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

46–110 PDF 2009

ADVANCEMENTS AND CONTINUAL CHALLENGES IN

THE PAROLE, SUPERVISED RELEASE AND REVOCATION OF D.C. CODE OFFENDERS

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

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 11, 2008

Serial No. 110–106

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

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

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, 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 March 11, 2008 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Brown, Tyrone, previously incarcerated, Hope Village Residential Reentry

Center; and Anthony Cunningham, previously incarcerated .................... 10

Brown, Tyrone ........................................................................................... 10

Cunningham, Anthony .............................................................................. 11

King, Rufus G., III, chief judge, D.C. Superior Court; and Betty Ballester,

president, D.C. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association ....................... 94

Ballester, Betty .......................................................................................... 102

King, Rufus G., III .................................................................................... 94

Quander, Paul, director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;

Chief Isaac Fulwood, commissioner of the U.S. Parole Commission;

Avis E. Buchanan, director, Public Defender Service for the District

of Columbia; and James Austin, Ph.D., president, the JFA Institute ...... 20

Austin, James ............................................................................................ 59

Buchanan, Avis E. ..................................................................................... 39

Fulwood, Chief Isaac ................................................................................. 32

Quander, Paul ............................................................................................ 20

Snyder, George, warden, Rivers Correctional Institution ............................. 81

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

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

of ..................................................................................................................... 62

Ballester, Betty, president, D.C. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 103

Buchanan, Avis E., director, Public Defender Service for the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 41

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

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Fulwood, Chief Isaac, commissioner of the U.S. Parole Commission, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 35

King, Rufus G., III, chief judge, D.C. Superior Court, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 97

Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, prepared statement of .................................................................. 7

Quander, Paul, director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 23

Snyder, George, warden, Rivers Correctional Institution, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 84

(1)

ADVANCEMENTS AND CONTINUAL CHALLENGES IN THE PAROLE, SUPERVISED RELEASE AND REVOCATION OF D.C. CODE OFFENDERS

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008

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, Norton, Cummings,

Kucinich, and Marchant.

Staff present: Tania Shand, staff director; William Miles, professional staff member; Lori J. Hayman, counsel; LaKeshia N. Myers,

clerk; Howie Denis, minority senior professional staff member; Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.

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

Welcome Ranking Member Marchant, members of the subcommittee, and hearing witnesses, and all of those in attendance.

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

of Columbia Subcommittee hearing on Advancements and Continued Challenges in the Parole, Supervised Release and Revocation

of D.C. Code offenders. The hearing will examine how the National

Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of

1997 is being implemented with respect to the District’s parole, supervised release, and revocation systems. We will seek to determine whether the changes made have been positive and whether

additional changes are warranted.

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 say to all of you good afternoon, welcome to today’s hearing to

examine the advancements and challenges in the parole, supervised release, and revocation of D.C. Code offenders post-enactment

of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, often referred to as the Revitalization Act.

As many of us here today are aware, policymakers are working

to find solutions and the means for improving the transition of exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
2

offenders back into society, thereby enhancing public safety. It is

an issue that had long been ignored, but in recent years has received increased public and congressional attention.

In fact, just recently the Pew Center on the States issued a report on the Nation’s alarmingly high incarceration rates and found

that more than 1 in 100 adult Americans are in jail or prison,

which is an all-time high. The report also discovered that 1 in 9

Black men aged 20 to 34 is behind bars, and for Black women aged

35 to 39, the figure is 1 in 100, compared with 1 in 355 for White

women in the same age group. Clearly, we have a great deal of

work ahead of us in this policy area.

Ensuring the success for transition from confinement to community has long been a chief policy concern of mine, which is why I

have been pushing so hard for consideration and passage of my bill,

H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act. This piece of legislation would

promote ex-offender reentry reforms by employing a comprehensive

Government-led approach to eliminating barriers to reintegration

for those coming out of prison and increasing access to critical transitional services for ex-offenders.

The goal behind the Second Chance Act is to close the revolving

door of ex-offenders going in and out of incarceration by providing

additional funding opportunities that would assist with mentoring

and housing. It is my hope that the Second Chance Act will become

law soon so that we can begin to deliver to communities and cities,

such as the District of Columbia, the additional resources they

need to support the successful reentry of ex-offenders.

Since adoption of the Revitalization Act and the massive restructuring of D.C.’s criminal justice system, a host of new policies, procedures, programs, and partnerships have been developed for the

purpose of improving public safety in the District of Columbia. The

Revitalization Act sought to reduce recidivism among D.C. Code offenders and to enhance the city’s strategies for increasing public

safety. Ten years after enactment of the Revitalization Act, the District now serves as an example for countless other localities grappling with implementing effective felon reentry systems and practices.

The ex-offenders in the District of Columbia, like ex-offenders

throughout the Nation, face tremendous barriers, such as poor

physical and mental health, homelessness, lack of education or employment opportunities, drug and alcohol dependency, and in their

transition from prison to society, these conditions often result in

ex-offenders being rearrested or having their parole or supervised

release revoked, the very outcome that we are fighting to prevent.

It is estimated that every year nearly 2,500 ex-offenders return

to the District after completing their sentences. This is an average

of five ex-offenders per day. Further, it is believed that as many

as 60,000 D.C. residents are felons. Although these statistics may

be somewhat disheartening, what is encouraging are the persons,

organizations, and government agencies that work around the clock

to assist the ex-offender population with their reentry into society.

It is my hope that today’s hearing will provide us an opportunity

to discuss the current challenges and solutions to offender reentry

in the District. Today’s hearing will also examine the progress Rivers Correctional Institution has made in implementing pre-release

3

programs and two pending legislative measures pertaining to the

D.C. courts and the administration of judicial proceedings.

I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor

Holmes Norton, for her tireless work in this policy area.

I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the Council for

Court Excellence, Phillippa Fornasea of the D.C. Prisoner Project,

and the statement of Tene Dolphin, chief of staff to Mayor Adrian

Fenty, be entered into the record.

I thank you all and look forward to hearing testimony from today’s witnesses.

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

4

5

6

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Now I would like to yield to the ranking

member of this subcommittee, the Honorable Mr. Marchant.

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

holding this hearing today on the status of the offender supervision

program in the District of Columbia.

Ten years ago, as part of the National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Act, the Federal Government assumed control over the District of Columbia’s court and criminal

justice systems. Too often, Congress enacts legislation but then

never takes the time to assess where the legislation actually had

a beneficial impact on the issue it was enacted to resolve; therefore,

I applaud the chairman for taking the time to look at the progress

made over the past decade to determine whether additional adjustments are necessary.

It is important for this subcommittee to exercise its oversight of

how the D.C. parole, supervised release, and revocation functions

are working.

All of our panelists today are in some way on the front lines of

our efforts to supervise offenders and reintegrate them back into

our society. I look forward to hearing from each of the panelists

and what they believe are some of the biggest challenges facing the

District’s criminal justice system. This information will hopefully

help us ensure our offender supervisory programs, that they are as

effective as possible, both here in the Nation’s Capital as well as

in the Nation, at large.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Kenny Marchant follows:]

7

8

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

Member.

Representative Norton, do you have any comments?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Chairman Danny Davis for his willingness to do

continuing oversight of the transfer of an entire State prison system to the Federal Government’s Bureau of Prisons for the first

time in U.S. history. Federal jurisdiction of D.C. prison inmates, reentry services, and parole fit nicely with the Chair’s own pathbreaking leadership on inmate reentry issues.

Chairman Davis’ persistent and pioneering work as lead sponsor

of the bipartisan Second Chance Act, which I was pleased to cosponsor, led to House passage in November.

I had requested a continuing set of hearings that are particularly

necessary now because the BOP, the Court Services and Offender

Supervision Agency, and the U.S. Parole Commission have been operating for a decade under the National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 without the necessary

and expected oversight from the committee of jurisdiction. A great

deal is at stake, beginning with what ex-offenders do with the rest

of their often young lives, but much more, as well.

Big city crime is often fed by ex-offenders who come to prison

from the most desperate and deprived layers of society and, ironically, may get their first chance in life behind prison bars or

through a reentry program. Beyond the victims of crime, other victims quickly multiply, to include especially the children and families of ex-offenders.

Thus far, subcommittee staff, my staff, and I have visited Rivers

Correctional Institution in Winston, NC, and the BOP Facility for

Men at Cumberland, MD. This spring we will visit a facility housing D.C. female inmates and will seek the first hearing on D.C.

women in BOP facilities.

Perhaps the most difficult issue resulting from the transfer of

local jurisdiction to Federal authorities is the present location of

7,000 D.C. prisoners incredibly at 75 different facilities in 33

States, contrary to the intent of the Revitalization Act, which

sought to afford close proximity of District prisoners to the District

in keeping with undisputed penology.

Prisoners who have not laid eyes on their relatives or children,

their minister, or caring friends return to civil society burdened

and handicapped, not only by absence but by distance, confounding

successful reentry.

I will shortly be presenting some ideas for corrective action to

BOP officials and will seek to work with them toward a solution.

The first hearing on D.C. inmates since transfer to Federal authorities occurred in October, resulting from our initial investigation, showed that D.C. prisoners did not always have access to

services equal to those offered other inmates at BOP facilities. We

appreciate the rapid response to the October hearing by BOP Director Harley Lapin and the important changes that have resulted.

We welcome Rivers’ Warden, George Snyder, who will testify today

regarding the status of the issues addressed at that hearing, particularly the creation of a state-of-the-art drug rehabilitation proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
9

gram coming to Rivers patterned on the well-regarded program

available at BOP facilities, and new job-related training programs.

However, with the goals of the first hearing for D.C. prisoners

behind bars in sight, the major purpose of today’s hearing is to review Federal policy and responsibility upon release for ex-offenders. We seek answers to a number of troubling questions. For example, do D.C. prisoners serve longer sentences for comparable

crimes than prisoners elsewhere in the United States? If so, why?

And are such sentences justified?

Are there specific standards for sending a parolee back to prison

by revoking parole, such as the nature of the offense, current employment, payment of child support, and the like?

What is the purpose of denying credit for so-called street time or

time spent after release without infractions?

What is the effect of parole revocation for minor infractions on

employment of the ex-offender?

Does the U.S. Parole Commission operate on a zero-tolerance policy, even for minor infractions? And, if so, under what statutory authority?

Have the parole revocation policies of the Parole Commission had

the appropriate deterrent effect, or is this policy counter-productive?

Were the policies now in use intended by the Revitalization Act

of 1997?

Are such policies in keeping with the considerable investment

Federal taxpayers make in CSOSA to facilitate reentry, or in inmates, themselves, who participate in the best job training and

drug rehabilitation services offered by any prison system in the

world, with the goal of preventing recidivism?

In short, are these policies in the best interest of the District of

Columbia residents, of inmates, of their families? Who do they

serve?

We look forward to the testimony of U.S. Parole Commissioner

Isaac Fulwood, Jr., former Metropolitan Police Department Chief,

for the considerable insights and experiences he brings to the

issues before us today. We welcome Tyrone Brown, an ex-offender

who got his GED while incarcerated, remained crime free, but was

returned to prison while on parole for minor infractions, and, as a

result, lost his street time.

I ask unanimous consent also to receive the testimony of Anthony Cunningham, a barber who had the benefit of a new alternative system of sanctions instead of being re-incarcerated. Paul

Quander, director of Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency; Avis Buchanan, director, Public Defender Services for the

District of Columbia; and James Austin, an expert on D.C. prison

and parole issues, who will present findings from a report addressing the matters at issue.

We also are pleased to receive testimony from Chief Judge Rufus

King concerning a bill to increase the number of Superior Court

judges, as well as Betty Ballester, esq., regarding an increase in

the hourly rates of lawyers who are appointed by the Superior

Court to represent indigent defendants.

I very much appreciate the graciousness of the Chair in moving

forward with yet another hearing on these issues.

10

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Delegate Norton.

Without objection, Mr. Cunningham would be permitted to testify

and have his testimony entered into the record.

Mr. Cummings, do you have a statement?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement in

writing. Thank you.

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

We would like to ask if our first panel would be seated: Mr. Tyrone Brown and Mr. Anthony Cunningham.

Mr. Tyrone Brown is a 23-year-old D.C. Code offender who recently returned to the community after having his parole revoked.

While incarcerated, Mr. Brown was able to earn his GED, as well

as obtain a professional plumbing certificate. Tyrone is currently

employed and is a resident of the Hope Village Residential Reentry

Center.

Welcome, Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.

Mr. Anthony Cunningham is a licensed barber in the District of

Columbia and a D.C. Code offender. Mr. Cunningham would have

had his parole revoked and lost credit for his street time over a

minor infraction; instead, he participated in an alternative system

involving reprimands, sanctions, that kept him from being returned

to prison.

Gentlemen, let me thank both of you.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in,

so if you would join me in standing and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

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

answered in the affirmative.

Gentlemen, your entire statement is already included in the

record. We ask that you take 5 minutes and summarize what you

have to say.

The green light that is there is an indicator of the time. The

green light indicates that you have 5 minutes. When it gets down

to yellow that indicates that you have a minute left, and we ask

you to summarizes and sum up. And then, of course, the red light

means the same as a red light, I guess, out on the street, that you

are supposed to stop.

So thank you very much. We are delighted that you are here. We

will begin with Mr. Brown.

STATEMENTS OF TYRONE BROWN, PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED, HOPE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER; AND

ANTHONY CUNNINGHAM, PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED

STATEMENT OF TYRONE BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I think I made parole 2003, and from 2003 to now

I was sent back for violation, minor violations. My street time was

took. Every time I violated, I was working and had my own place.

They took that. You know, they just snatched all that from me. I

feel as though it is like a triple jeopardy, you know, because while

they have taken our street time, it is like we will never get off parole. It just constantly go up. I feel as though that ain’t right for

us. Rivers, they got a lot of programs at Rivers, but it ain’t going

to do enough for nobody that is like me that is already got a GED,

11

and some of their programs, it is more like you got to fit a criteria

to get it, like they got an HVAC class up there. I think it was 18

to 24 you got it. That is the only way you could get in. I’m 30, 31,

32, so that was, like, a bummer right there.

As far as revocation hearings, when you go in in front of them,

you are saying that you got a job, you got a place that you don’t

want to lose this. All right, I caught a dirty urine, but is there another way of, you know, trying to correct the solution. I don’t think

no one giving us jail time is going to change nothing, you know.

I mean, I got an addiction. It is a disease. Jail time shouldn’t be

the solution of it. We should find another way of going, because

people got family, jobs.

I understand I violated, but it is got to be a better way. I think

so.

That is basically it, what I have to say.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. We will have some

questions after Mr. Cunningham finishes.

Mr. Cunningham, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. How you doing? I remember my first time I

had been incarcerated. That was back in 1985. Back then they had

a lot of programs where you were able to go to to get all the benefit

that you really wanted. That is how I got my first barber license.

During the previous time, come out, I was doing good after doing

my 2-year sentence.

I went straight from 1987 all the way to 2001. I committed another crime and was back incarcerated. And the last time I remembered that, you know, where I continue on to do the things I used

to do. So after doing a 3-year sentence to 2001 I came home, got

back on the right path, and doing the things that I really needed

to do at that particular time.

The program, when I went back out and did something I had no

business doing, and I was getting back, getting high, instead of

sending me back to prison they sent me to a program, and I was

an outpatient, and I had to go there.

