>> they would be released on bail for the second, third, fourth and fifth and tried another year later and given probation again too often. this was driving the crime rate. we achieved a lot. that's why i was willing to support with and support senator durbin committed to reduce the mandatory census. i think we can be smarter about it. i don't have any doubt we can be smarter about it. it would be naïve and a big air if we were to think we can just walk away from incarcerating

dangerous people. you were worried for your guards. a lot of the people are just dangerous and we've just got to be real careful about that. i think we need to watch the cost. the federal prison system can't be the greatest system, most expensive in the whole world, which is. we just can't. we've got to watch, look for ways to reduce costs. and we've got to be cautious about adopting the belief that there's been some new recidivism program that's going to solve the recidivism rate. if we can reduce it even a little bit, i'm willing to support a good program. but a lot of the brookings just never produce the results we want them to have. recidivism rate today is a lot different than it was in 1980, i don't think. and so we are spending a lot more on it, trying to make it

better. we haven't had a very successful achievement there. and finally you and i have talked about prison industries. there's no doubt in my mind that people who work in prison prefer it. prisoners who have worked programs are safer, aren't they, mr. samuels? >> yes. >> the data shows that clearly. and they probably have a little better recidivism rate, i don't know. >> they do. >> we have to have a breakthrough. more people in prison need to be working. there have been attempts, some of them not very smart, to help prisoners work but i wouldn't believe all of us need to look for a way to have more productive work in prisons. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator klobuchar. >> thanks very much, mr.

chairman. appreciate the comment about smart sensing. i know how we to keep dangers of fencers -- my state has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the country. we also have one of the lowest crime rates. part of that is triaging these cases in making sure there is some response to low-level offenses escalating responses. but the length of it can be a matter of dispute. i think that's part of what we're talking about here. i came through this looking at our state which sometimes people joke would not just the latter 2000 lakes, where the land of 10,000 treatment centers. but our focus on going after addiction and some of these things i think has made a difference in handling of these cases, and in particular drug court in drug cases make up about a third of our caseload in the hennepin county attorney's office which has over a population over a million people. minneapolis, 45 suburbs, 40

employs. we really focus on drug courts. i make changes when i got in there. i think senator sessions would like some of them. some of them are violent cases because i didn't think they belong to there. there. i think it strengthened the drug court and use of the drug court. you know the stats, director, three out of every four people graduate from these programs are not arrested again. 75% success rate compared to 30% in the traditional system. saving taxpayers an average of $6000 per person. and asked attorney general holder at our last doj oversight hearing about expanding the use of drug course at the federal level. so that's what i want to start with, with you. how you see this good work and how we could more effectively lower costs, better rehabilitate offenders and can also reduce our crime rates like we've seen in our state. >> thank you, senator. i do agree that drug treatment program, we see a lot of

benefits from the behavior that we are put to witness with the programs. we have the residential drug abuse row graham as was the nonresidential and we also offer drug education in all of our institutions. as far as a policy issue relative to drug courts, i am not the expert for those types of discussions. and i doesn't know that within the department there are many individuals who are more appropriate to have those discussions on policy issues for the department that could eventually benefit any reductions with our population on the front and as well as the backend. >> you do see it as a way now with the exit of the drug course of reducing some of the numbers in the prison? >> i believe the evidence shows that that's very possible. >> you mentioned the residential

drug abuse program and how that's proven effective in reducing recidivism and decreasing institutional misconduct. how many inmates are enrolled in the program? what kind of return on investment do we get? >> for inmates to participate in the residential drug abuse program, for every dollar we invest, there's a $2.69 savings. the total number of individuals with participating in residential drug abuse program of treatment right now is 16,000 inmates. we would like to see that number increase which we, again as i stated, noted it's very productive. for our overall plan to increase the number, of the programs we can have something of the maximum number of inmates participate. >> let's hear your view on inmates good time credit for participating in the intensive recidivism reduction program, or

increasing the number of opportunities for inmates to earn these credits through educational or vocational programs. >> the department as well as the administration have continued to support these legislative proposals. i definitely concur and believe that they are important. when you look at the additional seven days of the conduct on that can be added to an inmates credit for time off the sentence because right now they are receiving 47 days, it is very beneficial to the safety and security of the facility. it's not winning it would be rewarded something for not having good behavior. and it helps us. for the inmates, we believe we can ultimately get a large number of inmates to participate in evidence-based programs to receive up to 60 days off of their term by participating in more than 180 days within a calendar year the programs that you mentioned. we believe it's beneficial and

it desolate ultimately helps with public safety. the majority of the inmates are going to be released and being exposed to the programs only enhance. >> one last question. in your testimony you acknowledge the tragic death of two federal bureau prison employees. i know all of us extend our sympathy to their families. what do you think can be done to improve safety for prison staff while on or off duty? >> what we need to do to improve safety of our staff is, it comes down to a resource issue. we are doing more with less. the staff are very proud to take on this because this is why they've elected to serve their country by working in corrections. but when you're dealing with large numbers on any given day throughout this country, we have

one officer working in our housing units providing oversight for 150 plus inmates. we have recreational staff are doing their best to show the inmates are actively involved with recreational activities, and you can have in excess of five an inmates being supervised by one person. so we are doing everything we can to put the resource aware they need to be, but you can only imagine if there's any type of disturbance within the institutions and you only have a small number of staff to respond, the staff are putting their lives on the line every single day. and this is why the programs are very important and we believe it's up to us to do what we can with limited resources and the capacity that we have to maximize the situation to put us in the best possible situation to effectively manage our prisons. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. same as, for joining us today but as i've expressed many times on previous occasions, in my view the federal government has been for decades in acting and socially enforcing far too much substantive criminal law. as a result of that, our federal prison system is overcrowded and it's extremely costly. as we've heard today, the bureau of prisons consent decree significant share of the overall budget of u.s. department of justice. using resources that might otherwise be used more effectively in other areas to enhance the public safety in the united states. although long mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses don't tell the whole story of the increasing overcrowded federal prison population, i

