You got it from the 54 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 City, right?
So then doesn't it make sense that you would then notify the City elected officials, as doing business in the City?
With all respect, we're given a list of regulations and we run down and we file each of them. This is our first venture in the City of Philadelphia. In other areas, we've talked to the local representatives and we've met with all --
Sir, nothing. I apologize for not having notified Chairman Verna 55 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of having gone into her area. We notified Senator Williams and Representative Waters that we were there and what we were going to be doing. It's an oversight.
Councilman? Councilman Cohen, are you aware of something in your district for tonight?
May I ask the permission of the Chair, my direct executive assistant, Verna Brown, is in -- do I have the maiden name or the married name? I'm probably wrong whichever name I chose to use. But she's very much involved in the community there's that's been very upset. I'd like to ask the indulgence of the Chair to have her ask a question as to the nature of what is being propped proposed in the way of the project. Would that be all right with you, Madam Chair?
Hello. My name is Verna Brown-Tyner, and I am Councilman Cohen's executive assistant. Mr. McDougall, I would like to ask, your proposal for 1916 West Atlantic Street, I believe, states it's a correctional facility for drug and alcohol abuse?
We have a number of contracts with the State that we can place into a given facility. There are two that you've mentioned. One, the community correctional facility is where an individual comes from a correctional institution into a facility. From there, he receives counseling, goes to work each day, returns each evening. And from there, would be paroled back into society at large. The other is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, where an individual remains on site for 90 to 120 days, with the exception of recreational tours or going out to do community work projects, receive intensive daily counseling, and go from there into a community correctional facility. We can place either one of those, 57 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 whichever is more acceptable to the community, into that facility.
And when you go to apply to the Zoning Board, you would apply for a penal institution for those two different uses?
No, I don't -- again, there's no definition in the Zoning Code for a penal or a correctional, and the one being offered today in this proposed amendment doesn't differentiate either, except between public and private. We consider ourselves a correctional institution.
Well, I would like to ask Mr. Lombardo to come up again because we just don't understand and the community doesn't understand what is being proposed.
I'm at a loss myself as to the definitional aspects of the proposal, sir. May I remain?
Please. (Mr. Lombardo returns to witness table.)
Good afternoon again. This bill was prepared in conjunction 58 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 with the Law Department. And, basically, the bill 3 only makes the distinction, and this gentleman may agree or disagree, that if the resident, if the person at the facility is still under the jurisdiction of the court, he still has not been paroled or released, is still serving his or her sentence, then it is considered a penal or correctional institution under the definition we are proposing to the Zoning Code. We thought that was a cleaner way and the Law Department -- that it was a cleaner way of doing it than having categories of released and not released and parole and various categories since the concern seemed to be expressed at the facility we've been made aware of that Council has from the residences when these -- when the people at these facilities are still serving their sentence and have to return at night and are under a curfew and an obligation to return, that seemed to be where the biggest concern rested. So that's the distinction -- the only distinction we've made. If you're -- have not been released from your sentence, then by this definition, the facility regards its, whether it's 59 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 public or private, would be considered a penal and correctional institution.
Well, you heard Mr. McDougall describe what his company is proposing at 1916 West Atlantic street?
By this definition, it would fit in as a penal correctional institution as long as they're still serving -- if they haven't been released from their sentence. And we tried to make it simple so that everybody would understand it without a, you know -- and a very simple thing for L&I to interpret and ask the straight forward question, will your residents -- have they been released from their sentence or are they still serving their sentence?
Could I ask you that question, Mr. McDougall? Will all of the people -- would you stay there, Mr. Lombardo. Mr. McDougall, will all of the people that you propose under both of your proposals for 60 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 this area at 1916 West Atlantic, will all of the people living there be subject to the jurisdiction of the court at the time they're there, or will some of them have been released from court control?
