[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM HOME: EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM
AND REENTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 5, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-348 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
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 LEUTKEYEMER, Missouri
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANH ``JOSPEH'' 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 May 5, 2010...................................... 1
Statement of:
Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Adrienne
Poteat, Deputy Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency; Nancy LaVigne, director, Justice Policy
Center, the Urban Institute; Philip Fornaci, executive
director, D.C. Prisons Project; Andrew Cook, former Federal
Bureau of Prisons Inmate; and Louis Sawyer, former Federal
Bureau of Prisons Inmate................................... 17
Cook, Andrew............................................. 60
Fornaci, Philip.......................................... 46
Lappin, Harley........................................... 17
LaVigne, Nancy........................................... 39
Poteat, Adrienne......................................... 29
Sawyer, Louis............................................ 60
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 7
Fornaci, Philip, executive director, D.C. Prisons Project,
prepared statement of...................................... 48
Lappin, Harley, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, prepared
statement of............................................... 19
LaVigne, Nancy, director, Justice Policy Center, the Urban
Institute, prepared statement of........................... 41
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 3
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 11
Poteat, Adrienne, Deputy Director, Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, prepared statement of......... 31
HOUSING D.C. FELONS FAR AWAY FROM HOME: EFFECTS ON CRIME, RECIDIVISM
AND REENTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Davis, Cummings,
and Chaffetz.
Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; Adam Fromm, minority
chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior
counsel; and Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel.
Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on the Federal
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will
now come to order. I apologize for the delay, the slight delay
in starting. We had votes on the floor.
But let me welcome all of the Members. I am told that Mr.
Chaffetz, the ranking member, will be along shortly. He as well
was on the floor.
But to all of our Members, subcommittee hearing witnesses,
and all those in attendance, the purpose of the hearing today
is to examine the criteria used to determine the placement of
D.C. Code offenders, as well as to discuss the rehabilitation
and reintegration challenges that these individuals face as a
result of being in prison so far from their homes and
supportive networks.
The chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members
will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and all
Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me welcome you to this
subcommittee, D.C.-related oversight hearing entitled,
``Housing D.C. Code Felons Far Away From Home: The Effects on
Crime, Recidivism and Reentry.'' Today's hearing gives the
subcommittee the opportunity to examine the criteria used to
determine the placement of D.C. Code offenders. In addition, we
will examine the unique rehabilitation and reintegration
challenges faced by these individuals as a result of being
imprisoned such a far distance from their homes and support
networks.
As you may know, the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, also known as the
Revitalization Act, transferred the responsibility and costs
associated with certain State criminal justice functions,
including housing, parole and supervised release of adult
felons convicted under the D.C. Code, D.C. Criminal Code, from
the District of Columbia to various Federal Government
agencies. While considerable progress has been made over the
past 10 years since the enactment of the Revitalization Act, a
host of challenges regarding the implementation of
effectiveness on felon supervision, reentry and revocation
systems and practices remain.
Notably, D.C. Code felons are unique in that they are
routinely housed hundreds of miles away from their homes. In
addition to placement in the District of Columbia, nearly 5,700
D.C. Code felons are housed in 33 States in facilities owned or
leased by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. While the majority of
these individuals reside in facilities located in Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, and West Virginia, some D.C. Code felons
receive placement in States as far away as Florida, Texas, and
California.
In recognition of the challenges posed by distant
placement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a 1998
Memorandum of Understanding executed with the District of
Columbia, seeks to house each inmate within 500 miles of their
home. However, a variety of factors, including the availability
of beds, security concerns, and individual prisoner medical
needs, may affect that placement. Accordingly, today's hearing
is intended to both examine the Federal Bureau of Prisons
offender placement process and procedures, as well as explore
how the issues of distance impacts the reentry process.
With research suggesting that prisoners who have regular
contact with members of their family have lower recidivism
rates than those who do not, placement far away from the home
makes the reentry process especially hard for D.C. ex-
offenders. Ex-offenders also face many barriers that impede
their return to society, including a lack of education and
minimal employment qualifications.
I would like to especially thank my colleague and friend,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for her tireless work in
this policy area and her work on keeping me up-to-date and
pushing on this issue. The subcommittee looks forward to
continuing to work with her and her office as we conduct
oversight on this issue, as well as other members of the
committee.
Again, I thank all of those in attendance this afternoon,
and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. I
now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here and for your insight that we will be hearing
from today.
At the onset, let me just say that this is one of the
critical roles and functions of our government. You know, for
most campaigns people will tell you you are not going to win or
lose an election based on what happens with the Bureau of
Prisons and these types of issues unless something has really,
really gone awry. But for me personally, I think it is one of
those core functions that government should do and execute
well, and is a duty and a service to the public.
We also have to recognize that most people will be
returning to the public for instance, in my State, we refer to
it as the Department of Corrections. But I often wonder are we
doing enough to actually correct this behavior so that people
can return to their public life, you know, go back into society
and be productive members of that society. And so this is a
long-term interest for me personally, and I appreciate holding
this hearing.
I was not elected to Congress yet, when the Lorton facility
was shut down in 2001. However, from what I understand, a
number of congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle
worked together, in both the Clinton and the Bush
administrations, to facilitate the transfer of the D.C.
prisoners to a newly built facility in North Carolina. And it
is my understanding this change was much needed, and a high
priority for the local congressional delegation because of the
extremely sub-par conditions at the Lorton facility.
In transferring inmates, the District of Columbia got a
safe new facility at no cost to the city. Since the Federal
Government absorbed the cost, the subcommittee has heard about
conditions and programs in the facility and others where D.C.
felons are housed.
On October 16, 2007, our predecessors on the subcommittee
held a hearing entitled ``Doing Time,'' which focused on D.C.
prisoners being prepared for reentry with access to the Bureau
of Prisons services. On September 22, 2009, we held a hearing
on the local role of the U.S. Parole Commission, which focused
on alternatives to incarceration within the District of
Columbia. And on February 3rd of this year we held a hearing on
halfway houses in the District of Columbia with testimony from
many of the same entities we will hear from today.
This additional view today is welcome, and we do appreciate
your time. I remain interested in how the Bureau of Prisons and
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency work
together to reduce recidivism. We all want ex-offenders to
return safely to their communities, and this transition is
difficult.
Proximity of jailed offenders to their communities is also
a key factor for inmates and their families. But it is clear
that released offenders can best succeed if they are sober,
employed, and have a place to live. Otherwise, they are highly
likely to go through the revolving door of the criminal justice
system.
Again, I think there is a proper role of government to help
those that are in need of making those transitions back into
their communities. How we best do that in a cost effective
manner but, at the same time, wanting people to become self-
sufficient and get back on their feet, I think is critical.
That is why I appreciate bringing up this hearing today. I
appreciate your insight and look forward to learning more about
the issue.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes
the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I again thank
you for always being willing to hold hearings on matters of
importance to the District of Columbia. And I would like to
simply summarize my opening statement and to say that of all
the matters you could, in fact, hold a hearing on, nothing is
more important than guaranteeing public safety in the District
of Columbia, as well as facilitating reentry of our men and
women who are now spread across the United States in prisons,
many of them far from home, as a result of the Revitalization
Act, affording very little contact with their families or with
services and making reentry a huge challenge to the city and to
the inmates themselves and to the Federal agencies, including
the BOP, who must work with them.
Mr. Chairman, we do not ask, in this hearing, for changes
in the Revitalization Act. We recognize that the District of
Columbia asked for this change. It wanted Lorton closed. Lorton
was anything but a model prison. It wanted it taken off of its
budget, and there are many advantages to the Bureau of Prisons.
In my judgment, the Bureau of Prisons is the best prison system
in the world. Now, that may not say much when you consider what
prisons look like in most of the world, but if you have visited
the Bureau of Prisons, I think you would agree that it is a
fine prison.
The real question is, does it meet the challenges that
Congress posed when, for the first time in U.S. history,
Congress placed a State prison system within the Federal prison
system. Now, you can put them there and spread them out as if
they were all Federal prisoners. They are not. There are 5,700
of these D.C. Code offenders, and I think it blows the mind,
Mr. Chairman, to recognize that they are in 115 different
facilities in 33 States throughout our country. There are no
State prisoners who face this kind of dispersal, lack of access
to families, and to services for all that means for them, for
the city, and for the city to which they must return. In fact,
best practices make clear what happens, frankly, in every
State, that from the time an inmate is in the criminal justice
system to the time he is released and post-release, the
authorities have a relationship with him that must assure his
successful reentry. So that if we were in Maryland or Virginia
State system, for example, that these services, these parts of
the criminal justice system would all be working together with
the offender.
Now, the challenge created here is that we are dealing
with, in our Federal system, Federal agencies like the Bureau
of Prisons and CSOSA on the one hand, and facilities here in
the District, not to mention the Parole Commission on the
other. So you have a meeting of State and local agencies that
will call for greater understanding and coordination and,
frankly, creativity to, in fact, deal with this unprecedented
challenge in our city.
For example, the Bureau of Prisons doesn't have to be as
nearly in touch with the local needs of a city the way it
should occur when they have this set of State prisoners in
their midst. Prison, parole, and supervision agencies in each
State serve only offenders in that State. That is not the case
here. It doesn't mean it is impossible to deal with. One of the
challenges we will be hearing from if you are in a State prison
system you are closer in touch, for example, with the resources
and skills necessary to get a job. That is going to be pretty
hard if you are in North Dakota or Arizona or Wyoming or
wherever BOP has sent you.
You are learning a skill, I am pleased to say. I have gone
to BOP facilities, impressed with what they do in vocational
training. It doesn't have much relationship to what these men
and women will find when they get back home. Almost none of
these facilities can be called close to home. CSOSA tries to do
what it can. It can reach only a fraction of those who will be
returning home.
Mr. Chairman, I will be absolutely candid. I think the
answer is placing D.C. Code felons in one BOP facility closer
to D.C., men, women and, yes, we have children all the way in
North Dakota. They should be brought home right now and made
closer to home. In the meantime, we can do a better job of
coordinating reentry and the needs of these D.C. Code felons
for some contact with their family before, all of a sudden, out
of prison, into the District they are expected to somehow act
as they would if they had been in an ordinary State prison
where they would have had access to their families, to some
sense of services, and to the true integration into reentry.
So Mr. Chairman, this is a very important hearing for the
District of Columbia. I couldn't thank you and the ranking
member more for assuring this hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Before I read the introductions of
our panelists, it is the custom of this committee to ask anyone
who is going to offer testimony before the subcommittee to be
sworn. So could I ask you all to rise and raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that all the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Let me begin with Mr. Lappin.
Harley Lappin has served as the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons since April 4, 2003. A career public
administrator in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Lappin is
responsible for the oversight and management of the Bureau's
115 institutions and for the safety and security of more than
210,000 inmates under the agency's jurisdiction.
Deputy Director Adrienne Poteat serves as the agency head
of the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency [CSOSA],
for the District of Columbia. In this position, Ms. Poteat
oversees a Federal agency of nearly 1,300 employees, which was
created by the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 to improve
public safety through active community monitoring and
supervision of ex-offenders.
Ms. Nancy LaVigne is the current director of the Justice
Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. LaVigne is an expert
on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and is the founding
Director of the U.S. Department of Justice's Mapping and
Analysis for Public Safety Program.
Mr. Philip Fornaci joined the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services
Project as executive director in August 2003. In addition to
his primary management and the fundraising responsibilities,
Mr. Fornaci also manages the D.C. Prisoners Legal Services
Project public policy work, which is aimed at advocating for
the humane treatment and dignity of all persons convicted,
charged or formally convicted with a criminal offense under the
District of Columbia law.
Mr. Andrew Cook is a former D.C. Code offender and Bureau
of Prisons inmate. Having only been recently released from
prison, Mr. Cook is continuing his effort to reintegrate back
into society by participating in various transitional programs
and by searching for employment opportunities.