think they do share a very significant part of the problem of overcrowding. i think we have to look very closely at our current scheme of mandatory minimum sentences as a result. and i think we have to do that to see whether incremental changes can safely and effectively be made to these sentences to reduce the federal prison population and to reduce costs, while at the same time preserving, if not enhancing, public safety in america. the legislation that i've cosponsored with senator durbin, the smarter sentencing act, s. 1410, we decrease mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories, drug offenders. so my first question for you, mr. samuels, is whether this type of legislation should

succeed as it's widely expected to do if it were passed in helping to decrease the federal prison population over the next few years or over the decade or so following its enactment. what would that do for you? what would that do for the bureau of prisons as far as making it easier for you to do your job if we succeeded in reducing the overcrowding problem? >> thank you, senator lee. i would start by saying that i agree that reform needs to take place. the specifics of the various bills that are being considered is something that, again, needs to be considered by the appropriate individuals within the department relative to policy issues. to your question what would it do to help the bureau of prisons, any reduction within our population that ensures that there's no threat to public

safety obviously helps us effectively run our institution. and we are not dealing with the competitive issues within the population when you're trying to do as much as you can to stretch resources within the environment. because the increase within the population which research shows that when you continue to add more and more inmates, the propensity for violence increases and it puts our staff and inmates to include the surrounding communities where our institutions are located at risk. >> two of their biggest concern i would have to imagine would be one, prison safety, safety within the prison, safety of the prisoners themselves and other personnel. and also, the effectiveness of your programs to minimize recidivism. i would imagine that reducing the overcrowding problem within have a positive effect on your

ability to manage both of those concerns. >> yes, sir. what programs do you have in place currently to ensure that those released from prison, including those who might be released earlier than they would otherwise be as result of changes like these, what programs do you have in place to make sure that they don't present a threat to public safety once they are released to? >> as i mentioned earlier, we have numerous cognitive behavioral therapy programs that we have modeled after rdt because of the research showing that these that's a programs are very effective. we are constantly encouraging inmates to participate in these programs and where every successful on many occasions in doing so. but i would share with the subcommittee here to date that we really need to have some type of incentive to get more inmates

involved in these programs, this is why i continue to support and i believe that the sentencing credits that could be provided similar to what we have with rdat, any of the individuals know that when you participate in trying to them they can get up to a year offer since. but at the same time they are being exposed to the program and they receive the benefit which ultimately helps them with the transition from prison back into the community. and if we can have an incentive to entice the other inmates within the population who did not have a substance use disorder and it increases the number of inmates who can be exposed which over a period of time when the majority of individuals are going to be released, this will help the public safety. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned that the average cost to incarcerate a person in our system is about $29,000. is there a difference in average

costs in a women's prison facility? >> for the female facilities, it depends on the number, the mission, but typically the average is going to be the same. >> typically. >> yes. >> to the women in these facilities have the same access to the kinds of programs that are available to men and the mail facility? >> yes. >> there is a growing number of women in our prison population. you cited some data in your testimony. does your data reflect defenses and recidivism for men and women, and also do have evidence-based programs that work better for men versus women in terms of success and re- integrating into society? i think you talked about one program, specifically for women resolve but then you share with me if you do that kind of data

collection that distinguishes men and women and how they are treated and what's successful? >> for the programs that we operate, we are following typically one model throughout the bureau. now, we have not collected any specific data to establish between female inmates versus male inmates to identify whether one particular program doesn't work better based on male or female. >> why is that? >> why is that? >> why do you not have that kind of data? do you think the are no differences, or you just haven't done it? >> i wouldn't -- i would say for this discussion that there are no differences, but we don't have specific programs specifically targeted for the female inmate population, which this would be consistent with

all corrections, not just within the federal system. i would definitely take your question back to have discussions internally with the bureau to include with my colleagues if there is something that's bee being done or if youe unaware of something specifically for the female inmate population, relative to the cbt programs that we provide. >> my understanding is that as a general proposition, women are in prison for drug crimes and not violent crimes. so that's a very different profile than a dangerous felon in our prison system. so i would ask that you take into consideration those kind of factors as well as i think that there may be some programs that will be better enable women to reintegrate when they are

released than would work for men. and i believe that there are some states to recognize those kinds of factors and planned their programs in a way that reflects that kind of understanding. i think it's very important. because as more and more women attend to still be the caregivers to their families are incarcerated, that has a lot of ramifications to their families, their children, we entry, all of that. >> senator, i have recently put together a wharton's advisor group specifically for the funeral inmate population to look at what we've done historically and to focus on the types of concerns that you are raising. to make sure that if there any best practices, any we should consider that we are moving and it's our vision to ensure there's a balance on both sides. so the female inmates within our care are receiving appropriate

attention and care relative to the issues that you've raised. >> because my impression is generally that there have been fewer programs for women and our prison system, both in the state level and federal level. and i understand that your responsibility is on the federal side. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. thank you very much, director samuels to we appreciate you being here today. we appreciate the support for our joint legislative executive efforts going forward, the bureau of prisons is going to continue to show, we will opposite continue to call on you for information and on your staff or expertise. and we look forward to that relationship as we proceed. you are excused on the committee. we thank you for your testimony, and i'll call up the second panel. i i welcome our panel.

matt delisi is from iowa. the ranking member represents iowa, and the ranking member hae asked that the professor testify first is a chance to hear his r constituents testimony before just returned to his work within the finance committee.order a so without objection will go oua of usual order and begin with professor delisi believers ask all the witnesses to please stand and be swornpl.- [witnesses were sworn in] thanyou. >> thank you, and please be seated. professor delisi is a professor and coordinate of criminal c justice studies with the centera for the study of violence at iowa state university. is the editor in chief of the juice justice and the author of nearld two and 50 scholarly articles ia

and received a follow-up or froo academy of cruel justice sciences and as a member of thed american association for the advancement of science and association for psychological science and would like to make any further recognition of professor delisi?>> you he saidi >> i gt uess you said all but io say welcome. >> very well.we'll go professor delisi, please proceee and then will go to director wetzel and down the line spent >> tha thank you very much for thisnk opportunity. also reducing the cost of -- tha policy recommendations significant neglect the anti-a sociology of criminal offenders and the likely recidivism that would result from large scale at release of inmates. the majority of this has been tested the behavior risk noted by the federal prisoner with quantitative estimates of additional crime that could result from the policy recommendations. the report promulgates the notion that drug offenders are somewhat innocuous and that their antisocial beaveir isfa, c limited to drug sales l cri introduced. in fact,e criminal offenders an