I don't want to be hyper-technical, but I have to be. Every man sentenced by a court, the judge loses jurisdiction 30 days after the imposed sentence. Therefore, every person going into a State correctional institution is no longer under the jurisdiction of any judge; he's under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Additionally, Councilman Cohen, not all individuals come from the corrections into our facility. Some have been on parole and are getting into trouble on the streets. Rather than send them back to prison, they send them to a community correctional facility for greater supervision, a little guidance in getting away from drugs and alcohol, how to work out your family and household matters. So some have even been on patrol, but none is under the jurisdiction 61 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of a court.
How would you deal with that, Mr. Lombardo? What should he be applying for?
He has mixed-use from what I understand. Some people are subject to some aspects of government control, it may or may not be a court, it may be the parole department, but some of them will be totally free from any court supervision or governmental authority supervision.
No, under your definition, how does he apply, and how does the community know what he's planning?
I guess under our definition -- I say it's my definition, it's as much the Law Department's definition as it is my definition. He would apply as a penal and correctional institution. I think in terms of jurisdiction of the court, it means they're still serving -- I mean, we can play with whose 62 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 jurisdiction -- they're still serving their sentence is what is meant by that definition, a court-set sentence.
Well, in whatever event, we can't solve all those questions now, but it seems useful to permit the fuller participation of the community, and I think this is, therefore, a step forward.
Mr. McDougall, do you have any other statement that you would like to make?
Any other questions for Mr. McDougall or Mr. Lombardo? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Smalls. Is Mr. Smalls in the -- (Witness comes forward.)
Is it 63 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 "Reverend Smalls"?
Good morning to you, Madam President, and good morning to the members of this committee. My name is Leonard Smalls. I am past president of the Pennsylvania Prison Chaplains Association. I represent, as President, Rescue and Find, Incorporated. It is a rehabilitation program approved by the Pennsylvania State Baptist Convention. I'm a Board member of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, retired chaplain from the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, and have been active in prisoner rehabilitation since 1959. And, so, when I heard of this legislation being put forth, Bill No. 000337, I was impelled to request an opportunity to testify because it has some awesome ramifications that I believe City Council should be aware of it. First of all, in my limited expertise, I find that this bill is ungrounded, it's biased, 64 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 it's discriminatory and unconstitutional in character. And, in fact, it appears to be rooted in some provincial phobia of the same ilk. The focus should be on quality care, the regulation of what goes on within these purported penal and correctional institutions, which is an improper definition. I don't know how many people here have been in jail, but there's a big difference between a jailhouse and an after-care unit. I've been on both sides. I've been a protester against large foreboding kinds of institutions being constructed in residential areas residential areas, springing up overnight without any information being shared with the population of residents. And I think that this practice has been modified considerably. Now, if we would just look at this definition, it says: "Penal and Correctional Institutions. " Now, when a person is paroled, they are 65 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 paroled to a community corrections center. There are only two State community -- State-run and operated community correctional centers in our immediate area. The rest of them are private. That person is on parole until they have met all of the requirements of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole until they are in total compliance. , and they then go home. The big problem that we have in Philadelphia is that we have 39,000 persons locked up in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have, however, in certain areas of the City of Philadelphia, which many of you represent, as many as 7,000 persons on probation and parole at any given time of the day. At Graterford, we have approximately 3,700. And now we've opened a new prison at SCI Chester. These men, in the main -- and I'm not talking about the female population, because 66 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 that's Muncy and we have another one in the further-most reaches of Pennsylvania -- where these persons, when they are released, must either go to a community correctional center for extended after-care treatment or they go directly home. Very few of them go home now. They go to community correctional centers. So the way this legislation is worded, it places a person in double jeopardy after they have done their best, after they have met requirements -- and, believe me, the requirements are rough and tough. The time comes for them to return home, they must prove themselves again in community but under curfew. And when they are released, they are still under probation and parole, but they're living in our neighborhoods, they are living next door to many of us. If we prevent, by this restrictive language, which does not distinguish between penal and correctional institutions, then we are holding persons in incarceration when they have met the minimum requirements for release and have been given release. The language of this bill is very poor. It's broad, it does not do what it's 67 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 supposed to do, and that is the protect the people.