The program was a really good program and it helped me and

made me realize some of the things I really wanted to do. If you

are really into that program, you really have to want it and not be,

you know, a person that thinks that you can do what you really

wanted to do.

I’m kind of nervous, so excuse me.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That is all right. We all were.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The program is a regular program. They also

have an after-program where you go into an outpatient program if

they feel that you are not ready. The program really helps you out,

it really gives you the good benefit to get back on the right track.

That is what happened to me. I was just on the edge of losing my

job, being back incarcerated, and not able to do the things I needed

to do for my kid, so that was the most important thing to me. After

the death of my grandmother and my grandfather, it was a shock

to me, so I had to do something way different from the things I

used to do back in the past.

12

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right. Thank you both. Thank you

very much.

Let me ask you, Mr. Brown, what were you incarcerated for?

Mr. BROWN. I was incarcerated for aggravated assault, 1997.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And how long were you incarcerated?

Mr. BROWN. Five years.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And what was done to help you while you

were in prison?

Mr. BROWN. Of course, through the 5-years I had anger management programs, several of them, and, like I said, they had GED

programs, and I got my GED while I was there.

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

school?

Mr. BROWN. Seventh grade.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you dropped out at seventh grade?

Mr. BROWN. I passed to the eighth. Never went.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You passed to the eighth and never went.

What caused, if you remember, you to drop out at that point?

Mr. BROWN. I was running the streets.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. What, at 13, 14?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, 13, 14, running the streets. I was in and out

of foster care. Yes, just hanging around, just hanging out in the

streets.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes. Did the anger management help

you? Would you say that the anger management assistance that

you got while incarcerated helped you?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. It taught me how to settle differences without

violence. There are better ways than violence. So it helped me a lot.

Then they had a ‘‘cage of rage,’’ so I went through a few.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I am delighted to hear that. Would you

recommend that as a way of helping individuals, especially those

individuals who may have gotten into altercations and——

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS [continuing]. That is why they ended up

incarcerated?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Was there any other infractions that you

committed, or was it just that?

Mr. BROWN. That was my only charge. That is why I am on parole, as far as when I was paroled 2003, I never caught another

charge.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. How long did it take you to get your

GED?

Mr. BROWN. It took me—when I was in Memphis, TN, it took me,

like 6 months to get my GED.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so you dropped out of high school—

well, you never went to high school?

Mr. BROWN. I never went.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. But you dropped out in eighth grade.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And you were able to get a GED in a few

months?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. I always was smart, but I just made the wrong

choices.

13

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That is quite smart to be able to actually

do a GED, not having done any high school, and just kind of being

out on the streets and that kind of thing. I used to teach GED.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So I know a little bit about it. Yes, and

now you have a license to——

Mr. BROWN. Diploma.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Your diploma?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That is fantastic. So actually you have

been helped by some of these programs, right?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right. So you would say that the programs have actually helped you?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Only if you want to be helped.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right.

Mr. Cunningham, let me ask you, How many children do you

have?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have two kids.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You have two kids?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Married?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. No. But you still have a relationship and

have a relationship with your children?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I heard you indicate that you wanted to

be able to assist your children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And help them. How would you say that

the programs helped you while you were incarcerated?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can say the program really helped me because—that was a trade that I really liked to do—to cut hair. It

helped me a lot. It helped me to learn that to get along with other

people and communicate, and it does a very good job. It was something I really liked to do.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Did you have any trouble getting your

barber’s license?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. It is interesting that in my State until

just recently it was against the law for a person to get licensed

even after they had gone through a training program while in prison. It was still against the law.

Mr. BROWN. I still went to school when I got out. I actually had

to do the hours in Bladensburg, and then I got my license and

transferred it over to D.C.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me just congratulate both of

you.

I will stop at this point and ask Mr. Marchant if he has questions.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you both for coming today and speaking

to us.

Is there anything that you would like to bring to the committee’s

attention as a suggestion that could have improved your training,

14

anything in the system that you found was over-burdensome to

you, and difficulties that you had in your rehabilitation? Mr.

Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I mean, when I was in the only burden was

the means of money, like a lot of people don’t have family that

could send them money. They pay you hourly, like $0.12 an hour,

and I am just—I feel as though when I was at Rivers you can take

up correspondence classes, but if you don’t have the means, the

money to get it, and they don’t have that much—you know, $0.12

an hour is like you are barely paying for your soap. That is my only

burden there, that they don’t have the means of paying people to

take care of themselves. Whereas I might not have anybody sending me money or look after me, I got to look after myself. That,

alone, brings conflict in the institution.

That is all I got to say.

Mr. MARCHANT. OK. Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with what he’s saying. They do need

more programs that can keep each individual inmate on the right

track, because as long as there is no program for them to do something to rehabilitate them, when they get on the outside into society, 9 out of 10, a lot of them wind up back doing the same thing

they normally used to do. So a lot of programs. When I was in we

had a lot of programs going on. Now it is just like a lot of programs

have been taken.

For them to rehabilitate themselves, able to get the job, the benefit for themselves, to be able to be on the right track, if they can

get that, I believe possibly that something can work out better for

each and every one of them.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Mr. Brown and Mr. Cunningham for coming forward, for your candor, for your courage. Perhaps there are people

who could come to testify about you. Your first-hand testimony is

extremely valuable to us, particularly given what I understand are

quite different circumstances you each faced once there was a parole violation.

Now, the nature of your parole violation, Mr. Brown, was that a

dirty urine?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, and not going to see my parole officer.

Ms. NORTON. All right. And that was for marijuana?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. All right.

Mr. Cunningham, what was the nature of your parole violation?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My parole violation was based on for me to go

into an outpatient program.

Ms. NORTON. No, was your parole violation——

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Was for a dirty urine.

Ms. NORTON. Was for a dirty urine?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. All right.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have before us two young men.

How old are you, Mr. Brown?

15

Mr. BROWN. I’m 32.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Forty.

Ms. NORTON. Both within the same relative age group. One gets

sent back to prison, probably before the alternative program Mr.

Cunningham was able to take advantage of was used.

Mr. Brown, when you were sent back, when your parole was revoked and you were sent back to prison, how long were you re-incarcerated? How long did you serve that time?

Mr. BROWN. Twelve months.

Ms. NORTON. How far gone was your parole before that, the parole, the amount of time you were under the supervision of the authorities? How much more time would you have had on parole?

Mr. BROWN. 2013.

Ms. NORTON. So you got no credit for the time you had already

spent on the street?

Mr. BROWN. No. They took that and put it on the back. See, my

original charge was 5 to 15, but every time I violate parole they

put it on the back number, and that just makes the back number

get bigger and bigger instead of getting smaller and smaller.

Ms. NORTON. Let me then contrast this with what happened to

Mr. Cunningham.

At the time that you also had a dirty urine, was it also for marijuana?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. What was the procedure you went through that resulted in your being sanctioned to go to a drug rehabilitation program? How did that work?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The program actually worked, you know. They

actually questioned, asked you what is your drug of choice. They

asked you what would you benefit out of the program? What did

you really want out of life? It is a lot of things they ask you.

Ms. NORTON. Before deciding whether or not you would have alternative sanctions, sanctions other than going back to prison?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And you satisfied the Parole Commission that the

sanctions were the better alternative for you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. What was the year of your violation?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The violation, first time after for years of

being clean, being on parole. I had 1 year left.

Ms. NORTON. I mean before you got sanctioned, this sanction,

this alternative sanction. What was the year that they used this alternative sanction and sent you to a drug rehabilitation program?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Basically I had to complete the sanction and

stay away from the area that I used to be in.

Ms. NORTON. What year was that, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That was in 2007.

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Brown, what was the year you were sent

back to prison?

Mr. BROWN. It was 2004. I violated parole three times.

Ms. NORTON. For different infractions?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Did any of these infractions involve weapons?

16

Mr. BROWN. No. No new charge. When I violated it was just all

marijuana charges.

Ms. NORTON. None of these involved a crime?

Mr. BROWN. Dirty urine. No, it was just dirty urine. When I seen

the revocation hearing, I asked them, you know, can I have an inpatient drug program. All three times they denied it and said——

Ms. NORTON. Have either of you had access to any kind of drug

rehabilitation while you had been incarcerated?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, ma’am. Not while I was incarcerated.

Ms. NORTON. How about you, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. The 40-hour.

Ms. NORTON. The 40-hour, which is the alternative to the 500-

hour program——

Mr. BROWN. Exactly.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. That we are trying to get at Rivers.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So you had had no state-of-the-art drug rehabilitation program?

Ms. BALLESTER. No.

Ms. NORTON. Both of you are typical of non-violent offenders in

the District of Columbia who are there very often for crimes related

to drug offenses, obviously without some kind of program to help

get rid of the dependency before you are out, the kind of dependency that you still had.

Mr. Brown went to the seventh grade but quickly got his GED

once he was in prison. That is what I mean by some people get

their first chance behind bars.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Or at least realize what they can do behind bars.

Mr. Cunningham, how about you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I completed school.

Ms. NORTON. Where did you go to school?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. McKinley Tech.

Ms. NORTON. You went to McKinley. You have children, Mr.

Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. How about you, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Excuse me?

Ms. NORTON. Do you have children?

Mr. BROWN. No, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cunningham, do you support your children?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. I am going to say, Mr. Brown, you have managed

to get jobs. Now, Mr. Cunningham has trained to be a barber, so

he has a skill that he can carry around. I was impressed by the

fact that you have managed to get jobs when, in fact, my office has

a job fair every year, and one of the problems we find with ex-offenders who come is they have difficulty getting jobs. Did you have

a job at the time that this dirty urine showed up?

Mr. BROWN. Excuse me?

Ms. NORTON. Were you employed at the time that you were reincarcerated for having dirty urine?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

17

Ms. NORTON. Didn’t anybody ask you at the time, whoever it was

who sanctioned you to go back to prison, did they ask you if you

had a job?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. When you said you had a job, what was their response?

Mr. BROWN. Their response was when I asked them can I be put

in a drug program—I got a job, I got an apartment, if I get locked

up I’m going to lose all of it, and can we find a better solution—

they was just saying, they told me that they think marijuana is not

a habit-forming drug.

Ms. NORTON. They think marijuana is not a habit-forming drug?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. But they were going to send you to prison? We

don’t send people to prison for marijuana usually in this country.

Mr. BROWN. Well, that is what they told me. I cannot get a drug

treatment for marijuana.

Ms. NORTON. I see. I see what you are saying. It is not habitforming. I do see the circular nature of this reasoning.

Mr. BROWN. Exactly.

Ms. NORTON. It is not habit-forming, so you don’t need drug

treatment, so you go to the slammer instead. OK.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. I understand from the interviews that have been

done of you that you worked in Burger King?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. You worked Giant. You worked——

Mr. BROWN. I work Giant right now.

Ms. NORTON. How were you able to get these positions? What

happened? First, let me go back. When you lost your position because you were re-incarcerated, were you able to get that job when

you came back out?

Mr. BROWN. No.

Ms. NORTON. How about your apartment that you said you had?

Mr. BROWN. No, I couldn’t get that back. I lost that.

Ms. NORTON. So you lost your apartment?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And you lost your job?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So you had to get out and start looking for these

jobs all over again. How did you manage to do that?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I just did my footwork and just went to all different spots and applied.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again.

Mr. BROWN. I said I did my footwork and just went to every spot

that they was hiring and applied online and kept calling, you

know, kept on calling them, kept calling them. Then 1 day they

said, come on down.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Brown, you indicated that you were raised on

foster care; is that the case?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So you were not raised by your own mother and father?

18

Mr. BROWN. My father was deceased when I was an infant. My

mom, she was on drugs, you know, and she was bouncing house to

house. So yes, I was pretty much raised in foster care.

Ms. NORTON. Who raised you, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My grandmother and my grandfather.

Ms. NORTON. You were fortunate.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Where did you learn barbering? Was that at

McKinley?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excuse me?

Ms. NORTON. Did you learn barbering at McKinley? How did you

get into barbering as a profession?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. How did you get that training? What led you to

that training?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I started out when I was in Youth Center

One.

Ms. NORTON. Where?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At Youth Center One.

Ms. NORTON. I’m sorry?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Youth Center. There used to be a correctional facility.

Ms. NORTON. Youth Center. A Youth Center here in the District

of Columbia?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was in Virginia, where all the people

used to go down to Lorton there.

Ms. NORTON. I see. You learned barbering there?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I learned down there, and when I came home

in 1987 I went to Bladensburg Barber School, and then I did my

hours there and completed it, and after I got my license.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cunningham, was yours marijuana as well?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Well, marijuana is not habit-forming, so how did

you get access—or at least that is what they told Mr. Brown—how

did you get access to a drug rehabilitation program?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can just say I could just maybe look at it like

I haven’t got in trouble in 4 years since I was on parole, never had

a dirty urine. So, that was my first dirty urine, and just like once

you complete the phase at a time you being in there they take you

off the urine. So just like 1 day, I just wound up smoking some

weed, and then they called me in to take a spot test. So I had a

dirty urine. So I was still working, still doing the things that I need

to do. I never gave my parole officer no reason to send me back or

to maybe give me a second chance, so that is how I wound up getting into the drug program.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I have news for the Parole Commission: marijuana, according to potheads I have known, is or can be habit-forming. But at least with respect to you, somehow you had your sanction at a time when there was an alternative. Mr. Brown did not.

We brought you both here because we are trying to improve the

system, to do whatever we can to improve—to see whether it is

rooted in law, whether it is rooted in any kind of sane policy,

whether anyone takes into account if you have a job, which is very

difficult for an ex-offender to get in the first place, if you have a

19

family—if you will, a kind of cost/benefit analysis. Dirty urine for

the kind of substance that is routinely used out here by people who

are never incarcerated, or loss of a job and perhaps support that

others are dependent upon.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. But the only way to know it is to have people like

yourselves come forward and tell us what it has been like.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to hear

and question these witnesses. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Let me just ask one additional question.

Was marijuana the only substance that was ever found in either

one of your urines?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just marijuana.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Pardon? Marijuana was the only one?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, and alcohol.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Just alcohol and marijuana?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

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

really appreciate your coming and sharing your experiences with

us.

If you had anything else to write down and wanted to, or if you

think of something you would like to have us know, just write it

down and get it to us and we would be delighted to have it.

Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I will just go ahead and introduce our

second panel.

Mr. Paul Quander, director of Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. As director of the Federal agency responsible for

ex-offender supervision, Mr. Quander is the first director of the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. It is called

CSOSA. He has served in this capacity since 2002. CSOSA is responsible for supervising adults on probation, parole, and supervised release in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Quander, thank you so much. Welcome.

Chief Isaac Fulwood is the commissioner of the U.S. Parole Commission. Commissioner Isaac Fulwood served on the U.S. Parole

Commission since being confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November

20, 2004. Chief Fulwood has distinguished himself as an outstanding law enforcement practitioner in the law enforcement community. He served 29 years as a member of the Metropolitan Police

Department and became the District’s 25th chief of police for the

Metropolitan Police Department in 1981.

Commissioner Fulwood, thank you so much, and welcome.

