the federal system. much more common in state systems or county systems. there is a program in new york called justice home where women facing at least a year of incarceration, when the district attorney and judge are able to agree, they stay at home with their children and face a set of accountability measures but also get the mental health interventions, substance abuse interventions parenting classes, vocational training, what is very -- whatever is specific to their case to get better outcomes. in york, it costs $60,000 a year to incarcerate somebody. that program costs $17,000 a year. if we threw in the cost of foster care, the cost would amount to $129,000 a year.

mr. dillard: thank you for your observation. trauma informed care is truly something that is needed if we are going to be preventive. i can use myself as an example of someone who had trauma's at the age of 12-13 years old. when i was diagnosed, i had been severely depressed most of my life. one reason i self medicated was illegal drugs -- had i been diagnosed, maybe i could have been given legal drugs and avoided the criminal justice system. the fact is, we never look at the cause, we just look at the effect. many, many, many of these women and men who i've encountered have tremendous traumas. we are working as a pure organization to help them work

through that. to avoid walking around as hurting people because we know hurt people hurt people. if we do not address those early on, further down the road after recidivism, we are still going to be paying a much higher cost. mr. ofer: i will give a perspective informed by the fact that i spend a lot of my time in newark, new jersey. a city that is plagued by poverty. in certain communities, there is violence. what i see in newark and a lot of urban areas across new jersey and across the country, the only agency available in that municipality to address social needs -- the agency primarily available is the police department.

to me, that is the root cause of the problem. you have well-meaning police officers, well-meaning city officials that literally have no one else to go to if there is minor misbehavior happening on the street that is minor. i will criticize divergent programs. while they are certainly better than sending someone directly to jail or prison, my reaction is this person should not have been in the criminal justice system in the first place. we need to build up the resources of municipalities and states to have other agencies to go to when they are interacting with people with mental illness or drug addiction problems. >> the stigmatization of that label is something you will carry the rest of your life. it will prevent you from getting student loans, from getting a

job. it is with a great deal of care that we should ever take that next step because we are in fact relegating that person to a certain quality of life for the rest of their life. especially given the age of the internet where we can find out anything about anyone. i wanted to make a broader point that we are here to talk about what we are going to do about high incarceration rates. we cannot look at this problem without looking at the broad scope of services provided and how we can work more effectively for prevention. senator ayotte: i want to thank all of you for being here. like my colleague -- we were both attorneys general in our states. one of the things i have worked on as an ag was reentry programs. i'm a strong supporter of the second chance act in supporting

its real authorization. i saw it from attorney general context where even people who were incarcerated for serious crimes, we did not give them any path for success going forward because they came out, they had a substance abuse problem, the underlying issue was never dealt with, no job, no place to live -- put your self in those shoes then i dare say that all of us would not be able to put it back together. i saw that your focus is really on reentry programs. we saw it in our state get some momentum and then fizzle. i wanted to get your thoughts on reentry type programs and what

more we could do to make them more effective to try to end this cycle and get people on to productive lives. mr. dillard: reentry is a crucial point. if there is planning done and individuals are given different options. i know the federal system, six months in a halfway house is something i went through that was beneficial to me. i was able to obtain employment and save some money. to be able to rent a room when i was done with my federal time. what i am saying today is young men are coming out of our state and county systems homeless. 17, 18 years old who can't live with their mother because they

have been told you cannot go there because subsidies are connected to their housing and they are couch surfing with those who are not doing so well for the antisocials that had an influence in them being placed in the criminal justice system. in the very first place. housing initiatives are huge. we are working on solutions in the region i'm working in, nonprofits and state-based organizations are engaging with us in providing housing and an affordable rate. preparation is huge. individuals have to identify certain things while in custody in order to have a paradigm

shift that this cannot be an option. i had a client tell me that committing a new crime was not his first option. it was not his first choice, but it was his very last option. i know the troubling times he was in, sleeping on park benches, could not go to the shelter for various reasons. he committed a new crime. it was not his first choice, his very last option. the reentry process along with all the barriers, mentoring or connections with organizations that hire formerly incarcerated -- we are ambassadors. i look at us as being those who can help them through those

trying times and pivot points of reentry. mr. ofer: this is an oversight hearing on the bureau of prisons and the independent reviews that i keep referencing to look at this question of the bureau of prisons practices on reentry programming. here is its finding in one sentence. there is no formal bureau-wide reentry program. inmates have limited access to reentry programming. the bureau does not do a good job in reentry programming. 2000 people a year in the federal bureau of prisons go from solitary back to community -- many of them don't know the exact number because the bureau does not track it come are sent directly from solitary back to communities. that is a terrible practice that needs to stop immediately. there needs to be a focus on reentry programming in the federal bureau of prisons.

senator ayotte: thank you. i wanted to ask you, one of the things we are saying -- i saw this when i was ag as well. we are seeing on a devastating scale in our state, opioid and heroin addiction. i've been working on legislation call to the comprehensive addiction recovery act. i'm hoping we will take this issue up here -- i hope the second chance act -- there was some discussion you had about this idea of alternatives. what would you do as you think about this issue? how many people did you encounter that had addiction issues that were underlying why they were in prison? i fully agree -- we cannot arrest our way out of this.

this is a public health crisis. ms. kerman: thank you. what's happening in new hampshire is also happening in ohio and all over this country in terms of huge spikes in deaths from heroin. >> it is heartbreaking. ms. kerman: it is devastating. it is fundamentally a public health question first and foremost. the intersections with the criminal justice system should be secondary as we continue to see crime rates very low. violent crime rates very low. people who sell drugs are breaking the law. remembering that intervening in that addiction cycle is the most important thing and cannot be a couple with a jail cell. we see a lot of people trying lots of different things. i am not a doctor or an expert

in addiction, but we see safe harbors in places like massachusetts. they have tried innovative approaches to getting folks the medical health they need and having that be the primary concern rather than incarceration. when we look at states like new york, new jersey, california, the states that have reduced their prison populations the most and have simultaneously continued to enjoy huge declines one of the things we have seen is a hugetates decline in prosecutions incarceration of people for low-level drug offenses. a recognition that those -- that public disorder is a reflection of the health problem. that is the way to tackle it. >> senator baldwin.

senator baldwin: thank you. first of all, i want to thank our panelists -- what a tremendous opportunity for us to hear from you and interact with you. i wanted to join the thanks for holding this hearing. also to the ranking member -- as you said in the outset, this is a very big and very complex issue. i hope we will have additional opportunity -- i'm glad that you are recognizing this committee's role in that discussion and i hope we can keep that up. there's a number of things i wanted to touch on. i heard the ranking member talking about upholding the models in states that are working. i love to brag about my state, but in this case, i'm just going to share some of the statistics about racial disparities in the incarcerated population in our

state. in wisconsin, african-americans constitute 6% of the state population. 35% of those incarcerated in state prisons are african-american. according to a recent study from the university of wisconsin in milwaukee, 13% of wisconsin's african-american men of working age were behind bars. almost double the national average of 6.7%. the figures were particularly shocking and dismal for milwaukee county were 50% of african-american men in their 30's had served time in prison. 45% of the inmates at our federal correctional facility are african-american and 9.3% are hispanic. i hope as we continue to work on this complex issue that that

will be on our minds. i just wanted to mention -- i previously -- i was never attorney general. i practiced law in a small general practice firm at the very beginning of my career. mostly general practice. a couple of times, took misdemeanor public defender cases. i was becoming involved in county politics, state-level legislative office at this time when i felt like i saw the precursors of what we are seeing now being debated. i had the honor of serving as chairwoman of the corrections

committee in the state legislature for one term. i took our committee to prisons for tour's, visits, conversations with people who work there, people who were inmates there. we had legislative hearings in the prisons, we went to the intake facility -- one of the minimum-security prisons, medium security prisons, women's prisons and visited work release facilities. the legislature was talking about should we allow private prisons to be built and run in wisconsin. should we contract with other states to deal with our overflow issues and have them house are wisconsin prisoners? the counties were doing the same thing because some of the jails of the county level were overflowing. the substantive criminal justice debate at the time, three strikes you're out, limitation

of -- elimination of parole. new crimes being created. there was a love debate about the elimination of prison-based vocational programs, mandatory minimums were a big topic. -- there was a lot of debate. you could see all of this in the future. now that feature has come and it is not going to be overnight that we figure out what missteps we had and how we deal with this in a saner way. i have a couple of questions -- i'm hoping you will be willing to submit some answers in writing. you mentioned that women are the fastest-growing prison population right now. i remember years ago when i was visiting the women's prison in wisconsin, and seemed to me

there were gender differences in how they dealt with certain issues. we talked a lot about solitary confinement. is there a gender difference in how these issues are dealt with in women's prisons? for example i remember being , concerned about over medication of women to deal with behavioral issues as opposed to placement in solitary confinement. this is something we should still be looking at. ms. kerman: we should absolutely be looking at these of solitary confinement in men's and women's prisons. i echo the testimony that solitary confinement is often used not for the most serious infractions like an assault but rather for very low level infractions. women are overwhelmingly likely to be incarcerated for a nonviolent crime and are very unlikely to use violence while

they are incarcerated. women's distilleries -- facilities do not struggle with violence. solitary confinement is overwhelmingly used as a punitive measure. female prisoners are disproportionately likely to suffer from mental illness. one of the tragic things that solitary confinement is that mentally ill people have a more difficult time following the rules of a prison. you cease-fire sanctions -- spiraling sanctions which land them in solitary confinement. a regularly healthy person placed in solitary confinement for 10 days, after 10 days will start to significantly terry -- deteriorate. let alone a mentally will person. -- mentally ill person. >> let me ask a quick question

about reentry. access to vocational and educational programming. you can feel free to elaborate after-the-fact in writing. i know i have such limited time. i recall the restriction of any sort of public funds for individualized financial aid assistance to those in state prisons because that was something i was looking at closely. i believe that has continued over time and we have additional restrictions once a person is back in the community, they want to seek additional vocational or higher education generally. it makes it possible for financial aid. you talked about people emerging burdened with debt not related to higher education.

tell me about the options for people to secure post high school education upon release. mr. dillard: i've seen more opportunities opening up for individuals post release. at one time, there was student loans -- i'm happy to hear that the pell grant is going on within the federal system. i'm so happy to hear that because individuals prior to 1994 came out with associates degrees and went on to achieve bachelors and masters. the fact is, 98% of those who get a bachelors or higher degree never returned to prison. that is something we cannot ignore. we should support as far as higher education within the system.

>> we do have a second panel. we could keep going on. this has been fascinating. i want to thank this panel -- we talked before hand, the purpose of every hearing is to define the problem and alter reality so we commit -- you've accomplished that goal big-time. >> we have sold with fear of solitary confinement -- it might be good to pick one of those articles and hold another hearing. >> i was just going to get there. this is just a first of a series of hearings. we have a mission statement for this committee. pretty simple to enhance the economic and national security of america. this issue touches both. we have tried to find the areas of agreement. we've seen that there is a great

deal of bipartisan agreement that what we are going just does not work, not because of a lack of effort by our next panel of witnesses -- i encourage you and your organization to continue to press for this and work with those of us who want to solve this problem -- your points on solitary confinement are dead on and we need to fix that. mr. dillard, god bless you for having turned your life around and taking your circumstance and offering that to your fellow man to help other people find redemption. and ms. kerman, your unintended celebrity, you have done an excellent job of raising these issues -- i've spoken to my staff -- i like your answer to the question in terms of what are alternatives. from my standpoint, a rigorous dose of community

reparation, those types of programs, community service is the appropriate for people who have committed crimes -- we do need punishment and deterrence, but you just might heal in those programs and find that far more effective way of dealing with these issues than locking somebody up and seeing the results of women not working. i want to thank everybody here on this panel. i want to continue to work with you and numbers of the committee on bipartisan basis -- this is a first of a series of very important hearings. thank you very much. i will call for the next panel. if you have time, i would love to have you stay and listen to our next panel as well. but you do not need to feel obligated to.

>> our first witness will be samuel -- mr. charles samuel junior. 21,as appointed on december 2011. he oversaw all inmate management and program functions. he was also responsible for initiating reentry initiatives. samuels:: i thank you for your time. i am pleased to discuss the operations of the federal bureau .rison .

i am also pleased to speak on behalf of of the employees. by applyingociety standards of facilities that are safe, humane, and secure. we provide programs to help them become law-abiding citizens. simply stated, we protect society and reduce crime. we face challenges. the bureau does not control the number of people that come into the system or the length of stay. we are required to maintain safety, security, and effective reentry programs. we house people convicted of a variety of offenses. many have extensive histories of violence. drug offenders make up almost half of our population. house many, we offenders guilty -- convicted of

international terrorism. the bureau is the largest agency in the country with 122 federal prisons, 178 community-based facilities. the nation's war, from 1980-present, we have increased by eightfold in the presence -- prisons. prisons, theity -- ourolent inmates ability to effectively supervise prisoners and provide inmate programs depends on having sufficient numbers of staff available at our prisons. predatorsopulation

abated slightly. in 2014 we had the first decline in years. crowding will remain a challenge. staff safety as well as the safety of the public and defenders we house is my highest priority. my staff is the safety of the american people about their own to keep communities safe and secure. some of the saddest days of my 2013r occurred one week in when to staff or killed the of duty. eric williams was killed on february-, the next day, lieutenant a variety was murdered. these tragedies are reminders of the real dangers our staff faces. we are requiring the

we increased our correctional staffing of highest -- security institutions over weekends and holidays. there has been concern regarding the use of restrictive powers. in 2012 we substantially reduced the number of inmates in our federal housing unit, but up to 7% of our population is in restrictive housing. been to make sure people are placed in research of housing for the right reasons and the right amount of time. new supervision for inmates who need special treatment. we look forward to making additional reforms. we have a saying in the bureau, apprehension begins on the first day of incarceration.

review issues related to criminal behavior, including substance abuse and mental health. we also review issues to read them for transition successfully community.t -- many of our programs have been proven to reduce recidivism. programs for mentally ill offenders, including those with a history of trauma. we also have a program for offenders with cognitive and those with severe personality disorders. we provide these for -- programs to help offenders and we have programs specifically for the need of female offenders. the bureau relies on a network of can unity-based facilities helps offenders readapt to the community and secure housing, jobs, medical and more.

this concludes my formal statement. i am plaut -- proud of the work my staff due to keep america safe. thank you for your time. >> thank you director samuels. witness is michael horowitz. theng his 10 years as inspector general, he has identified a number of areas including budget, inmate programming, especially as it relates to the elderly inmate population. increasing safety for inmates, mr. hurwitz. -- horowitz. horowitz: the justice system faces two interrelated crises in managing the system. budgets, thisight path is unsustainable.

since fiscal year 2000, the bureau's budget has nearly doubled and now accounts for 25% of the discretionary budget. funding than any other doj components, and it is the second largest component of the doj trailing only the fbi. drivers of the increase, in addition to the increased prison population, is health care, which costs over $1 billion in 2014, a 61% increase since 2006. this rapid increase can partly to the agingd prison population. the population of inmates under age 50 actually decreased by 1%, including a decrease of 29% for inmates under age 30. iss demographic shift

notable because aging inmates cost more to incarcerate. we also lack appropriate staffing levels to address the needs of the aging inmate population. for example, while social workers are uniquely qualified dojssist aging inmates, the employs only 36 social workers nationwide. with further found that the physical infrastructure cannot adequately lay house aging inmates. additionally we found we do not provide programming opportunities, specifically addressing the needs of aging inmates. we also concluded that based on their lower rates of recidivism certain older inmates could be candidates for early release, a program congress has authorized. however we found that in just one year following the attorney general's announce of a elderly compassionate release program, it only released to elderly

inmates. these findings are similar to what we reported in our 2014 the compassionate release program for all inmates. we found it had been poorly managed and was incremented inconsistently. following a review they expanded their compassionate release program. review of the department international prints program,ner transfer and other program was authorized which permits for a national inmates to serve the remainder of their sentence in hope their home countries. however less than 2% of inmates were transferred to their home countries to complete their sentence. we are currently completing a follow-up review to that report. another area where the costs have increased substantially are

for private contractors, which are largely used to house inmates. the budget is over $1 billion, and portion of federal inmates housing contract prisons have increased from 2% in 1982 about 20% in 2013. indeed, two of the three largest doj contractors are prison providers. in addition to just and costs, the department must also address -- continue to address efforts to ensure the safety and security of stuff and it made. prison overcrowding represents the most significant threat to the safety and security of staff with federal prisons at 30% over rated capacity. every one of its agency financial reports since 2006, the department has identified prison overcrowding as a programmatic material we --

weakness yet the problem remains unresolved. in addition to overcrowding, the unlawful production of contraband for next -- present a serious threat to safety and security. the unauthorized use of cell phones is a particularly significant risk, and the jails have reported that the number of cell phones confiscated by the p more than doubled between 2008 and 2010. additionally sexual assault remains a serious issue. we continue our long-standing commitment to investigate syria -- sexual assault by prison staff. additionally we recently announced our plans to comply with the prison rape elimination act. an essential building block to achieving performing space management is having reliable data, an issue that has proven to be a challenge for both -- for the department.

a comprehensive approach to the collection and analysis of data on how well the program is reducing incarceration rate, it to turn time, and improving public safety will help the department target its resources. thank you for the committee's continued support for our work and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you inspector general horowitz. , let me startrs with you. first of all i do not enter your task and i really want to thank you for your service which has been long-standing. let me start there. you began as a correctional officer in march of 1988. have all quoted statistics here. in the 1980's the prison of -- the prison population was 25,000, now with over 200,000. can you just give us your perspective in terms of what has happened, what you have witnessed over your career?

mr. samuels: thank you. at that time the violation was a little more than 60,000. historically when you look at the bureau prisons and you go back to 1940, from 1940 to 1980, the prison population pretty much remains flat for many years , in excess of 20,000. in 1980, which is the primary we as of this discussion, an agency had approximately 24,000 inmates in the federal system. we had less than 9000 employees. 41 institutions. we were able to operate the entire bureau prison for $330 million. when you look at the increase to m 1980 two to 2013 -- 2013, we were at more than 800% in terms of the growth of the population.

we are tasked with everyone and anyone who has been convicted and turned over to the department of justice and placed in the care of the bureau prisons. we have a job to do, a significant job. it takes staff to do the work that is required. >> let me ask you, from your perspective. you've been there. what drove the dramatic increase in prison population. the war on drugs in the early 80's had a significant drive on the growth of the population. as a result we are having more offenders come into the system. long-standing practice, this goes all the way back to the 1930's, that our reentry efforts are always in place and that is to ensure that we are providing rehabilitation. at the challenges associated with what we have to do is with trying to protect the inmates as well as the staff who are in our facility.

the driver has been in the war on drugs. >> has there been any legitimate increase due to a crackdown in violent crime? did we just really appropriately crackdown on that, or we didn't become a more criminal society? we always arrested those people and put them in jail? are we putting them in their longer? i want to address that. mr. samuels: in regards to violent offenses, the department , through prosecutorial effort, it are the mixture. within our population i think it is very safe to say that we have very violent offenders in our population who included a significant amount of gang members. in the federal system we have more than 21,000 members who pose a significant threat to the public, inmates, and staff.

violence,about gang without also be generally driven by drugs dr. -- would that also generally be driven by drugs? mr. samuels: it can be associated with drug activity of that is part of the money structure within the gang. >> let me against the quiz director samuels. -- stick with director samuels. why haven't we been more proactive in terms of some of these authorized early release program? is there a risk aversion their? who ought to be responsible for releasing somebody into public who committed a violent crime? speak toust kind of why we haven't taken advantage of those programs a little bit more robustly? mr. samuels: as director of the agency my authority is very taking when you look at advantage of the various programs that are being referenced. with compassionate release, i will start their, we as an

did a need a thorough -- thorough review and we determined a couple of years ago when we were looking at the individuals who made the criteria we determined that there were a little more than 200 inmates. once they are identified you have to go further and making sure that these are individuals who have the resources if they are in fact given the opportunity and are released under the program. with themates population at that time, at 220,000, is a very very small number. >> again, we are talking about compassionate release. early release. the release of a foreign nationals. under all of those types of programs, are you saying that the law is just written to restrictively? the latitudeve you to utilize this program?

mr. samuels: we have expanded. as you know with a compassionate release program, we moved from medical to nonmedical. when you are looking at the criteria as well as being responsible for public safety of any of those individuals continuing more criminal activity, we have to take that into account. program, and ier do share the concerns that the inspector general raise, we identified through the audit a since thatre, and time we have provided a number of training opportunities for our staff, as well as educating the inmate population on their rights under consideration for the program. we have seen an increase. however, when we submit the applications for consideration there is another process that takes place with the department working with the various countries who have agreements

under the transfer program to make a determination about when the people are removed. >> of course it would probably rather have the u.s. bear the cost of keeping those people in prison. horwitz, caneral you please speak why these programs haven't been utilized more fully? horowitz: i agree with mr. samuels. for example, elderly release. h 65 and over, is where the threshold begins. the attorney general announced that with great land. august, 2014, increasing the use of that program. yet there are only two. part, it is because of the inmates who are over age 65 and the prison system. they have to meet very strict criteria.

both with regards to meeting the criteria and as we found, the discretionary calls that have to be made. perhaps it is risk aversion. perhaps it is a feeling that -- one got a jail sentence >> overly strict criteria? horowitz: we had a concern with the provisions. for example, asking people to serve a long time and demonstrate a long. of the sentence. the criminalst is who were the least dangerous, had presumed we serve the least. it -- had recently served least amount of time. i don't want to take up too much of your time.

wants toor samuel's, i ask about a prison in my state. sti berlin. what is the status of staffing at that facility? the warden has indicated that that facility was stopped at about 290 and there are about 1200 incarcerated individuals there. can you give me an update on level and also what the ultimate it -- ultimate goal is for staffing? mr. samuels: thank you senator. right now we're working very tosely with the staff there ensure that our recruitment record remain on target. we are also ensuring that as we build the population the staff is where it needs to be. so we don't have more inmates in the facility until we have more staff. i know there was a concern that

there was a. where the worker levels were not where we would like it, but we are starting to see that we had very good potential for hiring individuals. one follow-up i wanted on the applicant pool. this is an aria of our state where people are always looking for more jobs. thatt people from the area have strong backgrounds, one of the issues has been the 37-year-old age restriction. prison bureau re-examines this? i know i have previously written on this issue, that it is important that my constituents have an opportunity -- that live in the. to work there. mr. horowitz: our focus is to people who do the live in the community have the opportunity to work there.

and we are in the process of doing that. >> that is very good to know. i appreciate you prioritizing hiring people from the community. i know they are anxious and would like opportunities to work there, as well as our veterans. i really appreciate you doing that. that theyu'll find are a really dedicated group of people in the area. i wanted to follow up on the prior panel, there was quite a criticismcussion and thehe reentry program from bureau prisons, and the commitment toward where we are when someone is finished their time. and putting forward successful programs toward future success. with our recidivism rate, it cost us a lot financially, and also to the individual, to the quality of life that that person

has an opportunity to get a new start. if there is not a good system in success. i wanted to get your comments. mr. horowitz: thank you get -- mr samuels: thank you again. the expectation bureau ride is for all staff to have an active role in our reentry efforts. have moreen day we than 53,000 inmates who are participating in education. have more than 12,000 individuals actively participating in our federal prisons industry program, which is our largest recidivism program in the bureau prison. those who participate are 24% less likely to be involved in

coming back to prison. for vocational training, more than 10,000 inmates are participating. for those individuals who participate compared to those who are not, they recidivism reduction is 33%. are very familiar with our residential drug abuse program. we also have our nonresidential program as well. adamant at ensuring that these programs are provided to all inmates within our population. a prisoner to manage when inmates are actively involved, and we are definitely trying to do our part to ensure that recidivism reduction in this nation, that we are taking a lead. for the number of people to come into these prisons, despite all the challenges, the men and women of your presence do an

amazing job. if you look at the numbers we have to recidivism, 80% who do not return to the federal system. 80%. we have that 20% to eventually end up in state and/or local. we have always known that the a 40%. recidivism is 20% that returned to the bureau and 20% that go into the state. i would just also add that when you look at the bureau system, and there is a study that has been done, is for the state correctional system when you look at the overall average for recidivism, it is 67%. i would still say that we have a lot of work to do. the goal is to have 100% individuals never returning. but as i have already stated for , the numbers that occur over that time. , we are very limited with our

staff. remove it from the commitment to our mission. believe that i would be sitting here reporting that the 80% which have been much higher. i wants to give the inspector general an opportunity to comment on how you think we're doing on reentry and any work you have done that. in horowitz: we are actually the middle of a review of the reentry programs. we are going to the institutions to look at those programs, look at the education programs, because of the concern we have heard. i can give your report right now. i think we'll have something later in the year. one of the issues i will just pick up on what director samuel said, is a staffing. that is a significant issue. it is a safety issue. a security issue. what you see is, first of all, by most accounts the federal staffing ratio of inmates to

staff is worse than many of the state systems. that has been exacerbated over time as the prison population has grown. staff haver and the to pull people out of other programs to do correctional work. so that they can be doing some of the other programs we're all talking about. that is lost sometimes, and it is something we are looking at. -- thecascading affect director has to first or foremost make sure the prisoners understand. >> i hope when you issue this report you will also give us guidance on what the models are. one of the best models for reentry? if we're going to create a better path for success are sople so that they don't -- that we can reduce the recidivism rate, i think your recommendations on what is working best, where we should

invest resources, would be really helpful. thank you. thank you.z: well we are on the subject, i was handed a note. -- i was handed a note. this sound like a very successful program, where more people engaged in it? mr. samuels: if the 10,000 is in reference to the vocational training programs, we only have a limited number of spots that we can provide. you have waiting lists in the federal prison system like in any other system. to tryl is trying to -- to push as many of these inmates through. as we complete classes we bring more individuals in. what i expected as an

answer. i wanted to get it on the records. yes.orowitz: i think what we are generally finding is there are limited resources. >> thank you ray much. director samuels, i really buteciate you being here, also i appreciate the fact that you visited me in my office. you represent the administration as a whole. i'm grateful that you are here today. that means a lot. echo, you areto part of the law enforcement community. your officers put themselves at risk everything will then to protect this nation. i am grateful for the sacrifices that your officers have made. i'm glad you mentioned, as we see on the federal and state level, we do have officers not just losing their lives but also officers who are injured pretty severely in the line of duty. we as americans should recognize that sacrifice.

i want to talk to really quickly focusing my question on solitary confinement. beginning with solitary confinement of juveniles. there is a bipartisan conversation going on right now about putting real limitations on the use of solitary confinement. this is an issue that faces thousands and thousands of children across america, when it comes to the federal system this is actually a very small amount. this is into populations really. it is children that are tried as adults, that are housed in adult and then the contract that you do with the facilities. feasible -- ,t is that is being -- that as it is being discussed in congress right now, the we just eliminate solitary confinement, or it?rely limited, -- limit

for example placing a three hour time limit, banning it really for punitive purposes? is that something that you would see as feasible and something you would be supportive of? mr. samuels: thank you. as you mentioned, we contract out this service. we do not have any juveniles and adults facility. the focus for us is that anytime they are considering putting a juvenile in restrictive housing they are required to notify us immediately. even if that place and were to take place there is a requirement also that they have to monitor those individuals every 15 minutes. in regards to your question with looking at the restrictions that could be considered, i would say that for our purposes regarding this that it would be something that should be considered and

looked at. and so is congress were to act on legislation, putting the severe limitations on the , that something you would agree is feasible? mr. samuels: yes. >> i really appreciate that. that is something that is encouraging. smally, it is a population but doing it on a federal level would send a signal throughout our country. to adult solitary confinement if i may. this practice, as you know, has been harshly criticized. you can listen to the other panel. there is a lot of heat from the medical community, specifically, and also civil rights community and human rights communities. in may 2013, there was a report i know you are familiar with from the gao.

the federalhat prisons did not know if solitary confinement had any impact on prisoner safety. they didn't know how it would affect individuals who endured the practice or how much it was costing taxpayers in general. just this year, a recent found -- as was said in the previous panel, many andle max out in solitary find those going right back into the public. in many ways i think these reports are kind of a wake-up call. now how manyight people are in solitary ?onfinement do you have a data? mr. samuels: i can provide the

data for you. so we do track the people who are staying for years of solitary? mr. samuels: yes. i would like to thank you for your service. in the bureau prisons we do not practice solitary confinement. when individuals are replaced -- place in restrictive housing would place them in a cell with another individual. require that our staff make periodic rounds to check on the individual. i also believe it is important -- >> i'm sorry, i just need to be clear on that. that you dony is not practice the solitary confinement of individuals singularly in a confined airy a day -- area? correct.ls: we only plays an individual in a cell alone if we have good evidence to believe that the individual could cause harm to another individual, and or if we

have our medical or mental health staff give an evaluation that it would benefit the individual to be placed in a cell alone. we do not under any circumstances, nor have we ever, had a practice of putting individuals in a cell alone. >> that's astonishing to me, and i would love to explore that further. all the evidence that i have says that it is a practice of the federal level. that thereling me are not people that are being held for many many months alone in solitary confinement? is that correct? mr. samuels: when you look at the bureau prisons, agencywide, that is not a practice which we have. we have three forms. we have our special housing unit . we also have a program we call the shoe. they are not individually held. agencywide,erage,

-- average, theon average amount of time people are spending is a little more than 65 days. >> so the show is not solitary confinement. there is not an individual in his cell alone? mr. samuels: that is not practice, no. >> i hope there will be another round. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you. the inmates for holding have been convicted in of a violent crime in a federal court? mr. samuels: of a violent crime? approximately 5%. >> ok. so we've got 5% violent, 95% nonviolent.

think the thing that people need to understand, which i'm not sure people do, is that the 5% stake committed violent don't even have primary jurisdiction probably on most of those crimes. i don't think people realize that the federal law enforcement system was not designed or ever intended to address what most people think of as crime in this country. it was originally intended is to be just for those kinds of crimes that, because of the interstate nature of them, they needed to be handled by the federal government. that was the crimes involving -- that would be crimes involving drugs going from country to country. that eventually we started nibbling away at that and we started doing bank robbers. and then we started doing interstate kidnappings -- and i know this because we handled a

whole lot of murder cases that i was a prosecutor in kansas city. nothing was more air hitting to me. we had the best homicide detectives in the midwest. we had experienced prosecutors who handle murder every day. and invariably when there was a murder case,rofile all of a sudden the fbi would start sniffing around and try to grab the case. they try to find some interstate part of the crimes that they could take the case as opposed to us. and frankly, in my opinion, we had much more expertise. i asked this question because you are spending $7 billion and 95% of that is being spent on nonviolent offenders. that is an astounding number. my question is, how many times -- you been brought in guys don't get a 911 call.

call the fbi with a 911 call. i used to make that point. they didn't call you, they called us. the federal system gets to pick. not required. they get to decide what they want to prosecute. unlike state prosecutors, who have to make a decision on every single case. were you ever called into the policy does that -- discussions about the growth of federal law enforcement and the massive growth and the prison system that? because these decisions are being dictated by the department of justice. or you ever consulted on any of those decisions? mccaskill,: senator i would offer that the bureau prisons, when the discussions are taking place, we are brought into the discussions when it needed by the department, but i also would share, which i'm sure that you are aware, is that any

politics relevant to who is being prosecuted, that remains with my colleagues in the , morement who would be than anyone else, capable of responding to that. so let's discuss what you can do. let's talk about the elderly offender program. the way you have entered into some of the contracts, you didn't specify what the cost of home detention was versus your detention. corrections ? isother words what you did you weren't able to discern what the release into home detention was costing versus incarceration ? mr. horowitz: that's right. >> so you aren't even in a position where you can analyze the cost of the program versus prison.

correct? mr. horowitz: since that time -- since that time we have been able to isolate that cost. we have put together procedures for staff who would be responsible for contacting oversight. 784 of the 855 academic -- applicants for the elderly lease program that were denied. 784 out of 855 were denied. can you explain why they were denied, that massive amounts? these are all elderly. these are not young people. from the knowledge that i have regarding many of those individuals, it was dealing with the issue of being eligible based on the criteria that was put in place. >> who sets the criteria?

mr. samuels: the criteria? >> that was established by congress. that was somethinguels: that was done through, -- conversation with members of congress. >> i would love to know who was in on a conversation. i would love to see the criteria, because if you have 95% of your population is nonviolent, and you've got -- we know that the recidivism rate for people over the age of 35 is somewhere between two and 3%. by the way that is a recidivism rate that any reentry program or any drug court program, or any state court system would die for. that is an amazingly low

recidivism rate. i do not understand how we cannot even -- we turning down 784 of the dock -- applicants for a pilot program. it seems to me that the institution is being stubbornly stuck in the status quo. excited that we have critical mass around here. as somebody who is against a lot of political headwinds i convinced the people in my community and the police department that drug court was a taxpayer factor, because the people who went into drug court were either on welfare or they were stealing. they weren't paying taxes. all the nonviolent crimes they work -- committing was because they were drug addicted. then it spread all over the country and the world because it works so well.

you know what i had to do? i beg the federal government. they didn't want to hear a word about it. i couldn't get them to send us their mules. i was saying, let us take your cases. your low-level drug offender cases. they wouldn't hear of it. in the 90's. i was not sure that we have moved that much in the department of justice, and i hope we can all work together. i have some questions for the record. why in the world are we using the county as the go-between between a prison contract, and also these criminal alien presence that we have? half of them are immigration offenses? we forgot the $1 billion price tag on that. i think we're finding another areata -- area of agreement here.

my standpoint is this is better left up to the states. they use a little bit more of a commonsense approach. said, frequently say, -- it is the law of negative unintended consulate does. i think we're seeing a lot of that today. not just good intentions. not just those people working hard. be respectful of the witnesses time. i know senator booker had another question. >> i'm grateful. i think we are having semantic problems mr. director. the deal defines a solitary confinement as the state of being confined to one cell for approximately 22 hours per day ore. the health consequences for aretary confinement well-known. this is a common practice in the federal system, but it is not

just with other prisoners. to beommon as well isolated, and the average state's 277 days. the average solitary confinement is 1876 days. this is a real problem, and it does exist. forgive me if i semantic sarong, but i think i have more precision. did want to i clarify. i appreciate you bringing the subject back. in 2012, atfied that time we had a little more than 400 inmates at the 80 in florence, colorado. population, those individuals are placed in single cell. the majority of the population of -- also, when you look at their fences, 60% have been

involved in some homicide at some point in their lives. is is again, the reality that the actual result -- i don't care if it's homicide, nonviolent drug crime. taxpayersou getting for putting them in an environment in which many folks consider that torture? we have a medical community that has a consensus about torture. or harmful, excuse me, traumatizing effects of that. ,hat i am saying is, and again crime, nonviolent violent. this is a nation that does not endorse torture or believe that we should traumatize people. if there is no data that supports actually having something positive coming out of this, it has got to be a practice that we should end or really limited. that is what i'm saying.