all criminal offenders tend to be very versatile in theirdrug behaviors, thus a person sense for drug crimes is also likely to property crimes, violent as crimes, nuisance crimes, traffic violations and a sort of is violations ofc the criminal justice system. as any discussion of drugnders u offenders should also beldkelto understood that the next week are likely to be property offenders and potentially violent offenders. usig e reover, vrecent research usis a variety of samples havedriver indicated that drug use is one a of the prime drivers of overallc criminal activity. in med analytical research indicates the drug offenders ther beyond drug offenses. regarding the safety current law permit judges to waive mandatory minimum sincing with little to no criminal history is.

childhood to adolescence to adulthood. as the director indicate in the panel one, 25% of the inmates are gang members. gang moip is -- membership is confinement and resit vifm. in this way prison is an important interruption of the criminal career. unfortunately the preponderance of offenders continue to commitment offenses. releasing them could likely produce more crime. research has shown a one prisoner reduction in the prison population is associated with a 15 part one index crime increase per year. to put this in perspective releasing 1% of the current population would result in approximately 32850 additional crimes.

an independent study by other researchers arrive at the estimate that one prisoner reduction increases crime by 17 offenses per year. releasing 1% of the population result in 32 23* ,000 additional ovens. the safety of one recommendation in the based on these prior estimate produce a range of 30,000 to 34,000 new index crimes per year. in term of safety recommendation two, the appropriate recommendation a creation to apply to -- quoting the report. beyond drug offenders with minimal to more extensive. some weapon offenders, sexual abuse oaivet offenders, and identity theft offenders.

regarding the expanded program estimate using the same data the proposal to potentially release 36,000 inmates over the next ten years produce an estimated 540,000 to 620,000 new index crimes. the recommendation two to release 12,000 offenders in one year produce 180,000 to 204,000 index crimes. and the proposal number three to transfer 34,000 inmate to home confinement could potentially over the next ten years increase crime by 510,000. to wrap it up. the report contains no mention of the various antisocial conditions relating to criminal propensity of criminal of federal offenders. for instance, prevalence of correctional population is about 25 fold higher than the general population.

another important construct is sexual satism. even after decades of confinement. offenders who sexually is a sadistic. who was sentenced to death in 2003 after serving prkly a quarter century for prior criminal '06s. >> trying to keep our testimony to five minutes per witness. if you can sum up. >> a final point. i have some question in the testimony later. >> the testimony will be in the record. >> chairman leahy indicated it's one that congress created.

i would add that the corollary benefit of that legislation was the reduction of crime by the increase use of confinement. >> thank you very much, professor. let me introduce -- but the no men nomenclature is different. he began his corrections career in 1989 as an officer at pennsylvania's correctional facility. he served as a correctal officer, treatment counselor, training academy director and warden of the franklin county jail. he's a member of the american correctional association and the american jail association and past president of the pennsylvania connecticut correction association. had nice things to say. and said hello in the

beginning. thank you for talk about pennsylvania and the experience we've had in addressing some of the same problem you face in the federal system. specifically when governor tom corp. bet was elected. hef the attorney general. and before that he was federal prosecutor. so he has a very unique perspective. he's had really a firsthand view of the correction system. what he saw over the 24 years before we took over was an average growth of 1500 inmates a month. when we took over nearly three years ago. republican and democratic administration. and the one charge he gave me when we took over is department of corrections was not to willie nilly reduce population. not to reduce spending. both of those things were a

priority. the main priority to improve outcome. and really improve our corrections system. and take the perspective that we need get a better return on our investment for what we're spending in corrections. and how do we do that? the first thing question, we aare applied for and received a grant to go through the justice reinventive process. and partner with the counsel of state government and went through a process that specifically was data-driven. and the governor was a hard sell. and takes a perspective of many on the panel in that very concerned. the bottom line for us is going to be crime rate and public safety. and the process had to be data driven. we gathered data through the process. the most important part of the process is it was a process that was participate story and had all members and stakeholders as part of the grab that looked at the policy options. we gathered the data and looked at what the population drivers were and identified policy

options looking nationally and internationally at policy options that seem to work for other jurisdictions. then we build consensus. it's a key part of this process. where we had, you know, the aclu and the conservative think tank sitting there having a discussion and coming to agreement on how we can get better outcomes. some of the focus needs to be on what the root cause of the crime is. it's very easy in the field to paint with broad brushes and say we don't want to open the back door and let a bunch of people run out. it's going have a negative effect on public safety. we agree on that. what we also agree with is what we want out of the criminal justice system when someone becomes criminally involved. when they come out the back end of our system what we want them to be is less likely to be criminally involved again. we can all agree with that. and the reality there's enough research that tells us when we made good decisions from the front end of the system as far as who needs to be incarcerated,

who we can deal with in other than manner. what the root cause of the crime is. violent offenders, murders and rapist are different. we can't paint -- so it doesn't matter how long we lock an addict up. if we don't address the addiction. we took the approach, we got consensus on policy options that were legislative and in six month from the first meeting meeting in until the legislation was passed. it passed unanimously in the house and senate and pretty miraculous itself in pennsylvania. we came up with policy options. what the policy options resulted in. urn our two and a half years, we've averaged a he decline of 70 inmates a year out of 51,000. not a huge decline.