Ms. Avis E. Buchanan is the director of Public Defender Service

for the District of Columbia. Avis Buchanan has served as the director of the District’s Public Defender Service [PDS], for the past

3 years. She holds a juris doctorate and has worked as a staff attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Project of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

20

Dr. James Austin is president of the JFA Institute, which is a

nonprofit research agency that works in concert with Federal,

State, and local government agencies and philanthropic foundations to evaluate criminal justice practices and design researchbased policy solutions. Dr. Austin has over 25 years of experience

in correctional planning and research, and is the former director of

the Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Dr. Austin authored the

study on the evaluation and revalidation of the U.S. Parole Guidelines risk instrument, which is used to rate the suitability of parole

for D.C.-sentenced prisoners.

Thank you all so very much. We are delighted that you are here.

It is the tradition of this committee that all witnesses are sworn

in, so please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

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

answered in the affirmative.

We thank you all for coming. You know that the light means that

we have 5 minutes of testimony. Your full testimony is in the

record. If we get down to the yellow light, we are really at 1 minute

and we would like for you to begin to wrap up. The red lights

means that you are completed and we would like for you to stop

so that we can get to the next witness and get to the questions.

Thank you all for joining us. Mr. Quander, we will begin with

you.

STATEMENTS OF PAUL QUANDER, DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; CHIEF ISAAC

FULWOOD, COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; AVIS E. BUCHANAN, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER

SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND JAMES

AUSTIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, THE JFA INSTITUTE

STATEMENT OF PAUL QUANDER

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and good afternoon,

Chairman Davis and Congresswoman Norton.

When the Revitalization Act created the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in 1997, the District of Columbia’s parole system was under investigation by the city’s Inspector General.

In 1995, a parolee murdered a young woman named Bettina

Pruckmayr. Her case continues to underscore the reality that public safety is at the heart of community supervision.

Citizens expect that we will closely monitor the offenders who reside among them, and it is our highest duty to remain deserving

of that trust.

In his report, D.C. Inspector General E. Barrett Prettyman identified the conditions that contributed to inadequate parole supervision: an average caseload of 179 offenders per officer in 1994 and

1995, inconsistent application of drug testing and contact standards, and inadequate procedures to notify the releasing authority—

then it was the D.C. Board of Parole—of violations or arrests.

In its first year, CSOSA focused on addressing these conditions.

The Agency received substantial resources to lower supervision

caseloads. The general supervision caseload is now below the naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
21

tionally recommended maximum of 50 offenders per officer, and

specialized caseloads are significantly lower.

We also put in place stringent contact standards and drug testing requirements. The average number of offenders tested each

month for drug abuse has risen from 2,300 in 1999 to over 8,500

in fiscal year 2007. Since fiscal year 2003, the percentage of the supervised population who test positive at least once during the fiscal

year has decreased by 10 percent to its current level of 46 percent.

CSOSA also recognized the need to maintain an active, visible

community presence to improve public confidence in collaboration

with our law enforcement partners. To that end, we have established six field offices, locating the majority of our officers in neighborhoods where offenders live and work. We conduct over 8,000

joint field visits or accountability tours with the Metropolitan Police Department every year.

The message that police and community supervision officers communicate and collaborate to enforce accountability is reinforced

daily on the streets of Washington. This message is further reinforced through extensive data sharing by way of both CSOSA’s case

management system and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’s justice system.

CSOSA works closely with the U.S. Parole Commission to ensure

that parole and supervised releasees’ conditions are as effective as

possible. We create special conditions in coordination with the U.S.

Parole Commission so that offenders participate in programs that

will further their treatment and their re-entry into the District of

Columbia.

Such conditions have been particularly important in implementing our newest resource, the Re-entry and Sanction Center. This is

a 28-day residential program that provides intensive assessment

and treatment readiness programming to high-risk offenders at the

critical point of transition into the community.

CSOSA recognized early that the District’s public treatment capacity could not provide the level of services needed for this population. To supplement that capacity, we asked and requested of this

body and received resources to develop additional contract treatment capacity. Last year, we made over 2,400 treatment placements for substance abuse treatment.

The public has the right to expect that community supervision

will detect and interrupt offender’s non-compliant behavior before

it escalates to a new crime. To that end, CSOSA consistently monitors the risk level of offenders through initial and periodic assessments. We will address noncompliance through a system of sanctions that are imposed quickly and uniformly. CSOSA’s sanction

matrix defines the appropriate response to each level of infraction

based on the offender’s supervision level and the nature of the violation. Sanctions options include written reprimands, attendance at

daily sanctions groups, increased reporting, increased drug testing,

community service, halfway back, and the Re-entry and Sanctions

Center.

In fiscal year 2007, we sanctioned over 96 percent of the violations reported each month. We are always seeking to expand the

range of sanctions available to community supervision officers.

22

Since fiscal year 2004, we have placed more than 2,000 high-risk

offenders on GPS monitoring.

In 2006, we worked with the U.S. Parole Commission to implement reprimand sanctions hearings. Since the program began, 84

hearings have been held, and our early data indicate that these

hearings improve compliance. Our daily reporting and violence reduction program also targets noncompliance among high-risk offenders with histories of violence.

Though sanctions are a critical component of community supervision, they cannot always restore compliance. If noncompliance escalates to the point of being a public safety risk, a request for revocation must be the next step.

In fiscal year 2006, CSOs, or community supervision officers,

filed over 3,400 alleged violation reports with the U.S. Parole Commission. Three-quarters of these cases were supervised at the maximum or intensive supervision level at the time of the AVR, which

is the highest levels of supervision. Of the AVRs, 46 percent involved a new arrest, and 54 percent were for non-compliant technical violations such as substance abuse, failure to report for their

office visits or drug testing, noncompliance with program requirements, or other violations of written requirements issued by the releasing authority.

The average alleged violation report documented six violations.

Three-quarters of all violations were drug related. Ultimately, less

than a third of the alleged violation reports resulted in the U.S. Parole Commission issuing a warrant.

Community supervision will not constitute more than a brief hiatus between episodes of incarceration unless mechanisms are in

place to address the factors that drive crime and noncompliance. In

addition to substance abuse, these factors include unstable housing, unemployment, lack of education, and mental health issues.

Offenders who cannot earn a living wage, find a place to live, improve their skills, or get treatment for their illnesses are more likely to fall out of compliance. we work diligently with our public and

nonprofit and faith-based partners to ensure that offenders have

access to as many resources as possible. Notwithstanding these efforts, more opportunities are needed, particularly in the areas of

transitional housing, vocational training, and job placement.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and

will be happy to answer any and all questions that you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quander follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

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

We will now proceed to Chief Fulwood.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF ISAAC FULWOOD

Mr. FULWOOD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And to my Congresswoman Norton, thank you for the opportunity to participate

in this timely discussion 10 years after the anniversary of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Act.

As you know, when the act was implemented it had two purposes

in mind: to revitalize the economy of the District of Columbia and

to improve the prospects for home rule. The major changes for the

District of Columbia were the closing of the Lorton Complex, the

transferring to the Federal Bureau of Prisons the responsibility for

all D.C. felons sentenced to confinement, the creation of the Court

Service and Offender Supervision Agency, transferring funding of

the D.C. court system, rewriting laws for D.C. which eliminated parole and required a fixed term of confinement, and abolishing of the

D.C. Parole Board and transferring authority to the U.S. Parole

Commission.

The question is: Did the Revitalization Act help the city? In some

respects it is a mixed blessing. Today the city is in better shape financially, with economic growth, and a safe place; however, for the

people who find themselves incarcerated in the Board of Prisons,

their lives are compounded by being a long way from family and

ability to maintain contact with loved ones. Equally, the level of

programming within the Bureau prisons to prepare the offender to

successfully return to society is oftentimes inadequate.

The challenge that the criminal justice system faced with an

urban population of offenders due to the issue of drug abuse,

crimes of violence, and pressuring the community to address all the

maintenance problems taxes the limits of its resources.

In addition, this is a population that is disproportionately minority. This raises the issue of best approaches to supervision. What

are the best practices for rehabilitation and building social support

systems and strengthening family connections?

The D.C. offenders is a group that is up close impacting our lives

every day, and reducing recidivism rate is important to the city as

it focuses on continuing to make the city a safer place.

To address these issues, there is a need to improve programming

in the institution: GED, skill training such as UNICORE, drug

abuse training, family management. Most studies in recent times

that speak on how to lower the recidivism rate speak on the need

to improve programming in the institution so that the offender population is better equipped to handle the pressures related to social

control.

The responsibility of the U.S. Parole Commission is to work with

their criminal justice partners in managing that public’s safety,

setting sanctions of relief, and estimating risks. We have jurisdiction over the following type of cases: all Federal offenders who commit an offense before November 1, 1987; all D.C. Code offenders;

the Uniform Code of Military Justice offenders who are confined in

the Board of Prisons institution; and transfer treaty cases, U.S.

citizens convicted in foreign countries who would like to serve their

33

time here; and State probationers and parolees in the Federal witness protection program.

Briefly, the goal of supervision is public safety, taking steps and

actions to prevent offenders from intimidating the community; reducing recidivism, keeping the person in the community through

coordination with our various partners; and socialization, assisting

the offender with transitioning back to the community, and understanding his or her responsibility for appropriate behavior.

The issue of setting sanctions for the U.S. Parole Commission is

identifying risk factors, or those issues that put the community at

risk. Second, the use of technology, GPS, polygraphs, in high levels

of supervision. Critical to the success of completing supervision is

building support in the community and connecting to families.

So to the issue of re-entry, the problem that many offenders face

when they come back to the community, no transitional housing.

The impact is even greater now because of the changing demographics in the city of Washington, DC. It is very difficult to get

housing. Communities have become very expensive.

Drug treatment, job training, and socialization, connection to

family, mental health issues, developing partnerships to assist in

re-7entry—the challenge that is faced by an urban population is

managing the offenders who suffer from drug abuse, unemployment, and poor social skills. CSOSA and the U.S. Parole Commission have developed an approach, a pilot called reprimand sanctions. Reprimand sanction is built on the concept of the District

drug courts. Instead of judges, offenders stand before a Parole

Commission. Briefly, let me discuss this program.

The mission of reprimand sanction hearings serve as a graduated

sanction, short of revocation, that permits the Commission to address non-compliant behavior. The goal is to increase safety in the

community and for the offender to advantage him or herself of program supports which will reduce the rate of recidivism. Additionally, it will restore a sense of respect to the offender.

So the issue is approval, accountability, reduced recidivism, reconnect offender to supervision, identify support programs for offenders, and develop working partnerships with CSOSA, with the

Public Defender Service, and the U.S. Parole Commission.

In summary, let me first commend the Public Defender Service

and CSOSA for their work toward improving the quality of life for

offenders, which in the end makes us all a safer community. Today

there are still barriers to re-entry: a lack of community resources,

limited housing, substance abuse, dual diagnosis programs, financial support, coordination, and the need for high levels of supervision for some offenders.

The act has produced a greater coordination of service for offenders in the D.C. community. This would include public, private, and

faith-based organizations. There has also been a more concerted effort to better identify the risk and need each offender poses so that

the strategy can be developed to address those issues.

34

Finally, the act has created a more thoughtful, coordinated effort

among the various partners in the criminal justice system within

the District of Columbia.

Thank you for this opportunity. I would be more than happy to

answer any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulwood follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Chief Fulwood.

Now we will go to Attorney Buchanan.

STATEMENT OF AVIS E. BUCHANAN

Ms. BUCHANAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Norton. I am Avis Buchanan, director of the D.C. Public

Defender Service. Thank you for this invitation to testify before the

subcommittee today on parole, supervised release, and revocation

of D.C. Code offenders.

PDS is a federally funded, independent, local public defender office. PDS has represented over 90 percent of the thousands of D.C.

Code offenders facing parole or supervised release revocation by the

U.S. Parole Commission. Since the Revitalization Act of 1997 abolished the D.C. Board of Parole and transferred authority over D.C.

parolees and supervisees to the Commission, PDS has seen an increase in the number of supervision revocations, a profound increase in the number of revocations based on minor violations, an

increase in the length of time offenders are serving for violations,

and an increasing lack of transparency in the revocation process.

In 2006, at least 2,000 revocation hearings were held for D.C. parolees, out of a total parole and supervised release population of approximately 5,400. Most hearings resulted in parole being revoked

and a prison sentence of at least 1 year being imposed.

The D.C. Code offender faces several challenges in the revocation

process. In the District, the majority of persons the Commission

finds have violated their parole and sends back to prison are returned for technical violations only, such as failure to maintain employment. In fiscal year 2007, 20 percent of D.C. Code offenders on

parole or supervised release had their parole or supervised release

revoked because of technical violations only. Compared with the

Commission, judges are much more amenable to alternatives to incarceration and more likely to accept the recommendation of the

supervision officer to continue the person under supervision with

additional conditions, as the Commission does not.

We therefore propose that authority for revocation decisions be

transferred from the Commission to the Superior Court judges who

imposed the original sentence. The Commission’s decades-old salient factor scoring system used to determine a parolee’s likelihood

of recidivism and the penalty to be imposed, one, skews toward reincarceration and then toward lengthy prison sentences; two, as

found by a recently published report commissioned by the District’s

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, in cooperation with the

Commission, entitled Evaluation and Revalidation of the U.S. Parole Commission Guidelines Risk Instrument does not account for

factors and behaviors that have shown to affect and/or predict recidivism; and, three, as the system was designed for use in initial

parole grant matters, it fails to adjust for some of the obvious differences between inmates seeking parole and parolees facing revocation.

While the Commission accepted the report’s recommendations

that the Commission review its salient factors score system, allow

for much shorter periods of incarceration, and consider not re-incarcerating low-risk parolees for low-severity violations, the Commission failed to act quickly to convert to the new system.

40

Another issue is the Commission’s habit of incarcerating people

pending parole revocation hearings. If probable cause is established

for an alleged violation, the Commission can detain the parolee

pending his final revocation hearing approximately 2 months later.

The Commission almost never exercises its discretion to release a

person with continued supervision by CSOSA pending the final revocation hearing. Thus, any employed parolee will almost definitely

lose his job, even if the violation allegations are unfounded. Of

course, failure to maintain employment is a technical violation that

can and does lead to re-incarceration.

After the revocation hearing, the examiner announces the recommendation. The Commissioner makes the final decision without

explaining any reasons for reversing the hearing examiner. The

Commissioners almost never listen to the audio recordings made of

the hearings, and do not indicate which Commissioner made the

final decision.

The basis for any appeal to the Commission’s National Appeals

Board is the examiner’s one-page summary of the hearing, which

may not adequately reflect the proceedings and which is not automatically provided to the parolee, who must sometimes litigate the

appeal without the summary.

The National Appeals Board consists of three of the five Commissioners. Board decisions are issued anonymously. Not only is there

no way of knowing whether, as the rules require, the author of the

appellate decision is different from the Commissioner who made

the final decision, the Commission bars an objection to the Board

decision that the deciding Commissioner was a voting member on

the appeal. Not surprisingly, the Board never reversed their own

decisions in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and did so in only 2 percent of appeal cases in fiscal year 2006.

While there is much to criticize about the structure and work of

the Commission, some of its work is effective and appreciated, such

as reducing resolution time and the use of the reprimand sanctions

hearings. We refer to those areas in our written testimony.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee, and I would be pleased to work with the Members in

their ongoing consideration of these issues.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Buchanan follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

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

The chairman has had to leave for a few minutes.