The people are best protected when there is education, training, behavior and attitudinal development, job-readiness training, spiritual growth, those critical principals and programs that are essential to any of us, if we are to get along with our neighbors. Let me be very, very specific. The problem that the City has had has been one of size. The business of community corrections has become a mega industry, it's large. And one of the reasons why it's large is because you get a large building, you have large costs, you have a need for ACL requirements (American Correctional Congress), you've got certain specifics as to how many people per room, how many toilets, what kind of bars. The staff-client ratio is rather strict. And so they're talking now about at least 50. And 50 is not, I'm told, a profit-making level, so they're talking more about 100. Well, if that's the case, you are always going to be confronted with large quasi-prisons outside a prison. 68 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Rescue Find has been operating in Graterford for seven years, and now we're going to the State Correctional Institution at Chester. And one of the reasons why we've been operating with the support in these institutions is because rehabilitation has gone out of the window. I don't think that taxpayers are really concerned about where these institutions are located but how they are run and the impact upon their way of living, their pedestrian freedom. And that's why I raise to you the question, why not focus where it counts? Because the big problem that we have today is recidivism. Sixty-five percent of the persons who leave prison return, oftentimes within one year. Now, it costs the taxpayer $30,000 a year to incarcerate a person. So if they're coming back on a resolving-door process, it means that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to be bankrupt in the next 10 years or less because we are incarcerating persons, in the main, for drug use. Now, that's a bad thing. But on the other hand, it's a civilizing experience because 69 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 drug use is no longer a black problem, it's no 3 longer a Puerto Rican problem; it's now a national phenomenon. And so we have the ravages of drug use in middle-income areas, upper-middle income areas. The suburbs are having a heck of a problem dealing with drug use and their children. I don't know how they're going to handle the problem out there, but I've got a suggestion, and I think that this Council has always been amenable to beneficial education. And that is, we need to support communities that are willing to help persons who have left their communities to serve time in prison and are going to return to their communities to live. We need programs that will help them not, recidivate and to become reintegrated into the community. That's a proactive, not a negative position. This bill is totally negative. The definition is not well thought of. These are not community prisons unless they are run on a prison basis. Now, if you're getting $50 a day to house inmates, or more, and you need 100, which runs to $5,000 a day, and the equivalent staff, then 70 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you're talking about big business. But if we're talking about taking some of these younger populations -- and this is the age that we're talking about, to 36. Now, let's just put this 6 on the slow burner for a moment. 7 The other ramifications of this bill 8 are sociological. With 26,000 parolees under the 9 supervision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 10 and Parole, the outlook demands the mustering of 11 all available resources and consideration of every 12 sound strategy to deal with this catastrophic and 13 costly crisis that now challenges the taxpayers 14 and their representatives.