Mr. Louis Sawyer is a current parolee under the supervision
of Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Mr. Sawyer
was released from prison earlier this winter and is presently
participating in a job training program with the organization,
So Others Might Eat.
I know some of you have testified here before, so I want to
thank you all for offering your advice and counsel to the
committee. I would now like to give each witness an opportunity
for a 5-minute opening statement.
Mr. Lappin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HARLEY LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND
OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY; NANCY LaVIGNE, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE
POLICY CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE; PHILIP FORNACI, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, D.C. PRISONS PROJECT; ANDREW COOK, FORMER FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE; AND LOUIS SAWYER, FORMER FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATE
STATEMENT OF HARLEY LAPPIN
Mr. Lappin. Good afternoon, Chairman lynch and members of
the subcommittee. Congresswoman Norton, thank you for your kind
comments during your opening statement. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Bureau of
Prisons designation process, particularly as it affects the
reentry needs of offenders from the District of Columbia.
The Bureau of Prisons is the Nation's largest corrections
system. We are responsible for the incarceration of more than
211,000 inmates, including 5,408 inmates convicted in the
District of Columbia Superior Court. We refer to this
population as D.C. Code offenders. We appreciate the unique
role the BOP plays in the District of Columbia.
While the number of D.C. Code offenders is relatively small
compared to the entire inmate population, we devote substantial
resources to ensure they receive appropriate care and
treatment. Given our decades of experience, we know that
consistency is critical to effectively achieving our mission.
For this reason, we employ a validated objective classification
system to designate all inmates. Our policy is to initially
designate each inmate to the lowest security level possible,
given medical, security and program needs in an institution
within 500 miles of the anticipated release area. This is
consistent with requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding
between the District and the Office of Management and Budget
that was signed in 1997 as a precursor to the National Capitol
Area Revitalization Act.
Crowding in Federal prisons across the country has had a
profound impact on our inmate designation process. We have
experienced significant increases in the inmate population over
the last 2 decades. The Bureau of Prisons is operating at 37
percent over rated capacity systemwide, with high security
institutions operating at 51 percent over capacity and medium
security institutions operating at 46 percent over rated
capacity.
Stated quite simply, this level of crowding means there are
not always available beds for offenders as close to their homes
as we would like. Crowding poses real risks to inmate safety.
Additionally, prison composition can greatly impact safety and
security. Inmates in the Federal prisons across the country
have repeatedly demonstrated their proclivity to organize based
on geographical area, gang affiliation, racial and ethnic
background, and they have further demonstrated that such
organization can lead to misconduct and attempts to severely
disrupt prison operations.
Accordingly, we make every effort to distribute the inmate
population across facilities such that we balance the various
factors noted above. We have found that this balance is
critical to operating safe and secure prisons.
Inmate health care needs impact designations, particularly
for inmates with medical conditions that require significant
treatment. These inmates typically are designated to a medical
care Level 3 facility or a Federal medical center. Only six of
these are within 500 miles of the District of Columbia.
Location itself creates designation pressures.
We have little control over where prisons are built and
many are sited in very remote locations. We have made clear in
the past our strong desire to site a prison in the D.C. area.
As Congresswoman Norton will recall, we fought hard to secure
just a small portion of the Lorton property during the
negotiations over the Revitalization Act. We were unsuccessful
in those efforts and had to look elsewhere to construct
facilities to absorb the D.C. sentenced felons into our system.
We remain committed to the goal of housing the majority of
D.C. Code offenders within 500 miles of the District, and we
have been quite successful in meeting this goal, with over 75
percent of them currently confined in institutions within 500
miles of the District.
Four categories of offenders, however, are likely to
continue to be housed outside of that radius, inmates with
special management and security needs, inmates with significant
medical needs, inmates who engage in significant misconduct,
and high security sex offenders.
Mindful of our role as the State Department of Corrections
for the District, we provide specialized programming and
opportunities for D.C. offenders that will help facilitate
their successful reentry, while ensuring that they are housed
in safe and appropriately secure facilities.
We provide enhanced reentry programs at Rivers, to include
a residential drug abuse program that allows eligible inmates
to earn up to 1 year off their sentence.
We have a trauma treatment program for female offenders at
Hazelton, WV. We have residential reentry centers that service
three D.C. facilities, to include Hope Village, which is the
largest RRC in the Nation. And finally, we continue to
collaborate with Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agencies on transitional issues.
Chairman Lynch, this concludes my formal statement. Again,
I thank you and the members of the committee for your support
of our agency and will be happy to answer questions that you
may have of me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.
Ms. Poteat, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE POTEAT
Ms. Poteat. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member
Chaffetz, Congresswoman Norton, and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today at this
hearing to examine the impact of housing D.C. inmates far from
home.
As the Deputy Director of the Federal agency responsible
for supervising approximately 16,000 men and women, I know
firsthand that the foundation for an individual's successful
reentry starts with time spent in prison. If credible
opportunities for treatment, education and occupational
training are available and taken advantage of, and then
comprehensive release planning occurs, a person can leave
prison with a real chance to pursue a positive and constructive
way of life.
Approximately 6,000 D.C. Superior Court sentenced inmates
are now serving their sentence in the Federal Bureau of
Prisons' facilities around the country. Since our agency was
established in August 2000, incarcerated men and women have
returned to the District of Columbia at a rate of about 2,200
per year.
CSOSA's Transitional Intervention for Parole Supervision
[TIPS] teams, are primarily responsible for facilitating an
inmate's return home from prison, either transitioning through
a residential reentry center or directly to the community. BOP
case managers submit a release plan to CSOSA that includes the
inmate's proposed living arrangement and, when available, the
potential employment. The TIPS community supervision officers
investigate their release plans to ensure they are conducive to
a successful reentry and do not pose a risk to the community.
About 6,400 of the 16,000 men and women under supervision
are either on parole or supervised release. Most have long
histories of substance abuse, educational underachievement, and
underemployment; 80 to 90 percent of this population reports a
history of illicit drug abuse. They have low rates of high
school or GED completion, and only 40 percent report stable
housing arrangements upon intake. Less than 40 percent are
employed. Many of them also face challenges reuniting with
their families and establishing pro-social relationships. These
conditions can have a significant impact on the success of
community supervision.
However, it is well recognized that when effective work on
these matters can be accomplished during incarceration, the
prospective for successful reentry is increased. It was toward
that end that in 2003 CSOSA launched an initiative at the
Rivers Correctional Facility in Winton, NC. We chose Rivers
because of the large number of offenders housed there at the
time, and it was approximately 225 miles away from the
District. At the time it was 1,100 offenders there. Now they
have approximately 500 to 600 offenders in that facility.
Our work at Rivers began with the implementation of a video
mentoring as part of our faith-based community partnership. The
program linked inmates nearing release with faith-based mentors
who provided pre-release encouragement and post-release
support. This program was an extension of an existing effort
started the previous year where volunteer mentors from local
faith institutions were matched with re-entrants transitioning
through the halfway house. We believed that by making matches
earlier, we could better prepare the mentees for reentry and
lay the foundation for post-release.
CSOSA installed video conferencing systems at Rivers and at
our headquarters to allow mentors and mentees to have face-to-
face conversations about job development, locating stable
housing, and establishing new and more positive leisure time
activities and friendships. Family members were also present
during some of these sessions.
In October we began conducting Community Resource Day for a
group of 200-plus offenders at Rivers. During this program, we
piloted it by transporting several of our vendors to Winton,
NC. After that we began doing these sessions by video
conferencing. That way we were able to expand some of the
vendors that were participating in our Resource Day. They
included presentations by the U.S. Parole Commission, BOP, and
Hope Village, our community supervision officers, local job
training providers, the D.C. State Superintendent of Education
and the Community College of the District of Columbia, the
Housing Counseling Service and Jubilee Housing, Unity Health
Care and the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration, among others.
Surveys by both our providers and offenders were very positive,
and they were completely satisfied with that program.
Now, we suspended the mentoring program in 2007 after
expanding the community-based mentoring program to include men
and women on probation. This increased demand for mentors and
quickly exhausted our available pool. However, we plan to
reinstitute this video conferencing by including the women in
Hazelton, WV, who are also now participating in a pilot program
conducted by Our Place.
Last fall, with the cooperation of the BOP, we developed
and distributed Community Resource Day packages to all of the
offenders and all of the institutions and BOP facilities. We
have been asked to send additional packets, which the inmates
found very useful. The response has been overwhelming,
positive, and we continue to receive requests.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Poteat follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. Poteat.
Ms. LaVigne, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF NANCY LaVIGNE
Ms. LaVigne. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the
implications of D.C. felons being housed far from their homes.
I am Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute, where we've conducted extensive research on the
topic of prisoner reentry. We've documented the many challenges
of prisoner reentry, and we've conducted studies to identify
the factors that predict both successful prisoner reintegration
as well as recidivism.
Among these studies we've specifically examined D.C. Code
felons. We've learned that, like their counterparts throughout
the country, incarcerated D.C. Code felons return home in need
of health care, drug treatment, jobs, and affordable shelter.
But D.C. felons face an unusual incarceration experience in
that they are typically incarcerated hundreds of miles from
their families, their potential employers, and post-release
services. In fact, over 20 percent of these felons are housed
more than 500 miles from their homes. This compares to a
national average for the average State prisoner of about 100
miles from their home, still pretty far, but their experience
is much more severe in that regard.
So why is distance an important issue? Research points to
two reasons. First, it can diminish family support and, second,
it makes finding treatment and services difficult.
Let's focus on the family issue first. Our studies have
found that families are an important influence on the reentry
process and they provide much needed support to returning
prisoners. Both emotional support and tangible support, such as
housing and financial assistance, are associated with higher
employment rates and reduced substance use after their release.
This support from families, however, is not a given. Rather, it
is closely linked to the nature and type of contact that
prisoners have with their family members, their parents, their
intimate partners and their children prior to their release.
In fact, our research has found that in-prison contact with
family members is predictive of the strength of family
relationships following release. Other studies have shown that
family contact during incarceration is associated with lower
recidivism rates. Such contact can maintain or reinforce
attachments to children, giving exiting prisoners a greater
stake in conformity upon release.
We have learned that exiting male prisoners who have strong
positive attachments to their children tend to be legally
employed for longer periods of time than fathers who have
weaker ties to their kids. Maintaining and even strengthening
family ties during incarceration can bolster the positive
impact that family can have after a prisoner's release.
But our surveys of family members of prisoners found that
the single greatest barrier to maintaining contact was that
prison was far from their homes. Clearly, the closer prisoners
are housed to their homes, the more contact they will have with
family.
Now, let's turn to the second reason that distance creates
problems for returning prisoners. In addition to family
support, ties to post-release jobs and reentry services are
vital for reentry success. Research finds that the most
effective reentry programs begin behind bars and continue in
the community.
Now, we work with a lot of State prison administrators and
we hear them lamenting about how difficult it is for them to
link up people who are housed in prisons often far from their
homes to services because they tend to live in cities rather
than in the remote areas where prisons are located. But at
least those administrators are working within the same State
system. By contrast, the reentry planners working with D.C.
felons are operating with different systems and in a diverse
set of States across the country.
The distance between a correctional facility and the
prisoner's post-release destination makes connecting with
employment, housing, substance abuse treatment, faith-based
institutions, and a whole host of other reentry resources all
the more difficult.
Now, to be fair, there are some likely downsides to housing
prisoners close to home. From a correctional security
standpoint, if the felons are closer to home visitation will go
up, and with increased visitation there could be more
possibilities for the introduction of contraband into the
facility. And if D.C. Code felons are housed in fewer prisons
closer to home, correctional officers would need to monitor the
potential for gang violence more closely.
These are real risks, but I believe they're far outweighed
by the documented benefits of housing prisoners close to home.
With all the challenges associated with the reentry of D.C.
felons, this is one change that could have a real positive
impact, not only on the successful transition of those
returning home from prison, but also on the safety and well-
being of the families and communities to which they return.
