that better understand that process

and can further explain to you or other committee members how

that research occurs and the outcome.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Going back to a statement you made, you said

there has been a reduction in recidivism; is that right?

Mr. LAPPIN. In the Federal offenders.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. I am glad you clarified that. Why don’t

we talk about the Rivers Correctional Institution, since that is the

subject matter of our hearing. What has been the recidivism—and

you may have answered this earlier. What has been the recidivism

rate with regard to this institution?

Mr. SNYDER. We don’t have those figures.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You should. It seems like you would. If you can

quote the recidivism rate for the system and you come here before

Congress and it seems like you would. I kind of think that if I were

trying to get another contract, one of the things I would want to

be able to say is that we were able to put together a program that

had this effect to this Government or the D.C. government or anybody else. I am just wondering, Are we concerned, Mr. Snyder,

about just warehousing? Or are we concerned about actually rehaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
61

bilitating and helping people to go out and try to make something

of their life? I mean, I am just wondering.

Mr. SNYDER. We are very concerned at their rehabilitation. That

is why the emphasis on our progress. We are willing to do more.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, why don’t you tell me what you are willing

to do, because maybe we can make that happen. What are you willing to do? Because I want to and I am sure Ms. Norton wants to

hold you to what it is you want to do. I don’t hear too many people

coming in here talking about what they want to do, so what would

you like to do?

Mr. SNYDER. As Director Lappin stated previously, we will be

able to enhance our substance abuse program and enhance the vocational training programs we offer at our facilities in conjunction

with the Bureau.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how do you plan to do that?

Mr. LAPPIN. The Bureau is going to revise the contract to require

those types of programs be provided in the Rivers contract.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right.

Mr. LAPPIN. We spoke about that earlier.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. I understand.

I wish I had gotten here a little earlier, because I would have

loved to have just heard all this testimony.

Were you about to say something? You look like you are getting

ready to jump over the table.

Mr. LAPPIN. I was just going to say if you would like us to come

up there and meet with you privately on the issues we discussed,

we would be more than happy to.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. What we will do is I will submit some questions.

This whole concept of warehousing human beings——

Mr. LAPPIN. We agree.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think at some point we have to figure out how

to help people move on with their lives, and living in Baltimore

where we have a significant number of people coming back and literally saying to me—I mean, I have heard this so many times, Mr

Cummings, I have no way to make a living. I don’t know what to

do. I can’t get a job. And if I cannot find a job, I am going to have

to do the very things that sent me to prison. I have heard that

many times.

It just seems to me at some point, if we are going to be using

taxpayers’ dollars, we ought to be making sure that we have effective programs that have the effect that we intend, as opposed to

a situation where we are warehousing people only to come out to

be placed in the situation that I just stated.

Mr. LAPPIN. Can I respond to that?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure.

Mr. LAPPIN. We are in complete agreement. We are opposed to

warehousing offenders. Our job is not only to provide a safe, secure

environment, but provide opportunities for offenders to improve

skills and ability where there is vocational, literacy, work skills

during their period of incarceration.

Again, I think we do help many of the inmates, but we have to

have willing participants. We had a long conversation earlier that

addressed some of those issues. Again, we would be more than

62

happy to sit down with you personally and discuss what we do in

the Bureau of Prisons to accomplish that. We certainly want that

for the offenders that are at Rivers, as well.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings.

Of course we have a vote on, so we are going to go and vote, but

Ms. Norton is going to remain and will continue.

Gentlemen, let me thank both of you. I think this will end this

panel and we will go right into the next panel. We certainly want

to thank all of you for your patience and for your indulgence. We

appreciate it very much.

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. This is very important testimony for us.

It was important to spend the time we did.

Please stand and be sworn.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. NORTON. The record will show that each witness answered

in the affirmative.

The green light indicates you have 5 minutes to summarize your

statement; the yellow light means your time is running down. We

recognize that we have spent much more time with the first witnesses who have the immediate power to do something about the

situation. We are very pleased that we believe we have a commitment here under oath to equalize services between Rivers, for example, and BOP facilities for the first time. It was important to get

that and to document that. But it is equally important to us to document what you will have to say.

I am going to begin with Mr. Quander, Paul Quander, Jr., who

is the Director of Court Services and Offender Supervision, a Federal agency responsible for 15,500 convicted felons who are on probation, parole, or supervised release in Washington, DC.

Mr. Quander.

STATEMENTS OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR, COURT

SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; STANLEY

JACKSON, ACTING PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA; CHARLES JONES, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT

SERVICES, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES;

PHIL HOLMES, VICE PRESIDENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT,

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES; DENNIS TORBETT, VICE PRESIDENT, WORKFORCE TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, HOME

BUILDERS INSTITUTE; AND JAMES AUSTIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, THE JFA INSTITUTE

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.

Mr. QUANDER. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Norton and

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today.

As Director of the Federal agency that supervises over 15,000

men and women on community supervision in the District of Columbia, nearly 6,000 of whom are in post-release supervision, I

know first-hand that the foundation of successful reentry can be

laid during a period of incarceration.

It is now 10 years since the Revitalization Act transferred responsibility for housing D.C. co-defenders to the Federal Board of

63

Prisons and created the Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency. In that decade, CSOSA has transformed community supervision by lowering case loads, implementing stringent contract

standards and other close supervision strategies, increasing drug

testing, opening multiple field offices, and automating the case

management system.

In addition, CSOSA provides limited substance abuse treatment

and operates a learning and vocational assistance program to supplement the city’s over-burdened service capacity.

Last year we opened a Reentry and Sanctions Center to provide

intensive assessment and treatment readiness programming for

high-risk offenders entering supervision or at risk for revocation.

These services are sorely needed. Most of the offenders under our

supervision have long histories of substance abuse, educational

under-achievement, and under-employment. Of our population, 70

percent has a documented history of drug use; 39 percent are under

supervision for drug offenses; and 20 percent have sought substance abuse treatment within the past 6 months. Only 56 percent

have been employed during the past 6 months, and only 41 percent

possess a GED or high school diploma.

Given this profile, we believe that substance abuse treatment, vocational training, and release preparations are the most critical

programmatic needs. Almost half of the D.C. offender population at

Rivers is incarcerated for a drug-related offense. Most parole revocations also involve substance abuse violations. Research has established beyond question that crime escalates in severity and frequency as drug use increases.

If more returning D.C. offenders completed the BOP 500 hour

residential treatment program, which is certified, if it was at Rivers or elsewhere, CSOSA could then use its resources to continue

services either through outpatient treatment or through the Reentry and Sanctions Center. This coordinated approach would enable a greater proportion of offenders to receive a clinically appropriate course of treatment. This, in turn, would reduce drug use

and drug-related crime among the supervised population.

Residential treatment programs must be delivered by qualified

staff with appropriate experience, training, and certification. We

support the Board of Prisons’s efforts to ensure that treatment programs at Rivers and other facilities that house D.C. co-defenders

will meet these requirements.

Vocational training is another critical need. CSOSA has been a

partner with the GEO Group and the Board of Prisons to develop

programs that equip inmates with the skills needed in the D.C. job

market and to link these programs with local employers and trade

unions. Such linkages will provide returning inmates with better

training and long-term career prospects.

We hope the carpentry program that is currently being developed

will be the first of multiple BOP and GEO efforts to bring vocational training to Rivers. We also appreciate the dedicated efforts

of our other partners, the Office of the D.C. State Superintendent

of Education and the University of the District of Columbia, to implement vocational programs at Rivers. CSOSA has provided valuable support to both of these endeavors.

64

According to the District of Columbia Workforce Investment

Council, approximately 70 percent of D.C. area employment is in

the business services and information technology sector. Those D.C.

offenders who are adequately prepared have the opportunity for

training in these areas where they are most likely to find a job. As

of June 2007, the Board of Prisons reported that 43 percent of the

Rivers population was serving 59 months or less. While it is difficult to define the capacity, duration, and content of programs that

should be developed at Rivers, any new programs should take into

account the length of sentence served by Rivers inmates.

The BOP utilizes full-time staff, adjunct instructors under contract, and cooperative agreements with local universities and trade

schools to deliver programs. Each of these service delivery models

should be considered for Rivers, which is located in a relatively isolated area.

Finally, we must recognize that offenders need skills to manage

stress and overcome ingrained areas of thinking. Understanding

and behavior adjustments must be as much a part of this treatment as the drug treatment and job training. A recent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections study cited unrealistic expectations by inmates, anti-social attitudes and belief, and poor coping

skills as the three most important factors in parole violation.

CSOSA has collaborate with Rivers’ staff since the summer of

2003 to augment their release preparation programs through two

videoconference programs. The CSOSA faith community partnership implemented video mentoring to link inmates nearing release

from Rivers with faith-based mentors who provide pre-release encouragement and post-release support. We have also developed

community resource date, a quarterly videoconference to provide

inmates nearing release with information from local government

and nonprofit service providers in the critical areas of housing,

health care, education, and employment. Response to these programs has been very positive; however, they are just one element

of a comprehensive release program.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Board of Prisons

and Rivers and our other partners as we try to improve the programs available to the men at Rivers, because as the men return

to the District they are coming to our community and they need to

be prepared.

Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quander follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Quander.

I am introducing people as we go along, so people don’t have to

remember who I said this witness was. The next witness is the acting president, Stanley Jackson, University of the District of Columbia. He was chief of staff and senior vice president for operations

at the University before.

Mr. Jackson, please summarize your testimony.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY JACKSON

Mr. JACKSON. Let me again say good evening, Congresswoman

Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am Stanley Jackson,

and it is truly a pleasure and an honor to be before you today to

speak to the subcommittee on the role the University has played

extensively in helping ex-offenders reenter society and what it

means when we do it right.

As you have heard and read numerous articles, when ex-offenders return to the District of Columbia, they often return to the

same challenging social environments that led to them committing

the crimes in the first place. Many of these individuals often lack

necessary education and skills to obtain real, meaningful employment. Those that have received the education and our skill training

and are able to compete often face additional barriers and challenges. Typically they find that their criminal records make it

harder for them to obtain employment opportunities.

In a recent article in the Washington Post that appeared in August of this year, there were some sobering statistics cited in that

article supporting the challenges of our ex-offenders. The article indicated that approximately 2,000 ex-offenders are returning to our

community every year. That is in excess of five a day.

Also, it says that as many as 10 percent of our population, or

60,000 residents, are, in fact, felons.

It also goes on further to say that you have approximately 15,000

returning ex-offenders who are fellows who are under some court

supervision. These ex-offenders arrive at the homes of relatives, at

halfway houses, and at shelters. One out of three end up homeless

or very close to it. Seven out of 10 have or have had substance

abuse problems. Half of these ex-offenders do not have high school

diplomas, and they need additional support ant training.

The picture facing these ex-offenders is not pretty. Without proper training, educational support that would lead to employment opportunities, many of them will be rearrested within a period of 3

years.

The University, through our work force development program,

has a long history of working with the ex-offender community to

assist with their transition back into our communities. Beginning

about 30 years ago, the UDC Lorton Vo-Tech program consisted of

an array of courses which we offered to our residents who were

confined at the D.C. Department of Correction at Lorton facility.

These courses ranged from areas of automotive technology, barbering, brick masonry, carpentry, cosmetology, dentistry, facility maintenance, landscaping, plumbing, printing, and wood work, just to

name a few.

Since June 2001, the UDC Vo-Tech program began phasing out

based on a mandate to terminate the facility at Lorton. Since that

74

time, the University has continued to work very closely with our

ex-offender population through the Office of Apprenticeship, Technical, and Industrial Trade, and has served as a constant contact

for individuals who previously were incarcerated in the Lorton

complex, and either started or completed programming at the VoTech program.

Many of these individuals continue using the University as a

sounding board or as a resource to assist them in various areas,

such as verification of their prior training, certificate of self-completion of training, request for continuation of training, request for refresher training, and request for placement.

Recently we have renewed and re-energized our efforts to assist

in the transition of ex-offenders back into our communities. We are

active team members on the District of Columbia’s Just Us Transition from Prison to Community initiative, which we refer to as the

TPC initiative. The TPC initiative is a model that identifies and

promotes what we believe are evidence-based best practice that we

believe should be implemented in the following stages of transition

process.

One is certainly assessing and classifying new prison inmates,

developing and implementing transition plans for each inmate, releasing offenders from prison in a timely manner, providing community supervision and continuous support, responding to violations of release conditions, and discharging successful offenders

from supervision in a timely manner.

The University will continue to focus on ways in which it is possible to match our D.C. offenders with educational opportunity. We

are very much interested in working with the educational component of the reentry process and training process.

Additionally, in June of this year we were very fortunate to enter

into a partnership with the Justice Grants Administration with the

GEO Group at Rivers, Court Services and Offenders Agency, and

the Criminal Justice Council to implement what we believe is a

good program we refer to as the UDC or University of District of

Columbia Rivers Correctional Institution Reentry Program, a pilot

project that we refer to as D.C. REP.

The program is specifically focused on occupational skills enhancement and educational opportunities for ex-offenders returning

to the District of Columbia.

The D.C. REP program will provide pre-release occupational and

literacy assessments, skills enhancement exercise, and job readiness training to soon-to-be-released offenders serving at the Rivers

Correctional Institution and expecting to return back to our community here in Washington, DC. These continuous services will enable the offenders, upon release, to move directly into a certifiable

occupational training program, hopefully gain meaningful employability skills, and prepare them to become gainfully employed and

self-sufficient, which is our mutual goal.

The University, in cooperation with the American College Testing, Inc., Learning Centers and guided by the Department of Labor

Industry Standards, has developed a comprehensive pre-release

program that will enable returning offenders to acquire requisite

skills and attitudes for today’s job market, so that with the proper

occupational training they may enter the job market——

75

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Jackson, I have a Town Meeting, and it is supposed to begin at 6. I want to be sure we hear from everyone and

be able to ask just a question or two. Could I ask you to summarizes the rest of your testimony?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

In summary, let me say that we are prepared to work very aggressively with the community and all our partners to make sure

that our residents who are soon to be returning back to the community have the required support, whether it is training, job skills

readiness training, whether it is educational training, and whether

it is continuous wrap-around service so they can come back into

our society and become meaningful participants in our great city.

I think where we are right now, we believe that education is

truly a gap-filler, and what we want to do is to be that breach

filler. We want to be able to work with our partners, which is

CSOSA, DOES, and other agencies to make sure that we provide

our residents the greatest opportunity to succeed as they return

from incarceration back to their communities, and also become

meaningful participants and meaningful family members incorporated back into the global market of Washington, DC.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Charles Jones, program director for Project Empowerment

Program at the D.C. Department of Employment Services.

Mr. Jones, would you summarizes your testimony in 5 minutes

or less, please? I am sorry to have to rush us this way, but, as you

can perhaps understand, it was necessary to lay out on the record,

particularly given the commitments we got from the second panel,

what was required of those who had the ability to move this circumstance forward for our residents, but your testimony is very important to us. We have your written testimony. Please summarize

that testimony for us, Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES JONES

Mr. JONES. First of all I would like to begin by thanking the

members of the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to

present my assessment of transition employment services and programs for the District of Columbia ex-offenders.

I am Charles Jones, and I am the program director of the Project

Empowerment at the Department of Employment Services. My office currently oversees the transitional employment program [TEP],

an initiative that is helping District residents, 80 percent of them

who are ex-offenders, rebuild their lives and become productive citizens.

The Department of Employment Service Project Empowerment

office over the last 3 years has worked with offenders and have

partnered with CSOSA and UDC to assist in the successful transition of our participants, and we like to consider the ex-offenders in

our program as participants.

To summarize this, I would like to also say that at the Department of Employment Services we feel that we have achieved a

great deal of success in the face of the daunting challenges that

many of our participants are faced with; nevertheless, a journey toward success for the ex-offender is never easy.

Immediately upon release, most ex-offenders face the very real

obstacle of navigating a new environment complicated by significant economic, technological, and social changes. Just obtaining

basic necessities such as valid identification and access to health

care, employment, work clothing, and housing is usually quite overwhelming for our participants, yet all are essential for leading

functional lives and sustaining economic self-sufficiency.

If ex-offenders do not receive systemic rehabilitation services

that lead to social reintegration, employment, education, and housing, then communities will be left vulnerable to the cost of recidivist criminal activity.

A major factor in this challenge is adequate funding. Clearly the

prison system is not doing enough to prepare ex-offenders for survival in the outside world; consequently, many ex-offenders are left

unemployed, jobless, homeless, hopeless, even after going through

reentry programs.

We believe that prisons are positioned to successfully take on

these challenges. Prior to release, ex-offenders must be afforded access to the community and allowed access to prospective employers.

They must be afforded simulated workplace scenarios and mock

interviews to increase workplace familiarity. They must be proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53018.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
84

vided with intensive life skills development, relationship building,

anger management, and parenting skills.

Public or privately funded ex-offender reentry programs should

provide a continuation of those services, as well as access to an expanded network of community partnerships that provide support in

such areas as education, clothing, as well as financial. These type

of programs and services will give the ex-offender an excellent

chance at successful community reintegration.

Numerous research studies have suggested that pre-release reentry programs that involve transitional community services, such

as job training, job placement, and job retention services, as well

as supportive services such as substance abuse treatment, housing

assistance, will discourage recidivism and promote community reintegration.

I am convinced of this. Absent of a comprehensive, systematic,

and proven process to comprehensively address the needs of our exoffender population, which must begin prior to an ex-offender’s release from prison, the Washington, DC, metropolitan area must be

prepared to continue to deal with the human and financial costs of

recidivism and an ongoing threat to public safety.

Congresswoman Holmes Norton and members of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workplace, Postal Service, and District of Columbia, it has been an honor to appear before you today as an advocate for ex-offenders who want to lead productive lives and provide for their families.

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

85

86

87

88

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Our next witness is Phillip C. Holmes, vice president for program

development and public policy for Goodwill Industries for Central

Maryland and Eastern Shore.

Would you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less, Mr.

Holmes?

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP C. HOLMES

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Phil Holmes. I work for Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake out of Baltimore. I am vice president for program development and public policy. I am here today on behalf of Goodwill Industries International and, in particular, our Task Force on Reentry.

I have submitted my written testimony, and I just want to very

briefly stress three points.

One, there are effective, efficient, cost beneficial ways to return

men and women from prison back to our communities.

I want to, second, briefly talk to you about a reentry program we

have been operating since 2001 called our seats program.

And the third point I would like to make is something that has

happened throughout this hearing, and that is the stress on the recidivism rate and noting what these recidivism rates are.

My first point is that we have moved, thankfully, away from the

belief in our country that nothing works in rehabilitation of offenders, and we are finally back to recognizing that some things work.

We know from the literature that paid employment—and I want to

stress paid as opposed to forced employment through Prison Use

Industries—works in reducing recidivism. We know that you have

heard throughout today’s testimony that education classes work

and that pre-GED and GED classes work to reduce recidivism. We

know that vocational training works.

According to Edward Latessa, who has done meta research on

what works in reentry, he argues that cognitive restructuring counseling is the most effective thing we can do to prepare men and

women for release.

Moving to my second point, I would like to point out that we

have been, as a business, essentially running a reentry program in

Baltimore for the past 7 years, and the fact of the matter is fully

half of the men who come to us to help navigate the employment

system have some criminal justice system involvement, and fully

25 percent of the women. Sadly, this rate is increasing.

Our SETTS Program, Supporting Ex-Offenders in Training and

Transitional Services, has two components, and I haven’t heard

them discussed today. One is an in-reach component, where we go

inside the prisons and we recruit participants to get into a 4-week

readiness program. It is an intensive readiness program, and the

goal is to engage offenders in their last 3 to 6 months of incarceration.

We also assign a case manager, who literally is a guide to help

men and women when they leave prison navigate and make these

community connections that are so essential.

89

The contribution we are trying to make at Goodwill Industries is

helping people successfully navigate the labor market, get a job,

and keep a job.

We have, in the last 12 months ended June 30th, we helped 176

successfully complete this inside-the-fence component, and after

their release we helped 73 to gain employment, and an additional

27 individuals to gain subsidized employment. I stress that subsidy, because sometimes you need subsidized employment as an

initial way of getting people employed.

We also served 488 men and women who came to us from the

community who were released without our being able to work with

them inside the prison, and we helped 309 of those individuals to

gain unsubsidized, competitive employment, and an additional 30

others to gain subsidized employment.

We are striving to scale this program up because the State of

Maryland releases 13,000 men and women back to our communities every year, 9,000 to Baltimore City where I live.

My third and final point, Madam Chair, is simply that we need

to start asking our prison officials to report on their recidivism

rates. Until this is part of our public policy discussion, it is our belief that prison administrators won’t take the affirmative steps to

apply what really works in reducing recidivism.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Holmes.

Dennis Torbett has experience in the employment and work force

fields and with construction. I am going to ask him to summarize

your statement, Mr. Torbett, in 5 minutes or less.

Mr. Torbett is the vice president for workforce training and employment at the Home Builders Institute.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS TORBETT

Mr. TORBETT. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton and members

of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the work of

the Home Builders Institute to train offenders and ex-offenders for

successful careers in our industry. I am the vice president for workforce training and employment with the Home Builders Institute,

and we are the work force development arm for the National Association of Home Builders.

One of the most pressing problems facing our industry for many

years has been the shortage of skilled workers. Factors contributing to this shortage include increasing and record demand for

workers to build, remodel, renovate, and maintain our homes, retirements in our industry, and dwindling interest in the building

trades.

Compounding the problem has been insufficient training opportunities for those considering a career in the industry. The number

of construction career programs offered by high schools, post-secondary vocational schools, and community colleges has declined

dramatically over the past 25 years, and training through the public work force development investment system is very limited.

Well, according to BLS and our industry estimates, our Nation

will need to construct 18 million new homes to meet demand over

the next decade. That equates to creating more than 1 million new

jobs in our industry.

90

HBI has been training our industry’s labor force for more than

30 years, serving targeted populations, including adjudicated and

at-risk youth and adults, dislocated workers, and homeless veterans. Our programs put thousands to work in our industry, while

helping to rebuild lives.

Over the years, our programs and methodologies for offenders

and ex-offenders have been evaluated and shown to contribute to

lower recidivism and higher employment outcomes.

HBI has two main programs targeted for offenders and ex-offenders: a youth-oriented project craft and an adult-oriented project

trade. Both programs emphasize training and job placement in residential construction. They also work to promote successful transition into the community through education, employment, and social

services that promote reintegration and reduce recidivism.

The core of HBI’s training is the integration of work-base learning, combined with the program of vocational and academic skills.

Our curriculum combines work-based learning with workplace literacy and employability development. It also provides career advancement and increased wage earnings through a progression of

vocational training and learning programs. We provide 240 to 480

hours of instruction, coordinated with other treatment and education that includes trade skills, safety training, life skills, work

habits, and math and communication skills.

Intensive, hands-on training takes place at building sites made

available by community-based organizations, municipalities, and

home building and remodeling sites. There, trainees apply skills introduced in the classroom while working alongside professionals.

This type of learning has been very successful for our adult offender and ex-offender populations, increasing the likelihood of

them completing their training and gaining important life skills.

The program builds self-esteem and it provides opportunities for

students to help their communities through these projects.

Home Building Industry representatives helped us develop our

curriculum and they are also actively involved in planning, community work-based learning, training. job placement, support services,

and followup.

The collaboration addresses two critical barrier issues to prisoner

reentry: access to employment, and comprehensive wrap-around

services such as family reunification and housing.

Industry members also act as guest lecturers, offer job try-outs,

conduct information on mock interviews, and provide work-based

job readiness and employability training.

I would like to touch briefly on a couple of our active programs.

Project Craft in Nashville, which serves students from 18 to 24

years old, includes both a facility-based construction program as

well as a community-based construction training program. It is

funded by the Department of Labor’s Responsible Reintegration of

Youthful Offender program, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Over a 5-year period, 215 offenders enrolled in the program. Of

those, 85 percent were repeat offenders, yet 99 percent of those

graduating with a pre-apprenticeship certificate training certificate

were placed in jobs. More than 2 years after graduation, 25 were

still employed with their placement employer, and only 5 have been

newly convicted.

91

More than half, over 60 percent of those students, experienced at

least one grade level improvement or gain in reading and math. Although many may no longer be at their original place of post-training employment, we know that they have not returned to the judicial system, which is a significant achievement not to be overlooked.

Unfortunately, due to funding delays and government bureaucracy, HBI is in the process of closing down this very successful program.

Project Trade in Sheridan, IL, operated by the State Department

of Corrections, has implemented an innovative treatment approach

which includes vocational training. Since Project Trade Sheridan

opened its doors in 2004, 247 inmates have gone through their program, with 171, or 70 percent, receiving certificate in the building

trades.

In conclusion, these programs are specifically designed to serve

the offender population. It is not uncommon to have ex-offenders

enroll in other HBI training programs serving veterans or the

homeless. HBI works aggressively with all available resources to

provide information, programming, and educational opportunities

to those interested in starting a career in our industry.

We know that if you are a hard worker, have a skill, and a pathway to a good, long-term career in an industry full of opportunities,

you are less likely to return to criminal behavior.

We know that if you give someone a job he may quit tomorrow;

if you teach them a skill, they will have it for a lifetime.

Together, industry and government must ensure that there continue to be training programs available to these communities that

can train the needed workers to enter our industry. Programs such

as the ones I have described are key contributors to this goal, and,

much more, they build self-esteem. They empower the participants

and they can fundamentally change lives.

As you review the training and education programs that have

made a difference, I hope you will consider those that I have

shared with you today.

HBI and its partners in the residential construction industry and

the correctional systems that we work are convinced that our programs are making a difference in people’s lives.

Thank you, Congresswoman Norton, and to the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Torbett follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Torbett.

The final witness is Dr. James Austin, who has 30 years of experience in correctional planning and research. He currently is president of the JFA Institute, which is a research institution that provides technician assistance to States and agencies on prison population projection.

Particularly with the time problem I am facing, I am going to ask

you, Mr. Austin, to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes so we

can get at least a question or two asked of all the witnesses.

STATEMENT OF JAMES AUSTIN

Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.

Basically, I was asked to provide testimony because I did a study

recently for the U.S. Parole Commission of D.C. inmates who had

been released from the BOP. As such, it is the only recidivism

study that exists, although I might add, listening to the testimony,

the BOP is totally capable of producing the same study on a routine basis.

In particular, we looked at the extent to which D.C. inmates got

programs from the BOP and what impact they had on recidivism,

so all of the questions that have been asked could have been answered if people would look at the study, which you now have.

Here are the major findings:

No. 1, the D.C. inmates that are being sentenced and come out

of the BOP have much longer sentences and serve much longer

time in prison than other State inmates that you see in prison. I

want to emphasize this is a very important statistic that your inmates are serving about twice as long as other inmates in other

State prison systems.

A large reason for that was the sentencing code, but also the

practices and the policies of the U.S. Parole Commission, which I

am working with.

In terms of the recidivism rates, the recidivism rates of the D.C.

inmates are pretty typical of other State inmates. Most people don’t

understand this, but most inmates that go to prison do not come

back. About 60 percent never come back to prison again. There is

a large pool of prisoners, of the 7,000 that are locked up that are

D.C. inmates, a huge number of the BOP prisoners, who are very

low-risk and will never come back to prison again. What is interesting about this also is if you look at their rate of being arrested,

both before they went to prison and after, it is coming down significantly, a 60 percent drop. So the idea that recidivism rates are real

high and they are going higher is completely false. Just the opposite. They go much lower once a person goes through the prison

system.

The other important statistic that is very important is that no

matter how long you spend in prison—and this is important for

D.C. inmates because they have much longer time they are serving

compared to other inmates—there is no difference in recidivism

rates, so you are keeping very large numbers of prisoners in prison

longer than they need to be, and all the money that people talk

about for programs has already been funded. You are funding them

for that longer period of length of stay.

103

One of the reasons that we looked at the risk instrument that

the Commission used, that determines how long the D.C. inmates

serve on their indeterminate sentencing, and also on parole revocations. The factors they are using—and they now know this—are not

valid, so they are not predictive of recidivism, and they are not

valid because they don’t at the factors of inmates that are incarcerated, what we call dynamic factors. Are they doing programs? Getting older is a big one, and getting prepared for release.

We found a number of factors that do predict that, and if the

Commission were to use those, prisoners could be released sooner

and we would save a large amount of money without aggravating

public safety.

One other thing that is important is that for parole violators,

which they apply to all prisoners, their guidelines—I don’t know

where they came from, but the guidelines often require a prisoner

to serve more time on a technician parole violation than on the

original sentence. I want to repeat that: they can serve more time

on a technical, non-criminal behavior than on the original sentence.

So the recommendations that we have made to the Commission

and to the BOP and to the Department of Justice is change the

guidelines. This all can be done by administrative rule. It doesn’t

require a law of any kind. They need to stop using the factors that

they are using to keep people in for longer periods of time. They

never no predictive value at all.

Overall, Congress needs to look at this whole issue of length of

stay. When the BOP says that their recidivism rate has gone down

from 44 to 40, anyone who is a good researcher knows why that

is going on is because the length of stay has jumped dramatically

in the BOP. They are filled with prisoners that are low risk now,

and it is a much older population, and because age is such a predictor it has to come down, because we are keeping people in so long

now.

Finally, the U.S. Parole Commission needs to adopt new guidelines that take into account the behavior of the prisoner while they

are in the BOP. We found a number of factors that are good factors. By the way, we found most of the inmates did not get to participate in a program while they were incarcerated. Somewhere in

the ball park of 25 to 30 percent actually got into a program before

they got released. This is for people that were released in 2002.

Maybe it is a lot better now, but those coming out in 2002 did not

get into too many programs. Those that did and got Social Security

cards, got driver’s license, went through the reentry programs had

much lower recidivism rates.

It is very clear what we have to do, and it can all be done administratively. It doesn’t require any laws, but just people getting together and doing some things differently.

I have briefed the Commission. I must say the Commission has

new leadership with some good members on there that I know personally. They want to go forward. They are about to make that decision. I would urge this Commission to press the U.S. Parole Commission to go forward with these changes.

Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin follows:]

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS [presiding]. Well, thank you very much.

Ms. Norton, I know that you have to leave at 6, I understand,

so if you want to go ahead.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

I just have a question for each of the witnesses. They gave important testimony, and the written testimony is additionally very helpful to us.

Mr. Quander, did I understand that you are trying to put some

of the services that CSOSA now offers or directs people to out of

prison behind prison walls to give you an opportunity to prepare

people with those sources right there in the prison instead of waiting until they get out?

Mr. QUANDER. Yes. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We

are trying to be as proactive as we can, not only with the GEO

Group but with the University of the District of Columbia in partnership with putting some of those programs in the institution so

that the men there can take advantage of that.

Ms. NORTON. Can you tell us what programs would go into the

institution?

Mr. QUANDER. One is a preparedness program that the University of the District of Columbia is working on.

Ms. NORTON. That is a very important program, where they

evaluate the resident. I don’t regard that as a program. That is an

evaluation. It seems to me it is a critical mission that they have.

How about programs?

Mr. QUANDER. The other program that we are close to implementing is a carpentry training program that we have developed

in partnership with the Board of Prisons and with GEO and with

the Carpenters Union here in the District of Columbia. We wanted

skills for which men could get jobs when they get out. We are progressing to the point now where the Carpenters Union here has

been in contact with the Regional Carpenters Authority in the

North Carolina region. That Carpenters Union there is speaking

with the facility and with the Bureau so that they can know exactly what will be needed.

Ms. NORTON. That is very important because to work with the

Union you know they have to be certified, and we see the relationship there also, the need.

One final question on structure. You have been to Rivers a number of times.

Mr. QUANDER. I have been to Rivers.

Ms. NORTON. Do you find that the residents, the inmates in Rivers have a structured environment where they move every hour or

so from one activity to the other, and that all of them have at least

4 hours of work? Did you observe that to be the case?

Mr. QUANDER. I observed more individuals on the basketball and

playing fields than working or in class when I was there when I

visited.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. That was our observation, and we have

every reason to believe that is where most of them spend their

time. I actually talked with them and asked them what they did.

I am concerned that there was testimony that made it look as

though they have the same structured environment.

133

Mr. Jackson, your testimony listed an extraordinary number of

programs that at one time were provided when Lorton was open.

Then, of course, these inmates were spread all over the country.

We are grateful for the assessment idea. That was one of the

main ideas we wanted to have your testimony. But may I ask you

if there are specific kinds of courses. This is a college. This is a university. In fact, there is an affiliation with a college down there, I

guess, to get the HVAC program where somebody there went and

got a Federal grant.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. I wondered whether or not you know of professors

at UDC who are prepared to ask to seek similar Federal grants so

that some of the offerings of UDC could be made, as you apparently

made them before, including college courses?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. I think that is exactly what we are doing. The

whole first phase was the assessment phase. Once we do that, then

we develop the individual performance plans or development plans

based on the client’s expected desire for an occupational opportunity when he or she returns from incarceration. So what we do

with the initial tranche is to do the evaluation, identify what their

desires are when they leave prison, what kind of industry or sector

they would like to get in, and then provide them with a menu of

training and services to get them to that entry level.

In addition to what we are doing, which is a new feature, we are

actually, as part of our challenge, meeting with employers in the

region. We recognize that this is a regional experience in terms of

when our residents come back here, that they need to be employed,

what the opportunities are throughout our region. So right now one

of the challenges of the director of the program is to work with employers to find out their willingness to work with us and to hire

our employees or our residents that are coming out of the facility.

What we do is also educate them about how we can mitigate

their risk by offering them a bonding program which basically

hedges their risk against any loss or theft occurring from the hiring

of any one of our ex-offenders, and we also have incentives from

the tax side, as well. There are tax breaks in place.

Ms. NORTON. If such a program were put together, I would recommend that you partner with somebody like Goodwill who, in

fact, has done this, knows how to do this. Home Builders have done

it, know how to do it. Because I think it is very difficult. In fact,

Mr. Jones, we are aware that DOES faces a huge challenge.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. It is often hearings in the District of Columbia

about the challenge you face in placing ordinary, average D.C. residents, no record, simply want a job. Apparently DOES has a huge

problem with that. I, therefore, don’t envy what you face when we

dump on you some ex-offenders and say, Now go do the same for

them.

I understand that you have a backlog, but most of your testimony was about ex-offenders in general. How are you able to place?

You say here that in the program now you have 724 active ex-offenders, 420 are currently employed, others involved in work-related activities. Well, that is a lot of folks. How were you able? I

134

mean, I am not sure that is your record among the ordinary, average people, so I must ask you where are these people employed?

Mr. JONES. The good thing is that the District is very open to

hiring residents of our community, and one of the things that we

offer is transitional employment, which is subsidized employment,

because we know——

Ms. NORTON. Excellent.

Mr. JONES [continuing]. That it is very important that once a

participant is in our program, that they are automatically working

somewhere, because there is a statistic that shows that if they are

not working after 90 or 180 days, they will usually go back to what

they have done before.

So many of our participants are in a transitional job, and many

of our employers. The truth of the matter is that many times employers want someone who is going to show up on time, and definitely skill set is an issue, but part of the reason that they are in

the training is so that they can gain those skills.

This program, in my mind, is somewhat unique because we also

offer occupational skills training. With occupational skills training,

we are actually paying our participants while they are in training.

Adult based ed and GED classes, our participants are able to work

3 days a week and go to school 2 days a week and continue to be

paid as if they are working, because we definitely understand that

there is a connection between education and employment, and,

more specifically, a career.

We want to make sure that our participants have all that they

need, and that is why the numbers are great, because, again, it is

not just about unsubsidized employment; it is about transitional

jobs, because again that is very important. And keeping them engaged in an activity, that is important.

You mentioned earlier about those who may be incarcerated just

sitting around, opposed to someone saying you have to be busy.

That is what we do. We keep them engaged in an activity, which

in my mind definitely reduces recidivism.

Ms. NORTON. I was going to ask you, Mr. Jones—you didn’t lay

it out in your testimony—it is very important what you just said

how the city, itself, reaches out and becomes the employer of first

resort, giving the ex-offender a record of employment, which is the

most valuable thing you can possibly have. It sounds like a very

good program. I must say I understand why this rate is as good

as it is, and the fact that it is subsidized, it is worth it to the taxpayers of the District of Columbia to do exactly what you are doing.

Indeed, I want to ask Mr. Holmes, you seemed to indicate some

of your work, first of all, some of it you go into the prisons 3 to

6 months—I think it was you, Mr. Holmes—3 to 6 months, and you

spoke of subsidies. Does Goodwill subsidize in the transition some

of these employees? For example, Mr. Robinson comes in. He said

he told you all straight out he had been convicted of a violent felony, and yet you gave him a chance. What made you do that? Do

you have to subsidize? And do you find is that the way you do it?

How do you get somebody to take a man who spent a lot of his life

in prison, comes out, and comes to you and says, I want a job?

Mr. HOLMES. Delegate Norton, I would love to take credit for his

employment. He was employed by the Greater D.C. Goodwill.

135

Ms. NORTON. I am asking about Goodwill. I am not asking about

Maryland in particular, I am just saying with a man like that

whose record is long and deep, unlike the other young man who sat

beside him, and I want to know if a man like that is employed who

is being subsidized, because I know you don’t go into the Federal

prisons ahead of time, so I wonder how you are able to take a person like that who would normally have a tough time in the market

and get him to the point now where he thinks he can go on and

find a job outside of Goodwill Industries.

Mr. HOLMES. Our business preference is to help a person gain

unsubsidized, full-time employment.

Ms. NORTON. But is he subsidized for the time he is in Goodwill?

Mr. HOLMES. If, in order to attach somebody to the labor market,

we need to offer a subsidy, then that is a business practice we

have. You said it very well earlier: 3, 6, 12 months of regular employment, giving value to an employer, showing up on time, taking

supervision, being part of a team makes you employable in other

ways, and employers will start to overlook things in your background.

Ms. NORTON. You know, one of the things people have to do, I

don’t know if the Second Chance Act provides for subsidized employment, but that is one of the most valuable pieces of information

I think that has come out of this. How do you get over it? Why

should somebody hire a felon if standing next to him is somebody

who doesn’t have a felony record? What is the incentive?

Mr. Chairman, if it doesn’t——

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All of those concepts are, indeed, a part

of the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. That impresses me that

might really work.

I have to ask Mr. Torbett, we see that there was an incentive for

Home Builders here because, as you say, this is tough work, and

we have a soft generation, if you will forgive me. This is high-paying work, but people don’t, as readily as their fathers and grandfathers, go into these high-paying jobs. You have to be out there

in the heat of the day and you have to be out there when it is pretty cold. So first you have a shortage. But why should an ex-offender who certainly hasn’t been exposed to those kind of rigors

be—what accounts for your success?

Mr. TORBETT. Well, we expose them to those rigors of working in

the industry because they work on work-based learning projects.

We treat the training as if it were a job, so we prepare them to

go to work. What makes it so——

Ms. NORTON. Are you also subsidized?

Mr. TORBETT. We are contracted to run our program, and our

program is job training and job placement, and the job placement

is matched up with the home building industry that desperately

needs people right now. So in terms of the participant or the student, we would like for them to market themselves with assets.

Yes, they have some deficits, but they certainly have some assets.

One, they have completed an industry-sponsored program. They get

a certificate that is recognized and validated by the home building

industry.

Ms. NORTON. That, in itself, is very valuable.

136

Mr. TORBETT. It is an extremely important marketing tool for

them to get a job. They come out of our programs with tools, a

starter tool kit worth about $200 that they are able to use to go

to work, get ready to go to work.

We recognize that we do a very good job in construction training,

but we also like to partner with other groups so there are some accompanying services to help that person become successful.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Finally, Mr. Austin, I am going to ask the chairman for another

hearing. You raise very complicated issues that go to changes in

statutory law that I think may or may not be required, but I would

like to ask you about an idea that is apparently already underway,

initiated by former Chief of Police Fullwood, who is now a parole

commissioner on the U.S. Parole Board, so-called re-vocating people

back.

We have some horror stories out here about people who have

been out for 5 years, and one dirty urine, maybe some marijuana

or something, and so they are back after already showing they can

hold a job, let us say, for a number of years. No credit for that

time.

Mr. AUSTIN. Right.

Ms. NORTON. That is enough to break anybody’s spirit.

Mr. AUSTIN. Right.

Ms. NORTON. What he is doing, apparently, is sanctioning people,

putting sanctions on them so that if you meet these sanctions then

you will not be re-vocated to prison, lose all your street time, which

we are going to try to correct, but in effect that is what it is today.

Do you know about that?

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. Very familiar with this, and it is a step. Again,

there are some new Commissioners at the Parole Commission that

are really moving ahead on very progressive stuff.

It is very clear, from a number of States, that we can do things

differently with folks on these technical violations. One is what he

is doing, which is to keep them out, but the other thing I want to

emphasize is, again—and this is happening in a lot of States, but

some States are getting away from this—you go back into the prison system and you start all over again almost on a technical violation. That technical violation can break, as you said, break the person. They lose their job, they lose their rental deposits, all that

stuff they lose. A lot of States are giving very quick hits now—2

weeks, 4 weeks. What we are finding through the research, that is

just as effective, if not more effective, than bringing them in for

several months.

This is a very expensive, ineffective policy. I would dare say if

you look at it carefully all the program money you want is in this

practice. If you were to stop this practice, you would have more

than enough program money. You could fund anything you want.

So I take the position there is more than enough money being

spent; we are just not spending it very smartly, from an evidencebased, research-based perspective.

I would be glad to work with you and anyone else on crafting

what that would look like, and it is stuff that other States are

doing. D.C. is really behind the times on this.

137

I am a D.C. resident, and I was shocked at looking at the length

of stay of the D.C. prisoner. It is so far out of line with the rest

of the country, it is horrific.

Ms. NORTON. And we think some of that can be corrected, but I

must say your suggestion that—and I can understand it as an alternative. Let them take a hit for a week or two. I just think you

disconnect. The employer sees that there has been, for whatever

reason, even a minor reason, an infraction. It is one thing for somebody who has never had a record to have a minor infraction and

to go away for a week or two.

Mr. AUSTIN. Right.

Ms. NORTON. But I just think that unless that employee has

proved very valuable—and a lot of people are in fairly entry-level

jobs—that the sanction idea, you will do X, Y, and Z, as I think Parole Commissioner Fullwood has it, at least keeps this man saying,

thank goodness I do not have to give up a job that was so hard for

me to get.

I am really wondering whether any incarceration should be the

first thing you try.

Mr. AUSTIN. Let me just clarify. The way it is supposed to be

done and the way it is done in other States, if you are low risk,

which means you are unlikely to get involved in criminal conduct,

you don’t come back into the system. The high-risk person, the person that is likely to go out and commit a crime, you have to get

their attention.

I think the other side of this is that if you don’t do something

with that high-risk person and they go out and kill someone—look

at Connecticut and you can see what has happened in Connecticut—it will bring the whole system down.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Those are not the ones.

The ones that we are dealing with are so heartbreaking in D.C.

First of all, most of these guys are low risk. You know, I don’t know

about other places, but most of our felons are drug-related felons.

Most of them are in there. They are low-level drug peddlers. They

may even have done an armed robbery, but in that case there is

a different case. But the countless heartbreaking stories of people

who for a dirty urine then lose everything back in the can——

Mr. AUSTIN. I agree with what you are saying. I do not disagree

at all.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, may I thank you, because I know that this has

been a much longer hearing than you anticipated, but it has been

extremely important.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just ask a couple of questions.

Ms. NORTON. Please excuse me, because I am 10 minutes late for

my 6 town meeting. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right. Thank you very much.

Many of your experiences seem to be much better than experiences of people around the country relative to job placement and

the ability of ex-offenders to actually gain employment. There are

many places where it is virtually almost impossible because there

are barriers that just simply exist. You can’t hire at this location,

you can’t hire at this place. Many employers just simply have strict

138

policies that simply say we don’t hire people with felony convictions.

I am trying to figure out what is it about the environment that

is providing opportunity for the kind of success that I am hearing

that sounds much better than what I hear in most places throughout the country, especially in most large urban cities where the biggest part of the problem really exists.

So what I am trying to find out: is it because perhaps there has

been so much activity or that the environment is a little different?

For example, in my State just a couple of years ago there were 59

job titles that a person with a felony conviction could not hold that

were licensed by the State, such as cutting hair or painting nails

or you couldn’t work in any facility at all where health care was

being provided, not only in it, but you couldn’t work on the

grounds. Of course, you couldn’t be any kind of professional. You

couldn’t be a doctor or lawyer or nurse or school teacher or you

couldn’t be a plumber. You couldn’t get a license to be a plumber.

What I am hearing sounds fairly decent in terms of job placement.

Mr. JONES. Chairman Davis, if I can speak, I think for us in the

District it is hard. I mean, it is hard. There is nothing easy. Again,

as I mentioned, one of the things that has been very helpful for us

is that the subsidized employment has been very helpful and the

District has been really good about assisting those ex-offenders find

employment in reference to public works and some of the agencies

that we work with have a pretty good staff that actually go out,

and not just in D.C. The truth of the matter is that for all the Federal Government agencies it is very hard to place people in our program, so we are actually out in Maryland and Virginia in maintenance working with apartment complexes, and again the subsidized employment is very, very helpful to us because many of the

employers decide to give us an opportunity.

I think with Project Empowerment and the program from the

District’s point of view, job coaches also are very important, and

those are the support that all of our participants receive, and that

is someone actually going on their work site. Sometimes you get

employers that would say, You know something? I do a lot better

with your participant more so than someone just walking off the

street.

I think it is about support. Again, we definitely recognize it is

not easy, and for us it is really just trying to engage our participants in activities such as GED prep, adult basic ed, to give them

hope and opportunity, because we recognize that is important. Just

a little bit of hope will take you a long way, and that has been

helpful for us.

Again, it isn’t easy and we continue to work hard and try to

knock down some of those walls when it comes to our participants.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Is much of the subsidy local, or is the

subsidy basically Federal subsidies that come from programs from

Department of Labor or Housing and Urban Development?

Mr. JONES. Well, you know, for us, the Department of Employment Services, when there was the welfare to work program it was

actually Federal. The District, our funding is actually local.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. But there is some local subsidies also?

139

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I think the other thing is

that what we have here is tremendous collaboration that we have

seen emerge over the years between not just DOES and not just

CSOSA, but our whole educational continuum, and what we try to

do is not simply work with the client while he or she is incarcerated, but we want to work with them when they reenter back into

society, and continue to be that buffer to provide them with continuous support.

What we have also found is that even after they are gainfully

employed a lot of them are coming back to real challenging experiences, and so you have to have what I call that safety net of continuing support services where they can reach out and gain support.

So I think part of what we have here is two things. One is that

we have had truly a robust economic market in this region here,

which has led to a lot of job growth over the last 10 years. We are

averaging about 20,000 new jobs a year, and so what we have been

very aggressively doing is going after employers who are looking at

entry-level opportunities. As we are going through doing the assessment skill training and the occupational skill training, we are

also providing them with a lot of tailored kind of training for specific industries that they have expressed an interest in working

with CSOSA and working with DOES and our other partners.

We have had some success in placing some of our hard-to-employ

residents who are returning back to the city. It is not an easy job.

It is one that we have to go after every day continuously.

The good thing is that we have now pre-screened some employers

who have at least given us some verbal commitments to hire some

of our returning offenders if they meet a certain threshold of qualifications.

Mr. QUANDER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the issue that you identify as legislation that was barring returning offenders from certain

professions, we identified that early on as a barrier, and, as other

members of this panel have suggested, we worked with a number

of partners, and one of those partners that we worked with was the

City Council of the District of Columbia. We asked them to take

a look at that legislation and, in fact, they did, and they modified

the language and removed a number of the barriers for certain positions such as barbering and beauticians and other sorts of positions, just as you have indicated.

One of the other areas that we have really worked with our partners in the Department of Motor Vehicles is we take for granted

the ability of returning offenders to have any type of identification.

They don’t have any, and without that identification you are not

going to get a job. So we have been able to work with the Department of Motor Vehicles so that they can get a non-driver’s identification, and if they apply for it within 30 days the fee is waived.

We are doing some of the verification that the Department needs

as far as name, address, Social Security number, because oftentimes they lose their papers.

The other thing that Mr. Jones mentioned is skill sets. Our offenders can get a job; the question is: can they maintain it and

140

then buildupon it? We need to utilize services such as job coaches

and others to enhance our ability to do that.

The fourth thing that leads us back to our premise is that our

guys need to get as much education, job skills, other things that

will enhance their abilities to get and maintain a job while they are

sitting in a prison.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Torbett.

Mr. TORBETT. Mr. Chairman, working for the home building industry, we have the luxury of working with an industry that may

have traditionally been more accepting of the offender populations,

so we have an in-road with the employers who are members of our

association, and that helps us out. Plus, they know about what we

do, so they support us. Workforce development is our mission, and

finding a skilled labor force has been one of the top business priorities over the past several years.

From a programmatic standpoint, to concur with Mr. Jones and

the last gentleman who spoke, we hire professional staff who know

what job development and job placement is all about. Essentially

what they are is sales people. You have to instill in them that the

product that they are selling are people with skills and abilities

and assets that can help an employer make money.

So it is having dedicated, committed professional staff with an

industry that needs people is I guess our secret to our success.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I thank you very much. I was very

interested in some of the comments that Mr. Austin had made relative to the length of stay and time that I think oftentimes is wasted, especially after individuals have been incarcerated for a long

period of time and have also reached certain levels of maturation

that in all probability reduces them in terms of any kind of risk.

Yet, we are continuing to hold them. I think, in terms of reform,

that, too, is one of the areas that we seriously need to look at.

Let me just thank all of you for the patience that you have displayed this afternoon. We have been here for a long time, but I

think the information that you have shared, even though we were

talking principally about the District of Columbia, in a sense it

mirrors the entire country, and so we were talking about problems

that affect in a serious way the whole country, as well as our corrections system, and even beyond that, our criminal justice system,

and even beyond that our sense of what is justice in our country.

I appreciate you very much.

While I am at it, let me also thank our staff, who have labored

long and hard to put together the information that is needed and

have caused this hearing to take place.

I thank all of you for coming. This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