i'm trying to do a data-driven approach relying on expert science. and just because i want to stay on the good side of the chairman, i'm going to shift over this issue because i have enough questions to last another 10 minutes. that i don't think i want to get that. >> no you're not. >> so just really quick, a really quick point. the federal bureau prison houses women, as we talked about in the last panel, overwhelmingly does women have children of minor age . does the trauma visited upon children in those often primary , there are a lot of issues. i saw the one reality. a few milesut, just away from the new york dairy up. this is an easy reach for visitors from the northeast. those women are now going to be moved -- slated right now to

move to alabama. that is about 1000 miles away from the greater newark. . or 15 hours. why was the policy enacted, which is a good thing, which is .omething i endorse would you commit to revising the limit of 75 miles an hour as possible? is there a chance to revise that role? -- that rule? mr. samuels: when we looked at danbury, we made every effort to try to determine that those offenders who not only were aria, in the new england but we had many offenders who were there from california or from texas. ist we tried to do that remove those individuals who are not from that part of the

country so that they could be close to their families. are taking care of california, but there are a lot of people from the northeast. a lot of women with small children. they are having this connections effectively severed. i am just going to shift for now, i apologize. just quickly i want to look at the private prison issue. i don't want to feel a guy was ignoring mr. hurwitz. -- horowitz. are you concerned about the growth of private prisons, and are these prisons accountable to the public? we have real issues with contracts costing us about $5.1 billion. these are for-profit companies. by the and of 2011 the number of four contracts prisons has grown significantly. i am concerned about oversight.

there is a lack of reporting information. i can get a lot of information easily from the prisons that are being run by the director. unbelievable,his lack offfensive information and data about our private prisons and what is going on there. to ask that part of the question, and then i am done. reports of immigrant detainees. i understand that these folks are not american citizens, but .hey are human beings the report of abuse at private prisons are troubling to me. thousands of men live in 200 foot kevlar tents at some of these facilities. the facility --

is described as filthy, insect infested. horrible smells. constantly overflowing toilets. this is an affront for this nation, for what we stand for. i am just wondering what steps are you taking to hold these prisons accountable? to lift the veil to protect the american public to know what is being done with their tax dollars? we're taking several steps. of the issues we found with private prisons were of concern, just as you mentioned. .taffing levels for example reeves county had a riot several years ago, one of the issues was staffing levels. we look and saw they had concern about that. we had concerns about the billing. we made a variety of recommendations.

we are currently looking at the adams county facility in leavenworth. review of broader overall contract prisons, because that is an issue of concern. as the spending has increased and the number of prisoners has gone from 2% to 20% of the overall federal prison population. of that is an issue of concern. .e are doing those reviews several of the contract prisons, like adams, like the willis view correctionalthwest in ohio, have all had riots in the last several years. those are contract prisons and it does raise concerns that we are looking at closely. >> why not better reporting? getcan't i, or the public, the same kind of transparency in reporting that we would get with prisons under the purview of director samuel? mr. horowitz: that is something

we are looking at as well. we are looking at what kind of information is flowing and is accessible, and why isn't for being done. >> thank you senator booker. personalave my assurances that we will continue to look at this personally. we will continue to highlight these issues and work toward solutions. i watch to thank both of you gentlemen for your service to this nation, for your thoughts and testimony. i want to thank all the witnesses. i think we really did accomplish my primary goal, let's admit we have a problem. we've got one here. we certainly have taken that first step. admitting we have a problem. the record will remain open for 50 days. this omissions and statements for the record. this is a joint. adjourned.aring is

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscernible]

>> as congress continues to review the iran nuclear agreement, president obama will speak about it at american university. live at 11:20 a.m. eastern. will also cover a hearing on the application of lifting the sanctions on iran as part of the nuclear deal. live coverage of the senate banking committee at 10:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span3. >> theater roosevelt becomes president after the assassination of william mckinley. family,ccommodate her first lady edith roosevelt renovates the entire second thus, just the create -- the creation of a second wing. by adding a social secretary to the payroll, she creates the office of the first lady and change the name from executive mansion to the white house. youth roosevelt, this sunday night at eight akaka eastern on c-span original series, first influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the first ladies and their influence on the presidency. for martha washington to michelle obama. sunday on eight akaka p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. on the next washington journal, stephen diamond --

nad examines the congressional district -- gridlock. jeremyron ebell and symons examined the obama administration and climate change. plus your phone calls and tweets. washington journal is live from seven akaka and eastern on c-span. >> now a hearing on alternatives to foster care. the federal government provides around $7 billion a year in funding for foster care providers across the country. an investigative report look into allegations of sexual abuse involving the countries largest for-profit foster care provider, national mentor, which oversees the will fair -- the welfare of

minors in 38 states. this is an hour and a half. >> meeting will come to order. wrote, home isce the place when you have to go there -- when you go there, they have to take you in. unfortunately for far too many in the foster care system, that is not available. today the senate finance committee will hear testimony on the -- on alternatives that can reduce reliance on foster care group homes. i'm very pleased to have worked on this with ranking member widen. in fact i'm very pleased of everything we have been working on. >> keep it up. >> we both have to keep it up. wyden'siate senator

effort as well as those of his staff. whenever possible, children should go up in a home with their families. when problems arise, attempts should be made keep children safety at home. if a child cannot be cap safely at home, efforts should be made to place them with fit and willing relatives. children should only be placed in group homes for short. periods of for short time and only when family settings have been it exhausted. too many youths have been confined in foster care group homes. this past may the committee held a hearing on the needed to safely reduce reliance on foster care group homes. we heard powerful testimonies from a former foster care use about her negative experiences in a foster care group home. we also heard testimony about how expensive, inappropriate, and untimely death -- detrimental placement in this home can be for many children.

dohink that we should whatever we can to reduce the reliance of foster care group homes. there is a point where we should money to spend taxpayer on a place and that we know result in negative outcomes, not but for use asen well. as i have said in the past, no one would support allowing states to use federal taxpayer dollars to buy cigarettes for foster youth. in my view continuing to use taxpayer dollars to fund long-term placement it foster care -- in foster care group homes is just as destructive. it is not sound public policy to work to reduce reliance on good homes without working to find family placement for children. the purpose of this hearing is to examine alternatives for .oster care group homes such alternatives include allowing states to use their forral foster care funds

the purpose of providing services and interventions that can result in allowing children to stay safely at home. currently the federal government devotes the highest proportion of its federal foster care funding to the least desirable outcome for vulnerable families -- removal of the child from their home and placing them in stranger care or in a foster care group home. foster care laws prohibit states from using certain federal funds to provide upfront services that could ameliorate harmful conditions in the family home. some states, like utah for example, believe that we can reduce the need of foster care. they use certain federal funds to provide front and backend services to families. in 2011 chairman baucus and i drafted legislation that today, we will feel -- hear from

an official from my home state of utah. i believe we should extrapolate from utah's innovation as a model for all states. when you ask a child who has been in foster care about how to improve the system, often the answer is, you could have helped my mom. when a child cannot remain anothert home, alternative is to locate a fit and willing relative for the child. in recent years, congress has taken steps to increase these outcomes. in fostering connections to success and increasing adoptions act, congress allowed states to get federal reimbursement for certain kinship placements.

