U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

58–348 PDF 2010

HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM HOME:

EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM AND REENTRY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 5, 2010

Serial No. 111–77

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

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LEUTKEYEMER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSPEH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

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

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 5, 2010 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Adrienne Poteat,

Deputy Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;

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

Philip Fornaci, executive director, D.C. Prisons Project; Andrew Cook,

former Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate; and Louis Sawyer, former

Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate .............................................................. 17

Cook, Andrew ............................................................................................. 60

Fornaci, Philip ........................................................................................... 46

Lappin, Harley ........................................................................................... 17

LaVigne, Nancy ......................................................................................... 39

Poteat, Adrienne ........................................................................................ 29

Sawyer, Louis ............................................................................................ 60

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

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

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 7

Fornaci, Philip, executive director, D.C. Prisons Project, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 48

Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 19

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 41

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

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

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

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 11

Poteat, Adrienne, Deputy Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of ......................................................... 31

(1)

HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM

HOME: EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM

AND REENTRY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m., in room

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Davis, Cummings, and

Chaffetz.

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

clerk/legislative assistant; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and

Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; and Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel.

Mr. LYNCH. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on the Federal

Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will now

come to order. I apologize for the delay, the slight delay in starting.

We had votes on the floor.

But let me welcome all of the Members. I am told that Mr.

Chaffetz, the ranking member, will be along shortly. He as well

was on the floor.

But to all of our Members, subcommittee hearing witnesses, and

all those in attendance, the purpose of the hearing today is to examine the criteria used to determine the placement of D.C. Code

offenders, as well as to discuss the rehabilitation and reintegration

challenges that these individuals face as a result of being in prison

so far from their homes and supportive networks.

The chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me welcome you to this subcommittee, D.C.-related oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘Housing D.C.

Code Felons Far Away From Home: The Effects on Crime, Recidivism and Reentry.’’ Today’s hearing gives the subcommittee the opportunity to examine the criteria used to determine the placement

of D.C. Code offenders. In addition, we will examine the unique rehabilitation and reintegration challenges faced by these individuals

as a result of being imprisoned such a far distance from their

homes and support networks.

2

As you may know, the National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997, also known as the Revitalization Act, transferred the responsibility and costs associated with

certain State criminal justice functions, including housing, parole

and supervised release of adult felons convicted under the D.C.

Code, D.C. Criminal Code, from the District of Columbia to various

Federal Government agencies. While considerable progress has

been made over the past 10 years since the enactment of the Revitalization Act, a host of challenges regarding the implementation of

effectiveness on felon supervision, reentry and revocation systems

and practices remain.

Notably, D.C. Code felons are unique in that they are routinely

housed hundreds of miles away from their homes. In addition to

placement in the District of Columbia, nearly 5,700 D.C. Code felons are housed in 33 States in facilities owned or leased by the

Federal Bureau of Prisons. While the majority of these individuals

reside in facilities located in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and

West Virginia, some D.C. Code felons receive placement in States

as far away as Florida, Texas, and California.

In recognition of the challenges posed by distant placement, the

Federal Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a 1998 Memorandum of

Understanding executed with the District of Columbia, seeks to

house each inmate within 500 miles of their home. However, a variety of factors, including the availability of beds, security concerns,

and individual prisoner medical needs, may affect that placement.

Accordingly, today’s hearing is intended to both examine the Federal Bureau of Prisons offender placement process and procedures,

as well as explore how the issues of distance impacts the reentry

process.

With research suggesting that prisoners who have regular contact with members of their family have lower recidivism rates than

those who do not, placement far away from the home makes the

reentry process especially hard for D.C. ex-offenders. Ex-offenders

also face many barriers that impede their return to society, including a lack of education and minimal employment qualifications.

I would like to especially thank my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for her tireless work in this

policy area and her work on keeping me up-to-date and pushing on

this issue. The subcommittee looks forward to continuing to work

with her and her office as we conduct oversight on this issue, as

well as other members of the committee.

Again, I thank all of those in attendance this afternoon, and I

look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. I now yield

to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

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

3

4

5

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for

being here and for your insight that we will be hearing from today.

At the onset, let me just say that this is one of the critical roles

and functions of our government. You know, for most campaigns

people will tell you you are not going to win or lose an election

based on what happens with the Bureau of Prisons and these types

of issues unless something has really, really gone awry. But for me

personally, I think it is one of those core functions that government

should do and execute well, and is a duty and a service to the public.

We also have to recognize that most people will be returning to

the public for instance, in my State, we refer to it as the Department of Corrections. But I often wonder are we doing enough to actually correct this behavior so that people can return to their public

life, you know, go back into society and be productive members of

that society. And so this is a long-term interest for me personally,

and I appreciate holding this hearing.

I was not elected to Congress yet, when the Lorton facility was

shut down in 2001. However, from what I understand, a number

of congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle worked together, in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations, to facilitate the transfer of the D.C. prisoners to a newly built facility in

North Carolina. And it is my understanding this change was much

needed, and a high priority for the local congressional delegation

because of the extremely sub-par conditions at the Lorton facility.

In transferring inmates, the District of Columbia got a safe new

facility at no cost to the city. Since the Federal Government absorbed the cost, the subcommittee has heard about conditions and

programs in the facility and others where D.C. felons are housed.

On October 16, 2007, our predecessors on the subcommittee held

a hearing entitled ‘‘Doing Time,’’ which focused on D.C. prisoners

being prepared for reentry with access to the Bureau of Prisons

services. On September 22, 2009, we held a hearing on the local

role of the U.S. Parole Commission, which focused on alternatives

to incarceration within the District of Columbia. And on February

3rd of this year we held a hearing on halfway houses in the District of Columbia with testimony from many of the same entities

we will hear from today.

This additional view today is welcome, and we do appreciate your

time. I remain interested in how the Bureau of Prisons and the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency work together to

reduce recidivism. We all want ex-offenders to return safely to

their communities, and this transition is difficult.

Proximity of jailed offenders to their communities is also a key

factor for inmates and their families. But it is clear that released

offenders can best succeed if they are sober, employed, and have a

place to live. Otherwise, they are highly likely to go through the

revolving door of the criminal justice system.

Again, I think there is a proper role of government to help those

that are in need of making those transitions back into their communities. How we best do that in a cost effective manner but, at

the same time, wanting people to become self-sufficient and get

back on their feet, I think is critical.

6

That is why I appreciate bringing up this hearing today. I appreciate your insight and look forward to learning more about the

issue.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

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

7

8

9

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the

gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I again thank

you for always being willing to hold hearings on matters of importance to the District of Columbia. And I would like to simply summarize my opening statement and to say that of all the matters

you could, in fact, hold a hearing on, nothing is more important

than guaranteeing public safety in the District of Columbia, as well

as facilitating reentry of our men and women who are now spread

across the United States in prisons, many of them far from home,

as a result of the Revitalization Act, affording very little contact

with their families or with services and making reentry a huge

challenge to the city and to the inmates themselves and to the Federal agencies, including the BOP, who must work with them.

Mr. Chairman, we do not ask, in this hearing, for changes in the

Revitalization Act. We recognize that the District of Columbia

asked for this change. It wanted Lorton closed. Lorton was anything but a model prison. It wanted it taken off of its budget, and

there are many advantages to the Bureau of Prisons. In my judgment, the Bureau of Prisons is the best prison system in the world.

Now, that may not say much when you consider what prisons look

like in most of the world, but if you have visited the Bureau of

Prisons, I think you would agree that it is a fine prison.

The real question is, does it meet the challenges that Congress

posed when, for the first time in U.S. history, Congress placed a

State prison system within the Federal prison system. Now, you

can put them there and spread them out as if they were all Federal

prisoners. They are not. There are 5,700 of these D.C. Code offenders, and I think it blows the mind, Mr. Chairman, to recognize that

they are in 115 different facilities in 33 States throughout our

country. There are no State prisoners who face this kind of dispersal, lack of access to families, and to services for all that means for

them, for the city, and for the city to which they must return. In

fact, best practices make clear what happens, frankly, in every

State, that from the time an inmate is in the criminal justice system to the time he is released and post-release, the authorities

have a relationship with him that must assure his successful reentry. So that if we were in Maryland or Virginia State system, for

example, that these services, these parts of the criminal justice system would all be working together with the offender.

Now, the challenge created here is that we are dealing with, in

our Federal system, Federal agencies like the Bureau of Prisons

and CSOSA on the one hand, and facilities here in the District, not

to mention the Parole Commission on the other. So you have a

meeting of State and local agencies that will call for greater understanding and coordination and, frankly, creativity to, in fact, deal

with this unprecedented challenge in our city.

For example, the Bureau of Prisons doesn’t have to be as nearly

in touch with the local needs of a city the way it should occur when

they have this set of State prisoners in their midst. Prison, parole,

and supervision agencies in each State serve only offenders in that

State. That is not the case here. It doesn’t mean it is impossible

to deal with. One of the challenges we will be hearing from if you

10

are in a State prison system you are closer in touch, for example,

with the resources and skills necessary to get a job. That is going

to be pretty hard if you are in North Dakota or Arizona or Wyoming or wherever BOP has sent you.

You are learning a skill, I am pleased to say. I have gone to BOP

facilities, impressed with what they do in vocational training. It

doesn’t have much relationship to what these men and women will

find when they get back home. Almost none of these facilities can

be called close to home. CSOSA tries to do what it can. It can reach

only a fraction of those who will be returning home.

Mr. Chairman, I will be absolutely candid. I think the answer is

placing D.C. Code felons in one BOP facility closer to D.C., men,

women and, yes, we have children all the way in North Dakota.

They should be brought home right now and made closer to home.

In the meantime, we can do a better job of coordinating reentry

and the needs of these D.C. Code felons for some contact with their

family before, all of a sudden, out of prison, into the District they

are expected to somehow act as they would if they had been in an

ordinary State prison where they would have had access to their

families, to some sense of services, and to the true integration into

reentry.

So Mr. Chairman, this is a very important hearing for the District of Columbia. I couldn’t thank you and the ranking member

more for assuring this hearing today.

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

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Before I read the introductions of our

panelists, it is the custom of this committee to ask anyone who is

going to offer testimony before the subcommittee to be sworn. So

could I ask you all to rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that all the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Let me begin with Mr. Lappin.

Harley Lappin has served as the Director of the Federal Bureau

of Prisons since April 4, 2003. A career public administrator in the

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Lappin is responsible for the oversight and management of the Bureau’s 115 institutions and for the

safety and security of more than 210,000 inmates under the agency’s jurisdiction.

Deputy Director Adrienne Poteat serves as the agency head of

the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency [CSOSA], for

the District of Columbia. In this position, Ms. Poteat oversees a

Federal agency of nearly 1,300 employees, which was created by

the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 to improve public safety

through active community monitoring and supervision of ex-offenders.

Ms. Nancy LaVigne is the current director of the Justice Policy

Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. LaVigne is an expert on crime

prevention and prisoner reentry and is the founding Director of the

U.S. Department of Justice’s Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Program.

Mr. Philip Fornaci joined the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services

Project as executive director in August 2003. In addition to his primary management and the fundraising responsibilities, Mr.

Fornaci also manages the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services Project

public policy work, which is aimed at advocating for the humane

treatment and dignity of all persons convicted, charged or formally

convicted with a criminal offense under the District of Columbia

law.

Mr. Andrew Cook is a former D.C. Code offender and Bureau of

Prisons inmate. Having only been recently released from prison,

Mr. Cook is continuing his effort to reintegrate back into society by

participating in various transitional programs and by searching for

employment opportunities.

Mr. Louis Sawyer is a current parolee under the supervision of

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Mr. Sawyer was

released from prison earlier this winter and is presently participating in a job training program with the organization, So Others

Might Eat.

I know some of you have testified here before, so I want to thank

you all for offering your advice and counsel to the committee. I

would now like to give each witness an opportunity for a 5-minute

opening statement.

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

17

STATEMENTS OF HARLEY LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY;

NANCY LaVIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE POLICY CENTER, THE

URBAN INSTITUTE; PHILIP FORNACI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. PRISONS PROJECT; ANDREW COOK, FORMER FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE; AND LOUIS SAWYER,

FORMER FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE

STATEMENT OF HARLEY LAPPIN

Mr. LAPPIN. Good afternoon, Chairman lynch and members of

the subcommittee. Congresswoman Norton, thank you for your

kind comments during your opening statement. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Bureau of Prisons designation process, particularly as it affects the reentry needs

of offenders from the District of Columbia.

The Bureau of Prisons is the Nation’s largest corrections system.

We are responsible for the incarceration of more than 211,000 inmates, including 5,408 inmates convicted in the District of Columbia Superior Court. We refer to this population as D.C. Code offenders. We appreciate the unique role the BOP plays in the District of Columbia.

While the number of D.C. Code offenders is relatively small compared to the entire inmate population, we devote substantial resources to ensure they receive appropriate care and treatment.

Given our decades of experience, we know that consistency is critical to effectively achieving our mission. For this reason, we employ

a validated objective classification system to designate all inmates.

Our policy is to initially designate each inmate to the lowest security level possible, given medical, security and program needs in an

institution within 500 miles of the anticipated release area. This is

consistent with requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Office of Management and Budget

that was signed in 1997 as a precursor to the National Capitol

Area Revitalization Act.

Crowding in Federal prisons across the country has had a profound impact on our inmate designation process. We have experienced significant increases in the inmate population over the last

2 decades. The Bureau of Prisons is operating at 37 percent over

rated capacity systemwide, with high security institutions operating at 51 percent over capacity and medium security institutions

operating at 46 percent over rated capacity.

Stated quite simply, this level of crowding means there are not

always available beds for offenders as close to their homes as we

would like. Crowding poses real risks to inmate safety. Additionally, prison composition can greatly impact safety and security. Inmates in the Federal prisons across the country have repeatedly

demonstrated their proclivity to organize based on geographical

area, gang affiliation, racial and ethnic background, and they have

further demonstrated that such organization can lead to misconduct and attempts to severely disrupt prison operations.

Accordingly, we make every effort to distribute the inmate population across facilities such that we balance the various factors

18

noted above. We have found that this balance is critical to operating safe and secure prisons.

Inmate health care needs impact designations, particularly for

inmates with medical conditions that require significant treatment.

These inmates typically are designated to a medical care Level 3

facility or a Federal medical center. Only six of these are within

500 miles of the District of Columbia. Location itself creates designation pressures.

We have little control over where prisons are built and many are

sited in very remote locations. We have made clear in the past our

strong desire to site a prison in the D.C. area. As Congresswoman

Norton will recall, we fought hard to secure just a small portion of

the Lorton property during the negotiations over the Revitalization

Act. We were unsuccessful in those efforts and had to look elsewhere to construct facilities to absorb the D.C. sentenced felons

into our system.

We remain committed to the goal of housing the majority of D.C.

Code offenders within 500 miles of the District, and we have been

quite successful in meeting this goal, with over 75 percent of them

currently confined in institutions within 500 miles of the District.

Four categories of offenders, however, are likely to continue to be

housed outside of that radius, inmates with special management

and security needs, inmates with significant medical needs, inmates who engage in significant misconduct, and high security sex

offenders.

Mindful of our role as the State Department of Corrections for

the District, we provide specialized programming and opportunities

for D.C. offenders that will help facilitate their successful reentry,

while ensuring that they are housed in safe and appropriately secure facilities.

We provide enhanced reentry programs at Rivers, to include a

residential drug abuse program that allows eligible inmates to earn

up to 1 year off their sentence.

We have a trauma treatment program for female offenders at

Hazelton, WV. We have residential reentry centers that service

three D.C. facilities, to include Hope Village, which is the largest

RRC in the Nation. And finally, we continue to collaborate with

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agencies on transitional

issues.

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

thank you and the members of the committee for your support of

our agency and will be happy to answer questions that you may

have of me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.

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

statement.

STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT

Ms. POTEAT. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member

Chaffetz, Congresswoman Norton, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today at this hearing to examine the impact of housing D.C. inmates far from home.

As the Deputy Director of the Federal agency responsible for supervising approximately 16,000 men and women, I know firsthand

that the foundation for an individual’s successful reentry starts

with time spent in prison. If credible opportunities for treatment,

education and occupational training are available and taken advantage of, and then comprehensive release planning occurs, a person

can leave prison with a real chance to pursue a positive and constructive way of life.

Approximately 6,000 D.C. Superior Court sentenced inmates are

now serving their sentence in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ facilities around the country. Since our agency was established in August 2000, incarcerated men and women have returned to the District of Columbia at a rate of about 2,200 per year.

CSOSA’s Transitional Intervention for Parole Supervision [TIPS]

teams, are primarily responsible for facilitating an inmate’s return

home from prison, either transitioning through a residential reentry center or directly to the community. BOP case managers submit a release plan to CSOSA that includes the inmate’s proposed

living arrangement and, when available, the potential employment.

The TIPS community supervision officers investigate their release

plans to ensure they are conducive to a successful reentry and do

not pose a risk to the community.

About 6,400 of the 16,000 men and women under supervision are

either on parole or supervised release. Most have long histories of

substance abuse, educational underachievement, and underemployment; 80 to 90 percent of this population reports a history of illicit

drug abuse. They have low rates of high school or GED completion,

and only 40 percent report stable housing arrangements upon intake. Less than 40 percent are employed. Many of them also face

challenges reuniting with their families and establishing pro-social

relationships. These conditions can have a significant impact on the

success of community supervision.

However, it is well recognized that when effective work on these

matters can be accomplished during incarceration, the prospective

for successful reentry is increased. It was toward that end that in

2003 CSOSA launched an initiative at the Rivers Correctional Facility in Winton, NC. We chose Rivers because of the large number

of offenders housed there at the time, and it was approximately

225 miles away from the District. At the time it was 1,100 offenders there. Now they have approximately 500 to 600 offenders in

that facility.

Our work at Rivers began with the implementation of a video

mentoring as part of our faith-based community partnership. The

program linked inmates nearing release with faith-based mentors

who provided pre-release encouragement and post-release support.

30

This program was an extension of an existing effort started the

previous year where volunteer mentors from local faith institutions

were matched with re-entrants transitioning through the halfway

house. We believed that by making matches earlier, we could better

prepare the mentees for reentry and lay the foundation for post-release.

CSOSA installed video conferencing systems at Rivers and at our

headquarters to allow mentors and mentees to have face-to-face

conversations about job development, locating stable housing, and

establishing new and more positive leisure time activities and

friendships. Family members were also present during some of

these sessions.

In October we began conducting Community Resource Day for a

group of 200-plus offenders at Rivers. During this program, we piloted it by transporting several of our vendors to Winton, NC. After

that we began doing these sessions by video conferencing. That way

we were able to expand some of the vendors that were participating

in our Resource Day. They included presentations by the U.S. Parole Commission, BOP, and Hope Village, our community supervision officers, local job training providers, the D.C. State Superintendent of Education and the Community College of the District

of Columbia, the Housing Counseling Service and Jubilee Housing,

Unity Health Care and the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration, among

others. Surveys by both our providers and offenders were very positive, and they were completely satisfied with that program.

Now, we suspended the mentoring program in 2007 after expanding the community-based mentoring program to include men and

women on probation. This increased demand for mentors and

quickly exhausted our available pool. However, we plan to reinstitute this video conferencing by including the women in

Hazelton, WV, who are also now participating in a pilot program

conducted by Our Place.

Last fall, with the cooperation of the BOP, we developed and distributed Community Resource Day packages to all of the offenders

and all of the institutions and BOP facilities. We have been asked

to send additional packets, which the inmates found very useful.

The response has been overwhelming, positive, and we continue to

receive requests.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions that

you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. Poteat.

Ms. LaVigne, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF NANCY LaVIGNE

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

thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the implications of D.C. felons being housed far from their homes.

I am Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute,

where we’ve conducted extensive research on the topic of prisoner

reentry. We’ve documented the many challenges of prisoner reentry, and we’ve conducted studies to identify the factors that predict both successful prisoner reintegration as well as recidivism.

Among these studies we’ve specifically examined D.C. Code felons. We’ve learned that, like their counterparts throughout the

country, incarcerated D.C. Code felons return home in need of

health care, drug treatment, jobs, and affordable shelter. But D.C.

felons face an unusual incarceration experience in that they are

typically incarcerated hundreds of miles from their families, their

potential employers, and post-release services. In fact, over 20 percent of these felons are housed more than 500 miles from their

homes. This compares to a national average for the average State

prisoner of about 100 miles from their home, still pretty far, but

their experience is much more severe in that regard.

So why is distance an important issue? Research points to two

reasons. First, it can diminish family support and, second, it makes

finding treatment and services difficult.

Let’s focus on the family issue first. Our studies have found that

families are an important influence on the reentry process and they

provide much needed support to returning prisoners. Both emotional support and tangible support, such as housing and financial

assistance, are associated with higher employment rates and reduced substance use after their release. This support from families,

however, is not a given. Rather, it is closely linked to the nature

and type of contact that prisoners have with their family members,

their parents, their intimate partners and their children prior to

their release.

In fact, our research has found that in-prison contact with family

members is predictive of the strength of family relationships following release. Other studies have shown that family contact during

incarceration is associated with lower recidivism rates. Such contact can maintain or reinforce attachments to children, giving

exiting prisoners a greater stake in conformity upon release.

We have learned that exiting male prisoners who have strong

positive attachments to their children tend to be legally employed

for longer periods of time than fathers who have weaker ties to

their kids. Maintaining and even strengthening family ties during

incarceration can bolster the positive impact that family can have

after a prisoner’s release.

But our surveys of family members of prisoners found that the

single greatest barrier to maintaining contact was that prison was

far from their homes. Clearly, the closer prisoners are housed to

their homes, the more contact they will have with family.

40

Now, let’s turn to the second reason that distance creates problems for returning prisoners. In addition to family support, ties to

post-release jobs and reentry services are vital for reentry success.

Research finds that the most effective reentry programs begin behind bars and continue in the community.

Now, we work with a lot of State prison administrators and we

hear them lamenting about how difficult it is for them to link up

people who are housed in prisons often far from their homes to

services because they tend to live in cities rather than in the remote areas where prisons are located. But at least those administrators are working within the same State system. By contrast, the

reentry planners working with D.C. felons are operating with different systems and in a diverse set of States across the country.

The distance between a correctional facility and the prisoner’s

post-release destination makes connecting with employment, housing, substance abuse treatment, faith-based institutions, and a

whole host of other reentry resources all the more difficult.

Now, to be fair, there are some likely downsides to housing prisoners close to home. From a correctional security standpoint, if the

felons are closer to home visitation will go up, and with increased

visitation there could be more possibilities for the introduction of

contraband into the facility. And if D.C. Code felons are housed in

fewer prisons closer to home, correctional officers would need to

monitor the potential for gang violence more closely.

These are real risks, but I believe they’re far outweighed by the

documented benefits of housing prisoners close to home. With all

the challenges associated with the reentry of D.C. felons, this is

one change that could have a real positive impact, not only on the

successful transition of those returning home from prison, but also

on the safety and well-being of the families and communities to

which they return.

In the meantime, efforts to facilitate connections between prisoners and post-release service providers through the use of video

conferencing should be supported and expanded, and they should

also include contact with family members.

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. LaVigne.

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

STATEMENT OF PHILIP FORNACI

Mr. FORNACI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Congresswoman Norton, for the opportunity to provide testimony, and

thank you also to Congresswoman Norton for your work on this

issue.

My name is Philip Fornaci. I serve as director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Project, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee. We advocate

on behalf of D.C. prisoners held locally and in Federal Bureau of

Prison facilities on issues around safety, health care, access to the

courts. We also represent folks in parole hearings. So we have a

lot of experience directly in these facilities where D.C. prisoners

are held.

As described in my written testimony, I will just summarize a

bit, the Revitalization Act of course transformed the District’s

criminal justice system from an almost exclusively local system to

a Federalized system. Our entire criminal justice system, from

prosecution through sentencing through incarceration, and then

back to parole, supervision and revocation, is all Federal. The

criminal justice system was made this way by a Federal legislature

in which D.C. citizens of course have no vote, so we have very little

control over this situation.

Nonetheless, this is a useful conversation to have. These are

issues that our organizations have tried to address at all levels,

with the Vice President’s Office, with the Bureau of Prisons, with

Congresswoman Norton as well.

As we have mentioned, about 6,100 D.C. prisoners are held in at

least 98 different Federal prisons spread out from California to

Florida to Pennsylvania and beyond. As described earlier, the

Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Prisons strives

to keep D.C. prisoners within 500 miles of home. This actually is

consistent with preexisting BOP policy. The Federal Government

has provided no further accommodation or legal commitment for

the influx of D.C. prisoners happening 8 or 9 years ago, only about

3 or 4 percent of the population.

For 6,000 D.C. prisoners, the 500-mile radius is a geographic

area that reaches from Indiana and Kentucky on the west, Georgia

in the south, and upper New York State on the north. This is a

rather huge distance. So although D.C. prisoners represent only 3

percent of the total BOP population, the BOP is effectively D.C.’s

State prison, as the Congresswoman mentioned earlier.

The entire population of D.C.’s returning citizens have endured

incarceration in these far flung facilities. The District retains no

control or influence over which facilities will house the prisoners,

what programs will be available to them, the security levels within

the BOP or how far away from D.C. they will be held.

As you’ve heard, this situation causes serious problems. Family

separation is the most obvious one. Hundreds of miles, thousands

of miles away, these prisons are located in rural areas requiring a

car generally to get to. Because D.C. prisoners are dispersed so

widely, it is difficult for local organizations to set up any kind of

47

bus system or any way for people in large numbers to visit at any

one time. This is a major obstacle.

Telephone calls are extremely expensive. Collect calls run about $15 for a 15-minute collect call. There is debit calling also available

which reduces that call to about $3.50 to $4 for a 15-minute call.

However, please note that even a well paid prisoner who works

perhaps in the UNICORP program will make maybe $70 a month.

So this is an extremely expensive outlay for a prisoner to make.

In addition to this, as Ms. LaVigne has detailed, I think quite accurately, having D.C. prisoners dispersed makes reentry extremely

complex, not only because it is impossible to interview for a job or

set up housing from a long distance, but also because the case

management staff and counselors in these facilities have no experience with D.C.

I am reminded when I visited one facility holding D.C. juveniles

in the Bureau of Prisons in North Dakota, as Congresswoman Norton noted, and the teacher in that facility, I asked him what could

be a very useful thing for us to give you to help these kids. He said,

could you send us a Yellow Pages from the District of Columbia.

Well, that clearly did not indicate that he had any real clue as to

how someone from that facility is going to get a job back in D.C.

or had any idea what life is like for an urban kid now in North

Dakota and then returning.

So I want to make a couple of recommendations and cut this a

little shorter. My written statement goes into a little bit more detail. But I would echo Congresswoman Norton’s statement to move

all D.C. prisoners within, if not one, at least a small number of

Federal facilities close to D.C. This would have an enormous impact on reentry. It would have an impact on family ties being maintained. There are facilities in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania

within 250 miles of D.C. Some combination of these could certainly

be worked. There are medical facilities within a fairly short distance in North Carolina. It is certainly possible.

Similarly, a second recommendation is that in facilities housing

D.C. prisoners case management staff should be trained appropriately. This really cannot effectively happen unless they are in

one small number of facilities.

And third is to address the issue of juveniles. There is simply no

reason for D.C. kids, 9, 10, 11, to be sent to North Dakota to serve

out their sentences.

Thank you so much. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fornaci follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Fornaci.

Mr. Cook, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW COOK

Mr. COOK. I would like to say good afternoon. I am also honored

to be able to sit before you all today and I thank you all for being,

you know, giving affording so I can share my testimony today.

Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Sawyer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS SAWYER

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress and their

staff, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen,

good afternoon.

You’ve mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in introducing me, where I

was employed with the SOME program, and I need to clarify something, that it is not the SOME, So Others May Eat, it is the Opportunities Industrialization Center of Washington, DC, and I needed

to note that for the record because I don’t believe I can go back to

Southeast if I did not.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. That is duly noted.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you so much. And I do have a pamphlet for

you for the Members of Congress. All right.

I wanted to thank you for this opportunity for sharing with those

members who are here in reference to the plight of D.C. prisoners

far away from home. I do not want to be redundant for what Mr.

Fornaci has said, he has covered most of everything in a nutshell.

But I would like to talk with the, have the opportunity to speak

to the recidivism and the reentry of D.C. prisoners coming back

into the Nation’s Capital.

And one thing I do note that is very serious are five essential

basic needs that should be looked upon, and those are the transportation of a D.C. prisoner, a returning citizen coming back to the

Nation’s Capitol, his medical care, psychological, what have you,

clothing issues, employment and housing. These are very critical

issues that need to be explored and looked upon for being where

we are and how far we’ve been away, such as when I was in the

U.S. penitentiary in Lee County for 5 years, and then I transferred

to the FCI Allenwood in White Deer, PA, where I made parole on

February 9, 2010.

And after spending 25 years in the system, I found that, coming

back to the Nation’s Capital, the opportunities that I thought

would be available were not. But I do thank the Public Defender

Services of the Nation’s Capital for providing an adult directory of

resources. And Ms. April Frazier, who is the staff attorney and

who’s responsible for the reentry, was very good. And Mr. Allen

McAllister, who is staff attorney who’s here, who’s also working

and have worked very hard in seeing to it.

But I would recommend that one of these pamphlets, these booklets, this directory would be able to be sent to each and every one

of the institutions in where a D.C. prisoner is housed so it could

be noted for the law library. With that said, this directory is very

useful and which I have found it when I was there to look into and

61

to send letters to the appropriate individuals where they could become housing employment, also with the mentoring aspect. And I

am also pleased to note that the Welcome Home Project with Ms.

Joyce Boyd, who was very helpful in my reentry.

But I must say this. This is of utmost importance, that if a person does not have a foundation, which is his family, some institution, religion, based on a church foundation, a mentor, counselors

and advisers, then it is not going to work out. But he has to understand that it is not easy out here. But it is also incumbent upon

those to note that with the assistance of the reentry faith-based

welcome back, these organizations have pooled together, and I am

very much a product of that. And I thank those individuals for

being so thoughtful and so helpful.

But we need to meet those needs wherein, even with the transportation issue. We have some organizations that are able to give

tokens and then those who are not. But to go out, such as myself,

I am in the Hope Village halfway house at 2840 Langston Place

Southeast, and to go out every day to look for employment. But

based on the fact that I am in the Opportunities Industrialization

Center in Southeast Washington, DC, which is the place to be, we

still have to go out. It is from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday. And it is a job placement training program that facilitates

those individuals who are looking forward, but they’re training

them so they’re just not going out to employment without any

skills. They are providing that with the Internet, and being able to

have those opportunities. And I do, I want to note that for the

record. But still, we’re looking at those issues that come before this

committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir. I want to thank all the witnesses

who are coming before the committee to help us with our work, and

Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer especially for offering your perspective.

I am going to yield myself 5 minutes for my questions, after

which I’ll recognize the other Members. It seems there’s general

agreement that the proximity can help a great deal. I know, Ms.

LaVigne, you pointed out a couple of instances where there might

be some qualifiers to that with respect to gang violence and that

type of connection.

But is it possible, Mr. Lappin, Mr. Fornaci mentioned the 250-

mile, I know you’ve got this Memorandum of Understanding that

implies, or it establishes a goal of 500 miles, which is a long, long

distance. Mr. Fornaci suggests that with some of the existing facilities in the Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia area, you might

be able to reduce that down to 250. But I also hear from you and

Ms. Poteat about the capacity problem, the overcrowding problem

that we have. Is that feasible?

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, sir. It is an excellent question. And let

me begin by agreeing with them that closer to home is better, even

with those challenges. However, this has been a challenge for the

Federal system since its creation. Well, I want to set the parameters so you have a sense of how the other inmates in the Federal

prison system compare to the inmates from the District of Columbia. And I can break it down by gender.

62

Right now 75 percent of the inmates from the Superior Court are

within 500 miles. Male inmates from the Superior Court within

500 miles, 75 percent. For all the other inmates in the Federal

prison system, male, there’s 69 percent of them are 500 miles from

home. So a larger percentage than with the District inmates are

beyond 500 miles.

Comparing male Superior Court offenders with all other Federal

offenders, 75 percent of the male Superior Court offenders are

within 500 miles of home; 69 percent of all other male Federal offenders are within 500 miles of home. For females, 81 percent are

within 500 miles of home. For all other females in the Federal system, 69 percent are within 500 miles of home.

And this has been somewhat true over the course of many, many

years. It is unfortunate that a long, long time ago we didn’t see the

value of inmates being closer to home and before we built prisons,

we built them in locations that were closer to where the inmates

were coming from. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

So today our infrastructure, much of it new, are in remote rural

locations where there are not as many inmates coming from those

systems. But you can see that the distance issue has been a challenge for us for a long, long time.

To compensate for that, we work closely with U.S. Probation

Service, our contract providers in the halfway houses, CSOSA and

others, to try to improve the relationship in advance of the inmates

returning home.

To your question, before you can do any of the things you want

to do in prison, provide programs, provide reentry opportunities,

teach GED, teach vocational training, have inmates working in

Prison Industries, you must run safe prisons. Inmates must be able

to safely come out of their cells from 6 a.m., until 9 or 10 p.m.,

whatever time that is, and function within that unit. It has been

our experience that we’ve been more successful allowing that to

happen when we have a balanced designation process, when inmates are balanced both geographically, gang-wise, racially, and

ethnically. And we strive to achieve that balance at our institutions

and retain that balance.

But as you indicated, it is even more of a challenge when you

don’t have enough beds because, quite honestly, there are some

days you are just trying to find an empty bed to put an inmate in

at the appropriate security level. So I don’t think it is possible

within 250 miles and successfully manage those prisons as safely

as we do today because it will disrupt this balance that we are trying to achieve. And that is unfortunate.

The other thing is there are several reasons why those that are

beyond 500 miles, one, medical care. Some inmates require more

medical care. And let me just mention this very briefly. We classify

inmates based on security level. Once that is accomplished, we

classify them on care level, how much medical care do we think

they’re going to require, based on their physical condition, because

we came to the realization a few years ago that we could not provide the same level of care, health care at every facility, given the

fact that many were built in very rural locations or in very urban

locations where we were competing for limited resources in the way

of health care providers, one, and two, that there were not a lot of

63

facilities outside of that institution, hospitals, that could provide

that care if in fact we could not provide the care inside the facility.

So therefore, we created healthy institutions and institutions with

inmates who were healthy but needed some additional care and

then our more institutions with greater need for health care. That

alone sends inmates a little further away from home so that we can

provide adequate health care.

Separations.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Lappin, you have far exceeded—I only have 5

minutes. You’ve exhausted all that time. I appreciate your answer

was no, is that correct?

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not believe that we can do it as safely as we

do today.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. All right. I will now yield to the ranking member for 5 minutes, Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go swiftly

because 5 minutes goes by fast. I do not understand why we have

102 people from Washington, DC, in Arizona. Understanding that

the documentation that was here, give me one reason why we

would send somebody all the way to Arizona, other than it has

really good weather.

Mr. LAPPIN. High security sex offenders. That is the only housing

you have of a high security nature where we can house sex offenders in an open population.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. There is nowhere closer than Arizona.

Mr. LAPPIN. There is nowhere closer for high security sex offenders than Tucson, AZ.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What about 101 people in Colorado?

Mr. LAPPIN. As I indicated, inmates that have special security

needs, there are 44 of them at ADX Florence because they have assaulted staff and inmates, they’ve killed inmates, they have attempted to escape. So there is a high security facility, ADX Florence. There are 41 alone in that facility because of their misconduct in prison.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And let me go to Mr. Fornaci. I saw at least from

your kind of nonverbal, I thought you took some issue to this idea

of balance based on medical needs and those types of things. Do

you care to comment on that based on what Mr. Lynch was questioning?

Mr. FORNACI. Well, yes, thank you.

I was looking at the listing of where D.C. prisoners are. Certainly

there is some number of folks in medical facilities which is a care

Level 4. The care Level 3 there is a smaller number. But I am not

sure that actually states it. I think the security issues I suspect are

stronger on Mr. Lappin’s basis than are the medical issues. There

are many medical facilities within this area. The care level system

is actually relatively new.

I guess what I was raising my eyebrows at is I am a little bit,

I am not quite sure of how to interpret it, was the notion of having

certain kinds of balance, including racial balance. That was what

I was responding to. D.C. folks are known as about 95 percent African American prisoners. It is an urbanized population. The BOP

generally is 38 percent African American.

64

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, first of all,

I appreciate you being here. You have been here. You have seen it.

I think your only vested interest is probably to make it better. So

maybe starting with Mr. Cook and then Mr. Sawyer, from your

vantage point, what is, what are the two or three things, and if you

just have one, you just have one, but that you would like to see improved. It is just your own personal point of view. It is from what

you’ve witnessed. If you could make the situation better, what

should we be doing? What should we be insisting that the Bureau

of Prisons do better?

Mr. COOK. Meaning as far as, you mean as far as the location?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. COOK. Well, from my experience I’ve been locked up 8 years.

And out of 8 years I’ve been to five different penitentiaries. And

out of five different penitentiaries I would say, well, with the help

of Mr. Fornaci, I’ve been out in Indiana. I am not no security risk

so I am wondering why was I out there. I don’t have no family out

there. Then after I leave there I go to Kentucky. Same thing apply.

So I am curious to know what do they, you know, what is the

information they use to place a person? I am just thinking they

going sending you to the next bed.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Now he talked about the safety and security of

these prisons. From the time they opened that cell to the time they

close it did you feel safe in those penitentiaries?

Mr. COOK. Well, I am going to say the only thing I was kind of

worried about was getting back home, closer to home. Other stuff

don’t even matter to me.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How did you communicate? Do you have family

here then?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How did you communicate with them? Were there

any resources?

Mr. COOK. Well, being so far a way, your money, you don’t really

have too much money.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Right.

Mr. COOK. And when you get a job in there, they pay you a little

less than nothing. So the little money you do obtain you’ve got to

stretch it. Either you are going to pay——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Give me an idea. What were you doing and how

much money were you making?

Mr. COOK. Well, my first job, I’ve been a tutor, you know,

throughout the BOP. That pay a little bit. That is one of the——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Like how much in a month? How much in a

month does that make?

Mr. COOK. An hour? Like 30 something cent an hour.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. 30 cents an hour. And with that you are expected

to pay for long distance toll calls and all that kind of thing to communicate with your family?

Mr. COOK. Pretty much.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Was your family ever able to come out and visit

you?

Mr. COOK. No good.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Sawyer, Ill give you an opportunity.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you so much. Your question again, sir?

65

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you had two or three, maybe one or two things

that you just want the Bureau of Prisons to do to improve the system for people that are so far away, what would that be? Be very

specific and as brief as you can on what you’d like them to do.

Mr. SAWYER. Well, I am very much concerned about Mr. Lappin,

who spoke to the issue about when the individuals come out of

their prison cells.

I have been in—for 25 years, and I have yet to see—because I

have been in the medium-security facility, and even at the U.S.

penitentiary in Lee County, when you understand that you are in

a prison setting and when you fear no one but God, and God alone,

then that tends to give you a more secure balance in where you are

and who you are.

But, of course, we understand it is a prison and it is a U.S. penitentiary and it is prison. But still, for the Bureau of Prisons to look

at it, in bringing the District of Columbia inmates closer, the

States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, it should be looked

upon as a serious entity wherein the closeness—I don’t believe we

are a security factor. For those who went in 25, 30 years ago, who

are now coming home, they are looking forward to being with their

families. It is a telephone issue. It is a visitation issue. And it is

very expensive.

They travel all night to get to the facility, and when they come,

they are not welcome because, for whatever reason, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons staff are not too likened to D.C. prisoners and

their families. And, to be honest with you, and I will share that

with you because no one wants to speak about that, but that is an

issue. That is an issue.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you both. I wish you nothing but the best,

and I appreciate your taking time to be here.

Thanks for the latitude in time, Madam Chair. And I think it is

just a crying shame that these people have to be so far away. They

are dealing with an exceptionally difficult situation, to say the very

least for them and their families, and there is something we got to

do, because this ain’t right.

Ms. NORTON. I thank you very much, Mr. Chaffetz, for your questions because I think they have elicited the dilemma that we have

before us, and, I must say, a dilemma that I think is quite solvable.

As you probe the witnesses who have been transferred from one

prison to another—and, for that matter, Mr. Lappin, I want to

thank the Bureau of Prisons for quickly admitting D.C. residents

to the state-of-the-art drug program. We recognize there are always

backlogs, but the notion that our prisoners were not even admitted,

that was not your fault, but you certainly got that done. You have

set up a drug program, a state-of-the-art program, also at Rivers.

We are very grateful for that.

The answers to the questions posed by the chairman and the

ranking member, of course, have elicited from Mr. Lappin, you

know, what you would expect. He is talking about the Federal prison system as it is, as if Congress in the Revitalization Act hadn’t

given him a new charge. They didn’t say, ‘‘Here is a Federal prison.

See what you can do with these State prisoners.’’ The charge was

to do something unprecedented, take State prisoners and deal with

them as State prisoners within a Federal prison system. And you

66

know that was the case because they are under the D.C. Code still.

They are recognizable D.C. prisoners.

So we are working with 500 miles. You have heard testimony

here, I think it was from Ms. LaVigne, you know, 100 miles is what

you find in the average State. Already they are at a severe disadvantage. And we in the District are supposed to say, ‘‘Welcome

home, friends,’’ at the end of—it could be 25 years, it could be 10

years, it could be a few years. No matter what it is, almost none

of them have access to family services.

So we are not asking for a change in the Federal system. We are

asking for the Federal system to do what the Revitalization Act

said: Take these State prisoners, treat them as State prisoners

within a Federal system, do not disadvantage them, give them the

advantages that come from your system, not disadvantages imposed on them.

Now, the fact is, Mr. Lappin, we have some reason to believe

that your office may already be thinking in these terms. Has your

office been in touch with the D.C. Department of Corrections about

bringing D.C. Code offenders home early, 90 days, and putting

them in the D.C. correctional treatment facility here in the District

of Columbia?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we have had a discussion over the phone.

Ms. NORTON. With whom have those discussions taken place?

Mr. LAPPIN. Director Brown.

Ms. NORTON. Is Director Brown here?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Rather than deal in hearsay, could I ask that Mr.

Brown take the table? I don’t want you to have to quote Mr.

Brown. Would somebody, staff, bring a chair up so that Mr. Brown

can take his seat here since he is here? This is somebody close to

home who has already had discussions. This is a problem-solving

hearing, and we want to solve this problem, beginning now.

Could you please stand and be sworn?

[Witness sworn.]

Ms. NORTON. Now, you have testified in your written testimony,

on page 5, to the advantages—you are right, we tried to get closer

to home; we even tried to reserve some part of the Lorton facility

for this very purpose. You talk about the advantages for the D.C.

Superior Court and closeness to CSOSA. You spell that out, I

think, very well. You say you have had discussions with Director

Devon Brown of the D.C. Department of Corrections.

Would you, Mr. Brown, say firsthand what those discussions

have concerned?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Director Lappin is correct. I contacted him approximately 3 weeks ago to discuss several proposals, all impacting

upon D.C. inmates.

One of those proposals entailed having D.C. inmates who are in

his custody, 90 days from their release, be placed in one of my facilities, whereby we could provide them—that is, the city and

CSOSA—wraparound services to help in their transition back into

our community.

Ms. NORTON. Now, you are willing to take these prisoners.

Mr. Lappin, I want you to consider that when we hear testimony

here, we understand the constraints of the Federal prison system.

67

But I need to ask you whether you are prepared to accept this offer

of the D.C. Department of Corrections with the director here testifying today?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not willing to accept that as of yet. We are

going to meet. Because I think there is another group that needs

to be discussed in advance of that.

Ms. NORTON. Another group of what?

Mr. LAPPIN. D.C. offenders who are serving short sentences.

Because of the crowdedness at the jail previously, we have been

designating inmates who are serving over 30 days to a Federal

prison. And I shared with the director that we should first look at

this group, because in most jurisdictions, when individuals are

serving 6 months or less, we oftentimes designate them to the jail

in lieu of transferring them to Federal prison, because when we do

that, by the time they get to the Federal prison, it is time to return

to their home.

Ms. NORTON. Well, Director Brown, did you take this notion,

which is not new to this subcommittee, into consideration, this notion about people who have violated parole?

Mr. LAPPIN. Actually, they are serving a sentence of 6 months or

less.

Ms. NORTON. But they are felons.

Mr. LAPPIN. They are felons.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am. The discussion really began over weekenders, which is very similar. I could not see, nor could the Federal

judges here see, the utility of having someone who has been sentenced to several weekends have their lives disrupted by having to

travel to one of the Federal penitentiaries.

Ms. NORTON. So what happens now to the weekenders or these

short-termers?

Mr. LAPPIN. We have had very few of them. But when we do

have them, we try to find a jail in close proximity to house them.

So, out of Baltimore, there is a jail about 2 hours away. We are

in agreement with the director on that issue and the other issue.

The one I am hesitating on is returning these longer-term offenders, 90 days before they are released, back to the District until we

have a chance to look at how many that would be, so that he

doesn’t accept more than he can actually handle at the jail; how

much it will cost to transfer them from the Federal prison back to

the jail and then to house them.

Ms. NORTON. We know this: that you are paying to keep them

in the Federal prisons right now. We know that you testified at

length about how overcrowded your prisons are. We know he has

available beds. And the challenge is not, of course, to tell us what

can’t be done, but to adopt the same problem-solving attitude that

we are trying to adopt in this hearing.

If there is such an outstanding offer—this is what I ask: for you

and Director Brown, within 30 days, to report on progress for the

weekenders. You can throw anybody in there you want to, Mr.

Lappin, but also for prisoners who would be returning to D.C., not

excluding them, but including them.

Considering that there are a number of beds, it will be very hard,

Mr. Lappin, for you to show me, since you have to pay for these

people to come back home anyway, you have to house them anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:21 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\58348.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
68

way, it will be very hard for you to show me in your overcrowded

condition, as you have testified here today, that you have a greater

burden by keeping these prisoners in 115 prisons across the United

States than accepting Mr. Brown’s offer.

Mr. Davis was the next to arrive. And I am very pleased that Mr.

Davis is attending this hearing because he is the author of a landmark bill on reentry for inmates throughout the United States.

Yes, sir?

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

And let me thank the witnesses for being here.

Director Lappin, it is good to see you again.

You indicated that sex offenders under your care, you had to take

them 500 miles away to Arizona to find a Bureau of Prisons facility

where they be could housed?

Mr. LAPPIN. Not all sex offenders. High-security sex offenders.

Mr. DAVIS. High-security sex offenders. What about sex offenders

who are not necessarily as high security?

Mr. LAPPIN. After the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, the Congress in the new law required us to create six sex offender management programs. We have done that. There is one in Petersburg,

VA. There is one in Marianna, FL. There is one in each of our regions. The closest one for high-security sex offenders is Tucson.

You can’t imagine how difficult it is to house high-security sex

offenders in an open population. Prior to this, many of them were

housed in segregation because they were unwilling to go to the

compound. So we had to find a location where we could introduce

this with an entirely new group of inmates, and that was to do it

at a brand-new facility. The only high-security institution opening

during that time was the one in Tucson. That is where we chose

to place this high-security sex offender program.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask, what happens to these individuals once

they have completed their sentences, once they have served their

time, and it is time for them to return back home?

Mr. LAPPIN. Are you asking me?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, no, I——

Ms. POTEAT. They would be under CSOSA’s supervision. We develop a plan for each individual, depending on risk and needs. The

sex offenders are housed and are supervised in a specialized unit

under CSOSA. And those units are at 300 Indiana Avenue.

And we have programs in place to supervise them accordingly.

They are lower caseloads. We institute GPS, if necessary. We place

them in therapeutic groups. And the caseload ratio, as I indicated,

is much smaller in dealing with that population.

The jobs are looked at a little differently, because we have to

make sure that where they are working are conducive and they are

not posing a risk. And their housing needs are also scrutinized. If,

in fact, they have separations against children, then we do not

place them in homes or jobs where children are present.

Mr. DAVIS. And I ask these questions basically because it is my

experience that sex offenders basically give up their freedom once

they are convicted of a sex crime. I mean, my experiences are that

trying to find a place for sex offenders to live is almost impossible

because, obviously, there is no community, there is no location,

69

there is no place where they are pretty much acceptable to the rest

of society.

And I raise that point because I often talk to young people and

I actually caution them quite a bit that, you know, if you reach

that point, for all practical purposes, you are sentencing yourself to

a lifetime of prison or a lack of freedom relative to movement.

The other point I would like to make, Madam Chairman: Mr.

Cook, are you employed? Do you have a job?

Mr. COOK. No, I don’t.

Mr. DAVIS. Have you tried to find a job?

Mr. COOK. Several times.

Mr. DAVIS. And you have been unsuccessful. You would attribute

that to what?

Mr. COOK. I would contribute that to the lapse, when I fill out

my resume, the lapse in times of my current job to my, you know,

the last job I had to now, and the resources.

Mr. DAVIS. Would you be a good worker?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Are you going to do

another round?

Ms. NORTON. We will do another round, yes, sir.

Mr. Cummings of Maryland?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lappin, help me with this. In your testimony, you say that,

you know, the Bureau of Prisons is establishing employment resource centers at all Federal prisons to assist inmates with job

searches and other areas.

Are those resources focused on local and the statewide level?

How do you do that?

Mr. LAPPIN. They are really national, given the fact that in that

institution you have inmates not only from all over the United

States, you have inmates from all over the world.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. OK.

Mr. LAPPIN. And so we focus on those U.S. citizens who return

to this country with a national approach to how you go about finding a job: resume building, job searches. We actually are working

with companies that provide software as to what jobs are vacant

in certain areas that inmates can actually access and see what jobs

are vacant in a given area, what types of jobs are available in a

given area. So there are resources made available to them, based

on their release, to assist them in preparing for a job search.

And then, as they transition to a halfway house or a residential

re-entry center, we have work force development staff at those centers who assist them once they arrive at that location, given the

fact that the majority of the inmates do transition out through a

halfway house.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what have the results been? I mean, do you

followup to see how many inmates have gotten jobs, say, within 6

months of being released?

Mr. LAPPIN. We really, sir, we don’t track that. Once they leave

the halfway house, they become the responsibility of the U.S. Probation Service. And right now we don’t have the wherewithal

through technology as of yet to determine how many of them actuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:21 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\58348.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
70

ally get jobs prior to release. So all we can do is rely on the surveys

we might do with halfway houses on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Uh-huh. It seems to me that you would want

to—I mean, if you have a program, you want to measure it some

kind of way. That doesn’t seem like it would take rocket scientist

stuff. Maybe I am missing something.

Mr. LAPPIN. No, we agree with you. And we are working——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you can send somebody

500 miles away, it seems like you ought to be able to figure out

whether they got a job. I am just curious.

Mr. LAPPIN. No, we agree with you. And we have now put in

place a system that is electronic in nature that we are going to be

able to gather that information more consistently across the United

States in the very near future. Right now we don’t have the technology in place. It would have to be done by hand.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The reason why I ask that, Mr. Brown knows me

well; we go way back. And he knows that I used to do a program

in Baltimore, an aftercare program, where we actually worked with

the inmates after they got out. And one of the most difficult things

has always been, and it continues to be, is jobs.

And is it Mr. Cook?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Cook, your problem is not only the fact that

you have a record. The problem, also—and I know this because I

live in the inner city, and I just did a jobs fair—part of the problem

is that, right now, there are a lot of people looking for jobs who

have no records. And that is real. And so that competition is kind

of rough.

But I am trying to figure out—I am just trying to make sure that

if we are doing things—we have a fellow—first of all, what is the

significance of the 500 miles? Because 500 miles, I was just doing

a little math here, you know, that is a long drive.

Mr. LAPPIN. It is based on traditional distance from home for

Federal offenders.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK.

Mr. LAPPIN. And for years that has been the target, is to try to

get them within 500 miles. And, again, realize, there are 115 prisons, but many of them are concentrated in just a few States.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right.

Mr. LAPPIN. So if you go to West Virginia, for example, you have

seven or eight prisons there. If you go to Kentucky, there are seven

or eight prisons there. Believe you me, there are not enough inmates coming out of Kentucky and West Virginia to fill one prison,

let alone 14 or 15. But you are going to fill those beds.

And so, the 500 miles is driven by our experience over the last

few decades and how far the average inmate is from home.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And the only reason I was asking about the job

piece is because one of the things that we discovered in our program is that, if we could get somebody a job, they had a much better chance of staying on the street, much better. And then getting

them back with their family and trying to redirect their priorities

from the street to the family and a job. Because one of the things

a job also does is it provides them another family, really.

71

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we agree with you, and that is why the halfway house is critically important. And a job and a place to live are

the two most important factors. Our research reflects—in a broader

scale, not did they get a job, but our research reflects those inmates

who transfer out through a halfway house are far more successful

at getting a job and retaining a job and less likely to come back

to prison.

So in that assessment is the understanding that getting a job

and a place to live are the two most important aspects of that release. And, certainly, that halfway house transition helps us be

more successful in that regard.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time is up. Thanks.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

You can see the Members are very skeptical about this 500 miles.

Nobody buys it as in any way facilitating re-entry. So then we have

to think outside the box, Mr. Lappin. That is why, since we had

this information, it seems to me that should have been in your testimony, if I can be candid, that you were at least looking at that.

And we got that information simply because we are in the District.

And, therefore, it is that kind of thinking outside the box, or else

we are going to be sitting here trying to thread a needle that does

not thread. We are not asking you to change the whole system. We

are asking you to accommodate a State system, as the Revitalization Act has mandated.

Now, there is nothing that will keep you, is there, from designating a prison, let’s say, within 200 miles or whatever distance would

be closer to home, now with various kinds of inmates as a D.C.

prison? There is nothing that would keep you from doing that, is

there? And, in fact, locating D.C. residents in that particular existing FBOP facility.

I am not asking you to do it. I am asking you if there is anything

that you know of that would keep you from doing it——

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, there is.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Given the Revitalization Act and the

challenge you face and the testimony you have heard here today.

Mr. LAPPIN. Congresswoman, you and I have had this discussion

before.

Ms. NORTON. I have never had this discussion with you at any

length, sir. And I want to have it right now, under oath, right here.

Is there anything that keeps you from designating a prison within

a few hundred miles of D.C. for D.C. inmates at this time? And if

there is, I want to know what it is.

Mr. LAPPIN. If you go back to my oral statement or my written

testimony, I explain why I believe it is unwise for us to designate

a specific location for one type of inmate. Because we have been

more successful in operating prisons safely when we have a balanced inmate population.

Ms. NORTON. You are back in the box again. And I am trying to

get you outside of the box dealing with the testimony you have

heard here about the failures of the BOP because you deal with

these prisoners as a part of a Federal complex instead of as a new

set of prisoners charged with you. I understand that.

You say, you know, in your discretion, it wouldn’t be wise. Obviously, there are ways to have a facility which, in state-of-the-art

72

penology, has inmates at various levels. Done all the time in the

States. But, of course, what it would take, Mr. Lappin, is the will

to do it. And if the will to do it needs to come by Federal statute,

that is a lot of will by the will of law. But guess what? I don’t think

it is necessary. That is why I asked you if there was anything in

law that kept it from happening. You said what your own view is.

I would like to have those discussions with you.

Now, I would like to ask a question, really based on Mr.

Fornaci’s testimony. But, Mr. Fornaci, you do say something that

makes me want to followup here unrelated to the question I was

to ask. You say the BOP even pays the District to house these prisoners in D.C. jail facilities after they are sentenced and while they

await designation and transportation to a BOP facility.

Director Brown, is that the case? Is the BOP paying the District

to house sentenced felons while they await designation and transportation to a BOP facility?

Mr. BROWN. No, ma’am. No, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Who pays for these people, who are sentenced felons in the care of the District of Columbia? Who pays for it?

Mr. BROWN. The District of Columbia pays.

Ms. NORTON. Has the District of Columbia ever been paid at all

to house any of these felons in District of Columbia care, so far as

you know?

Mr. BROWN. Ma’am, the point in which the District of Columbia

receives payment from the Federal Government is upon their designation to a Federal Bureau of Prison facility. All time prior to

that, the cost is borne by the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. You mean once they are sentenced?

Mr. BROWN. No, ma’am. Even after the sentencing, the District

of Columbia continues to absorb the cost of payment for the housing of individuals, felons, who have been sentenced as felons up

until the point in which they are designated to a Federal Bureau

of Prisons facility.

Ms. NORTON. Is that the case, Mr. Lappin, in States other than

the District of Columbia?

Mr. LAPPIN. That is the practice, that up until the point the inmate is designated—so if they are in the jail and they have been

sentenced, on the day they are designated to a Federal prison, we

begin paying the next day. And that is typical of all the other locations.

Ms. NORTON. So, Mr. Fornaci, the date of the payment, then, becomes an issue. I just wanted to clear that up.

Mr. Fornaci gave really heartbreaking testimony about these

children. Yes, they are felons who are as far away from home as

you can be, with a teacher with no information about home. And

The Washington Post sent a reporter out there a couple of years

ago just so that the District would have some sense of what it

meant to have a child so far from home. We don’t have any issue

with people in North Dakota trying to deal with a few kids from

D.C.

But could I ask, Mr. Brown, if you have had any discussions with

the Bureau of Prisons about taking these few kids—it must be

maybe 10 or 12 kids, if that many—and housing them here in the

District of Columbia? Have you had such discussions? If you have

73

not had such discussions, would you be willing to have such discussions with the Bureau of Prisons?

Mr. BROWN. I have had several discussions with the Bureau of

Prisons, including a brief discussion with Director Lappin prior to

this hearing.

Ms. NORTON. Could you tell us about that discussion?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. I was approached approximately 2 years ago by

a Federal Bureau of Prisons official inquiring about the possibility

of the District continuing to house juveniles who had been designated to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to continue to house

them at our special juvenile unit at the correctional treatment facility until such time as they reached the age of majority.

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Lappin, I appreciate that is an idea you

have had for some time. I have to ask you, why hasn’t that idea

been acted upon?

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, as I understand, the juvenile facility here

didn’t have the room at the time we met with them. Also, some

concern over the seriousness of the offense behavior of some of

these juveniles at that facility.

So you are right, the number here is small. In fact, right now we

have four. And we would much prefer to have them much closer

to Washington, DC, if not in Washington, DC, I am open to any

suggestions. We have been to the State of Pennsylvania, Virginia,

West Virginia, the District, and, as of yet, no one is willing—some

of them have pretty good programs, but no one is willing to offer

up beds.

Ms. NORTON. And here we have, right at home, an offer of perhaps beds.

Mr. Brown, could I ask you, given the fact that these are not

likely kids who are out at our new facility here, these are convicted

felons, convicted as juveniles, but they are pretty serious crimes,

four of them, do you think that you have a facility somewhere here

in the District of Columbia that could take these four kids home

at this time?

Mr. BROWN. We would handle it the same way as what we proposed to do with the adults.

What I am referring to is those juveniles who are awaiting transfer, they have been convicted, they are awaiting designation, that

we continue to house them here in the District at our juvenile unit

until such time as they reach 18 years of age and they can be

placed in an adult Bureau of Prisons facility.

Ms. NORTON. All right. Now, this is very important. You house

them while they are awaiting transfer anyway. I mean, you house

them until they are transferred to North Dakota or wherever they

are going to be sent. Is that not the case?

Mr. BROWN. That is the case, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. As with other convicted felons here in the District

of Columbia. So all you are saying is, since you have them anyway,

since you have already had to keep them separate in a facility

based on, among other things, the seriousness of the crime, why

ship them to North Dakota in the first place? Is that the testimony?

Mr. LAPPIN. In the past, there has been an issue of space.

74

Ms. NORTON. Well, you know what? Past is past, and I don’t

want to take time——

Mr. LAPPIN. But one other——

Ms. NORTON. I am asking—I can understand, and I am not blaming anybody for anything. I am trying to solve a problem, Mr.

Lappin.

Mr. LAPPIN. The other issue has been the availability of programs for people who may be in the jail for 2 or 3 years.

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me?

Mr. LAPPIN. The availability of programs for those juveniles.

Ms. NORTON. Are you kidding? Did you hear Mr. Fornaci say

that the teacher had to ask for the Yellow Pages just to find out

which way was up?

Mr. Fornaci, would you elaborate at what you found at North Dakota?

Mr. FORNACI. Well, I have to say, what I was referring to was

actually reentry. The program in North Dakota, in fact, does have

educational services. I think that is what Mr. Lappin is referring

to.

Ms. NORTON. So you are worried, then, Mr. Lappin, whether or

not D.C. has the proper education facilities?

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know what they have available. My only concern is that sometimes these could be 2-year stays, and I think we

just need to make sure——

Ms. NORTON. Well, these children could be sentenced at, what,

16? What is the youngest age, 16?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure. I think it is 15.

Ms. NORTON. Fifteen. It could be 2 years, it could be 3 years.

Mr. LAPPIN. Right.

Ms. NORTON. And that is not at issue here, Mr. Lappin. I am trying to find out what can be done.

Mr. Brown, what is your response about whether or not there are

the facilities, whether or not, you know, you have them anyway, so

I assume that you are not letting them sit there anyway doing

nothing.

So I am not even sure what Mr. Lappin is talking about. You are

already providing for these children until they go all the way to

North Dakota. What more would have to be done to provide for

these children if you didn’t send them to North Dakota in the first

place?

Mr. BROWN. Ma’am, I would say this: that the D.C. Department

of Corrections, for the last 4 years, has been the best-kept secret,

not only in the District of Columbia but nationally, in terms of the

stellar programming, absolutely stellar programming, that has

been brought to our jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to the juveniles. I invite anyone at any time to tour our facility and compare it with any other.

One of the more critical elements that we provide for our juveniles, for the District of Columbia juveniles, is education, particularly for special education inmates. There is something, as you well

know, called an IEP, an individual educational plan. It is a legally

binding contract between the student, his or her parents, and the

provider of education.

Ms. NORTON. You have an IEP.

75

Mr. BROWN. And we absolutely have it. When they go to South

Dakota or North Dakota, that IEP does not follow them, whereas,

if they stayed in the District, we would be in adherence to that special educational mandate.

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Lappin, I respect the fact that the Bureau of Prisons has state-of-the-art programs. I have witnessed

them, and I have always spoken well of them. So I would certainly

welcome your coming to the District to observe Mr. Brown’s program to see if it meets your standards.

But assuming that it does, would you be amenable to having

these kids, four or five, now incarcerated in North Dakota remain

in the District of Columbia, complete with their IEPs, individual

education plans, that it provides closeness to parents, preparation

if they are about to go over to BOP? Would you be amenable to

working with Mr. Brown to see that might happen in the District

of Columbia for these kids?

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes.

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

I am going to go now to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Sawyer, let me ask you, how long have you been out or free

of any obligation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, Mr. Davis, I returned home on February 9,

2010, paroled to the Nation’s Capital.

Mr. DAVIS. So you just got home?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Have you found a job yet?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, no, I have not yet found employment. I have

not found that. But I am in the Opportunity Industrialization Center [OIC], which is a job-training organization in southeast Washington that are preparing me for those job sites and what have you.

Mr. DAVIS. What would you consider to be, when you talk about

re-entry, your greatest need? What will help you feel the most like

you have re-entered society, you are back in the mainstream, you

are a regular citizen with the same hopes and aspirations and possibilities as any other citizen?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, Mr. Davis, one key point would be the stigma

of not being looked at as an ex-felon. If that could be taken away,

that would be fantastic. And, also, the situation with employment

and housing.

Mr. DAVIS. And how does one not be looked at as an ex-felon?

I mean, if I met you walking down the street, I certainly wouldn’t

have any indication that you were an ex-felon.

Mr. SAWYER. This is true. One thing in particular would be the

concept of the halfway house in which I am located presently, in

Hope Village. And when you go out for jobs and searching, they

have a vocational counselor who calls in to verify, and they will

state that they are from Hope Village. And even though on the resume or application it states, my position is don’t ask, don’t tell.

And if the employer does not ask the question, then I don’t share

that with them. But if they do, I have no problems with sharing

that. But the staff tends to share that information with the employers.

76

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, so you are actually in a program, which means

that you are doing OK because you are on your way. I mean, you

are in a program, people are working with you, they are helping

you, you are learning things, you are learning where to go, how to

go, what to do. So, you are on your way. You will be all right.

Mr. SAWYER. Well, when you say ‘‘all right,’’ that is a very interesting way of putting it. But the OIC is the basics in which they

are providing job training. And one thing I do know, there are two

words that I use, it is ‘‘initiative’’ and being ‘‘persistent.’’ And every

day I get up and make it my business to go out and to be a part

of the OIC operation from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that is Monday

through Friday. But if one does not take it upon themselves to take

the initiative, then if you want to be dormant—nothing is going to

come to a sleeper but a dream.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you.

Ms. LaVigne, let me ask you—of course, the Urban Institute has

been involved with this issue for a long time, a number of years,

and is recognized as one of the real experts in the country relative

to it.

We are making little bits and pieces of progress, I think. But

what would you consider to be, say, the two major areas where we

are not making or have not made the kind of progress that we need

to?

Ms. LAVIGNE. There are so many things we could still be doing,

it is hard to choose just two.

I do see that, as much as departments of corrections across the

country are really embracing their role as more than just housing

people safely and securely but also preparing them for release so

they don’t ultimately return, they are still having challenges connecting people to re-entry resources on the outside. They do what

they can with people behind bars, but they are very challenged in

making those connections to the community.

In large part, and as I said in my formal testimony, the prisons

are located in places that are far away from where the majority of

prisoners end up residing. And that is even more of a stark contrast when we are talking about D.C. felons. So I think that is a

big challenge, is making those connections with community service

providers.

The other challenge I see is that a lot of people have jumped on

the re-entry bandwagon, and that is great, and they talk about

doing evidence-based practice because they have heard that is the

thing they are supposed to be doing, but they don’t really know

what that means.

And so they have a lot of resources that they spread very thinly

across the inmate population in preparing them for release, rather

than taking a step back and trying to understand better what their

needs are, what their risks are, and what their assets are, so that

they can more tailor re-entry services to individual needs and challenges.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

And thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, you could talk

about this all week.

77

Ms. NORTON. And I must say, Mr. Davis, you have done a whole

lot more than talk about it for prisoners nationally. And we so appreciate your questions.

Ms. Poteat, first let me say, I understand the hardship that

CSOSA is under. You technically have jurisdiction for these more

than 5,000 inmates spread across the United States. And you are

able to reach very few of them until they land in your lap, so to

speak.

You mentioned the—and there are many different kinds of innovations—and I say this to Mr. Lappin. They had to figure out what

to do, too. CSOSA not only had to create itself, invent itself from

scratch, but then had to figure out how to do what it could to serve

as many of these inmates as possible. And one of the things they

came up with was video mentoring. And there has been some

videoconferencing generally. But that is the kind of innovation we

are looking for, the kind of sense of innovation we are looking for.

If these people are so far from home, then if we simply speak the

jargon of the Federal prisons, we show no intention to modify and

serve the people of the District of Columbia. And if you send us

back people who recommit crimes, we are going to hold the Bureau

of Prisons responsible. We are trying to assist the Bureau in its

mission. And its mission is not only to house these inmates; it is

to make sure that they successfully re-enter and do not disturb the

peace in the District of Columbia.

And we are not convinced that simply treating them as part of

the vast array of the Federal prison system demography, that you

can do that if you only think in those terms. You have shown that

you are willing to think otherwise, and the answers when Mr.

Brown sat down and you disclosed and he disclosed the conversations you are already having.

I will have less frustration at this hearing if we begin to think

in those terms. Because as long as you thrust before us what you

have, you are not showing the problem-solving notions that we

think hearings are for. Hearings are to solve problems. We don’t

bring you here to say ‘‘gotcha.’’ I think your prison system is an extraordinary prison system. I just don’t think that if you continue

to treat our folks as if they were like Federal prisons, you are doing

the best you are capable of doing for them.

Well, here comes CSOSA to say, ‘‘OK, let’s try video mentoring.’’

Well, first of all, how many prisons have you done video mentoring

in, BOP facilities?

Ms. POTEAT. We are doing it at Rivers Correctional Facility, and

we are getting ready to extend it to Hazelton.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask Mr. Lappin. And I don’t expect you—

I know you are talking about facilities all over the country. But

suppose CSOSA was able to do video mentoring with prisons outside of this one that is at least 4 hours from the District. I don’t

have to tell you, going 4 hours coming and 4 hours back, I don’t

know why anybody ever—how anybody from D.C. ever gets to Rivers, much less to other prisons.

But would there be anything to keep video mentoring from occurring in other Federal prisons where there are D.C. inmates?

Mr. LAPPIN. We are more than willing to look at new technology

that would facilitate the visits.

78

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. That is all I needed to know,

if you are willing to look at it.

And, Ms. LaVigne, in the States, in your experience, are rehabilitation and re-entry services provided more or less for the duration

of the prisoners’ incarceration?

Ms. LAVIGNE. It varies quite a bit by State and even by facility

within each State. So it is hard to make a blanket statement.

Ms. NORTON. Well, if I am in the State of Maryland.

Ms. LAVIGNE. Well, I am glad you mentioned that because I

wanted to share with you: Even before I knew about the conversation that Director Brown had had with Mr. Lappin, I was sitting

here thinking, you know, a compromise might be to do what the

State of Maryland does, which is something like, between 6 and 12

months of a person’s release date, people are transferred to the

Maryland Pre-Release Center in Baltimore to be closer to their

homes and jobs and services in their community.

So there is a really good example out there of a way in which

this could work. And, you know——

Ms. NORTON. Something like what Mr. Brown was speaking

about when he testified, along with the conversation with Mr.

Lappin.

Ms. LAVIGNE. Exactly. So there are examples of that out there.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. The State of Maryland has been doing that for at

least 10 years. I was involved in it, as the Congressman indicated.

I know it works. The way the model works is very similar to what

I am proposing, and that is individuals from Baltimore, who are

placed throughout the Maryland system, when they are about 120

days out from their release, they are transitioned—and that is

what it is called, a transition center—back to Baltimore, their

home, that is where they reside, to receive wraparound services,

from parole and probation, from the community, from the churches—the very model that I am asking.

And I am very pleased—I want to make it clear that Director

Lappin has been open in his discussions with me. He has indicated

quite correctly, as any director would, that we have to talk in terms

of logistics, just what would this involve. And we are at the early

stages of the discussion. He has not rejected, in any sense, being

willing to explore.

Ms. NORTON. We are here only testing feasibility. I very much

appreciate your reference to Maryland.

After discussing this innovation, Ms. Poteat, you say you suspended video mentoring in 2007, the demand for mentors, because

you were doing community-based mentoring. And then you say that

substantially increased demand for mentors and quickly exhausted

the available pool. You are now going back to video mentoring?

Ms. POTEAT. Yes. We had about 200-and-some mentor and

mentee matches in about 85 institutions. Well, you know, after a

while, the mentor pool exhausts itself. And so the Community Justice Program—in fact, Jasper Ormond, who is here, is constantly

continuing, trying to recruit more mentors and institutions so that

we will have more to engage in this process.

Ms. NORTON. It does seem to me, with the discussions that Mr.

Brown is having with Mr. Lappin, what Ms. LaVigne says about

79

what happens in Maryland, which sounds like it is old-hat, it

sounds like state-of-the-art penology where it is possible. It is not

possible for Mr. Lappin to do this within the system if the system

doesn’t accommodate the needs of this State population. But if we

begin to think more broadly and more flexibly, it does look like

there are things that we can do even now, even with no new prison

or any close prison to the District of Columbia.

Mr. Fornaci, very disturbing in your testimony was something

that the Revitalization Act created that is a dead letter, it would

seem, the Corrections Information Council. It was supposed to be

a three-member voluntary body—I have no idea what ‘‘voluntary

body’’ refers to—to provide the BOP with advice and information

regarding matters affecting the District of Columbia sentenced

felon population.

Then you say on page 3 that the CIC, this Corrections Information Council, has never visited any BOP facility to examine conditions or to interview D.C. prisoners—and here is the operative

part—in part because there has never been a memorandum of understanding with BOP.

You say the District government has failed, also, to appoint any

members of the CIC since 2004, which means at least they had

some members before, with last terms expiring in 2006. Shame on

us.

But, first, let me understand about this so-called memorandum

of understanding with BOP.

Mr. FORNACI. There had been negotiations, is my understanding—this was a little bit before my experience—with the CIC. They

had negotiations with the Bureau of Prisons, and there had been

discussions, but no agreement was actually reached.

Ms. NORTON. Well, let’s ask Mr. Lappin, because he is the man

in charge here at the BOP.

What would be the difficulty in getting a memorandum of understanding so that these people could assist you in matters affecting

the District of Columbia?

Mr. LAPPIN. I am more than happy to sit down with whoever is

appointed and finish. Because I have, in fact, here a draft memorandum from 2004.

Ms. NORTON. You are ready to go with the District.

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAPPIN. When we have appointed candidates, we will sit

down with them and try to finish the memorandum and get it in

place.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

It does look like the onus is on the District of Columbia. Is anybody here from the District of Columbia? You see the disconnect

between the District of Columbia. There should at least have been

somebody here from the District of Columbia. Now, we didn’t notify

the District of Columbia, but one of the things we have to do is to

reconnect to the District of Columbia.

You can see why the disconnect would occur. The District of Columbia said, ‘‘Take this package off of us. We can’t pay for it.’’ The

District had good reason to do that. It was carrying a State function that no city in the United States carries, State prisons. And

80

of course it wasn’t funding them. The last thing to get funded was

Lorton.

Well, when you go to a Federal—to become essentially a part of

a Federal agency, unless somebody is trying very hard in the District of Columbia, you say, well, you know, that is off my plate now.

So one of our missions, along with yours, is to reconnect the District of Columbia, because I have every reason to believe the District of Columbia wants to be reconnected. So we are going to take

that on, as well, Mr. Lappin, and I appreciate your testimony in

that regard.

It is important to clarify, Mr. Fornaci, what you said about—in

another part of your testimony. Very disturbing to hear that, 2008,

1,700 people were sent to BOP on parole revocations, overwhelmingly technical or administrative in nature, no new criminal behavior.

No wonder you are overcrowded, Mr. Lappin.

Now, we are working with the parole board. Mr. Fornaci, what

do you think could be done about these people being sent away on

technical and administrative violations? Is this a problem coming

from their re-entry, or is there a change in regulations or law required here?

Mr. FORNACI. Well, I think there are a couple issues.

One of the problems is, the law does not permit the District of

Columbia to change its own parole laws at this point. It is not permitted to make any changes in its laws regarding parole without

the consent of the United States——

Ms. NORTON. Well, that, Mr. Fornaci, I can understand your frustration, but you have here overlapping jurisdiction. Here, the parole board is a Federal board. This is Mr. Lappin’s challenge, too.

You can’t say, take these people into Federal custody, and not treat

them in any way as if they are within a Federal agency.

Mr. FORNACI. Certainly. And I certainly understand that. My

point really is that, for instance, if the District of Columbia council

decided that technical violations—that is, positive urine sample for

marijuana or missing appointments with a parole officer—should

not result in incarceration but instead some other alternative——

Ms. NORTON. Well, District government wouldn’t have to decide

that. Couldn’t the parole board decide that?

Mr. FORNACI. But that would be a non-district agency, and that

has not been the U.S. Parole Commission’s inclination to do that.

Ms. NORTON. Well, the U.S. Parole Commission—I beg to differ—

has a new chairman, a former police chief of the District of Columbia, who has, in fact, begun even before he was named chairman

of the board by President Obama, when he was a member of the

commission has, in fact, begun to use methods other than putting

someone right back in prison for a technical violation.

Ms. Poteat, are you aware of some of what the man I still call

Chief Fulwood is doing at the U.S. Parole Board?

Ms. POTEAT. Yes.

And I would like to speak to Mr. Fornaci’s remarks. Just so that

he will know, in a testimony prior to this we talked about a new

venture that Court Services has taken on, and that is dealing with

our technical violators who have substance abuse and new criminal

charges that are minor, Category 1 or Category 2. And we have

81

placed them in the correctional treatment facility for 180 days. And

they do not face revocation if they complete the program; they are

returned to the community.

It is only in a pilot stage. It is only 32 beds, that hopefully we

plan to expand to 96 beds. And this is also in collaboration with

the U.S. Parole Commission, the Public Defender Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and D.C. Department of Corrections. So that is one

of the things.

The other thing is that we are still working on the sanctions matrix to identify and make sure that all of us, including the courts,

are in agreement with the sanctions to make sure all of them have

been applied before we ask for revocation for the D.C. prisoners.

Ms. NORTON. This of course is not what Ms. Poteat is saying.

Some of it is pilot. It’s not all well known. But it does show the

kind of innovation that it’s going to take if we are going to have

State prisoners in this Federal system. And the reason I don’t want

to go to the City Council and then go to this is because I think

most of what we’re discussing here today can be done with administrative innovation without changes in law and getting all bollixed

up in who has jurisdiction and whatever.

Look, D.C. has said you all got jurisdiction. We don’t want to pay

for these prisoners. Whenever I’ve asked the D.C. Council to do

anything, as I did, Mr. Lappin will remember, as we had to do with

the state-of-the-art drug program, the problem was on the D.C.

side. D.C. did it instantly. This is an administrative problem. Mr.

Lappin has shown an extraordinary ability to deal administratively

with the problems we’ve brought to his attention, and the testimony here has been very encouraging.

Mr. Fornaci, you talk about the release of prisoners from the

Sellmon case.

Mr. FORNACI. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Would you elaborate on what that means for reentry and what the Sellmon case, Sellmon v. Reilly means for the

Bureau of Prisons and for the District of Columbia?

Mr. FORNACI. Certainly. Sellmon v. Reilly was decided in 2008,

when the District Court found that the U.S. Parole Commission

was using the wrong standards in determining who should be paroled. So that was changed. And as a result, throughout 2009 and

early 2010, the U.S. Parole Commission, through extreme pressure,

has agreed to a lot of remedial hearings for people to release them.

This is an approximately 600 to 700 extra hearings were held in

about a 3 or 4-month span, the end of 2009, early 2010. And that

was in fact when Mr. Sawyer was released. These folks have all

been held at least 12 years and as many as 25 years, the folks affected by the Sellmon decision. So they’re all long-term prisoners.

And with the impact as is happening now, it’s about a 50 percent

or so increase in releases for about 6 to 8 months this year and tapering off. There will still be more in the future affected by this decision, but the larger number is this year.

Mr. NORTON. And so these people are coming straight out as a

result of these hearings?

Mr. FORNACI. Through the normal process. They’re going to the

halfway houses or——

82

Ms. NORTON. Yes. They will come out from wherever they happen to be located?

Mr. FORNACI. Yes. And it’s important to realize also that the regulations under which they’re being released they have been found

through evidence of rehabilitation. There have no disciplinary problems, no disciplinary issues, they have been in programming. So

they’ve been ruled by the Commission to be a safe release. So

they’re not representing a danger of any kind.

Ms. NORTON. Because if they’re not a safe release then they’re

not released under this program, under Sellmon?

Mr. FORNACI. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Ms. Poteat.

Ms. POTEAT. We did a profile for all of the cases so we wanted

to be proactive in that in working with the Bureau of Prisons so

we’ll know who exactly is coming out and if you’d like I can just

give you a quick overview of what we have.

The average age for this population is 43. 10 percent of them are

age 56 or older. The youngest person is 30 years of age. 56 percent

of them will have less than a high school diploma or GED. 73 percent of them are unemployed. 50 percent have very limited employment opportunities. 30 percent are in need of stable housing. 83

percent of them have a history of some type of violence. 38 percent

have a history of property crimes. 34 have a history of drug-related

crimes, and 24 percent have a history of weapon offenses. And then

66 percent have a history of illicit drug usage, mostly marijuana,

cocaine, and PCP. 34 percent have a history of alcohol use, and 9

percent have a need for behavior health services. 60 percent report

having children and 9 or 10 of them are dependent children. 12

percent of them reported children living in the same household.

So we wanted to get some kind of profiles to see what we needed,

the services we needed to provide for them once they are released.

Ms. NORTON. Very useful. You see what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about older prisoners, not particularly prepared to

get out, thought they were going to be in longer, BOP had every

reason to think they would be in longer. They’re going to come

home with very little preparation. And of course your profile points

up what Mr. Lappin has absorbed.

These are local street criminals. These do not fit the profile of

your average Federal prisoner. Yes, there are some street criminals

in Federal prison. But these fit much more the profile of Los Angeles State prison, Maryland State prison, New York State prison

than they do your average Federal prison.

And when these prisoners are mixed in with other prisoners

there have been reports that there have been disturbances and

problems, have there not, Mr. Lappin, of placing these prisoners of

this profile? You heard 80 some percent have weapons offenses. I

mean, these are not folks just toting some drugs, Mr. Lappin.

These are honest to goodness folks who got in some big trouble in

the District of Columbia. You just mix them in with folks in Federal prisons of various types, and you sometimes have had problems with that in your prisons, with the result that you transfer

out folks all around the country. Isn’t that so?

Mr. LAPPIN. It is to some degree, although over the last 20 years

we have acquired a much more violent offender of our own with the

83

passage of the Federal drug laws, the firearms violations. The classification system should put them in prisons with like inmates.

So again, it is true that we’ve had some disturbances, some problems. I can’t say it’s unique just to the D.C. inmates. We have

other groups that have been problematic, whether they’re Caucasian groups or Hispanic groups alike. So it’s a combination.

Ms. NORTON. I understand, sir. I understand. I can tell you this.

I think that the Bureau of Prisons, given it’s long history, it’s effective history I might add, in this country, if we challenge the Bureau of Prisons to house D.C. inmates in a prison, to segregate

them accordingly, and to deal with them as a State prison system

within the Federal system, given your long record of success in

state-of-the-art technology, whether you think you could do it, I

think your record speaks for itself and that it could be done.

Now, I want to put on the record who these two men are who

have agreed to come and testify because we didn’t just want them

to testify thirdhand. They have experience that needs to be on the

record. Let’s start with Mr. Cook.

Mr. Cook, you live in the District. How old are you?

Mr. COOK. Thirty-nine.

Ms. NORTON. When were you released from what prison? What

prison were you released from to come home?

Mr. COOK. Cumberland, MD.

Ms. NORTON. From Cumberland, MD?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. How many years have you spent in prison?

Mr. COOK. Eight.

Ms. NORTON. Eight of your 39 years. Who do you live with in the

District of Columbia?

Mr. COOK. My sister.

Ms. NORTON. You’re very fortunate that you have a relative.

What was your last job? What kind of work were you doing? Do

you remember?

Mr. COOK. Yeah, it was—I was working—at the time it was

called the MCI Center.

Ms. NORTON. What were you doing?

Mr. COOK. It was janitorial work.

Ms. NORTON. Do you have any children?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. How many prisons have you been in in the Bureau

of Prisons?

Mr. COOK. Five.

Ms. NORTON. Five prisons in a term of how many years, Mr.

Cook? How many years were you in the Bureau of Prisons?

Mr. COOK. 8.

Ms. NORTON. So five prisons in 8 years. What was your first contact with your family? Was it when you were home for the first

time or did you have some kind of, like, physical contact with somebody coming to see you? Did people come to Cumberland to see

you?

Mr. COOK. Yeah.

Ms. NORTON. Were they more likely to come to Cumberland than

when you were at the other four places you were?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

84

Ms. NORTON. Did that help your reentry? Did it help you to get

used to being home and to prepare to come home, to see someone,

to have some contact with family?

Mr. COOK. No.

Ms. NORTON. Why not?

Mr. COOK. Because what drove me is I wanted to be home myself. But it was a plus to have them to come down there. But after

a while you start looking at things. We much older, so they can

only do but so much. Everything else falls on us.

Ms. NORTON. Do you receive services, Mr. Cook? Now that you’re

home from court services, CSOSA or from the District of Columbia

or any services at all?

Mr. COOK. No. As far as, you mean, as far as my supervision or

something?

Ms. NORTON. No. Anybody helping, any services to help you find

a job? Do the people who render supervision help you in any way?

Mr. COOK. Well, they put me in programs, as far as, you know,

outreach programs and stuff. But most times I do it myself.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cook, what were you sent to prison for? What

was the offense?

Mr. COOK. Robbery.

Ms. NORTON. Robbery.

Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. What was the offense for which you did time, and

how much time did you do?

Mr. SAWYER. Murder One; 25 years, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. How many prisons were you, in your 25 years, how

many prisons of the BOP? Were you in Lorton first?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Once you were transferred from Lorton to the Bureau of Prisons, how many Bureau of Prisons were you in?

Mr. SAWYER. Two.

Ms. NORTON. And what were they?

Mr. SAWYER. In 2002, U.S. penitentiary in Lee County,

Jonesville, VA, and in November 2007, the Federal correctional institution in Allenwood in White Deer, PA.

Ms. NORTON. Are you now at Hope Village?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. This is a halfway house?

Mr. SAWYER. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Of the Bureau of Prisons——

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

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

Mr. SAWYER. Forty-nine, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Now, you are one of the so-called Sellmon cases

that Mr. Fornaci testified about.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Did you expect to be released when you were? In

other words, along comes this District Court decision. Who informed you that you might be subject to release?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, Madam, this was my rehearing. In December

2005, I went up for my initial, and at that time I was given a 36-

85

month set-off. And December 2008 was my rehearing. And it didn’t

occur until April 2009.

Ms. NORTON. Well, that’s—you had to have two hearings.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Why were two hearings necessary, Mr. Sawyer?

Mr. SAWYER. For the first one it was denied parole because of the

ceiling factor.

Ms. NORTON. Because of the what?

Mr. SAWYER. The ceiling factor, in which the number of months

that I had not served based on the U.S. Parole Commission’s guidelines versus the D.C. Parole Board’s guidelines.

Ms. NORTON. But upon rehearing——

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. It was decided that you were eligible

for release.

Mr. SAWYER. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. How much sooner were you released than you expected?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, I had initiated the thought of going home in

my first hearing.

Ms. NORTON. No, I’m sorry. Before the Sellmon case. Were you

sentenced to 25 years?

Mr. SAWYER. No, I was sentenced to 22 years, 4 months to life.

Ms. NORTON. Twenty-two years, 4 months to life.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. All right. So you did not expect, whether the first

hearing or the second hearing, to be out of prison when you were

released; is that right?

Mr. SAWYER. Oh, no, ma’am. I expected it.

Ms. NORTON. You did expect it?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am. Most definitely.

Ms. NORTON. Why did you expect it? The Sellmon case came

along making it possible for you to come out earlier than might

otherwise have occurred, is that not true?

Mr. SAWYER. Well, Madam, according to what I was asked to do,

and to program to stay disciplinary free, and in my 25 years I have

done just that, and based on the first hearing, all that was in place,

recommendations and persons who spoke on my behalf, it was expected that parole would be granted, but it wasn’t.

Ms. NORTON. Based on your good conduct, the way you conducted

yourself as a man in that prison?

Mr. SAWYER. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Sir——

Mr. SAWYER. Ma’am.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Did you have contact with your family

while, at any time when were you at the Bureau of Prisons facilities.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am. I had family visits, not often, but at

the U.S. penitentiary in Lee County, for it took them 13 to 14

hours to come from the Nation’s Capital to Jonesville, VA, and they

would travel overnight on a bus excursion where one of the gentleman in our prisons would run a bus service once or twice, maybe

four times a year, and they would run a bus and they would stay

overnight, come, leave that Friday night, stay all day Saturday, go

86

to the hotel, come back on Sunday, spend time with the gentlemen

who were in prison and then travel back to the Nation’s Capital on

Sunday night and return.

Ms. NORTON. Have mercy. Who was kind enough to conduct that

bus service? Was that you, Mr. Lappin? Was it CSOSA?

Mr. LAPPIN. No, not us.

Ms. POTEAT. No, ma’am.

Mr. SAWYER. This was a private entity.

Ms. NORTON. That was doing this in order to enable these families?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. And of course they have to pay to go on this, somebody had to pay for it?

Mr. SAWYER. No more than $45 to $50.

Ms. NORTON. No more than $45 to $50 and 13 or 14 hours to see

a loved one. There was some loving members of that family.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. You were fortunate, indeed, given that kind of long

trip. When I went to Rivers, that was 4 hours each way. I thought

I would kill myself before I got back. Riding along those roads in

a van that I very much appreciate that the Bureau of Prisons provided it, but the distance made me wonder for the parents, no matter how, or relatives, no matter how it was facilitated for them to

get there. It’s an exhausting trip to come so far.

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Now you have services provided by, such as are

available of course at Hope Village. Was there any preparation provided, any services provided to prepare you to come home during

the months before you were released?

Mr. SAWYER. No more than I secured for myself.

Ms. NORTON. Meaning?

Mr. SAWYER. The letters that I’ve written to organizations here,

faith-based reentry, those type of letters to those organizations and

having those persons write back.

Ms. NORTON. But nothing like you’ve heard testified that Mr.

Brown did when he served in the State of Maryland and the prisoners were brought from Maryland, brought to Baltimore for reentry for several months before they came home; nothing like that

was done for you?

Mr. SAWYER. No, ma’am. And it would be welcome if it would

have been.

Ms. NORTON. Nor did you have access to the Court Services,

CSOSA as we call it, at all in any way?

Mr. SAWYER. Only with the letter writing campaign, and I did

write to the faith-based mentoring initiatives, and Mrs. Christine

Keels returned my letter and we had dialog once or twice by letter.

And when I returned home I did contact her, and she and I have

been in contact ever since.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, you are both very motivated men. And we find that when people arrive their motivation

is at a very high level. And if it’s at a high level when they arrive

in D.C., we cannot imagine how much good would be done if we

had something like what Mr. Brown is talking about so that a few

87

months beforehand, instead of slapping you right back in the midst

of your hometown, you had some preparation.

Your testimony has been invaluable. It has helped. I think Mr.

Lappin learned more about what happens. After all, he has responsibility for many thousands more who have nothing to do with the

District of Columbia and we’re putting a very special burden on

him. To have Mr. Brown fortuitously here, we’re so pleased, Mr.

Brown, that although you were not invited to this hearing because

it was about Federal matters, that you were interested enough to

come, because it turns out that you have helped us in some considerable ways to move forward so this hearing is not just about talk,

but about accomplishing something.

The testimony of each of you has been invaluable by—almost inevitably the official witnesses get most of the questions because

they are the people who are responsible. But all of you have offered

testimony that has been indispensable to our understanding of

what is possible and how to make this system work within the confines that Mr. Lappin must address.

I repeat, we’re not seeking release from the Federal prison system. We have great respect for the Federal prison system. Even in

my opening testimony, where I talked about where the Federal

prison system isn’t preparing the vocational programs, which I happen to have seen and appreciate, they’re all state-of-the-art programs. You have to understand what BOP does. It doesn’t just

smack a program down. It then tests it and retests it. It keeps valuable statistics. These people know what they’re doing. Yes, they

couldn’t possibly have a vocational program in there to match the

District of Columbia. What are our industries? Tourism, hospitals,

the Verizon kinds of job that Mr. Cook had. We can’t expect Mr.

Lappin to reorient vocation in the prison system. But what we can

do is bring the District to Mr. Lappin. We don’t want to revolutionize his system. We want to work within his system. But we want

to work within his system as a State system that must, in fact, report ultimately to the District of Columbia, its residents and its officials who will be responsible if these two men, extremely motivated, do not have the preparation necessary for them to come

home and do what they clearly want to do now, which is live law

abiding lives.

This subcommittee, and I can assure you that this chairman who

has taken great leadership on law enforcement issues since he’s

chaired this committee, I can assure you you will have the greatest

cooperation from this subcommittee and the full committee, if we,

in fact, do what the committee believes must be done, adapt, be

flexible, accommodate us, facilitate us within that system for the

greater good of our inmates and their families and especially the

greater good of the residents of the District of Columbia.

This has been a very fruitful, a very useful hearing to this subcommittee. Mr. Lappin and Mr. Brown, you are to report on your

progress on your discussions—we don’t expect everything to be

wrapped up in a neat package, Mr. Lappin, but your progress within 30 days to the chairman of this committee. Please feel free to

have discussions as well with Ms. Poteat and CSOSA and others

who have served on this panel. The subcommittee cannot thank

you enough for your indispensable and invaluable testimony.

88

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

89

90

Æ