Dr. Austin.

STATEMENT OF JAMES AUSTIN

Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton. I am going to

give my testimony on actually the report that Ms. Buchanan just

referenced, which was the evaluation of the U.S. Parole Commission’s salient factors score.

About a year ago I was asked by the Parole Commission to reevaluate the extent to which the factors and the risk instrument

that they were using to determine release of prisoners who had

been sentenced under the old, indeterminate sentencing law was

accurate in terms of assessing the true risk of the prisoners, and

then also look at the revocation process and the guidelines that

governed that.

So what was completed was an analysis of D.C. inmates who had

been sentenced under the old, indeterminate sentencing laws. As

you recall, under the old law, which was before the Revitalization

Act, that is the way it was. You would receive a minimum and a

maximum sentence. As the two gentlemen mentioned to us in the

previous panel, one of them had a 5 to 15 year sentence. He would

have to do those 5 years, and then it is up to the Parole Commission to decide when he would be released. Under the old D.C. Parole Board, the presumption was you would be released at the minimum. Once that authority transferred to the U.S. Parole Commission, a different philosophy was adopted, which is there is no presumption of being released at the minimum. You have to go

through this risk process and determine whether or not you can be

released at what point of your sentence.

So I am going to summarize some of the major findings that I

think are very important in terms of understanding the risks these

people pose and the reasons why they are recidivating and some

options that are now on the table that we hope will fix the situation in the next, I would say, 6 to 8 months.

If you look at the prisoners released in 2002, there are two

things that are very striking about them. One is that their sentences, compared to other inmates throughout the country, including Illinois, they have much longer sentences and they serve a

much longer time incarcerated before they are released. To be very

specific, the national average of time served across the country now

is about 30 months; D.C. inmates, under the old law, are serving

over 44 months. It is about over a year longer on average.

This difference in the time served for the D.C. inmates is not explained by the type of crime they are committing. They are serving

exactly the same types of crimes as other States. In fact, if you look

at the length of stay by each crime type—violent crime, drug

crimes, property crimes—you will see that D.C. inmates consistently serve a longer period of time than in other States. That is because of the presumption that you do not get out at your minimum

release date for the old sentence laws. You have to serve more time

before you can get out.

If you look at the recidivism rates, which is interesting, I think,

you will find that about two-thirds of these prisoners got re-arVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
60

rested at least one time within a 3-year period after being released,

52 percent were re-convicted, and 37 percent were returned to custody. These rates are exactly identical to other States, so there is

no difference really in the risk that they are posing.

The other thing that is interesting, which is very similar to other

States, if you look at the number of arrests that were lodged

against them before they went to prison and then after they get released, you will see a dramatic drop in the number of arrests. A

60-some percent drop in the number of arrests are occurring. So,

although they are getting arrested, they are getting arrested on a

much less frequent basis and for very less-serious crimes. Of the

crimes that they are being returned to prison for, 83 percent are

either property crimes, drug crimes, or parole and probation technical violations. Very few are coming back for a violent crime.

So they are not getting worse, they are getting better, so to

speak, and part of the reason they are getting better is what we

call the maturation effect. They are burning out, slowing down. It

is a national statistic that is repeated over and over again. People

that are committing most of the crime in the District of Columbia

are not people that are being released from prison. They represent

a very small percent of the crime problem. The crime problem is

the young generation coming up. That is the group we should be

focusing on.

So there is a number of people coming out of prison that pose little risk to public safety. Their problems tend to be in the area of

the violation and also property and drug use.

Another important finding that we found is that the length of

time that they serve is completely unrelated to recidivism rates,

which means if you do 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 44

months, you get exactly the same bang for that buck from time

served. What that tells you, the issue for us in the future is what

is the appropriate amount of time to serve. It becomes extremely

important in the District because you are serving such a long period of time unnecessarily. You are not getting anything for that

additional 14 months that people are having to serve before they

get out.

The salient factors score, as she alluded to, was imported from

the Board of Prisons. It had been tested on a very different population. It is not the D.C. population, doesn’t look like the D.C. inmates, and therefore, quite understandably, it is not a good predictor of recidivism. So the instrument that the Commission is now

using is not predictive, even though it is being used for such a purpose, so it needs to be fixed, and rather quickly so we can get an

instrument that does work.

Now, in our analysis we came up with a new prototype system

which includes things that we know work from other jurisdictions,

but, more importantly, takes into account what we call dynamic

factors, which are the things that prisoners can change on. So completing and participating in programs that we know reduce recidivism rates, they would get credit for that on the risk instrument.

Being better prepared to be released in the community, we found

in our research on the D.C. inmates, lowered the recidivism rate.

So there are some things that can be incorporated in the risk instrument that would do a far better job of reducing recidivism.

61

One other thing I just want to mention on the study which we

also found which is consistent with the previous speaker’s testimony is that the period of time that they are serving on a violation

is quite long, much longer than what you see in other jurisdictions.

It has gotten to the point now that theoretically the time that you

can serve on a technical violation can exceed your sentence. It can

exceed your sentence for a technical violation. So I think the first

speaker on the first panel was talking about he can’t get off of parole. He can’t. It is being added and added, and he will stay on parole for a long, long time until he becomes extremely free of any

violations, which is very hard to do.

So, based on these findings, what we suggested is let’s change

the guidelines, let’s get a new risk instrument, let’s get it designed,

and let’s get going with a new system that is going to work for the

District. As of this point, we have now formed a partnership with

the Board of Prisons, the Parole Commission, the U.S. Department

of Justice, the Public Defenders Office, the U.S. Attorney, and

CSOSA to come up with this new instrument, this new process. We

are in the midst now of collecting the data. We hope to have the

analysis done in the next 3 to 4 months, and we should be able to

have a new system ready to go some time this summer or in the

fall.

That is where we are headed. It is going to be a positive change.

It is going to produce much better results, I think lower recidivism

rates. It should reduce the amount of time that people are serving

now, both on their current sentences, but also on the violations.

I thank you for your time, and I would be glad to answer any

questions you might have about this study.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin follows:]

62

63

64

65

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS [presiding]. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Delegate Norton.

Let me ask you, Mr. Quander, what would you consider to be the

greatest difficulty that your agency faces trying to coordinate as

many of the services as you can that exist for the ex-offender population?

Mr. QUANDER. Our greatest difficulty is that there are so many

needs that offenders coming back to the community have. As many

of the witnesses have testified today, it centers around areas of

treatment, housing, education, employability. So when you try to

coordinate, it is not just coordinating with one group, but there are

various entities that are out there. That is why our strategy has

been to try to coordinate not only with government offices but also

the faith-based entities and organizations that are there that can

provide that assistance. It is a multi-layered approach that we

have to take in order to provide the necessary services. It is not

just one thing that will be impactful. It is all—and they are all

intertwined. So it is just the breadth of the problem that requires

a lot of coordination, a lot of dedication, and that is probably the

largest problem that we face.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Knowing that it is, in fact, very difficult

to pinpoint and to find all of these services, say, in one location or

one place, in your experiences, is there one overriding need that

must be met if many of these individuals are to experience success?

Mr. QUANDER. That, again, is difficult, because if you, for example, take substance abuse—and we provide substance abuse treatment, and it actually takes—if a person doesn’t have a place to

live, then it is only a short matter of time before he may revert

back. If a person doesn’t have a means to sustain his employment,

then that individual may seek other illegal means to sustain his

ability to live and to provide. So it is that complicated process that

we are working on, and we have made a lot of improvement. But

it takes a lot of coordination.

We do need additional resources in the area of substance abuse

to cover all of the individuals who need that intervention, but as

far as housing, employment, education, those are things that we

have to work just as hard on to make sure that there is a sustained

improvement as far as service delivery to the population. That I believe will give us the best result in the long run.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. How helpful or accommodating are you

finding that families and other people who are not necessarily part

of a program are being in assisting individuals? For example, we

have a system where, if a person says, ‘‘I have a place to live,’’ you

may be able to get out on parole or you may be able to get out earlier, but, of course, the individuals will have some place they will

say they can go. But, of course, they have already been told by

whomever’s address that they are using that they really can’t stay

here—‘‘I am going to let you put my address down, but you can’t

really stay here.’’ So what are you finding in terms of the willingness of families to provide individuals with this most basic thing

of a place to live?

Mr. QUANDER. It comes as no surprise that, when a crime is committed, not only is that individual involved in the criminal justice

system, but his or her family is involved in it. And, oftentimes famVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
66

ilies have been standing beside their loved ones for years, so it varies. Many families are tired, but they are willing, in many instances, to continue working with their loved ones if they know

that they have someone that is going to help them, if there is going

to be a community supervision officer, if there is going to be a mentor from a church, if there is going to be someone else to help them

in that process so that they don’t have to take the burden on themselves. That has been part of our philosophy.

That is why we have reached out to the faith-based organizations

early on, because we knew that they were in the business of helping individuals and had already been doing a lot of this. So we

wanted to partner with them so that when that individual comes

home, it is not just a family member that is there, but there is a

mentor.

One of the other things that we thought was important was to

not wait for that process to begin, until that individual actually

hits the streets of the District of Columbia. We used video equipment so that we can start matching offenders with mentors and

their family members while they are still incarcerated at the Rivers

facility, and the warden at Rivers was very cooperative and supportive of our efforts. So we started to build that bridge even before

the individual left that institution and returned to the District.

I think when a family member sees that there is support, that

the individual can make it, that the individual wants to make it,

and that there is support there, I think that helps the family to

embrace that individual and to keep that individual front and center in support of his efforts or her efforts to regain the spirit of

community.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Chief Fulwood, let me ask you, what external conditions are helpful when it is time for your Commission

to make a decision relative to parole? Are there external conditions

that will help facilitate your decision in terms of determining that

this is more likely to be a successful release?

Mr. FULWOOD. The first thing is programming in the institution,

itself, where they provide for drug treatment. When we had a teleconference with the Rivers people, what we found was that they

didn’t have really drug treatment programs. They now will have

them in June.

If the person is a chronic substance abuser, they need drug treatment so that when they come out, they can go into further programs that are dual diagnosis in nature, that will help deal with

mental illness problems in addition to drugs. If they are bipolar, as

an example, you have to deal with that as well as the drug treatment.

The opportunity to reconnect to family, I think, is at the core of

all of it. If you look at the Urban League’s most recent report, they

talk about 50 percent of the households in Black neighborhoods are

headed by women. There are no men, so there are no role models.

And so if we can reconnect people to families, they have a much

better chance.

There are people I know who are successful in this town, who are

successful because they had a family. They fell, they were using

drugs, but they had a family to pick them up. So we need the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
67

connection to family, and we need solid neighborhoods and communities to help support.

The idea of the faith-based communities being participants is a

very good thing, because we get mentors out of it. When we look

at things like that, that makes a difference. So when we do reprimand sanction hearings, the questions that I ask are: where is

your family? Do you have children? Do you have a mentor? Have

you been involved in a drug treatment program? And I try to look

at stable housing, stable employment opportunities. We haven’t

sent anybody back to jail who had a job or stable housing, because

we believe that is an important part of trying to make better decisions about how you handle people.

If you will permit me to say one thing, when Jim Austin talked

about D.C. population serving longer prison time, they were getting

sentenced for longer prison times, he should have noted, it is by the

court, not by CSOSA or the U.S. Parole Commission. This is the

court sentencing, and the courts have now backed away from the

sentences. The times are down on substance abuse cases, because

we realize that these are very difficult issues to deal with, very

hard for us to deal with it because there are not enough treatment

spots. CSOSA would do a much better job if they had more treatment slots in good programs. Every program is not a good program.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. It is my understanding that the authority

of the Parole Commission is set to expire soon. Do you have any

thoughts about reconstituting it or how it should be reconstituted

or should it be reconstituted?

Mr. FULWOOD. The thoughts of one Commissioner, not speaking

for the Commission or the Justice Department—I think it ought to

be reconstituted. It is due to go out of business in November. I

think we ought not to be operating under a system where we are

uncertain as to whether the Parole Commission is going to exist so

that we can move forward with things that we need to move forward with. We authorized the study of the Parole Commission, because we weren’t satisfied with the way things were going. With

the salient factor score, we thought it was not appropriate for the

Federal system that we had developed to hold this D.C. population;

that we needed to do something entirely different. So, we authorized the study. We now had the first meeting where we are looking

at risk factors and other kinds of issues.

None of this is, to me, rocket science about human behavior. Any

of us who understands and who has relatives who have fallen prey

to this understand and appreciate that it is very difficult to sort

out what are the risk factors.

When we sit here—just to be blunt, when we sit here, and we

start talking about nonviolent offenders, that sounds very, very

nice. But, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you live in Potomac

Gardens, and people are selling drugs out in front of your house,

and your 3-year-old daughter has to go outside, you don’t want to

hear that. You want to call the police. We ought to be honest about

it and be blunt about it, because these poor neighborhoods are the

neighborhoods who suffer disproportionately. So we have to figure

out how to build crime-resistant neighborhoods so that we are not

locking people up and sending them back to jail for it.

68

I mean, when you send somebody back to jail for 12 months for

dirty urine, it is not one dirty urine, so we ought to be frank about

that, too. It is not one dirty urine. CSOSA has had a series of graduated sanctions before it gets to where they ask the Parole Commission to issue a warrant for this person’s arrest.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Director Buchanan, your agency represents individuals before the Parole Commission who are up for

revocation. Do your experiences suggest that there are some

changes in procedures or changes in requirements or criteria that

might be used as they make decisions?

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir. We agree with Chief Fulwood and with

Dr. Austin that the salient factors score that the Commission uses

is out of date and essentially inept for this population; that there

needs to be a tighter correlation between known risk factor predictors or validated factors and predictors and the grid and the sanctions available for parole and supervised release revocation. That

is one area—to update the grid, to update the factors, to institute

those changes, and to provide training to the Commissioners in

their application.

Also, we have a slightly different opinion than Chief Fulwood.

We would prefer to see the parole revocation and supervised release revocation matters go back to the original judges who are familiar with the folk whom they sentenced and are familiar with the

backgrounds, and we believe it would be more appropriate for them

to resolve these issues than for the Commission to do so. The Commission has a Federal mandate, Federal character, and has very

few ties to the District of Columbia outside of Chief Fulwood.

Those are just two of the main issues. We also believe that the

Commission should be more flexible in deciding the person’s release

status upon the initial probable cause hearing. There are other factors besides drug use and the graduated sanctions. There is the reintegration into the community. There is the person’s employment

status to consider, and these detentions are very disruptive to the

parolee’s progress in reintegration into the community, which ultimately is going to have to happen.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Dr. Austin, let me just ask you one question before I go to Ms.

Norton. It is my opinion that part of the problem with all of this

is that there are so many citizens who just haven’t come to grips

with their own feelings about crime, punishment, what to do with

it, what to do about it. Many of the programs and program activities that people talk about, individuals believe in them. But they

take what I call the ‘‘NIMBY attitude’’ about them, and that is Not

In My Back Yard. ‘‘It is all right to have a halfway house, but put

it in Baltimore or take it over to Virginia or somewhere. Don’t put

it in the neighborhood where I live.’’

How do we convince the general public, not just law enforcement

personnel, not just professionals, not just judges and juries? How

do we convince the general public that what we are often talking

about actually makes sense and is in their best interest, as well as

in the best interest of saving money, doing whatever else we say

that it will do?