now allowed to get federal incentives for increases in kinship placements. congress has strongly signaled that kinship placements should be a priority, but challenges still remain. today, we will hear about these barriers and suggestions to make these placements more prevalent. is looking to introduce legislation that will allow federal funds to be used to help families stay together. i look forward to working on legislation that will reduce the reliance on federal foster care homes. i hope to have a committee markup of this legislation in the fall. this is part of a bipartisan process to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and

families. let me now turn to senator wyden. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to take note of the fact that you have spent decades, literally decades, keeping child welfare issues bipartisan in the united states senate. i commend you for that. i look forward to building on that partnership. think the finance committee can work in a bipartisan area on this issue. this morning in america, there is likely to be a single mom with two kids, multiple part-time jobs, and one really big worry. she works long hours to provide for her family, but even then it is a struggle to pay the bills

and keep food on the table. because her work schedule changes week to week, she is forced to leave her children unattended at times. a neighbor might place a concerned call to child protective services. once that happens, social workers have to choose t noteenwo -- between two very good options. breaking up the family or doing nothing at all to help. that has to change. whenever you ask anyone who has been through the child welfare system up about -- system about what could help them the most, "helping mys often, mom, helping my dad, helping my family." cardss just not in the when social workers have nothing to offer but foster care. kids predominantly wind up in

foster care because of their thesees are caught in desperate circumstances that lead to neglect. most youngsters in foster care are not there because of physical or sexual abuse. needs helpr dad covering the bills for a month. substance abuse treatment, connections to childcare. oftentimes, a relative could step up, especially if they had just a little bit of assistance. in my judgment, every single one of those avenues out to be explored before breaking the family apart. in fact, it might save resources in the long run without compromising on safety. back in the mid-1990's, there was a big debate about what we are going to talk about this morning. a gentleman by the name of newt gingrich said that the answer

here was to put the kids in orphanages. i remembered hearing that and remembered that a lot of this seniors and a lot of the churches they went to had been talking about how the grandparent might be able to step in, might be able to step in for a short period of time child, the parent, was having a little problem. they were out of work, they had a substance abuse problem. i learned that older people, grandparents, aunts, uncles, were an enormous untapped potential of kin that could make a big difference in terms of how we assist troubled youngsters.

back in the 1990's, i authored the kinship care act, which said met immediate relatives who the necessary standards for caring for a child would have the first preference, the first preference under law when it comes to caring for a niece or nephew or grandchild. it was the first federal law that had been enacted to promote kinship care. here we are in 2015 and i think we have an opportunity in going even further to help these youngsters thrive with kin. it begins with policies to support families when they are when they have fallen on hard times. my home state of oregon has a pleased-- and i'm very

-- we call it at home differential response. about signaling that every child and every family may require a different type of support. twoe oldwo -- the old -option system does not cut it. is going to talk about is how oregon has taken a more tailored approach to help families out. the finance committee is lucky from thehuck nyby oregon department of resources and i think my colleagues will be interested. strong families means strong kids. bottom line. i will introduce legislation that builds on the kinship care act. it will be called the family stability and kinship care act and it will make sure that more states are in a position to adopt fresh strategies and also

provide more opportunities to tap that extraordinary potential that is out there. grandparents, aunts, uncles, family members that can step in in the kinds of circumstances where otherwise a child might have one of two options that they don't care for. i will close by saying that i want to make it clear that this is in no way a condemnation of foster care. forfact is, we know kids which foster care has been a lifesaver. kids for whom foster care was a safe place where they could grow up and thrive. this is all about creating as many good choices as we possibly can for youngsters to grow up in a safe, healthy environment. that means keeping families together. i will close by way of saying that i said at the outset that chairman hatch has put in

decades trying to steer this child welfare debate in a bipartisan way. i commend him for it and i want the chairman and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that we have an opportunity to rise to the occasion again. thank you, mr. chairman. h: thank you, senator wyden. panelists.oduce our our first panelist experienced first-hand problems in our foster care system, when her eldest son was removed from her home due to behavioral issues. she was able to be reunited with .er son after much perseverance he is now pursuing a degree in architecture. next, we will hear from

ross alina burton. m former foster youth fro california. she went through 23 different placements during her 12 years in foster care. she now enjoys working as a mental health worker at a residential facility for foster youth in san diego county. she is also attending palomar college and will continue to work toward a masters in social work or policy. we will next year from donna butts. is at the helm of generations united. as -- she received

her undergraduate degree from mary hearst college and later graduated from stanford university, its executive program for nonprofit leaders. recognizedo been asce by the nonprofit times one of the top 50 most powerful and influential nonprofit executives in the nation. i would like to give senator wyden a chance to introduce our third witness, chuck nyby. wyden: thank you. mr. nyby, i touched on his extremely important work. he has been doing it for the oregon department of human services for the past 13 years. he has gone from caseworker to

supervisor and now it would be fair to say that he is the guy who implements this fresh strategy that people are looking to. ther to his work with department of human services, he worked for the youth authority. he is a graduate of eastern oregon university. i won't filibuster here, but we have three oregon connections on the panel. not only chuck, but ms. donna butts. butts has roots in oregon. burton is a transplant to oregon for the summer. we kind of run the table at the end of the day. [laughter] hatch: last but not least, we will hear from the executive director of utah's department of human services.

she graduated with a bachelor's degree in theology. she received her masters from louisiana state university. in october 2013, she was appointed to her current position. in less than two years in her position in utah, she has overseen the state's successful efforts to obtain a federal launchinger and the of the child welfare demonstration project, which aims to reduce the use of foster care, recurrences of child abuse and neglect, and the need for social services intervention. i welcome each of our witnesses today. as we proceed to opening statements, i urge you to keep

your remarks to under five minutes, if you can. we will start with you. good morning. thank you, chairman hatch, ranking member wyden, and commend -- and members of the committee. i am a divorced single mother who raised two sons who are now 22 and 20 years of age. i reside in new york city and am currently employed as the executive director of the child welfare organizing project. this is a self-help advocacy organization of parent who have been affected by new york city children's services. today, i am here to share insights, gain from my own experience as a parent impacted by the child protection system, ofwell as the perspectives hundreds of parents i have worked with and other

organizations, including the new york city coalition for child welfare finance reform. first parent national network and some other parent organizations. some of these parents are here with me this morning. i will tell you that they did not have the luxury that i had and that was to come here last night, but they got on a bus at 3:45 a.m. to be here at the time for this hearing. i would like to say thank you to all of these parents who have taken the journey with me. to say i am like here on behalf of numerous hundreds of parents across the jurisdiction pertaining to child protection, as we would like to call it. who has been affected by the child protection system. ,t has forever changed my life as well as my son's lives.

this is a system that you have already heard in the opening that has really destroyed a ourle family, forever left family traumatized from this experience. as a single mother, i relocated to new york city from atlanta georgia with my two young boys. due to financial hardship. all of my family supports were in new york city. it was difficult for my two boys. they left their dad, but their dad traveled back and forth to new york city from atlanta to be there for them. the onet son, which is who generated the contact with new york city children's services, he found it most difficult. he was raised with his dad. it was a disruption in the family. i sought help and support for my family challenges.

my son was attending family counseling. we were getting some supports that we needed. i can tell you that the move to new york city and the separation from his father was difficult and challenging, thereby generating some aggressive behaviors from my son, in which i continuously sought help with. i began to ask every week about services, individual services for my son. i was told that those services were not available immediately. we were on a wait list. we stayed on the wait list before we could get off of that waitlist, there was an altercation that occurred between me and my son. he was 13 years old. before that altercation, i will tell you that the outbursts occurring in my household had me retreating to my bedroom with my youngest son in fear of what

would happen. did i know what would happen? absolutely not. an altercation did occur. , ithe time of this incident did reach out to new york city children's services for assistance. i did not receive the assistance. instead, i received an investigation into my household. and ias very intrusive absolutely say an investigation because that is what it was. --family is asked questions was asked questions that i thought were not necessary. my sons were asked questions about how i parented them. i will tell you that i found this out later from my sons when they told me this. i was surprised that they were not interested in what actually occurred or how i had come into their office for assistance. i know that time is moving forward for me. what i would like to do is

highlight for you three recommendations on how to improve services for families at involvedor already with the child protection system. child welfare funding needs to be realigned to support a broad array of early intervention services to strengthen families and keep them together. promoting a supportive, nonpunitive approach can help families at risk keeps their children at home. partnering with parents to work and support families during any involvement can help families stay strong and safe and quickly reunify. i believe that most parents want to be good parents but may need some help and assistance along the way. in conclusion, i ask you to take action to make all children at and helping their

families and communities build protective factors to ensure that their children grow up in a healthy and safe, nurturing home. thank you for allowing me to share my experience and the voice of many parents who have come in contact with the system and for whom i bring into this space with me this morning, on this very historic, i believe for me, time. i think that unless you really know what it is like to be separated from your family, your children, and that bond forever broken between not only mother and child, but between sibling, between extended family, having a grandparent not be able to see their grandchild because they have not been cleared by a system, having an aunt or uncle not be able to visit or have an overnight stay with their niece or nephew, not being able to

give input into the growth and development of your son or child is an enormous, enormous, traumatic experience for every single family that has went through it. i will tell you that although we have come through it and i believe that we are coming through it, there are good days, there are bad days, but i will tell you that i still hear families today, every day, based on the work that i do in the organization that talk about the tremendous experience that they have with the foster care system that does not understand who they are as a family, does not understand where they come from in a community, and does not understand the burden that is brought upon them to do things that no other parent or household would have to do in order to reunify with their children. when i say to you that also having parental rights

as though at a point that is water running from a faucet, that is how often that is happening. parents are losing their rights to their children. us,plore you to really hear listen to us, and i say that you actually have been listening, but i think that there has to be an action. the mindset of what we feel, how we feel about families that we come in contact with that might be in crisis should be seen differently and i would like to say that i know i have some time remaining, but i think that i have done justice here. i think you so much for inviting me and hearing me and i hope that this testimony does a childg for us to have welfare system that will impact families and children, help them to be strong and safe and

nurtured in their own communities. thank you so very much. senator hatch: thank you very much. we will turn to you, ms. burton. forburton: thank you inviting me to share my story and talk about some of the issues that i know affect many young people in the foster care system. i'm a current intern with foster club and a mental health worker at a residential health facility in escondido, california. i spent most of my childhood in san diego county foster care system. i experienced 12 years in care in more than 23 different placements. i eventually aged out of care and i am still hoping to find my forever family. wasost memorable placement in kinship care with my great aunt.

my six siblings and i had been removed from my parents' care for my first time after my mother went away to receive treatment for addiction and my father was reported for a collect -- for neglect. one of my sisters and i were soon placed with my maternal great aunt. eventually, all of my siblings and i were reunified with my parents, who relapsed with drugs shortly after. over the next several years, my siblings and i would reenter care several times after multiple failed reunification's with my parents. at some point, my siblings began to have different cases and social workers. things got very confusing. point was kinship care brought up as an option again.

ht and we areig part of an even bigger extended family. while living with my great aunt, i saw my parents and siblings regularly. i desired their presence in my life. after we were scattered, my close-knit sibling group became strangers to each other. before entering care, we took care of each other. once our environment changed, the history became obsolete. by the time i was 13, i worry that if one of my siblings were to pass, i would not have anything to say at their funeral because i had nothing -- did not know who they were anymore. my re-entries into foster care knowroof that they did not how to keep me safe and care for me and my siblings effectively. entering foster care is a traumatic experience. my father felt invaded.

re-victimized, haunted by her own experience in foster care. her own struggles with abandonment, broken family ties, and abuse, and lack of addiction and mental services led to my multiple reentries into care. my mother struggled to get and stay clean. her battle with mental illness and her inability to financially support eight kids and her dependence on an abusive man made it impossible to take care of us. my life became a vicious cycle. my parents' rights were terminated when i was eight years old. mother finally figured it out, the damage was done. mandatory individual and family

counseling, along with financial assistance, could have played a huge role in a successful unification. therapy combined with the substance abuse treatment could have helped my mother identified childhood traumas that affected her. had my mother received preventative and ongoing services from prevention awls -- professionals who saw her as a victim and not a drug addicts, my siblings and i may not have needed to spend so much time in foster care. children and their parents need help understanding and processing the damage time away from each other can have on relationships once they are reunified. support kinship placements from children -- for children so they can stay connected to their

families. work in an amazing group home, but i recognize that they will not be able to give you what a family can. families should be forever. : good morning. i'm donna butts. on behalf of generations united, i'm pleased to provide testimony. every child deserves to grow up in a safe, stable, and loving home. for 7.8 million children that family is headed by kin. the issues facing these families are varied and complex. they believe beyond the shadow of a doubt in the importance of family.

they believe children are raised better in a family and not a system. raised byarewell when relatives. they have more stability and are more likely to feel loved. research confirms that relatives should be the first placement choice. kinship families are diverse to the degree with which they receive services. children outside the system received little to no services and benefits compared to those in the formal system. congress should act to ensure that all children receive the support they need regardless of the circumstances that brought them to live with a caring relative. congress has enacted several provisions to ensure and increase relative placements and provide waivers to support grand

families and prevention. we salute these and support them. today, i will focus on four areas. i'm going to focus on notice to relatives, licensing, invention, and trauma-informed supports. notification. supportorking to relatives receiving notification to make best decisions for children. provide that relatives are notified when children are removed from the home. caregivers know very little about this requirement. many say ito do, was prevented in a confusing and threatening way. second, licensing. we recommend congress directs states to make necry