we look at funding risk base sentencing. the sentencing commission in pennsylvania is building a sentencing tool so a judge has risk information. not just a presentence investigation but risk. what is the risk of future offenders. it factor to the sentencing. we look within the department of crebs at areas we weren't doing good. so waiting list for programs. how can we better deliver program. part is making sure we put people in programs who need it. making sure we are assessing. and the back end we put a lot of focus on. the community correction system we spent $110 million. we saw 95 percent were not effective. we restructured the program and look who we put in and more importantly decided to put a performance measure on the contracts. so the contractors paid based on

the ability -- it was a good process and at the same time our crime rate went down. the crime rate in pennsylvania continues to go down. thank you. >> what a terrific story. thank you very much. our next representative is representative john tilly. he's the chair of the house judiciary committee where he's been the chair of 2009. he worked with state leaders to form a bipartisan, multibranch task force with the goal of enhancing public safety, controlling construction cost, and decreasing resit vifm. he's currently the vice chair of the national conference of state legislature committee on justice and the judiciary. he was a prosecutor prior to joining the legislature, serving

for nearly six years as assistant countytorian. -- attorney. we are delighted he's here today . >> thank you. we have a similar story to pennsylvania. i can say with confidence as well as a former prosecute memberrers we can have it all in one sense. we can have better public safety at less cost with less crime and less resit criticism we have done that if kentucky. it's an honor to tell you. it was no honor when the charitable trust when the public safety -- made us the poster child for prison growth in 2008. i think it should be to all of

us. in kentucky for the decade ending in 2010 our prison growth rate was almost quadruple the national average. we were at 45%. we comprise to 4.5%. but we house about 25% of the world's prisoner. kentucky was truly the epicenter for prison growth. it begs the question. all of that translated all the record spending and ib -- incarceration to translates to better safety. all the pending in the previous 20 years amounted to very little. our crime rate had been relatively flat. most, as you've heard. it's been dropping for some time. we only enjoyed about a third of

the national crime rate crop. we were 6% over the previous decade. the rest of the country was about 19%. we remind flat. our sister state to the south of us, tennessee, we share the most border. their crime rate we are one of the safer states in the country. they now remain one of the more high crime states maybe number one and the prison growth is exploding. we formed a multibranch bipartisan task force. a small task force with seven members. our prison growth rate was being driven not by crime but the number of arrests and court cases by drug offenses by rising incarceration rates for technical parole violaters, and low level offenders were driving the population. they were far more likely to go

to prison than any other state. we found to be 57% to 41% number. they are far more likely to go to prison. i mind you again a bipartisan way, mr. chairman, it passed 96-1 in the house. and 38-0 in the senate. the goal better public safety, less cost. getting smarter on crime. i don't have a lot of time to tell you. generally let me tell you -- i know i want to stick to my time. focus our most extensive beds on the prison offenders. find alternative for the low-risk, non-violate drug offenders. we've done that. we have strengthen probation and parole with pretail trial. we have seen asounding -- we are seeing less offenses

committed on release. that's increased the public safety rate. we see them show up to court. we have modernized our drug code which has been a a focus from a number. we deserved prosecution which is a possibility which must be prosecutor approved for low-level drug offenses. these are prosecutor-driven things. i will sell you that not one felony has been reclassified to a misdemeanor in our negotiation in trying to come up with a common sense way to approach it. we reinvest the savings and increase drug treatment. i'll get to how much more in a minute. i'll tell you in my last few second let me tell you we achieved remarkable results. we have -- one benchmark a few months ago

we were at 3500 less out of a total of roughly now around 20,000 hoovering. just adds the secretary sate we are well below the average. 3500 fewer. we have less resit vifm in a decade. we are cropped 5 percentage points. we have a 500% increase in drug abuse capacity drug treatment capacity available. i look forward to your questions. >> it's a remarkable success story. our next within is the director of justice policy center at the urban institute.

doctor, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here. i represent the urban institute. we have a non-profit, nonpartisan research organization. we do not engage in advocacy. rather our admission is to bring facts and data and a value research to bear on pressing topics like the one we're here to discuss today. it's in the spirit about a year ago we set out to chronicle the driver of the federal prison population and the growth overtime. and to project the impact of various policy that were on the table to reverse that growth. much in the way we heard in the models of the states in pennsylvania and kentucky. similar justice reinventive model of identifying drivers of

growth. we also look at the degree of overcrowding. member of the committee have already documented that. the overcrowding is tremendous. it's at great risk to the safety of both staff and inmates. but importantly from where we sit and the research we have done looking at the impact of programs designed to prevent resit vifm the crowding in the federal system creates tremendous challenge for delivering programs and treatment that is so necessary too support successful reintegration for federal offenders when they exit prison. what we know from our own research and research that we've conducted through the development, which is a systemic review of only the most rigorous research out there on various type of prisoner reentry programs. there are many programs that

work across a whole host of type of reentry intervention from sexual abuse treatment to employment, education programs, vocational programs. mental health treatment, -- we have identified one if not several programs that rigorous research said works. indeed even within the federal bureau of prison, the program has been research found to be effective as had prison industries. there's a lot of opportunities to provide programming and help support public safety those are limited as well as limited resources with which to dedicate to offer program. there are many solutions on the table. they were not developed by the

urban institute. they were developed by various congressional staffers and partnership with the members and include legislative proposal that are sponsored by member of the committee. what we have set out to do was analyze how these different proposals would yield impact on both the prison population own on costs. when we look at property jexes, we were very scoaft in our estimate. we are conservative in two ways. fiscally conservative. we choose to use the marginal cost of prison rather than the average cost. i can explain more about the porn of that later. we thought it was best to be conservative. some of the our estimates are lower than others who are trying to project the impact of these various policies. similarly an importantly our estimates for conservative regard to how with proceed them being enacted on the ground. and we firmly believe that judges and the bop will exercise

extreme caution in who benefits from the program. most of them look at risk level. something critical in the work states have done risk assessment are important in determining who needs to be in prison and who could be subject to early release policies. for that, also our e mates may be lower in term of the potential cost savings than might be hearing from other people. at any rate, you know from our report we have -- a host of different type of policy changes. we know that reducing mandatory minimum and giving judges discretion to deviate could save millions of dollars. in the entrance of public safety. we heard example from the state

not just the represented here. we know of others, texas, north carolina, new york that have engaged in sweeping reforms and have averted growth or reduced the population without any detrimental impact to the crime rate. i think dc a moment of tremendous opportunity. i thank you for your leadership on it. >> we certainly hope it's a moment of tremendous opportunity. i want to thank the urban institute for the effort and professionalism they brought to the report. we'll conclude with the doctor mearng partner and cofounder in richmond, virginia. he previously served as assistant attorney general for the office of justice programs in the u.s. department of justice where he oversaw activities relating to initiative -- prior to the justice department service he taught 30 years at the university of massachusetts and welcomed here today.

