[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE LOCAL ROLE OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION: INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY,
REDUCING RECIDIVISM, AND USING ALTERNATIVES TO RE-INCARCERATION IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 3, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-977 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
DIANE E. WATSON, California LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
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
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 JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
William Miles, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 3, 2010................................. 1
Statement of:
Eichenlaub, Louis, Mid-Atlantic regional director, Bureau of
Prisons; Adrienne Poteat, acting director, Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency; Nancy LaVigne, director,
Justice Policy Center, the Urban Institute; Charles M.
Reynolds, Jr., CEO, the Fairview Adult Rehabilitative
Center; Jeffrey Varone, CEO, Hope Village; and Michael
White, former Hope Village resident........................ 14
Eichenlaub, Louis........................................ 14
LaVigne, Nancy........................................... 32
Poteat, Adrienne......................................... 23
Reynolds, Charles M., Jr.,............................... 39
Varone, Jeffrey.......................................... 47
White, Michael........................................... 61
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 5
Eichenlaub, Louis, Mid-Atlantic regional director, Bureau of
Prisons, prepared statement of............................. 16
LaVigne, Nancy, director, Justice Policy Center, the Urban
Institute, prepared statement of........................... 34
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 3
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes,, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 7
Poteat, Adrienne, acting director, Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of......... 25
Reynolds, Charles M., Jr., CEO, the Fairview Adult
Rehabilitative Center, prepared statement of............... 41
Varone, Jeffrey, CEO, Hope Village, prepared statement of.... 050
White, Michael, former Hope Village resident, prepared
statement of............................................... 63
THE LOCAL ROLE OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION: INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY,
REDUCING RECIDIVISM, AND USING ALTERNATIVES TO RE-INCARCERATION IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich,
Connolly, Chaffetz, Bilbray, and Cao.
Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; Jill Crissman,
professional staff; Dan Ziedman, deputy clerk/legislative
assistant; Howie Denis and Mitch Kominsky, minority counsels;
and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff.
Mr. Lynch. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Federal
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will
now come to order.
I want to welcome Ranking Member Chaffetz, members of the
subcommittee, hearing witnesses and all those in attendance.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the
effectiveness of residential reentry centers, or halfway
houses, on public safety prisoner reentry and recidivism in the
Nation's Capital. The chairman, ranking member and subcommittee
members will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements,
and all Members will have 5 days to submit statements for the
record.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me welcome you to today's
subcommittee oversight hearing on the utilization and
effectiveness of Bureau of Prison-sponsored halfway houses in
the District of Columbia, also commonly referred to as
community correction centers. Halfway houses play a critical
role in Federal corrections policy; yet this important phase of
an ex-offender's road to recovery and reentry often goes
unregulated. And in the case of the District, at times, under-
used.
According to the Bureau of Prisons program and policy
statement on community correction centers, whenever possible,
eligible inmates are to be released to the community through a
community correction center [CCC], unless of course there
exists a reasonable impediment. It is estimated that every
year, nearly 2,500 ex-offenders return to the District after
completing their sentences. There is an average of five ex-
offenders per day and with many inmates regularly returning to
the District, it is imperative that the Bureau of Prisons and
its halfway house providers are equipped and adequately
prepared to help these individuals successfully transition from
confinement to community.
To that end, today's hearing is intended to ascertain how
well the Bureau and its partners are doing in meeting that
objective. Currently, the District is home to three BOP, Bureau
of Prisons--I will try to reduce the number of acronyms that we
use during the hearing. But it is unavoidable, apparently.
Currently, the District is home to three Bureau of Prison-
affiliated halfway houses: Hope Village in ward 8, Efforts From
Ex-Convicts in ward 2, and Fairview, the District's only
halfway house for women, in ward 7. And I am glad to have both
the BOP officials and representatives from each of these
particular centers here with us this morning to help us get an
update on the role that halfway house are playing in reducing
crime and recidivism in the Nation's Capital.
Since adoption of the Revitalization Act in 1997 and the
massive restructuring of D.C.'s criminal justice system, both
the city and the Federal Government have worked diligently and
collaboratively to increase public safety by implementing sound
felon reentry systems and practices. Halfway houses serve as an
instrumental element of this overall approach and therefore
warrant serious and ongoing oversight.
I would like to thank the gentlelady from the District of
Columbia, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, for continuing to place
an emphasis on prisoner re-integration issues, and for
recommending today's hearing. I look forward to the testimonies
of our invited witnesses, and now yield to the ranking member,
Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, for any opening remarks he may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.001
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
Eleanor Holmes Norton for her work on this and for encouraging
this hearing to happen. I do support the idea and the notion
that it is supposed to be the Department of Corrections, and
that pathway back is an important one and I am glad we are
diving into that today.
This particular hearing provides an excellent opportunity
to discuss the Federal Bureau of Prisons and its relationship
to halfway houses in the District of Columbia. The Bureau of
Prisons is vested with the authority to house D.C. code felons
under the National Capital Revitalization Act. And upon
release, most convicts are automatically housed in a BOP-based
halfway house in D.C. under the jurisdiction of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA]. The National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1977 fundamentally restructured the relationship and the
responsibilities between the Federal Government and the
District Government, including its courts, prisons and parole
supervision. The District's Lorton correction facility in
Virginia, which had housed D.C. code felons, was closed in
2001. This resulted in such convicts being placed in various
Bureaus of Prisons throughout the country.
CSOSA, which supervises D.C. ex-convicts, is also a Federal
entity. I would specifically like to learn about how the Bureau
of Prisons and CSOSA work together to curb recidivism rates. We
all want ex-offenders to return safely to their communities.
Halfway houses are critical to the success in this effort. A
good halfway house can help save lives. They can provide a safe
place where someone can learn the skills and get the tools they
need to live in a healthy lifestyle.
A halfway house is a transitional facility. It is needed to
ease the difficult task of going back from prison or drug
recovery straight back into the community. Ex-offenders can
best succeed if they are sober, employed and have a good place
to live. Otherwise, they are highly likely to go through the
revolving door of the criminal justice system, something nobody
wants to have happen.
Again, Mr. Chairman, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, I thank you
both for holding this hearing and insisting that it happen. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.002
Mr. Lynch. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Eleanor Holmes
Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I am going to simply summarize my
testimony and ask that it be put into the record, only to
emphasize, Mr. Chairman, first, my sincere appreciation for
this hearing. There has not been a hearing involving halfway
houses now for almost 10 years. And yet, these houses are or
should be critical to reentry.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because we are
dealing with a fairly complicated agency here. These are local
D.C. code offenders, yet they are in a Federal prison. And
CSOSA, the Court Services Offender and Supervision Agency, is
of course a Federal agency. So it requires some coordination
and understanding of what is a unique situation in our Federal
system, where essentially BOP is a State prison for the
District of Columbia, yet is a Federal agency with Federal
rules. We are very concerned that the 6,500 D.C. code felons
are now spread to 75 BOP facilities in 33 States. You can't run
a State prison system that way.
And I will be looking, Mr. Chairman, for a solution to that
problem. We don't understand precisely what the effect of these
halfway houses is on the most important part of their mission,
which is reducing recidivism and public safety. I will be
particularly interested, Mr. Chairman, to learn this morning as
much as I can about those two issues, and I thank you very much
again for this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.006
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I take
great interest in this hearing.
As a resident of the inner city of Baltimore, and as one
who used to voluntarily run an after-care program for young men
who were being released from our juvenile facilities, I take
tremendous interest in this subject. So therefore, I want to
thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank Ms.
Norton for all that she has done in regards to these kinds of
issues and so many others. I have said to many people many
times that she is one of the finest public servants I know,
working tirelessly to address so many, many issues of the
District.
Ex-offenders need help to make a smooth transition into day
to day civilian life. Once they make that transition, they have
the potential to serve as critical resources to our
communities, acting as mentors to our young people, and working
to unravel the same criminal network to which they once
belonged. While the Nation's crime rates have fallen over the
last decade, there has been an unprecedented explosion in
prison and jail populations. Upwards of 650,000 men and women
are released from State and Federal prisons each year, and an
even larger number of people are being released from our local
jails.
In my home town of Baltimore, approximately 700 to 800
former prisoners are re-entering our neighborhoods from prison
every month. Unfortunately, we are failing to integrate far too
many of these returning neighbors into the economic and social
life of our communities. Nearly two-thirds of released
prisoners are expected to be re-arrested for a felony or
serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Such high
recidivism rates translates into thousands of new crimes each
year, at least half of which can be averted through an improved
prisoner reentry efforts.
I might add that it is not, when I return to my district,
it is not unusual, Mr. Chairman, for me to be approached by
anywhere from five to six people a day who tell me something
like this: ``Mr. Cummings, I have just gotten out of prison or
I have been out for a few months, I simply cannot find a job,
cannot find opportunity. And if you can't help me, then I am
going to have to do something.'' And what they mean by that is
that they are going to have to commit a crime. This is the real
deal, to survive, that is. And I am certainly not sitting here
excusing them for that. I just want us to be aware of that.
These programs have to address the issues of education,
housing, treatment, training and employment. In these economic
times, this is very difficult, when you look at it from the
employment standpoint. When we had our jobs fair just recently,
Mr. Chairman, we had a number of people who came through. And
one of their major complaints was that nobody wanted to, the
people with records, that is, said that nobody wanted to give
them an interview. And I tried to make them realize that for
every person who had a record, there were probably 100 who
didn't have a record who were trying to get the same job. And a
lot of employers just don't want to hear from anybody who has a
record.
So they face a very difficult situation. Reentry programs,
such as halfway houses or community correction centers produce
successful outcomes for our communities and our citizens. I am
proud to have been one of the original co-sponsors of the
Second Chance Act of 2007, which is now law, that extended the
amount of time that prisoners can stay in a halfway house from
6 months to 1 year.
