<DOC>
[110 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:35304.wais]
S. Hrg. 110-32
MENTORING AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS TO DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH
VIOLENCE IN PHILADELPHIA
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 19, 2007
__________
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
__________
Serial No. J-110-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2007
35-304 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATTY MURRAY, Washington JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island TED STEVENS, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Ellen Murray
Erik Fatemi
Jim Sourwine
Mark Laisch
Adrienne Hallett
Lisa Bernhardt
Bettilou Taylor (Minority)
Sudip Shrikant Parikh (Minority)
Candice Ngo (Minority)
Jeff Kratz (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania, (guest).......................................... 2
WITNESSES
Carroll, Jennifer, Director, Match Support, Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania................................................... 26
Delaney, John, Deputy District Attorney for the City of
Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....................... 11
Fair, David, Vice President for Community Impact, United Way of
Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.......... 31
Harkavy, Ira, Associate Vice President and Founding Director,
Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 34
Johnson, Sylvester, Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 10
McClanahan, Wendy, Vice President for Research, Public/Private
Ventures, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania........................... 27
Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 4
Pennington, Mike, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 29
Ramos, Pedro, Managing Director, City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 8
Vallas, Paul, Chief Executive Officer, School District of
Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....................... 13
Zahorchak, Gerald L., Secretary of Education, Pennsylvania
Department of Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.............. 5
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Carroll, Jennifer, Director, Match Support, Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, statement........................................ 41
Fair, David, Vice President for Community Impact, United Way of
Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
statement...................................................... 46
Harkavy, Ira, Associate Vice President and Founding Director,
Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement.......................... 53
Johnson, Sylvester, Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement.......................... 60
McClanahan, Wendy, Vice President for Research, Public/Private
Ventures, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement................ 63
Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement.......................... 75
Pennington, Mike, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, statement........................................ 80
Ramos, Pedro, Managing Director, City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement.......................... 84
Zahorchak, Gerald L., Secretary of Education, Pennsylvania
Department of Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, statement... 91
MENTORING AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS TO DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH
VIOLENCE IN PHILADELPHIA
----------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2007
U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, and the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, Philadelphia, PA.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m. at Constitution Hall,
111 South Independent Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon.
Arlen Specter, presiding. Present: Senator Casey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This
is a joint field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human
Services, and Education, the subcommittee which has the
jurisdiction over the funding for education.
Senator Casey and I have convened this hearing to address
the issue of mentoring to try to deal with the at-risk youth in
the region. There is no need to recite the statistics on
homicides or juvenile homicides or juvenile delinquency or
juvenile arrest. Suffice it to say that in this city today
there is a veritable war in progress. Very hard to walk down
the streets of many sections of this city without being at
risk. It is a problem which has deteriorated materially since
the days when I was district attorney of this city, and there
have been many, many efforts at the governmental level and at
the citizen level to cope with this issue, and none,
regrettably, with much success.
In talking to this issue, talking over this issue with the
Governor, whom I have known many years, since he was chief of
the homicide division in my district attorney's office, and
with the district attorney, who I've known for many years,
since he was an assistant in my office, and in discussing the
matters with the school officials--the distinguished
superintendent of schools, Paul Vallas, who is a witness here
today--in searching for some measure, the thought arose, on the
short term, that mentoring might pose some realistic chance to
deal with at-risk youth.
Mentoring is an arrangement where we find an adult, or an
older young person, who will take under his or her wing those
in the 9-to 17-year-old category. When I was district attorney,
we had a program called Take a Brother, modeled after the Big
Brother program, where young people in their 17s and 18s and
19s would mentor somebody 11, 12, or 13. And a big part of what
we are trying to do now is to bring some public focus on the
mentoring approach to see if we can find volunteers. One
statistic that I would like to know is an approximation of how
many at-risk young people there are in this city today. And
then, I would like to know how many mentors we have available
to deal on a one-on-one basis with these individuals. And then,
we need to know how many more mentors we need to attract. I
have a sense, an instinct, that there are many people who would
come forward in our community and in the outlying areas to be
mentors if there was a program in existence and if there was
some realistic likelihood that their efforts, in conjunction
with many other efforts, would produce some response to this
problem.And that is what we're going to be looking at here
today.
We had an earlier meeting, on January the 19th, with
Representatives from the city. The mayor was present. Governor
had his representatives there. The district attorney was
present. And this is the next step in what will be a continuing
effort.
On the continuing resolution, which was signed into law
last week, with the problems of Philadelphia in mind, we got an
additional $25 million for mentoring nationwide. That, frankly,
is not enough money, but, with the budget constraints, it is a
start. And our city and State are eligible for competition to
try to bring some of that money.
Senator Casey and I have in mind to try to bring additional
funds on the appropriations process this year. And that is why
we have representatives from the Judiciary Committee, Matt
Minor and Lisa Owings, who have been working on this matter for
a long period of time, and ``Senator Bettilou Taylor,'' from
the Appropriations Committee. I call her ``Senator Taylor.''
She's actually the 101st Senator. She's more powerful than most
Senators when you have the lead hand with her sharp pencil and
the distribution of $147 billion, that's not chopped liver.
Well, I'm joined by my distinguished colleague Senator
Casey today. We have the unexpected pleasure of his
participation, because he was scheduled to be in Iraq today. I
don't know why any intelligent young man like Senator Casey
would choose Iraq over the Constitution Center; but then, he's
devoted to his duty and scheduled to make the trip there on the
very tough issues confronting us. But he and I had to work on
Saturday. We had a vote. And that has kept him in the United
States, so we're the beneficiary of that, because he is with us
here today.
And I'm now very pleased to yield to my colleague.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey. Well, Senator, thank you very much.
And I want to reiterate what--something I said at our
meeting, a month ago, reiterating my gratitude, as I'm sure
everyone this room is grateful, for Senator Specter's
leadership on these critical issues. And I think it's
emblematic of his leadership on so many issues, where he
approaches an issue from the perspective of how we can improve
on something that's confronting the people of Pennsylvania and
the people of America. And he does it in a bipartisan way. He
does it through eliciting testimony and information from
experts. And he does it in a way that shows the kind of focused
leadership that he's provided.
I was thinking, today, that one of the--one of the great
sound bites out there that we don't hear enough of is actually
the name of a national organization. Many people here will know
the name of this organization. And it says, very simply,
``Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.'' And a lot of what we're
talking about here today is gets to that basic priority, which
is, unless we make the effort, here in the State and across
America, to focus on children in the earliest days and months
and years of their lives, all--everything after that's going to
be that much more difficult--and, in some cases, impossible--to
improve upon the chance that they can lead healthy and
productive lives--out of jail, out of harm's way, so to speak.
So, we're--I'm grateful to be part of this. And I know that
the members of both panels will contribute greatly to what my
understanding is of this challenge, as well as Senator
Specter's. And we want to make sure that we bring this
information back to the United States Senate to develop
programs not just for this State, but for programs across the
country. But I'm grateful that Senator Specter has once again
brought us together to focus on a problem which goes well
beyond this city and well beyond this State.
So, Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
We now turn to our very distinguished panel. And our first
witness is going to be the United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick Meehan. Patrick
Meehan did not have the advantage of being an assistant
district attorney in my office.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Because he wasn't old enough.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. He didn't graduate from college--Bowdoin--
until 1978. My term of DA ended in 1974. But has made up for it
in the interim, holding his law degree from Temple University,
and then serving as my chief of staff in the Philadelphia
Senate office. And that put him in position to become district
attorney of Delaware County, where he had a very distinguished
tenure before being appointed to the important position of
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Meehan is an expert in the field, having initiated a
program which is called the Route 22 Corridor Anti-Gang
Initiative, on the crescent around the city of Philadelphia,
all within his district. And I might add that we're going to be
undertaking similar initiatives in Reading--we're due to be
there in a few weeks--and later, in the Lehigh Valley and in
Lancaster, and we may go beyond, based on what we have learned
here, because this is a problem which confronts virtually every
community, and as Senator Casey noted, really the entire world.
We're going to ask the witnesses to stick within the 5-
minute time limit, which is the custom for the Judiciary
Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee.
And we turn the microphone over to you, Patrick.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MEEHAN, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Senators. And thank you for the
opportunity to speak about this important issue.
Combating violence in the neighborhoods is a top priority
of United States attorneys across the Nation. And, through the
Department of Justice's signature program, Project Safe
Neighborhoods, my colleagues and I are coordinating efforts of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement with community groups
against gun crime. This includes maximizing the use of Federal
laws, like the Armed Career Criminal Statutes, which you helped
to write, and the Hobbs Act, to remove the most dangerous
criminals from the neighborhoods, and the combat gangs and
trafficking organizations. But, moreover, I previously served
for 6 years as a county district attorney, and there our
juvenile justice system really worked to try to deter crime
through prevention efforts aimed at our most serious threat,
which are at-risk juveniles with a propensity towards violence.
And, therefore, I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to
share with the committee some of my thoughts.
I'll focus my remarks on three outstanding programs, which
include both a mentoring component and a strong law enforcement
message to at-risk youth who find themselves at a crossroads.
These programs are the Youth Violence Reduction Project; a
second program, called Don't Fall Down in the Hood; and a third
program, the Glen Mills Community Management Services Program.
A common characteristic of these three programs is a focus on
comprehensive intervention with young persons that are most
likely to seriously harm others or to be harmed, themselves.
Each seeks to deter individuals from choices that increase
their exposure to harm, while promoting accountability,
responsibility, and personal development. Each attempts to show
dangerous juveniles there's an alterative to violence and a
future beyond crime.