please proceed. >> thank you. in the draft report stemming the tried strategy to reduce the growth that cut the cost of federal prison system. and it observes this growth come at -- i agree more with the report. we need consider in order make good decision and as a result may offer cost shifting and that true cost savings. the more comprehensive view of the problem we face would cast the issue differently. we need to reduce not the cost of incarceration or indeed the criminal justice system. but rather the total associate cost of crime including not only expenditure on public safety but the cost of victimization,

tangible and intangible to the public. as we seek to do this, the allocation of funds among component of the criminal just i system could be guided by the demonstrated effectivenesses in reducing crime. not the absolute or relative size compared to other component of the criminal justice system. just how large and costly is the prison population? according to the bureau of u.s. bureau --

the rate in 2011 was comparable to 2005. which was 492 persons. given that population, and a recent institute calculated average inmate average per inmate cost of incarceration at 31286 we could e mate the total cost nationwide in 2011 is 50.2 billion. surely a large sum. in order to understand we have to bring in to the calculation what did we get in return for that $50.12 billion? as some have testified

previously and noted, and some of the member of the committee have noted, according to the fbi's uniform crime report between 1960 and 1992, the number of violent crimes in the united states increased nearly seven fold. from prkly 288,000 to more than 1.9 million. and the violent crime increase nearly five fold. rather abruptly the crime rate began to decrease. and it decreased for nearly a decade. then plateaued until two years ago when it started to tick up. scholars who look at the decline and try to give a reason for it or determine a reason for it, and has noted incarceration and the increase in incarceration in the united states played a large

role in the particular decline. in other words what we got from the 50.2 billion was a decrease in crime that is value underestimate because it doesn't include psychic cost of about $180 billion per year. i leave it to you to judge whether a 50 billion investment that gets you $18 billion return is a good idea or not. it's not meant to suggest that nothing can be done to deal with the current justice problems. rather to counsel caution in dealing with sweeping claim of cheap, readily available, and highly effective in incarceration. rather we need to do four things. first we need to understand the unique characteristic of the federal prison system. they are quite different from the state prison system.

we need to make use of the -- and also identifying marketers of the onset systems. >> thank you. i appreciate it. let me start with the secretary. you are an observer from the outside of the federal bureau. it's your corrections and lifelong profession. it you have been successful in pennsylvania and you're showing not only bipartisanship but unit unanimity and successed in the reform effort.

what would you take out of pennsylvania's experience and apply lessons that would be helpful for the federal bureau of prisons? are there critical? are there similarities? where are they? what do you think are you successes that apply most readily to your federal colleague? >> i think from a process standpoint, we were able to have people check their r or d at the door and become part of the process and we set a goal and acknowledged the goal and put the partisan stuff aside. understand we want the same thing. we want good outcome. then i think really understanding the dynamic of the population. certainly the federal population is arguably different than the state population. i think it's important to

accurately identify and build consensus what group -- dealing with in another marijuana. and then specifically as we start splitting the different group out. look how we're like like to get the best outcome. you're to the not going bet 1,000. where are we like that get the best outcome? the one thing across the board we had consensus on we weren't pleased with the outcome we were getting from the current approach. so business as usual wasn't going to work. it wasn't acceptable. we came to the consensus early on nobody could make the argument we were happy with the return on the investment we were getting for correction.

i think if you take that approach and not say our goal is to reduce spending by x amount. but our goal to get better outcome and identify folks that can dream with in another manner and more effective and lost costly. if you keep that as the focus. i think it's the best way to move forward. >> when you talk about identifying folks what are the sorts of categories you're looking at? >> age, gender, drug history? level of incarceration, length of term, what are some of the groups you picked out of the general population to try to improve the focus? yeah. we didn't talk about violent versus nonviolate. many people pointed out. by the time some one came they had an average of eight arrests. and nobody gets locked up for j

walking in harrisburg, pennsylvania. that's not why they're there. and to try to make to the extent possible good individual decisions and give judges the tools that they have all the information to make those individual decisions. >> you were dialing at all the way back into the presents report for judges? >> yes. in pennsylvania with an consistent level of present three reports. under the rendell administration bypassed this tool that was supposed to be developed by the sentencing commission. however, it wasn't funded. through our initiative we were able to find that so we can give judges information at sentencing and allow them to make better decisions on real information. >> where did you get the

actuarial information? >> we had the information and the sensing commission is charged with taking that and develop tools -- >> polling information out of the tracking information on your own inmates essentially? >> we have a bunch of different sources of information. the sentencing commission, the courts, the different criminal justice agencies pull all those together, develop ago, tested, piloted and then roll it out across the state. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> chairman telly, same question to you. can you pick out of what kentucky has done any particularly successful elements that you command to us as areas of focus? >> i think there are a number of measures on the front and back and that work and are translatable to the federal system. mind you i'm no expert on the federal bureau of prisons but to me were talking about folks -- >> concentrate on kentucky.

