One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3372 authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one stop reentry centers.

The biggest problem, though, is the Department of Justice already does exactly what this bill would require it to do.

The Second Chance Act of 2007, reauthorized by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in the First Step Act of 2018, provides comprehensive assistance to individuals in transition from prison back to the community. This bill is duplicative. It is redundant, and maybe, most importantly, the Democrats know that.

Last Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing. The majority's own briefing memo for that hearing highlighted the reporting center in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. And the center said this: It was a community-based correctional program that has been designed to provide services for its participants at one location.

This is the exact type of program outlined in H.R. 3372. And indeed the center's program received a grant from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance.

In fact, the name of that grant is Smart Supervision: Reducing Prison Populations, Saving Money, and Creating Safer Communities.

H.R. 3372 is duplicative of efforts found in the Second Chance Act under which nonprofit entities are eligible for grant funds. While we want successful reentry programs to reduce recidivism, we should not be creating duplicative and additional bureaucracy in the process.

Also, the bill encourages State, Indian Tribes, and local governments to employ sex offenders, murderers, and human traffickers, and other dangerous criminals to operate the reentry service assistance hotlines.

H.R. 3372 authorizes $7.5 million in grants to States, Indian Tribes, and local governments to operate these reentry service assistance hotlines that direct individuals to local reentry services.

It requires the Attorney General to give preference to applicants who would employ people to operate the hotlines, ``who have been convicted of an offense or have served a term of imprisonment and have completed any court-ordered supervision. But the bill provides no exceptions for violent offenders, such as sex offenders, murderers, human traffickers, and other dangerous criminals.

While it might be appropriate to employ certain offenders who have demonstrated full rehabilitation, Congress should not be incentivizing local communities to hire certain offenders who may not have been rehabbed.

What should we be doing? Spending our time, our limited time, in addressing the rampant crime epidemic in America. Cities are rejecting lenient, soft-on-crime policies and encouraging prosecutors to actually enforce the law.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my dear friend, Ranking Member Jordan, speaks to a particular point that I just have to respond.

I am so glad he cited positive examples of what a reentry program can do, but he is giving evidence, comfort, and advocacy for this legislation. Because isolated programs will not help Americans. We now give a broad-based opportunity for cities, hamlets, villages, and counties across America--rural and urban, North, South, East and West-- to look at their landscape of those reentering and accessing this one- stop program.

We have already said 600,000 are released, and we have already said that these persons want to rehabilitate themselves. Why would anybody oppose this legislation? And it is bipartisan. Let me remind my friends that these are individuals who have served their time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the committee and the subcommittee chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a respected member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out there is nothing in the bill that requires that you screen these individuals. It says you are supposed to hire these folks with that past criminal record to answer the hotlines. That is what the bill says. If you want to amend it to say no, that they have to be screened even more before you let them answer the phones, that is not what the legislation says.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just in a moment let me indicate that you can always find just a sliver on which to oppose.

I hold in my hand a whole list of Republicans that believe the bill works and should work. So that, we should take off the table. Republicans and Democrats support this legislation.

And then I can assure you that people answering the phone will not be randomly answering the phone. They will be under a supervised program, as this program relates. We would hope and expect that they would be the kind that can listen and take the intake of those who are desperate and trying to find a way not to go back to crime.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I would just point out that that is not what the legislation says. It says the Attorney General shall give preference for hiring folks, that I described in my opening statement, to answer these hotlines.

So what the gentlewoman from Texas, my friend, said is just not accurate. It doesn't reflect what is in the bill itself.

That's not the first thing she said today that is not accurate. Earlier, the gentlewoman made a statement. I wrote it down: Isolated programs will not help Americans.

How do you know?

Which isolated programs are you talking about?

I assume you were talking about the one I referenced in Pennsylvania that is doing exactly the same thing this bill seeks to do.

Have you checked that program out?

If they don't help Americans, then whom do they help?

Are they helping illegal immigrants?

I don't know.

Again, all I am saying is it is important when we have these debates we stick to the facts.

For the reasons I outlined before, Mr. Speaker, we oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE.

Mr. Speaker, I always like a words game with my good friend from Ohio, so let me clarify.

An isolated program means that a program in Tulsa and a program in Pennsylvania do not help someone in Idaho. And so what this one-stop program does is it gives the good works of the people of Pennsylvania and Tulsa, it gives Americans the opportunities in cities, hamlets, urban centers, and rural hamlets the opportunity to have the same exact program and to invest in the 600,000, those who are coming out of incarceration, give them the same opportunity for ensuring that they will have that access to this program

That is what our intent was on the Judiciary Committee, and that is what the intent was on the many individuals, if you will, who were trying to craft something that will work for all of America.

Now, let me share with you, Mr. Speaker, an article titled: ``To keep people from returning to jail, Mesa County follows other communities' reentry roadmap.'' Many people transitioning from jail or prison struggle to reenter society. So here is Mesa County's new program with housing, jobs, transportation, and mental health services.

What we simply want to do is to get this program out.

I will just share you with the story of Richard Gallegos who was locked up in the Mesa County jail for the first time at age 18. He spent the next 8 years in and out of jail--typically drug- and alcohol- related misdemeanors that sometimes led to more serious incidents, including nonviolent domestic disputes and resisting arrest. He said that at 27 he was sentenced to prison for a drug and firearms violation.

Altogether, Gallegos, was born and raised in Grand Junction and now 45 years old, has spent 5 years in State prison, and 3 years in county jail, and for the past 4 years he has been on probation. He now works at a job where he is learning masonry, a switch from the oil and gas industry work he did previously.

``I am staying honest, humble,'' he said. ``I try not to walk with too much shame. The best thing in my favor is I have been forgiven by those I have wronged. They understand my drug addiction.''

These are individuals whom we don't want to throw by the wayside. We want to make sure they get into this program.

Mr. Speaker, I include this article in the Record. [From the Colorado Sun, Nov. 8, 2022] To Keep People From Returning to Jail, Mesa County Follows Other Communities' Reentry Roadmap (By Sharon Sullivan)

Richard Gallegos was locked up in the Mesa County Jail for the first time at age 18. He spent the next eight years in and out of jail--typically drug and alcohol-fueled misdemeanors that sometimes led to more serious incidents, including (nonviolent) domestic disputes and resisting arrest, he said. At 27, he was sentenced to prison for a drug and firearms violation.

Altogether, Gallegos, born and raised in Grand Junction and now 45 years old, has spent five years in state prison and three years in county jail. For the past four years, he has been on probation. He now works at a job where he's learning masonry, a switch from the oil and gas industry work he did previously.

``I'm staying honest, humble,'' he said. ``I try not to walk with too much shame. The best thing in my favor is I have been forgiven by those I've wronged. They understand drug addiction.''

Gallegos shares an apartment with an adult daughter, but many formerly incarcerated friends are not so lucky, he said.

``People are coming out of jail with no resources,'' Gallegos said. ``You better hope you have a support system. Resources are slim to none coming out of county jail.

``You're on your own, facing what put you in there in the first place. People's first thought is often, `I want to do what's right--but where do I go?' ''

Mesa County officials have long recognized that many people transitioning from jail or prison struggle with substance abuse, mental illness or both--compounding the multiple other challenges they face when reentering society, and often lacking much-needed resources like Gallegos did.

The Mesa County Sheriff's Office compared names of frequent users of the jail with frequent visitors to emergency rooms at Grand Junction's two acute care hospitals, Community Hospital and St. Mary's Medical Center. (To protect patient privacy, the two hospitals did not disclose names, but confirmed that many people appeared on both lists.) They identified 60-90 frequent users of both the jail and emergency rooms. Most of these frequent users face challenges related to mental health diagnoses or substance abuse, said Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland, who has led an effort to address the issue.

In September, Mesa County launched a new multiagency collaboration (county officials refer to it as MAC), aimed at helping people successfully transition from incarceration. The collaboration connects people to agencies that can assist with employment, housing, transportation and other basic needs, as well as access to mental health services or rehabilitation programs to combat drug or alcohol addictions. Reentering society

In April 2021, 50 percent of people held in the Mesa County Jail were on mental health medications, Mesa County Sheriff Todd Rowell said. Mental health and/or substance abuse issues are a significant factor in recidivism rates at the jail, said Rowell. While people can receive treatment for these conditions while incarcerated, they often lack continuity of care once they leave jail and, thus, can be prone to reoffending, he said.

In 2020, when overall arrests were down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one man was arrested 19 times, Rowell noted. A dozen other people were arrested four to eight times each.

``I was frustrated. I felt people had almost zero chance to succeed after jail,'' Rowell said. ``Life is hard anyways, particularly after spending three months in jail. Finding work is almost impossible. It's a benefit to any county to understand those challenges to change the recidivism.''

Mesa County did not have a transition coordinator at its jail until it hired Julie Mamo in 2019. She visited jails in Boulder and Douglas counties to learn about their reentry programs while creating Mesa County's program. The new multiagency collaboration builds on the program Mamo founded.

Thus far, Mesa County has enlisted three agencies to provide services to help people with reentry: Amos Counseling, a Grand Junction-based counseling service; Foundations 4 Life, an organization that provides substance use disorder and mental health services to people involved in the justice system; and the Freedom Institute, a nonprofit that offers WAGEES (Work and Gain Education and Employment Skills), a community reentry program within the Colorado Department of Corrections.

The Freedom Institute has already been providing WAGEES services for prison parolees in Grand Junction. Its new county contract now allows the Freedom Institute to offer those same services to the jail population.

Lisa Mills, Mesa County's behavioral health strategies manager, decides which agency can best meet the specific needs of a person leaving jail. Case managers are given no more than 10 clients--the goal is to meet with people daily if necessary--to ensure they are adhering to prescription medications, able to access food assistance, acquire bus passes, find employment and housing. Upon release, people are met at the jail by an agency staff member for rides to where they are staying or wherever else they need to go. The agencies work closely with the jail's two transition coordinators.

The county secured a $400,000 grant from the Colorado Department of Human Services' Office of Behavioral Health to fund the program. St. Mary's Medical Center and the Mesa County Sheriff's Office each pitched in another $300,000 for a total of $1 million.

``It's a long overdue program,'' said Lieutenant Henry Stoffel of the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. ``A lot of people leave our facility and don't have basic human needs, and so they often reoffend. We want to get them out of that cycle.'' Returning to prison for minor offenses

It's taken 45-year-old Gary Swenson 20 years to get out of that cycle. His involvement with the justice system began at age 12 when he was sentenced to a Colorado juvenile detention center for a burglary he committed with a relative and two friends. By age 18 he was addicted to methamphetamine. He has spent half his life in and out of state prison.

Swenson said he found it challenging to meet his parole obligations without a reliable source of transportation. Public transit didn't exist in the Grand Valley when he needed it, and he wasn't allowed to drive until he had fulfilled parole obligations. Employers were annoyed that he asked to leave work a couple times each week to attend mandatory substance abuse classes. He also had to take time off to submit weekly urine samples for drug screenings--which he was required to pay for himself, along with the classes.

``Your employer has to be real understanding, which they're usually not,'' Swenson said.

He said most of his time behind bars was for parole violations, including once for receiving a speeding ticket, or on other occasions for missing those classes--all violations for which he'd be sent right back to prison.

``It was always a prison sentence,'' as opposed to probation or a halfway house, Swenson said.

ProPublica (a national nonprofit media outlet that receives funding from The Colorado Trust) recently reported on how easy it is to be sent back to prison for minor offenses. The number of people in Colorado who return to prison within three years is 50 percent, one of the worst recidivism rates in the nation, according to a 2018 Virginia Department of Corrections report cited by ProPublica.

Douglas County's reentry program includes a jail medication-assisted treatment program that helps people with opioid use disorder. The county had a 42 percent recidivism rate in 2021, which is lower than the statewide average, said Nicole Beckett, the jail-based behavioral health services administrator in Douglas County. Its reentry program includes working with probation officers, pretrial officers, public defenders and community behavioral health professionals.

``It's definitely our goal to disrupt the cycle of incarceration,'' Beckett said. ``People with substance use disorders face risk of relapse, making them a challenging population to help.''

Boulder County's reentry program added a housing coordinator, Kim Smith, in 2019 to focus specifically on helping people find housing in the city's extremely tight market. People on probation are prohibited from leaving Boulder County to seek more affordable housing elsewhere. With such a competitive housing market, landlords can easily choose not to rent to people with criminal records, said Smith. The reentry program has seen an 80 percent success rate of people avoiding recidivism.

Mesa County officials say reentry programs are rare in rural areas due to a lack of resources. County Sheriffs of Colorado, a nonprofit that provides programs and support to sheriffs statewide, does not track the number of counties offering transition programs.

While Mesa County Jail offers some programs in-house, it needs more space, and continuity of care has been an issue once people leave jail, Stoffel said. He would like the jail's transition program to double or triple in size, and said he expects reentry programs to increase across Colorado.

``They're in treatment for 45 days; recovery is for life,'' Mamo said. Readjusting to life

In July, Mamo launched a program similar to one she witnessed in Douglas County that helps people acquire identification cards. A Department of Motor Vehicles mobile unit comes to the jail twice a month to issue IDs.

``Most people need two forms of ID,'' said Lory Villumsen, a second transition coordinator hired in June. ``We process the application to help with getting them their Social Security card.'' The transition team is additionally working on finding birth certificates for people.

Mamo has created partnerships with transitional sober living spaces, reunited people with family members who reside outside the community, and enrolled people in treatment programs--sometimes out of town. The challenges of reentry are similar, whether transitioning from jail or prison, except lengthier prison sentences often means a person has become more ``institutionalized,'' making it more difficult to adjust to life on the outside, Mamo said.

People who are incarcerated are told when to eat, when to sleep, what to wear and what to do; ``when people leave jail, we need to empower them to make all these decisions,'' Stoffel noted.

Freedom Institute executive director Micah Espinoza hopes that working with people leaving county jail will keep them out of prison.

``Once you're convicted of a felony, and have fulfilled your sentence, you still pay for that the rest of your life,'' Espinoza said. As part of the multiagency collaboration, ``we're targeting people going in and out of jail for typically petty offenses. Why are they committing these crimes? It's usually poverty, homelessness, substance abuse, mental health.''

Swenson said he's learned from his mistakes; he's been out of prison for almost two years and is on unsupervised probation for the first time. He works as a peer specialist for the Circle Program, a residential treatment program in Grand Junction for men age 18 and older with concurrent substance abuse and mental health disorders.

``There are people in this program I've been in prison with, gotten high with,'' Swenson said. ``They see 'if Gary can do it,' they can. It's me not forgetting where I came from.

``Instead of locking people up for possession, give us an opportunity first to work with them,'' he continued. ``A lot of guys don't want to be high, live on the streets, be homeless--it's just all they know. Being part of this program is a chance to see an opportunity.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My concluding remarks include programs in Boulder County that can be done.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, once you are convicted of a felony and have fulfilled your sentence, you will still pay for the rest of your life. We need to find a way where these individuals can contribute and not be those who enter out and then go in. It is important to learn from their mistakes, but we have got to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. Again, I thank those who cosponsored it and the main cosponsor, Congresswoman Karen Bass.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3372, the ``One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2021,'' is a public-safety minded bill that would create a grant program within the Department of Justice to support community reentry intake and coordination centers.

The centralized centers opened pursuant to this bill would offer those leaving incarceration the resources necessary to successfully rejoin and reintegrate into our communities through DOJ and community- funded reentry programs.

There exists a great need for the programs envisioned in this legislation, as more than 600,000 people return to their communities each year after serving time in state and federal prisons, as do nearly nine million people from county jails, while more than 2.5 million people complete parole or probation each year.

Individuals with criminal convictions face daunting challenges upon release. The overwhelming majority of those released from custody receive minimal preparation during their incarceration and inadequate assistance to get back on their feet after they are released, while their convictions may limit employment prospects, educational and training opportunities, public housing assistance, and access to social services.

Even a minor criminal conviction can erect substantial barriers and trigger far-reaching collateral consequences. Due in part to the difficulty of overcoming these barriers, five out of six people who have spent time in a state prison will be arrested for a new crime within nine years of their release.

That is why policies designed to improve reentry outcomes have broad bipartisan support, as demonstrated by passage of the First Step Act, which incentivizes education and recidivism-reduction programs for people in federal prisons.

While the First Step Act, Second Chance Act, and other initiatives have been successful at the federal level, the majority of returning citizens are exiting state and local facilities, and there is an overall need for a more comprehensive approach to address the challenges of reentry.

An example of the type of community reentry center supported by this legislation is in Tulsa, Oklahoma where community organizations offer a comprehensive model of reentry services. The services offered through the Tulsa Reentry One-Stop have significantly reduced recidivism and increased employment. In 2015, 77% of the individuals who successfully completed their reintegration program remained employed after exiting the program.

H.R. 3372 would establish a grant program to support community reentry centers like the Tulsa Reentry One-Stop and ensure support is made available for all individuals the moment they are released. Support would include assistance with transportation, housing, and skills training.

One Stop reentry centers would also assist reentering individuals in obtaining identification and applying for eligible public benefits. And those who have formal reentry plans would be able to find case management assistance and court directed, wrap-around support at the reentry centers.

In addition to the One Stop reentry centers, this bill would authorize a second mechanism to assist individuals reentering communities that do not have large enough populations of reentering individuals to maintain a standalone reentry center.

In these communities, H.R. 3372 would provide grants to operate free, reentry hotlines that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist those recently released from incarceration with reentry services near their homes. This element of the bill is particularly important for rural and smaller communities.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the funding authorized in this bill is too high. But we know that the high rates of recidivism of individuals leaving incarceration are far more costly to American communities.

This bill would address a pressing nationwide need, providing individuals with the tools and support they need to successfully reenter society, ultimately, making our communities safer.

I thank our colleague, Representative Karen Bass, for her leadership on this issue, as well as her bipartisan cosponsors, for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Recognizing the high rates of recidivism in our communities and the lack of access to reentry resources, H.R. 3372 would establish a new grant program within DOJ to support One Stop Community Reentry Centers.

When individuals lack access to reentry services such as housing, job training, and mental health resources, they are more like to be rearrested and reincarcerated. This bill would improve public safety by reducing recidivism.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, it requires the Department of Justice to issue a report. Seeing how the Department of Justice is already doing what is authorized in this bill, it would be kind of nice, frankly, to have this report done before we spend an additional $59 million over the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, for the reason we outlined against the legislation itself--it is redundant, it allows people with a violent past to work at these facilities, and it actually encourages them to be the preference for answering the hotlines at these facilities, and for those reasons we are opposed to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source