The first is the Youth Violence Reduction Project. I'll
speak the least about that, because another colleague will talk
about it today, but it provides intensive support with
graduated sanctions for noncompliance for youths age 24 and
younger who are at the greatest risk of killing or being
killed. The results have been particularly promising here in
the city, where it's been instituted through the district
attorney's office. According to that office, when a comparison
was made of homicides in three police districts for the years
just prior to the initiation of this program, the results have
been significant. For youth 24 and under, homicides decreased
46 percent in the 24th Police District, 48 percent in the 25th,
and 9 percent in the short tenure that it's been in work in the
12th District.
A second program is Don't Fall Down in the Hood. It's a
program offered by the Institute for the Advancement of
African-American Youth. It's a city-funded program that works
with juvenile offenders ages 14 to 18--again, much of our
target group--and after their first arrest for narcotics or
assault or firearms or other offenses. The ultimate goal is to
reduce the criminal behavior of the offenders while showing
them how to take advantage of meaningful opportunities in the
community. The teens are referred to the program mostly from
the Philadelphia Family Court and the Youth Study Center. As
part of the program, students receive presentations from
professionals to educate them about life-and-death decisions.
According to Archie Leacock, the executive director, Don't Fall
Down in the Hood has included more than 860 youths. Only 7
percent have committed an offense after completion of the
program.
The third program is the Community Management Services at
the Glen Mills School. It provides a strong component of
aftercare. This provides reintegration services for court
adjudicated juveniles who are returning to a community after
completing a residential commitment. Like adult prisoners after
incarceration, they face unique pressures and tough choices
upon a return to their neighborhoods. Juveniles participate in
creating a transition plan, are supervised by--face-to-face up
their reintegration. They receive assistance in school reentry,
employment search, individual counseling, family meeting, and
even a 24-hour crisis intervention, if that is necessary. Pre-
adjudication and truancy services are also part of this model.
Let me conclude my testimony by observing that intensive
intervention is a critical component of antiviolence efforts,
but other longer-term interventions play a vital role in
keeping our communities safe. For example, antitruancy programs
that that identify chronically truant juveniles, and
reestablish them in age-appropriate remedial education, are a
proven deterrent to crime. Former Mayor Wilson Goode and the
Amachi Program are a great example.
Unmarried teenage mothers and their children are often the
greatest risk of becoming entrenched in the lifestyle of
poverty and family dysfunction. The Nurse/Family Partnership is
an intervention program which deals with support, education,
and counseling.
Let me conclude by saying, law enforcement is one critical
piece of a solution to the problems of crime and violence, but
a comprehensive approach, which includes interventions like the
kinds I've mentioned today, increase the capacity we have to
keep our neighborhoods safe and to steer young people away from
bad choices before it's too late.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Meehan.
We now turn to the leading authority in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on this subject, and that is Dr. Gerald Zahorchak,
who's the Secretary of Education, which has the responsibility
for implementation of Federal and State programs aimed at
abating youth violence and gangs. Dr. Zahorchak is a graduate
of St. Francis, a master's degree from Indiana University, a
Ph.D. from Penn State.
Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Zahorchak, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GERALD ZAHORCHAK, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Zahorchak. Thank you, Senator. And thanks for the work
that you're doing at the national and local levels in this
area. We're very grateful to have the opportunity to speak to
you today.
I thought that--I want to tell you that, while I believe
that most schools are, indeed, safe places, and have been made
safer in recent years, we have a lot of work to do to improve
school safety. And I'd like to address, specifically, the
important issue of student gang involvement.
In Pennsylvania, we've learned that using student
assessment data to identify the causes of student academic
problems is the same type of model that we want to use in
learning about the root causes of student behavioral problems.
Today, in Pennsylvania, we're experiencing success in
raising student achievement in every grade level, in every
content area. Nowhere is that success more impressive than in
our lowest-performing schools. Pennsylvania's schools that have
less than half of their students' population scoring proficient
on our State test in 2001 have experienced double-digit growth
increases in proficient scores at every grade level in every
demographic group, including race, family income, language
ability, and IEP status. In Pennsylvania, we know our success
has resulted from our relentless focus on examining student
achievement data and asking serious questions not only about
the student achievement, but about the educational practices
that are most likely to have a positive impact on students in a
particular classroom in which we increase the level of
intervention in a school, depending upon the severity of a
school's needs.
So, we line up our efforts, in terms of foundation efforts,
what we can give to support all schools as they continuously
grow, targeted support to intervene where schools need help,
and then very intensive support for the districts that need
corrective action.
Since school safety concerns encompasses such a broad
spectrum, I'd like to look at gang topics. And, in the
testimony, you'll see that the description of gang factors by--
and risk--gangs and risk factors--by sociologists determine or
define what a ``gang'' means, but typically it's a group of
kids who identify with each other. Sometimes they fight for
claim of a neighborhood territory or use common symbols. But
the--and also perhaps engage in illegal activities. All
students are at moderate to severe risk of being influenced by
gangs, gang activities, or risky behavior, in general.
In responding to that, we think about it in terms of
prevention and intervention first. And when we think about
prevention, we think about helping schools understand what they
can do to promote resiliency, giving kids opportunities, giving
young people opportunities to have high expectations
academically and behavioral wise, to be meaningfully engaged,
to have opportunities to bond with each other, to understand
clearly the rules of the school and the consequences, and see
consistent supports for successful behavior, and consequences
that are supported for non-good--for not-so-successful
behavior. So, our students have a resiliency from--in terms of
meaningful engagement, clear and consistent boundaries, as well
as setting the high expectations.
We also teach life skills, as well as have unconditional
support for our students. We think those five or six elements
really do provide the prevention efforts. And we help schools
understand ways to get about looking for root causes through
serious training. In general, Pennsylvania has undertaken many
steps to increase our school violence prevention efforts. We're
working closely with the Pennsylvania State Police, the
Emergency Management Agency, the Commission on Crime and
Delinquency to support schools in creating comprehensive safety
plans, and reviewing internal programs for prevention.
As you know, in Pennsylvania schools are not only required
to have a safety plan, but to submit it to the Department every
year, and with a summary of their school safety data. We
collect and publish, on our Web site, school-by-school reports
on violence incidents, and we also provide serious technical
assistance from places such as our Centers for Safety Schools,
our Annual Safety Schools Conference, and small limited safety
grants. In addition, in collaboration with our partners at the
Juvenile Justice Commission and Department of Public Welfare,
the Department introduced a stronger, more aligned, approach
and response to truancy which includes a new policy statement,
effective practices, resources, and strategies that can be used
by all stakeholders, especially students and their families.
Our goal in Pennsylvania is to see all students succeed and
ready for postsecondary education or a career, regardless of
background or circumstances. It's our partnership with public
welfare, the Governor's--Children's Commission and others that
we're building the resiliency framework for schools to build
protective factors for all schools, although we continuously
ask our schools to improve their practices and implement an
aligned, systematic approach to preventing school violence, we
acknowledge the importance of sufficient resources to support
our work.
Last year, Pennsylvania suffered at 20-percent decrease in
Safe and Drug-Free Schools----
Senator Specter. Dr. Zahorchak, how much more time will you
need?
Mr. Zahorchak. Just 30 seconds.
Senator Specter. Go ahead.
Mr. Zahorchak. Thanks, Senator.
We've experienced the decrease of 20 percent in our Safe
Schools grant. It's had a negative effect on our school, and
we're concerned that the President has asked Congress to--for
continued reductions and elimination of these funds.
Our schools and communities have to examine the root causes
of the students' behavioral problems, in the same we do examine
our academic problems.
We thank you for giving us the opportunity today to be at
this----
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zahorchak appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr.
Zahorchak.
Mr. Zahorchak. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Specter. We now turn to Mr. Peter Ramos, who is the
managing director of the city of Philadelphia. That job entails
the management of all of the departments. Previously, he had
been city solicitor here. And before that, he was a vice
president at the University of Pennsylvania, in charge of their
outreach program, which gave him considerable experience
directly in this field. He's a graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania, and magna cum laude from the University of
Michigan.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Ramos, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO RAMOS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA
Mr. Ramos. Good morning, Senators. On behalf of Mayor John
F. Street, thank you, Chairman Specter and Senator Casey, for
giving me the opportunity to testify here today.
Mr. Chairman, your commitment to addressing the issue of
youth violence is demonstrated not only by your words, but by
your actions, such as holding hearings like this one today, and
providing the leadership to obtain funding to support this
city's violence initiatives, like the Youth Violence Reduction
Partnership.
We all continue to struggle with the challenge of
addressing the growing problem of violence and the devastating
effects it has our community, especially our youngest citizens.
Violence is shattering the dreams and futures of too many
children and youth in our city. A comprehensive and
communitywide strategy is needed to address this growing
violence. The Street administration has invested heavily in
violence prevention programs, and there is no more important
priority for this administration than the safety and stability
of our children and youth.
A significant component of our comprehensive violence
reduction strategy is mentoring. My testimony will focus on how
current violence reduction efforts--specifically, YVRP, which
has been tied to significant decreases in youth homicide rates,
and the Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership--utilize
mentoring as a key component of their approaches.
Although we are seeing positive trends in the reduction of
many major crimes, there has been recent growth in violence
among youth ages 18 to 24. The number of arrests for violence
crimes increased by 1 percent between 2004 and 2005. The number
of arrests for homicide increased by 4 percent between 2004 and
2005. The number of arrests for rape increased by 3 percent
between 2004 and 2005.
One of the city's most notable research-based violence-
reduction strategies is YVRP, which is active in five of the
city's 24 police districts. This proven model targets youth who
are most likely to kill or be killed, and provides them with
intensive supervision, mentoring, and support services. YVRP is
a partnership among the Philadelphia Police Department, adult
and juvenile probation, the district attorney's office, the
managing director's office, the Department Of Human Services,
Recreation, Behavioral Health, as well as other partner
agencies, both public and private.