Today, we examine the unique prisoner reentry program here
in the District of Columbia. The D.C. code felons are being
housed in 75 different facilities, located in 33 States,
meaning that they are not able to visit with social workers,
clergy, friends, and family, which are crucial in preparing the
prisoner for reentry into their own community.
And so Mr. Chairman, as my time runs out, I ask that my
entire statement be placed in the record, and I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. And without objection,
his remarks and his statement will be submitted to the record.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Kucinich, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kucinich. When we think about crime and punishment, our
society still doesn't have it right. Because there is no way
that we can appreciably affect recidivism if we don't make sure
that when people try to come back and participate in society
that there is a place for them. We are asking people to do
something impossible.
When you look at it in a larger context, Mr. Chairman, I am
going to have to leave here to go over to a meeting with
Secretary Salize, who is talking about jobs right now. We have
15 million Americans without any jobs. And in that market, you
get released from prison, you try to find a job, it's harder
than ever. So halfway houses sometimes just leave people
halfway. And if you want to get the full distance, then a
society has to be there with an opportunity. We can't keep
condemning people for going back to prison if we don't have a
place for them in our society.
And it is famous, we have one of the largest prison
populations in the world, per capita, we are one of the highest
in the world. It is really a commentary on our society.
I don't know about any of you, but I come from a family in
Cleveland, OH, that some members of our family had some tough
times, and some of them did time. And maybe if they had had
better lawyers, they wouldn't have done time. But they did
time. And when they came back, it was very tough for them to
find a way to get back into the system, very tough.
So I want to thank the people who are involved in this
effort to try to really give individuals an opportunity to be
able to rescue their lives. But we have to have solid economic
components. You just can't be expected to do this on your own.
It is called a halfway house. You can meet people halfway, but
our society has to do something about helping people get the
entire distance.
I really am grateful for those who have dedicated their
time and effort to the endeavors in the District. I hope that
we will be able to address some of the issues of people being
able to see their loved ones who are incarcerated, sometimes at
a great distance from the District. Hopefully we will be able
to do something about some of the issues of oversight of houses
that are essentially operated by private contractors.
So I thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
The committee will now hear from today's witnesses, after a
brief introduction. It is committee policy that all witnesses
are to be sworn before testifying. So may I ask you to please
rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Lynch. Let the record reveal that all the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
Your entire statements will be included in the record. A
little bit about the ground rules here. You will see a small
box in front of you. You might want to turn that one around so
the witness can actually see it. Thank you very much.
The green light will indicate that you have 5 minutes to
summarize your statement; the yellow light means you have 1
minute remaining to sort of wrap up your statement; and the red
light indicates that your time has expired and you should
immediately summarize and end your statement.
I would like to introduce today's panel. Mr. Louis
Eichenlaub serves as the Mid-Atlantic regional director for the
Bureau of Prisons. Regional Director Eichenlaub joined the
Bureau of Prisons in 1986 as a research analyst in the Office
of Research and Evaluation and Information Policy and Public
Affairs Division in the Central Office here in Washington, DC.
Ms. Adrienne Poteat was named as the acting director for
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in July 2008. In
this position, Ms. Poteat oversees a Federal agency of nearly
1,300 employees, which was created by the D.C. Revitalization
Act of 1997 to improve public safety through active community
supervision for ex-offenders.
Ms. Nancy LaVigne is the current director of the Justice
Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. LaVigne is an expert
on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and is the founding
director of the U.S. Department of Justice Mapping and Analysis
for Public Safety program.
Mr. Charles Reynolds is currently CEO of the Fairview Adult
Rehabilitative Center, the only all-female community correction
center in Washington, DC. In addition to the Fairview Center,
Mr. Reynolds also operates a reentry facility in the Hampton
Roads area on behalf of Rehabilitation Services, Inc. Both
sites incorporate state-of-the-art rehabilitation and
correctional residential services.
Mr. Jeffrey Varone is CEO of Hope Village, a nationally
accredited community correction center which has been providing
offender reentry services since 1977. Mr. Varone has over 25
years of experience in the field of community corrections and
in residential reentry programs.
Mr. Michael White is a third-generation Washingtonian and
former D.C. code offender. Mr. White was incarcerated at
Petersburg prison from June 2007 until October 2008. And
thereafter, he was a resident of Hope Village halfway house
from October 2008 until January 2009.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their willingness
to come before this subcommittee and help us with our work. Mr.
Eichenlaub, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF LOUIS EICHENLAUB, MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, ACTING DIRECTOR, COURT
SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; NANCY LaVIGNE,
DIRECTOR, JUSTICE POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE; CHARLES
M. REYNOLDS, JR., CEO, THE FAIRVIEW ADULT REHABILITATIVE
CENTER; JEFFREY VARONE, CEO, HOPE VILLAGE; AND MICHAEL WHITE,
FORMER HOPE VILLAGE RESIDENT
STATEMENT OF LOUIS EICHENLAUB
Mr. Eichenlaub. Good morning, Chairman Lynch and members of
the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today on behalf of Bureau of Prisons Director Lappin to
discuss the role of residential reentry centers, or halfway
houses, in the District of Columbia.
As regional director for the Bureau of Prisons Mid-Atlantic
Region, I am well aware of the unique role that we play in the
District of Columbia. While the number of inmates sentenced in
D.C. Superior Court is relatively small compared to our entire
inmate population, which is less than 3 percent, we devote
substantial resources to ensuring they receive appropriate care
and treatment. And, mindful of the unique relationship between
the Federal Government and the District of Columbia, as an
organization we work hard to maintain a variety of
collaborative relationships with the local criminal justice
community.
The mission of our community is to house offenders in
institutions that are safe, secure, humane, cost-efficient and
provide opportunities for offenders to prepare for a successful
return to the community. There are two corollaries to this
mission. First, offenders come to prison as punishment, not for
punishment. And reentry begins on the first day of an inmate's
incarceration.
In coming into the Federal prison system, District of
Columbia offenders have available to them a broad variety of
opportunities for self-improvement. Every Federal prison offers
inmate programs that stress the development of work skills and
life skills needed to enhance employment upon release and to
help inmates maintain a crime-free lifestyle. These programs
include work, education, vocational training, substance abuse
treatment, observance of faith and religion, psychological
services and counseling, release preparation and other programs
that impart essential life skills.
Rigorous research has found that inmates who participate in
programs are less likely to commit future crimes. For example,
inmates who participate in Federal prison industries are 24
percent less likely to recidivate and substantially less likely
to engage in misconduct. Inmates who participate in vocational
or occupational training are 33 percent less likely to
recidivate. Inmates who participate in education programs are
16 percent less likely to recidivate. Inmates who complete the
BOP's residential substance abuse program, which includes a
community transition component and is available at the rigorous
correctional institution, are 16 percent less likely to
recidivate and 15 percent less likely to relapse to drug use
within 3 years after release.
We recognize that as inmates approach release, there are a
variety of immediate needs to address. Through the release
preparation program, we provide assistance in resume writing
and job seeking and retention skills. We have employment
resource centers at all of our institutions. We offer mock job
fairs, where inmates learn job interview techniques and
community recruiters learn of the skills available among
inmates. During these events, qualified inmates are afforded
the opportunity to apply for jobs with companies that have job
openings.
Finally, our staff helps inmates secure identification,
apply for benefits, compile education and training
certificates, diplomas, transcripts and other significant
documents needed in the community. Community-based programs, or
halfway houses, complement the Bureau's reentry efforts
described above. Research has shown that inmates who are
released through halfway houses are more likely to be employed
and less likely to recidivate. For this reason, the BOP places
most inmates in community-based programs for the final portion
of their term of imprisonment to help offenders gradually re-
adapt to their community environment. Many of the programs and
treatments that offenders receive in the correctional
institutions are reinforced during their stay in the community-
based programs.
Additionally, offenders receive assistance in finding a job
and a place to live and access to services they may need
following release. The BOP does not operate any halfway houses.
Rather, all of them are operated by private providers under
contract with the BOP. We are committed to ensuring that our
programs, including halfway houses, buildupon the body of
knowledge about what is effective in reducing recidivism. For
halfway houses, these evidence-based practices are articulated
in our statement of work. Halfway houses must, one, conduct an
assessment to identify the crime-producing behaviors to target;
two, develop an individualized case plan based on the
assessment; three, offer effective interventions; and four,
implement the program consistently.
We regularly monitor our contracts for RRC services,
frequently visiting both Hope Village and Fairview in the
District. We work closely with the providers, as well as the
staff from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,
to refine our operations and those of the providers.
I look forward to hearing from our partners in the D.C.
criminal justice community today and to continue to collaborate
on how best to address the needs of the District and its
incarcerated population.
Chairman Lynch, this concludes my formal statement. Again,
I thank you, Mr. Chaffetz and the subcommittee for your support
of our agency. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
or any other members of the subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eichenlaub follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.013
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Poteat, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT
Ms. Poteat. Thank you, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member
Chaffetz and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today before you and testify on behalf of
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to discuss
the role of halfway houses in reducing crime and recidivism in
the District of Columbia.
CSOSA was certified as a Federal agency in 2000 and charged
with the unique responsibility of supervising men and women on
probation, parole or supervised release in the District of
Columbia. On any given day, we supervise 16,000 offenders,
6,000 of whom are on probation, parole or supervised release,
and have served a period of incarceration in the Federal Bureau
of Prisons. Each year, approximately 2,400 offenders return to
the District of Columbia from BOP facilities.
The demographic profile of the returning offender suggests
enormous challenges for us. In fiscal year 2009, 44 percent of
them had a history of violent crime, 70 percent had a history
of substance abuse, 30 percent had a diagnosed mental health
illness, and nearly 40 percent did not have a GED or high
school diploma. These offenders arrived in the District of
Columbia with an immediate need to find housing and employment
services, to develop positive social networks and reconnect
with their families. They also have needs in mental heath and
medical services.
The challenge is compounded for offenders released after
long periods of incarceration in the Bureau of Prisons
facilities. Sometimes, once they are released, their support
networks have been dissolved.
CSOSA created a specialized unit to deal with the offenders
coming from the Bureau, and that is a Transitional Intervention
Team [TIPS]. We work solely with the offenders returning from
prison. The TIPS CSOs begin this transition period 6 months
prior to the offender returning to the community. They
investigate home and employment plans prepared by the BOP case
managers. They ensure that the proposed plans for home and
employment are successful for reentry into the community and do
not pose a risk to a prior victim, or in the case of sex
offenders, children living in the home.
Offenders who transition through a halfway house undergo a
comprehensive risk and needs assessment by the TIPS CSOs. This
includes a substance abuse history, criminal behavior patterns,
history of violence, educational or vocational deficits,
physical or mental health challenges. Armed with this
information, the TIPS CSO develops an individualized plan for
each offender. During the course of a halfway house stay, an
offender may be enrolled in Unity Health Care, be referred to
Goodwill Industries for job placement, receive skills from
opportunities industrialization centers, and be connected to a
mentor from an area faith-based program. The offender will also
be oriented to his supervision requirements.
Unfortunately, of the 2,400 offenders who will return to
the District, last year, only 40 percent of them transitioned
through halfway houses. This average stay for our CSOSA
offenders was 45 to 60 days. Our experience suggests that a
longer period of stay may be effective in stabilizing offenders
during this critical period.
In general, offenders who experience halfway house
placements are 20 to 40 percent more likely to find themselves
in stable employment and housing during their 180 day stay
period, and some of them are considered to be our riskiest
population. Employment and housing stability have long been
associated with greater supervision compliance.
Research conducted by the Bureau of Justice statistics in
2002 supports the need for a comprehensive strategy for
addressing offender needs during the first 180 days after
release from prison. That study found that the offenders are at
a greater risk of committing new crimes or serious supervision
violations prior to being sent back to prison during the first
6 months in the community. Of the nearly 68 percent of the
offenders who will be re-arrested within 3 years of their
release, less than half of them will be arrested during the
first 180 days. Clearly, this is the most critical intervention
period to slow down the likelihood of the offender re-
offending.
Now I would like to just turn your attention to an
immediate challenge facing CSOSA. We will have approximately
500 offenders who will be returning to the District based on
the U.S. Parole Commission in correctly applying parole
guidelines to these men and women that were D.C. offenders that
were sentenced during the 1985 time for drug offenses. And it
was the epidemic of the crack. So therefore, some of them have
spent more than 10 years in the prison system and will probably
come home with a lot of challenges that they will be facing at
that time. Therefore, we will be working very closely with our
partners to address those needs for those men and women
returning to the District of Columbia.
In closing, CSOSA has been collaborating with our criminal
justice partners, researchers and academics to develop
strategies to reverse the pattern of recidivism. That
consistent theme emerging from our shared work is that the
offender reentry must begin before inmates leave prison, and
intervention services must be front-loaded. Halfway houses
accomplish this goal. We look forward to continuing our close
collaboration with the Bureau of Prisons, our halfway house
providers, and other local and Federal partners to enhance
public safety while also reducing recidivism.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
will be open to any questions that you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.020
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. Poteat.
Ms. LaVigne, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY G. LAVIGNE
Ms. LaVigne. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the role of
halfway houses in transitioning people from prison to the
community.
I am director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute. The bulk of our research is on prisoner reentry, and
for good reason. The successful transition of people returning
home from prison is critical, not only for them, but for the
safety and well-being of their families and the communities to
which they return.
Yet the path to successful reentry is rarely a smooth one.
People exiting prison face tremendous challenges to leading
sober and law-abiding lives on the outside. Few have housing or
jobs lined up. And many struggle with substance abuse, health
problems and mental illness. While they may receive treatment,
training or assistance behind bars, far too often prisoners are
released without the support and services critical to their
successful reintegration. Prisoners returning home to the
District face an additional challenge of having been
incarcerated sometimes hundreds of miles away from their
families and potential employers. They return home in need of
health care, drug treatment, jobs, and importantly, safe and
affordable shelter.
That is where halfway houses come in. When designed and
operated well, halfway houses can serve as a nurturing way
station, easing what would otherwise be a stark transition from
the prison environment to the free world. Now, I wish I could
tell you that halfway houses are a definitive success in
reducing recidivism. But it is just not that clear-cut. For
every study that finds that halfway houses are effective,
another one finds that they have no effect at all.
Why is that? I think it is because not all halfway houses
are created equal. Some house only low-risk inmates, while
others welcome inmates of all risk levels. Some offer a full
complement of programs and services, while others function
strictly as work release centers. These variations in
populations and services are I think what explains the mixed
findings in the research on their effectiveness.
In fact, the most definitive evaluation of halfway houses
suggest that medium and high risk residents are most likely to
benefit from living in these homes, demonstrating a
significantly lower likelihood of re-offending than matched
comparison groups that do not transition through halfway
houses. What is really interesting is that the same study found
that low risk residents using halfway houses actually have
higher rates of recidivism than comparison groups. What this
means is that housing low risk prisoners in transitional
facilities takes them out of the environment that makes them
low risk to begin with.
Research has also found that the type and quality of
programs in halfway houses makes a big difference in preventing
re-offending. Effective halfway house programs have qualified
who use such evidence-based practices as needs assessments and
tailored wraparound services.
So what does this mean for the District? Well, as we know,
less than half of the prisoners, close, but less than half of
the prisoners returning to D.C. transition through residential
reentry centers, D.C.'s term for halfway houses. This raises
some questions that the committee may seek answers to, and I am
pleased to observe that some of these questions have already
been answered in the affirmative by the previous witnesses.
They include, are the right people housed in the halfway
houses? Are risk assessment tools used to ensure that medium
and high risk prisoners, those most likely to benefit, end up
filling those beds? Do the centers assess the needs of their
residents? Do they target services to those needs? Do they hire
and retain well-trained, experienced staff? Do they engage in
self-evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of their
programs? These measures will enable the District to yield the
best possible public safety impact from its halfway houses.
D.C.'s halfway houses are a scarce but potentially valuable
resource in improving prisoner reentry, reducing recidivism and
increasing public safety in the Nation's Capital. I urge this
committee to ensure that these facilities are used as
effectively as possible to make the most of their potential for
successful prisoner reentry and improved public safety.
Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.025
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. LaVigne.
Mr. Reynolds, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. REYNOLDS, JR.
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
it is an honor to appear before this August body to discuss the
role halfway houses play in reducing crime and recidivism in
the Nation's Capital, collaborate on alleviating the problems
that face returning female citizens and providing what we
believe are some viable solutions.
I am especially grateful to Congresswoman Norton for her
support of community reentry programs in the District of
Columbia. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your continued work on
behalf of those clients whom much of society tends to forget or
ignore. Your visit to the Fairview on March 30, 2009 was truly
an inspiration to the residents that we serve and the staff
that supports your reentry efforts.
Reynolds and Associates operates a 60-bed residential
center known as Fairview, located in the District of Columbia,
the only female facility of its kind, serving returning female
citizens under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
We serve more than 1,000 returning females annually. This
testimony focuses specifically upon those clients who are under
the authority of BOP and housed in the residential, dormitory
type facility with 24 hour supervision.
Upon arrival at the Fairview, the residents are assessed
and then placed into appropriate counseling, educational,
vocational and job placement programs. As a result of these
assessments, several issues have been identified. Approximately
70 percent of the clients have mental health issues. Half of
that number relies on prescribed medications and roughly 30
percent suffer from physical ailments, with the most common
being asthma, allergies, diabetes and hypertension.
Approximately 30 percent of the clients are either HIV positive
or have full-blown AIDS, and a significant number of them are
recovering from some form of substance abuse.
Approximately 20 percent of the residents are housed with
family members upon release, who are not always fully prepared
for the issues that might occur when their loved one comes to
live with them, after having been gone for so long.
Unfortunately, too many of our clients are homeless, and many
of the programs that offer transitional housing have long
waiting lists, and far too many are released to shelters,
rather than stable environments that would contribute
significantly to their successful reentry.
In the current economy, many highly qualified individuals
are entering the job market and taking jobs that were
previously filled by our clients. Therefore, despite the fact
that Reynolds and Associates, as a full employment placement
specialist who provides job skills, job readiness training, GED
and computer skills courses, only about 5 percent of our
clients are currently employed. When a client is released from
Fairview, there is no process of tracking their progress and
provide additional case management services for them.
A significant number of the BOP residents indicate that
they would benefit from post-release case management, which
could assist them in not returning to prison. Some of the
proposed solutions are, placing a psychologist or psychiatrist
and a nurse practitioner at the facility and providing
comprehensive dental care. Providing for enhanced onsite
substance abuse counseling, in addition to community after-care
component, to aggressively address their addictive behavior.
Include family members in more activities to enhance
communications, especially where their children are involved,
and custodial concerns are present. Enhance partnerships with
transitional housing providers to increase housing availability
for the returning citizens. And a need for more incentives for
partnerships with local employers, to encourage and reward
employers that provide job-specific training, so that a
resident is able to move into a position immediately before and
after release. Providing some post-release tracking for at
least 18 months, so that post-release issues could be regularly
addressed. And establishing a mentoring program that
collaborates with the case managers to assure that the after-
care needs of the clients are addressed and monitored after
release.
In conclusion, I ask that you thoroughly read this
testimony in order to assess the full impact of the issues on
returning females to the District. In addition, if additional
services are mandated and funded to meet the unique needs of
the female citizens returning to the District, it is our
sincere belief that recidivism can be significantly reduced and
that our overwhelming majority of our clients, your
constituents, can become good, productive citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.031
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. Varone, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY VARONE
Mr. Varone. Good morning, Chairman Lynch and members of the
subcommittee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
effectiveness of residential reentry centers, or halfway
houses, on public safety, prisoner reentry, and recidivism in
the Nation's Capital. Of course, I will be speaking from
experience we have garnered over the past 30 years at Hope
Village, Inc., helping offenders reintegrate into the
Washington, DC, community.
Hope Village is a private, adult community correction
center, also known as a community-based Residential Reentry
Center, located in southeast Washington, DC. Since 1977, Hope
Village has provided transitional services to offenders to
assist their transition and positive reintegration back into
the Washington, DC, society.
The Bureau of Prisons awarded Hope Village the first
private pilot community correctional center program in 1982 to
house offenders returning to the Washington, DC, area. This
program became so successful that other similar programs are
operating in many other areas within the United States.
Currently, Hope Village has two contracts with the BOP, serving
offenders reentering the community in the Washington, DC, area
who are generally referred for placement within 6 months of the
remainder of their sentence. Both contracts are performance-
based, and for a period of 10 years, which includes a 3-year
base period and 7 additional award term/option years. We also
have a contract with the District of Columbia Department of
Corrections to serve offenders who are pre-trial inmates,
court-ordered misdemeanor, and sentence misdemeanor inmates.
Hope Village is the second largest employer in ward 8 of
the District of Columbia. Hope Village employs 104 dedicated,
full-time staff to facilitate our program and provide
comprehensive transition services to offenders. Our staff
includes a senior operations director, 2 program directors, 35
Charge of Quarters, 8 case managers, 5 vocational counselors, 2
certified substance abuse counselors, and 4 social workers.
Within our facility, we operate separate departments for
correctional services, training, programs, computer services,
personnel, facility maintenance and food service.
Our very low offender recidivism rate is tangible testament
to the effectiveness of our programs for offender
reintegration. In 2009, we reported 1,157 positive offender
releases into the community. Of all the offenders who
participated in our programs in 2009, only nine persons were
re-arrested, which is statistically insignificant given the
total offender population.
Historically, Hope Village has been a work release program,
where participating offenders were required to secure
employment as part of their placement at Hope Village and
transition into the community. Hope Village has adapted to
changes in the community and the employment market, and has
tailored its program to meet the evolving needs and goals of
program participants. Each week, Hope Village accepts
approximately 25 to 30 new offenders from various Federal
prisons to participate in the Hope Village program. Every
offender is required to complete a 7-day orientation to the
facility, including an orientation class, assessments for
medical and mental health issues, a 12-hour mandatory life
skills program, covering topics relating to substance abuse,
job readiness, heath awareness, life safety, financial
management, parenting and computer skills.
Offenders must complete the orientation program before they
are allowed any movement outside of the Hope Village premises.
Offenders are required to attend the orientation class within
24 hours of their arrival at Hope Village. During this
orientation, the offender meets with representatives from Hope
Village, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency to review the regulations and rules
of Hope Village that we previously sent to the offender while
he was at a Federal institution. The representatives are
available to discuss the rules and procedures and answer any
questions the offender may have about the program or his time
at Hope Village. This meeting is critical to ensure offenders
understand their obligations during their participation in
program, and the serious consequences of rule violations, which
includes a recommendation for the return to the Federal
institution or extended services.
During the first week of arrival, each offender meets with
a program review team, consisting of his program director, case
manager, vocational counselor, social worker, drug treatment
provider and a CSOSA representative. Our program staff closely
monitor this individualized plan and review it every 2 weeks to
assess the offender's progress or lack thereof, and where
necessary, address implementation of additional strategies to
meet the offender program goals.
At Hope Village, we know that employment plays a large part
of evaluating an offender's self-esteem and a key factor to
reducing recidivism. As such, we make it our priority and place
a premium on assisting Federal offenders with their employment
needs, whether this involves improving their skills by sending
offenders to specific job training programs, like Project
Empowerment, or referring them to offsite career centers. Given
that many of the offenders come to Hope Village after lengthy
periods of incarceration, they are long disconnected from the
work force, and some never had a record of employment before
incarceration.
Moreover, many offenders do not have basic forms of
identification, such as a Social Security card, birth
certificate, driver's license, or even a picture identification
card.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Varone, you have grossly exceeded the
allotted time. I notice you have a lot more to go there. Could
you please wrap up and we will move on to the next witness?
Mr. Varone. Absolutely. I want to talk a little about the
public safety and accountability. Offenders who are referred to
Hope Village remain under the supervision of the Attorney
General. Therefore, we take our direction and enforce our
guidelines set by the Government. On the facility grounds, we
account for the residents or inmates every hour, approximately
every hour. CSOSA is a valuable partner with us. We have, at
least weekly, the Hope Village staff and CSOSA conduct intake
and orientation.
We have found an active engagement with the community plays
a pivotal role in deterring crime and maintaining public
safety. For the past 20 years, we have formed a significant
partnership with the local community to improve the overall
quality of our life and offenders through support from
citizens, local elected officials and religious leaders. We
collaborate with four faith-based organizations, Faith
Tabernacle, Alan AME Church, Samaritan Ministries and Congress
Heights United Methodist Church.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Varone, I am going to accept your full
statement into the record. You do not need to read it, sir.
Will you please sum up?
Mr. Varone. Sure. In addition, Mr. Chairman, Hope Village
pledges to continue to work closely and cooperatively with our
contractors, BOP, D.C. Department of Corrections, CSOSA, and
the community to deliver quality and meaningful programs and
services to offenders at the point of reentry, thereby
fulfilling our mission statement, changes lives.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee, to provide this statement, and we welcome the
opportunity to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Varone follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.042
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Varone. Your entire statement
will be accepted into the record. We appreciate your testimony.
Welcome, Mr. White. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITE
Mr. White. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Lynch,
Congresswoman Norton and other esteemed members of the
subcommittee.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this public
hearing on halfway houses in the District of Columbia. I feel
that my firsthand experience may be something that a lot of
times gets swept under the rug, or not get shed good light on.
So I am glad to be able to offer that today.
And I also find it fortuitous to be sitting behind Mr.
Varone, because he was able to shed some light on a few of the
issues that I will be addressing.
I arrived at Hope Village on October 7, 2008, after having
served a sentence at FCC Petersburg in Hopewell, VA. This was
my first and only stay in a halfway house. And it was my
expectation that it would be a way for me to transition
smoothly back into society.
I was processed fairly quickly after I got there, and
immediately shuffled to my quarters, a converted two-bedroom
apartment, which I shared with seven other men. Later in the
week, I was classified by the appropriate staff and informed of
their expectations of me, including rules and regulations, the
set number of in-house classes or life skills courses I would
have to complete before being able to seek employment or visit
my family or even receive visitation from my family, money I
would have to pay from each pay check, and also the appropriate
channels I would need to navigate in order to begin job hunting
and what have you.
It seemed to be a very straightforward program, and I
assumed that if I followed these things set before me,
everything would be pretty simple and painless. I fulfilled my
life skills course hours and was granted a pass of several hour
to obtain a non-driver's identification card. Shortly
thereafter, I began seeking employment in various hospitals and
private health care offices, since that was my background. I
set up interviews, and after following the appropriate avenues,
had very little trouble obtaining approval to go to my
interviews.
Despite my professionalism, appearance and experience, I
was turned down several times due to the fact that I am a
convicted felon. I was finally able to find a private internal
medicine office in Fairfax, VA, that was willing to look past
what was on paper and hire me. I explained to them immediately
in my interview my situation and gave them a few details about
the circumstances surrounding my incarceration. I explained to
them that even my start date would ultimately be determined by
their communication with Ms. Wilson, the job coordinator in my
particular building.
I had a very rigid time that I was allowed to leave Hope
Village, based on a rough calculation by the job coordinator,
not really factoring in unexplained or unplanned deviations
from the route, maybe trains shutting down, late buses, missed
buses, what have you, and being so far away from Hope Village
and traveling by bus and train and bus again, it was difficult
to get there on time, and then I had to leave right at the
moment I was off, with no real room to breathe.
I was also required to take a drug class at Harbor Lights,
at the Salvation Army Building on New York Avenue in Northeast,
which forced me to have to leave 2\1/2\ to 3 hours early from
work each week in order to make it there in time. And it was a
hike. I was told by the facilitator that lateness to the
program would not be tolerated and would subject me to
injunctions such as loss of the privilege of even being able to
leave the Hope Village premises, which would automatically
cause me to lose my job, if I can't go to work. I was in a very
precarious and uncomfortable position, which I felt was causing
me to make unreasonable demands on an employer who hired a
convicted felon.
When I received my first pay check, I was told that I would
have to pay a subsistence of 25 percent of my gross pay, which
would continue until my official release date, even though I
would not be housed at Hope Village. This was a lot, in my
opinion, considering that I was in essence starting over from
ground zero, trying to find housing for myself and my children
and not to mention the other expenses that are incurred simply
by virtue of having a family.
I talked to my counselor, Mr. Tyson, and my case manager at
Hope Village, and they explained to me that I would be able to
get my subsistence reduced or even waived if I navigated
another set of appropriate channels, which I did. And after
making several payments and inquiries, I was shuffled around
yet again. I am not going to continue to go into the issues, I
see my time is winding down.
I found a lot of the procedures difficult and some contrary
to one another. It was a tough impediment to me, but I was
lucky to have a strong support system in my family and great
community resources. Unfortunately, most people in that
situation don't have those, and for them it can be very
frustrating and cause them to lose sight of really what their
ultimate goal is. But when the policies are enforced correctly
and on a case by case basis, halfway houses like Hope Village
are a great benefit and useful to those coming back into
society who need help making their way. I personally was
grateful for that opportunity to spend the last leg of my
incarceration at Hope Village, setting myself up for the rest
of my life.
I am proud to report that I have been gainfully employed at
the same location since my third week at Hope Village, and am
only a few short weeks away from becoming a licensed realtor.
So I would like to think that I am one of the successful 1,157
people that was released from Hope Village in 2009. I look
forward to continuing in this path. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7977.045
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. White. Good to hear your
testimony.
I will begin the questioning. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I noticed from a lot of the testimony that there is a
certain overlap between substance abuse and incarceration, and
in getting people back on their feet, dealing with that
problem. That is sort of the angle that, look, all the Members
up here, all the members of this committee, work this issue. We
deal with the families, with the inmates as well, trying to get
them closer to home, trying to work out the job situation. It
is especially difficult right now, as a number of you have
recognized.
In my district, we actually confronted this from the
perspective of an Oxycontin and heroin epidemic in my district.
What we had to do was, well, what I did was established two
homes, two transition homes. But our offender group was getting
so young that we were dealing with adolescents. And you just
can't co-locate kids with adult offenders.
So we ended up establishing two homes, like Mr. Reynolds,
established the Cushing House for Girls, which was a rehab
facility for girls. Not all ex-offenders, but all with similar
problems, and one for boys. So I certainly understand what you
are grappling with. Sometimes it seems overwhelming.
Fortunately, we do have some employers, and I know you probably
have your favorites as well. Ironically, I have a brewery, the
Harpoon Brewery, which is located in my district. And it may
sound like cruel and unusual punishment to have somebody come
out of a facility and then go to work at a brewery. But I just
want to say that they are someone who recognizes, and I tell
them, this person is coming out of a rehab facility, and we are
going to try them out and see if we can get that first job to
build a work history. And God bless them, and I know you all
have employers that you work with to get people out to work.
Sometimes that is the biggest hurdle, just getting that sense
of normalcy out, that first step, that transition, just making
that connection back to a normal life for some of the folks we
are trying to help.
Let me ask a general question of the entire panel. Maybe
that will be the best use of my time. I want to talk about the
nexus, and a number of you have mentioned this, about the
connection between a prisoner's geographical placement and
their success at reintegration. Mr. White has picked up on this
in his own personal situation. Time and time again I hear about
the way folks coming out of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
they are D.C. code offenders, and yet they are placed in
facilities that are significant distance from their homes and
that whole support system. So families can't visit them. There
is a disconnect between that support system.
Can each of you, as briefly as possible, respond to this
claim that there is a significant disadvantage or detriment to
offenders who are coming out and are being located a
significant distance from their homes and from their families,
and how does that play on the halfway house situation, what you
are seeing? Mr. Eichenlaub.
Mr. Eichenlaub. Thank you. I will say, first of all, we
have 40, we try and place the offenders, all offenders,
including D.C. offenders, within 500 miles of their residence.
We have 40 Federal facilities within 500 miles of the District
of Columbia. Seventy-five percent of D.C. offenders are in fact
incarcerated within 500 miles. I recognize that can be a
substantial drive, even within 500 miles.
Mr. Lynch. 500 miles is a long--they could be in Boston.
Mr. Eichenlaub. It can be up to 8 hours. So the majority
are within 500 miles, perhaps even closer in West Virginia or
Kentucky. Then a substantial number at the Rivers Correctional
Institution down in North Carolina, which is much closer. The
other 25 percent who aren't within that 500 mile radius, the
standard we try to follow, may have been involved in some type
of violence or misconduct that resulted in them having to a
higher security level prison that may be farther away. If they
need specialized medical or mental health treatment, that may
take them farther away as well.
But having spent a number of years working in our
facilities, I recognize the importance of visiting and
maintaining relationships with families. It is great to see, in
our visiting rooms, when those relationships are there.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Poteat.
Ms. Poteat. A large portion of the offenders are at Rivers.
We find it very beneficial. We have about 700 or so there, and
we have the opportunity to visit Rivers Correctional Facility
at least two times a year, and sometimes more, where our case
managers go down and we can do our preliminary assessments
there. I know that the families are able to travel there as
well.
We also take some of our vendors or support systems down,
so the offenders have the opportunity to meet some of them
prior to being released. And we do video conferencing from
there. We find it is very important to link them to the
services as well as the families prior to their release to the
community. In some of our video conferences, we have had the
family present, as well as our mentors there, so we connect
them there.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Ms. LaVigne.
Ms. LaVigne. I can't underscore enough the importance of
family in successful reentry. At the Urban Institute, we
conducted a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry in four
different States. We looked at all kinds of factors that might
predict the reentry success or failure, including the degree to
which they had family available to support them, both
financially and emotionally. What we found was that those who
indicated that they had strong family support were much more
successful in staying crime-free, staying off drugs, finding
jobs and so forth.
What is important to note in this is that family support
can be enhanced through increased visitation, more access to
the prisoners when they are behind bars. I think it also
relates to some of the research I mentioned in my formal
statement, where the researchers found that halfway houses were
not effective for low risk offenders, they were actually more
detrimental than having them back in with their families and
communities. I think we heard that as much from Mr. White, that
as much as there were great services available to him, it also
created additional barriers to him. I understand from his
statement that he does have a supportive family.
So I just want to underscore again, thinking very carefully
about how you use the scarce resources of halfway houses,
especially if those house aren't close to where people live, or
create barriers when they are trying to go to and from their
jobs.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, when we look at distances in
the District, the problem is, I think, that for the women, the
females, females are a bit different from the male population.
The females are housed at Danbury, CT, Philadelphia, Hazelton,
PA, Alderson, WV, and Tallahassee, FL. And if you noticed in my
official presentation, I talked about homeless shelters are
where these people go. And when you think about it, one of the
problems and one of the things that we get constantly from our
females is that they are mothers. They have been away from
their children for so long, they don't know them. They have to
regain that confidence. Usually an aunt or grandmother or some
other individual has taken care of their children.
It is a very difficult situation. And one of the things is
that most of these individuals come from very menial positions.
The families don't have money to travel to these locations to
be able to visit them, even if they wanted to. So we have a
very difficult and unique problem, as it relates to that.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Varone.
Mr. Varone. Mr. Chairman, I echo some of the same comments
that my colleagues here at the table have mentioned to you. I
want to just let you know that we at Hope Village also believe
that family reunification is very important. We do it, and we
promote it in a couple of different ways. We promote visitation
right at the facility several times a week to allow families to
come in and reunite with their loved ones. We have our social
workers, there is a requirement in our program that requires
our social workers to go out and do host visits. So when the
family, when the offender is going to be releasing to that
particular house, that they understand what is all involved,
from both angles.
We also have a transitional skills and journaling program.
It is a 9-week mandatory program that we started 3 years ago in
our program. Those sections, we cover such topics as social
influences, authority figures, anger and time management,
creating a safety net. And these residents are allowed, or
offenders are allowed to write in their journals, so that they
would be able to then make use of that with their own private
thoughts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. White.
Mr. White. Well, there is, I guess, family visitation, that
is one of those things where there is a direct correlation
between the prison and the coming home and possibly
recidivising, I think. I know I was in a relatively close
Bureau of Prison place in Hopewell, VA. Many people are much,
much farther than that. But even to come and see me, whoever it
might be had to, in essence, wipe out an entire day. They had
to plan for the 2\1/2\ to 3 hour trip up, spend the time there,
then the 2\1/2\ to 3 hour drive back, which doesn't leave much,
even if you had the energy, there probably just wouldn't be the
time.
And then once, when it is time to go to the halfway house,
we are anticipating these visitations, which we only received
individually 1 hour a week, depending on the building in which
you stay at Hope Village. And for some, the frustration comes
if, I know my first home visit was denied, even though I had
followed the rules, I had found employment and what have you.
They said, ``oh, well, it is too close to the weekend to be
able to approve your home visit.'' And that was a very great
source of frustration to me, because I had already told
everyone, and everyone had planned to come over to the place
where I would be staying, to spend the evening, have dinner.
So Friday afternoon when they told me, ``oh, you are not
going to be able to go home this weekend,'' I was very
frustrated. And many other inmates may feel something beyond
frustration, even anger. I have seen it myself, they come back
into the quarters, and they are angry, they are cursing. They
are just angry.
But family is very important. It is very important. It is
one of those hot buttons. So for those who have a support
system, people who are willing to visit them, it really could
guide them in the right direction.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. White.
I want to welcome Mr. Cao to the committee.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have another meeting to go to, so if you don't mind, I
can just go ahead and ask my question. I represent the Second
District of Louisiana, which is comprised of New Orleans. There
is an interest in building a halfway house in an area of New
Orleans East which was very much devastated by Katrina. The
people are coming back to rebuild. There is a lack of a police
force out there in the New Orleans East region. So people are
somewhat anxious and fearful of having a halfway house in an
area where there is already a lack of security.
My question to members of the panel is, what are some of
the security risks of halfway houses, even though I am pretty
sure that such institutions are beneficial and necessary? Would
you recommend that a halfway house be built in an area
recovering from Katrina and lacking an adequate security force?
Mr. Lynch. I think those questions are probably good for
Mr. Eichenlaub and Ms. Poteat.
Mr. Eichenlaub. We have, as Congresswoman Norton knows, we
have some difficulty placing halfway house around the community
here, because people don't want them in their back yard in many
cases. We try and find a balance between addressing the release
needs of the offenders against the risk of placing them in the
community. So we rely heavily on the accountability procedures
that the residential reentry centers have in place, which
requires them, under our contract, to have 24 hour a day
accountability for the inmates. And whether that is at their
job site or in the actual residential reentry center itself. I
would leave it at that.
