Federal Cure - Parole, H.R. 3072, H.R. 1593, S. 1060, The Second Chance Act, H.R. 261, H.R. 623, U.S. vs. Booker, Federal Prison, Federal Inmate(s). "Using Technology To Bring About Federal Criminal Justice Reform" TM

14 May 2008 (Updated)

Federal Parole and Re-entry Legislation for the 110th Congress

The Criminal Justice Tax Relief Act of 2008 - A bill to establish a hybrid system of parole for all federal offenders:

On 06 May 2008, FedCURE had extensive meetings with Rep. Danny K Davis (D IL) and his key staffers. The Criminal Justice Tax Relief Act of 2008 (CJTRA) authored by FedCURE has been changed in a couple of significant ways and will probably have a new name. For now it is titled The Federal Release Revision Act of 2008. Without going into detail (the devil is always in the details), suffice it to say that increased good time and parole review by the United States Parole Commission for those given over a certain length of sentence are the two focuses of this bill. FedCURE is very happy at the outcome. The proposed bill will still affect each and every inmate in some positive way.

Rep. Davis has formed an advisory panel of a number of federal judges, a former Deputy Attorney General, a couple of post-conviction defense counsel, key Judiciary Committee staffers and representatives of the BOP, Parole Commission, Probation Services and other government agencies, FedCURE is finishing up the rewrite and will be forwarding a copy back to Rep. Davis' staff for distribution of a highlighted talking points bulletin to the Advisory Panel. The Panel is being asked for a twenty day turnaround for comments at which point another rewrite will doubtlessly take place before it is presented to House Counsel for their dissection of the details to make sure they conform to whatever statutory changes would have to take place in the event that the bill passes. All of this takes time and we are aware that time is of consequence. Rest assured we are pushing as hard as we can to get this bill introduced as soon as possible.

Background:

On 20 April 2007 FedCURE met with the point person for Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois the main sponsor of last year's federal parole bill - H.R. 3072. FedCURE also spent about one half hour with Rep. Davis. Subsequently, FedCURE drafted a new bill titled: The Criminal Justice Tax Relief Act of 2008 (CJTRA), which will take a different focus. The CJTRA would establish a hybrid system of parole for all federal offenders. The bill is estimated to save the U.S. taxpayers $4 to $7 billion dollars annualy.

The CJTRA, would, inter alia:

Reinstate the old parole statutes and make amendments thereto.
Make all offenders eligible for parole.
Increase good time allowances.
Give jurisdiction to the United States Parole Commission to set release dates in accordance with applicable parole guidelines or the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, whichever is lowest.
Provide for reduction in term of imprisonment of elderly offenders.
Clarify parole procedures.
Provide post incarceration supervision.
Apply prospectively and retroactively.
Extend the life of the United States Parole Commission for twenty years.

The Second Chance Act of 2007 - was signed into law by President Bush on 09 April 2008. Public Law 110-199.

The bill was introduced in the 110th Congress on 20 March 2007 as H.R. 1593. Just a week after the re-introduction of the bill, 28 March 2007, members of the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 1593 out of committee. During the mark-up of the bill, members voted down several amendments that would have jeopardized the bipartisan support for the bill. Sen. Bidden introduced S. 1060, an identical bill, in the Senate on 29 March 2007. On 02 August 2007 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed out the Second Chance Act. Unanimously. The Second Chance Act passed in the Senate, late Tuesday night (11 March 2008) and awaits the signature of President Bush before it can become law. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 347 to 62 to pass the Second Chance Act on 13 November 2007. The bipartisan bill was passed by voice vote, last night, after the Senate adopted a concurrent resolution (H Con Res 270) that made minor changes to the Second Chance Act, including limiting the federal share of project costs for some reentry programs.

FedCURE called on President George Bush to sign the Second Chance Act in to law at his earliest convenience. During his State of the Union address in 2004, the president coined "America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life." He announced a proposal that would make $300 million in grant money available over four years for prisoner reentry initiatives, including those involving faith-based groups. The President is to be thanked for getting the ball rolling.

The President signed the Second Chance Act on 09 April 2008 at the White House. Public Law 110-199.