In the meantime, efforts to facilitate connections between
prisoners and post-release service providers through the use of
video conferencing should be supported and expanded, and they
should also include contact with family members.
Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. LaVigne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. LaVigne.
Mr. Fornaci, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP FORNACI
Mr. Fornaci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Congresswoman Norton, for the opportunity to provide testimony,
and thank you also to Congresswoman Norton for your work on
this issue.
My name is Philip Fornaci. I serve as director of the D.C.
Prisoners' Project, the Washington Lawyers' Committee. We
advocate on behalf of D.C. prisoners held locally and in
Federal Bureau of Prison facilities on issues around safety,
health care, access to the courts. We also represent folks in
parole hearings. So we have a lot of experience directly in
these facilities where D.C. prisoners are held.
As described in my written testimony, I will just summarize
a bit, the Revitalization Act of course transformed the
District's criminal justice system from an almost exclusively
local system to a Federalized system. Our entire criminal
justice system, from prosecution through sentencing through
incarceration, and then back to parole, supervision and
revocation, is all Federal. The criminal justice system was
made this way by a Federal legislature in which D.C. citizens
of course have no vote, so we have very little control over
this situation.
Nonetheless, this is a useful conversation to have. These
are issues that our organizations have tried to address at all
levels, with the Vice President's Office, with the Bureau of
Prisons, with Congresswoman Norton as well.
As we have mentioned, about 6,100 D.C. prisoners are held
in at least 98 different Federal prisons spread out from
California to Florida to Pennsylvania and beyond. As described
earlier, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of
Prisons strives to keep D.C. prisoners within 500 miles of
home. This actually is consistent with preexisting BOP policy.
The Federal Government has provided no further accommodation or
legal commitment for the influx of D.C. prisoners happening 8
or 9 years ago, only about 3 or 4 percent of the population.
For 6,000 D.C. prisoners, the 500-mile radius is a
geographic area that reaches from Indiana and Kentucky on the
west, Georgia in the south, and upper New York State on the
north. This is a rather huge distance. So although D.C.
prisoners represent only 3 percent of the total BOP population,
the BOP is effectively D.C.'s State prison, as the
Congresswoman mentioned earlier.
The entire population of D.C.'s returning citizens have
endured incarceration in these far flung facilities. The
District retains no control or influence over which facilities
will house the prisoners, what programs will be available to
them, the security levels within the BOP or how far away from
D.C. they will be held.
As you've heard, this situation causes serious problems.
Family separation is the most obvious one. Hundreds of miles,
thousands of miles away, these prisons are located in rural
areas requiring a car generally to get to. Because D.C.
prisoners are dispersed so widely, it is difficult for local
organizations to set up any kind of bus system or any way for
people in large numbers to visit at any one time. This is a
major obstacle.
Telephone calls are extremely expensive. Collect calls run
about $15 for a 15-minute collect call. There is debit calling
also available which reduces that call to about $3.50 to $4 for
a 15-minute call. However, please note that even a well paid
prisoner who works perhaps in the UNICORP program will make
maybe $70 a month. So this is an extremely expensive outlay for
a prisoner to make.
In addition to this, as Ms. LaVigne has detailed, I think
quite accurately, having D.C. prisoners dispersed makes reentry
extremely complex, not only because it is impossible to
interview for a job or set up housing from a long distance, but
also because the case management staff and counselors in these
facilities have no experience with D.C.
I am reminded when I visited one facility holding D.C.
juveniles in the Bureau of Prisons in North Dakota, as
Congresswoman Norton noted, and the teacher in that facility, I
asked him what could be a very useful thing for us to give you
to help these kids. He said, could you send us a Yellow Pages
from the District of Columbia. Well, that clearly did not
indicate that he had any real clue as to how someone from that
facility is going to get a job back in D.C. or had any idea
what life is like for an urban kid now in North Dakota and then
returning.
So I want to make a couple of recommendations and cut this
a little shorter. My written statement goes into a little bit
more detail. But I would echo Congresswoman Norton's statement
to move all D.C. prisoners within, if not one, at least a small
number of Federal facilities close to D.C. This would have an
enormous impact on reentry. It would have an impact on family
ties being maintained. There are facilities in Maryland,
Virginia and Pennsylvania within 250 miles of D.C. Some
combination of these could certainly be worked. There are
medical facilities within a fairly short distance in North
Carolina. It is certainly possible.
Similarly, a second recommendation is that in facilities
housing D.C. prisoners case management staff should be trained
appropriately. This really cannot effectively happen unless
they are in one small number of facilities.
And third is to address the issue of juveniles. There is
simply no reason for D.C. kids, 9, 10, 11, to be sent to North
Dakota to serve out their sentences.
Thank you so much. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fornaci follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Fornaci.
Mr. Cook, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW COOK
Mr. Cook. I would like to say good afternoon. I am also
honored to be able to sit before you all today and I thank you
all for being, you know, giving affording so I can share my
testimony today. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Sawyer, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS SAWYER
Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress and their
staff, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and
gentlemen, good afternoon.
You've mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in introducing me, where I
was employed with the SOME program, and I need to clarify
something, that it is not the SOME, So Others May Eat, it is
the Opportunities Industrialization Center of Washington, DC,
and I needed to note that for the record because I don't
believe I can go back to Southeast if I did not.
Mr. Lynch. OK. That is duly noted.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you so much. And I do have a pamphlet for
you for the Members of Congress. All right.
I wanted to thank you for this opportunity for sharing with
those members who are here in reference to the plight of D.C.
prisoners far away from home. I do not want to be redundant for
what Mr. Fornaci has said, he has covered most of everything in
a nutshell. But I would like to talk with the, have the
opportunity to speak to the recidivism and the reentry of D.C.
prisoners coming back into the Nation's Capital.
And one thing I do note that is very serious are five
essential basic needs that should be looked upon, and those are
the transportation of a D.C. prisoner, a returning citizen
coming back to the Nation's Capitol, his medical care,
psychological, what have you, clothing issues, employment and
housing. These are very critical issues that need to be
explored and looked upon for being where we are and how far
we've been away, such as when I was in the U.S. penitentiary in
Lee County for 5 years, and then I transferred to the FCI
Allenwood in White Deer, PA, where I made parole on February 9,
2010.
And after spending 25 years in the system, I found that,
coming back to the Nation's Capital, the opportunities that I
thought would be available were not. But I do thank the Public
Defender Services of the Nation's Capital for providing an
adult directory of resources. And Ms. April Frazier, who is the
staff attorney and who's responsible for the reentry, was very
good. And Mr. Allen McAllister, who is staff attorney who's
here, who's also working and have worked very hard in seeing to
it.
But I would recommend that one of these pamphlets, these
booklets, this directory would be able to be sent to each and
every one of the institutions in where a D.C. prisoner is
housed so it could be noted for the law library. With that
said, this directory is very useful and which I have found it
when I was there to look into and to send letters to the
appropriate individuals where they could become housing
employment, also with the mentoring aspect. And I am also
pleased to note that the Welcome Home Project with Ms. Joyce
Boyd, who was very helpful in my reentry.
But I must say this. This is of utmost importance, that if
a person does not have a foundation, which is his family, some
institution, religion, based on a church foundation, a mentor,
counselors and advisers, then it is not going to work out. But
he has to understand that it is not easy out here. But it is
also incumbent upon those to note that with the assistance of
the reentry faith-based welcome back, these organizations have
pooled together, and I am very much a product of that. And I
thank those individuals for being so thoughtful and so helpful.
But we need to meet those needs wherein, even with the
transportation issue. We have some organizations that are able
to give tokens and then those who are not. But to go out, such
as myself, I am in the Hope Village halfway house at 2840
Langston Place Southeast, and to go out every day to look for
employment. But based on the fact that I am in the
Opportunities Industrialization Center in Southeast Washington,
DC, which is the place to be, we still have to go out. It is
from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday through Friday. And it is a job
placement training program that facilitates those individuals
who are looking forward, but they're training them so they're
just not going out to employment without any skills. They are
providing that with the Internet, and being able to have those
opportunities. And I do, I want to note that for the record.
But still, we're looking at those issues that come before this
committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir. I want to thank all the
witnesses who are coming before the committee to help us with
our work, and Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer especially for offering
your perspective.
I am going to yield myself 5 minutes for my questions,
after which I'll recognize the other Members. It seems there's
general agreement that the proximity can help a great deal. I
know, Ms. LaVigne, you pointed out a couple of instances where
there might be some qualifiers to that with respect to gang
violence and that type of connection.
But is it possible, Mr. Lappin, Mr. Fornaci mentioned the
250-mile, I know you've got this Memorandum of Understanding
that implies, or it establishes a goal of 500 miles, which is a
long, long distance. Mr. Fornaci suggests that with some of the
existing facilities in the Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia area, you might be able to reduce that down to 250.
But I also hear from you and Ms. Poteat about the capacity
problem, the overcrowding problem that we have. Is that
feasible?
Mr. Lappin. Thank you, sir. It is an excellent question.
And let me begin by agreeing with them that closer to home is
better, even with those challenges. However, this has been a
challenge for the Federal system since its creation. Well, I
want to set the parameters so you have a sense of how the other
inmates in the Federal prison system compare to the inmates
from the District of Columbia. And I can break it down by
gender.
Right now 75 percent of the inmates from the Superior Court
are within 500 miles. Male inmates from the Superior Court
within 500 miles, 75 percent. For all the other inmates in the
Federal prison system, male, there's 69 percent of them are 500
miles from home. So a larger percentage than with the District
inmates are beyond 500 miles.
Comparing male Superior Court offenders with all other
Federal offenders, 75 percent of the male Superior Court
offenders are within 500 miles of home; 69 percent of all other
male Federal offenders are within 500 miles of home. For
females, 81 percent are within 500 miles of home. For all other
females in the Federal system, 69 percent are within 500 miles
of home.
And this has been somewhat true over the course of many,
many years. It is unfortunate that a long, long time ago we
didn't see the value of inmates being closer to home and before
we built prisons, we built them in locations that were closer
to where the inmates were coming from. Unfortunately, that did
not happen.
So today our infrastructure, much of it new, are in remote
rural locations where there are not as many inmates coming from
those systems. But you can see that the distance issue has been
a challenge for us for a long, long time.
To compensate for that, we work closely with U.S. Probation
Service, our contract providers in the halfway houses, CSOSA
and others, to try to improve the relationship in advance of
the inmates returning home.
To your question, before you can do any of the things you
want to do in prison, provide programs, provide reentry
opportunities, teach GED, teach vocational training, have
inmates working in Prison Industries, you must run safe
prisons. Inmates must be able to safely come out of their cells
from 6 a.m., until 9 or 10 p.m., whatever time that is, and
function within that unit. It has been our experience that
we've been more successful allowing that to happen when we have
a balanced designation process, when inmates are balanced both
geographically, gang-wise, racially, and ethnically. And we
strive to achieve that balance at our institutions and retain
that balance.
But as you indicated, it is even more of a challenge when
you don't have enough beds because, quite honestly, there are
some days you are just trying to find an empty bed to put an
inmate in at the appropriate security level. So I don't think
it is possible within 250 miles and successfully manage those
prisons as safely as we do today because it will disrupt this
balance that we are trying to achieve. And that is unfortunate.
The other thing is there are several reasons why those that
are beyond 500 miles, one, medical care. Some inmates require
more medical care. And let me just mention this very briefly.
We classify inmates based on security level. Once that is
accomplished, we classify them on care level, how much medical
care do we think they're going to require, based on their
physical condition, because we came to the realization a few
years ago that we could not provide the same level of care,
health care at every facility, given the fact that many were
built in very rural locations or in very urban locations where
we were competing for limited resources in the way of health
care providers, one, and two, that there were not a lot of
facilities outside of that institution, hospitals, that could
provide that care if in fact we could not provide the care
inside the facility. So therefore, we created healthy
institutions and institutions with inmates who were healthy but
needed some additional care and then our more institutions with
greater need for health care. That alone sends inmates a little
further away from home so that we can provide adequate health
care.