Mr. Cao. If you can address the question, because I have a
very specific question, do you recommend that a halfway house
be built in an area where people are recovering and lack an
adequate security force to protect the people? I just want a
direct answer.
Mr. Eichenlaub. Is that a question for me, for the panel?
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to
that.
Mr. Lynch. Sure, Mr. Reynolds. Take a crack at it.
Mr. Reynolds. Even though I am with a halfway house, and I
might get hit over the head, we have facilities that are
located in upscale communities and those that are in low risk
areas and high risk areas. I think the key to it is good
communications with the community, and working with the
political and economic structure within that area to get them
comfortable with a halfway house or residential reentry center.
Whoever the supplier of those services are, we have to go in
and get them ready. When I say we, the halfway house owners, to
get the community ready to accept it.
I just did an opening of a new halfway house in an area
that was of high risk. And what I did was, I went into the
area, I met with all of the community leaders, I met with all
the political officials and everyone that had a stake in what
is going to happen there. I was successful without having any
opposition. At that time, there were no halfway house
regulations that provided for a halfway house to be in that
location.
So I think the answer to your question is, you need to be
able to pull all factions together. Because there is adequate
security within the halfway house and adequate follow-through.
You would not know that it is a halfway house, of those
facilities that I run.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. White.
Mr. White. In my opinion, the security issue is, I guess
from my experience, not too much of an issue from the inmate
perspective. By and large, the people who are residents at the
halfway houses are already used to a certain regimen, being on
a short leash through whatever prison they have come. And for
the most part, everyone is just looking to get through their
time and get back home. So while there is of course a small
population of people who, in any halfway house, will break the
rules, will not come back, for the most part, you don't really
have to worry about the inmates running amuck in this
neighborhood. I assume this is the direction you are heading,
the residents themselves as a security risk. Is that correct?
Mr. Cao. The residents fear that the halfway house would
increase crime in an area where there is already lacking
security.
Mr. White. And I think that is kind of where I am heading.
The residents of the halfway house, by and large, are not
looking to commit crimes while housed in the halfway house.
They are looking to finish their sentence and go wherever it is
that they need to go from there.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. White.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, Mr. White's testimony is, in a real sense, sets a
predicate for some of what I want to ask, enforcement
authorities. I have found that even when people are very
troubled, they come to a community meeting and they are dead
set on something they are angry about, lay out the rules, be
very transparent with them, they help you enforce the rules.
What they resent is not knowing how the rules are applied and
then of course, feeling that they have been unfairly treated.
And that is really dangerous when you are talking about people
who have just gotten out of prison. Your own testimony says
that is when they are most ready to be integrated.
Here is what I don't understand. Who gets to decide who
goes to a halfway house and who doesn't? Could I have a
straightforward answer, Mr. Eichenlaub? Who gets to decide? Is
it you? And if it is you, what specifically are the criteria
for deciding who gets it and who doesn't get it?
Mr. Eichenlaub. Every inmate appears before his or her,
what we call their unit team, which is comprised of their
correctional counselor, a case----
Ms. Norton. No, I am asking you, who gets to decide. Is it
the BOP? I only have so much time. Does the BOP get to make
that decision while people are in prison?
Mr. Eichenlaub. Yes, we make the referral.
Ms. Norton. Does the BOP have written criteria that I could
go to tomorrow to say, these are the kinds of inmates that Ms.
Poteat and the halfway house leaders have to look forward to
receiving, and what are those criteria? Could you spell them
out and just list them for me?
Mr. Eichenlaub. We have a policy that describes that, yes.
And each case is evaluated on the merits of the individual and
the needs of the individual.
Ms. Norton. So--I hope they are. I hope it is
individualized. But I am looking for at least some baseline
criterion that would make me understand, high risk, low risk,
been in jail a long time, like the ones Ms. Poteat talked
about, just been in jail. I am looking for something other than
what you just told me, Mr. Eichenlaub.
Mr. Eichenlaub. Congresswoman Norton, there is nothing
specific that says, if you have been incarcerated for 20 years,
you get 180 days, or 12 months. There is nothing specific that
says if you are incarcerated for this offense, you get this
period of time. We have the flexibility built into our program
that enables us to assess the needs of the offender and place
him or her----
Ms. Norton. OK, so there are no criteria for deciding. We
have heard testimony from Ms. LaVigne that low risk offenders
tend to do better in the community. I would have expected that
at least that criterion would be one the BOP would use. I am
troubled by no straightforward general criteria. Everything
gets tailored. But if there are not general criteria, then I
have to assume that sometimes there are decisions made which
may appear not to be fair.
But let me say to the halfway house leaders, do you get to
choose or select who gets admission to your halfway house?
Mr. Reynolds. We receive a dossier on each client that is
proposed for the halfway house. And we have a right to accept
or reject, based upon the certain criteria. But we do not
have----
Ms. Norton. Based upon what criteria? It is like getting
admission or to Yale, you get to say thumbs down on some
people, even though the BOP has said, this is an appropriate
person to go into the halfway house.
Mr. Reynolds. No, what happens is in our location, we have
people who review those particular things to make sure that
they would fit into the halfway house environment that we run.
Ms. Norton. What about you, Mr. Varone?
Mr. Varone. It is the same.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, this is, it seems to me, a double
whammy here. I am concerned about what appear not to be even
rough criteria for placing people in halfway houses, and then
wide open selection criteria by the halfway houses. Do these
halfway houses all have to provide the same core services, Mr.
Eichenlaub?
Mr. Eichenlaub. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So if they all provide the same core services,
does your contract mandate anything about who gets accepted or
not? Or is this a wide open selection process like being
admitted to any private institution?
Mr. Eichenlaub. The contracts are negotiated based on six
factors. And within that negotiation, there is some, there can
be some criteria established for who can and cannot be
accepted. Aggressive sex offenders, for example, there may be--
--
Ms. Norton. Mr. Eichenlaub, I am very concerned about what
seems to be wide open criteria on both ends. But let me give
you an example. There has been testimony here that one of the
threshold problems for people getting out of prison is they
don't even have identification. CSOSA saw that was a problem
for getting anywhere, and CSOSA apparently worked out a
situation with the District to get non-drivers i.ds.
Then the BOP terminated this program. Could you give me any
reason, if the District of Columbia, a few years ago, non-
drivers were allowed, now we are told they are not?
Mr. Eichenlaub. I am sorry. I am not familiar with that
issue, but I would be happy to followup and provide a response
in writing to the subcommittee.
Ms. Norton. I would appreciate it if you would.
I am concerned about Ms. Poteat's testimony, because she
said that there were 500 additional D.C. felons returning here.
Now, what she is talking about, of course, are the infamous
sentencing guidelines. And that, I am not sure that was a
mistake any of, if you are talking about the felons who are
going to be coming out and they are Federal felons?
Ms. Poteat. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. And indicated that, seemed to indicate there
would be some difficulty in receiving such a large number. Mr.
Eichenlaub, are those felons coming, do you know how those
felons are coming to the District of Columbia? Are they coming
in large numbers? Are they coming in small trickles? Have you
been in touch with CSOSA about how you will indeed handle these
felons? Have you been in touch with the halfway houses about
how these felons will be matriculated back into civil society?
Mr. Eichenlaub. We have dealt with circumstances such as
this in the past when Federal laws have applied retroactively,
and resulted in offenders being released. I am confident that
with our relationship with CSOSA and the halfway house
providers we can accommodate that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Poteat's testimony--I know I am at the end
of my time--she indicated, she raised the issue herself and
indicated concern about so many folks. Now, you could alleviate
that concern, for example, if you could tell us, yes, they are
coming back but they are not coming back all at one time, or
they will be coming back in small numbers. Can you tell us
anything about these felons who will be coming back to the
District of Columbia in larger numbers than usually come back
in the form of D.C. code offenders?
Mr. Eichenlaub. The rate at which they come out will be
dependent upon the conditions and the release procedures that
the parole commission establishes for them. So I couldn't say
when they are coming. Past experience suggests they are
staggered when they come out, and I am confident we can
accommodate that with, again, in collaboration with our
partners here.
Ms. Norton. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. OK, thank you.
Ms. Poteat. Excuse me, Congresswoman Norton, I would like
to clarify something for the record, in regard to the non-
drivers identifications. There was a contract that we had with
the city, but DMV is the one that terminated that, and BOP will
need to go back and negotiate it.
Ms. Norton. Why did they terminate the contract?
Ms. Poteat. They said that because they are Federal
prisoners in a halfway house, they would not allow them to get
the non-District driver's license. But I have spoken with the
Director of Bureau of Prisons, and he said that he would do a
memorandum of understanding with the District and possibly
piggyback on ours so that they can do that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, memoranda of
understanding have often kept the BOP from simply doing what is
necessary to do. If all it took was a memorandum of
understanding, I don't know why it would not have been
considered a very urgent matter not to have any cessation in
getting the i.d.'s to people just getting out of prison.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I would simply, on that matter, with the
driver's licenses, I would just ask that be a three-way
conversation between this committee and the Bureau of Prisons
and the DMV to make sure that it is addressed in an expeditious
manner. We can't leave this out there. OK? So we can sort of
close that loop. And if it is a memorandum of understanding
that gets it accomplished, then we will work that. It sounds
like there may be a need for some regulatory refinement or
legislation with respect to the standards that are employed in
terms of reentry. I understand the situation as you mentioned,
the circumstances with an aggressive sex offender. That matter
must be treated, distinguished. However, that is one outlier.