15 The profile of the incarcerated 16 offender population is mainly youthful black males 17 between the ages of 18 to 36, and 76 percent of 18 them have a drug and alcohol problem, percent 19 of them read below the 4th-grade level. In 20 addition, among Hispanic youth, 41 percent have not achieved the GED or a high school diploma. More than one-third of these youth collectively were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Demographically, however, although African-Americans comprise less than 25 percent of 71 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 the Commonwealth's population, this group constitutes 65 percent of the incarcerated in the State correctional institutions. Instead of getting together and creating a restrictive model that's going to keep persons in jail without rehabilitation for longer periods of time, we ought to talk to the Law Department, L&I, and all of their ancillary organizations to sit down and talk together in one room on how they're going to protect the people of the City of Philadelphia so that they can have better pedestrian freedom -- well, you can't do it by building more prisons because the prisons are bankrupting the Commonwealth. What can we do together? I'm a clergyman, spent most of my time in Philadelphia for over the last almost 50 years pastoring. That's a long time. It's time for us to develop some proactive stances. I met with Council Chairwoman Verna some months ago with a pastor from South Philadelphia because we had been confronted by the Youth Study Center being overcrowded. They wanted churches to become involved in the rehabilitative process. 72 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 And so we first went to our City Councilperson. And after going to our City Councilperson, we went to our State representative. And then we talked to business persons around in the community. Because it's not a singular situation. Because you have a contract with the State, that doesn't mean that you've got a corner on rehabilitation. You can't rehabilitate people unless it's a collective thing. They have to have places to go, they have to feel comfortable when they're in there, they can't be walking around with a red badge on their back saying "I'm an ex-offender," they have to have an opportunity to become involved again. And I don't want to seem to be a weeping willow. I'm a jailhouse chaplain from death row to the very first days of a first offender's life behind bars. What I'm saying to you is that we've been getting tough on crime for a long time, but we've been getting tough on crime the wrong way. This is the United States of America. We cannot continually hold people under double jeopardy. And I just saw a little while ago a lot 73 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of kids coming in here. Let me tell you what happens in Graterford. I sometimes had to break the rules. I just retired not too long ago because the need for after-care is so great. I sometimes had to break the rules in bringing a father, a grandfather and a grandson together in the chapel, because they cannot be on the same blocks, living in the same quarters in State institutions, they have to be separate. And I have heard men who are still in jail, who've been in jail, who may have had a career in jail, admonishing their sons and grandsons who are behind bars just like them to wake up and get wise and get out of that jail and go back to their families and become supportive and constructive persons in our community. We are now locking up third-generation people. The other reason why I'm here is because I'm an African-American. And one of my dear friends was clobbered once in the newspapers not too long ago -- I say "dear friend" because I've always been an admirer of her. " 74 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Well, it appears like in the United States of America, with 2,800,000 persons under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Department, that most of them are black and Hispanic.
And the profile for these kids is not that they're locked up, but most of them have come from poor housing, inadequate schools, and underemployed communities, and have had a lack of appropriate medical attention. The way we are going with legislation like this is that we're going to be locking up at a genocidal rate minorities, who, in a sense, are oftentimes victimized. And I say this in closing, if we're locking up most people on drug charges, let's examine that, because you can get less than 6 years for bringing in a 707 loaded with marijuana or cocaine and you can get 6 years for selling a few grams, deadly as they may be, on the corner, and when you go to a State prison, if you don't know it, I'll tell you, you may not ever get out, because when you go in, the big problem is tuberculosis and hepatitis and now AIDS. AIDS is not as great as it used to be. You have to pay 75 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 for medical attention. You're only making a buck a day, in many instances. They cut down on the number of educators. I left because I thought it was critical that if you're going to send these people back to Philadelphia and Philadelphia has 60 percent of all of the people locked up in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that come to Philadelphia County, they're coming back home, they're going to be living next to you. So what are you going to do about it? You going to write a little measly bit of legislation that doesn't distinguish between a prison and a halfway house? Better have some halfway houses, make 'em smaller. When a person goes to jail, they may not come out because they sometimes contract diseases. And if they are released on parole to halfway houses and they make a mistake, and that mistake must be only a technical mistake, and that is too many a drink -- you get a hot urine and it's detected, you go back to jail. So they are paroled to a halfway house if they get a shot of drugs -- marijuana is detectable in a hot urine -- 76 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 they go back to jail, at $30,000 a year. The time has come for us. And I thank you for your time and attention. The time has come for us to begin to deal with the real problem instead of the smoke screens about how close are they going to come to us. Thank you very much. I hope that what I've said has some impact on your judgment.
Thank you. We appreciate your patience and your testimony. And I think that at another time, we're going to certainly look at what we refer to as "halfway houses." Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you, Reverend. Is Mr. O'Brien here to testify? Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 77 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
My name is Timothy O'Brien, O-'-B-R-I-E-N, Bail Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia. Good morning, Madam President.