Separations.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lappin, you have far exceeded--I only have 5
minutes. You've exhausted all that time. I appreciate your
answer was no, is that correct?
Mr. Lappin. I do not believe that we can do it as safely as
we do today.
Mr. Lynch. OK. All right. I will now yield to the ranking
member for 5 minutes, Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go swiftly
because 5 minutes goes by fast. I do not understand why we have
102 people from Washington, DC, in Arizona. Understanding that
the documentation that was here, give me one reason why we
would send somebody all the way to Arizona, other than it has
really good weather.
Mr. Lappin. High security sex offenders. That is the only
housing you have of a high security nature where we can house
sex offenders in an open population.
Mr. Chaffetz. There is nowhere closer than Arizona.
Mr. Lappin. There is nowhere closer for high security sex
offenders than Tucson, AZ.
Mr. Chaffetz. What about 101 people in Colorado?
Mr. Lappin. As I indicated, inmates that have special
security needs, there are 44 of them at ADX Florence because
they have assaulted staff and inmates, they've killed inmates,
they have attempted to escape. So there is a high security
facility, ADX Florence. There are 41 alone in that facility
because of their misconduct in prison.
Mr. Chaffetz. And let me go to Mr. Fornaci. I saw at least
from your kind of nonverbal, I thought you took some issue to
this idea of balance based on medical needs and those types of
things. Do you care to comment on that based on what Mr. Lynch
was questioning?
Mr. Fornaci. Well, yes, thank you.
I was looking at the listing of where D.C. prisoners are.
Certainly there is some number of folks in medical facilities
which is a care Level 4. The care Level 3 there is a smaller
number. But I am not sure that actually states it. I think the
security issues I suspect are stronger on Mr. Lappin's basis
than are the medical issues. There are many medical facilities
within this area. The care level system is actually relatively
new.
I guess what I was raising my eyebrows at is I am a little
bit, I am not quite sure of how to interpret it, was the notion
of having certain kinds of balance, including racial balance.
That was what I was responding to. D.C. folks are known as
about 95 percent African American prisoners. It is an urbanized
population. The BOP generally is 38 percent African American.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, first of
all, I appreciate you being here. You have been here. You have
seen it. I think your only vested interest is probably to make
it better. So maybe starting with Mr. Cook and then Mr. Sawyer,
from your vantage point, what is, what are the two or three
things, and if you just have one, you just have one, but that
you would like to see improved. It is just your own personal
point of view. It is from what you've witnessed. If you could
make the situation better, what should we be doing? What should
we be insisting that the Bureau of Prisons do better?
Mr. Cook. Meaning as far as, you mean as far as the
location?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Cook. Well, from my experience I've been locked up 8
years. And out of 8 years I've been to five different
penitentiaries. And out of five different penitentiaries I
would say, well, with the help of Mr. Fornaci, I've been out in
Indiana. I am not no security risk so I am wondering why was I
out there. I don't have no family out there. Then after I leave
there I go to Kentucky. Same thing apply.
So I am curious to know what do they, you know, what is the
information they use to place a person? I am just thinking they
going sending you to the next bed.
Mr. Chaffetz. Now he talked about the safety and security
of these prisons. From the time they opened that cell to the
time they close it did you feel safe in those penitentiaries?
Mr. Cook. Well, I am going to say the only thing I was kind
of worried about was getting back home, closer to home. Other
stuff don't even matter to me.
Mr. Chaffetz. How did you communicate? Do you have family
here then?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. How did you communicate with them? Were there
any resources?
Mr. Cook. Well, being so far a way, your money, you don't
really have too much money.
Mr. Chaffetz. Right.
Mr. Cook. And when you get a job in there, they pay you a
little less than nothing. So the little money you do obtain
you've got to stretch it. Either you are going to pay----
Mr. Chaffetz. Give me an idea. What were you doing and how
much money were you making?
Mr. Cook. Well, my first job, I've been a tutor, you know,
throughout the BOP. That pay a little bit. That is one of the--
--
Mr. Chaffetz. Like how much in a month? How much in a month
does that make?
Mr. Cook. An hour? Like 30 something cent an hour.
Mr. Chaffetz. 30 cents an hour. And with that you are
expected to pay for long distance toll calls and all that kind
of thing to communicate with your family?
Mr. Cook. Pretty much.
Mr. Chaffetz. Was your family ever able to come out and
visit you?
Mr. Cook. No good.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Sawyer, Ill give you an opportunity.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you so much. Your question again, sir?
Mr. Chaffetz. If you had two or three, maybe one or two
things that you just want the Bureau of Prisons to do to
improve the system for people that are so far away, what would
that be? Be very specific and as brief as you can on what you'd
like them to do.
Mr. Sawyer. Well, I am very much concerned about Mr.
Lappin, who spoke to the issue about when the individuals come
out of their prison cells.
I have been in--for 25 years, and I have yet to see--
because I have been in the medium-security facility, and even
at the U.S. penitentiary in Lee County, when you understand
that you are in a prison setting and when you fear no one but
God, and God alone, then that tends to give you a more secure
balance in where you are and who you are.
But, of course, we understand it is a prison and it is a
U.S. penitentiary and it is prison. But still, for the Bureau
of Prisons to look at it, in bringing the District of Columbia
inmates closer, the States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland,
it should be looked upon as a serious entity wherein the
closeness--I don't believe we are a security factor. For those
who went in 25, 30 years ago, who are now coming home, they are
looking forward to being with their families. It is a telephone
issue. It is a visitation issue. And it is very expensive.
They travel all night to get to the facility, and when they
come, they are not welcome because, for whatever reason, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons staff are not too likened to D.C.
prisoners and their families. And, to be honest with you, and I
will share that with you because no one wants to speak about
that, but that is an issue. That is an issue.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you both. I wish you nothing but the
best, and I appreciate your taking time to be here.
Thanks for the latitude in time, Madam Chair. And I think
it is just a crying shame that these people have to be so far
away. They are dealing with an exceptionally difficult
situation, to say the very least for them and their families,
and there is something we got to do, because this ain't right.
Ms. Norton. I thank you very much, Mr. Chaffetz, for your
questions because I think they have elicited the dilemma that
we have before us, and, I must say, a dilemma that I think is
quite solvable.
As you probe the witnesses who have been transferred from
one prison to another--and, for that matter, Mr. Lappin, I want
to thank the Bureau of Prisons for quickly admitting D.C.
residents to the state-of-the-art drug program. We recognize
there are always backlogs, but the notion that our prisoners
were not even admitted, that was not your fault, but you
certainly got that done. You have set up a drug program, a
state-of-the-art program, also at Rivers. We are very grateful
for that.
The answers to the questions posed by the chairman and the
ranking member, of course, have elicited from Mr. Lappin, you
know, what you would expect. He is talking about the Federal
prison system as it is, as if Congress in the Revitalization
Act hadn't given him a new charge. They didn't say, ``Here is a
Federal prison. See what you can do with these State
prisoners.'' The charge was to do something unprecedented, take
State prisoners and deal with them as State prisoners within a
Federal prison system. And you know that was the case because
they are under the D.C. Code still. They are recognizable D.C.
prisoners.
So we are working with 500 miles. You have heard testimony
here, I think it was from Ms. LaVigne, you know, 100 miles is
what you find in the average State. Already they are at a
severe disadvantage. And we in the District are supposed to
say, ``Welcome home, friends,'' at the end of--it could be 25
years, it could be 10 years, it could be a few years. No matter
what it is, almost none of them have access to family services.
So we are not asking for a change in the Federal system. We
are asking for the Federal system to do what the Revitalization
Act said: Take these State prisoners, treat them as State
prisoners within a Federal system, do not disadvantage them,
give them the advantages that come from your system, not
disadvantages imposed on them.
Now, the fact is, Mr. Lappin, we have some reason to
believe that your office may already be thinking in these
terms. Has your office been in touch with the D.C. Department
of Corrections about bringing D.C. Code offenders home early,
90 days, and putting them in the D.C. correctional treatment
facility here in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, we have had a discussion over the phone.
Ms. Norton. With whom have those discussions taken place?
Mr. Lappin. Director Brown.
Ms. Norton. Is Director Brown here?
Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Rather than deal in hearsay, could I ask that
Mr. Brown take the table? I don't want you to have to quote Mr.
Brown. Would somebody, staff, bring a chair up so that Mr.
Brown can take his seat here since he is here? This is somebody
close to home who has already had discussions. This is a
problem-solving hearing, and we want to solve this problem,
beginning now.
Could you please stand and be sworn?
[Witness sworn.]
Ms. Norton. Now, you have testified in your written
testimony, on page 5, to the advantages--you are right, we
tried to get closer to home; we even tried to reserve some part
of the Lorton facility for this very purpose. You talk about
the advantages for the D.C. Superior Court and closeness to
CSOSA. You spell that out, I think, very well. You say you have
had discussions with Director Devon Brown of the D.C.
Department of Corrections.
Would you, Mr. Brown, say firsthand what those discussions
have concerned?
Mr. Brown. Yes. Director Lappin is correct. I contacted him
approximately 3 weeks ago to discuss several proposals, all
impacting upon D.C. inmates.
One of those proposals entailed having D.C. inmates who are
in his custody, 90 days from their release, be placed in one of
my facilities, whereby we could provide them--that is, the city
and CSOSA--wraparound services to help in their transition back
into our community.
Ms. Norton. Now, you are willing to take these prisoners.
Mr. Lappin, I want you to consider that when we hear
testimony here, we understand the constraints of the Federal
prison system. But I need to ask you whether you are prepared
to accept this offer of the D.C. Department of Corrections with
the director here testifying today?
Mr. Lappin. I am not willing to accept that as of yet. We
are going to meet. Because I think there is another group that
needs to be discussed in advance of that.
Ms. Norton. Another group of what?
Mr. Lappin. D.C. offenders who are serving short sentences.
Because of the crowdedness at the jail previously, we have
been designating inmates who are serving over 30 days to a
Federal prison. And I shared with the director that we should
first look at this group, because in most jurisdictions, when
individuals are serving 6 months or less, we oftentimes
designate them to the jail in lieu of transferring them to
Federal prison, because when we do that, by the time they get
to the Federal prison, it is time to return to their home.
Ms. Norton. Well, Director Brown, did you take this notion,
which is not new to this subcommittee, into consideration, this
notion about people who have violated parole?
Mr. Lappin. Actually, they are serving a sentence of 6
months or less.
Ms. Norton. But they are felons.
Mr. Lappin. They are felons.
Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am. The discussion really began over
weekenders, which is very similar. I could not see, nor could
the Federal judges here see, the utility of having someone who
has been sentenced to several weekends have their lives
disrupted by having to travel to one of the Federal
penitentiaries.
Ms. Norton. So what happens now to the weekenders or these
short-termers?
Mr. Lappin. We have had very few of them. But when we do
have them, we try to find a jail in close proximity to house
them. So, out of Baltimore, there is a jail about 2 hours away.
We are in agreement with the director on that issue and the
other issue.
The one I am hesitating on is returning these longer-term
offenders, 90 days before they are released, back to the
District until we have a chance to look at how many that would
be, so that he doesn't accept more than he can actually handle
at the jail; how much it will cost to transfer them from the
Federal prison back to the jail and then to house them.
Ms. Norton. We know this: that you are paying to keep them
in the Federal prisons right now. We know that you testified at
length about how overcrowded your prisons are. We know he has
available beds. And the challenge is not, of course, to tell us
what can't be done, but to adopt the same problem-solving
attitude that we are trying to adopt in this hearing.
If there is such an outstanding offer--this is what I ask:
for you and Director Brown, within 30 days, to report on
progress for the weekenders. You can throw anybody in there you
want to, Mr. Lappin, but also for prisoners who would be
returning to D.C., not excluding them, but including them.