The standards for everyone else are still fairly vague, as
Congresswoman Norton has noted.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes--I am
sorry, I am out of order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Chaffetz for
5 minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. I truly do appreciate it. I
particularly want to thank Mr. White for your composure and
your courage for being here. I am sure a few years ago if
somebody had suggested to you that you were going to be
testifying before Congress, you would have said, yeah, right,
and the New Orleans Saints are going to be in the Super Bowl,
too. [Laughter.]
I applaud you both. I really do appreciate it. I am sure we
can hear about all the positive attributes from all the other
members on the panel, not to take away anything from them. But
in the few minute that I do have, what I would really like to
hear from your heart, and as candidly as you can, offer some
suggestions and perspectives, in somewhat of a critical way,
but in a constructive criticism, if you would, of things that
you think should happen or things that weren't quite flowing as
well as you could, all in the spirit of trying to make it
better, because I think that is what we are all here to help
do.
So can you share that, your personal perspective on what
yourself went through, but maybe others went through as well,
and things that can be done to improve the system?
Mr. White. Thank you. Well, unfortunately, there is no
quick fix, no band-aid for this. It is a very difficult thing
to do. In my experience, I think that everything should be
taken on a case by case basis. And just based on the numbers of
people coming out, and I guess the ratio of staff to resident
or staff to inmate, depending on how you want to say it, it is
just not that easy. But change is never easy, especially when
you are really trying to shift, really make an overhaul of a
situation and curb recidivism at a significant rate.
Mr. Chaffetz. If you could do one thing, what would be the
No. 1 thing you would like to see done?
Mr. White. The No. 1 thing that I would see done is just to
simply have it seem that the halfway house system cares.
Mr. Chaffetz. Tell me about the flexibility here. Because
here you go and you find a job. And I recognize the need to go
through the drug, I don't know if that was counseling or
testing or whatever it might be, but you have to leave work
early. You finally got a job, you got an employer who is
gracious enough to, in a very tough economy, to hire somebody.
Expand a little more about that experience and what should be
done in that way to help the employer, help you, and also do
the training and things that they need to do.
Mr. White. One thing that was of concern for me was that
they didn't offer these programs over the weekend, when I
didn't necessarily have to work. Of course, that would cut into
my home visit time, but they are required programs. And at
least I would have that option, it would either cut into my
work, which as I said, my employer, they look the other way,
but like I say, you have to leave early twice a week, this
early. Or I could take this 1\1/2\ hours to 2 hours during my
weekend. I would have that option. I would opt to take it over
the weekend, because I need my job. At some point, I will be
going home for good. So I wouldn't mind cutting into those
visitations a little bit, even though they were important to
me.
But that was an issue with that. And as I said, they give
you a set limit of time from destination, from point of origin
to destination, from halfway house to work, and from work to
halfway house. Working in Fairfax, I had to take a bus and then
a series of trains and then another bus each way. So it didn't
allow for any missing of buses or missing of trains. My bus
came about 10 minutes after I was due to be off work. So I
really had to run four or five blocks to the bus to make it,
because it only ran every 45 minutes in that area of Fairfax.
So a little more flexibility in the time. As I said, based on a
case by case, you just can't lump everyone into one box. We all
have different needs. And they need to be met.
Mr. Chaffetz. I would just suggest, if you have any other
thoughts or anecdotes or any other suggestions along the way, I
appreciate your being here, but if at some point you do have
other suggestions, if you would submit those to this committee,
they would be invaluable. I appreciate your perspective. I wish
you nothing but the best, and thank you very much for being
here. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Thank you to the panelists for participating, and
especially you, Mr. White. I thank you for your courage in
sharing your story, and I am proud of the fact that my home
county, Fairfax County, is a place willing to invest in you and
others. I pray and hope you will stay in the righteous path.
Mr. Eichenlaub, picking up where Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton left off, did I understand you in response to
Representative Norton to say that there are no criteria by BOP
in terms of who goes into a halfway house?
Mr. Eichenlaub. Let me clarify that if I may.
Mr. Connolly. I am going to ask you to pull that mic
closer, because I cannot hear you.
Mr. Eichenlaub. There are some criteria. For example, if an
offender has pending charges or detainers, they can't go to a
halfway house.
Mr. Connolly. Those are criteria for not going.
Mr. Eichenlaub. Right.
Mr. Connolly. What are the criteria for screening people
and saying, here is a good candidate for rehabilitation and the
avoidance of recidivism?
Mr. Eichenlaub. That is correct, and I would respectfully--
--
Mr. Connolly. What is correct?
Mr. Eichenlaub. That is correct that there are no specific
criteria that says, if you are this type of offender, this is
what you get.
Mr. Connolly. That is amazing. There are no criteria for
who goes into a halfway house? So you are just rolling the
dice?
Mr. Eichenlaub. I would respectfully submit that our policy
enables us to do the kind of thing that Mr. White is
suggesting, which is each offender is evaluated on a case by
case basis, to make an assessment as to what his or her
specific needs are and then we place them based on what their
needs are.
Mr. Connolly. If I understood Ms. LaVigne's testimony, and
correct me if I am wrong, Ms. LaVigne, you indicated that
individuals who were deemed medium and high risk actually
derive the greatest benefit from halfway house participation.
And let me ask Mr. Eichenlaub and Ms. Poteat, that seems
counter-intuitive.
What would you comment? I think for the average citizen,
the person at lowest risk would be the best candidate for
going, not a violent crime or whatever it may be, that is the
person who is probably going to benefit the most from a halfway
house and have the highest chance of success of reintegration.
And yet, if I understood Ms. LaVigne, not necessarily. And by
the way, that is a heartening thing to hear, but I am just
wondering if you would comment a little bit. Because I think
for the average citizen, including myself, that seems a little
counter-intuitive.
Ms. Poteat. Yes. I continue to say it would be your high
risk offenders, for instance, someone who has spent significant
period of time in prison, someone that has nowhere to live
because the family ties have been broken. Someone without
employable skills, did not take the benefit of the service in
the prison system, and is coming out unemployable. Someone that
lacks financial support and family support. Someone that is,
has a violent crime, you may want to put them in the halfway
house for a gradual transition before they are going out into
the community.
And then we can have a time to assess and determine and
link them up with their services before they are actually sent
home. Oftentimes these men may, I am speaking particularly to
the men right now, may be coming out, and they have burned
their bridges. And their families even have moved. So there is
nowhere for them to live in the District of Columbia. Then we
have to put them in a shelter or find alternative housing,
whether it is transitional housing and so forth.
So it gives us adequate time to link them up and better
prepare them to a positive reintegration into the community
before just coming right out.
Mr. Eichenlaub. I agree.
Mr. Connolly. One of the things that bothers me, we closed
the Lorton prison, an absolutely correct thing to do. However,
there were understandings at the time that efforts would be
made to try to make sure that inmates from that prison and
future visitors to that facility would be housed relatively
close to the District of Columbia, for all the right reasons,
in terms of family visits and so forth. But as a matter of
fact, D.C. prisoners are now scattered on, as I understand it,
as many as 33 States?
Mr. Eichenlaub. I don't know that number specifically, but
that is feasible.
Mr. Connolly. Is that good public policy, from your point
of view, Mr. Eichenlaub?
Mr. Eichenlaub. We try to keep them as close to home as
possible. Many are in Rivers Correctional Institution in North
Carolina, our correctional institutions in western Maryland and
Virginia. So the majority, I think, are actually closer than
that.
Mr. Connolly. Well, what would be the reason why somebody
would be many hundreds of miles away?
Mr. Eichenlaub. If they need specialized medical or mental
health treatment, they could go to one of our medical
facilities where they get that treatment. If they have been in
a fight with another individual from whom they need to be
separated, that may result in them traveling farther away. If
they have been disruptive, and we don't have a facility that is
appropriate for their level of supervision that is necessary.
That may result in them going farther away.
Mr. Connolly. Is it also a capacity problem?
Mr. Eichenlaub. That space is tight.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I can't tell whether I have any
time left or not.
Mr. Lynch. You don't.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Lynch. That is quite all right.
Mr. Varone, I wanted to ask you, you have a commendable
record, especially over the last year, couple of years. And the
re-arrest record, post-release. I was just trying to drill down
on some of that data. How many of the folks that you are
talking about, there were like 1,157 people that you had come
in and go through Hope Village, and only 9 of them were re-
arrested in the following 6 months after release, how many of
those folks are the Bureau of Prisons folks?
Mr. Varone. I am not, at this point, Mr. Chairman, able to
give you that information. I can research that.
Mr. Lynch. OK.
Mr. Varone. But I believe that most, if not all of them,
were BOP.
Mr. Lynch. Really? That is a commendable record. I am just
trying to figure out if we can replicate some of the things
that you are doing over there. You mentioned the 7-day
orientation, when people come in, you spend a lot of time
figuring out what the nature of their needs are. Maybe, and you
can explain this, maybe you are finding out what they need in a
more thorough fashion, and by addressing those specific needs,
maybe that is paying off on the other end, so that the time
they spend with you is more meaningful.
Do you have any thoughts about that? What is the magic of
your, well, it is not magic, it is hard work, but what is the
key component of your success? I deal a lot with the recovery
and rehab community. And those numbers are stunning. But what
do you think are the, I mean, all of you are doing wonderful
work, don't get me wrong. But I just think that is a remarkable
outcome that you are achieving there.
Mr. Varone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My only direct answer
to you is, commitment and dedication to helping people. Because
at the end of the day, we are all citizens of the United States
of America. We live in the greatest country in the world. And
when an individual commits a crime, they serve their sentence,
they are coming back, they are coming back to our communities.
So we have to figure out ways to help that individual make a
good transition, so that they are and they do become productive
members of society, like you and I.
I believe that we have taken our job, we take it very
seriously. We look at assessing this individual, from a day to
day standpoint, we put them in a position to be successful.
