Norton Hearing on D.C. Prisoners Begins Extensive Investigation (10/16/07)

Washington, DC—Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today got the first oversight hearing on 7,000 D.C. inmates housed in federal institutions across the country since District prisoners were transferred by the city to federal control almost ten years ago. Witnesses for the hearing--entitled "Doing Time: Are D.C. Prisoners Being Adequately Prepared for Re-entry with Equal Access to BOP Services?"--included two former inmates, U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Harley G. Lappin, Rivers Correctional Institution Warden George E. Snyder, Acting President of the University of the District of Columbia Stanley Jackson, and experts and leaders in re-entry programs and prison issues.

The hearing is part of a comprehensive investigation Norton has initiated, including her recent visits to two prisons, and a video conference town meeting she held with her Commission on Black Men and Boys. Norton’s comments before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia, of which she is a member, raised a number of outstanding issues. Among the most important, the placement of residents at extraordinary distances away from home, unequal treatment, and unequal access to services, especially drug abuse treatment.

The full text of Norton’s statement follows.

I am deeply grateful to my good friend Chairman Danny K. Davis for holding the first oversight hearing concerning the conditions and circumstances of District of Columbia felons since the Lorton, Virginia facility was closed, almost 10 years ago. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) took jurisdiction over inmates from the District at the request of the District of Columbia during the city’s financial crisis. This hearing parallels the Chairman’s own groundbreaking work as the lead sponsor of the pending Second Chance Act that I have been pleased to join in cosponsoring. Today’s hearing will add to the national record that shows overwhelmingly the urgency of passing the Second Chance Act this year.

We welcome all of today’s witnesses and particularly thank Chairman Davis and his committee staff for the care with which this hearing has been put together. Today’s witnesses, including leaders of two of the facilities housing D.C. inmates, the agencies here that are responsible for assisting their successful reentry, and practitioners and experts who assist inmates reconstruct their lives upon release, will help open the door to the fuller investigation that is required. Among the additional urgent issues that will need attention is the effect of the federal parole system on D.C. inmates’ length of sentence when they are on parole or when their parole is revoked. Despite efforts of the D.C. Council to clarify the issue under D.C. law, the time served on parole is not counted towards the length of an inmate’s sentence upon returning to prison.

Except for appropriations hearings related to annual funding, there has been no oversight of D.C. inmates in federal prisons, where they have been housed since the District requested a federal take-over of the costs of felon incarceration and several other state functions for which cities in the United States are not responsible except for the District. In turn, Congress enacted the 1997 Revitalization Act, transferring responsibility for D.C. prisoners, among other costs, to the federal government. The title of today’s hearing, "Doing Time: Are D.C. Prisoners Being Adequately Prepared for Re-Entry with Equal Access to BOP Services?" indicates our concern that legal and structural issues may have had the unintended result of providing unequal access for D.C. prisoners to BOP services, even though, once sentenced, they become federal inmates as much as any other BOP prisoners, notwithstanding the finding of guilt pursuant to the D.C. Code.

D.C. inmates and criminal aliens are the only federal prisoners housed in private, federally-contracted facilities with services that do not mirror those available at BOP-run prisons. Although the Revitalization Act required some D.C. prisoners to be housed in private facilities, the statute did not contemplate a unique exception to uniform federal policies concerning available services. The fact that the BOP itself houses the vast majority of D.C. inmates and the abandonment of the private prison option, mentioned in the Revitalization Act, except for Rivers constituting strong evidence of the Congress’ intent to treat D.C. prisoners like others in the BOP system. However, our investigation shows that even in BOP-run facilities this is not always the case apparently because of legal issues. We are particularly concerned that although almost 90% of D.C. inmates are in BOP facilities, 65% who had their parole revoked were recommitted to prison for drug-related offenses. No serious effort to reduce crime permanently here will be possible without the congressional oversight. We begin with today’s hearing and without considerably greater attention by the District of Columbia government and our own residents to our prison population while they are incarcerated and after. Often thousands miles away in federal rather than the usual local jurisdiction, D.C. inmates have been left out of sight and out of mind. They and their families have few advocates and almost no visibility. To its credit, Rivers provides a free bus each way Thursdays through Sundays, but this means eight hours of travel time, which is particularly difficult for families, whose visits experts have long documented as important for successful reentry.

About 7,000 D.C. prisoners are housed in an incredible array of 75 different facilities in 33 states in groups of a few hundred and often fewer. Rivers, with 831 D.C. inmates, has the highest concentration at any single institution. The services available at BOP-run facilities staffed by federal employees are more extensive with higher standards than those available at Rivers, apparently because the same services are not required or funded by the contract. The absence of comparable substance abuse services particularly at Rivers, almost guarantees problems for the inmates and for the city when they return. A limited, non-certified program at Rivers is available only to about 60 of almost 1,000 inmates, although 50 to 80 percent have substance abuse problems. District residents in BOP facilities do not qualify for early release incentives upon completion of a highly regarded 500 hour drug treatment program, which is unavailable at Rivers altogether. The Rivers drug abuse program has little in common with the 500 hour program, but is available to so few inmates that it nevertheless has a waiting list.

The issues our investigation have uncovered have less to do with BOP and Rivers as institutions than with the challenges Congress has not yet faced concerning what is necessary to integrate state felons into the life of a federal prison for the first time in U.S. history. Both the Rivers private facility and Cumberland FCI that we visited appeared well kept and orderly, and Rivers Warden George Snyder and Cumberland Warden Lisa Hollingsworth are both highly qualified prison experts who rose to their present positions through the merit system at BOP. As we toured every part of both facilities along with the wardens, we were impressed that D.C. inmates felt comfortable to walk up to me at will and to speak freely about their concerns without any fear or sense of intimidation. The most frequently mentioned concern related to drug abuse treatment.

Our oversight must be circumscribed by issues of law that Congress can correct or practices that we can help BOP revise. Until now, Congress has never looked to see how the absorption of state prisoners into a federal prison system for the first time has operated; whether spreading D.C. prisoners throughout the country in so many different institutions has served the purposes of the Revitalization Act and the interests of inmates and the D.C. government in successful reentry or whether there are other options for housing; the implications of placing residents in a facility with criminal aliens and the effect on services offered; and whether Congress in allowing D.C. residents to be placed in private facilities intended to reduce the level of services. These and a litany of other questions deserve a full investigation and answers after an investment of billions in federal funds without any accountability of the effects and outcomes. I appreciate the work of our subcommittee in beginning this effort today and once again thank all of today’s witnesses for their assistance in helping us understand the many issues before us.