Considering that there are a number of beds, it will be
very hard, Mr. Lappin, for you to show me, since you have to
pay for these people to come back home anyway, you have to
house them anyway, it will be very hard for you to show me in
your overcrowded condition, as you have testified here today,
that you have a greater burden by keeping these prisoners in
115 prisons across the United States than accepting Mr. Brown's
offer.
Mr. Davis was the next to arrive. And I am very pleased
that Mr. Davis is attending this hearing because he is the
author of a landmark bill on reentry for inmates throughout the
United States.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And let me thank the witnesses for being here.
Director Lappin, it is good to see you again.
You indicated that sex offenders under your care, you had
to take them 500 miles away to Arizona to find a Bureau of
Prisons facility where they be could housed?
Mr. Lappin. Not all sex offenders. High-security sex
offenders.
Mr. Davis. High-security sex offenders. What about sex
offenders who are not necessarily as high security?
Mr. Lappin. After the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, the
Congress in the new law required us to create six sex offender
management programs. We have done that. There is one in
Petersburg, VA. There is one in Marianna, FL. There is one in
each of our regions. The closest one for high-security sex
offenders is Tucson.
You can't imagine how difficult it is to house high-
security sex offenders in an open population. Prior to this,
many of them were housed in segregation because they were
unwilling to go to the compound. So we had to find a location
where we could introduce this with an entirely new group of
inmates, and that was to do it at a brand-new facility. The
only high-security institution opening during that time was the
one in Tucson. That is where we chose to place this high-
security sex offender program.
Mr. Davis. Let me ask, what happens to these individuals
once they have completed their sentences, once they have served
their time, and it is time for them to return back home?
Mr. Lappin. Are you asking me?
Mr. Davis. Well, no, I----
Ms. Poteat. They would be under CSOSA's supervision. We
develop a plan for each individual, depending on risk and
needs. The sex offenders are housed and are supervised in a
specialized unit under CSOSA. And those units are at 300
Indiana Avenue.
And we have programs in place to supervise them
accordingly. They are lower caseloads. We institute GPS, if
necessary. We place them in therapeutic groups. And the
caseload ratio, as I indicated, is much smaller in dealing with
that population.
The jobs are looked at a little differently, because we
have to make sure that where they are working are conducive and
they are not posing a risk. And their housing needs are also
scrutinized. If, in fact, they have separations against
children, then we do not place them in homes or jobs where
children are present.
Mr. Davis. And I ask these questions basically because it
is my experience that sex offenders basically give up their
freedom once they are convicted of a sex crime. I mean, my
experiences are that trying to find a place for sex offenders
to live is almost impossible because, obviously, there is no
community, there is no location, there is no place where they
are pretty much acceptable to the rest of society.
And I raise that point because I often talk to young people
and I actually caution them quite a bit that, you know, if you
reach that point, for all practical purposes, you are
sentencing yourself to a lifetime of prison or a lack of
freedom relative to movement.
The other point I would like to make, Madam Chairman: Mr.
Cook, are you employed? Do you have a job?
Mr. Cook. No, I don't.
Mr. Davis. Have you tried to find a job?
Mr. Cook. Several times.
Mr. Davis. And you have been unsuccessful. You would
attribute that to what?
Mr. Cook. I would contribute that to the lapse, when I fill
out my resume, the lapse in times of my current job to my, you
know, the last job I had to now, and the resources.
Mr. Davis. Would you be a good worker?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Are you going to do
another round?
Ms. Norton. We will do another round, yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings of Maryland?
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lappin, help me with this. In your testimony, you say
that, you know, the Bureau of Prisons is establishing
employment resource centers at all Federal prisons to assist
inmates with job searches and other areas.
Are those resources focused on local and the statewide
level? How do you do that?
Mr. Lappin. They are really national, given the fact that
in that institution you have inmates not only from all over the
United States, you have inmates from all over the world.
Mr. Cummings. Right. OK.
Mr. Lappin. And so we focus on those U.S. citizens who
return to this country with a national approach to how you go
about finding a job: resume building, job searches. We actually
are working with companies that provide software as to what
jobs are vacant in certain areas that inmates can actually
access and see what jobs are vacant in a given area, what types
of jobs are available in a given area. So there are resources
made available to them, based on their release, to assist them
in preparing for a job search.
And then, as they transition to a halfway house or a
residential re-entry center, we have work force development
staff at those centers who assist them once they arrive at that
location, given the fact that the majority of the inmates do
transition out through a halfway house.
Mr. Cummings. And what have the results been? I mean, do
you followup to see how many inmates have gotten jobs, say,
within 6 months of being released?
Mr. Lappin. We really, sir, we don't track that. Once they
leave the halfway house, they become the responsibility of the
U.S. Probation Service. And right now we don't have the
wherewithal through technology as of yet to determine how many
of them actually get jobs prior to release. So all we can do is
rely on the surveys we might do with halfway houses on a case-
by-case basis.
Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. It seems to me that you would want
to--I mean, if you have a program, you want to measure it some
kind of way. That doesn't seem like it would take rocket
scientist stuff. Maybe I am missing something.
Mr. Lappin. No, we agree with you. And we are working----
Mr. Cummings. Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you can send somebody
500 miles away, it seems like you ought to be able to figure
out whether they got a job. I am just curious.
Mr. Lappin. No, we agree with you. And we have now put in
place a system that is electronic in nature that we are going
to be able to gather that information more consistently across
the United States in the very near future. Right now we don't
have the technology in place. It would have to be done by hand.
Mr. Cummings. The reason why I ask that, Mr. Brown knows me
well; we go way back. And he knows that I used to do a program
in Baltimore, an aftercare program, where we actually worked
with the inmates after they got out. And one of the most
difficult things has always been, and it continues to be, is
jobs.
And is it Mr. Cook?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cook, your problem is not only the fact
that you have a record. The problem, also--and I know this
because I live in the inner city, and I just did a jobs fair--
part of the problem is that, right now, there are a lot of
people looking for jobs who have no records. And that is real.
And so that competition is kind of rough.
But I am trying to figure out--I am just trying to make
sure that if we are doing things--we have a fellow--first of
all, what is the significance of the 500 miles? Because 500
miles, I was just doing a little math here, you know, that is a
long drive.
Mr. Lappin. It is based on traditional distance from home
for Federal offenders.
Mr. Cummings. OK.
Mr. Lappin. And for years that has been the target, is to
try to get them within 500 miles. And, again, realize, there
are 115 prisons, but many of them are concentrated in just a
few States.
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Lappin. So if you go to West Virginia, for example, you
have seven or eight prisons there. If you go to Kentucky, there
are seven or eight prisons there. Believe you me, there are not
enough inmates coming out of Kentucky and West Virginia to fill
one prison, let alone 14 or 15. But you are going to fill those
beds.
And so, the 500 miles is driven by our experience over the
last few decades and how far the average inmate is from home.
Mr. Cummings. And the only reason I was asking about the
job piece is because one of the things that we discovered in
our program is that, if we could get somebody a job, they had a
much better chance of staying on the street, much better. And
then getting them back with their family and trying to redirect
their priorities from the street to the family and a job.
Because one of the things a job also does is it provides them
another family, really.
Mr. Lappin. Well, we agree with you, and that is why the
halfway house is critically important. And a job and a place to
live are the two most important factors. Our research
reflects--in a broader scale, not did they get a job, but our
research reflects those inmates who transfer out through a
halfway house are far more successful at getting a job and
retaining a job and less likely to come back to prison.
So in that assessment is the understanding that getting a
job and a place to live are the two most important aspects of
that release. And, certainly, that halfway house transition
helps us be more successful in that regard.
Mr. Cummings. I see my time is up. Thanks.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
You can see the Members are very skeptical about this 500
miles. Nobody buys it as in any way facilitating re-entry. So
then we have to think outside the box, Mr. Lappin. That is why,
since we had this information, it seems to me that should have
been in your testimony, if I can be candid, that you were at
least looking at that. And we got that information simply
because we are in the District.
And, therefore, it is that kind of thinking outside the
box, or else we are going to be sitting here trying to thread a
needle that does not thread. We are not asking you to change
the whole system. We are asking you to accommodate a State
system, as the Revitalization Act has mandated.
Now, there is nothing that will keep you, is there, from
designating a prison, let's say, within 200 miles or whatever
distance would be closer to home, now with various kinds of
inmates as a D.C. prison? There is nothing that would keep you
from doing that, is there? And, in fact, locating D.C.
residents in that particular existing FBOP facility.
I am not asking you to do it. I am asking you if there is
anything that you know of that would keep you from doing it----
Mr. Lappin. Yes, there is.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Given the Revitalization Act and
the challenge you face and the testimony you have heard here
today.
Mr. Lappin. Congresswoman, you and I have had this
discussion before.
Ms. Norton. I have never had this discussion with you at
any length, sir. And I want to have it right now, under oath,
right here. Is there anything that keeps you from designating a
prison within a few hundred miles of D.C. for D.C. inmates at
this time? And if there is, I want to know what it is.
Mr. Lappin. If you go back to my oral statement or my
written testimony, I explain why I believe it is unwise for us
to designate a specific location for one type of inmate.
Because we have been more successful in operating prisons
safely when we have a balanced inmate population.
Ms. Norton. You are back in the box again. And I am trying
to get you outside of the box dealing with the testimony you
have heard here about the failures of the BOP because you deal
with these prisoners as a part of a Federal complex instead of
as a new set of prisoners charged with you. I understand that.
You say, you know, in your discretion, it wouldn't be wise.
Obviously, there are ways to have a facility which, in state-
of-the-art penology, has inmates at various levels. Done all
the time in the States. But, of course, what it would take, Mr.
Lappin, is the will to do it. And if the will to do it needs to
come by Federal statute, that is a lot of will by the will of
law. But guess what? I don't think it is necessary. That is why
I asked you if there was anything in law that kept it from
happening. You said what your own view is. I would like to have
those discussions with you.
Now, I would like to ask a question, really based on Mr.
Fornaci's testimony. But, Mr. Fornaci, you do say something
that makes me want to followup here unrelated to the question I
was to ask. You say the BOP even pays the District to house
these prisoners in D.C. jail facilities after they are
sentenced and while they await designation and transportation
to a BOP facility.
Director Brown, is that the case? Is the BOP paying the
District to house sentenced felons while they await designation
and transportation to a BOP facility?
Mr. Brown. No, ma'am. No, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Who pays for these people, who are sentenced
felons in the care of the District of Columbia? Who pays for
it?
Mr. Brown. The District of Columbia pays.
Ms. Norton. Has the District of Columbia ever been paid at
all to house any of these felons in District of Columbia care,
so far as you know?
Mr. Brown. Ma'am, the point in which the District of
Columbia receives payment from the Federal Government is upon
their designation to a Federal Bureau of Prison facility. All
time prior to that, the cost is borne by the District of
Columbia.
Ms. Norton. You mean once they are sentenced?
Mr. Brown. No, ma'am. Even after the sentencing, the
District of Columbia continues to absorb the cost of payment
for the housing of individuals, felons, who have been sentenced
as felons up until the point in which they are designated to a
Federal Bureau of Prisons facility.
Ms. Norton. Is that the case, Mr. Lappin, in States other
than the District of Columbia?
Mr. Lappin. That is the practice, that up until the point
the inmate is designated--so if they are in the jail and they
have been sentenced, on the day they are designated to a
Federal prison, we begin paying the next day. And that is
typical of all the other locations.
Ms. Norton. So, Mr. Fornaci, the date of the payment, then,
becomes an issue. I just wanted to clear that up.
Mr. Fornaci gave really heartbreaking testimony about these
children. Yes, they are felons who are as far away from home as
you can be, with a teacher with no information about home. And
The Washington Post sent a reporter out there a couple of years
ago just so that the District would have some sense of what it
meant to have a child so far from home. We don't have any issue
with people in North Dakota trying to deal with a few kids from
D.C.
But could I ask, Mr. Brown, if you have had any discussions
with the Bureau of Prisons about taking these few kids--it must
be maybe 10 or 12 kids, if that many--and housing them here in
the District of Columbia? Have you had such discussions? If you
have not had such discussions, would you be willing to have
such discussions with the Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Brown. I have had several discussions with the Bureau
of Prisons, including a brief discussion with Director Lappin
prior to this hearing.
Ms. Norton. Could you tell us about that discussion?
Mr. Brown. Yes. I was approached approximately 2 years ago
by a Federal Bureau of Prisons official inquiring about the
possibility of the District continuing to house juveniles who
had been designated to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to
continue to house them at our special juvenile unit at the
correctional treatment facility until such time as they reached
the age of majority.
Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Lappin, I appreciate that is an idea
you have had for some time. I have to ask you, why hasn't that
idea been acted upon?
Mr. Lappin. Well, as I understand, the juvenile facility
here didn't have the room at the time we met with them. Also,
some concern over the seriousness of the offense behavior of
some of these juveniles at that facility.
So you are right, the number here is small. In fact, right
now we have four. And we would much prefer to have them much
closer to Washington, DC, if not in Washington, DC, I am open
to any suggestions. We have been to the State of Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District, and, as of yet, no one
is willing--some of them have pretty good programs, but no one
is willing to offer up beds.
Ms. Norton. And here we have, right at home, an offer of
perhaps beds.
Mr. Brown, could I ask you, given the fact that these are
not likely kids who are out at our new facility here, these are
convicted felons, convicted as juveniles, but they are pretty
serious crimes, four of them, do you think that you have a
facility somewhere here in the District of Columbia that could
take these four kids home at this time?
Mr. Brown. We would handle it the same way as what we
proposed to do with the adults.
What I am referring to is those juveniles who are awaiting
transfer, they have been convicted, they are awaiting
designation, that we continue to house them here in the
District at our juvenile unit until such time as they reach 18
years of age and they can be placed in an adult Bureau of
Prisons facility.
Ms. Norton. All right. Now, this is very important. You
house them while they are awaiting transfer anyway. I mean, you
house them until they are transferred to North Dakota or
wherever they are going to be sent. Is that not the case?
Mr. Brown. That is the case, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. As with other convicted felons here in the
District of Columbia. So all you are saying is, since you have
them anyway, since you have already had to keep them separate
in a facility based on, among other things, the seriousness of
the crime, why ship them to North Dakota in the first place? Is
that the testimony?
Mr. Lappin. In the past, there has been an issue of space.
Ms. Norton. Well, you know what? Past is past, and I don't
want to take time----
Mr. Lappin. But one other----
Ms. Norton. I am asking--I can understand, and I am not
blaming anybody for anything. I am trying to solve a problem,
Mr. Lappin.
Mr. Lappin. The other issue has been the availability of
programs for people who may be in the jail for 2 or 3 years.
Ms. Norton. Excuse me?
Mr. Lappin. The availability of programs for those
juveniles.
Ms. Norton. Are you kidding? Did you hear Mr. Fornaci say
that the teacher had to ask for the Yellow Pages just to find
out which way was up?
Mr. Fornaci, would you elaborate at what you found at North
Dakota?
Mr. Fornaci. Well, I have to say, what I was referring to
was actually reentry. The program in North Dakota, in fact,
does have educational services. I think that is what Mr. Lappin
is referring to.
Ms. Norton. So you are worried, then, Mr. Lappin, whether
or not D.C. has the proper education facilities?
Mr. Lappin. I don't know what they have available. My only
concern is that sometimes these could be 2-year stays, and I
think we just need to make sure----
Ms. Norton. Well, these children could be sentenced at,
what, 16? What is the youngest age, 16?
Mr. Lappin. I am not sure. I think it is 15.
Ms. Norton. Fifteen. It could be 2 years, it could be 3
years.
Mr. Lappin. Right.
Ms. Norton. And that is not at issue here, Mr. Lappin. I am
trying to find out what can be done.
Mr. Brown, what is your response about whether or not there
are the facilities, whether or not, you know, you have them
anyway, so I assume that you are not letting them sit there
anyway doing nothing.
So I am not even sure what Mr. Lappin is talking about. You
are already providing for these children until they go all the
way to North Dakota. What more would have to be done to provide
for these children if you didn't send them to North Dakota in
the first place?
Mr. Brown. Ma'am, I would say this: that the D.C.
Department of Corrections, for the last 4 years, has been the
best-kept secret, not only in the District of Columbia but
nationally, in terms of the stellar programming, absolutely
stellar programming, that has been brought to our jurisdiction,
particularly as it relates to the juveniles. I invite anyone at
any time to tour our facility and compare it with any other.
One of the more critical elements that we provide for our
juveniles, for the District of Columbia juveniles, is
education, particularly for special education inmates. There is
something, as you well know, called an IEP, an individual
educational plan. It is a legally binding contract between the
student, his or her parents, and the provider of education.
Ms. Norton. You have an IEP.
Mr. Brown. And we absolutely have it. When they go to South
Dakota or North Dakota, that IEP does not follow them, whereas,
if they stayed in the District, we would be in adherence to
that special educational mandate.
Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Lappin, I respect the fact that the
Bureau of Prisons has state-of-the-art programs. I have
witnessed them, and I have always spoken well of them. So I
would certainly welcome your coming to the District to observe
Mr. Brown's program to see if it meets your standards.
But assuming that it does, would you be amenable to having
these kids, four or five, now incarcerated in North Dakota
remain in the District of Columbia, complete with their IEPs,
individual education plans, that it provides closeness to
parents, preparation if they are about to go over to BOP? Would
you be amenable to working with Mr. Brown to see that might
happen in the District of Columbia for these kids?
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Lappin.
I am going to go now to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Sawyer, let me ask you, how long have you been out or
free of any obligation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, Mr. Davis, I returned home on February 9,
2010, paroled to the Nation's Capital.
Mr. Davis. So you just got home?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Have you found a job yet?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, no, I have not yet found employment. I
have not found that. But I am in the Opportunity
Industrialization Center [OIC], which is a job-training
organization in southeast Washington that are preparing me for
those job sites and what have you.
Mr. Davis. What would you consider to be, when you talk
about re-entry, your greatest need? What will help you feel the
most like you have re-entered society, you are back in the
mainstream, you are a regular citizen with the same hopes and
aspirations and possibilities as any other citizen?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, Mr. Davis, one key point would be the
stigma of not being looked at as an ex-felon. If that could be
taken away, that would be fantastic. And, also, the situation
with employment and housing.
Mr. Davis. And how does one not be looked at as an ex-
felon? I mean, if I met you walking down the street, I
certainly wouldn't have any indication that you were an ex-
felon.
Mr. Sawyer. This is true. One thing in particular would be
the concept of the halfway house in which I am located
presently, in Hope Village. And when you go out for jobs and
searching, they have a vocational counselor who calls in to
verify, and they will state that they are from Hope Village.
And even though on the resume or application it states, my
position is don't ask, don't tell. And if the employer does not
ask the question, then I don't share that with them. But if
they do, I have no problems with sharing that. But the staff
tends to share that information with the employers.
Mr. Davis. Oh, so you are actually in a program, which
means that you are doing OK because you are on your way. I
mean, you are in a program, people are working with you, they
are helping you, you are learning things, you are learning
where to go, how to go, what to do. So, you are on your way.
You will be all right.
Mr. Sawyer. Well, when you say ``all right,'' that is a
very interesting way of putting it. But the OIC is the basics
in which they are providing job training. And one thing I do
know, there are two words that I use, it is ``initiative'' and
being ``persistent.'' And every day I get up and make it my
business to go out and to be a part of the OIC operation from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., and that is Monday through Friday. But if one
does not take it upon themselves to take the initiative, then
if you want to be dormant--nothing is going to come to a
sleeper but a dream.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you.
Ms. LaVigne, let me ask you--of course, the Urban Institute
has been involved with this issue for a long time, a number of
years, and is recognized as one of the real experts in the
country relative to it.
We are making little bits and pieces of progress, I think.
But what would you consider to be, say, the two major areas
where we are not making or have not made the kind of progress
that we need to?
Ms. LaVigne. There are so many things we could still be
doing, it is hard to choose just two.
I do see that, as much as departments of corrections across
the country are really embracing their role as more than just
housing people safely and securely but also preparing them for
release so they don't ultimately return, they are still having
challenges connecting people to re-entry resources on the
outside. They do what they can with people behind bars, but
they are very challenged in making those connections to the
community.
In large part, and as I said in my formal testimony, the
prisons are located in places that are far away from where the
majority of prisoners end up residing. And that is even more of
a stark contrast when we are talking about D.C. felons. So I
think that is a big challenge, is making those connections with
community service providers.
The other challenge I see is that a lot of people have
jumped on the re-entry bandwagon, and that is great, and they
talk about doing evidence-based practice because they have
heard that is the thing they are supposed to be doing, but they
don't really know what that means.
And so they have a lot of resources that they spread very
thinly across the inmate population in preparing them for
release, rather than taking a step back and trying to
understand better what their needs are, what their risks are,
and what their assets are, so that they can more tailor re-
entry services to individual needs and challenges.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, you could talk
about this all week.
Ms. Norton. And I must say, Mr. Davis, you have done a
whole lot more than talk about it for prisoners nationally. And
we so appreciate your questions.
Ms. Poteat, first let me say, I understand the hardship
that CSOSA is under. You technically have jurisdiction for
these more than 5,000 inmates spread across the United States.
And you are able to reach very few of them until they land in
your lap, so to speak.
You mentioned the--and there are many different kinds of
innovations--and I say this to Mr. Lappin. They had to figure
out what to do, too. CSOSA not only had to create itself,
invent itself from scratch, but then had to figure out how to
do what it could to serve as many of these inmates as possible.
And one of the things they came up with was video mentoring.
And there has been some videoconferencing generally. But that
is the kind of innovation we are looking for, the kind of sense
of innovation we are looking for.
If these people are so far from home, then if we simply
speak the jargon of the Federal prisons, we show no intention
to modify and serve the people of the District of Columbia. And
if you send us back people who recommit crimes, we are going to
hold the Bureau of Prisons responsible. We are trying to assist
the Bureau in its mission. And its mission is not only to house
these inmates; it is to make sure that they successfully re-
enter and do not disturb the peace in the District of Columbia.
And we are not convinced that simply treating them as part
of the vast array of the Federal prison system demography, that
you can do that if you only think in those terms. You have
shown that you are willing to think otherwise, and the answers
when Mr. Brown sat down and you disclosed and he disclosed the
conversations you are already having.
I will have less frustration at this hearing if we begin to
think in those terms. Because as long as you thrust before us
what you have, you are not showing the problem-solving notions
that we think hearings are for. Hearings are to solve problems.
We don't bring you here to say ``gotcha.'' I think your prison
system is an extraordinary prison system. I just don't think
that if you continue to treat our folks as if they were like
Federal prisons, you are doing the best you are capable of
doing for them.
Well, here comes CSOSA to say, ``OK, let's try video
mentoring.'' Well, first of all, how many prisons have you done
video mentoring in, BOP facilities?
Ms. Poteat. We are doing it at Rivers Correctional
Facility, and we are getting ready to extend it to Hazelton.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask Mr. Lappin. And I don't expect you--
I know you are talking about facilities all over the country.
But suppose CSOSA was able to do video mentoring with prisons
outside of this one that is at least 4 hours from the District.
I don't have to tell you, going 4 hours coming and 4 hours
back, I don't know why anybody ever--how anybody from D.C. ever
gets to Rivers, much less to other prisons.
But would there be anything to keep video mentoring from
occurring in other Federal prisons where there are D.C.
inmates?
Mr. Lappin. We are more than willing to look at new
technology that would facilitate the visits.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. That is all I needed to
know, if you are willing to look at it.
And, Ms. LaVigne, in the States, in your experience, are
rehabilitation and re-entry services provided more or less for
the duration of the prisoners' incarceration?
Ms. LaVigne. It varies quite a bit by State and even by
facility within each State. So it is hard to make a blanket
statement.
Ms. Norton. Well, if I am in the State of Maryland.
Ms. LaVigne. Well, I am glad you mentioned that because I
wanted to share with you: Even before I knew about the
conversation that Director Brown had had with Mr. Lappin, I was
sitting here thinking, you know, a compromise might be to do
what the State of Maryland does, which is something like,
between 6 and 12 months of a person's release date, people are
transferred to the Maryland Pre-Release Center in Baltimore to
be closer to their homes and jobs and services in their
community.
So there is a really good example out there of a way in
which this could work. And, you know----
Ms. Norton. Something like what Mr. Brown was speaking
about when he testified, along with the conversation with Mr.
Lappin.
Ms. LaVigne. Exactly. So there are examples of that out
there.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. The State of Maryland has been doing that for at
least 10 years. I was involved in it, as the Congressman
indicated. I know it works. The way the model works is very
similar to what I am proposing, and that is individuals from
Baltimore, who are placed throughout the Maryland system, when
they are about 120 days out from their release, they are
transitioned--and that is what it is called, a transition
center--back to Baltimore, their home, that is where they
reside, to receive wraparound services, from parole and
probation, from the community, from the churches--the very
model that I am asking.
And I am very pleased--I want to make it clear that
Director Lappin has been open in his discussions with me. He
has indicated quite correctly, as any director would, that we
have to talk in terms of logistics, just what would this
involve. And we are at the early stages of the discussion. He
has not rejected, in any sense, being willing to explore.
Ms. Norton. We are here only testing feasibility. I very
much appreciate your reference to Maryland.
After discussing this innovation, Ms. Poteat, you say you
suspended video mentoring in 2007, the demand for mentors,
because you were doing community-based mentoring. And then you
say that substantially increased demand for mentors and quickly
exhausted the available pool. You are now going back to video
mentoring?
Ms. Poteat. Yes. We had about 200-and-some mentor and
mentee matches in about 85 institutions. Well, you know, after
a while, the mentor pool exhausts itself. And so the Community
Justice Program--in fact, Jasper Ormond, who is here, is
constantly continuing, trying to recruit more mentors and
institutions so that we will have more to engage in this
process.
Ms. Norton. It does seem to me, with the discussions that
Mr. Brown is having with Mr. Lappin, what Ms. LaVigne says
about what happens in Maryland, which sounds like it is old-
hat, it sounds like state-of-the-art penology where it is
possible. It is not possible for Mr. Lappin to do this within
the system if the system doesn't accommodate the needs of this
State population. But if we begin to think more broadly and
more flexibly, it does look like there are things that we can
do even now, even with no new prison or any close prison to the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Fornaci, very disturbing in your testimony was
something that the Revitalization Act created that is a dead
letter, it would seem, the Corrections Information Council. It
was supposed to be a three-member voluntary body--I have no
idea what ``voluntary body'' refers to--to provide the BOP with
advice and information regarding matters affecting the District
of Columbia sentenced felon population.
Then you say on page 3 that the CIC, this Corrections
Information Council, has never visited any BOP facility to
examine conditions or to interview D.C. prisoners--and here is
the operative part--in part because there has never been a
memorandum of understanding with BOP.
You say the District government has failed, also, to
appoint any members of the CIC since 2004, which means at least
they had some members before, with last terms expiring in 2006.
Shame on us.
But, first, let me understand about this so-called
memorandum of understanding with BOP.
Mr. Fornaci. There had been negotiations, is my
understanding--this was a little bit before my experience--with
the CIC. They had negotiations with the Bureau of Prisons, and
there had been discussions, but no agreement was actually
reached.
Ms. Norton. Well, let's ask Mr. Lappin, because he is the
man in charge here at the BOP.
What would be the difficulty in getting a memorandum of
understanding so that these people could assist you in matters
affecting the District of Columbia?
Mr. Lappin. I am more than happy to sit down with whoever
is appointed and finish. Because I have, in fact, here a draft
memorandum from 2004.
Ms. Norton. You are ready to go with the District.
Mr. Lappin. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lappin. When we have appointed candidates, we will sit
down with them and try to finish the memorandum and get it in
place.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
It does look like the onus is on the District of Columbia.
Is anybody here from the District of Columbia? You see the
disconnect between the District of Columbia. There should at
least have been somebody here from the District of Columbia.
Now, we didn't notify the District of Columbia, but one of the
things we have to do is to reconnect to the District of
Columbia.
You can see why the disconnect would occur. The District of
Columbia said, ``Take this package off of us. We can't pay for
it.'' The District had good reason to do that. It was carrying
a State function that no city in the United States carries,
State prisons. And of course it wasn't funding them. The last
thing to get funded was Lorton.
Well, when you go to a Federal--to become essentially a
part of a Federal agency, unless somebody is trying very hard
in the District of Columbia, you say, well, you know, that is
off my plate now. So one of our missions, along with yours, is
to reconnect the District of Columbia, because I have every
reason to believe the District of Columbia wants to be
reconnected. So we are going to take that on, as well, Mr.
Lappin, and I appreciate your testimony in that regard.
It is important to clarify, Mr. Fornaci, what you said
about--in another part of your testimony. Very disturbing to
hear that, 2008, 1,700 people were sent to BOP on parole
revocations, overwhelmingly technical or administrative in
nature, no new criminal behavior.
No wonder you are overcrowded, Mr. Lappin.
Now, we are working with the parole board. Mr. Fornaci,
what do you think could be done about these people being sent
away on technical and administrative violations? Is this a
problem coming from their re-entry, or is there a change in
regulations or law required here?
Mr. Fornaci. Well, I think there are a couple issues.
One of the problems is, the law does not permit the
District of Columbia to change its own parole laws at this
point. It is not permitted to make any changes in its laws
regarding parole without the consent of the United States----
Ms. Norton. Well, that, Mr. Fornaci, I can understand your
frustration, but you have here overlapping jurisdiction. Here,
the parole board is a Federal board. This is Mr. Lappin's
challenge, too. You can't say, take these people into Federal
custody, and not treat them in any way as if they are within a
Federal agency.
Mr. Fornaci. Certainly. And I certainly understand that. My
point really is that, for instance, if the District of Columbia
council decided that technical violations--that is, positive
urine sample for marijuana or missing appointments with a
parole officer--should not result in incarceration but instead
some other alternative----
Ms. Norton. Well, District government wouldn't have to
decide that. Couldn't the parole board decide that?
Mr. Fornaci. But that would be a non-district agency, and
that has not been the U.S. Parole Commission's inclination to
do that.
Ms. Norton. Well, the U.S. Parole Commission--I beg to
differ--has a new chairman, a former police chief of the
District of Columbia, who has, in fact, begun even before he
was named chairman of the board by President Obama, when he was
a member of the commission has, in fact, begun to use methods
other than putting someone right back in prison for a technical
violation.
Ms. Poteat, are you aware of some of what the man I still
call Chief Fulwood is doing at the U.S. Parole Board?
Ms. Poteat. Yes.
And I would like to speak to Mr. Fornaci's remarks. Just so
that he will know, in a testimony prior to this we talked about
a new venture that Court Services has taken on, and that is
dealing with our technical violators who have substance abuse
and new criminal charges that are minor, Category 1 or Category
2. And we have placed them in the correctional treatment
facility for 180 days. And they do not face revocation if they
complete the program; they are returned to the community.
It is only in a pilot stage. It is only 32 beds, that
hopefully we plan to expand to 96 beds. And this is also in
collaboration with the U.S. Parole Commission, the Public
Defender Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and D.C. Department of
Corrections. So that is one of the things.
The other thing is that we are still working on the
sanctions matrix to identify and make sure that all of us,
including the courts, are in agreement with the sanctions to
make sure all of them have been applied before we ask for
revocation for the D.C. prisoners.
Ms. Norton. This of course is not what Ms. Poteat is
saying. Some of it is pilot. It's not all well known. But it
does show the kind of innovation that it's going to take if we
are going to have State prisoners in this Federal system. And
the reason I don't want to go to the City Council and then go
to this is because I think most of what we're discussing here
today can be done with administrative innovation without
changes in law and getting all bollixed up in who has
jurisdiction and whatever.
Look, D.C. has said you all got jurisdiction. We don't want
to pay for these prisoners. Whenever I've asked the D.C.
Council to do anything, as I did, Mr. Lappin will remember, as
we had to do with the state-of-the-art drug program, the
problem was on the D.C. side. D.C. did it instantly. This is an
administrative problem. Mr. Lappin has shown an extraordinary
ability to deal administratively with the problems we've
brought to his attention, and the testimony here has been very
encouraging.
Mr. Fornaci, you talk about the release of prisoners from
the Sellmon case.
Mr. Fornaci. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Would you elaborate on what that means for
reentry and what the Sellmon case, Sellmon v. Reilly means for
the Bureau of Prisons and for the District of Columbia?
Mr. Fornaci. Certainly. Sellmon v. Reilly was decided in
2008, when the District Court found that the U.S. Parole
Commission was using the wrong standards in determining who
should be paroled. So that was changed. And as a result,
throughout 2009 and early 2010, the U.S. Parole Commission,
through extreme pressure, has agreed to a lot of remedial
hearings for people to release them. This is an approximately
600 to 700 extra hearings were held in about a 3 or 4-month
span, the end of 2009, early 2010. And that was in fact when
Mr. Sawyer was released. These folks have all been held at
least 12 years and as many as 25 years, the folks affected by
the Sellmon decision. So they're all long-term prisoners. And
with the impact as is happening now, it's about a 50 percent or
so increase in releases for about 6 to 8 months this year and
tapering off. There will still be more in the future affected
by this decision, but the larger number is this year.
Mr. Norton. And so these people are coming straight out as
a result of these hearings?
Mr. Fornaci. Through the normal process. They're going to
the halfway houses or----
Ms. Norton. Yes. They will come out from wherever they
happen to be located?
Mr. Fornaci. Yes. And it's important to realize also that
the regulations under which they're being released they have
been found through evidence of rehabilitation. There have no
disciplinary problems, no disciplinary issues, they have been
in programming. So they've been ruled by the Commission to be a
safe release. So they're not representing a danger of any kind.
Ms. Norton. Because if they're not a safe release then
they're not released under this program, under Sellmon?
Mr. Fornaci. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Yes, Ms. Poteat.
Ms. Poteat. We did a profile for all of the cases so we
wanted to be proactive in that in working with the Bureau of
Prisons so we'll know who exactly is coming out and if you'd
like I can just give you a quick overview of what we have.
The average age for this population is 43. 10 percent of
them are age 56 or older. The youngest person is 30 years of
age. 56 percent of them will have less than a high school
diploma or GED. 73 percent of them are unemployed. 50 percent
have very limited employment opportunities. 30 percent are in
need of stable housing. 83 percent of them have a history of
some type of violence. 38 percent have a history of property
crimes. 34 have a history of drug-related crimes, and 24
percent have a history of weapon offenses. And then 66 percent
have a history of illicit drug usage, mostly marijuana,
cocaine, and PCP. 34 percent have a history of alcohol use, and
9 percent have a need for behavior health services. 60 percent
report having children and 9 or 10 of them are dependent
children. 12 percent of them reported children living in the
same household.
So we wanted to get some kind of profiles to see what we
needed, the services we needed to provide for them once they
are released.
Ms. Norton. Very useful. You see what we're talking about.
We're talking about older prisoners, not particularly prepared
to get out, thought they were going to be in longer, BOP had
every reason to think they would be in longer. They're going to
come home with very little preparation. And of course your
profile points up what Mr. Lappin has absorbed.
These are local street criminals. These do not fit the
profile of your average Federal prisoner. Yes, there are some
street criminals in Federal prison. But these fit much more the
profile of Los Angeles State prison, Maryland State prison, New
York State prison than they do your average Federal prison.
And when these prisoners are mixed in with other prisoners
there have been reports that there have been disturbances and
problems, have there not, Mr. Lappin, of placing these
prisoners of this profile? You heard 80 some percent have
weapons offenses. I mean, these are not folks just toting some
drugs, Mr. Lappin. These are honest to goodness folks who got
in some big trouble in the District of Columbia. You just mix
them in with folks in Federal prisons of various types, and you
sometimes have had problems with that in your prisons, with the
result that you transfer out folks all around the country.
Isn't that so?
Mr. Lappin. It is to some degree, although over the last 20
years we have acquired a much more violent offender of our own
with the passage of the Federal drug laws, the firearms
violations. The classification system should put them in
prisons with like inmates.
So again, it is true that we've had some disturbances, some
problems. I can't say it's unique just to the D.C. inmates. We
have other groups that have been problematic, whether they're
Caucasian groups or Hispanic groups alike. So it's a
combination.
Ms. Norton. I understand, sir. I understand. I can tell you
this. I think that the Bureau of Prisons, given it's long
history, it's effective history I might add, in this country,
if we challenge the Bureau of Prisons to house D.C. inmates in
a prison, to segregate them accordingly, and to deal with them
as a State prison system within the Federal system, given your
long record of success in state-of-the-art technology, whether
you think you could do it, I think your record speaks for
itself and that it could be done.
Now, I want to put on the record who these two men are who
have agreed to come and testify because we didn't just want
them to testify thirdhand. They have experience that needs to
be on the record. Let's start with Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook, you live in the District. How old are you?
Mr. Cook. Thirty-nine.
Ms. Norton. When were you released from what prison? What
prison were you released from to come home?
Mr. Cook. Cumberland, MD.
Ms. Norton. From Cumberland, MD?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Ms. Norton. How many years have you spent in prison?
Mr. Cook. Eight.
Ms. Norton. Eight of your 39 years. Who do you live with in
the District of Columbia?
Mr. Cook. My sister.
Ms. Norton. You're very fortunate that you have a relative.
What was your last job? What kind of work were you doing?
Do you remember?
Mr. Cook. Yeah, it was--I was working--at the time it was
called the MCI Center.
Ms. Norton. What were you doing?
Mr. Cook. It was janitorial work.
Ms. Norton. Do you have any children?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Ms. Norton. How many prisons have you been in in the Bureau
of Prisons?
Mr. Cook. Five.
Ms. Norton. Five prisons in a term of how many years, Mr.
Cook? How many years were you in the Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Cook. 8.
Ms. Norton. So five prisons in 8 years. What was your first
contact with your family? Was it when you were home for the
first time or did you have some kind of, like, physical contact
with somebody coming to see you? Did people come to Cumberland
to see you?
Mr. Cook. Yeah.
Ms. Norton. Were they more likely to come to Cumberland
than when you were at the other four places you were?
Mr. Cook. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Did that help your reentry? Did it help you to
get used to being home and to prepare to come home, to see
someone, to have some contact with family?
Mr. Cook. No.
Ms. Norton. Why not?
Mr. Cook. Because what drove me is I wanted to be home
myself. But it was a plus to have them to come down there. But
after a while you start looking at things. We much older, so
they can only do but so much. Everything else falls on us.
Ms. Norton. Do you receive services, Mr. Cook? Now that
you're home from court services, CSOSA or from the District of
Columbia or any services at all?
Mr. Cook. No. As far as, you mean, as far as my supervision
or something?
Ms. Norton. No. Anybody helping, any services to help you
find a job? Do the people who render supervision help you in
any way?
Mr. Cook. Well, they put me in programs, as far as, you
know, outreach programs and stuff. But most times I do it
myself.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Cook, what were you sent to prison for?
What was the offense?
Mr. Cook. Robbery.
Ms. Norton. Robbery.
Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. What was the offense for which you did time,
and how much time did you do?
Mr. Sawyer. Murder One; 25 years, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. How many prisons were you, in your 25 years,
how many prisons of the BOP? Were you in Lorton first?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Once you were transferred from Lorton to the
Bureau of Prisons, how many Bureau of Prisons were you in?
Mr. Sawyer. Two.
Ms. Norton. And what were they?
Mr. Sawyer. In 2002, U.S. penitentiary in Lee County,
Jonesville, VA, and in November 2007, the Federal correctional
institution in Allenwood in White Deer, PA.
Ms. Norton. Are you now at Hope Village?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. This is a halfway house?
Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Of the Bureau of Prisons----
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. How old are you, Mr. Sawyer?
Mr. Sawyer. Forty-nine, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Now, you are one of the so-called Sellmon cases
that Mr. Fornaci testified about.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Did you expect to be released when you were? In
other words, along comes this District Court decision. Who
informed you that you might be subject to release?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, Madam, this was my rehearing. In December
2005, I went up for my initial, and at that time I was given a
36-month set-off. And December 2008 was my rehearing. And it
didn't occur until April 2009.
Ms. Norton. Well, that's--you had to have two hearings.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Why were two hearings necessary, Mr. Sawyer?
Mr. Sawyer. For the first one it was denied parole because
of the ceiling factor.
Ms. Norton. Because of the what?
Mr. Sawyer. The ceiling factor, in which the number of
months that I had not served based on the U.S. Parole
Commission's guidelines versus the D.C. Parole Board's
guidelines.
Ms. Norton. But upon rehearing----
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. It was decided that you were
eligible for release.
Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. How much sooner were you released than you
expected?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, I had initiated the thought of going home
in my first hearing.
Ms. Norton. No, I'm sorry. Before the Sellmon case. Were
you sentenced to 25 years?
Mr. Sawyer. No, I was sentenced to 22 years, 4 months to
life.
Ms. Norton. Twenty-two years, 4 months to life.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. All right. So you did not expect, whether the
first hearing or the second hearing, to be out of prison when
you were released; is that right?
Mr. Sawyer. Oh, no, ma'am. I expected it.
Ms. Norton. You did expect it?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am. Most definitely.
Ms. Norton. Why did you expect it? The Sellmon case came
along making it possible for you to come out earlier than might
otherwise have occurred, is that not true?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, Madam, according to what I was asked to
do, and to program to stay disciplinary free, and in my 25
years I have done just that, and based on the first hearing,
all that was in place, recommendations and persons who spoke on
my behalf, it was expected that parole would be granted, but it
wasn't.
Ms. Norton. Based on your good conduct, the way you
conducted yourself as a man in that prison?
Mr. Sawyer. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Sir----
Mr. Sawyer. Ma'am.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Did you have contact with your
family while, at any time when were you at the Bureau of
Prisons facilities.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am. I had family visits, not often, but
at the U.S. penitentiary in Lee County, for it took them 13 to
14 hours to come from the Nation's Capital to Jonesville, VA,
and they would travel overnight on a bus excursion where one of
the gentleman in our prisons would run a bus service once or
twice, maybe four times a year, and they would run a bus and
they would stay overnight, come, leave that Friday night, stay
all day Saturday, go to the hotel, come back on Sunday, spend
time with the gentlemen who were in prison and then travel back
to the Nation's Capital on Sunday night and return.
Ms. Norton. Have mercy. Who was kind enough to conduct that
bus service? Was that you, Mr. Lappin? Was it CSOSA?
Mr. Lappin. No, not us.
Ms. Poteat. No, ma'am.
Mr. Sawyer. This was a private entity.
Ms. Norton. That was doing this in order to enable these
families?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes.
Ms. Norton. And of course they have to pay to go on this,
somebody had to pay for it?
Mr. Sawyer. No more than $45 to $50.
Ms. Norton. No more than $45 to $50 and 13 or 14 hours to
see a loved one. There was some loving members of that family.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. You were fortunate, indeed, given that kind of
long trip. When I went to Rivers, that was 4 hours each way. I
thought I would kill myself before I got back. Riding along
those roads in a van that I very much appreciate that the
Bureau of Prisons provided it, but the distance made me wonder
for the parents, no matter how, or relatives, no matter how it
was facilitated for them to get there. It's an exhausting trip
to come so far.
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Now you have services provided by, such as are
available of course at Hope Village. Was there any preparation
provided, any services provided to prepare you to come home
during the months before you were released?
Mr. Sawyer. No more than I secured for myself.
Ms. Norton. Meaning?
Mr. Sawyer. The letters that I've written to organizations
here, faith-based reentry, those type of letters to those
organizations and having those persons write back.
Ms. Norton. But nothing like you've heard testified that
Mr. Brown did when he served in the State of Maryland and the
prisoners were brought from Maryland, brought to Baltimore for
reentry for several months before they came home; nothing like
that was done for you?
Mr. Sawyer. No, ma'am. And it would be welcome if it would
have been.
Ms. Norton. Nor did you have access to the Court Services,
CSOSA as we call it, at all in any way?
Mr. Sawyer. Only with the letter writing campaign, and I
did write to the faith-based mentoring initiatives, and Mrs.
Christine Keels returned my letter and we had dialog once or
twice by letter. And when I returned home I did contact her,
and she and I have been in contact ever since.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Cook and Mr. Sawyer, you are both very
motivated men. And we find that when people arrive their
motivation is at a very high level. And if it's at a high level
when they arrive in D.C., we cannot imagine how much good would
be done if we had something like what Mr. Brown is talking
about so that a few months beforehand, instead of slapping you
right back in the midst of your hometown, you had some
preparation.
Your testimony has been invaluable. It has helped. I think
Mr. Lappin learned more about what happens. After all, he has
responsibility for many thousands more who have nothing to do
with the District of Columbia and we're putting a very special
burden on him. To have Mr. Brown fortuitously here, we're so
pleased, Mr. Brown, that although you were not invited to this
hearing because it was about Federal matters, that you were
interested enough to come, because it turns out that you have
helped us in some considerable ways to move forward so this
hearing is not just about talk, but about accomplishing
something.
The testimony of each of you has been invaluable by--almost
inevitably the official witnesses get most of the questions
because they are the people who are responsible. But all of you
have offered testimony that has been indispensable to our
understanding of what is possible and how to make this system
work within the confines that Mr. Lappin must address.
I repeat, we're not seeking release from the Federal prison
system. We have great respect for the Federal prison system.
Even in my opening testimony, where I talked about where the
Federal prison system isn't preparing the vocational programs,
which I happen to have seen and appreciate, they're all state-
of-the-art programs. You have to understand what BOP does. It
doesn't just smack a program down. It then tests it and retests
it. It keeps valuable statistics. These people know what
they're doing. Yes, they couldn't possibly have a vocational
program in there to match the District of Columbia. What are
our industries? Tourism, hospitals, the Verizon kinds of job
that Mr. Cook had. We can't expect Mr. Lappin to reorient
vocation in the prison system. But what we can do is bring the
District to Mr. Lappin. We don't want to revolutionize his
system. We want to work within his system. But we want to work
within his system as a State system that must, in fact, report
ultimately to the District of Columbia, its residents and its
officials who will be responsible if these two men, extremely
motivated, do not have the preparation necessary for them to
come home and do what they clearly want to do now, which is
live law abiding lives.
This subcommittee, and I can assure you that this chairman
who has taken great leadership on law enforcement issues since
he's chaired this committee, I can assure you you will have the
greatest cooperation from this subcommittee and the full
committee, if we, in fact, do what the committee believes must
be done, adapt, be flexible, accommodate us, facilitate us
within that system for the greater good of our inmates and
their families and especially the greater good of the residents
of the District of Columbia.
This has been a very fruitful, a very useful hearing to
this subcommittee. Mr. Lappin and Mr. Brown, you are to report
on your progress on your discussions--we don't expect
everything to be wrapped up in a neat package, Mr. Lappin, but
your progress within 30 days to the chairman of this committee.
Please feel free to have discussions as well with Ms. Poteat
and CSOSA and others who have served on this panel. The
subcommittee cannot thank you enough for your indispensable and
invaluable testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]