I just want to start by making the record clear that I'm not n advocate here for or against this particular bill. Councilman James Kenney thought I could lead to some factual testimony that could would help the members of this committee in their decision-making process so he invited me here for that. I can tell you two things from my vantage point, which is in the front line of alleged crime in the city, and that is that: 1. As we know, there's definitely an overcrowding problem; 2. In my opinion, there is definitely a quality of life problem within the many neighborhoods in the City. What's abundantly clear to me is we seem to be attempting to alleviate the overcrowding problem right now by opening the back 78 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 door of the prison. In other words, when the prison gets to a certain level -- there's a program right now in effect, believe it or not, where people who have been sent to the prison on cash bail -- I'd like to say who have earned cash bail because of their recidivism, their repeat offenses probation violations, failures to appear, they're being left out and just sent into the streets -- basically, in some instances, right out on State Road, to find their way back to the neighborhoods they come from without satisfying the cash bail. So it appears to me that what's in effect now is definitely not working. And it's kind of to echo what the Reverend just got done saying about recidivism. And it appears to me that one is working against the other. The quality-of-life issue is being addressed by good police work-- Operation Sunrise, for example, that the Police Commissioner has instituted. And it seems to me that sometimes -- I'd like to use a hypothetical. It seems we hand the mop to Commissioner Timoney and we ask him to mop the floor, and then after the floor is mopped, we kick the bucket over. 79 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 He's bringing multiple arrests from the community in an effort to clean up, to respond to the people's cry for help. They come to the Bail Commissioner, the Bail Commissioner does his job. And then to alleviate overcrowding, we let them back out, as opposed to finding a new space. I personally can't think of a better situation than having additional space that at the same time addresses addictive behavior.
You have. And what's so harmful about coming before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the community being aware of a facility going into their neighborhood?
Okay. So are you in favor of this bill or opposed to it?
No, I just want to tell the distinguished members of this committee -- 80 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't have a position on it. Just that we do need additional space, based on my experience. Up to o'clock last 7 night, 51 decisions I had to make, 42 of the 51 8 were repeat offenders that are committing crimes 9 on a continual basis in Council districts in this 10 city. So what I'm doing is just providing you 11 information that, yes, they should have to go through the community, but let's not abandon the need for space totally. That's all I'm saying.
Okay. Well, I was under the impression that Councilman Kenney said to me, can you tell us exactly what's happening? 'cause I see it day in and day out. So that the need for additional space is definitely there.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members 81 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 of the committee? (No questions.)
Mr. Paul Soult? Is Mr. Paul Soult here? Please approach the witness table. And after Mr. Paul Soult, I believe we have Mr. Mark Niccoletti. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record. For the record.
My name is Paul Soult, and I am the Vice President of Business Development for Min-Sec Corrections Corporation. Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak on such short notice. There was a point in John McDougall's testimony that -- there was a gap in something that he was trying to explain to City Council, and I think I'd like to refer to that if I may. My job specifically with Min-Sec Corrections Corp. is to notify City 82 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Councilmembers, as well as other public officials in the City, of our intent to put a facility into a particular area that may fall within their district. In the case of Atlantic Street, I had actually -- now, if you'll allow me to backtrack just a bit. Min-Sec is relatively new to the Philadelphia market. It is a rather (unintelligible) process for us right now to determine exactly where certain districts fall and who has responsibility under -- what City Councilperson has responsibility over that particular area. As a result, it has been a very tough road for us to hoe, and I've been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to determine exactly what areas of the City we are best suited for and who is responsible for that particular district. The Atlantic Street facility, as far as we understood, fell under the leadership of Donna Reed Miller, as it is her Councilmatic District. I was in the CEO's office, who is Sean McDougall, John McDougall's son, when the letter was authored notifying the Councilwoman of our interest in the 83 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Atlantic Street facility. This letter, for the record, was distributed long before we had actually had any option on that building in place or before we had actually even considered that facility for this kind of use. It has never been our intention, and I would not allow it to happen, as a member of business development team, 'cause my reputation is on the line, that we would not notify City officials of our interest in any particular area or in a facility. In the case of Fels Naphtha, if I may, we had a very strong interest in that building, as you know. We were told by the owner of that facility that as far as the officials were concerned, he would handle that piece of it because of our newness in the Philadelphia market. At times, we rely on the word of certain individuals that say they have the ability to smooth the way for us. From a political standpoint, as far as hindsight being 20/20, this was a serious error in judgment, and for future reference, it will probably not be the tack that we'll take. 84 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 However, it was not done and it was the piece was missing. You were not notified, Madam President, and I do apologize for that.
