Bill Overview
Title: Improving Reentry for District of Columbia Residents in the Bureau of Prisons Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires, subject to limited exceptions, that the Bureau of Prisons place an individual who is convicted of a felony under DC laws and who is a resident of DC when sentenced at a facility within 250 miles of DC unless the individual requests or consents to a more distant placement.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in the Bureau of Prisons from the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 20000
- The bill specifically focuses on individuals who are convicted of a felony under DC laws.
- It targets residents of the District of Columbia who are sentenced to serve time in federal prison facilities.
- The purpose is to ensure that these individuals are placed in facilities within 250 miles of DC, which implies those incarcerated under these circumstances are the primary target.
Reasoning
- The target population is limited to individuals sentenced under District of Columbia laws and who are serving sentences in federal prisons.
- The primary impact is logistical and social, aiming to reduce distance barriers for better family contacts, legal representation and reintegration programs.
- With a budget constraint, the policy can relocate prisoners closer to DC, but the effect is mainly geographical on a relatively small population.
- Most interviews should focus on those impacted directly — former or current DC residents or family members of incarcerated persons.
- We should consider both the direct impacts on imprisoned individuals and indirect effects on their families, legal teams, and social support networks.
Simulated Interviews
Incarcerated (Washington D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It has been tough being so far from family.
- This policy could help bring me closer to home, making visits and planning for the future easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Social Worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to place prisoners closer to home is crucial for family support.
- This change can improve outcomes for reentry and family cohesion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired military (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish my son could be closer; it's hard to visit frequently due to health issues.
- If the policy brings him closer, it would mean the world to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Community Advocate (Richmond, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is great for strengthening community ties.
- Youth will see more positive role models return home to reintegrate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Lawyer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better locations for detention can improve communication with clients.
- This could help in building more robust defenses and plans for when clients are released.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Washington D.C.)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Research indicates closer placements aid in rehabilitation.
- I support anything that eases reentry and familial support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Arlington, VA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having my brother nearby helps me manage my visits.
- The policy can decrease travel costs and increase my support for him.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Corrections Officer (Newark, NJ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will be challenging to manage the reallocation of prisoners.
- We need sufficient resources and staff training to adjust effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Judge (Washington D.C.)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change is overdue.
- Keeping incarcerated individuals close supports rehabilitation and family interaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Non-Profit Manager (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing travel time would alleviate stress for families I work with.
- I hope this policy can be a model for other jurisdictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $41000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $42000000)
Year 5: $33000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $43000000)
Year 10: $34000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $46000000)
Key Considerations
- The availability of sufficient facility capacity within 250 miles of DC to accommodate the targeted population.
- Possible resistance or agreements needed from facilities outside the required distance that currently house DC residents.
- Potential impact on legal and regulatory frameworks governing federal prison placements.