For updates send an e-mail to:
FedCURE-org-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Gene Guerrero, Director of The Open Society Institute/Open Society Policy Center (SOROS) is the lead lobbying effort behind this legislation.

Congratulations to Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., the lead sponsor of The Second Chance Act (H.R. 1593) and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., D-Del., the lead sponsor of a companion Senate measure S.1060.

13 November 2007

Congratulations America! H.R. 1593 - The Second Chance Act, Passes the U.S. House 347 to 62.

Congratulations, each and every one of you, for your hard work and perserverieance in supporting H.R. 1593 - The Second Chance Act. The Bill was passed by a roll call vote during the evening House Session today, 13 November 2007, @ 7:14 PM-EST. The vote was 347 YEA and 62 NAY. Onward to the great Senate!

America is the land of second chance. What a wonderful opportunity this is for America to become a model for all the world to follow. A world of second chance. Jonathan Harsch of Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter, Inc., reporting from DC on behalf of FedCURE, sums it up best in his statement below:

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:11 PM

"We are proud see this truly bipartisan legislation pass the U.S. House of Representatives with such strong support. H.R. 1593 is a bill that benefits all Americans because it reinforces the fundamental fairness and moral foundation on which our system of justice was built."

Jonathan Harsch,
Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter, Inc.
1730 M St. NW, Suite 911
Washington, DC 20036
http://kscw.com

Also, please find below a "Media Alert" and note of congratulations from the office of Rep. Danny K. Davis (ILL), the author of the bill. Great job Danny! That's why you get the big bucks.

Ps. We would remind all that prisoner re-entry is among one of the President's initiatives. The President, "We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison....America is the land of second chance ... " This is truly a bipartisan bill.

Thank You All:

Mark A. Varca, J.D., CIO & Executive Dir.,
FedCURE

From the Office of Congressman Danny K. Davis (ILL)

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:32 PM

Subject: MEDIA ALERT: TOMORROW'S PRESS CONFERENCE

347 YEA AND 62 NAY

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE,

ON THE BEHALF OF DANNY K. DAVIS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND CONTINUED SUPPORT, IT PAID OFF!

Attached, please find the "Media Alert" for tomorrow's press conference.

[ www.fedcure.org/documents/DannyDavisPressConfSCAM140707-FedCURE.pdf ]

AGAIN, THANKS EVERYONE . . . . .

Regards,

Helen Mitchell, MPA
Director of Strategic Planning & Policy Development
Office of Congressman Danny K. Davis
2159 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5006
Fax: (202) 225-5641
www.house.gov/davis

For more information see below. For updates see: http://www.fedcure.org/information/Legislation.shtml.

To learn more about the legislative process see: FedCURE's Educational links.

For day-to-day e-mail updates join FedCURE's Free Listserve and Discussion Group of over 1,900 subscribers:

To Subscribe, send an e-mail to: FedCURE-org-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Thereafter, to Post a message send to: FedCURE-org@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe send a e-mail to: FedCURE-org-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To visit the site go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FedCURE-org/

Please Donate and Join Now: http://www.fedcure.org/join.shtml.

FedCURE Report: 04 October 2007 | Washington, DC

Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

Julia M. Fantacone, of Kimmitt, Senter, Coates, & Weinfurter, Inc, Washington, DC attended this meeting and filed report on behalf of FedCURE.

Witnesses:

Glenn C. Loury (Brown University)

Bruce Western (Harvard University)

Alphonso Albert (Second Chances Program)

Michael Jacobson (Vera Institute of Justice)

Pat Nolan (Prison Fellowship)

This was a joint committee hearing focusing primarily on the economic effects of mass incarceration in the United States with consideration of racial disparities, drug sentencing, and prisoner reentry. Congressional members present included Sen. James Web (D-VA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA), Rep. Phil English (R-PA), Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA), and Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY).

Members of the committee voiced concerns about the rise of the incarceration rate in the United States over the past decade. Senator Casey called it, "a human tragedy, and a fiscal nightmare." One main concern is that there have been enormous economic costs associated with prison construction and operation as well as productivity and wage loss for prisoners upon reentry. Senator Scott stated that, "the cradle to prison pipeline has many more economic costs than the cradle to college pipeline." A second issue discussed was the disproportionate impact incarceration has had on minority communities. Much of the growth in the prison population is due to changes in legislation, mainly drug policy, not an increase in crime. Prisoner reentry was a top concern and all members agreed that the Second Chance Act was on the right path to alleviate prisoner reentry problems. Senator Brownback stated, "It's a bipartisan bill with a lot of support. It is ready to go to the floor. I think we can get a signature on it from President Bush."

Glenn C. Loury, Professor of Social Sciences, Brown University

Background/Concerns

� The United States imprisons at a far higher rate than any industrialized democracy in the entire world

� A high level of imprisonment is not a rational response to high levels of crime

� The extent of racial disparity among those imprisoned is greater than in any other major area of American social life

� The war on drugs has not been successful and has had a disparaging affect on the African American community

Recommendations

� Repeal mandatory minimum drug sentencing and release non-violent drug offenders

Bruce Western, Department of Sociology, Harvard University

Background/Concerns

� The rise in incarceration rates today is five times higher than in 1972 with the highest increases in uneducated African American males

� The economic opportunities for those released from prison have been greatly diminished due to erratic work histories and little education

Recommendations

� Reexamine consequences that limit ex-felons to benefits and employment

� Support prisoner reentry programs that provide transitional employment and other services

� Support the establishment of local social impact panels to evaluate unwarranted disparities between juvenile and adult incarceration

Alphonso Albert, Second Chances Program, Norfolk, Virginia

Background/Concerns

� Most incarcerated individuals have families who in turn end up becoming incarcerated

� Prisoners need pre-release planning and post-release assistance services to assist them in making a positive transition from prison back into their community

� Prisoners need assistance in attaining identification such as a driver license, housing placement, job training, and employment

Recommendations

� Fund reentry programs that provide pre-release planning and post-release assistance

Michael Jacobson, Director, Vera Institute of Justice

Background/Concerns

� The rate of growth of spending on corrections in state budgets far exceeds that for education, health care, social services, transportation, and environmental protection

� Putting greater numbers of people in prison as a way to achieve public safety is one of the least effective ways of decreasing crime

� Once prisoners leave they are confronted with overwhelming barriers to reentry

Recommendations

� Begin to systematically transfer some resources used to imprison people into community based prevention and reentry programs

Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison Fellowship

Background/Concerns

� Inmates do not leave prison as law-abiding citizens; the skills they learn to survive while in prison make them anti-social.

� Upon reentry, prisoners will need to find food, shelter, employment. These logistics and choices will create feelings of intense stress, often becoming overwhelming.

Recommendations

� Upon reentry, prisoners need a mentor to assist them with decisions and make them accountable for their choices

� Reentry planning should begin as soon as a prisoner is sentenced

� Prison should assist inmates in strengthening family connections

� Pre-existing conditions of drug abuse, physical abuse, and marital conflict should be resolved while in prison

� Inmates should be encouraged to participate in faith based programs

Questions and Answers

Webb: Concerning disparities among minorities in drug cases, the point of arrest identifies the criminal, rather than the crime actually taking place. How does that skew the situation?

Loury: In my testimony, there is a chart of New York City. It shows the concentration of incarceration rates among neighborhoods. The areas that are in red have the highest rate. You can see that the neighborhoods where blacks live have the highest concentration. In 1985, those were small areas in red but you can see that in 1996 the concentration in those same areas has grown. Strong families are important, but family participation and causation and not correlated. Common factors of distress among these families are underlying issues.

Western: Those incarcerated are not any less likely to have children. Children parallel their parents. There is an increase of divorce and separation among those incarcerated. There is usually a corrosive family structure. In addition, decisions about policing create even more disparities among the already disadvantaged.

Albert: Look at every point in the process of charging someone with a crime. What type of offense was it? How do you charge them? The decision making point in minority areas is often to the extreme.

Jacobson: We are spending money to hold criminals in communities in upstate prisons instead of using that same amount of money in the community where the criminal lives.

Nolan: Prisoners cannot keep in touch with their families. There are shorter and shorter visiting times. Phone bills are skyrocketing and phone call times are becoming shorter and shorter. The prisons need more programs to keep their families together.

Casey: Reiterate the statement you were making before about emergency room treatments for drug related maladies.

Loury: The chart in my testimony presents statistics regarding the number of people incarcerated, the number of drug related emergency room visits, and the number of people buying drugs. As you can see, the amount in prisons and emergency rooms is increasing but the amount of drugs purchased is also increasing. If people go to jail or are hospitalized it is not closing down the market, it just makes room for someone else to more in and start selling drugs. Drugs are much cheaper and easier to get.

Casey: I am going to play the devils advocate for the committee now. What if someone asked us why we were even arguing about this by saying that if it is against the law to have an illegal substance than that person should be penalized for having one and that is the end of the story? Is this a problem with the policy of arrest or is it a problem with what happens after the arrest?

Albert: When a police officer finds someone with an illegal substance, they have two options. They can take that person to jail. The person would have to post bail or stay in jail and possibly lose their job, family, etc. Alternatively, the officer could give the offender a court summons. The offender could go in front of a judge who could then send them to jail or give them community service. If the offender came to the hearing from the street, they would most likely get community service. If the offender was taking to jail right away and then summoned to court the judge would probably send that person back to prison.

Casey: Is there any uniformity on the street level or is it up to the police officer?

Albert: Police reflect the sentiment in their community. It depends where funding and resources are directed. If the community has outreach or service, programs in place than the officer may be inclined to rehabilitate a person instead of sending them to jail. Communities need justice but officers can adjust the way they police based on their community.

Jacobson: We tend to sue jail for every type of crime instead of just the types of crime it is truly useful for. We cannot afford to spend money to keep every person in prison. Most laws that put people in prison are for things that people do not like, not things that are truly harmful to us.

Nolan: Prosecutors are just looking for numbers to fill quotas and make them look tough but they are often just setting people up.

Webb: Does length of a sentence deter crime? Is there a different process we can take for people with drug possession?

Loury: We should repeal mandatory minimums and release non-violent drug offenders.

Jacobson: People would be more afraid of swift apprehension than a long sentence. Offenders do not think they can be caught. They are not thinking about how many years the sentence will be, neither are the members of congress who make the sentencing laws. There is no evidence that marginal increases in length of a sentence are deterrents. In addition, we keep many people beyond "crime committing years," into their geriatric years. Too many elderly are in prisons that are not likely to commit another crime.

Nolan: Treatment of drugs is so much more important than incarceration.

Report filed for FedCURE by: KIMMITT, SENTER, COATES & WEINFURTER, Washington, DC.

FedCURE
P.O. Box 15667
Plantation, Florida 33318-5667
USA

Web Site: http://www.FedCURE.org
E-mail: FedCURE@FedCURE.org

E-fax: (408) 549-8935

FedCURE Report - 28 September 2007 | Washington, DC

"The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA): A Closer Look at the PLRA and its Unintended Consequences"

A DISCUSSION PRESENTED BY

The Coalition to Stop Abuse and Violence Everywhere (SAVE)

"The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA): A Closer Look at the PLRA and its Unintended Consequences"

September 28, 2007

Julia M. Fantacone, of Kimmitt, Senter, Coates, & Weinfurter, Inc, Washington, DC attended this meeting and filed report on behalf of FedCURE.

Approximately 50 attended this meeting, including 30 Senate staff members. Participants voiced concerns and their comments indicated agreement in the need for legislative action to address the consequences of the PLRA. Many were particularly concerned that there seemed to be no internal prison resources available to assist prisoners in retaining their rights. There was also agreement that 15 days is an insufficient amount of time to file a grievance.

Featured Panelists:

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law and Member of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons

Garrett Cunningham, Former prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice who was sexually assaulted and raped by a prison guard

Moderated by:

Jodi Kent, Coalition to Stop Abuse and Violence Everywhere

Background

Passed in 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act was created to reduce frivolous litigation by prisoners. The number of frivolous prisoner lawsuits has declined but the PLRA has had numerous unintended consequences such as preventing rape victims, children in detention, and religious rights violations from reaching federal courts. These unintended consequences of the PLRA have resulted in limited monitoring of prisons around the country and federal courts being unable to deliver justice to prisoners. This briefing discussed proposed reforms that will continue to reduce frivolous prisoner litigation, while also allowing meritorious case to reach the courts. Some legislative recommendations discussed at this briefing are part of draft legislation introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).

Physical Injury Requirement

Consequences

Denies damage recovery to prisoners who complain of sexual abuse, deprivation of religious freedom, and other rights violations unless the prisoner can show that "physical injury" resulted from the violation.
Other forms of cruel and unusual punishment, such as grossly unsanitary conditions and cavalier disregard of prisoners' medical needs, also do not meet the "physical injury" requirement for such claims.

Legislative Recommendations

Repeal the provision that prohibits prisoners from bringing lawsuits for mental or emotional injury without demonstrating a physical injury.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Consequences

Prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies with corrections authorities before seeking redress in court. Prisoners who have suffered abuse at the hands of corrections authorities must utilize grievance procedures before those same authorities. Some administrative remedies include filing administrative grievances within 15 days of the violation, regardless of how emotionally traumatic the violation was.
Prison and jail grievance systems have created a baffling maze in
which a barely literate, mentally ill, physically incapacitated, or juvenile prisoner's procedural misstep bars meritorious constitutional claims.
Non-frivolous claims are automatically dismissed for failure to exhaust.

Legislative Recommendations

No lawsuit may go forward without first affording the correctional agency the opportunity to resolve the prisoner's grievance through the administrative process.
The prisoner is encouraged to seek administrative review
Preserve the rights of prisoners who have made a misstep in the administrative process or missed a single filing deadline. The courts would be deferred to the correctional agency to take administrative action rather than eliminate the claim.

Application to Juveniles

Consequences

The PLRA never intended to apply to juveniles because they do not have a history of filing frivolous claims.
At many institutions, juveniles must file all grievances themselves without parental assistance
Juveniles do not have the experience or education to follow complicated administrative procedures.

Legislative Recommendations

Repeal the PLRA provisions extending its requirements to juveniles

In Forma Pauperis Claims

Consequences

A "three strikes" provision bars the filing of lawsuits by indigent prisoners who made mistakes in prior cases due to their lack of access to counsel or legal training.
requires certain indigent prisoners who have previously had three cases dismissed to pay the full filing fee up front

Legislative Recommendations

Amend the "three-strikes" provision by limiting it to prisoners who have had 3 lawsuits or appeals dismissed as malicious within the past 5 years.

Attorney's Fees/Filing Fees

Consequences

Fee restrictions often make it cost-prohibitive for attorneys to represent prisoners.
Places greater burdens on courts to process cases in which prisoners, who are not conversant with the law and court rules, must represent themselves.
Filing-fee provisions deter indigent prisoners whose constitutional rights have been violated from seeking the legal redress to which they are entitled.

Legislative Recommendations

Allow prisoners who prevail on civil rights claims to recover reasonable attorney's fees like others whose civil rights have been violated.
Allow indigent prisoners whose cases are found to state a valid claim at the preliminary screening stage to pay a partial filing fee rather than the full filing fee, now $350 in district courts and $450 in appellate courts.

Conclusion

The discussion supported amendments to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and was successful at convincing the Senate staff and others in attendance that the most pressing problem facing the PLRA is the inability for prisoners to file meritorious claims regarding constitutional and other violations that occur behind bars. The SAVE Coalition supports Senator Durbin's draft legislation of "The Prison Abuse Remedies Act," which makes several changes to the PLRA without altering the core screening provisions that permit courts to dismiss cases that are frivolous or malicious.

Report filed for FedCURE by: Julia M. Fantacone, of Kimmitt, Senter, Coates, & Weinfurter, Inc, Washington, DC

FedCURE
P.O. Box 15667
Plantation, Florida 33318-5667
USA

Web Site: http://www.FedCURE.org
E-mail: FedCURE@FedCURE.org

E-fax: (408) 549-8935

FedCURE Report: 28 June 2007 | Washington, DC

Hearing on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws - The Issues

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

9:30 am - 12:00 pm

2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Hosted by Representative Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security

Report in PDF format: http://www.FedCURE.org/documents/FedCURE-KSC&W-Report-HearingMandatoryMinSenLaw-260607.pdf

FedCURE Report - 25 June 2007 | Washington, DC

Violent Crime-Prevention and Solutions from the Experts: A Summit on Crime Policy.

Friday, 22 June 2007

8:30 am- 1:30 pm

2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Hosted by Representative Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

Report in PDF format: http://www.FedCURE.org/documents/FedCURE-KSC&W-Report-ViolentCrimePreventionSolutions25607.pdf.

FedCURE Report: 26 May 2007

~ Congressional Briefing ~

"Can Probation and Parole Supervision Reduce Recidivism?"

16 May 2007

Dear FedCURE Members, Subscribers and Friends:

It is our pleasure to introduce to you our friend and new FedCURE member and associate: Mr. Jonathan Harsch of Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter, Inc., of Washington, DC. http://www.kscw.com. Jonathan has committed his lobbying talents to FedCURE and brings with him the support and expertise of his firm's senior partners, to do all they can to support FedCURE's federal parole and re-entry legislative campaigns.

Jonathan jumped right into our legislative campaign. He attended the 12^th April and 22^nd May meetings of the re-entry working group at Open Society Institute (SOROS) as FedCURE's representative to support The Second Chance Act. Jonathan and his senior partner John Weinfurter met with Kenny and Charlie on 19 April 2007 in Washington for a get together-get acquainted dinner. They became fast friends. On the 16 May 2007 Jonathan represented FedCURE at the Congressional briefing on "Can Probation & Parole Supervision Reduce Recidivism?" (see full report filed by Jonathan below).

Jonathan and or members from Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter have committed to attend and represent FedCURE at upcoming OSI meetings, Congressional briefings and other events in Washington, DC. Many thanks to Jon and his firm for their support.

FedCURE

~~~~~~~

FedCURE Report:

Congressional Briefing - "Can Probation and Parole Supervision Reduce Reduction of Recidivism?"

16 May 2007 ~ Washington, DC.

Filed by: FedCURE's Jonathan Harsch of Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter, Inc.

Date filed: 17 May 2007, Washington, DC.

_______

Can Probation and Parole Supervision Reduce Recidivism?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
2:00 pm - 3:30 pm
2226 Rayburn House Office Building

Hosted by Representative Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

SPEAKERS:

Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry, Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Pre-Release Center
Cedric Hendricks, Esq., Associate Director, Office of Legislative, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA)
Alexa Eggleston, Director of National Policy, Legal Action Center
Phil Fornaci, Director, D.C. Prisoners' Project, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

ATTACHMENTS [55 pages - 8.04 MB .pdf file download]

Scanned copies of the documents distributed at the briefing which include:

� the CSOSA Fact Sheet,

� the ICCA 5/07 updated Guidelines for Probation and Parole Re-Entry Programs,

� Mr. LoBuglio's 2007 testimony on Promoting Prison and Jail Reentry Programs,

� the Urban Institute 2006 paper on the "Whys" and "Hows" of Measuring Jail Recidivism,

� the 5/14/07 Legal Times article "Few DC Convicts Get Drug Treatment",

� the Urban Institute's latest data on re-arrests (1994), and the Reform the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

REPORT:

As expected, Mr. LoBuglio and Mr. Hendricks each gave an overview of their positions based on their previous statements before Congress. Both LoBuglio and Hendricks concentrated on the strengths of their respective correctional programs. Ms. Eggleston and Mr. Fornaci provided the opposing views on how the system is in disrepair and is often the cause of recidivism.

Of most interest to FedCURE was the discussion over why the current system of parole in state systems leads to an increase in recidivism. Phil Formaci of the DC Prisoners' Project explained how, in the DC system, fewer than 25% of those who seek drug and alcohol treatment can get it. 1/3 of violations of parole are technical--generally from a failed urine test or a missed meeting with the parole officer. He stated that many of these technical offenses will land the parolee back in jail. This point was disputed by LoBuglio, Hendricks, and Ed Reilly, Chairman of the US Parole Commission (who only made his presence known once this point was raised). Reilly contended that most of these technical violations only land the parolee back in the prison after the 6^th or 7^th offense; Formaci countered that this was an exaggeration, but that even if it was true, breaking addiction commonly takes 7+ attempts, and that these trips back to prison only serve to halt the progress being made in treatment as there are often no available treatment programs in the federal prisons (note: since the closure of DC's last prison in 2001, the District's prisoners are transferred to Federal prisons).

One point that the entire panel agreed on is that part of the recidivism problem is that the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) is tasked with maintaining public safety, not with providing treatment and rehabilitation. Alexa Eggleston rattled off a slew of statistics on drug abuse among the prison population including that 70-80% have a past history of drug use, 50-80% (based on each state) are positive for illicit substances upon arrest, that these statistics are similar in both urban and rural locals, and that therefore it is no surprise that 78% of Americans (no cited source for this) are in support of the programs in the Second Chance Act. Labor-HHS grants for substance abuse treatment are currently seriously under funded, unfairly placing the burden on the states to fund these programs.

Given these numbers, the debate turned to the impact that drug abuse has on the current parole system, and why, without increased treatment, the parole system will become increasingly ineffective. Drug technical violations, while not illegal, will restart the parole clock, keeping parolees on an a spiral which not only drags them down but also overburdens the parole system. (Later, during the Q&A session Charlie Sullivan, Co-Director of International CURE brought up the fact that violent parolees have a much lower rate of recidivism, particularly after their long sentences, so it is important to remember that parole can be successful with many of these types of prisoners).

In summary, the discussion was framed to support the Second Chance Act and as such was most successful at convincing the Hill staff and others in attendance that the most pressing problem facing the BOP and the US correctional system in general is the lack of treatment and rehabilitation for those who are incarcerated, on parole or under government supervision.

5/17/07

Jonathan Harsch
Kimmitt Senter Coates & Weinfurter, Inc.
1730 M St. NW, Suite 911
Washington, DC 20036
http://www.kscw.com

~~~~~~~

FedCURE
P.O. Box 15667
Plantation, Florida 33318-5667
USA

Web Site: http://www.FedCURE.org
E-mail: FedCURE@FedCURE.org

E-fax: (408) 549-8935

Please Donate and Join Now: http://www.fedcure.org/join.shtml

Subscribe to our free discussion group e-mail: FedCURE-org-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

FedCURE Report: 14 May 2007

CURE International Convention

Leavenworth, Kansas

03^rd- 07^th May 2007

CURE's International Convention was held 03rd thru 07th May 2007 in Leavenworth, Kansas. FedCURE was represented by board member, Fred M. Mosely, J.D., LL.M. The convention was well attended by representatives of state and issue chapters.

Conventioneers toured the Zephyr Products Work Release Program and the Lansing State Prison Work and Education Program. Following the field trip was a panel discussion dealing with a national overview of employment and education programs in prison.

There were many important issues discussed, at least two of which could directly affect FedCURE's constituency:

CURE's relationship with inmate organizations. This issue involved the question of whether or not CURE chapters could sponsor CURE affiliated inmate organizations. The position taken by the organization on this issue was that each state has the responsibility of screening existing new chapter request and that certain guidelines be met before associating or creating an inmate organization.
Report by the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Ethical Considerations for revisions to the Department of Health and Human Services Regulations for Protection of Prisoners involved in research. This report proposes a more uniform application of regulations and oversight of all research using prisoners. The committee though its representative, Michael Harden requested that CURE endorse the report. After much deliberation and debate the convention opted not to endorse the report because of a lack of sufficient information.

A report was given to the convention by FedCURE's representative on its efforts over the past year with emphasis on the status of the revival of parole in the federal system.

~~~~~~~

Fred M. Mosely, J.D., LL.M,

Board of Directors