No. And we were never contacted by you. And we wrote to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and I will just read one letter -- one sentence of their response. "Under our contract, the proposed operator, Sean McDougall, of Min-Sec Corporation, is expected to solicit input from the community, the City Councilmember, the State representative, and the State senator who represents the area." And we were never notified by anybody. And believe it or not, we had three different stories as to what would be going into that facility. That's not the way we handle the community.
And I agree wholeheartedly. And I think this needs to be a centralized process, it needs to be something that's handled specifically by our company, and it was not -- that was not handled properly.
And I truly 85 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 believe that this bill that's in front of us will give us as, elected officials, and the area residents an opportunity to, A, know what's going on at that proposed site; and, B, have a voice in that before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I think it has always been our intention to allow for that. I mean, we don't look at this as a sort of -- I mean, we're trying not to be an ogre of a company that walks into an area and tries to force a facility into that particular area.
I truly understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your comments, but it hasn't just happened with you; it has happened in the past, and I don't think we want to have this continually happen.
Okay, I understand that. But, if I may, it has always been the intention of Min-Sec Corrections, and we maybe we've been a little remiss at times, simply due to a lack of understanding of the process, but it has always been our intention to include all City officials, especially community members who are perhaps not elected officials and/or representing, 86 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you know, some political office, it has always been our intention to let them know of our intentions.
And I think the area group, they have formed a committee in the Fels Naphtha area, and I'm sure that they would have been very, very willing to work with you, maybe not for this specific program, but for something that could have helped everybody also.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, sir, I didn't get your name.
Because they have some facilities in my district, and I assume they have them throughout the rest of the City. And as the Council President has pointed out, I had only found out about these things by rumors in the 87 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 community. And I was just wondering, what criteria do you use when you look for a building for your operation? I heard you say something to the effect that we look for suitable sites, and what is the criteria that you look for?
Because we know of the sensitivity to this sort of initiative, because we know the community will generally be disturbed by this kind of use, we often look for something in an innocuous area, if you will, what I can best describe as an industrial area, where there is blight, brownfields, perhaps, you know, a facility that has been sitting, like the Fels Naphtha site, for instance, sitting there for years or 17 20-some-odd years, with no use whatsoever. 18 And we try very, very diligently to 19 position these facilities far enough away from the 20 community so that it is not an issue, so that it 21 is not sitting within a residential section of 22 their particular community. 23 It is almost -- I mean, it's a very 24 difficult process, as I'm sure you can imagine. At times, you can find that description in a very 88 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 limited way. I mean, there's very, very few sites in the City of Philadelphia at this point in time that fit that description. But it -- really what it requires is that we are within the City limits, you know, especially if it's a work-release program, they have to have access to public transportation, they have to have the ability to get to and from the facility and to their job. But it has never been our intention to situate it right in a residential area.
You say you're required to place these facilities within the City limits; is that a State requirement?
No. It's only if there's a facility -- well, if the contract is released and it pertains specifically to prisoners who have gone into the system from the City of Philadelphia and are returning to the City of Philadelphia.