That is not always the case with all individuals. Some
individuals come to us with agendas already formulated. So I
believe that for those individuals that want to do a good job,
want to take the program seriously, want to become a better
productive member of society, open up to our case managers and
our specialized people that we have on staff, and the
partnerships that we formulate in the community, I think when
you encompass all that, you put out a good product.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Reynolds, having been involved
with programs and actually established a home to help women
making that transition, as you mentioned in your initial
testimony, a lot of these folks coming out, the females, are
moms. And that creates a dynamic that is sometimes very
difficult to address, especially when there is a distance here
between their homes and where they are at a halfway house.
What do you think are the most important changes that we
might make in order to achieve better outcomes for the women
that we are trying to serve?
Mr. Reynolds. I think the first thing that we have to look
at, Mr. Chairman, is the length of time that the females spend
within the facility. Also to make sure that we have the
wraparound services that are needed right at the facility. I
will give you an example, and probably God made this happen and
you asked the right question, this morning we were at the
facility about 7:30. A young lady came stumping up the steps
and passed me, and I asked her to stop for a second. I asked
her about four or five times, she wouldn't stop, she continued.
Then I went downstairs and I stood with her and talked with
her. She wouldn't acknowledge me at all for about 5 minutes.
Finally, I got through to her. And one of her problems was
anger, anger within herself. We have a lot of that. And we have
a relationship with the mother to the children, they have been
divorced from the children. They still have a desire to be with
the male. So there is a lot of complications that we need to
deal with. And we need someone like a psychiatrist or
psychologist right onsite to be able to help them deal with
those issues immediately. That would be some of the things that
I would look at, and then the after-tracking.
Mr. Lynch. That is great. Thank you.
Ms. Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman has spoken about some of the statistics that
were in the testimony. You yourself, Ms. LaVigne, testified
that halfway houses appear to have quite different effects. In
your view, do halfway houses make a difference? Does it matter
to matriculate people through a halfway house?
Ms. LaVigne. I think they can make a difference. Not to
beat a dead horse, but this whole issue of risk level I think
is a really important one. Mr. Connolly asked about the low
risk offenders, and how come they weren't getting any benefit
out of the halfway houses. Well, it is by definition of the
fact that they are already low risk. So you are putting people
in places where they don't need to be, because they already
have good odds of being successful.
Ms. Norton. Well, you testified, and it was very important
to hear this testimony, because Mr. Connolly was right, perhaps
for lay people like ourselves, it is counter-intuitive. I
understand that, but I am not sure BOP does. Because BOP did
not testify that it is using those criteria. In fact, could I
ask you, and I ask this very respectfully, Mr. Eichenlaub, I
have been impressed with the use of best practices within the
BOP. Do you use best practices when it comes to halfway houses?
I don't hear the metrics. I don't hear the criteria. So it is
hard for the committee to know how we should evaluate halfway
houses.
So I must ask you, how do you evaluate halfway houses? How
would you rate these halfway houses? And on what metric are you
basing that evaluation? And do you tell them how you have
evaluated them and what they need to do to improve or what they
have done that is best?
Mr. Eichenlaub. Thank you. We absolutely do that. At the
time that we establish the contract with these organizations,
as I mentioned previously, we have six factors on which they
are evaluated: accountability, programs, community relations,
site validity and suitability, safety issues, life safety
issues, personnel and communications. Those are the criteria on
which we evaluate these organizations. We audit those
regularly, three times a year. Then a comprehensive evaluation
once a year.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask the halfway house leaders here,
given the testimony of Mr. White, testimony reinforced by work
the committee did in trying to, in visiting the halfway houses
and trying to get witnesses, could you commit to this committee
that some of the rigidity that Mr. White testified to, for
example, when an inmate has a job, or is willing on the weekend
to in fact do what would otherwise be required to do during job
time, would you be willing to commit to a second look at some
of the rigidities that apparently are to be found in halfway
houses in light of particularly the job situation, and how
frustrated an inmate can be when, yes, surrounded by rules, but
rules that keep him from contact with his family or keep him
from in fact getting the kind of job record that we all believe
is necessary? Are you willing to look at your own procedures to
make sure those rigidities are not simply built in?
Mr. Varone. Absolutely, Congresswoman Norton. In order to
be a better program, in order to be a better organization, you
have to continually look at those types of things. If I may,
just to go into a little bit of detail, the privatization part
of this business is such that if you don't do well, you are not
going to be in business. It is just the way the Federal
Government works.
Ms. Norton. I understand that. But I also understand, look,
let's be clear. We can't get halfway houses in other
communities in the District, as badly as we need them.
Therefore, BOP is going to have to do the best job it can in
order to make sure you do the best job you can. This is not
like the ordinary contract, and you know it. The fees, I was
curious about fees. I understand the personal responsibility
associated with the rules. And for that matter, with the fees.
But Mr. White testified that he had to pay a fee for living
there, even until his release date, even if he wasn't living
there. Would you clarify that for me, please, how that could
possibly be the case?
Mr. Varone. I believe the fee that Mr. White is referring
to is the subsistence fee that the Bureau of Prisons requires
all Federal inmates to pay for a portion of their cost of care.
Ms. Norton. Well, maybe Mr. White should clarify. Mr.
White, were you saying you were no longer living or eating or
receiving subsistence from the halfway house, but were required
to pay, what is it, 25 percent, or whatever is the amount? And
by the way, who sets that amount? Go ahead, Mr. White.
Mr. White. Yes, that was correct. Even when I went to
finish the rest of my halfway house time living at home, I
wasn't receiving any services from the halfway house, but I was
still required to pay.
Ms. Norton. Well, you are going to have to explain that to
me, to make me understand that, given how few resources these
ex-offenders have. Could you explain that? You were living at,
I guess, Hope Village. So let me ask you to explain it, Mr.
Varone.
Mr. Varone. Again, Congresswoman, we take our direction
from the Bureau of Prisons.
Ms. Norton. OK, now, the buck has been passed to you, Mr.
Eichenlaub. So catch it here. Why would an ex-offender who had
a family, good enough to feed him while he is looking for a
job, to help him with his subsistence, be paying money to a
private contractor who is providing nothing toward his
subsistence? Wouldn't that turn you off if you were in the
position of this ex-offender?
Mr. Eichenlaub. One of the things we try and encourage
among our offenders is acceptance of personal responsibility
for their conduct.
Ms. Norton. Just a moment, sir. I pay because I live, well,
that is where I pay my mortgage. I pay rent because I live
there. Now, how does it increase the personal responsibility of
the inmate to pay for what he is not receiving?
Mr. Eichenlaub. We believe they are demonstrating personal
responsibility and accepting responsibility by paying a minimal
subsistence amount for their residence.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, you indicated that we may need
some, if we are not able to get the Bureau of Prisons to give
us a better answer than that, then it may be that we need a
statutory change here. The notion of making an inmate pay for
what he does not receive runs counter to personal
responsibility. That is exactly what the inmate was doing
before. He was taking what he wasn't supposed to take for what
he wasn't receiving. If it makes me angry, I can't imagine what
people who have anger problems must feel when they say, you
don't live here, you don't eat here and you are going to pay
anyway.
All I can ask you to do is this, I understand that you are
not the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. I will be writing
the Bureau of Prisons. The chairman has already indicated that
we will be doing followup. But I ask you to review this policy,
so that if anything can encourage families to take over the
subsistence responsibility, and if I can say so, Mr.
Eichenlaub, so that we can save the taxpayers of the United
States some of the funds. After all, CSOSA will continue to
have jurisdiction, because this person is on supervised
release.
So I find it hard to understand, given all we know about
modern penology, how this requirement does anything but run
counter to all we understand about modern penology. So I ask
you, are you willing to review this policy?
Mr. Eichenlaub. I respect your opinion. We will take a look
at it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
I have to confess, I do struggle with the concept that
someone might serve their sentence, submit to a halfway house
and complete that program, and then return home and yet still
pay into a system that they have already completed. I am not
sure with just this exchange that I understand the whole
situation.
So I would ask you, Mr. Eichenlaub, Ms. Poteat, Mr. Varone
and Mr. White, if I could get a sense of your own personal view
of this and what is required. It does seem counter-intuitive at
this level. But again, we haven't really drilled down much on
the issue. I would like to find out what the policy is that we
are following there, and whether or not this is an anomaly in
Mr. White's case, or if this is something that happens across
the board with all of our inmates and those who are trying to
gain reentry. I just don't understand enough about it.
And we have a call for votes.
The other piece I want to say in conclusion is that I
understand the statement that there are no hard and fast
standards that we apply to each individual. But you also say
that we take each case, each person on a case by case basis.
But there needs to be standards applied on a case by case
basis, I would imagine. It can't be simply random and thinking
up new standards every time a new person is assessed. So I
think it would be helpful in tracking and identifying best
practices if you said, OK, this is a group that we look at and
we think they are most suitable for halfway houses. Then here
are some groups that we identify that would be poor choices for
that system.
And then we would be able to get data from that and figure
out, what are the best practices. I think it would help our
friends who are operating these halfway houses to know what
type of analysis has been made prior to the person showing up
on their doorstep. It might help us in the future. I just think
that it introduces a little bit of accountability. It is not
perfect, it is not rocket science, either. But it may help us
in serving the people that we are trying to serve, and it may
use the taxpayer money in a more efficient manner, which is
always desirable.
We have had a very good exchange here. I think this panel
has suffered enough from the questions of the committee. I
would assure you that all of your testimony has been entered
into the record, with the exception of what I have asked you to
supply in the coming, let's say, 2 weeks I would like to have
some of that information regarding the payments that Mr. White
has asserted that he is making for no services after departure.
I want to thank you for your willingness to come before
this committee. I want to thank you all for your good work.
This is a tough, tough area. You are doing God's work out
there, trying to help folks. And we appreciate that. With that,
this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]