>> i will tell you that it seems to me for being a former prosecutor i saw a number of federal cases preceding and moving along to conviction. we are doing more of the same kind of work than one might imagine. i would say focusing on reentry and recidivism let's go to the backend. we have mandatory reentry supervision. those who don't achieve parole, we are releasing them into a very controlled environment, six months prior to the expiration of the sentence, so that as these indicate we can focus on that all important six months because again as experts tell us and as has been validated through side, if you catch that defend and the first six months of reentry you can hopefully achieve a more successful reentry and then lower recidivism which is the goal. that is significant. the public demands again as has been said today, roughly the same kentucky about 95% of all our offenders welcome back to the committee. in that community i think taxpayers and constituents deserve our best effort at

making sure that the vendor doesn't reinvent. so that's important and at the very translatable. there's a number of things we can do and are doing beyond just that. another example, chairman, would be an immediate and graduated sanctions for technical parole violators rather than sitting back and we found we were send them back for longer than their original sims. that was not serving anyone. what we found now is remarkably are women the king that in kentucky. >> we were u.s. attorneys together back in the day so i'm familiar with his work. >> i googled that. yes, and i didn't -- >> your experience has been the same, that making parole violation responses swifter, more certain, more immediate, even if less impactful in terms of how long they take out of the probationers life, you get a better result from a quicker -- you can have a small reaction if it's quicker and more certain to

probation violations. >> absolutely. we were backing up on multiple violations and there was this waiting period before the offended and whether or not parole was going to be revoked and sent back to prison. it was very ineffective. we are seeing results that are being proven effective, and hopefully we can mimic the success they've had an ally. one thing on the front end, the remarkable success, really unexpected success we've had with low-level offenders and in particular misdemeanors that were filling a county jails. i still think it's translatable because we're using science, risk assessment as has been mentioned today to figure out who presents the most risk and who can be released prior to adjudication on the tooth stay in potential. [inaudible] >> there's a tool that is developed and used and chosen not by the legislature. that would be mistake to have us choose that science. but the court system has chosen it. our pretrial system come in kentucky we have one of the only

true unified pretrial system in the country, state run, state driven so we can do that. what we've seen is increase public safety rate, fewer offenses on release, showing up to court at a greater rate. .. incarceration saving them millions. i think it's a translatable as so many offenders await trial. also preserve the presumption of ininnocence until proven guilty. that's important as well. >> within of the -- obviously as a state representative and chairman of your state's house judiciary committee, you have responsibilities to wide array of stakeholders and constituents and part of your community. i remember going around rhode island with the director with a map that showed where people

went when they left the aci or correctional institution and went back to the community. i think we did it by zip code. there were some zip code where had had virtually no impact. virtually nobody returned to the community. there were communities receiving an average land of people coming out of the prison system. and so when you talk about reentry. did you consider not just reentry from the individual oarched point of view and trying to make them more successful to reentry to reduce it. but also what it means to the community. particularly the ones that are heavily impacted on high return from the prison population? >> absolutely. in fact we talked a lot what been referred to as community super vision and community correction doesn't play quite as well. community super vision in the sense you want to direct the

offender closer to their community. and help them reintergrate. as we found when you modify behavior in one setting. for instance, the prison, they return to their home. they immediately may return to the behavior would certain control and certain behavior modification strategy in place. yes, we focused on that. we have that kind of community super vision in place in the bill. it runs through the bill. we're trying to redirect some of the savings, again, to the community so we're not having to find new dollar to pay for the increase in community super vision. it's clearly less expensive. question monitor in some maniuation -- so many ways. we have several minimum conditions. we have over ten of the minimum conditions. can technology with monitor it in so many ways. we are not that far off from the

numbers thrown here today. when you have the substantial savings and the successful reentry. i think the community begin to buy in as well. i know mine has. >> what is the experience of effect of overcrowding in pennsylvania's prison the one you supervisor and manage? >> we're about 109 percent of capacity. i think that the challenge really becomes the decisions on the ground. the decisions with who you put in a cell together. i'm guess if you look at the numbers as we became more and more crowded. i'm not sure that the overall number of misconduct would skyrocket. i would guess that the severe city and in-cell violence because at the same time crowding curred. we got better at the practice and got more technology and camera. but those in-cell decisions and

i think the second area that gets impacted by crowding would be segregation. and historically, without crowding you rarely double segregation cell when, you know, like model 6 the light is always on. you have to find someplace to put somebody. sometimes you make decisions in putting people together that you rather not have to make. as a specific result of crowding. it it's your experience as a practitioner that other thing being equal higher jefer crowding have a tendency to increase violence and risk within the population. >> absolutely. especially if the staffing doesn't increase at the same scope as the inmates. >> at the minimum that require additional costs. >> correct. >> yeah. >> doctor, any suggestions you highlight in the report you think that have particular effect for the bureau of prisons?

>> well, as i already stated, the proposals in our report aren't the urban institute's proposal. what we have set out do is to project the area -- on population and costs. >> which one would you light for us? >> i'll highlight any number of them that you are interested in. the ones represented in the smarter sentencing act, for example, reduces mandatory min numb in three ways. it cuts for certain type of drug offenders. virtually in half. and that alone we predict could reduce overcrowding by 20% in ten years' time and save over $2 billion. it also reduces mandatory minimum by extending the safety valve to criminal history two category. that gives more judicial discretion to deviate for mandatory minimum.

as i referenced in my formal statement, there is a lot of restrictions to our projections. we don't assume that it means that everybody with a criminal history category ii is going to be subject to reduced sentence. there's a lot of jew -- judicial discretion involved. assumed a lot will not be subject to that because of their risk level and criminal history. it would save $544 million. ..

if i could restate it in a single sentence, it would be that you are warning us against either sweeping or overbroad measures that might create a public the cost outside the prison system that more than offsets any savings within the prison system but you accept that if this is done in a smart way and the right way. there is in fact opportunity here to both improve public safety and lower corrections costs.

>> you summarized it beautifully. one of the bugaboos that i have is that we very often talk about these complex issues and treat offenders either as generic like they are all the same or we treat them as dichotomous. we will say they are the violet in the nonviolent ones. if you know the research on career criminals and from a history and specialization one of the things he realize his yes there is a subset of the offender population that are purely property offenders and never commit a violent offense among violent offenders they have a mix of property offenses and violent offenses and their history as was mentioned. so you can't just look at what what is the offense of this particular offender in four and make a judgment about that particular risk. you need to be much more granular and much more careful about this.