So that's really -- I mean, those decisions are made by way of policy or legislation that -- could those folks go to a facility outside of the City? Is it a choice that the system makes on behalf of the parolee? 89 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Yes, sir. Generally, these are designed -- the contracts are designed to accommodate inmates -- or clients in an area where they have originated from. You know, if a prisoner has come from Philadelphia, they like to set up a contract so that it serves a former Philadelphia resident to be returned to Philadelphia.
It's probably not a question for you. I was always wondering why would we want to put people back in an environment from which they came from, and given the numbers that have been testified to today, where recidivism is up like 65 percent, why would anyone -- and, again, this may not be the question for you, but I wonder, why would you want to put somebody back into a blighted community? As you said, you look for places that are industrial sites that are blighted, put 'em back in the community from where they first got into trouble, maybe time and time again, not look for a facility that maybe is different from where they came from, to give them a different a sense of what life has to offer. Places that have enough space, where 90 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 you can have some onsite recreation facility. I mean, the 1260 Corporation does something similar to what you. Do they have purchased about eight houses in a contiguous row along Pine Street, at Ninth and Pine, with probably a 10-foot deep yard at maximum. I always wondered why they wouldn't pick a site maybe in the suburbs where you could build a new facility, not have to take an existing building and put all of the extra money into retrofitting the building, and design a building that has some facility and space around it for the "clients," as we referred to, have a totally different environment from where they originally came from that gets them into trouble all the time? Because I have to assume, based on the numbers that have been presented today, that even people -- the clients who go through your type of facility wind up back in the system again anyway. Because I don't think they all come out of these facilities totally rehabilitated, and these are going to be the best clients leaving. Not all of them, but 60 or 65 percent eventually wind up back in the system anyway. And if you put somebody 91 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 back at Eighth and Butler, where they've been arrested time and time again, and they're going to be in close proximity to their neighborhood, chances are, based on statistics, that they're going to wind up in trouble again trouble again.
Well, if I may. These are community correctional initiatives. And the intent of the program primarily is to return the individual to the community from which he has come. A lot of these individuals, mind you, a lot of the folks who have gone into the prison system have come from a family-type situation in a particular community. To return them to an area where there isn't that element, I would believe, in theory, would probably not work. You're also taking them -- if you were to put them into this ideal setting, you're putting them into unfamiliar surroundings, you're putting them into an area where there is the unlikelihood of success. What you're trying to do is you're bringing them back to a community --
The success rate of going back into the community from where they came from isn't doing much good for them either. 92 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Without these programs, sir, the recidivism rate will be much greater. These programs are designed specifically to give drug and alcohol treatment and training programs to the individuals who do not have that sort of program available to them, you know, just in the regular community. These programs are designed specifically to get people out of the system; they're not designed to enhance recidivism.
I'm not suggesting that that's what they're designed for, but it appears that that is what the result is, and I would disagree that if you put 'em in a different environment that the rate of recidivism would be higher. I just can't imagine that.
Well, the idea basically is to try to bring them back to their families.
We haven't tried that, so no one knows. I mean, that's just -- we really haven't tried that.
That would be a State issue, sir. I, of course, don't write policy for these contracts.
No further 93 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 questions.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from other members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? I believe Mr. Niccoletti wanted to testify? Is he still here? Okay, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public meeting. We have to wait for the Councilmen to go into our -- to close our public hearing. This concludes our public hearing, we will go into our public meeting as soon as we get a quorum. - - - 94 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Okay, the Rules Committee is now in its public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000282.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000282 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 000282 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000347.
Madam Chair, I move 95 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill No. 000347 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000347 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it, and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 000337.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000337 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.) 96 6/13/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000337 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it, and the motion is carried. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 12:10 p.m.) - - - 97 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, June 2000, were 8 reported fully and accurately by me, and that this 9 is a correct transcript of same. 10 11 12 13 RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 000282, 000337, 000347 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter