|
DISTURBANCE STATISTICS FOR 2008
STAFF: MURDERED BY INMATES
|
|
ASSAULT OF STAFF W/OUT WEAPONS
|
ASSAULT ON STAFF WITH WEAPONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUREAU OF PRISONS; U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE
WITNESSES
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS
JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
STACIA
A. HYLTON, FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE
Opening Remarks by Congressman Mollohan
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good afternoon
to everyone. We welcome a panel of three department of Justice witnesses to this hearing on the fiscal year 2009 budget request
for the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshal Service, and the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee. We will begin with testimony
from Mr. Harley G. Lappin, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and proceed then to other agencies in sequence.
Mr. Lappin, first of all I want to begin by expressing my
personal and the Subcommittee's condolences to you upon the
passing of your dad. That is a very difficult thing. And it is
a great testament to you and to him that you are here fulfilling
your responsibilities in this circumstance. My dad died when we were considering a bill, a very important bill. I believe
it was a Steel Loan Guarantee Bill on the floor, and I was carrying it, Senator Byrd had carried it on the Senate side. And
we were doing it that night. And I know, I know your feeling about that and how it really is an honor to your father that
you fulfill those responsibilities under those circumstances. So especially welcome to the hearing today.
Mr. Director, lately it is hard to open the newspaper without seeing a news article or a commentary on recent studies on the
explosive growth of prisoners incarcerated in federal, state, and local prisons and jails over the last twenty years. As in
the states, the Bureau of Prisons is faced with rising inmate populations and rising fixed costs and aging infrastructure.
We look forward to working with you to address these challenges and we want to compliment you and your staff on the tremendous
job you are doing in the face of scarce resources. And we want you to know that we look forward to your testimony to see where
those places are that you need special
help and timely, and so that we can be responsive.
Your written
statement will be made a part of the record.
We look forward to your oral testimony. And before calling upon you to deliver
that I would like to call upon our fine Ranking Member Mr. Frelinghuysen for any comments that he might have.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No comments other than to echo the
sentiments and sympathy of the Chairman, and thank you for your
good work and all those who stand behind you each and every day doing some very tough work on behalf of our nation. Often
unrecognized, underappreciated, and that not only goes to you but to those who follow behind you to testify today. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Lappin.
Mr. Lappin. Thank you both for your sympathy for
my Father, I appreciate that very much, and certainly for the fine
comments recognizing the wonderful staff who work in
the Federal Bureau of Prisons who do a great job each and every
day. But good afternoon to both of you and the other members
who I am sure will arrive over the course of time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN
Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Frelinghuysen and other members
of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's 2009 Budget Request for the Bureau
of Prisons. Let me first begin by thanking you for your support of the Bureau of Prisons. We particularly appreciate the new
construction resources provided in the 2008 Omnibus Bill, which allow us to move ahead with three much needed
new prisons. I look forward to continuing our work with you and the Subcommittee.
Last year, in reference
to your article that you mentioned,
the inmate population in the Bureau of Prisons increased by
7,400 inmates. We
expect a net growth of 5,000 to 7,000 inmates per year over the next several years. Our current population is over 201,000
inmates. The Bureau facilities are operating at 37 percent above rated capacity system-wide.
Our highest
priorities continue to be filling staff positions that have direct contact with inmates and bringing on new beds to reduce
crowding to assure that federal inmates continue to serve their sentences in safe, secure, and humane
environments. In
2007, the Bureau of Prison's inmate to staff
ratio was 4.92 inmates to one employee. The average of the five largest state
systems was 3.33 inmates to one employee, based on the latest comprehensive data available from the states. During the past
three years we have implemented a number of initiatives to streamline operations and reduce costs. These actions involved
permanent changes to BOP operations and reduced costs about $270 million over the three-year period. We eliminated over 2300
positions, closed four federal prison camps, restructured medical care levels, and consolidated inmate designation and sentence
computation functions as well as human resource functions at a central location in Texas. In addition to these permanent actions,
we have reduced travel, equipment, vehicles, and training expenditures. These reductions average more than $100 million per
year and continue in 2008. Unfortunately, the rising cost of healthcare remains a serious issue, comparable
to what is occurring in the private sector despite our efforts to contain costs.
Almost all federal
inmates will be released back into the
community. We have released an average of 50,000 inmates per year back to U.S.
communities over the past few years, a number that continues to increase as the inmate population continues to grow. Our goal
is to ensure that prior to their release, these inmates receive needed job skill training, work
experience, education,
counseling, and other assistance.
Federal Prison Industries, one of our most important correctional programs, provides
inmates with job skill training
and work experience thereby reducing recidivism and avoiding
undesirable idleness
during the inmate's incarceration. We
expect Section 827 of the recently enacted Defense
Authorization Bill to result
in a decline in sales for the FPI
program and potentially result in the loss of up to 6,300 jobs.
The 2009 Budget Request is $5.436 billion for operations in
our Salaries & Expenses (S&E) budget, and $95.8 million
for our Buildings & Facilities (B&F) budget. For S&E, a total of $67
million in program increases is requested
to contract for new
private beds for low security criminal aliens, and to provide a
marginal cost adjustment for some
additional inmates. The
increases are offset by a proposal to eliminate $28 million in
funding for the National Institute
of Corrections and other
expenses.
For B&F, this budget continues base level funding for new
construction at $25.2 million and a Modernization and Repair
program at $70 million. One-third of our 114 institutions
are
over fifty years old and present significant modernization and
repair costs that we must prioritize and address
each year.
Mr. Chairman, our goal is to continue to run safe and secure prisons. This requires adequate
front line staffing in our prisons and adding prison beds to reduce overcrowding. We
believe the 2009 request will better
help the Bureau to meet
these requirements. The inmate population will continue to
increase and so will our challenges
to provide for their safe,
secure, and cost effective incarceration.
Let me thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, for your continued support. I look forward to
working with you and the
Committee on the significant
challenges facing the BOP and our Budget Request. Thank you. [Written statement of Harley
G. Lappin, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons]
FY 2008 NEEDS
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Lappin. Mr. Lappin, this hearing is
about the Bureau of Prisons' fiscal 2009 request,
however, you have some immediate needs for this year, for 2008,
and I would like to talk with you a little bit about that. I
would like for you to tell us about that situation. How
immediate
is the Bureau of Prisons' need and is the $240
million reprogramming that the Department has sent up here
sufficient
to solve your current problems?
Mr. Lappin. We appreciate your recognition of the challenge
we face,
and it is significant. We currently, as you have learned from the reprogramming request, have a need for an additional $240
million to carry out our responsibilities for the rest of this fiscal year. If you look at how this could happen and why it
happened, you will find a variety of issues. If you look at the increase from 2007 to 2008, at the end of
the day it was about $55 million which wouldn't cover the pay increase. Again, there are lots of priorities in the government
and many needs. Decisions were made based on those priorities, but at the end of the day we feel as though we are going to
need an additional $240 million.
Mr. Mollohan. What are the biggest cost drivers? Can you
talk about
that?
Mr. Lappin. Staff and salaries, salaries and expenses. I
mean nearly 70 percent of our expenses
are for salaries and
benefits for employees. The $240 million would cover the number of employees we currently have employed,
the overtime associated with their responsibilities, some of the operational costs, especially medical, and a few others.
It is my opinion that $240 million will get us very close. We will do our best to live within the $240 million that is added
to the budget.
We will monitor closely and we are working very closely with the Department of Justice
staff. They are listening very well to our concerns and issues, and have recognized the need for the reprogramming request.
We are taking other initiatives in the Bureau to reduce costs. We have reduced overtime funding. We have reduced equipment
funding and vehicle funding. We have delayed a couple of programs. We have reduced the
relocations associated with staff
transfers. We have reduced
some training. We have then assumed some other salary savings through staff vacancies.
Mr. Mollohan. Let me back up a little bit.
Mr. Lappin. Sure.
STAFFING
Mr. Mollohan. Talk to us in more detail about the staff
situation. More inmates, less
staff? I know from my visiting
with employees in West Virginia on several occasions, just
hearing them anecdotally
talk about it. They talk about being
on call every week, twice a week for overtime. They are tired,
and they also
have been associating that with incidents that,
in their minds, are associated with the overtime and the
understaffing.
But if you would, in your opening remarks you
talked a little bit about ratios. And I did not get all that, but the feds
are four-point-something to one employee?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, right now. And again, let me just say that
I continue to believe that we are running a safe, secure prison
system, and not without its challenges. And it is
because of those great folks out there in the field, each and every day,
sacrificing, by working additional overtime,
by coming in when
there is a need to come in when we have concerns, disruptions, so on and so forth. They just do a great
job and we continue to fare well. But there is a limit.
Mr. Mollohan. Let us look at the numbers first.
Mr. Lappin. Our ratio right now is 4.92 inmates to every
employee.
Mr. Mollohan. And what was it
last year or the year before?
Do you know?
Mr. Lappin. Oh, last year we were at about 4.91. The
year
before, 4.87. In 1997 we were at 3.57.
Mr. Mollohan. That was in when? 1997?
Mr. Lappin. In 1997 we were at 3.57 inmates per employee.
Mr. Mollohan. There must be some ratio that
the correctional experts identified, the textbook ratio. What is the textbook ratio?
Mr. Lappin. Well,
I am not sure. There is not really a ratio. We have been asked, ``Help us define a ratio.'' And why it is so difficult is
it depends on the designs of your institutions and what posts you consider absolutely necessary. Because the vast majority
of correctional organizations, the majority of our staff are run on rosters. You identify what work you want done, you tie
to that a number of assignments posts, and based on the number of posts it drives the number of employees.
Mr. Mollohan. And modern corrections, new facilities, you
ought to be able to do them more efficiently?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, new institutions you can manage safely--
more efficiently.
Mr. Mollohan. So you
would expect this number to, I do not
know whether you talk about this increase or decrease, but you would expect the
ratio to involve fewer employees?
Mr. Lappin. Without a doubt, some of the increase has resulted from
newer design facilities that are more efficient
and more effective in watching more inmates with fewer people.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. So in the modern prison system, or the
mixed prison system that you operate, can you tell us what the
correct ratio should be?
Mr. Lappin. I really cannot. We were working on an evaluation of how to come
up with the number for us, and it
might vary from system to system. I do not want it to get any
larger. I can tell
you that. I think we are at our limit. I would like to see that level come down, and that is why----
Mr. Mollohan. Whoa, whoa, what level come down?
Mr. Lappin. I would like to see the ratio come down.
Mr. Mollohan. The ratio come down?
Mr. Lappin. From 4.92 to a number less than that. That is,
I
want to add more staff.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, well we have to put dollars to need
here, and so we
need, I would love to have a little more
guidance than that.
Mr. Lappin. We will certainly provide
that. Again, we are
working on an evaluation as to how we come to a number.
[Clerk's note.--The
Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable
established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have
been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Because while it is anecdotal
for my
constituents to come in and say, you know, ``This is too much,'' and they are not whiners, really, that suggests
to me that it is too much. And they can talk about it in the terms they can talk about it, but to be able to translate that
into a budget, for you, and into appropriations for us, it needs to be a little more tangible. And if we had help on that
that would give us backup and you as well. The states are operating at 3.33. Did I get that right?
Mr.
Lappin. Yes, what we do, we look at the five largest states, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Michigan.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that a relevant, are you making a comparison here?
Mr. Lappin. Well we are just trying
to help put it in perspective, how we compare to other similar systems.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, but I want
to know what to do with
these numbers. Am I to look at this and say, ``Well, 4.91
employees, okay we are operating
a modern prison system, or a mixed prison system, it is not all modern, in federal, and the
states are 3.33 on an average.''
Am I supposed to look at that
and say, ``Gee, we ought to get to 3.33?''
Mr. Lappin. Let me answer
that. I do not think we need to
get to 3.33. In fact, I think we can operate at a level higher
than the 3.57 in 1997,
because we have had a lot of newer
prisons over the course of that time.
Mr. Mollohan. Right.
Mr. Lappin. So let me kind of help put it in perspective.
For us to get to 3.57, where we were ten years ago, we would
have to add 9,000 employees. I do not think there is a need to
do that. But you are correct, you need some guidance.
Where do we fall on this range? And we will continue to provide to you that information as we conduct this evaluation to see
if we can come up with some more accurate assessment of where we think we need to be.
Mr. Mollohan.
Okay.
Mr. Lappin. And without a doubt, I am concerned at this ratio. I still think we are doing a great
job, but certainly on the backs of the great employees we have. There is a limit. And that is why one of our priorities is
to continue to fund those positions at the local level for direct, for staff having direct contact with inmates to try to
bring that ratio down.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, well for the record, I think you are doing a great job. And
I think the members of this Subcommittee
think you are doing a great job, and there needs to be some
advocacy for
appropriate funding. Mr. Frelinghuysen?
INMATE POPULATION
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We know you are doing a difficult job.
You have given us
some of the staggering figures in terms of the increase in the federal inmate population. Could you just
talk for a couple
of minutes about some other characteristics
of that population? Age, different characteristics that make up
the overall
mix in terms of ethnic background, race, what are
some of the figures that are out there?
Mr. Lappin.
Age, race, ethnicity is pretty much similar.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And have they shifted?
Mr. Lappin. Those have not shifted significantly.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. They are?
Mr. Lappin. Let me give you an idea. About 56 percent of the federal inmate population is white, 40 percent is black, 1.7
percent Asian, 1.8 percent Indian. Of that it is 31 percent Hispanic, so a combination of some folks who are African
American,
black, Hispanic. Age has really not fluctuated much.
You know, we are around a thirty-five average age.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thirty-five years of age?
Mr. Lappin. I think that is what it is. It is pretty close
to that. What has changed, though, the characteristics that have changed are--let me back up to types of offenses. We continue
to see the majority of the offenders coming in for drug related offenses. About 52 percent to 53 percent of the offenses are
drug related. And then followed by weapons at about 14 percent.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That drug related
figure is a pretty----
Mr. Lappin. I am sorry?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That drug related
is a pretty----
Mr. Lappin. 53.9 percent drug related.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And
that is, let us say ten years ago that might have been considerably lower, or?
Mr. Lappin. Well, that
was probably in the middle of the whole War on Drugs. That is when we were ramping up, getting a lot of folks. But you know,
if you go back fifteen years, it is much larger. We have seen a significant increase in weapons. Offenders coming into us
with weapons violations, that is up to 14 percent followed by immigration.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. What percentage,
for instance, would be
involved in----
Mr. Lappin. For weapons?
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
No, in let us say Bloods, Crips, and MS-
13?
Mr. Lappin. I am going to jump to that in just a second.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Mr. Lappin. I just want to mention one other, one huge
increase in the
number of sex offenders. In fact, we today have about 14,000 sex offenders in prison. So that has really been
an emphasis
of the Department of Justice, besides drugs,
firearms, sex offenses. And then of course, immigration has
been for
some years with INS originally, now BICE, so on and so forth, border patrol.
The inmates themselves
we are seeing, we continue to see a younger, more aggressive, more violent, more gang oriented
offender coming to the
Bureau of Prisons. Which couples with
our need, I think, to look closely at this ratio of staff to inmates. More inmates,
fewer staff, more aggressive inmates, you know, that does not, more----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That could
translate into a potential
disaster.
Mr. Lappin. Yes, I mean I think there are some challenges
there.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Without a doubt, we recognize that. So we are
seeing those types
of offenders. Without a doubt, gangs are quite a challenge. Between disruptive group members and security threat group members,
which we categorize the gangs
into, it is quite a challenge at most all locations, if not all. This is complicated somewhat
by the emergence of the Hispanic gangs, especially from the Mexican nationals where they play by different rules and can be
very disruptive.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So in the prison system, and I have read
about it, there is
a unity of purpose when you are in there with somebody who is part of your gang.
Mr. Lappin. There is.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. So what we try to do is thin them out, control them by size, by
structure, by control. But what we have seen
emerge over the last few years, unlike I think fifteen, twenty years ago,
is the emergence within institutions of these little
cliques. You know, a group of folks from Baltimore or a group
of
people from Little Rock, who if they are not associated with
other gangs might just join together. And those fall more
into the security threat groups on occasion, just run of the mill,
makeshift associations that can tend to be a challenge.
Without a doubt gangs are one of our bigger challenges. We
are currently reevaluating the management of gangs in our
institutions.
We believe that we have got to do a better job of
balancing those gangs among the 114 institutions. In doing so
it
is going to disrupt a long and steadfast philosophy of trying to put all the offenders as close to home as possible. To do
that, to balance them, it is going to result in some offenders being further from home than they were before. And so we had
to compromise there a little bit. First and foremost, we have got to run safe prisons.
BUDGET SITUATION
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your budget situation, obviously, has been somewhat complicated.
While you have a pending
reprograming seeking $240 million we shorted you about $100
million somewhere along the line.
So it is a good reason we have a reprogramming. I live in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. I must say I hear
quite a lot of ads on the local radio station, 1010, for the New York Department of Corrections. So, obviously, you are in
the job field out there.
There are, should we say, competitors. As tough as the work is, maybe that is a sign that other
institutions are competing for good people to take impossible jobs.
Mr. Lappin. It is. I think in the
long term for the Bureau of Prisons, you know, when I look, when people ask me, ``Director, what is one of your greatest concerns
for the
Bureau in five, ten, fifteen years?'' I think it is our continued ability to hire, recruit, and retain qualified
folks. Because there is going to be more competition for those folks. But we still do very well in most locations. It is very
much a challenge in the higher cost areas, New York, Brooklyn, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago. We have more turnover there
than elsewhere. Fortunately, the system as a whole is kind of misleading; because as a whole we have relatively low turnover.
But if you separate out those high cost of living areas, you will find that those areas, greater turnover, more of a challenge
to continue to keep the rolls filled. California is a huge challenge. Competing with much higher wages in the State Department
of Corrections in California and the issues they are facing there, we are struggling there filling just the base positions
at certain locations. That is one reason why we increased their pay a little bit, just to try to recruit and retain more staff.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for that overview. It has been
valuable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Aderholt.
PRISON CHAPEL LIBRARY
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here today. I know that in your job you
get a lot of questions and a lot of complaints and many things, as I know in my job I do from time to time. But I want to
just take a minute and express my appreciation to you for your leadership on the Prison Chapel Library Project. That was,
I understand an issue, and I know that you stepped in and resolved that issue very quickly and very effectively. I know several
people that were greatly concerned about that, and I believe that you handled that in an excellent manner. So let me just
say the word is getting around that you had done an excellent job in that. In that instance I know of, and I am sure in many
other instances, but I did want to point out that it has been an issue that was a very big concern to a lot of people. So
thank you for your work on that.
Mr. Lappin. Thank you, sir. We apologize that it happened
in the
first place. There were competing priorities. But I wanted to ensure the public and the Department, that we had appropriate
materials in those libraries. And over the course of seventy-seven years some of those libraries have grown to great size.
And through the course of those years maybe not
quite as much oversight as we would like. I am pleased that the folks
that had concerns approached the Department of Justice, approached the Bureau of Prisons, raised those issues. We sat down
with them and resolved the issue. I think to everyone's
satisfaction. I appreciate you recognizing that.
INQUIRY FROM A CONSTITUENT
Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you again. It did not go unnoticed, so thank
you for that. As you can imagine, as a member of Congress, I get contacted from time to time from constituents that have all
types of concerns. Sometimes it is concerns that I can help them with and sometimes there are concerns that are completely
out of my hands. But sometimes they feel like their Congressman is the person that they elected to reach out to federal agencies,
in particular, and to be an advocate for them. And I do think that is a large part of the job that we have here in Congress,
that we are an advocate for a lot of people that sometimes do not know where to go for answers and questions.
I received an email, well actually a phone call and then I asked her to follow up with an email. It is regarding a situation
with a prisoner that, and I will just read it briefly to you and I just want to ask your response, and maybe how would be
the best way we could respond to her and what the policy is in this case. It says, ``Per our conversation yesterday, my husband
is due to be released to Alabama on June 20, 2008. His caseworker has informed me that his time will be rounded
up nine days and he will not be in Alabama until June 29, 2008. This is a new rule that the caseworker in
Manchester,
Kentucky has started since she became the new caseworker. We are asking that you help us get my husband back
to Alabama on June 20th, not the 29th. He will have served his perfect time on the 20th.'' She just called me very demoralized.
He had been there a year at the time of our conversation. Of course, nine days does not sound like a whole lot to me or you
but, I know this particular family has a ten year old daughter, and it has been sort of an easy case in the beginning but
that is beside the point. But in a situation like that, do the individual
prisons have the discretion to release him at
a different date?
Or what could you tell me about that?
Mr. Lappin. First of all, we appreciate your involvement. And we welcome you to call us, send us emails,
and let us assist you with responding to your constituents.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, Tom Kane knows that
I call from time to
time.
Mr. Lappin. Is that right?
Mr. Aderholt. Yes, so----
Mr. Lappin. Well, we ought to bring Tom up here. Seriously,
the caseworker locally does not have the authority to make
that adjustment. That work is done by our sentence computation staff who have the background, the experience, the expertise,
to adjust a sentence computation and to determine the day the individual should get out. If you give me the email with the
person's name, we will go right to the sentence computation center, ask them what if any changes were made and why, as related
to applicable law. It could be that somebody miscalculated, made an error on some some good time or some jail time. But if
you give it to us we will get back to you----
Mr. Aderholt. That would be great. And like I said, you
know, sometimes they may have been given wrong information as well. But again, like I say, nine days does
not seem like a whole lot to me or you but for someone who has been away from
their family and they have served the appropriate
time, that can be very demoralizing. And they just have some questions about the system, and they feel the unfairness. And
we
understand when a sentence is handed down and they have to serve the appropriate time. But beyond that we, I thought
it was only fair to check into that. So after today I will get you the contact information on this. And if you could please
help me try to find out some information, my constituent would be very happy.
Mr. Lappin. I will give
you my card, or you could send it
to Tom Kane.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, either one of you. So----
Mr. Lappin. Because you are right. Nine days is nine days.
We want them out on the day the law says they should be released
from prison.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
Mr. Lappin. Our goal is to have 100 percent of
them released on that day. We would be more than happy to look into it.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, I appreciate
that. That is all I have.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Rogers.
RATED CAPACITY/OVERCROWDING
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, welcome to you and
to all your staff. I have been told that you are 37
percent overcrowded. Is that an accurate figure?
Mr. Lappin. We are 37 percent over rated capacity.
Mr. Rogers. Over what?
Mr.
Lappin. Over rated capacity.
Mr. Rogers. Do you mind if I call that overcrowded?
Mr. Lappin. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. What would be your target?
Mr. Lappin. 15 to 17
percent. That is our target.
Mr. Rogers. Over your rated capacity?
Mr. Lappin.
And so, let me kind of put it in perspective.
What does that mean? What does 17 percent mean over rated
capacity?
That means that every cell in the entire Bureau of Prisons has two inmates in it, and we believe in that goal. It may
be a long term goal, there is no way we are going to get
there overnight, but our goal would be that we get to the point
where cells that were built of a certain size, which is a standard size--you have got a couple new prisons in Kentucky,
they are a standard size--for a cell of that size it is appropriate for two inmates to be housed in those cells long term.
At 17 percent, every cell in the Bureau of Prisons would have two inmates in those cells.
Now realize
there are some inmates that cannot be housed
with anyone. So for those that require single cells, it is going to push
into other cells three inmates. We are okay with that. There are certain inmates that we could temporarily house in that manner.
Our target is 17 percent.
Mr. Rogers. Well, if you are 37 percent over now and you want to be at 17 percent, that is a 20 percent
difference.
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. That is not insignificant. That is a
huge, huge
undertaking, correct?
Mr. Lappin. Well, it is. And we have faced this over a number of
years. And believe me, the Congress, the Administration; let us go back a bit. In 1980, 26,000 were inmates in the federal
prison system. Today, 201,000 inmates. The Administration and the Congress have provided for us very well through the majority
of those years. Provided funding, provided positions, as the prison system grew. And so we have been very fortunate. But then
again the population continues to grow. And without a doubt, we have to continue to decide, how are we going to absorb those
additional inmates? Do we continue
to build prisons? Are there other ways to offset some of that growth? And so, you are
right, it would be a long term plan. But again, that is our target.
STAFFING
Mr. Rogers. Well, that spans the time I have been in Congress. And I have been on this
Subcommittee I think twenty-three or four years of that time, and I have watched the
population grow. And have watched
directors over the years
wrestle with that problem as inmate population kept growing and growing. And it is not getting
any better. You say your inmate to staff ratio is 4.92, that is the highest ever, is it not?
Mr. Lappin. Well, you know, at least in my tenure we know
what it is back to 1997. We were at
3.57 in 1997, we are 4.92. So my guess is this is probably the highest ratio we have had in modern history.
Mr. Rogers. And how many employees short of the minimum number required for safe operations are you?
Mr. Lappin. How many, what is the minimum number for safe operation?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, how short are
you of people?
Mr. Lappin. Well, it kind of relates to the question that the Chairman asked a few minutes
ago. Yes, what is the right ratio? And again, we are working on what the right ratio is. Our target this year is to have about,
35,400 employees employed, or the compensation and overtime to the equivalent of about 35,400 employees. So if we do not have
full-time positions, we are probably going to extend the equivalent of what is not filled in overtime to accomplish the work.
Because we are really at the point where if someone does not come to work, we must fill that post with someone.
Mr. Rogers. I want you to make it simple for me.
Mr. Lappin. Okay.
Mr. Rogers.
Do you have the minimum number of employees for safe operations? Do you have enough employees for safe operations?
Mr. Lappin. This year the number we have identified is 35,400.
Mr. Rogers. For safe operations?
Mr. Lappin. That is the number we want, yes. I mean, we do
not have that number right now. Let me explain. We do not have
that number right now. We are about 1,200 shy of that. However, we compensate for that through overtime, so technically, we
have got that many employees. Therefore, we believe we continue to run safe and secure operations. We do not want to see that
ratio increase any more. And that is why we have drawn, or targeted, that number of employees. If you know the equivalent
in overtime----
Mr. Rogers. If you do not have overtime, if you disregard
overtime, and you are
paying people straight pay, how many
people short of safe operations would you be?
Mr. Lappin. Again,
we do have the overtime so we continue
to run.
Mr. Rogers. If you did not have it?
Mr. Lappin. I think we are staffed at about 34,100. Is that
about right?
Mr. Rogers. I will ask
you a real simple question. I want a
simple answer. With no overtime, if you did not pay overtime,
and you are paying
people straight pay----
Mr. Lappin. 1,200.
Mr. Rogers. Short?
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. For safe operations?
Mr. Lappin. Well, I would not
say for safe. We make adjustments internally. Certainly I can take more risks, for
example, at minimums and lows. So what
we will do is we will
run shorter at minimums and lows where the inmates are less
risky and we will staff up at medium
and highs to make sure that those institutions run and have the adequate number of
people they need. So we have that flexibility.
But if you ask
what is the number, the minimum number we want this year? I am 1,200 short of that number.
STUN/LETHAL FENCES
Mr. Rogers. Well staffing or budget shortfalls have led several prisons, including
McCreary County, Kentucky, the
newest one in my area, to install what they call stun fences in
lieu of managed central
surveillance towers. Some people
believe that tower surveillance is preferable with eyes on----
Mr. Lappin. Sure.
Mr. Rogers. And I assume you agree with that?
Mr. Lappin. I
believe the stun lethal is the direction we should go.
Mr. Rogers. Is what?
Mr. Lappin. Is the direction we should go. Let me just say, let me give you an example of why I think
that. One, stun lethal or lethal fences have been in operation in corrections for twenty, twenty-five years. There was resistance
in the Bureau to moving in that direction. But when we looked at our cost savings initiatives, we went and assessed those
locations,
looked at the operations that occurred there for fifteen, twenty years, and realized they could provide the
same level of security at those locations without manning the towers. Many of the staff in towers that are operated cannot
see inmates
because many of the rec yards are internal now. So the staff in
towers cannot see into the rec yards because
the buildings are in their way. Unlike the old prisons where the rec yard was more open to the public, or more open to the
fence.
So, you know, we could have a long debate, and I am sure
there will be many discussions.
We believe that if the funding
is available it would be wise of us to. Again, technology changes all the time. And this
is a technology advancement that we think has merit, that we think we will continue to run safe and secure prisons and not
jeopardize the community. And so we are firmly behind the stun lethal fences, whether we have the funding or not because we
think it is a more efficient way to operate the prisons.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions
that I will defer to a later time.
ACTIVATION OF FCI POLLOCK
Mr. Mollohan. There will be other rounds. For those who may
not have voted, there are forty-five seconds on this vote. Mr. Lappin, if, again, we have a $240 million reprogramming
request.
If additional funding is provided at the Department's
request level, will the new medium security prison FCI Pollock
in
Louisiana be activated in the year 2008?
Mr. Lappin. We are currently activating Pollock.
It will not have inmates in 2008. But we are currently planning on ramping up, slowly, the staffing for Pollock.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So the answer is, even if you do not get this reprogramming, even if you do not get this infusion of $240
million, Pollock will be activated?
Mr. Lappin. If we do not get the $240 million we will do
the
most we can at Pollock to begin the activation. I will not
deny that activation will be slowed significantly if we do
not get the $240 million.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, I am going to step back then. What is
activation in
your definition so that we can operate off the same understanding?
Mr. Lappin. Once we begin an activation
it takes us about six to eight months, depending on some variables, to get to the point where we begin accepting inmates.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, and what is the moment of activation?
When you start accepting inmates? Or when you start getting
administrative people in the prison----
Mr. Lappin. Well we begin to, I guess that is a good point.
When we begin hiring people in my mind is when the activation begins. Opening the prison with inmates is when you begin
taking inmates. So that period between activation and bringing
on inmates is about six months in most cases. If we
get into a
community where we are struggling hiring locally, then sometimes it is extended somewhat.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, well I am trying to tie this to your request, or the Department's request, for reprogramming of $240 million
which you have received. And I am trying to understand, if additional funding is provided at the requested level, will Pollock
be activated in fiscal year 2008 or will it be
activated anyway, and what do you mean by that?
Mr. Lappin. If we get the additional funding, obviously
that activation will go much faster. By the end of fiscal year
2008 my guess is we could be very close to fully staffed.
Mr. Mollohan. And if
you do not get it what----
Mr. Lappin. Then we can begin to bring inmates in soon
thereafter. If
we do not get it, it is going to slow down the staffing.
Mr. Mollohan. But you will still staff it?
Mr. Lappin. We will still staff it as high as we can given
the other limitations. Again, obviously if we do not get the
$240 million we are going to be struggling to continue other
operations. It will slow, I am not going to ramp up as
fast a prison we are not using----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask you this. If you are on the
brink,
and I know you are so that is not the debate here, if you are on the brink of operating a safe prison system or not operating
a safe prison system, or on the margins of that, if
you activate a new prison which will result in, I do not know,
another
thousand, 1,200, 1,500 employees?
Mr. Lappin. 1,500? I am sorry.
Mr. Mollohan.
I am talking about----
Mr. Lappin. 1,500 inmates, about 300 employees.
Mr. Mollohan.
300 employees?
Mr. Lappin. 300 employees.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so if right now
you are on the edge with regard to funding S&E, how can you activate a prison without this infusion and bring on 300 employees
more?
Mr. Lappin. You are correct. I mean, it is a very good point and that is why I say we would slow
that activation. We would not hire as many. If we do not get the funding without a doubt it is going to be later in the year,
or next fiscal year, before we actually begin to bring on inmates.
Mr. Mollohan. I feel like I am trying
to help you here, but----
Mr. Lappin. I know you are----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing].
I feel like I am having a hard time doing it. It is probably my----
Mr. Lappin. No, you are absolutely
correct. We are in a
financial dilemma. We are cautiously moving forward. We are
being very careful in what we spend.
We are not aggressively
pushing Pollock given the fact we are in this dilemma. If our
sense is we are going to get
the funding then we will certainly
speed that up.
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was
unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee.
Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's
permanent files.]
FUNDING/REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I do not think I have to do anymore on
that. I think
I understand. I have some information from the
employees, the employee representatives, that if you were not
to receive
this additional money, $240 million, $280 million,
$300 million, that you would have to actually cut correctional
staff
in 2008. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Mr. Lappin. Well, I have two
choices there. If we did not get the additional funding, obviously, if we do not get additional funding there is no way we
could save that amount of money in operations. So given that, for us to live within the mark that we currently have, we would
have to eliminate staff. That is one choice. The other choice is to go deficient.
Mr. Mollohan. I'm
sorry?
Mr. Lappin. The other choice is to go deficient.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, go deficient.
Mr. Lappin. Deficient.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are up against it here. The fiscal year 2009 request of
$5.436 billion for salaries and expenses
represents an increase of 7.6 percent over the current year.
Given the current
year's shortfall, is this request adequate to
meet basic BOP requirements in fiscal year 2009?
Mr.
Lappin. As I expressed earlier, the increase from 2007
to 2008 was about $55 million. So clearly, this
is a much larger increase from 2008 to 2009, which is going to serve us extremely well. And hopefully we
can get that or close to that
mark. However, it will continue to be a challenge for us. I
think it will serve us well.
I think we will be in a better situation, certainly, in a much better situation than we are this year. It will still, I think,
require us to act very cautiously, look for efficiencies, prioritize our responsibilities and focus on the highest priorities.
But yes, I think if we can get that mark we are going to be in a much better situation than we are this year. It may
still require some strategies to gain efficiencies, but I think we could get through that----
Mr. Mollohan.
Does the 2009 request take into account the
possibility of this reprogramming request being granted? In
other words,
would the reprogramming request, say you were to get $240 million, be annualized in the 2009 request?
Mr. Lappin. I do not believe that will happen. What I think is--- Mr. Mollohan. No, no, ``will happen.''
The question is----
Mr. Lappin. It is not built in.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so the
answer is no.
Mr. Lappin. That is correct.
Mr. Mollohan. So if you were to, if
the Justice Department's reprogramming request at $240 million were approved then would we anticipate receiving an amended
budget request for 2009 to annualize the approval of that request? Of the 2008 supplemental request?
Mr. Lappin. On behalf of the base for 2009. Although there
was a $100 million 2008 reduction through
the Congress.
Mr. Mollohan. I am going to forget that big long question I
just asked. Are you answering
it?
Mr. Lappin. I am going to answer it. I just want to make
sure that the base in 2009 is $100
million more than what we
actually got in 2008. Because when the 2009 budget was built
they added
back in the $100 million.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, what about, all right, you are telling me $100 million----
Mr. Lappin. That is right.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Would be accounted for in the base, and it would
be annualized for 2009 in your 2009 request?
Mr. Lappin. One hundred million more.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so there would be $140 million that
would not be taken into account and would not be annualized in
your 2009 request? Correct?
Mr. Lappin. Correct.
Mr. Mollohan. So for that amount
would we expect an amended budget request for 2009? If we were to approve the $240 million would there be a request for--well,
let me ask it.
Mr. Lappin. We do not anticipate that, no.
Mr. Mollohan. You do
not anticipate what?
Mr. Lappin. An amended request for another $140 million.
Mr. Mollohan. Well then, how are you going to pay for, in 2009, the increased funding, which is basically for S&E----
Mr. Lappin. Sure.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Which will occur in 2009, how
are you going to pay
for it in 2009?
Mr. Lappin. Well, one we could work within the Department
to identify other funding,
possibly. But the other thing is, we
may not see as many inmates. We anticipate some reduction in the
number of inmates because of the crack amendment impact, the guideline amendment. Let us take an example currently.
Mr. Mollohan. But you are so far down on employees right
now if you let every adjusted sentence adjust and release
early,
you would still be short of employees, would you not?
Mr. Lappin. But again, there are other things----
Mr. Mollohan. What is the answer to that question? And then you can elaborate.
Mr. Lappin. Would we
still be short of----
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, sir. Of employees?
Mr. Lappin. Not necessarily.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh boy, I am really confused.
Mr. Lappin. Well, it is actually $140 million. In the way
you calculated it----
Mr. Mollohan. Did I ask the right question here?
Mr.
Lappin. You did ask the right question.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Lappin.
We believe that with the higher number, the
President's number----
Mr. Mollohan. Right.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. And the fact that the base started a little higher than what was actually enacted, okay?
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. All right.
Mr. Lappin. You would assume we would be about $140 million short.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Mr. Lappin. What we can not gain through, continue to gain
through efficiency
in operational areas for some of that $140
million. If not, we will work with the Department to identify what funding
we might need beyond that. If it requires a
reprogramming request, we would certainly submit one. But
certainly starting
off from this point we do not anticipate that, in hopes that we can gain those efficiencies through some of the strategies
that we have. We will work with the Department. And if there is a need, we would ask for more funding. Obviously, we are not
shy about that. We forwarded a $240 million reprogramming to you this time. We would make the same assessment once we got
into 2009.
Mr. Mollohan. You may not be shy but I would say the, the
Department
is reluctant. Thank you. Boy, I tell you, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, saved by the bell.
RECIDIVISM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Lappin, I just wanted to pick up one
more figure. The number
of people who come through your
operation that have been in prison before or have come up through the juvenile system
and had some degree of incarceration?
Mr. Lappin. The number of people?
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Yes. In other words, of the population--
Mr. Lappin. Not prior records?
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
With prior records, yes.
Mr. Lappin. I do not know that number off the top of my head. I may
be able to find that number for you through our
research department. I can tell you our recidivism rates----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. Are about 40 percent in the
federal prison system.
So we are releasing 62,000, 63,000
inmates a year, of 50,000 of those returning to the United States we are seeing a return
of about 40 percent. Which really, in my opinion, is significant. I mean, we would love to see it lower. We have seen that
number come down over the last
few years. If you look at the states, they have about 65 percent recidivism rates. We attribute
the difference to the many, many BOP programs that are offered. The inmates are improving their skills in educational and
vocational work, and more important are going home better prepared to face reality. But I will work with our research folks----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Right.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. To see if we can give you a number, the number of
inmates coming into our system with prior records.
[The information follows:]
Inmates With Prior Records
Of the 77,804 inmates designated during calender year 2007, 54,807 (70%)
had a prior record, as indicated by U.S. Sentencing Commission's Criminal History Score.
CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You started down this path, the impact
of the
crack amendment?
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just briefly, because I want
to get into
where you stand relative to the counterterrorism unit and things like that.
Mr. Lappin.
As of, this week, Tuesday, we had processed
1,522 orders to reduce sentences. Of those, 793 were immediate releases. 729
shortened the sentence, but not to an immediate release so those inmates have some time remaining. I do not know exactly how
much. Now that we have started the process our sense is that this fiscal year, between now and the end of September, we will
probably release about 1,500 to 2,000 more inmates than we would have without the adjustment. We believe next year will probably
be around 2,500 to 3,000. So there are 19,500 offenders who are potential candidates for reduction.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well you said that in terms of drug related you gave us a figure of 14,000 earlier.
Mr. Lappin. No, that was sex offenders.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, excuse me, sex offenders.
Mr. Lappin. And 52 percent of our offenders are drug offenders.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Mr. Lappin. But many of those offenders have convictions on things other than crack--powder cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana.
So of the 52 percent of the offenders, there are about 19,500 who may fall into the category of being eligible
for a sentence reduction. We anticipate, at least the sentencing commission's projections reflect, that about 12,000 of those
could be released over the next five years, earlier than they would have been. The other 6,000 or 7,000 are going to be spread
out over the course of about fifteen or twenty years. So it is going to slow down significantly over the first five years.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And they will be monitored after their
departure?
Mr. Lappin. My assumption is
the majority of them have
supervised release. And my guess is we have some statistics of those that do not. But the vast
majority of the offenders come into our custody and then have supervised release. So they do not lose that when they release
early, it just picks up a
little earlier. They continue to be supervised.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Could we focus for a few minutes?
We provided you with $17 million last year to establish
the
counterterrorism unit. Where do we stand? How is the effort
going? I know you have a pending supplemental of,
what, $9
million? Is that right? Update us on it.
Mr. Lappin. I am very pleased with the progress
we have
made, not just on the counterterrorism unit but on our
management of terrorist offenders. Last year when we
spoke
there were some concerns over the monitoring of mail, phones, and so forth. The ramp up of the counterterrorism
unit is going quite well. We are doing a better job of monitoring mail and phones given that mandate. The other thing we have
done is we have----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may have to direct that to the
Chairman.
Mr. Lappin. I will do that. We have ramped up communications management units. Now that we know we are going to have these
folks long term, a lot of the more serious
offenders, terrorists, were housed at ADX Florence. We found
that some
of those, although they needed closer monitoring, did not need the security requirements at Florence. So we are
ramping
up two communications management units that are less restrictive but will ensure that all the mail and phone calls
of
those offenders are monitored on a daily basis.
CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT
Mr. Mollohan. The new sentencing, or some decisions
impacting the
sentencing guidelines, would impact the length of the sentences for crack cocaine convictions and incarcerations? If that
happens, you are going to be releasing drug addicted offenders more quickly, correct? Addicted offenders.
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Does that suggest that somebody is going to
have to take care of
that problem on some percentage basis? I
mean, they are not all going to walk out and stay clean.
Mr. Lappin. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. So what should we be anticipating? What
should you be anticipating
programmatically, or planning for
programmatically? And what should we be anticipating in the
treatment area? Should
we be increasing the treatment intensity? The after care? The halfway house? How should we be doing this, particularly since
folks are being released early?
Mr. Lappin. Well these folks that are being released
immediately,
unfortunately some of them will return to the
community without treatment. That is unfortunate.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is really unfortunate.
Mr. Lappin. Very unfortunate. And given that, I would
certainly be working with, we need to be working with probation, the folks that are supervising those folks. Some of
them
will release, unfortunately, without halfway house
opportunity. Now this is a very small percentage of the entire
group.
It will only affect those that are releasing right now,
and that we anticipate releasing with in eighteen months.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you releasing people right now that you
were anticipating releasing in eighteen months?
Mr. Lappin. That we were anticipating?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Absolutely.
Mr. Mollohan. So this policy is in effect immediately?
Mr. Lappin. In November the Sentencing Commission
made a decision, actually December, to adjust by two levels the crack guidelines, crack sentencing guidelines, and postponed
its
implementation until March 3. It asked judges to please wait until March 3, give the prisons and other probation,
marshals,
other folks, time to prepare for what could be a wave of early
releases. And so there was kind of a waiting
period. But some
of these folks may be in drug treatment now, because they were nearing the end of their
sentence. A few of them may not have gotten into drug treatment yet. And their sentence was
shortened
to the point that they are releasing with either only
a portion of that treatment completed, or possibly none. But
again,
it will only affect those that are releasing right now.
Mr. Mollohan. Not only, though. I am all for
a reconsideration of our sentencing guidelines. But is it mandatory that you release from the prison prisoners who fall into
this category even if they have not received drug treatment? Or have----
Mr. Lappin. We have no choice.
The judge reduces their
sentence, we must release them.
Mr. Mollohan. Can they be released contingent
upon their
staying clean after they are released and going through a program that requires testing?
Mr. Lappin. I assume the court could put conditions on that
release.
Mr. Mollohan. And when you
say ``the court?''
Mr. Lappin. The court.
Mr. Mollohan. You are talking about
federal courts? The
individual courts? It would be up to the discretion of the
individual judge?
Mr. Lappin. Correct. Now, again, hopefully after this first
wave, as I mentioned of the 1,500 we have received orders
on
729 of them did not release. So what we will do with those,
729, we will immediately look at their new release
date. And if
they are recommended for drug treatment and they are
volunteering for drug treatment, we are going to
put them at
the top of the list, and we will immediately put them in drug
treatment.
Mr. Mollohan.
Doing these things individually like that, is
not the way to do it. We ought to be looking at what are the
consequences
of this action, however well intentioned. And I am totally in favor of more sympathetic treatment to people who are in jail
because of drug use offenses. But it needs to be looked at in the context of the different situations we are putting people
in and the likelihood of their being successful
or failing in those situations.
Mr. Lappin. Well,
without a doubt, it was a negative
consequence of the decision. Because some of these folks will leave----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, they will be right back in.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. Without completion of treatment.
And just let me say, I mean, we are struggling a little bit in
the drug treatment area. We unfortunately----
DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I want to get that. What about the needs, additional
resource needs, to intensity the treatment for those who are still going to be in long enough to experience treatment? Do
we need to think about the supplemental, increasing your funding in that area? 2008-2009?
Mr. Lappin. Let me get the number for you here. This was
the first year since the requirement was imposed, that we treat
100 percent of the inmates who require drug treatment, and
volunteer for drug treatment, that we were unable to treat
all
of the offenders. We treated probably 18,000 offenders this
past year. We needed to treat 22,000. So we----
Mr. Mollohan. And that is because of lack of resources?
Mr. Lappin. We did not have enough drug treatment
specialists to increase the number of classes to accommodate
that.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, is that
a problem you face, you are
describing a 2008 problem?
Mr. Lappin. We still have
that problem.
Mr. Mollohan. Were you describing 2007? Just when you said that was the first year? Okay.
What about 2008? What is your circumstance in 2008?
Mr. Lappin. We
still have a 7,000 inmate backlog for drug
treatment.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Does the Department of
Justice request
for the $240 million reprogramming include funds for adequate
drug treatment of all the inmates that
require it?
Mr. Lappin. I have to go back and check exactly what was
included in that $240 million?
Mr. Mollohan. So you are not sure you can answer that
question?
Mr. Lappin. I will answer that.
What we have done is,
getting back to what we need----
Mr. Mollohan. Would you get back to the Committee
for the
record?
Mr. Lappin. I will do that.
[Clerk's note.--The Department
of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established
by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained
in the Committee's permanent files.]
Mr. Mollohan. Soon? Before we do our supplemental? And
before
we address your reprogramming request?
Mr. Lappin. I will do that.
Mr. Mollohan.
I really want to know the answer to this.
Your testimony indicates that 40 percent of inmates entering
the BOP system
have a drug use disorder and require residential drug abuse treatment. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Lappin.
That is pretty close.
Mr. Mollohan. In fiscal year 2008, BOP was only able to
provide
treatment to 80 percent of eligible inmates instead of
the 100 percent requirement established by the Violent Crime
Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Do you agree with
that? Treated 80 percent instead of 100 percent that were
mandated
under the authorization?
Mr. Lappin. That is probably pretty close.
Mr. Mollohan.
How much additional funding is needed to be
in compliance with this law?
Mr. Lappin. We need about
another eighty positions. And
about $10 million in funding to work off the backlog and treat
100 percent. The eighty
positions are included in the $10 million.
Mr. Mollohan. Now have you followed these individuals in
a
way that would allow you to tell us what percentage of the
participants succeed in remaining drug free after treatment
and
after release?
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, what is----
Mr. Lappin. Well, as I indicated our recidivism rate is
about 40 percent. We have recidivism research on all of our
programs.
Our drug treatment, vocational training----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, that was not exactly my question.
Mr. Lappin. And we see a reduction of about 16 percent,
from our 40 percent----
Mr. Mollohan. My
question was how many remaining drug free?
Do you have a kind of follow up program----
Mr. Lappin.
Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. That would allow you to say how
many remain drug free?
Mr. Lappin. Well, I do not know the exact number. I can
tell you what percent, which the percent coming back is probably
about 30 percent of those folks coming back versus 40 percent without treatment.
INMATE MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. One of your biggest cost drivers in your
S & E account
is inmate medical care. We sort of touched on it.
I think the last couple of years you have needed reprogramming to cover
those costs. And you have a large increase for fiscal year 2009. Now what is the total amount budgeted in the package before
us today for medical care?
Mr. Lappin. Medical care?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. We spent about $730 million last year. I think
we got close to $800 million in requirements this fiscal year.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Why the increase?
Mr. Lappin. The rising cost of healthcare----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Right.
Mr. Lappin [continuing]. And aging. You know, although the
average age
remains about the same, we have a lot more older inmates. It is also because we tend to get a lot more younger
inmates.
So the average age stays about the same, but we have more older inmates, more care issues, more needs, and
healthcare
costs continue to increase.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I cannot imagine a more difficult
environment to
provide inmate medical care. How much of it is
provided in the institution and how much of it is related to being placed
in other settings? I obviously assume these people are armed or not necessarily. They may be dangerous, but
they obviously have to be guarded to protect other patients.
Mr. Lappin. Our goal is to perform as much
of that care as
we can in our institutions. But without a doubt, we cannot
provide the full range of services. We
have a break down of
inside and outside healthcare. We will get that to you for the
record. I do not have the exact
number. But our goal is to
provide as many of those services in our institutions. We have
done a number of things
to be more efficient. For example----
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide
answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided
to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And those who provide it are MDs?
Mr. Lappin. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Our healthcare structure, includes medical
doctors, PAs and
nurses, with their support staff. But it is
really a combination service. We provide the base level
staffing to perform
the basic functions necessary in medical.
We oftentimes have contracted at each location with hospitals
surrounding
the facility to assist us with needs that we cannot
provide there. What we have done is we realized, we finally
realized,
that we could not provide the same level of healthcare at all 114 prisons, given the fact that some were in very rural locations.
Some were in locations where we really could not get very good deals at the local hospitals. So we basically went to structured
care level facilities. So we haveinstitutions now that have very healthy inmates. We have institutions that have less healthy,
we have institutions with more ill inmates, and we have those that need hospitalization. So there was a couple things there.
One, we could not get good contracts at local hospitals. Two, we could not hire the people we needed. We were in rural area.
It was difficult to get the professional staff. And so we tried to put more healthy inmates there so you have less of a need.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the bottom line is you are doing your
utmost to control the cost?
Mr. Lappin.
I would be happy to provide for the record the
strategies we deployed over the last three or four years to
control
costs. But even with that, our costs continue to increase.
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice
was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the
Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in
the Committee's permanent files.]
CROWDING ISSUES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Getting back to the issue of
overcrowding, I understand you
recently completed a study tying increases in crowding and inmate to staff ratios to increase in serious assaults. Can you
tell us a little bit about, share the results of that study?
Mr. Lappin. We did do an evaluation of
the impact on
crowding and staffing on violent incidents. And let me give you
an example. Let me explain a serious
assault. A serious assault, is oftentimes when somebody has to go to the hospital.
They need medical care. They could
die, or they are very
seriously injured. So you have got varying levels of assaults
in the institutions. You have
serious assaults, and you have
less serious assaults. So the study was relevant to serious
assaults.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are assaults, prisoner to prisoner
and there are assaults prisoner to the prison staff. Make
the
distinction, if you could, in your response.
Mr. Lappin. Currently, we do it by rate per 5,000.
Without
a doubt, if you look at the actual numbers from year to year to
year, the numbers are increasing but primarily
driven by the
fact that you have more inmates. So you would expect the number to go up. But if you look at it by rate,
right now our rate of serious assaults on staff is 1.8 per 5,000 inmates. And on
inmates, inmate on inmate serious assaults,
is 10 assaults per
5,000 inmates. What that study reveals, is if you increase
crowding by 1 percent, you should expect,
I think, 4 or 4.09
more assaults per 5,000 than if it remained at the original
level. If you increase the ratio of
inmates to staff by one inmate, you are going to see an increase of assaults by about
4.5 per 5,000. If you lowered the
ratio we would assume that
there would be some lowering of that. So we know that crowding and level of staffing has an
impact on the number of serious assaults. Obviously that's why we are monitoring very closely that ratio, of inmates to staff
as well as crowding.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So are there certain institutions that
have historically
had the most serious assaults between inmates and prison staff? Are there some that are up there
historically?
Mr. Lappin. We monitor that very closely. You are right. It
kind of goes in waves. It fluctuates. But there are a couple
of
locations where we have had more serious incidents than others. Let me give you an example. I just recently responded
to the Chairman, specifically on homicides and assaults at certain penitentiaries. In that response, excuse me----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am glad you have quite a lot of water
provided.
Mr. Lappin. But you know what?
If I run out of water----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. All that water, it looks like it is from
the spring
but it is actually from the Anacostia.
Mr. Lappin. But if we run out of water and I am done, just
give
me a second, I will be done here in a second.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Mr. Lappin.
One particular institution was USP Beaumont.
And without a doubt we have got concerns at that particular
institution.
And it has gone on several years. The staff there
have done a wonderful job in very challenging circumstances. I give
them enormous credit. On the other hand, I am concerned
about their reaction to some of the training that is provided,
some of the direction. And this goes to all of the staff. I am not talking about just management, I am talking about all of
the staff. So given that, we are going to make an adjustment there, temporarily. We are going to bring down the security level.
We are going to give them a break, and we are going to bring down the level of high security inmates there. We are going to
reduce the number of inmates then we are going to do some training. We are going to ensure that the folks are properly trained,
ready to go, and then we will begin to transition back.
So certainly when we see those incidents, let
me give you
the whole story. His other question was these newer
institutions, you are seeing some serious assaults
there. And
we are. And that, I guess, certainly is the challenge of
opening a high security institution with your
most risky
inmates and lots of less experienced people. So we have gone
into those locations and done additional training.
We are very
pleased with the reaction of those staff. We are confident that
level of incidents will come down and
be more consistent with
other penitentiaries. But without a doubt, when we see this
increase occurring over time,
we try to intervene and do what
we can to reduce those levels of incidents and concerns. That
is a great question.
PROGRAMS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we have
talked
about inmate substance abuse treatment. And I would like for the staff to be able to follow up with you and your staff,
Mr.
Director, about that so that we know exactly what the
situation is and what appropriation demands would be to make it
better. Offender recidivism, as we talked about, is at a 40
percent rate. Other than drug treatment, what programs does
the Bureau of Prisons offer, which you think have an impact in
reducing, recidivism and what more should we be doing in
those or other areas?
Mr. Lappin. Yes. Without a doubt, Prison Industries is one
of these programs.
Of the inmates who participate in Prison
Industries, we see fewer of them coming back than the run of
the mill inmate.
Also inmates who get a GED, and inmates who get vocational training. And to be quite honest with you, even
though we do
not yet have the results of other specialty programs that improve social values, improve decision making, we anticipate that
we are going to see similar results in those
programs as well. So too other psychology programs, we have
some other
specialty programs, and we have faith-based
programs. The bottom line is, those inmates are volunteering
for those
programs. That is the first step towards improving
their skills and abilities. They are acknowledging, ``Hey I
have
issues. I need to deal with those issues.''
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I get the feeling we have a very progressive
management in the Bureau of Prisons. For all of
these programs, we do not have enough resources to implement the programs
that we need and certainly to run them at a scale that makes them available to all eligible, willing prisoners.
Mr. Lappin. We monitor our waiting lists in all these
areas. We are managing the GED waiting list very well. We are
managing
the vocational training waiting list well. Obviously
we have already talked about drug treatment and the backlog we have
there. It is unfortunate that there are thousands and
thousands of inmates who release from prison never participating
in Prison Industries where they learn, work skills, that is a trade. They learn what it means to get up on time and be at
a certain assignment and be held accountable for the work that you do. Work skills that many of them lack when they come to
prison.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Lappin, I would like you to submit for the record references which discuss
this matter. Academic references, case study references, which talk about all of these, I call them remedial programs, and
to the extent they are available what impact they have on recidivism.
Mr. Lappin. We will do that.
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within
the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official
record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
Mr. Mollohan. And also the quality of
life of incarcerated
people. And then I would like to follow up, perhaps at a hearing, or otherwise, and understand those
issues. So I have a lot of questions in those areas. Some of them we will submit
for the record. But I do want to mention,
or give you an opportunity to talk about the importance of the Prison Industries Program. I understand that is particularly
effective
at providing skills for inmates when they are released and
works to reduce recidivism. Is that accurate?
Mr. Lappin. That is accurate. This was reflected by the research we have done on inmates who participate in a Prison
Industries
Program for as little as six months.
Mr. Mollohan. How many inmates in the federal prison system ever
participate in a Prison Industries Program?
Mr. Lappin. Today there are 23,000 inmates working in
Prison
Industries.
Mr. Mollohan. What is the percentage of your population?
Mr. Lappin.
18 percent of the eligible inmates who could be
in Prison Industries.
Mr. Mollohan. 18 percent of
the eligible inmates?
Mr. Lappin. 18 percent of the eligible inmates.
Mr. Mollohan.
Yes.
Mr. Lappin. Our goal is 25 percent.
Mr. Mollohan. Why? Does that reach all
of them?
Mr. Lappin. It does not.
Mr. Mollohan. Well why is that your goal? Why
is your goal
not to reach 100 percent of those who are eligible?
Mr. Lappin. I am confident if we
ever reach that goal, we will set a new goal. But it has been the goal for many years.
Our proposal would be that all
eligible inmates----
Mr. Mollohan. And that is a factor, really, of resources,
that also the push
back you get from the private sector with
regard to Prison Industries, is that correct?
Mr. Lappin.
And some legislation that has been passed that
has limited our ability to continue to grow and provide additional work
opportunities in Prison Industries.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I think that is very shortsighted because the
cost to society is real and the savings to society would be, I think, equally or more real if we did engage inmates in more
skill----
Mr. Lappin. I mean, we recognize the concern. The concern
is we are taking jobs away from
law abiding citizens and
businesses. We do not want to do that.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Lappin. We are more than happy to explore work
opportunities that have less, if any, impact on businesses in
the
United States. Let me give a quick example, call centers. Most of that work has been done in other countries. We have
brought
some of that work back and inmates are now answering 411 calls for information, all public information. It is a wonderful
area. They work in shift work. In advance of going
into that program they receive education where we help them
eliminate
slang from their language----
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I do not want to go into too much of
that but you
have certainly affirmed the usefulness of the
program and I would like to follow up for the record, and to
follow
up otherwise.
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions
submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent
to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
HEALTHCARE COSTS
Quickly on healthcare costs, because we have not included,
and Mr. Ruppersberger
has not had a chance to question and Mr. Rogers wants an addi
|