>> are you comfortable with the assessment tools that you use in pennsylvania meet that standard and are sensitive to dr. sedwick 's concerns? >> yes. >> so it's doable? >> i would concur. >> okay, very good. i ask unanimous consent which i will achieve since i'm the last one here. the two articles be added to the record. one is a "new york times" article or an opinion piece lesser crimes rethinking life behind bars by john tierney and the other is -- and the inmate population while increasing public safety by our corrections director eight t-wall. the record of the appearing will remain open for one additional week for any further questions or testimony that anybody wishes to offer.

let me once again thank each of the witnesses for coming and lending your expertise and in the case of chairman talley and the secretary you're very long and well-earned personal experience in this area. i think what you have done politically to make these changes happen in your home state are very impressive and i'm sorry getting unanimity the way pennsylvania did but unanimity by one vote is pretty darned impressive. so i offer a lot of careful work into the kind of product would both be unanimous and impactful. you can do unanimous all day long if you wind up with no results but doing something that really makes a change and getting the kind of political support at home and in the legislature is a very significant achievement. i'm delighted that you both have the opportunity and the ability

to come here today and i thank you very much for being here. i think all the witnesses here you are extremely helpful and the urban institute we continue to work with you and thank you for the report and with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. the national journal hosts charlie cook, editor and publisher of the cook political report. that'll be here on c-span2 at 8:30 a.m. eastern. and then on c-span3 at 9:30 eastern, you can watch an atlantic council forum on natives' defense strategy. >> from a young age, jacqueline

bouvier loved to write. she would often create poems for her parents on christmas and birthdays. she would write a poem and illustrate it. we have two early examples here or from when she was about 10 years old. in the fall she entered a very well known writing con it's, and one was actually a self-portrait, and question three, who were three people in history you wish you had known, and she mentions oscar wilde. in the early 1950s, jacqueline bouvier was hired as the inquiring camera girl for the washington times herald. one column that we have on display here is somewhat prophetic, because she's interviewed vice president nixon and senator john f. kennedy who,

of course, would be adversaries in the 1960 presidential campaign. and as we know, in her later life, the last part of her life,'s a very prolific editor of books in new york city, working with several different authors on books of different topics. >> watch our presentation on jacqueline kennedy on "first ladies." and our series continues live monday as we look at first lady, lady bird johnson. >> at the annual lord mayors banquet last night, prime minister david cameron announced that britain would give the equivalent of $16 million to aid in the philippines recovery after the typhoon over the weekend. the lord mayor's banquet is held annually for the diplomatic and financial corps. we'll show you as much of this as we can until our live event at 8:30.

♪ ♪ >> silence for the prime minister. [applause] >> my lord mayor, my late lord mayor, your grace, my lord chancellor, your excellencies, my lords, aldermen, sheriffs, chief commoner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking lord mayor number 685 for a year of great service to this city and to our country. [applause] and let me congratulate lord mayor number 686 not only on or

her appointment, but also for the fantastic vision that she has just set out. [applause] it is a vision of diversity and incluesivity that is every bit be as vital for our country as it is for the city of london. it was a great speech, and it's good to see, as you said, that a woman is that's wearing the tights in this place. [laughter] but can i say having seen -- [applause] having seen my colleague's get up this evening, it's a shame that the lord chancellor's not allowed to wear his trousers. [laughter] lord mayor, i have no crystal ball about what your mayoralty holds, but let me say this, our experience in national politics is this: when a woman storms the barricades and takes the top job, it does nothing but good

for our country. [applause] in previous years i've set out the principles of a british foreign policy that is outward looking and firmly if many our national interest. in the last year, we have stayed true to those principles. we hosted a g8 which launched negotiations on the biggest bilateral trade deal deal in history, a deal between the e.u. and the u.s. that could be worth ten billion pounds the britain alone. we agreed on a declaration that should insure companies pay their taxes, governments are transparent about their income, and the world endorses free trade. we've continued to promote british business abroad with more foreign direct investment in britain this year than in any other country on our planet.

we negotiated a real terms cut in the e.u. budget, and i set out plans for a more competitive and flexible european union and promised the british people a referendum on the new settlement that we reach. we honored our promises to the poorest in the world, vaccinating a child against diseases that can kill every two seconds over the last year. we continue to help around the world as we are today in the philippines where typhoon haiyan has wrought such appalling devastation. britain is contributing ten million pounds ask hmser thing, currently delowed near singapore, will be heading full speed towards the disaster zone with further support from an raf c-17 which will be a powerful help to the relief operation. and, yes, when it came to the brutal crimes of the assad regime against its people, we stood up for the right values in

syria. and and let's not retend that syria -- pretend that syria would now be giving up its chemical weapons if we and our allies had looked the other way. britain is a country that has always been prepared to stand up for its values, and today on armistice day let us join together in paying tribute to all those brave men and women across the generations who have given their lives for our safety and our freedom. [applause] for years prime ministers have been coming to this banquet to talk about the big be, global challenges facing britain and the west. traditionally, these have been about our security and our values. but today the biggest challenge we face is economic. it's about how we insure a strong, sustained and successful

recovery that delivers for everyone in britain. and let us remember that a strong and successful economy is the foundation of our influence when it comes to the foreign and security policy issues that we traditionally talk about here. so it is this economic challenge i want to talk about tonight. now, of course, britain has recovered from recessions and financial crashes before. but this time there is a difference. in the past there was an assumption that the west would still emerge as the strongest in the world whether it was the 1930s or the 1970s. it was clear we were still the ones with the biggest industrial base, still the ones with the ideas, with the scale of market, with the climate for enterprise, the money and the skills to trump them all. but as the number of university places surges in india, as china creates more patents tan any other country in the -- than any other country in the world, and

as brazil becomes the world's first sustainable biofuels economy, people ask the question will they be the winners and we be the losers? i believe we need to say a very firm, no. the global economy is not a zero sum game. of course, if we make the wrong decisions, they may well succeed at our, pence. expense. but there is a clear way forward for us to carve out a place for britain to be a real success alongside these new economic powers. but we should be under no illusion that success is far from guaranteed. so how do we succeed? well, let's start with what we don't do. there are some wrong-headed approaches that we absolutely need to reject. there's the view you can characterize as stop the world, i want to get off. ignore the interconnectedness of the world economy and pull up the draw bridge. that's clearly not the answer.

then there's the pretense that the answer is spending and borrowing more on an ever bigger state in an attempt to somehow insulate ourselves from the global competition. and at the other extreme, there is embracing globalization to enthusiastically, so unquestioningly that we actually lose sight of our true national interest. now, we saw a fair amount of both of those last two approaches in the previous decade. and we saw what we got in return. the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and mass uncontrolled immigration that puts huge pressure on public services and changed communities in a way that people didn't feel comfortable with. so those wrong-headed ideas, ignoring the international, globalized economy, attempting to insulate ourselves against it or, indeed, slavishly tolling it, none of these is the right answer.

so what is? engage in some sort of race to the bottom? absolutely not. that completely misunderstands the dynamics of the modern global economy. it's not simply a competition for who can produce the same goods at cheaper prices. it's about who can produce the new services, the new processes, the innovations that can create and sustain the jobs of the future. and that's why it is increasingly high-skilled jobs that are so vital to our success in the global race. so the right prescription is not to try and imitate developing economies, but to make this country more like great britain. put simply, to lay to our strengths -- play to our strengths, take our advantages, invest and add to them. we have the global language of business. we have the time zone where you can trade with asia in the morning, america in the afternoon. the city of london, the global home of finance. our top universities are amongst the best on the planet.

and invent iness, innovation and credibility will be key to our success. we are the country that invented everything there the lightbulb to the jet engine, there the tin can to the tank. you name it, we created it. most of the world's sports -- not that we always win at them -- [laughter] and the truth is, we're still at it whether it is sequencing the genome be, isolating graphene or designing the chips that power not just nine out of ten of the smartphone in this room -- which i hope you've all got switched off -- but anywhere in the world. we have the scientists and technical expertise that is the envy of the world. this is britain. competitive, pioneering, creative, innovative. our success in the global race hinges on playing to these strengths, on taking the country that led the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and the market-based revolution of the 1980s and equipping it once again to lead the economic revolution of today.

and as we do so, we should never forget this: our institutions, particularly our democracy, property rights, access to markets, the rule of law and equal my for all -- equality for all before the law, these things are not incidental to our economic strength, they are absolutely key to it. they form the golden thread of conditions which allow countries to thrive over the long material. but to play to our strengths and to make a success of our country in the global race, we have to do some things differently. we can't simply try and rebuild the same type of economy that we had before the crash. we can't just go back to how things used to be. we need to build something better. a vision of a new kind of economy where the benefits of growth are shared by all, north and south alike. an economy for everyone where the right skills, the right jobs and the right rewards are there

for everyone with the right attitude. and where all our children and grandchildren can look forward to a better future. what does all the mean in racks? i believe it means we need four things. first, an economy with a state that we can afford. second, an economy where everyone can take part. third, an economy that is equipped for the future. and fourth, an economy based on enterprise at home and abroad. let me say just a word about each. first, an economy with a state we can afford. there are some people who seem to think that the way you reduce the cost of living in this country is for the states to spend more and more taxpayers' money. it is as if somehow you measure the compassion of a government by the amount of other people's money it can spend. at a time when family budgets are tight, it is really worth remembering that this spending comes out of the pockets of

exactly the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve. i hope the archbishop of canterbury will forgive me for saying it's not robbing peter to pay paul, but rather, robbing peter to pay peter. the single biggest threat to the cost of living in this country is if our budget deficit and debts get out of control again. if interest rates and mortgage rates start to soar, the increase this the cost of living will far outweigh the impact of any increase in government spending or, indeed, reduction this taxation. this government is not prepared to let that happen. we have a plan, and we are carefully implementing that plan. already we've cut the deficit by a third, and we are ticking to the task. -- sticking to the task. but that doesn't just mean taking difficult decisions on public spending. it also means something more profound. it means building a leaner, more efficient state. we need to do more with less not

just now, but permanently. it can be done. consider these facts, compared with three years ago there are 40% fewer people working in the department of education, but there are other 3,000 more free schools and academies with more children doing tougher subjects than ever before. there are 23,000 fewer administrative roles in the national health service, but there are 5,000 more doctors with shorter waiting times. you can have a leaner, more efficient or affordable state that actually delivers better results for the taxpayer. the second thing we need is an economy where everyone, everyone can take part. that is not what we have today. consider this: 64% of children on free school meals don't get five good gcses with english and math, and 4,000 children leave secondary school every

year with no gcses at all. that is why we are overhauling the curriculum, introducing more rigorous apprenticeships and giving every child the chance to excel. not letting people make the most of their talents is not just a tragedy for the individual, it is a tragedy for our country too. in the same context, as the lord mayor just said so clearly, inequality is not just wrong, it fundamentally disadvantages our economy. at the moment the u.k. has the lowest ratio in europe for women in s.t.e.m. subjects, and in engineering less than one in six graduates are women. that is simply not good enough. so we should aim to double that proportion by 2030. we simply can't afford in the tough, competitive world of the 23st century for our -- 21st century for our manufacturing industries to miss out on the brightest minds amongst half of the population. but an chi for everyone means --

an economy for everyone means more than just a great education, it also means reforming our welfare system. put simply, no country can succeed in the long term if capable people are paid to stay idle and out of work. we went into the last recession, into the last recession with four million people of working age on out-of-work benefits. we know the most progressive way to tackle poverty is through work, and yet for generations people who could work have been failed by the system and stuck on benefits. so we're putting an end to the poverty and wealth traps taffe plagued our welfare system for so long. we're capping welfare so that no family is better off on benefits than if work and through universal credit, we're assuring every extra hour you work and job you do, you should always be better off. i'm also very focused on supporting the voluntary sector to work alongside the state in fighting poverty and building this economy where with everyone

can take part. for example, one of the best answers to payday lending is the credit union movement. as a government, we put 38 million pounds to double the membership of credit unions. they are a shining example of the big society in action. now, third, we need an economy equipped for the future. you can't have an economy for all if people in parts of the north or in some rural communities are left without the transport links or the superfast broadband that they need to take part. so we're investing in infrastructure that serves the whole country. 680 million to insure we have the best superfast broadband in europe by 2015. the biggest investment in roads since the 1970s. the biggest rail investment since victorian times. with cross rail underneath us now, the biggest construction project anywhere in the europe and high speed ii, the first new train line running north out of london for how many