Mr. AUSTIN. I would urge that we give them a better, accurate

portrayal what the source of the crime problem is. I live in the DisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
69

trict. I have lived in the District now for about 15 years up on Capitol Hill. Since I have been here, I have been the victim of a car

theft and three break-ins into my house. Prior to that, I lived in

Chicago and got stuck up a couple times delivering milk on the

south side of Chicago. So I know what being a victim is.

Over that 35-year period it is the same person. It is a young

male, probably about age 16 to 21. That is your target group. If you

have a society or community where young males have nothing to

do, they don’t have any meaningful employment or opportunities,

they are going to find something to do and they are going to come

after you.

So the public needs to understand that people coming out of the

prison system is the least of their worries. If you look at any prison

system where we do these population forecasts, about half of the

prisoners that are going to be in the Board of Prisons 5, 8 years

from now are now teenagers. And they are living amongst us, so

that is the public safety issue.

You can find communities that are very safe. You can find cities—the District of Columbia, by the way, is extremely safe in

probably 80 percent of it. There is 20 percent that is very dangerous. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find out what is safe

about those communities.

So the public needs to understand, and it is through, I hope, people like yourself, Chairman Davis, who can articulate to them that

the criminal justice system is not the way to make places safer. It

is other things about our society that makes us safer.

The reason that we are not criminals is because we got educated,

we were raised properly, and we had good parents. We have something to lose if we get involved in criminal activity.

That is the trick: flipping that whole thought process that the

way to make places safer is to have a big criminal justice system.

That is not the way. That is just simply mopping up after the damage has been done.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to understand this longer sentences issue. I am looking at Ms. Buchanan’s testimony first, because you indicate—and

I am looking on page three—that when they abolished the D.C.

Board of Parole—that is the Parole Board—these distinctions may

be important to trying to understand what is happening here. Parole, we don’t have parole, isn’t that right, in the Federal system?

Ms. BUCHANAN. There is no parole any more in the Federal system. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. In fact, there is no probation either, except the kind

of supervised release that these D.C. residents and the ones before

a certain date in the Federal system?

Mr. AUSTIN. Just a clarification. There is no discretionary release

to parole or parole-type supervision. Everyone still coming out of

prison goes to a parole-type supervision category. What has

changed is truth in sentencing. You get a sentence and you do a

certain percent of that sentence. There is no release decision by the

Parole Commission except for the old cases, which are getting

smaller and smaller.

70

Ms. NORTON. So the presumption you are talking about is the

presumption that you will serve a certain amount of time?

Mr. AUSTIN. Right.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. What I don’t understand is, Ms. Buchanan says,

since the abolition of the D.C. Parole Board, since this last change,

PDS has seen an increase in the number of supervision revocations, with a particularly profound increase in the number of revocations based on minor violations. Well, when it was D.C. Parole

Board, rather than the U.S. Parole Commission——

Ms. BUCHANAN. Correct.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Was there less supervision? I mean,

you don’t indicate why this change would have resulted in more

revocations based on minor violations.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Part of it has to do with the salient factor score

system. The D.C. Parole Board did not use that instrument in

order to make parole decisions or parole revocation decisions,

so——

Ms. NORTON. So what did they use?

Ms. BUCHANAN. They used their own discretion. It has been so

long, I’m actually not sure exactly what they used.

Ms. NORTON. It just sounds like the sentencing guidelines. Somebody is trying to get some kind of objective system.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Well, the sentencing guidelines did not substantially increase the sentences that——

Ms. NORTON. No, I’m talking about the old Federal sentencing

guidelines.

Ms. BUCHANAN. OK.

Ms. NORTON. The ones that are so controversial by the numbers

and so forth. Longer sentences—are you including the parole time?

Are you talking about sentences that have been authorized by the

D.C. Council, Dr. Austin? I’m not sure I understand.

Mr. AUSTIN. No.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Where do the longer sentences come

from?

Mr. AUSTIN. The study that I did was a study of people that had

been sentenced under the old D.C. sentencing law, which was indeterminate. So you got a minimum sentence, and you got a very long

maximum sentence.

The new sentencing structure, actually, as Mr. Fulwood has

noted, is making some very positive changes. They have lowered

significantly now the sentence length.

So we don’t know. I don’t have a good read right now on how

much time the prisoners are serving under the new sentencing law.

Ms. NORTON. Now, the old sentencing laws were longer for what

reason?

Mr. AUSTIN. Well, they gave a range, so, just like the gentleman

said, he had a 5 to 10-year sentence, so he could have done anywhere from 5 to 10 years. So you don’t have a fixed sentence, which

you get now.

Ms. NORTON. So a fixed sentence is better?

Mr. AUSTIN. It depends. It depends how you set it. Now, for example, in your State in Illinois, Illinois has determinate sentencing. Illinois is famous for having some of the shortest prison terms

71

in the country right now. On average, prisoners serve about 12 to

14 months in the State of Illinois. You go to the State of Michigan,

just north, they serve an average of 4 years under determinate sentencing. So it is how you set it. It is all math game.

The issue is proportionality of the time served to the crime that

the person has committed. We know scientifically it doesn’t make

any difference how much time you serve on recidivism rates.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you say the sentencing done today is more in

line with what might be expected——

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. As opposed to those who are serving

sentences under the old system. What proportion would you imagine those would be? And is there anything that can be done about

them?

Mr. AUSTIN. Well, probably—and Mr. Fulwood would know—I

would say over the next 2 to 3 years just about all of them will

have been reviewed by the Board for release.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again.

Mr. AUSTIN. Over the next 2 or 3 years, just about all of the old

sentenced people will have had an opportunity——

Ms. NORTON. So that is passing?

Mr. AUSTIN. That is passing through.

Ms. NORTON. OK. Now, Chief Fulwood said that, as a matter of

fact, graduated sanctions are used before they ever get to parole

revocation, but why then are so many of them technical? In fact,

the greater number, 54 percent or something, are technical violations. What does that mean?

Mr. QUANDER. What that means is that the releasing authority,

the U.S. Parole Commission, will say——

Ms. NORTON. The what?

Mr. QUANDER. The releasing authority, the Parole Commission,

will release an individual under certain conditions. You have to

maintain employment, no drug use. There are other conditions of

release. Those are the conditions that an individual under supervision must follow. So when an individual is testing positive for

any substance other than alcohol—unless the Parole Commission

specifies no alcohol—if a person is testing positive, then that is a

violation of his or her condition of release.

As Commissioner Fulwood indicated, we do not recommend revocation for one violation or two or three. Actually, what happens

is——

Ms. NORTON. You heard the testimony of one of the witnesses before you that he was told that marijuana was not a habit-forming

substance.

Mr. QUANDER. That is not the way that we approach this problem. We look at drug use as something that needs to be addressed.

And if you are using marijuana then there is a problem, and we

want to correct that.

The reason that there may be this indication of a greater use of

technical violations is that we have to respond——

Ms. NORTON. The technical violation means you have not committed any crime, but it is a condition of parole. You didn’t go out

and commit an offense, you didn’t break the law, but you did not

live up to all of the conditions that Parole put on you, and therefore

72

you are going back to prison, just like those who have, in fact, committed a crime.

Mr. QUANDER. Except to the extent that drug use is a new crime

and, in addition——

Ms. NORTON. Drug use. It is certainly true, Mr. Quander, that

you are sentencing people to jail for drug use, and that is what I

thought we didn’t do in this country.

Mr. QUANDER. What I am suggesting is not that we are sending

them directly to jail for drug use. What we are doing is we are notifying the U.S. Parole Commission when a condition that they set

has been violated. When we ask for a warrant or for a person to

be revoked, we are asking because we have exhausted everything

that we can do but that individual is non-compliant. He is non-compliant to the sense that there is a risk to public safety, because if

you came out of here to these conditions and we do not have confidence that you are not doing some other things, so that is why

we have these graduated sanctions.

Ms. NORTON. So if you are smoking marijuana and you keep

coming up with dirty urines, then we think you might be doing

something else really dirty, really criminal? I mean, I don’t understand the relationship.

Mr. QUANDER. What we have to do is, since this——

Ms. NORTON. I can see your frustration, but this is putting somebody in prison.

Mr. QUANDER. Not necessarily. The gentleman that spoke earlier,

oftentimes it is not that singular event. It is not the marijuana. It

is something else.

The other thing that it supports is——

Ms. NORTON. He was very truthful. He was very truthful. He

said it was several marijuana, several dirty urines, and failure to

show up to his parole officer. Back in the slammer.

Mr. QUANDER. That and other——

Ms. NORTON. Had a job, managed to get it on his own. Back to

jail.

Mr. QUANDER. And I can share with you the specifics of his case

and any other case, but the issue is——

Ms. NORTON. He told us he had a lot, he said 10 or 15 times for

marijuana. Of course he was told it is not habit forming. He said

he had almost 15 times of dirty urine—not habit forming, and he

had failed to show up to his parole officer.

Mr. QUANDER. And that is one of the other issues. When you are

not reporting to your parole officer when you are scheduled, when

you are not adhering to any curfew that you are supposed to have,

when we are going by and checking to see if, in fact, you are working when you are supposed to be there, and you are not——

Ms. NORTON. No, he was added to it. This man had a job. He was

added to it. You are not working. You know, you can add enough

things, Mr. Quander. I am trying to figure out at what point a condition for parole should be the equivalent of a crime, and that is

what it is when you are put back to jail.

Dr. Austin.

Mr. AUSTIN. It would be useful to look at other jurisdictions. In

the State of Washington by statute you cannot go to prison for a

technical violation.

73

Ms. NORTON. So what do they do?

Mr. AUSTIN. They do anything and everything they can except

send them back to prison, and they have been doing this for 20

years. Their crime rate is lower than most of the States in the

northwest.

One other thing I just wanted to add, which is very important,

is that it starts with risk assessment. There is a group of people

being released from the Federal prison system, D.C. inmates, who

are low risk and are never going to come back again. One of the

tactics we are supposed to be doing is to leave them alone, get

them off of supervision as fast as possible. If you are doing drug

testing on them, monitoring them—the research is very clear on

this—you make them worse.

Ms. NORTON. Let me get this straight so I can understand. The

argument the other way would go, well, you know, the longer they

are under supervision the more ‘‘likely’’ they are to toe the line that

you are after. That is not the case?

Mr. AUSTIN. No.

Ms. NORTON. Because they are not, in fact, committing crimes;

they are violating parole.

Mr. AUSTIN. Most States are moving toward shorter periods of

time on parole supervision. If there is a violation, if you are low

risk and you do these kinds of things, you cannot go to prison. You

can have sanctions imposed. You can have things moved around.

But by law and by policy, you are not allowed to go back to prison

because it is not proportional. The punishment is not proportional

to the behavior. That is the issue.

Ms. BUCHANAN. If I could address a couple of things, Congresswoman Norton. You asked about serving the longer sentences.

Under the determinate system, a person could get a sentence in the

range of, say, 5 to 15 years. There was a one-third. The maximum

was three times the minimum sentence. So the presumption before

the D.C. Parole Board was that you are eligible for parole at the

completion of the bottom number, the one-third. Most people

got——

Ms. NORTON. I’m sorry. I can’t hear you.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Under indeterminate sentencing you could get a

sentence that was a range. The bottom range was one-third of the

top number, so a sentence for, say, robbery could be 5 to 15. After

you completed the 5-years, first 5 years of your sentence, you became eligible for consideration for parole. The D.C. Parole Board,

using its own separate system of factors, would make release decisions.

So part of the reason why we are seeing longer sentences under

the determinate structure is that it is the U.S. Parole Commission

who is making these decisions, and the salient factor score uses a

different set of factors than——

Ms. NORTON. It sounds like they are imposing a Federal system

on a State prison system.

Ms. BUCHANAN. They are, and one of the factors that we have

not talked about explicitly here——

Ms. NORTON. On the other hand, if I could just stop you for a

second.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes?

74

Ms. NORTON. As I look for ways to perhaps improve the system,

getting into the morass about determinate versus indeterminate is

just that—it seems to me, that we have been through that. We kept

them from putting the Federal sentencing guidelines on the District.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Essentially, my point is the D.C. Parole Board

considered you earlier for parole.

Ms. NORTON. The whole notion of discretion——

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. It is interesting how the whole notion of getting rid

of discretion developed, because more privileged people were likely

to benefit from this system. It has had the opposite effect from

what everybody wanted it to have, and so now we have a system

that is so much on a grid that we see atrocious results.

I realize that I am working off of special sentencing guidelines,

but I wonder if D.C.’s sentencing guidelines have any of this built

into them, as well.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Have what built into them?

Ms. NORTON. D.C. has its own set of sentencing guidelines.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. We were able to keep from taking the Federal sentencing guidelines. Is any of this attributable to D.C.’s sentencing

guidelines?

Ms. BUCHANAN. No, I don’t believe so. The Commission that created the guidelines was very careful about trying to determine

what the existing practices were and not getting too far afield from

them.

The other point I wanted to make is, I think everyone on this

panel would agree that one big issue for parole revocation and supervised release revocation, especially for these technical violations

that involve drug use, is the resources available in the community

for drug treatment. There is a huge challenge there.

Ms. NORTON. We are not going to be able to do anything about

some of these things.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Right, but——

Ms. NORTON. We can’t get drug treatment for people who want

it, have never committed a crime. The problem I have here as a

Member of Congress is, I can’t change the whole system. I have to

find a way to deal with an unfairness without somebody saying,

‘‘Hey, up-end the whole system, drug treatment on demand, and

everything will be hunky-dory.’’ I also don’t believe that, because

a lot of the drug treatment doesn’t even work.

Mr. FULWOOD. Just a point of clarity. The court determines when

a person is going on supervised release. They set the date. Is that

not correct?

Ms. BUCHANAN. I believe so.

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes. I mean, it is not the Parole Commission that

sets the supervised release date.

Ms. NORTON. You mean the initial?

Mr. FULWOOD. Yes.

Mr. QUANDER. Ms. Norton, when a court imposes a sentence,

that court gives a sentence. For example, 10 years for aggravated

assault. Under the sentencing scheme, that individual has to serve

85 percent of that, so that individual knows. Everyone knows that

75

he will be eligible for supervised release in 81⁄2 years. That is when

that individual is going to be released. That is under the sentencing scheme that is in place now.

Ms. NORTON. But, of course, that is not the case is it, Dr. Austin,

because you lose your street time, so you can have perpetual parole, because every time you—well, you lose your street time only

if you go back to jail?

Mr. QUANDER. The difference in this—and we are getting into

the morass of it—the difference in the new sentencing structure is

that person has that 10-year sentence, and if he is serving 81⁄2

years, all that remains is that additional period of time, that year

and a half.

Under the old system that Ms. Buchanan was talking about,

when that individual was sentenced to 5 to 15 years, if that individual was released after 5 years then he still had 10 years to go.

So even if he got to year 14 and then there is a new law violation

and his parole is revoked at year 14, he would lose all of that time

from the point when he was released. So he would lose from year

6 all the way up to year 14 as far as his street time. That, I believe, is different under the new sentencing scheme, but there are

still individuals who are on parole now that face that dilemma. I

believe it is the Noble case or the Noble decision that indicates——

Mr. FULWOOD. The Noble decision.

Mr. QUANDER [continuing]. that street time is forfeited.

Mr. FULWOOD. And that was due to the D.C. Board, when they

were in existence, did not interpret the law that way, the statute,

itself. When the U.S. Parole Commission got the D.C. population,

they interpreted the statute differently. A case went to court, and

the court said the U.S. Parole Commission is correct in getting rid

of the street time.

Now, we are, at the present time, getting ready to meet with—

I think it is the Washington Lawyers on Civil Rights about that

issue, because that is clearly a place that we need to look into.

My general feeling, just my personal feeling, is that we should

not automatically revoke people’s time; that we ought to look at

cases individually.

Ms. NORTON. What purpose does it serve to revoke people’s street

time?

Mr. FULWOOD. Put them back. They have to start over.

Ms. NORTON. What would be the rationale that they would offer,

those who came up with that system?

Mr. AUSTIN. There is no scientific basis in terms of public safety.

I just want to add one other thing, which may sound controversial, but there are drug users and there are drug abusers, and you

have to distinguish this. There are probably 25 million Americans

that are using drugs illegally every day and they are not involved

in criminal activity. So we have to make this distinction between

people that use drugs recreationally and those that are abusing

drugs, and that is linked to their criminal behavior.

Just because you test dirty doesn’t mean you are at risk to go

out and commit a crime. This should be clear to all of us, because

we are all grown adults. We know this, but we don’t act like this.

We have a standard policy for everyone, even though it is very different behavior.

76

Ms. NORTON. This is so-called zero tolerance.

Mr. AUSTIN. Well, mandatory drug testing is what is causing a

lot of the revocations. If you start testing everyone, you are going

to bring in a lot of fish.

Ms. NORTON. But Mr. Quander says, and we are certain, that

you have to do a lot of bad marijuana urines in order—I don’t know

how 15 marijuana urines makes you any more susceptible to crime

than 3. I mean, the fact is, you like weed. I don’t understand the

relationship between marijuana users and crime. That is the correlation I am looking for.

Mr. AUSTIN. And a parolee that starts smoking dope knows they

are going to test positive in the next 30 days, so they don’t go in

because they know they are going to test dirty, and now you have

two violations—not showing up, and when they do show up they

do the test, they fall off the wagon. That is our snowball.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Quander, I think it was in Ms. Buchanan’s testimony that she said somebody goes in who hadn’t been going in

and gets arrested. He had not been reporting. He reports and he

gets arrested.

I don’t mean to suggest that this is done arbitrarily. I guess that

is my question, though. For example, you may have heard Mr.

Brown. Mr. Brown, I think, was there before you, and had quite

the alternative sanction system you have. This man had a job. He

was a plumber. He had marijuana. He didn’t show up a few times.

He told the Parole Commission, I’m going to lose my job, and obviously he did.

Would such a person today be sanctioned all the way back to

prison?

Mr. QUANDER. Before we write to the Parole Commission, we employ the sanctions, even before it leaves our office. We don’t revoke

anyone at all. What we do is we supervise individuals, we monitor

them, we try to provide support, and we try to provide sanctions

and guidance so that we can correct non-compliant behavior.

If it appears that the individual, despite our best efforts and despite the documented attempts——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Quander, I understand the general rule. I just

gave you a hypothetical. Would that man today, Mr. Brown, have,

in fact, been sent back to prison? I understand he was in 2004. In

2007, would this man with 15-something marijuana—I’m going to

tell you exactly what my hypothetical is. Re-arrested in 2004 for a

dirty urine test, marijuana, about 15 samples in about a 3-month

period, and a no-show for his meeting with his parole officer, rearrested after a warrant was issued. I am asking you, in 2007,

would this man have been re-arrested? He had a job.

Mr. QUANDER. We don’t re-arrest anyone.

Ms. NORTON. I’m just saying, would this man be arrested?

Whether you would have—you understand my question?

Mr. QUANDER. I think I do. Let me try to explain it this way: all

the times when we are writing——

Ms. NORTON. I’m not going to be able to get through my questions. I understand the general principle. That is why I put a specific. If all you knew was what I just put to you, would this man

be arrested in 2007? Would it be your judgment that he should be

arrested in 2007?

77

Mr. QUANDER. It would be our recommendation to the Parole

Commission that some action be taken. It could be a warrant. It

could be a letter of reprimand. It could be any number of things

that we would recommend to the Parole Commission.

Ms. NORTON. OK. I hope I take that as a no, because I told you

in my hypothetical the man went back to prison, and he had a job.

He was working at that point at Kaiser Permanente—no, I’m sorry.

He had a number of different jobs. He had a job.

I’m going to move on. I am just trying to establish what it takes,

what degree of technical violation it takes, to give up on a person

and to consider—look, we don’t have anything else to do. We have

tried everything we can do.

I wonder if it is related to what you report, Mr. Quander, in your

testimony about the average caseload. You are recommended to

have 50—you report on page 279—per officer?

Mr. QUANDER. Yes. Ten years ago the average was approximately

179 per officer. The national standard was, in general supervision,

50 offenders to one supervision officer. We are a little bit below

that now.

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t have 50?

Mr. QUANDER. No, for general supervision we are below that

now, so we are better than the national average.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that these things do depend upon the

circumstances involved. You are not suggesting, Ms. Buchanan,

that these matters go to court every time that there is going to be

a revocation?

Ms. BUCHANAN. To court? Well, going to court is the last step

once the person is unsuccessful at the U.S. Parole Commission

level, but our experience is that most of their violations that come

to our caseload are technical violations. For example, yesterday——

Ms. NORTON. No. My question is: I thought you were suggesting

that, instead of going to the Commission, that the court that originally decided the matter——

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes. I’m sorry.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Should decide whether parole should

be revoked.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Is that what you——

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes, that is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, my God. Wouldn’t that be essentially throwing

out the administrative process, which is always set up in order to

keep the courts from being overloaded?

Ms. BUCHANAN. Well, the option is to re-establish the D.C. Parole

Board, but the idea of going through court is to set it up like a probation, probation monitoring, where the judge who imposed the

sentence is most familiar with the facts and circumstances leading

up to whatever brings the person before the——

Ms. NORTON. I am pressing this because I am looking for a solution that I could, in fact, sell here.

You say, Dr. Austin, about a new system that you are working

on?

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes?

Ms. NORTON. Now, any new system you are working on would

have to be approved by the Justice Department; isn’t that so?

78

Mr. AUSTIN. I don’t know. It would have to be approved by the

Parole Commission, I know.

Ms. NORTON. I thought you meant you were working with the

Parole Commission.

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Chief Fulwood, could you institute a new system on

your own?

Mr. FULWOOD. I believe we can. That is why we have

authorized——

Ms. NORTON. Would it then have to be approved by the current

Justice Department?

Mr. FULWOOD. I don’t think so. I mean, we are an independent

body within the Justice Department that has Presidential appointee commissioners. We have authorized the study. We are now

moving to try to implement a new salient factors score. The administrative process, to me, is a better process. I don’t think it ought

to go back to judges. I don’t think judges are any different.

Mr. AUSTIN. I want to echo, Congresswoman Norton, that the

current parole Commissioners are moving aggressively in the right

direction, and I think we need to give them some time to see how

quickly they can implement a proper system. That would be my

recommendation.

Ms. NORTON. Well, they certainly are moving. If you think that

it can and will be done administratively, that is certainly better

than putting it through. I would hate to think that it could be done

and then could be unraveled based on what administration was in

power. So I am looking for your advice and counsel on that.

Ms. BUCHANAN. We would certainly be happy to see the salient

factor score system changed, and my recommendation for the

courts taking over is a parallel to the supervised release system.

Those matters go back before the original judge, as well.

The supervised release would be a huge change that we believe

should have the kind of impact that we are talking about having.

Mr. AUSTIN. And the fact that it goes back to judges, and judges

are struggling with this, too. I mean, we shouldn’t sit here like it

is something nice when they go back to judges. It doesn’t. Judges

are struggling with this whole thing about how to handle substance

abuse cases, how to handle people who come back repeatedly.

I have talked to judges who say, this guy has been back here five

times. What am I going to do? You know, they are struggling with

it. That is why, as I said earlier, this is a very difficult thing to

do.

I agree with her that there are not enough treatment beds, that

people continue to come back. There are not enough treatment facilities to address this problem. I suggest to you that it is going to

get worse as the demographics in the city continue to change, because there is no place for them to go, unless you are going to keep

putting them in the southeast—and not Capitol Hill southeast,

over on the other side of the river where Buchanan lives, and I live,

and Paul Quander lives. Most judges don’t live in this city.

Mr. QUANDER. Can I make one point? Under the Federal system,

the supervised releasees go back to the sentencing judge.

Ms. NORTON. Right.

79

Mr. QUANDER. In the local court, once that individual is released

on supervised release, the supervision of that individual falls to the

U.S. Parole Commission. So, the supervised releasees in the District of Columbia are supervised by the U.S. Parole Commission as

opposed to the Superior Court judges.

Ms. NORTON. All right. Just let me finally just establish what we

have established here.

Are almost all of the inmates we are talking about here non-violent offenders?

Mr. QUANDER. No. It varies. We have the full range. In my testimony, I indicated that most of the individuals who we have filed

requests for action are at the maximum or intensive level of supervision. It ranges from your violent offender to your non-violent offender who has shown a propensity to not follow the rules and is

posing a danger to the community. So it is the full range of offenders.

Ms. NORTON. In your judgment, are changes by the D.C. Council

needed to assure that some of the improvements you have indicated take place?

Mr. FULWOOD. On the Noble decision there is a bill going to be

introduced to the Council. I am sorry that I have lost the guy’s

name.

Ms. NORTON. That is all right. If you think that is going to happen, I would like staff to——

Mr. FULWOOD. Phil Formasce. Phil, who is introducing the bill in

the Council to change the Noble decision.

Ms. BUCHANAN. The Public Defender Service is working on that

issue, as well, with Mr. Formasce on the Washington——

Ms. NORTON. Sorry?

Ms. BUCHANAN. The Public Defender Service is also working with

Mr. Formasce on that issue.

Ms. NORTON. So you do think a change in D.C. law is necessary?

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes, on the Noble decision. Exactly. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Austin, you say that if you try to say you ought

to, in fact, abolish a policy that has been in place, you have to be

able to say why it was put in place and why it failed. We deny

street time. Is that just an anomaly, or was there a reason? Is

there a reasoning chronology for it?

Mr. AUSTIN. No. There is no scientific basis.

Ms. NORTON. Where does it come from?

Mr. AUSTIN. I don’t know, but there is no scientific basis.

Ms. NORTON. Are we the only place? These prisoners——

Mr. AUSTIN. No. Other States used to do that, but almost—I

could rattle off 10 to 12 States now that are getting rid of that policy because you are just wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars

trying to overly punish people. It is just unnecessary; doesn’t make

anyone safer; just costs a lot of money.

Ms. BUCHANAN. I think it is punitive, purely punitive. That is

the motivation for doing it.

Ms. NORTON. It is what?

Ms. BUCHANAN. It is purely punitive, and the District has deliberately set out to change the law in order to counteract that. It was

a Court of Appeals decision that relied on a tangential argument

80

to say that we had to keep the current system in place, and that

is why we are working with Mr. Formasce to change the law.

Ms. NORTON. Is this the U.S. Court of Appeals or the D.C. Court

of Appeals?

Ms. BUCHANAN. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C.

Council did not effectively change the law, and that is why we are

trying to go back and make that specific change with that specific

intent.

Ms. NORTON. I am curious about why there would be this increase in drug violations after at least some of these inmates have

access to the Board of Prisons’ 500-hour program, which is generally highly regarded. We know that at Rivers they didn’t have it.

I suppose they didn’t really have it even at BOP, because we just

got the law changed; is that right?

Mr. QUANDER. I’m not sure what the current status of the law

is.

Ms. NORTON. Well, we are going to have testimony that they

have new regulations.

Mr. QUANDER. OK.

Ms. NORTON. I am just trying to establish that one of the reasons

that we may have this escalation—there may be many reasons.

There are more drugs in society and the like—is that, since D.C.

residents have been under the supervision of the Board of Prisons,

they have not been eligible, until very recently, for the state-of-theart drug program. So, they go in dirty; they come out dirty. Now

we are paying for it by sending them back in.

I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to find

my way through the possibility of changes here that would be lasting and quick, and I have been trying by this line of questions to

understand what in the world happens here. I appreciate very

much your indulgence in allowing me to question these witnesses.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I only have one

additional question.

Dr. Austin, do you have any idea as to why the D.C. sentences

are longer than in other jurisdictions?

Mr. AUSTIN. Again, just to clarify, the old sentencing structure

is what we have been talking about. The new sentencing structure

is probably more in line with other States. We need to get you and

the Congresswoman a calculation. We do a comparison to show how

they stack up, that we could do pretty easily. The Sentencing Commission has good staff, and they can provide information on that.

The one thing that is different is your 85 percent requirement,

which requires them to serve a certain amount, a portion of that

time. In your State it is 50 percent. Other places it is 80 percent.

In some places it is 75 percent. In some places it is 40 percent. I

keep telling this over and over again: you can set that percentage

at any level. It doesn’t have any impact on the recidivism rate or

public safety. It has a big impact on your budget. So you kind of

pick your medicine, whatever you want to go with, but scientifically

it doesn’t have an impact on public safety. It has a big impact on

the size of your prison population.

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

We appreciate your testimony and your indulgence. You are excused.

81

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you.

Mr. FULWOOD. Thank you.

Ms. BUCHANAN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Our next witness, of course, for panel

three is Mr. George Snyder, who has served as the warden of Rivers Correctional Institution since 2003. As Warden, Mr. Snyder is

responsible for the administration, operation, and correctional

training of offenders at Rivers.

Warden Snyder, thank you so much for being with us. Please

stand and raise your right hand. It is the tradition that all witnesses be sworn in.

[Witness sworn.]

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

Of course, you have done this so many times. If you would, just

go ahead and proceed with your 5 minutes. Then we will get into

some questions and answers.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE SNYDER, WARDEN, RIVERS

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Chairman Davis and Congresswoman

Norton.

My name is George Snyder, warden of Rivers Correctional Institution located in Winton, NC. On behalf of the GEO Group, I thank

you for the opportunity to testify regarding the various pre-release

programs offered to inmates housed in our facility.

As a result of the National Revitalization Act of 1997, on March

7, 2000, the Federal Board of Prisons signed a contract with the

GEO Group to design, build, finance, own, operate, and manage a

low-security, adult, male facility in Winton, NC. We received our

first D.C. inmates in March 2001.

Located on a 257-acre tract in rural Hertford County, the facility

has a campus designed with four housing buildings, indoor and

outdoor recreational areas, a central programs building, a prison

industries building, and an administrative building. The design enables cost-effective utilization of security staff, supplemented by

modern electronic surveillance, which, in turn, allows enhanced

programming activities without significant budgetary implications.

Our average inmate population is 1,350, with approximately 65

percent of the inmates coming from the District of Columbia. Rivers Correctional Institution is 226 miles from Washington, DC.

Because of time constraints, I would like to briefly review some

of the programs that we have at our facility which we feel the subcommittee has the most interest.

Our psychology department provides individual and group psychotherapy to those inmates who are court ordered to participate

in treatment; who are referred to treatment by facility management, staff; or who volunteer to participate in the treatment.

Since Congresswoman Norton’s visit to our facility, and since the

last subcommittee hearing, RCI began preparation for implementation of its 9-month residential drug treatment program. The program will provide a continuum of treatment services to inmates

82

with a documented history of substance abuse programs and will

be conducted within a highly structured regimen of a modified

therapeutic community comprised of inmates with similar problems

living and working together. In addition to programming incentives, eligible inmates may receive up to 1 year off of their sentence

for successful completion of the program.

The following actions have been taken toward implementation of

the program:

As Congresswoman Norton mentioned, the Board of Prisons has

been very diligent recently, and they approved and budgeted for

this substance abuse program. Since their approval and budgeting,

we have advertised that we have vacancies for three drug abuse

specialists and one drug abuse program coordinator, have been advertised in a variety of formats, through the radio, internet, and

newspapers in Virginia and North Carolina. Offers have been made

and accepted for two drug treatment specialists. Training has been

conducted for facility staff regarding the drug abuse programming

and inmate eligibility requirements.

Approximately 25 inmates from the general population have completed application for entrance into the program, and we have expanded the office space for the drug treatment staff and inmate

housing unit area, and it is nearing completion.

Full implementation of the program is scheduled to begin May

1st.

When we discuss pre-release programs, we must address our unit

management concept. Upon entry into the facility, inmates are assigned to a housing unit, and once in the unit assigned to a unit

team. These unit teams manage the inmate’s needs throughout his

stay at the facility. In unit management, release preparation begins the very first day of incarceration and continues until the inmate is released or transferred. This release preparation may include one or more of the following vocational and educational programs that we have: we have English as a second language, adult

basic education, general education development [GED], keyboarding, computer technology I and II, life skills and parenting, and a

release preparation program.

I just want to spend a moment to talk about this program. This

program provides life skills that prepare inmates to re-enter the

community. The core curriculum is organized into six broad categories: health, nutrition, employment, personal finance/consumer

skills, community resources, release requirements, and aspects of

personal growth and development. This intensive course covers a

variety of topics, each chosen to strengthen the individual’s chances

for successful re-entry into society and it mirrors what the Board

of Prisons offers.

We also have a vocational woodworking technology program. One

of our most successful programs has been the heating, ventilation,

and air conditioning program.

Of course, we have the work force transition program, which we

began this last year, and that has been in collaboration with the

University of District of Columbia and CSOSA.

I would just like to take a moment to comment on CSOSA. They

have been a wonderful partner in all of our collaborations in trying

to come up with programs that truly work for the needs of the inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
83

mate. I would like to thank Mr. Quander and his staff. But this

program work is a work readiness program that prepares the individual inmates to address work force needs and marketable skills.

Since the last hearing, we have begun preparation for a building

construction technology program. This program, as with the drug

program, is scheduled to begin of May 2008. The building trades

program will be certified through the National Center for Construction, Education, and Research, using the nationally recognized

Wheels of Learning instructional materials, and will be taught by

certified instructors from our local community college, RoanokeChowan Community College. The program will accommodate 45 inmates per a 16-week semester. At the completion of this program,

the inmates will be certified and will qualify for entry-level employment in the construction industry.

I would like to state that Mr. Brown stated that we had the

HVAC program but there was an age restriction on that from age

18 to age 24. There is only one criteria for this new building construction program that we have, and that is that the inmate must

have at least 6 months left on his sentence.

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

questions that you and Ms. Norton may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snyder follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Again, we appreciate your indulgence and your being here.

Let me ask, when did Rivers get its contract?

Mr. SNYDER. It was in 2000. The original contract was in March

2001.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. In 2001?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you have any data relative to inmates

who have been released and who may be re-incarcerated?

Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. We don’t track that data.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so it would be pretty difficult to determine the effectiveness of some of the programs relative to recidivism reduction; that is, determining whether or not the individuals

have gotten out and whether or not they have come back? Whether

they have been re-incarcerated or still experiencing the same problems that they may have experienced before?

Mr. SNYDER. That would be difficult, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think that is something that we need

to begin to look at in terms of individuals who are incarcerated so

that we can tell or have a better handle on whether or not at least

that component of what we are doing is being effective.

Given the population that comes from the District of Columbia,

which areas of need do you think exist the most? I’m saying there

are some individuals who come in who probably need anger management. There are some individuals who just barely can read and

write who need general education development. There are some individuals who maybe can do that but they don’t have any specific

skill that they can make use of. Is there any area of greatest need

that you have been able to determine?

Mr. SNYDER. I don’t have any data to back this up, sir, but I

would feel that job preparation. It is so very difficult for someone

getting out of prison to succeed. Then, having a job certainly, I

think, some data nationally would show that job preparation would

be probably the greatest need that people would have.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I would agree with you, because it seems

to me that, no matter what else is going on in a person’s life, if

they can’t find a job, if all of these work barriers continue to exist,

then in all likelihood we can expect a good number of them to end

up back, if not at Rivers, some place else. The same circumstances

that got them there in the first place pretty much continue to exist

in their lives, unless somehow or another, that has not been corrected.

The other question that I would have—I like the idea of the psychotherapy, the drug treatment. One of our witnesses testified

about receiving $0.12 an hour for work.

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. As a person who is inside and who comes

in contact with the thinking of inmates and with staff, what is the

reaction overall to that? Is that something that inmates moan and

groan about? Is it something that they find distasteful? Is it something they complain about? Is it something that maybe helps to develop negative attitudes rather than positive attitudes when they

ultimately get out?

90

Mr. SNYDER. Concerning attitudes and getting out, I am not sure

about that, but I can comment on how they feel when they are in.

We try to tier their pay. There are some jobs that pay lower than

that, some pay higher than the $0.12. It may go up to $0.14. We

try to mirror it after society. Those that have an education would

get the higher pay, lower education. We try to encourage them, for

example, to get the GED. To get the highest pay grade level, you

have to have a GED or have an exemption to the GED for some

reason. So we try to mirror it. That is a contention with inmates,

the pay rates, but our pay rates mirror the Board of Prisons pay

rates. We try to keep our operations very similar to the Board of

Prisons, because we have inmates that transfer from Bureau facilities to our facilities, so we try to keep them very similar.

So there is a concern about the pay rate, but I have been doing

this for 28 years now and it is always a concern. It is a similar concern that people have in society. They would like more money for

their work.

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

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Delegate Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this was very straightforward testimony. I have only a few questions, because this is in the nature

of a status report, the kind of status report, I must tell you, that

Members of Congress in committees like ours like to hear—

progress.

I do want to say to you, Mr. Snyder, you will find me—and I believe the chairman and the entire subcommittee is likely to be as

quick to commend as to criticize. As I said in my opening testimony, you deserve credit, given our last hearing, given our trip,

and so does Mr. Lapin. I said, of course, at that hearing that you

were not funded to do the equalization, as I called it, of services,

and so that took Director Lapin’s intervention, and he was quick

to do so. So I want to just say for the record how much we appreciate the straightforward way you moved ahead.

Now, the program that you are building a facility, drug rehabilitation program, you can see how much that would mean to the District of Columbia when you hear that people get sent back to Rivers because chiefly of some kind of minor infraction, particularly

drug abuse—we understand, perhaps, upwards of 70 percent of

these offenders now. I don’t know how many of them have had access, because it only started with the 500-hour program, so it

would be very interesting for us to trace whether or not—now that

we are going to have the 500-hour program available in BOP facilities and at Rivers—whether that has an effect upon these drug revocations.

The importance of the 500-hour program, I said, is that they reinforce one another, because they live together, and they have an

incentive that if they complete the program satisfactorily, they

could get as much as a year reduced from their sentence. Is that

true?

Mr. SNYDER. That is correct. Yes, they can receive up to 1 year

off.

Ms. NORTON. If you are looking for an incentive, it seems to me

that is the paradigm for an incentive.

91

The chairman asked about whether or not there was any system

for tracking essentially whether these programs work like the new

programs reporting into effect. I do believe that the Board of Prisons has a strong reputation for, in fact, doing control studies or

doing studies all the time. Since Rivers is just starting with these

new programs, I must ask you whether you know if the Board of

Prisons intends to track your programs to see if there is any difference, for example, as the chairman says, whether there is more

recidivism when people have had access to programs and when

they haven’t? Do you know of any such plan?

Mr. SNYDER. I don’t know that they are going to do it. I think

they may have the mechanism in place already, and just apply it

to these inmates, but I can certainly find that out and get back

with you.

Ms. NORTON. I know the Board of Prisons has lower recidivism

rates than most State prisons, and I think this is something that

staff will want to track.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Here we have tabula rosa almost here

that is ready-made for somebody to track and see what makes a

difference, and that is the only way you can know how to improve

what to continue in the rest of it.

Now, May 1st is when?

Mr. SNYDER. That is the target date to begin both of the programs.

Ms. NORTON. All right. And you are on target so far?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Now, you have testified that the drug program,

drug rehabilitation program, is a 500-hour program that they have

at other BOP facilities. Are all of the other programs that you have

testified about also comparable to the BOP programs, building construction technology, for example?

Mr. SNYDER. Building construction technology, that program is

designed by requirements that the Board of Prisons have given us

in a statement of work. They said, we want this type of program

that certifies and would be a certain length. So I assume that it

meets their requirements of what they are looking for. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note that—well,

maybe I should ask about the HVAC program first. I was a little

concerned about the HVAC program, not that this is not exactly

the kind of skill that is likely to be used. But, there are all kinds

of issues about being employed, particularly if you work in people’s

homes and so forth.

I note this construction industry training you are engaged in

here now, not only does it seem to me this is—well, first let me just

say for the record, if you talk to people in the construction trades,

they will tell you that, although the rate of pay remains what it

always was, a very high rate of pay, that people who might have

gone into construction no longer do. They will go fool with some

computer somewhere. Thus, we have found that it is easier to get

people hired in the construction trades today. They will take ex-offenders in the construction trade. There is a job shortage there.

I must say, I am pleased to see such things as roofing, exterior

siding, basic residential plumbing, drywall. And, of course, we had

92

some discussions with you, but I think what you have done is to

look at where there is a market——

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Where there is a need, and I believe

you have hooked up with where the need is in this region now.

You heard Mr. Brown—perhaps you were here when he testified—that for HVAC there was an age limit and, although he is a

young man, he couldn’t get into the program. Is that because of the

trade, itself, requires that for apprenticeship training and the like?

Mr. SNYDER. The HVAC requirement on the age of 18 to 24 was

because it was a State Department of Education program that was

a grant program. It was tied to that specific age.

Ms. NORTON. Is that program still going on?

Mr. SNYDER. It is still going on, and it is functioning well, actually. Many inmates are paying for it themselves now. You know,

an inmate could enroll in it if they wanted to.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I have an amendment in the Higher Education Act to try and take that age restriction off.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I don’t know whether or not and the extent to which it is going to be done, but we do have an amendment

in Higher Education to try and make that happen.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman is on that committee, the Education

Committee.

Mr. SNYDER. OK. Great.

Ms. NORTON. What about these other certified building programs? Is there any age limit on them?

Mr. SNYDER. There is no restrictions whatsoever, other than an

inmate must have at least 6 months remaining on his sentence to

qualify to enter the program.

Ms. NORTON. Because you need time to do it?

Mr. SNYDER. You need time, at least 6 months to finish part of

the program. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Warden Snyder, I recall that many of those who

were at Rivers were essentially parole revocations when I visited.

Is that still the case?

Mr. SNYDER. There are still quite a few. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Rivers also seemed to be a place where people

transitioned from other BOP facilities. Would you describe roughly

the proportions?

Mr. SNYDER. This is just a guess, because I have no data to support this, but I would say 50 percent of them. It may be as high

as 50 percent could be parole revocations. Maybe 40 percent maybe.

I am not for sure. I don’t have that data.

Ms. NORTON. You mentioned UDC. What is the involvement of

UDC, please?

Mr. SNYDER. University of the District of Columbia?

Ms. NORTON. Didn’t you mention the University?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. The University of District of Columbia, they

work on a work force transition program in conjunction with

CSOSA, and it is a work readiness program. They come in and do

a battery assessment on the inmate, and actually after they do the

assessment on the inmate, after the inmate is released, he is

93

transitioned to the University of District of Columbia for the aftercare program with the District.

Ms. NORTON. So how many inmates have gone through that program and then gone on to the University of the District of Columbia?

Mr. SNYDER. We have our first cohort, I guess you could call it,

that has been released and the District will be working with, and

we will be starting another group where they will be coming in to

our facility.

Ms. NORTON. So when they go to UDC, what are they doing

there?

Mr. SNYDER. It is my understanding that the next step is job

readiness, job training of some type.

Ms. NORTON. I see my CSOSA friends are here. I can’t understand why there is not a long-distance college course or course of

some kind between—I’m talking about by video—between our State

university, the University of the District of Columbia, and Rivers.

I just don’t understand it. Would there be any reasons not to do

that?

Mr. SNYDER. The majority of our inmates are there for less than

a year, I guess, and——

Ms. NORTON. Yes. You go to school for 9 months.

Mr. SNYDER. And I agree with you on that, Congresswoman. But

I guess finding a commonality of a course that all of them would

take, if it is an academic course, something that——

Ms. NORTON. Well, remember UDC is not simply a place where

people go to become doctors, lawyers, and Indian Chiefs; it is a

combination junior college and full-fledged university.

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Again, this is something I think I am going to have

to work on.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Representative Norton, I am going to run

and vote. Those others have been motions to adjourn; this is a motion on tabling the ruling of the Chair, and so I am going to go and

vote on that.

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. One of the few ways in which the District of Columbia perhaps benefits from my not having the vote is

that at least witnesses don’t have to wait until I return from voting, unless it is the committee as a whole, and this is not, but this

is a very important vote for the chairman to go to. He says I can

proceed with the next witness when we are through, and I am almost through here.

I must tell you I can think of the kinds of UDC courses I have

in mind. Assuming that there was a UDC course of some kind,

whether it is in the present curriculum or not, would the facilities

at Rivers be amenable to a video course offered from the District

of Columbia to people who would take the course at Rivers in preparation perhaps for the next step when they get out?

Mr. SNYDER. Most assuredly. Anything that we can do to help,

and we have, like I said, had good partnership with CSOSA. If we

can come up with something else, we would certainly be open to

it, yes.

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me just say, I get the idea from what

CSOSA has done. I think CSOSA has begun in the right place.

94

Let’s get people ready for a job. I must say I was impressed by the

fact that these, your own people, Warden Snyder, told me that

many of the D.C. inmates were articulate and intelligent and ready

to move on, had indeed had some good amount of education. We

just had one witness here who graduated from McKinley High

School.

To the extent that we can even encourage people to begin college,

even if you have only 1 year of college today you are way above

where you would have been without any college at all.

Those were all the questions I have, and I very much appreciate

your coming.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Ms. NORTON. We go to the last panel. The last panel is Chief

Judge Rufus King, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and

Betty Ballester, J.D., D.C. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association.

Would you please stand and be sworn?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. NORTON. The record will show that each witness answered

in the affirmative.

Judge King.

STATEMENTS OF RUFUS G. KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT; AND BETTY BALLESTER, PRESIDENT, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF RUFUS G. KING III

Judge KING. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Norton, and for the

members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today on the need to restore the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia bench to 61 associate judges and a chief

judge.

I am Rufus G. King III, chief judge of the Superior Court.

I think it is S. 550 which has come over that would take the Superior Court to the number of judges that were authorized with the

passage of the Family Court Act of 2001—that is, 61 judges, including its chief. This number is needed to ensure that all divisions of

the court, not just the Family Court, have an adequate number of

judges so that cases are handled fairly and expeditiously, that

needed interventions can occur, and that our strategic performance

standards are met.

According to the National Center for State Courts, the District

of Columbia courts have among the highest caseloads per capita

and per judge in the Nation. Since the Family Court Act became

law in January 2002—and, of course, I know, Congresswoman Norton, you are well familiar with that, as you played a critical role

in that legislation—the number of cases pending in the Superior

Court has risen by 30 percent.

The court needs additional judges to properly manage this caseload, and there are several reasons. Recently, courts across the

country have adopted a problem-solving approach to cases. In those

courts, judges take on the task of not only resolving cases by trial

or plea and a traditional sentence, but also establishing and supervising referrals of defendants to appropriate service providers. InVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
95

deed, this move goes much to what you have been discussing all

afternoon.

The goal is to address the issues underlying criminal behavior,

such as drug dependency, homelessness, mental illness, and chronic unemployment, in order to reduce recidivism. Thus, in minor

criminal cases, instead of a relatively efficient trial and closure by

acquittal or sentence, the case results in an extended period of supervision while the defendant undertakes drug treatment and

counseling or other appropriate services, during which the defendant may appear before the court a number of times.

At the Superior Court we use these tools in our D.C. and Traffic

Community Court, which handles minor misdemeanors and traffic

offenses; our East-of-the-River Community Court, which handles

all misdemeanors except domestic violence assaults from wards 7

and 8 in the city; our Drug Court, which handles non-violent felony

and misdemeanor drug offenses; our Juvenile Drug Court, which is

the drug court for young offenders; our Family Treatment Court,

which provides drug treatment for parents without breaking up the

family; and our pilot Mental Health Court initiative, which handles

cases where mental health issues are predominant.

These cases take more time to resolve, but the solutions reduce

recidivism and thus ultimately will benefit both the court and the

community, and hopefully in reduced recidivism rates.

Also, pursuant to its second 5-year strategic plan, the Superior

Court is implementing performance standards for each of its caseloads. Performance standards establish timelines within which

cases should be resolved, and thus provide a measure of how well

we are doing and where we can improve. There are other measures, such as age of pending caseload and trial certainty, that go

to the same goal.

We base our performance standards on what we have learned

from courts across the country, and we seek to replicate those practices here. We have engaged in a rigorous strategic planning process designed to ensure that we are doing all we can to meet community needs, to be accountable to the public we serve, and enhance public trust and confidence in the judiciary. The additional

judges called for in this bill would greatly enhance our ability to

meet and in the future exceed those standards.

As to the cost of the additional judges and staff, we are not asking for additional funding. Appropriations for the implementation

of the Family Court Act provided funding in our base budget for

the court to add judicial officers to handle family cases, raising the

number of judges on our bench to 62. As you may be aware, when

judges left the Superior Court and the size of the bench fell back

down to 59, the Family Court Act limited us to only replacing Family Court judges unless the total number of judges fell below 59.

The Family Court funding has enabled us to fully fund the Family Court, both judges, necessary staff, and several one-time programmatic costs. As an example, our drop-in centers for juvenile offenders, where I believe you may have been present at the opening.

As Federal agencies do, the D.C. courts strive to end the fiscal

year with at least a 1 percent reserve designed to cover costs that

become due after the close of the year, such as late invoices or utilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46110.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
96

ity expenses or contractual services performed at the end of the

year.

The court also experiences a vacancy rate among full-time employees, including sometimes judges, typical of the Federal agencies, which is around 3 percent. Given the reserve and our typical

personnel vacancy rate, we will be able to meet the cost of the additional judges and their staffs without an increase in the personal

services line of the Superior Court’s appropriation.

The Superior Court intends to continue to manage its budget effectively and use the strong fiscal controls that have resulted in

independent accountants giving us their unqualified financial audit

rating with the highest possible rating for the past several years.

I have conveyed to staff on both sides of the Hill, authorizing and

appropriating, that the cost for these additional judges will be met

using existing Superior Court funding levels. There will be no additional funds requested for appropriation.

Congresswoman Norton, members of the committee, thank you

for providing me with the opportunity to testify today and to talk

about the Superior Court’s caseload figures and the need for additional judges. I appreciate your support for our efforts and look forward to working with you to ensure that the District of Columbia

continues to have one of the strongest trial courts in the country.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Judge King follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

Ms. NORTON. We will hear next from Ms. Ballester.

STATEMENT OF BETTY BALLESTER

Ms. BALLESTER. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton,

for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 2008 hourly rate increase

for D.C. Criminal Justice Act and Council for Child Abuse and Neglect Program attorneys.

I am the president of the Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, which represents more than 350 attorneys who practice criminal law and traffic law in the District of Columbia. Today I am also

speaking on behalf of more than 350 members of the CCAN panel.

The attorneys who represent an indigent in the District of Columbia are dedicated to their work and proud to be part of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The court has supported

us very strongly over the years, and we appreciate that. Each of

us on both the CCAN and the CJA panels was chosen after an application process reviewed by a committee of judges and, in some

cases, a committee of peers. We believe that the indigent in the

District of Columbia are entitled to competent representation.

In March 2002, we received an increase in the hourly rate from

$50 per hour to $65 per hour. We have received no increases in pay

since that time. Inflation has continued since that time at a rate

of 3 to 4 percent a year, and the cost of goods and services has continued to rise. The $65 an hour in 2002 would be between $76 and

$78 an hour today, and that is a conservative estimate.

We are asking that the hourly rate be raised to $80 an hour and

that the limit on cases be raised to $2,400 for misdemeanor cases

and $4,600 for felony cases. The increase to $80 an hour would

keep us on a par to what we received in 2002. We are also asking

that this subcommittee make this increase effective as soon as possible. The money has already been appropriated.

None of the attorneys who practices within the CJA or CCAN

system receive any benefits. Each attorney pays for all of his or her

insurance costs, including health, disability, life, home, and malpractice. Each attorney pays for his or her office expenses, including rent and utilities. Each attorney pays for all of his or her supplies, including research services, computer services, and any office

help. Each of these attorneys pays for his or her transportation expenses, including the continuing rising cost of gasoline. None of

these attorneys has any paid vacation or sick leave. Many of these

attorneys are striving to send children to college and striving to

maintain the stability of homes.

The attorneys of the CJA and CCAN panels deserve a raise to

$80 per hour. Oftentimes, they work more than 10 to 12 hours per

day. They also work most weekends. They visit jails and out-ofState penitentiaries. They visit children who are placed in institutions or homes in other jurisdictions. They visit crime scenes,

search for witnesses, and often find themselves in dangerous neighborhoods. They do this all to adequately and competently represent

their clients, whether they be adults or children.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. I would be glad

to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ballester follows:]

103

104

105

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS [presiding]. You can go right ahead, Ms.

Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could I ask you, Judge King, you say on page 2 of your testimony that the District of Columbia has one of the highest caseloads per capita and per judge in the Nation. I thought I heard you

say something about a 30 percent increase. Did you say that?

Judge KING. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. When was that increase? Over what period of time?

Judge KING. Over a period of time from 2002 until 2007 was the

period measured.

Ms. NORTON. What accounts for such an increase?

Judge KING. The things that we are talking about and the greater complexity of the cases.

Ms. NORTON. I can understand that, but you said an increasing

caseload. I am very sympathetic to what you say about judges, in

fact, doing more than meting out sentences or the rest, but, in fact,

doing some supervision themselves. But, I thought you were talking about a 30 percent increase in cases.

Judge KING. Well, there is a distinction between pending cases,

which is what I referred to—that is the number we have to deal

with—and filings, which are actually down a little bit over that period.

Ms. NORTON. We are not talking about filings; we are talking

about cases that stay on the docket because of the involvement of

judges.

Judge KING. That is correct. And that number has gone up, for

the reasons that I outlined.

Ms. NORTON. You must have 15 on the Family Court; is that

right?

Judge KING. Pardon?

Ms. NORTON. You must have 15 on the Family Court; is that correct?

Judge KING. Yes. That is correct, and, indeed, the proof of that—

the wisdom of that provision has been that our Family Court has

really been able to provide much better service and more current

service in those cases.

Ms. NORTON. That is the whole reason we were able to get the

overall——

Judge KING. Exactly.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Change for the entire court.

Could I ask what is the status of this bill in the Senate and the

status of funding in the Senate?

Judge KING. Well, the funding is done. There is no additional

funding need for us. As I say, I asked our financing people to assure me that this wasn’t something where I would have to come

back next year and say, ‘‘Wait a minute, we now need the funding.’’

That is not the case.

On the basis of the margin of error that we work on from year

to year and on our vacancy rate, which is borne out by long experience, we will be able to meet this obligation without additional

funding.

As to the status of the bill——

106

Ms. NORTON. You know, if that is the case, why aren’t you able

to meet it right now on the basis of the vacancy rate?

Judge KING. I’m sorry?

Ms. NORTON. If that is the case, why aren’t you able simply to

bring these? Because you can’t go above 59?

Judge KING. We are not allowed to go. We are just asking to take

out—actually the way the law is written now is it says 58 judges

and a chief judge, and we are just asking you to change that number, 58, to 61, so that it would authorize us to do that. That is exactly right.

I learned that S. 550 has passed the Senate and has been sent

to the House, so it should be——

Ms. NORTON. That is this bill?

Judge KING. Yes, that is this bill. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. I understand CBO has looked at this, Congressional Budget Office, and I know you understand that if somehow

the vacancy rate——

Judge KING. We are aware that the CBO has, I think, scored it

at about $1 million, which is a figure we are well aware of. That

is an accurate——

Ms. NORTON. But you say D.C. courts strive to end the fiscal year

with at least 1 percent budgetary reserve designed to cover costs

that become due after the close of the year. Our experience is only

a portion of this reserve is typically used. How much of the reserve

is typically used?

Judge KING. It varies. I can give you more detail. I know

that——

Ms. NORTON. One thing you don’t want to get into is over-obligation.

Judge KING. That is right. Absolutely. Of course we don’t want

to do that, and I am assured that we won’t. We will find——

Ms. NORTON. I favor this bill, I must say, and you say it is based

on long experience looking at vacancies. What do you mean? Since

you have been at Superior Court? You have been at Superior Court

for about 30 years or more?

Judge KING. Not quite that long, but yes, certainly since 1971,

when I was admitted to the Bar and began practicing in the court.

There have always been some vacancies among the judges, indeed.

Ms. NORTON. You do recognize that if there weren’t this over

here, we are on pay-go.

Judge KING. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And therefore it depends entirely on your not overobligating funds, on if you find yourself in a bind you taking it out

of something else?

Judge KING. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Because you are would be annualizing three more

judges?

Judge KING. Yes, three.

Ms. NORTON. With all that implies in terms of their benefits, in

terms of their salaries.

Judge KING. That is right. It is about $1 million, and we have

assessed it on that basis. And I fully understand, of course, the

House, especially because you are on pay-go, needs to know that

107

you are not going to hear from us again on this subject if this bill

is passed.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am certainly for this bill.

Ms. Ballester, I am for this bill, your bill, as well. I don’t quite

understand why it matters to Congress that each attorney pays his

or her office expenses. That is what lawyers do, pay for their own

supplies. Nobody who has somebody on retainer, which is essentially what you would be, pays for those supplies. None of these

have any paid vacation or sick leave. What lawyer in private practice does unless the firm allows that? So you make a case, but I

am not sure why anybody who is seeking business with the Government ought to point out that rent, utilities, and the rest of it.

Ms. BALLESTER. Well, I think what I am trying to say, Congresswoman, is that we are not employed by firms, and we do not——

Ms. NORTON. Well, some of you may be, mightn’t you?

Ms. BALLESTER. No. All of us are self-employed. We may have

partnerships, but I think they——

Ms. NORTON. Well, all lawyers have partnerships, usually.

Ms. BALLESTER. No.

Ms. NORTON. Most lawyers do not work for a corporation; they

work for a partnership.

The reason I am clarifying this is, I would not want it to be on

the record here that somehow we believe that expenses beyond

what it takes to fairly fund attorneys for representing the indigent

should be taken into account. And to the extent that the record

looks like we are saying that transportation expenses and the rest

of it—I recognize if you are in a firm, a partnership, maybe you bill

that into overhead. This, of course, has never been the case with

respect to lawyers who the Government gives cases on the basis of

indigency.

You are talking about payment for services rendered, are you

not?

Ms. BALLESTER. Payment for services rendered. Yes, indeed, and

the chief judge has just indicated to me the Federal rate now for

indigent attorneys in the District of Columbia has gone up to $100

per hour for services and actually up to $120 an hour in capital

cases. We obviously don’t have any capital cases in Superior Court;

however, we do have the same type of cases in Superior Court as

there are in Federal court.

We do believe that the $65 an hour is no longer a viable figure,

and we just think that, with the money that has been appropriated,

$80 an hour is a reasonable figure to ask.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more, Ms. Ballester.

When you consider what lawyers command for sitting in their offices these days, you are doing very serious work. I just wanted to

make it clear so none of my friends on the other side think we are

paying the transportation expenses or for your filings or vacation

or sick leave.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Those are my questions.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I certainly think

there is a big difference between 80 and 800, so I certainly don’t

have a problem with that.

108

Let me just ask you one question, Ms. Ballester. As president of

the Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, what would you consider to be the greatest difficulty of working with the D.C. Court?

Ms. BALLESTER. Working in D.C.?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes.

Ms. BALLESTER. I think probably what some of the people who

testified earlier—the lack of programs for indigents in the District,

especially effective drug treatment programs, because drug abuse

is, by far, one of the biggest scourges in this city, and I think drives

an awful lot of crime in the city.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Judge King, do you project there to be an

increase of need for judges in D.C, say over the next 5 to 10 years?

Judge KING. What we have experienced—and we actually had to

look at this in terms of our building program. We are in the middle

of a 10-year building program. Historically around the country,

caseloads ebb and flow. It is a cyclical situation. We went way, way

up in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, then it leveled off. It is

trending downward a little bit at the moment, back up again in

some of the family cases. So over 5 or 10 years I would expect a

cyclical pattern with a slight general trend upward. That seems to

be our historical experience, and that is what I would project.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I know that my good friend Tim Evans,

Judge Evans, is the chief judge of the largest unified court system,

I guess, in the country, which is the Cook County. I see Tim from

time to time, and we may run into each other at church and whatever. He is always trying to figure out if they have enough judges.

Judge KING. I am sure. Please give him my cordial regards when

you see him. I am well acquainted with him and have a good

friendship with him, as well.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much. Tim and I

served in the City Council together, and we both left the City

Council about the same time, almost the same time, so I will make

sure that I do that.

Judge KING. I have always enjoyed and had the highest esteem

for him.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. I favor both of these bills,

quite frankly.

Judge KING. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I want to thank both of you again for

your indulgence, for your patience, and for being our last witnesses

for the day, so thank you so much.

This hearing is adjourned.

Judge KING. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis and Congresswoman Norton.

Ms. BALLESTER. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