The young people enrolled in the program are known as
``youth partners.'' And the paraprofessionals who deliver many
of these services include--including mentoring, are known as
``streetworkers.'' The essential elements of YVRP, each of
which I will describe in detail, are identification,
surveillance, graduated sanctions, positive supports, including
mentoring, and gun suppression.
Identification: YVRP utilizes research-based indicators to
identify youth 14- or 16-to-24 who are most at risk to kill or
be killed.
Surveillance: Streetworkers, police, and probation officers
provide intensive supervision, usually daily, to monitor the
youth partners, wherever they are, in their homes, schools, and
neighborhoods.
Third, graduated sanctions: When a participating youth
violates his or her probation, YVRP swiftly imposes sanctions.
Research has demonstrated that the prompt deployment of
sanctions can be a key element in deterring further criminal
behavior.
Fourth, positive supports and mentoring: Sanctions alone
are not enough to deter youth people from criminal behavior.
YVRP streetworkers help youth partners access a range of
positive supports, including educational opportunities,
literacy, job placement, and drug treatment.
A key component of job placement and--a key component of
positive supports is the mentoring relationship between
streetworkers and youth partners. Streetworkers are from the
same neighborhoods and have similar backgrounds as the youth
partners. This shared context and experience creates a strong
bond between the streetworker and the youth partner, increasing
the effectiveness of the streetworker.
And finally, gun suppression. YVRP is working with local,
State, and Federal authorities to deter both access to, and use
of, firearms by young people.
YVRP was first introduced in the 24th Police District in
1999, and has since expanded to a total of five police
districts. Since its inception, approximately 2,100 youths have
been part of YVRP.
Given that target population, it is clear that YVRP has
saved many lives. Through December 2006, only 1.3 percent of
YVRP youth partners--and I believe that's a total of 22 youth
partners--have either died or been accused of murder. While a
single death is too many, the data clearly demonstrate the
success we have had mentoring 98.7 percent of our youth
partners who were at highest risk of killing or being killed.
YVRP has been subjected to rigorous third-party validation,
and the results are promising, according to research conducted
by public/private ventures in the police--in the three police
districts where YVRP was implemented long enough for
evaluation. My written comments have a summary of that
analysis.
I'm going to jump ahead, to say that, given the success of
YVRP with 16- to 24-year-olds, and the reports of growing
violence among younger youth, it is logical that this
initiative be driven down to younger youth, lifetime at-risk
young offenders between 10 and 12 years of age. The
Philadelphia Story, a briefing paper published by Philadelphia
Safe and Sound, documents that we know how to identify youth at
younger ages who are likely----
Senator Specter. Mr. Ramos, how much----
Mr. Ramos [continuing]. To kill or be killed----
Senator Specter [continuing]. How much more time will you
need?
Mr. Ramos. Less than 30 seconds.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Mr. Ramos. And we're doing just that, through the
Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership. AVRP is designed to
intervene with 10- to 15-year old youth at the first sign of
serious risk behaviors, and connect them with streetworkers,
and provide support services to help them redirect their lives
before becoming victims or perpetrators.
For both YVRP and AVRP, the streetworker naturally takes on
a role of mentor to the youth, encouraging him or her to make
positive choices for the future. Natural mentors have been
demonstrated to be a positive influence for at-risk youth, a
finding that is validated by the success of the YVRP program.
Thank you, Senator Specter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramos appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos.
We now turn to Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, who
has risen through the ranks, some four decades of service in
the uniform of the policeman. When he was the Headquarters
Investigative Unit head at Hunting Park, he arranged for the
unit to adopt the Thomas Mifflin School. And to encourage
officers to provide counseling and direction to the youngsters
in that school may well be a model for the future, Commissioner
Johnson, which we'll come to in the question-and-answer
session. But, for now, we thank you for coming, and we turn to
you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER JOHNSON, POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA
Commissioner Johnson. Good morning, Senator Specter and
Senator Casey.
First, I want to thank you for inviting me to this hearing
on delinquency and youth violence. As you can tell by this
panel, the subject is critically important to the citizens, to
the city as a whole. As a government, we must come together to
protect our children from violence, but, just as important,
from resorting to violence. There is no higher duty for me
personally, and for all government, so I thank you for allowing
me to be part of this proceedings.
At the beginning, let me state clearly, I believe that law
enforcement should be the last step in protecting our children.
I say this, because by the time a child comes to the attention
of the police, the damage may already be done. I strongly
believe we need to address the social failures that cause
children to resort to crime and violence. We need to address
the factors that create such hopelessness and lack of respect
in our children.
Obviously, I don't have all the answers. But what I do know
is that many children that become victims, criminals, or both,
come from broken homes. Sometimes there are no parents at all,
the parents are in jail or they're addicted to drugs. Is it any
surprise that children turn to violence and crime themselves?
Everyone agrees we need to target these children at risk of
becoming victims or killers, and the YVRP is an outstanding
partnership among government agencies that does just that. In
fact, John Delaney, from the District Attorney's Office, was
the founding partner of that program, and I commend him for all
the hard work that he's done. But, regrettably, we find that--
violence often getting children younger and younger. The VRP
was originally designed to target--address children from 14 to
24. But we have children as young as 9 and 10 becoming victims
and killers, as well. So, the VRP has spun off another program
called Adolescent Violence Reduction Program to address those
youth at risk, age 8 and--old.
Let me state clearly, if we believe in and support these
programs, they save lives, plain and simple, but I must state
the children in these programs have been targeted because they
have already been involved with the police or been victims.
What we truly need is less children targeted for intervention.
We need to work together as a community to give our children
the love, compassion, support, and guidance every child craves.
This will take strong leaders in government who are willing to
invest in programs that will not provide immediate results.
The problem with our children did not occur overnight, nor
will the solution. We need to explore innovative ways to
instill the hope and self-worth into our children that'll last
a lifetime. Historically, this was the role of the family. The
family, as we know, is--no longer exists for far too many of
our children. So, we must explore alternate plans that would
provide the nurturing environment every child requires. I
believe that social failures at this point in the child's life
are where the violence and delinquency begins. As I said at the
beginning, there's no higher duty for government than
protecting our children, but I believe law enforcement should
be the last line of defense. The first line of defense is
finding a way to create a caring and supportive environment for
each and every child in Philadelphia.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Our next witness is Mr. John Delaney, who is the deputy
district attorney. Previously, he had served as the chief of
the juvenile section. He's a graduate of the University of
Notre Dame, and law degree from Villanova, and specializes, in
his current position, on juvenile violence.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Delaney, and we now
turn to you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DELANEY, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator. Good morning.
Senator Specter, Senator Casey, as you now, I am here on
behalf of District Attorney Lynn Abraham, who's on a previously
scheduled trip outside the city. She and I appreciate, Senator
Specter your longstanding commitment to the safety of the
citizens of our city, and thank you for the opportunity to
offer our thoughts today.
I want to add a couple of comments about the Youth Violence
Reduction Partnership.
You've heard from Mr. Meehan and Mr. Ramos about some of
this program. There are a couple of things that they didn't
touch on that I think are important to recognize. One is that
the YVRP has been data-driven. I serve, along with Naomi Post,
as the co-chair of the YVRP Steering Committee. And YVRP
started in the 24th District, because that was the section of
the city that had one sector that was the most violent for
young people. We define ``young people'' as age 24 and under.
YVRP has expanded, over the last 7 years, to four additional
districts, driven each time by how many people were killed in
that district, how many young people were killed, how many
young people were shot, how many young people are on probation.
So, YVRP has been data-driven.
Second, YVRP is a true partnership. Managing Director Ramos
mentioned the city agencies that participate, but it's also
important to note that we partner with the school district,
with Philadelphia Safe and Sound, and with public/private
ventures. So, there are a number of agencies brought to the
table, any of whom can contribute to the partnership, whether
it's by their resources or their expertise.
The third characteristic of YVRP that I think it's
critically important to mention, especially now, is, we focus
on juveniles and young adults. In our data, we learned that
only 2 percent of Philadelphia is between the ages of 18 and
24--young adults--but 22 percent of the homicide victims are
between the ages of 18 and 24, and 40 percent of the alleged
murderers are between 18 and 24. So, I would strongly encourage
you and your colleagues to consider this when trying to create
funding programs for mentoring for our most at-risk youth.
Having been the deputy of the juvenile division in the DA's
office, and like Mr. Meehan, I, too, suffer from having been
born too late to work for you, Senator Specter, but District
Attorney Abraham has continued your tradition----
Senator Specter. We might give you another chance.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Delaney [continuing].--District Attorney Abraham has
continued your tradition of being a zealous courtroom advocate
for safety, but also viewing her role as much greater than
that: that of a public servant.
And in looking at what we have done over the years, I
served for a number of years in our juvenile division. Now I
head up our trial division. There's a rich spectrum of services
available for juvenile delinquents. Not as rich as it should
be, but a very rich spectrum. That spectrum shrinks
considerably once the offender reaches his 18th birthday. And,
unfortunately for us in Philadelphia 18- to 24-year-olds are
the gravamen, the source, the focus of our problem, in terms of
young people and violence.
So, I'd ask you to consider that, in funding programs, that
there be flexibility included, if at all possible, to allow for
funding of supportive services to people 18 to 24. It's because
of the intensive support, and the intensive supervision that
YVRP couples, that YVRP has shown success in Philadelphia.
Senator Specter, we appreciate your support. Your staff has
been to YVRP meetings. Your staff has joined us on targeted
patrol. YVRP costs about $1.6 million per police district.
That's because, as Commissioner Johnson alluded to, these young
people have spent their lives getting enmeshed in situations
that are very difficult to disentangle. Their lives are filled
with challenges. It's only through intensive support and
intensive supervision that we have an opportunity to get those
young folks, in the words of the YVRP mission statement, to be
alive at 25, to make it to their 25th birthday.
We thank you for your ongoing assistance.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Delaney.
We now turn to the distinguished chief executive officer of
the Philadelphia school system, Paul Vallas. Came to
Philadelphia in 2002. Previously, he had been the CEO of the
Chicago school system, the third largest in the Nation, and
turned it from a national reputation of one of the worst to a
model system. Superintendent Vallas has been very deeply
involved in the issues of juvenile violence, and has found that
dealing with that issue in the school system is an
indispensable prerequisite to getting young people ready for
the education process.
Thank you for your service and for being here today,
Superintendent Vallas, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF PAUL VALLAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA
Mr. Vallas. Well, thank you so much. I'd also like to
congratulate you and thank you, Senator Specter. I'm fortunate
that I was born young enough to have had an opportunity to work
with you and to benefit from your leadership and your wisdom
and guidance. In many ways, I consider you to be the conscience
of the United States Senate, in so many ways. And we work--we
look forward to working with Senator Casey on future issues to
benefit the children of Philadelphia.
Let me talk about what works. The Youth Violence Reduction
Partnership and the Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership,
which targets even younger children, it works and needs to be
brought to scale. There is absolute--the data is there; it
supports it. And, as pointed out, it's extraordinarily cost-
effective.
School-based community policing is the most effective
program at the local school level for reducing violence in and
around the schools. But we've seen about a 20- close to 28-
percent reduction in serious incidents on and in our schools
because of our community-based policing initiative.
The Parent Truant Officer Program is the most effective
program for getting kids off the street. Where we've had parent
truant officers present, working in the schools, we've had an
increase in enrollment, an increase in attendance, we've had an
increase in test scores. And we're currently working with the
city to try to bring that program to scale.
The biggest problem we face, youth violence has a direct
connection with the dropout problem. I think close to 80
percent of the homicides are either--are committed by
individuals who have, in fact, dropped out. We just recently
provided data to the city and to Councilman Goode on this
particular problem. So, if we get kids in school, and we keep
them in school, crime's going to decline. All you need to do is
to visit the jails and to look at the jackets of those who have
been incarcerated to see that education failure seems to be
followed by crime.
The three highest dropout rates are among students who are
incarcerated or put in detention centers or put in AUDI homes,
or your disciplinary homes; students who are pregnant
constitute the second highest percentage of dropouts, 70
percent; and students who are overaged underachievers. And, as
you know, we have this wonderful law in Philadelphia that says
you don't have to start school until you're 8 years old, and--
which means a lot of parents take that literally, and it's not
like the kids have been home-schooled. So, obviously,
initiatives that target those three categories will have an
immediate impact.
Alternative schools for students who are incarcerated allow
us to reach those kids, and to give those kids a second chance.
Where we have our alternative schools, they're working very
effectively, in terms of attendance, in terms of giving
students an opportunity to get back into school, get back into
the mainstream. A program called the Cradle to the Classroom
Program, which identifies pregnant teens and assigns pregnant
teens a mentor and a trainer to make sure babies are born
healthy and put in daycare, and mentors the pregnant teens to
get them back into school, has been phenomenally successful.
Pregnant teens who have been through this program are four
times more likely to graduate, and their children, by the time
they reach third grade, you don't see an achievement gap. And,
in transitional schools for overaged underachieves, so we can
get those 14- and 15- and sometimes 16-year-old middle-grade
kids out of the middle schools, believe it or not, and into the
transition--into transition schools, because that constitutes
our--the highest--the third highest percentage of dropouts, the
third highest category of dropouts, in terms of percentages.
I think, overall, though, if we're going to keep kids in
school, I believe that we have to change the dynamic and the
expectations. Time magazine's recent piece, special edition
called ``Dropout Nation,'' looked at the dropout problem
nationwide, talked about the direct links between dropouts and
crime, and said that there are two principal reasons why people
drop out. The children do not see college as an option, because
they come from families who have never had anyone attending
college, or--and/or children to not see college as a financial
option, they believe that college is financially beyond their
reach. So, as a result, there's no interest to really focus on
high school, to do well in high school, to succeed in high
school. And, likewise, that contributes to underachievement at
the middle grade levels, because, again, it's--the high school
is kind of seen as a dead end, and high school is not seen as a
vehicle for achieving something else.
And obviously, counseling and mentoring can help change
that dynamic, but ultimately we need to make a stronger
connection between college, and we need to make a stronger
connection--and we need to guarantee children that, if they get
through high school, college is, indeed, an option.
So, what we've begun to look at in Philadelphia is linking
college--linking high school to college through programs like
dual enrollment, through programs like early college. We're
piloting a number of programs right now with some of our
poorest-performing schools, that, in effect, guarantee high
school seniors that, their senior year, they will be enrolled
in college, taking dual courses; in some cases--at Northeast
High School, about 100 kids are actually taking almost a full
freshman load, and it's having a dramatic impact. We have
children from Germantown attending such a program.
And then, secondly, guaranteeing children employment
opportunities before they graduate high school, as an incentive
to keep them in high school, particularly work-study. It's
great to do counseling, but when you incorporate counseling
into work-study, it can have a dramatic impact, too. So, what
we're piloting in Philadelphia is a program that allows
students to go to school and to work at the same time, and to
earn elective credits through work-study programs. I cite, just
to close, the Cristo Rey model in Chicago that has gotten some
national attention, where the children are actually going to
school 4 days a week, and working 1 to 2 days a week. And,
obviously, they use that income to help pay for their high
school tuition at one of Chicago's more prestigious parochial
schools. But it's a 99-percent-poverty school, and yet they
have a 95-percent dropout rate. So, changing the dynamics and
changing expectations, we think, can go a long way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vallas appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Mr. Vallas, we now turn to the questions
from Senator Casey and myself. Let begin with you. On the
subject you just talked about, the dropouts, what assistance
could the Federal or State or city governments be to formalize
programs where the colleges would work with, say, the
Philadelphia school system to provide the incentives to high
school seniors to finish school or, as you characterize it, the
work-study program, to work with employers to mesh with the
high school seniors?
Mr. Vallas. Well, let me say that----
Senator Specter. Let me start with a question. Are there
any formalized programs now in either of those two directions?
Mr. Vallas. The State has been slowly bringing to scale a
dual-enrollment subsidy program that gives schools----
Senator Specter. That gets the subsidy----
Mr. Vallas [continuing]. Partial----
Senator Specter [continuing]. For whom?
Mr. Vallas. For dual enrollment. For the high schools
themselves. So, in other words, if students are enrolled in
college courses while they're in high school, the State----
Senator Specter. How do we--how do we motivate the college?
It seems to me that's the motivation line.
Mr. Vallas. Well, one of the ways you can motivate them
is--obviously, schools that are receiving State and--State and
Federal subsidies should--could be encouraged to set aside a
number of slots for dual enrollment. Let me give you an
example. In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, there are more
degreed--students in degreed programs than there--college
programs--than there are kids in the Philadelphia public
schools. There's something like 236,000. So, if all the
universities, colleges, and institutions would set aside,
maybe, 2 percent of their seats for an early college program at
reduced tuition costs, tuition costs that are aligned with what
we, in effect, pay to educate that senior if that senior was,
in effect, taking the same courses that----
Senator Specter. Superintendent Vallas let me interrupt----
Mr. Vallas [continuing]. Could have an impact.
Senator Specter [continuing]. You, because the time----
Mr. Vallas. Yes.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Time is short. I'd ask you to
supplement your oral testimony----
Mr. Vallas. Absolutely.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Here today, and respond to a
series of questions.
One, what specific programs, perhaps by way of tax credit
or tax incentives, might the Federal Government utilize to get
employers to tie in to high school seniors?
And, similarly, what kind of incentives might be provided
to universities to tie in?
And, third, a subject we can't go into any detail, but
something you and I have discussed at some length, and that is
the number of at-risk students you have where you know who they
are----
Mr. Vallas. Uh-huh.
Senator Specter [continuing]. And you probably have the
most intimate contact with them, on a variety of indicia,
dropping out----
Mr. Vallas. Yes.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Attitudes in schools. And
what kind of a program within the school, directed solely
there, would be useful?
Mr. Vallas. Okay.
Senator Specter. As you know, we've been successful in
getting very substantial additional sums to the Philadelphia--
--
Mr. Vallas. Yes, you have.
Senator Specter [continuing]. School district through the
appropriations process. And Senator Casey and I would be
interested to see if we could target that.
Director Ramos, let me turn to you on a question of whether
we might look for some targeted funding outside of the regular
channels. We know the shortages of discretionary spending at
the Federal level, and the squeeze at the State level and the
city budget. Private parties have undertaken to finance a
cleanup of the Center City area, because it is in their
financial interest to do so, with the funds coming from local
merchants. What might be explored to try to get voluntary help,
maybe from foundations or from citizens, to a fund which would
be directed solely at the programs we've talked about here, the
Youth Violence Reduction Program, they mentoring issue, with an
appeal which could be jointly framed from the Governor, the
mayor, Senator Casey and myself, and others? What do you think
of the possibilities of creating such a fund?
Mr. Ramos. Senator, I'm sure that the mayor and the
administration would want to pursue that jointly with you, and
this--and representatives of the State. We have--at least with
respect to Youth Violence Reduction partnership--we're, as
you've heard, in four areas, in five districts--one of the
things that perhaps makes that a more achievable goal is--we
don't think we need a YVRP in each police district. We believe
that going to scale with YVRP is probably going into a total of
about nine school districts--about nine police districts, at a
cost of about 1.6----
Senator Specter. And what would that cost?
Mr. Ramos [continuing]. About $1.6 million per district.
With respect to AVRP, we have been funding----
Senator Specter. So, we're talking about nine times 1.6, or
about $14 million.
Mr. Ramos. Of--in the aggregate, including those areas that
are currently funded through Federal earmark, as well as State
grants.
On the YVR--on the AVRP program for children 10 to 15,
we've been funding it primarily from Department of Public
Welfare, and are funded at--not funded to have the program at
scale, although we've been taking the program----
Senator Specter. Director Ramos----
Mr. Ramos [continuing]. To scale----
Senator Specter [continuing]. How does the program work,
where private parties contribute to a fund to keep the streets
clean in the Center City area?
Mr. Ramos. Well, in that particular example, there's, by
local legislation, a special services district created that
assesses the Center City businesses and funds those special
services. There are other models that--where the business
community, in the past, for example, around public education,
has come together and contributed to a charitable fund
controlled by the business community. So, there are a number of
different models out there.
Senator Specter. They've joined together to control--create
a fund.
Mr. Ramos. And I guess one final thing, Senator, that I
would point out, in fairness to the--to all the nonprofit
social-service organizations in this city, is that a lot of the
front-line service in both YVRP and AVRP, in this--particularly
streetworkers, slash, mentors--are done by people employed by
community-based nonprofit organizations, who themselves are
charitable organizations, and at--to some extent, are probably
subsidizing some of this, because it's----
Senator Specter. Director Ramos----
Mr. Ramos [continuing]. A core mission for them.
Senator Specter. I would like you to follow up your
testimony today and give some thought to whether we might
create a voluntary fund. Keeping the streets safe is really a
higher priority than keeping the streets clean. We like to have
clean streets, but I think we'd like better to have safe
streets.
U.S. Attorney Meehan, you have gotten an allocation of $2.5
million for the Route 222 Project. Tell us what good use you've
made it to give us an incentive to provide some more Federal
funding for you there.
Mr. Meehan. Senator, that has had--that has had three
components to it. There's been a law enforcement component, but
there has also been critical involvement in two other aspects.
First, the prevention. We've worked with mayors from five
cities to identify how they can utilize this money, frankly,
just to serve as a steppingstone to identifying their at-risk
youth, and then seeing what they have in their community that
can be supplemented to intervene with the at-risk youth before
they embark on a life of crime. You've seen almost every person
here discuss the idea that we can identify those kids that are
the most likely to carry out the criminal activity. What we try
to do is work with the resources that exist in that community,
supplement them, and then make a match between those at-risk
kids and the community-based organizations.
Senator Specter. Has the program----
Mr. Meehan. A second----
Senator Specter [continuing]. Been going on long enough to
show any tangible results?
Mr. Meehan. No. We have only begun these processes. We've--
as is often the case, it's the law enforcement piece which is
out in front. We've had some very big takedowns of the gangs.
And I might focus on the fact that we're looking at kids who
may be identifying with gangs. So, the focus is exclusively on
preventing gang identification in the neighborhoods and in the
schools. Many of the kids who are carrying out the violence may
not, all the time, be gang-associated. So, what we're talking
about today is a little bit apart.
I want to focus, as well, on the aftercare piece. This is--
we have a piece, that talks about individuals who are returning
from incarceration, which is part of our aftercare. But it's
just as significant in the juvenile context particularly maybe
even more significant, which is why I talked about the Glen
Mills program. While it's not something that has been broadly
followed around the area, I think it has tremendous promise,
because we spend a lot of time already on kids that are at
risk, who have been sent to juvenile facilities, then they
return to their communities, already having had some benefit of
stabilization while they've been in that facility, but they
return to the streets, and they're left without the kind of
continuing guidance and oversight that may help them return
more effectively back to the school-based situation or----
Senator Specter. Well, what's your suggestion?
Mr. Meehan [continuing]. Even----
The funding for programs, like the Glen Mills program, that
recognize that, after we have people in our juvenile
facilities, much as Paul Vallas had said, we want to take
advantage of that to return them, first, to school, if
possible, in an age-appropriate way, or with--to some sense of
involvement in----
Senator Specter. Mr. Meehan----
Mr. Meehan [continuing]. Employment or a community----
Senator Specter [continuing]. Because of the shortage of
time, would you supplement your answer by giving us a short
memo on the Glen Mills project----
Mr. Meehan. Yes, I will, Senator.
Senator Specter [continuing]. How it works and why you
think it's been successful?
Mr. Meehan. Yes, Senator.
Senator Specter. Dr. Zahorchak, the law of the State of
Pennsylvania doesn't require a child to attend school until 8.
That seems like an archaic provision, especially with all of
the modern studies which have shown that the earlier years are
more determinative on development. What efforts have been made
to change that law?
Mr. Zahorchak. Well, we've--on a couple of occasions, have
asked the legislature to change the law. In our school code
bill, we've asked to make it at least age 6. We've been
unsuccessful at doing that, so we, you know, need to get the
support from----
Senator Specter. What's the problem in getting it changed?
Mr. Zahorchak. It seems that there's support for not
mandating from the State a choice that a parent would make. We
don't believe that. We believe that it's a good idea to make an
earlier start as part of----
Senator Specter. Is there an objection from the rural part
of the State, where they might have a little different
circumstance than the city considerations?
Mr. Zahorchak. There could be. There is objections, where--
--
Senator Specter. Have you tried the--leaving it to local
option?
Mr. Zahorchak. Well, today we've not introduced anything
that would say compulsory education would be a local choice to
start it before 8. Policies could be made. We have not done
that. We've tried to make a sweeping rule, changed from 6 to 8.
We----
Senator Specter. Well, it seems to me that that's a pretty
glaring problem, not----
Mr. Zahorchak. It's----
Senator Specter [continuing]. To have that requirement in
the city of Philadelphia.
Commissioner Johnson, what age would you like to see
children required to go to school?
Commissioner Johnson. Well, you know, as far as I'm
concerned, this is--going by the experts, and these are two
experts here, as far as education is concerned, and I'm not----
Senator Specter. Well, come on, Commissioner Johnson, you
take 'em off the street, out of your bailiwick and give 'em to
Superintendent Vallas. What age?
Commissioner Johnson. Okay. I think that 6 or 7 would be
the appropriate age to take the--
Senator Specter. How about--6 or 7, that's too vague--how
about 5?
Commissioner Johnson. Six, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Well, we've made a little progress.
[Laughter.]
Commissioner Johnson. Okay.
Senator Specter. Commissioner Johnson, I note what you have
done with the Mifflin School on one of your assignments earlier
in your career. Do you think it realistic to do a little more
than encourage police officers to participate in this mentoring
program, but to give them some incentives to do so?
Commissioner Johnson. Well, what I did, growing up in North
Philadelphia--and I rank the--the rank of a captain, I felt as
though I wanted to give something back, and I called the school
district, and I tried to find a school that had more problems
than any other school in the city. They picked Mifflin School,
because, I guess, at that point, approximately 75 percent of
the kids were from the Epperford projects, the Epperford
development. I asked our officers to volunteer to go into the
different classrooms. And I met with the principals and the
teachers first. And our thing that was that we're not going
there as security officers, we're going there as mentors and
tutors. The only qualification was that if a police officer
qualified or volunteered to go, he or she had to stay the full
year, because I thought that would be really bad if they go in
there and then dropped out. We went there, and we would assign
a police officer to every single classroom in the school. And
as that person, say, for example, went through the first grade,
when they went to the second grade, that also went with them,
all the way up until the time they graduated. The discipline
went down, the attendance went up. Not only did we go to the
schools, but we took 'em different places. We took them to the
college. We even took 'em to Disney World. We took them all
over to places.
Senator Specter. Commissioner Johnson, there's no doubt
that it would be helpful, and especially police officers who
have a pervasive idea as to how young people get into trouble.
What I would like you to do--and I would like the same thing
for Director Ramos and Dr. Zahorchak--really, everybody on the
panel--to consider where we might get more mentors from our own
offices as starting points. I would be willing to do that in my
office, to give some incentives or some time off, if we could
find some way. We are going to be putting this question,
really, more to the second panel, because they're--have
practical experience in the field with the mentoring programs.
But I think, with the support of the Governor and the mayor,
you have the large pool of employees available. Pat Meehan and
Arlen Specter have some. The DA's office has some. The
Department of Education could, but their efforts would be best
used within the identification of at-risk youth. But I'd like
you to think about it. My staff's going to be following up with
you to see if there's some way we can find people within
government to undertake this mentoring.
Mr. Delaney----
Commissioner Johnson. Well, I----
Senator Specter. Did you want to say something further,
Commissioner?
Commissioner Johnson. Yes, sir.
I have all the commanders right now--approximately 30
commanders--we go to the different schools every single week.
And I think, especially for the Afro-American police officers,
they have an obligation to give back and go back to the
neighborhoods and the schools that they grew up in. There's
approximately 2,400 Afro-Americans in the city, and I've been
talking to the organization--talking to the City League,
without getting paid to go back. I think they have an
obligation to go back. And I've been meeting with them, and
will continue to meet with them, to go back to our schools and
go back to our neighborhoods. We have an obligation to do that,
and we're starting to do that.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much for what you're
doing there, Commissioner. And it's a good model for expansion.
Mr. Delaney, you've put your finger on a critical spot, 18-
to 24-year olds. My recollection, as DA, is that that's where
we had the violence, the armed robberies, the homicides. But
how do you deal with that category? You're talking about
mentoring, which seems to apply more to more impressionable age
groups. Can you mentor someone in the 18- to 24-year-old
category, or do you really need a parole officer or a probation
officer with the kind of experience and toughness that that
kind of a position would entail?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I believe you need both. If--the way
we've described YVRP to people who have never heard of it is,
it's the stereotypical mother and father, it's the
stereotypical disciplinary father and the stereotypical
nurturing mother. And the police and probation provide the
discipline/supervision side. The streetworker supplies the
nurturing side. And there are a lot of obstacles to getting
somebody who's 18 or 19 or 20, who's dropped out of school, who
doesn't know how to read well or write well, to go to a job
interview, because he's not sold on the fact that that job
interview is going to lead to something productive, the way all
of us were raised, and the way all of us have raised our
children. So, it's a struggle to get at-risk young people to
participate in the pro-social activities of everyday life that
we all take for granted.
So, that's why YVRP, I believe, had shown success, because
it couples the intensive supervision with the intensive
support.
Senator Specter. Does YVRP deal with 18- to 24-year-olds?
Mr. Delaney. About 75 percent of our youth partners are 18
to 24.
Senator Specter. Well, is that the age group which is
providing guidance to younger people, or is that the age group
to which guidance is provided?
Mr. Delaney. The latter. It's the age group--they are our
youth partners. They're the subjects, the targets, if you will,
of YVRP. So that----
Senator Specter. So, you are, in effect, mentoring people
in the 18- to 24-year-old category?
Mr. Delaney. Yes, Senator.
Senator Specter. And, again, who are the mentors?
Mr. Delaney. Streetworkers, people employed by the
Philadelphia Antidrug/Antiviolence Network, what we know in
Philadelphia as PAAN, P-A-A-N, who are, by and large, older
people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, who come from the same
communities as the youth partners now live in.
Senator Specter. And how much does that program have to be
expanded? And what would be the cost?
Mr. Delaney. We're in five police districts now. There are
at least five more that we would expand to. So, the total would
be nine or ten, at a cost of $1.6 million a year. I liked your
earlier figure, 14 million a year.
Senator Specter. Okay. Well, Senator Casey and I have
something to shoot for.
That leads me to you, Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank
Senator Specter again for bringing us together.
And I should note for the record that, because of Senator
Specter's convening of this panel today, and this hearing,
that, by virtue of that, he made me a member of both the
Appropriations Committee and the Judiciary Committee for one
brief shining moment. So----
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. It's more than Senator Harry Reid, the
Majority Leader, has done for you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Casey. That's true. That's true. I'll talk to him
about that when I get back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Casey. But I had a couple of broader questions. But
first, to Mr. Delaney, and to all the panelists, we appreciate
your testimony and the expertise and the dedicated public
service you bring to these issues.
Mr. Delaney, you talked about the elements of YVRP and
the--as others did--but I want to make sure I understand. When
you talk about a father-and-mother model--in other words, as
you've--you phrase it as the stereotypical father and mother--
and they're, obviously, broad generalizations there--but in the
YVRP model, the parole officer, in effect, becomes the tough
disciplinarian. Is that the right role?
Mr. Delaney. Yes, Senator.
Senator Casey. Okay. And then, the more nurturing role is
played by the streetworker, is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. Yes.
Senator Casey. Okay. And that streetworker is about the
same age, usually, or within a range of 18 to 24, a little
older, maybe?
Mr. Delaney. Usually older. These are people that have come
from the same neighborhoods that the youth partners now live
in, who have established a pro-social track record, who want to
give back to their community. So, most of the streetworkers are
in their later 20s or 30s--some, older.
Senator Casey. Okay. Now, one thing I heard from virtually
everyone here--and I think United States Attorney Pat Meehan
said it first. He talked about comprehensive intervention.
Others talked about intensive intervention. And it seems like
all three of those words are important. It has to be
comprehensive, which I hope others in Washington hear. I
remember, last year, when some of the budget cuts were
announced, Senator Specter, rare and--and I don't want to get
into parties here, but I will for one moment--said that those
cuts were--I'm--think I'm quoting him accurately--
"scandalous,'' health and education cuts. So, there were a lot
of people in Washington and some State capitals around the
country--not this State capital, but other States--who really
believe the little eyedropper here and there of money can solve
problems. They don't want to put the money up, because they're
more interested in tax cuts and pleasing the wealthy. But I
think those three words are critically important:
``comprehensive,'' which means dollars and commitment; and guts
to fund it; ``intensive,'' that it has to have a focus when it
comes to intervention.
So, my question for all of you--and chime in one at a time,
if you can; I know we have limited time here--is, other than
YVRP--we know that works, we know a number of these other
programs work well--other than that program, if you had a--an
opportunity to directly impact the kind of dollars that the
Federal budget puts aside for programs like this, based upon
your experience, based upon your knowledge of these programs,
what are the other programs that you would fund either
significantly or if you could fund them to scale? YVRP, a good
example. What about--and if you could make a quick list.
Mr. Vallas. Yeah. Well, very quickly, let me just make a
brief comment. YVRP and AVRP and those programs, even the
Parent Truant Officer Program or the School-Based Community
Police Program, they're interventions, and they're
interventions a lot of times that deal with kids who have--I
don't want to say ``have been lost,'' but it's difficult for
those kids to recover, because once the kids reach the age of
18 to 24, I mean, you've--you're not--YVRP is not going to
solve the problem. I think they're the most--I think they're
the best immediate interventions that can be--that can be
deployed to bring crime down. But we need to look longer-term,
in terms of the type of things that we need to implement and be
brought to scale.
Let me be very specific on specific programs. First of all,
the investment in early childhood education, particularly in
the 0-to-3, Cradle to the Classroom Program, absolutely
critical. The biggest problem we have is inexperienced parents,
parents who just do not know how to raise their children. It's
as simple as that. And we've got to train the next generation
of parents. I mean, there's, you know, a--how do parents--how
do we learn how to be parents? We learn from our parents. And
somewhere along the line, that chain in that--that link in
the--in that long chain was broke. And once you have one weak
link, the entire chain is useless.
So, bringing programs to scale, like Cradle to the
Classroom, so that we can begin to train parents on proper
childrearing and proper support, and to get those first-time
parents into high school, and to get them a high school
diploma, is absolutely critical. And those programs are not
cost-prohibitive. Those programs are extraordinarily efficient.
Our--to put one child through a Cradle Program costs anywhere
from $2,000 to $2,500. It's extraordinarily effective.
Second is transition programs. And transition programs to
target middle grades--middle-aged kids. You know, we can tell
you, at sixth grade, who's going to drop out. And actually, I
think we can tell you, at third grade, who's going to drop out.
But by sixth grade, with almost--unbelievable certainty, we can
tell you who's dropping out and who's not dropping out. Being
able to get the overaged underachievers into transition
programs, transition classrooms, transition schools is
absolutely critical. Where we've done this, and where we've
piloted this, we've had dramatic effect. Bringing those things
to scale--and that does not necessarily mean that you've got to
invest a substantial amount of money, because if the money
follows the kids--if the money follows the kids, technically,
you know, that's spending the money effectively. But it's the
gap funding that we need, because the difference between
putting a child in a transition school as opposed to keeping
them in a regular school is about $3,000 to $4,000 a kid.
And then, the final thing is, I can't stress enough,
programs that expand dual enrollment, early college, programs
that create work-study. If I can tell a sixth-grader, if they
go to high school, by their senior year, they're actually going
to be enrolled in college while they're still going to high
school, and that there's going to be a work-study job for them
at the end of their junior year, you'll see the graduation
rates skyrocket. So, bringing those type of initiatives to
scale--and they're not cost-prohibitive, because if the money
is following the kids, you can substitute some of the savings
from having kids out of the high school in a college
university, or in a----
Senator Casey. I want to----
Mr. Vallas [continuing]. Work-study program.
Senator Casey. Paul, thank you. I just want to go to----
Mr. Vallas. Thank you.
Senator Casey [continuing]. To others in the rest of the
panel, because I know we're--we're over by 2 minutes now.
Mr. Delaney. Senator, thank you for your question.
I want to identify something which everybody keeps talking
about, ``at-risk youth.'' And there has been great work done
under the Communities That Care model to look at risk factors.
Paul had identified that we can see ahead of time, often ahead
of time, who are at the greater risk. And there was a great op-
ed piece this weekend in the Inquirer by Dr. Bill Schwab from
University of Pennsylvania. He's a surgeon that deals in the
trauma centers. But he talks about looking at this in the same
way we deal with the healthcare issue, where we identify the
greatest risk for heart disease, and then you look to
preventions for the kinds of things you can do to prevent that
from happening. We're not doing it with violence in the way
that we can, by identifying those most at risk. There are many
great programs, many of which have been identified, once we do
that. And I think using that model will be effective.
I have one other observation, though, that I think is
significant, that's often missed. We also have a tremendous
moving target when we're discussing the at-risk youth, because
there's remarkable transience, not just from school to school
within a district, or neighborhood to neighborhood, but really
from city to city. And the problem is exacerbated when the kids
keep moving to different areas, and then leave the protection
of the programs that we've got in place for them.
Senator Specter. Would the concluding answerers try to be a
little briefer?
Mr. Zahorchak. Will do. Eighty-two percent of the people
who are incarcerated are high school dropouts. It begins, I
think, as Paul said, by the end of the third grade. But by the
end of age 3, 30 million less word utterances to a child in
poverty. What can we do? We have the Nurse-Parent Partnership
that should be on that list. The Pre-K Counts and--the
supplementing the Head Start Program that the Governor is doing
to bring students to school as 3- and 4-year-olds are really
vital. And then, of course, the interventions, like, in
Pennsylvania, our alternative education programs, our student
assistance program, tutoring, mentoring, the 21st century for--
places for kids who are at risk to be after school hours with
mentoring built into those places, all should be on the list.
Mr. Ramos. I think most of the programs we've spoken about
today are, as you noted, Senator, short-term-oriented, they're
intervention. And they are, sort of, trying to intervene where
many failures have happened before. And we've--and the
additional YVRP and AVRP and other programs you've heard
about--other--one thing we haven't spoken about that's--I would
put in that short-term category is dealing with the issue of
reentry. We also know that violence also relates very heavily--
correlates very heavily with recidivism among people who have
been in the criminal justice system, have been incarcerated at
some point before.
On a more long-term basis, in--can't--it certainly can't be
overstated--the value of strengthening the educational system,
particularly at the pre-K level, but also noting, in addition
to education funding and Head Start funding, the consequences
of some of the other trends, including cuts in welfare funding
and housing. While those don't impact us as instantaneously as
some of these other failures, they certainly make their way
down the pipeline, and they come back to bite us.
Senator Specter. Mr. Johnson, do you care to respond?
Commissioner Johnson. Well, the only thing I think from my
personal point of view, I think if a child, even though he's
neither--he's at risk if he's born into a single-parent home.
He's at risk if he's born to a parent who's addicted to drugs.
He's at risk if he's born into poverty. So, even from the very
beginning of his life, if he's born into poverty if he's born
to a single parent, he's born to parents who are addicted,
they're at risk before they even come to the criminal justice
system. We have to deal with--something to deal with those
kids.
Senator Specter. Mr. Delaney?
Mr. Delaney. I would just add two things, Senator. One is
the recognition that the criminal justice system is a system.
Granting more funds for more police officers would add
additional people to prosecute or defend or supervise them is a
failure.
Finally, I would add that we can't give up on people who,
once they offend, are still in our communities. We spend a lot
of money and a lot of resources on people in incarceration, as
it should be, but we pay very little attention to offenders who
remain in our community who need both support and supervision.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you all very much. I would
like you to supplement your responses, in addition to the
issues already covered, with a projection as to how many at-
risk youth there are in our city, and what additional mentors
we need. And that fits in with the request as to whether you
would press your own organizations to provide some additional
mentoring.
Well, thank you very much.
We now turn to our second panel, Ms. Carroll, Ms.
McClanahan, Mr. Pennington, Mr. Fair, and Mr. Harkavy.
[Pause.]
Senator Specter. We now turn to our second panel. Thank you
for joining us. And we will focus now with experts in the field
of handling at-risk youth, delinquency problems, and the
mentoring issue.
And we turn, as our first witness, to Ms. Jennifer Carroll,
the director of the Match Support Program of Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania. Prior to joining
this organization, she worked with special-needs children in a
number of capacities. The Big Brothers Big Sisters program has
worked with some 70,000 youths with some 500 agencies across
the country, and has found that, with 18 months of mentoring,
participants are 56 percent less likely to skip school, and 46
percent less likely to initiate drug use.
Thank you for joining us, Ms. Carroll, and we look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER CARROLL, DIRECTOR, MATCH SUPPORT, BIG
BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Carroll. Thank you, Senator, for inviting us to testify
today and for bringing attention to the challenges facing the
youth in our city.
I would also like to thank the Senator for his long and
strong support with mentoring, and acknowledge the work of his
Appropriations Subcommittee in funding critical national
mentoring initiatives.
Big Brothers Big Sisters makes and supports one-to-one
relationships between at-risk children and volunteer mentors.
And we know about the power that these friends and role models
have in young lives.
In 2006, we served 2,900 children, the vast majority of
them from Philadelphia. Our near-term goal is to serve 5,000
children annually, because we know that the need in this
community is great. In fact, we have more than 1,300 children
on the waiting list, the vast majority of them young boys
living here in Philadelphia. In a city where 180,000 children
ages 14 and over had eight or more absences last year, where
half of ninth-graders don't graduate on time, and where the
number of murders involving young males continues to skyrocket,
it is clear we need to do more to support the youth in our
community, and mentoring is one approach that helps.
Other panelists today can emphasize the research
documenting the positive impacts of mentoring. What I want to
emphasize are the steps that we take to make it work.
Since the beginning of Big Brothers Big Sisters over a
century ago, our organization has focused on at-risk youth,
usually children from single-parent families growing up in
depressed economic situations. Today we also have programs that
focus on children who are already demonstrating patterns of
delinquency or truancy, or who are already beginning to engage
in violence.
Our Amachi mentoring program specifically targets children
who have parents in prison. We serve children ages 6 to 18,
though our strong preference is to match children before the
age of 13.
Based on census estimates of the number of children living
at or below poverty level, we estimate there are over 80,000
children in Philadelphia who are at risk because of factors
such as poverty, poor education, or challenging family
circumstances. So, as we've grown over the years, more than
doubling the number of children we serve annually since 2002,
we've had to spend more time recruiting mentors for our
programs.
We know we need to match more of the children on our
waiting list. We're working to highlight the need and value of
mentoring so that more men step up. We're working to counter
the image that a person has to be a saint or a CEO in order to
be a good mentor by emphasizing that everyone has experiences,
insights, and interests that are valuable for children. In
fact, we're currently working on campaigns to emphasize the
``average Joe'' has much to offer children. We're not looking
for perfection, we're looking for good people who are willing
to commit to spending time with a child.
We know that the way to build strong, safe, and impactful
relationships is through careful screening of mentors and
through professional support after the match is made. Asking
our volunteers to commit to meeting their Little Brother or
Little Sister two to four times a month for a period of a year
is important. The total volunteer time our mentors spend with
children in the program, roughly 144,000 hours a year, is
impressive and a testimony to the volunteer spirit. And 63
percent of our nearly 2,100 open matches have lasted more than
12 months.
In Philadelphia, we've benefited from our relationships
with the city and school district. We would not be able to
serve the thousands of children we do each year without their
support. The challenges we face--a need for more African-
American male mentors, unpredictable funding streams,
increasing demands for documentation, an overlap of databases
and reporting for different funders--are challenges faced by
nonprofits and Big Brother Big Sister programs everywhere. But
in a city where millions are spent on incarceration, surely we
can find the financial and political will to ensure the
children over--the future of our children.
The reality is that mentoring is a cost-effective
intervention. The cost of making and professionally supporting
a one-to-one relationship for a year is a mere fraction of the
cost of juvenile incarceration.
Finally, we know that there is still enormous untapped
potential in our community. Just last week, one of our local
newspaper columnists did a story on 13-year-old Nasheed, who
was just matched with his Big Brother. Nasheed has been on our
waiting list since he was 8 years old. As a result of that
story, we've had a noticeable increase in the number of males
inquiring about becoming a Big Brother.
In the end, it's simple. Mentoring is not a cure for the
challenges facing the city, but it clearly belongs as part of a
multipronged approach. Our children need mentors, and engaging
this community in the lives of our children is imperative.
On behalf of Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern
Pennsylvania, thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Carroll appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Ms. Carroll. I
inadvertently was looking for Ms. McClanahan as the first
witness, but thank you.
Ms. Carroll. You're welcome.
Senator Specter. We do now turn to Ms. Wendy McClanahan,
vice president for the Research of Public/Private Ventures,
which analyzes the effectiveness of the youth programs.
Ms. McClanahan holds an MS in human development and is
currently working on her Ph.D. at the University of
Pennsylvania. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WENDY MCCLANAHAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH,
PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES (P/PV)
Ms. McClanahan. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today.
Public/Private Ventures' mission is to improve the
effectiveness of social policies, programs, and community
initiatives, especially as they affect youth and young adults.
We do this by identifying or developing promising approaches to
critical social problems by rigorously evaluating these
approaches and, when suitable, by replicating them in new
communities.
Like the other stakeholders, P/PV is deeply concerned about
violent crime, which is on the rise in many of our Nation's
cities. Homicides in urban areas have increased, and, in
Philadelphia, homicide was up by 15 percent in 2005.
Unfortunately, this increase looks like it might be the start
of a trend.
Many have expressed hope that mentoring can play a role in
reducing violent crime. For more than 15 years, P/PV has been
investigating the value of mentoring as a strategy to improve
the lives of young people. In our pivotal report on Big
Brothers Big Sisters program, titled ``Making a Difference,''
we presented evidence, persuasive evidence derived from a
rigorous random assignment study that well-designed mentoring
programs could measurably decrease negative behaviors and
increase positive behaviors among young people.
In a series of projects over the past decade, P/PV has
extended its reach into mentoring programs in a variety of
service environments, including its impact on crime and
violence, and has added to the findings about mentoring's
potential.
For today's panel, I would characterize the findings from
this work as follows:
Mentoring offers real promise in reducing violence among
children, youth, and young adults, but there are important
qualifications that are essential to understanding both the
value and the limitations of mentoring. Some of the positive
findings are heartening. We saw a reduction in homicides
through YVRP, decreased recidivism rates in an employment-
oriented program for ex-prisoners, called ``Ready4Work,'' lower
incidents of depression among youth in a program for justice-
system-involved juveniles, called the National Faith-based
Initiative,'' less violence behavior--violent behavior and
substance abuse among youngsters in BBBS, and a significant
reduction in child abuse and neglect and subsequent parental
behavior of both mothers and their children in the Nurse-Family
Partnerships.
Findings such as these should rightfully inform decisions
about national and local intervention policies and the role of
mentoring, in particular. That is all to the good. However, the
qualifications, significant ones, are far too often overlooked
or minimized.
I want to emphasize three qualifications, in particular,
that we need to keep in mind based on P/PV's research. First,
mentoring is not a cure-all social intervention or a magic
bullet. Particularly for very high-risk populations, the
criminally involved, and the young adults we're concerned with
today, P/PV's research suggests that mentoring alone isn't an
answer. These young people bring rough histories. Multiple
supports and services in well-crafted program settings are
essential to alter, even slightly, the trajectory of their
lives. In the Ready4Work Program, for instance, mentoring did
appear to contribute to improved outcomes, but there was also
intensive case management, wraparound services, and job-
placement assistance, a dense web of support that gave the
opportunity for these mentoring relationships to take root.
Similarly, the mentoring that took place in the YVRP was
accompanied by regular supervision from probation officers. And
the mentors in this program were full-time employees, paid
streetworkers. P/PV believes it was the overall service package
that helped reduce the incidence of violent behavior.
Second, just as there aren't free lunches, mentoring is not
the cost-free social program it's often made out to be. The
experience of BBBS makes it clear that the cost of goods,
screening, training, and ongoing professional support are far
from negligible. And in programs that use paid streetworkers or
paid counselors, such as NFP and YVRP, the costs are even
higher. But the need for strong supports is paramount. P/PV's
work suggests that a solid support apparatus is crucial for
mentors of high-risk adolescents and young adults. But these
costs are likely far lower than the costs of long-term
incarceration.
Third, mentoring isn't easy, either as a programmatic task
or a personal commitment. For programs, there is the continuing
challenge of finding enough individuals prepared to dedicate
the time and energy to building a relationship and matching
them with the right mentee. When that mentee is a high-risk
youth or a young adult returning from incarceration, finding
suitable and willing volunteers, and keeping them, is a serious
challenge. The Ready4Work Program, despite strenuous and
sustained effort by staff, was able to match mentors with just
over 50 percent of its participants.
There are other challenges. For example, the ex-offender
him-or herself may have no interest in having a mentor, or have
other demands on his or her time.
We also need to be mindful of the larger reality. With
these high-risk populations, even our most striking statistical
success is modest. Recidivism rates may be reduced, but still
remain too high. Homicides and violent behavior are lessened,
but by too little.
But the successes are real and substantial, and our work to
date has established that mentoring can contribute to
measurable benefits in a variety of settings.
On behalf of P/PV, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McClanahan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you, Ms. McClanahan.
Our next witness is Mr. Michael Pennington, juvenile
justice specialist for the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, considerable experience in the issues involving
delinquency, substances abuse, school dropout, teen pregnancy,
and related programs.
Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Pennington, to address
the subject matter on a statewide basis.
STATEMENT OF MIKE PENNINGTON, JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST,
PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY
Mr. Pennington. Thank you. Good morning, Senators. Thank
you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about youth
violence, which is a major concern for all of us.
Although there are many factors that contribute to youth
violence, I would like to focus my remarks today on prevention
programs that are grounded in research and on quality aftercare
and reentry services for youth leaving delinquency placements.
The demand for prevention programs that have been proven
effective in preventing adolescent problem behavior has never
been grater. Historically, many of the resources committed to
the prevention of youth violence, delinquency, and other
problem behaviors have been invested in untested programs with
little or no evaluation. Without quality, aftercare, and
prevention, you will see more youth violence.
Today, we are blessed with a substantial body of research
that tells us what contributes to these behaviors and what can
help us prevent them. The goal of our prevention funding is to
support the implementation of programs that prevention
scientists have evaluated and deemed effective at reducing
problem behaviors. Some of these programs that we have funded,
known as Blueprints for Violence Prevention Model Programs,
include Big Brothers and Big Sisters mentoring programs,
multisystemic therapy, functional family therapy, bullying
prevention, and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies.
I think it is critical that we continue to invest in
proven, effective programs. For example, the Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies Program, PATHS, is a program
that promotes emotional and social competencies, and reducing
aggression and behavioral problems in elementary-school-aged
children, while enhancing the educational process in the
classrooms. Evaluations have demonstrated significant
improvements in the following areas: increased ability to
tolerate frustration, improved self-control, and use of more
effective conflict resolution strategies.
One of the requirements of our funding is that applications
be submitted on behalf of a local collaborative board. Based
on--local collaborative boards, must conduct a risk and
resource assessment that includes--identifies priorities--risk
factors for problem behaviors. This will help local communities
select evidence-based programs that would be most effective,
and the development within a collaborative environment within
their community to ensure that the prevention strategy is
developed within a collaborative environment.
Even though these are model programs, they will not result
in significant improvements for children and families if they
are not implemented the way each was designed and tested. It is
critical that we provide strong and proactive technical
assistance to local communities that receive our funding to
ensure quality implementation. Technical assistance is also
provided to develop an outcome assessment plan, as well as a
plan for sustaining the program long term.
It is important that we continue to work collaboratively
across State agencies and with local community efforts so that
our prevention efforts are well coordinated to best utilize and
maximize our collective resources.
There are some proven initiatives to build on in
Pennsylvania. Communities That Care, which is now a critical
tool as part of Federal SAMHSA's strategic prevention
framework. CTC is a violence and delinquency prevention
strategy, provides communities with a process to mobilize the
community, identify risk and preventive factors, and develop a
comprehensive prevention plan.
Another major initiative in Pennsylvania is developing a
comprehensive aftercare system by the year 2010. Stakeholders
in the juvenile justice system, as well as others in relates
systems, are working together to develop a model aftercare
system for youth leaving delinquency placements.
A comprehensive approach to aftercare will ensure that
youth receive timely and appropriate social support in areas
such as enrolling immediately in school or having a job waiting
for them, continuing the follow-up services that are required
for those who receive physical or behavior health treatment
while in care, having strong adult support from family or other
caring adults, having sufficient attention paid to developing
their competencies while in care, so they can successfully
return to their home and community.
It is important that returning juveniles who need to
continue their treatment in community have access to a
continuum of services that have been demonstrated to be
effective. Effective aftercare is crucial if youths are to
benefit from residential treatment programs and successfully
return home.
I think we can all agree that it would be ideal if we could
prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system in the
first place. Successful delinquency prevention programs attempt
to increase protective factors, those positive traits, beliefs,
relationships, and connections in juveniles' lives that help
them overcome diversity. As parents, we want these for our own
children. We should want no less for children at risk of
entering the juvenile justice system. Without quality aftercare
and prevention, you will see more youth violence in our
communities.
There are no easy solutions to addressing youth violence,
but we do know that healthy communities, strong families, and
quality education are critical to the success of our youth.
I submitted additional supplemental written testimony on
our juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plan, and an
overview of our prevention initiative outline for more detail
on our programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to our working together and providing youth with the
best opportunities to be successful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pennington appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Pennington.
Our next witness is Mr. David Fair, vice president for
community impact for The United Way of Southeastern
Pennsylvania. Previously, he worked with the city of
Philadelphia on youth services, bachelor's degree from the
University of Pennsylvania, and currently studying for a
mater's degree in social work at Temple.
Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Fair, and the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF DAVID FAIR, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNITY IMPACT
FOR THE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fair. Thank you.
Since 1921, our United Way has raised an invested several
billion dollars of financial contributions and mobilized
countless hours of volunteer energy to relieve the pain and
suffering of vulnerable people throughout our region. And in
those 86 years, we have learned, again and again, a very
obvious lesson: it is often easier to despair that the problems
facing us are intractable than it is to make the effort to
actually solve them. We commend both of you for taking this
opportunity today to help us focus on real solutions to the
challenge of youth violence.
For too long, we have invested both taxpayer and charitable
dollars in experimenting with ever new approaches, while
failing to direct adequate resources to the strategies that
have already been shown to work in today's world.
I have worked for over 30 years in a variety of health and
social service fields, and in each environment we have always
recognized the importance of mentoring as an essential
component of any solutions-focused effort to help our children.
But because of regulations, politics, habit, when it comes to
spending money, priority has always been given to hiring and
supporting more and more professional staff to do what we used
to rely on families and communities to accomplish. We believe
that solutions to the problems of youth violence can best be
found not just in more professional services, but by investing
in those families and communities themselves. We must continue
to study the effectiveness of different mentoring models, but
we don't have to wait for more studies to know what we need to
do today
Expansion of quality programs, matching adult and peer
mentors to youth is needed now in all parts of our region. We
need new approaches to offering mentoring that fit with today's
urban realities and reflect the developmental needs of the
youth we mentor. Traditional mentoring models, while still
effective for many youth, sometimes fall short in helping
today's highest-risk and older youth face the many complicated
challenges and obstacles that limit their chances for future
success. We need to address the shortage of male mentors and
mentors of color, the difficulty many mentors have in relating
to and supporting more troubled youth, the resistance many
young have to trusting mentors because of bad experiences with
other adults, and that--the lack of human and financial
resources at hand, to be more creative in defining what a
mentor is and ways of mentoring that are designed for today's
world.
As we've heard, more and more of our young people are
facing more serious and numerous risks, and the mentoring they
need is much more complicated than it used to be. More and more
of our adult mentors are finding they can't handle the
challenges presented by their mentees, because they have not
been adequately trained or did not realize what they were
getting into, and because no one individual functioning alone
can adequately counter the influence of a poisonous peer
culture.
We need to accept that, at least for those youth of higher
risk of committing or being victimized by violence, we need to
do more than set up more opportunities for volunteer adults to
play only a glancing role in their lives. Mentoring is not
about ``hanging out,'' and it's no longer about simply
providing a way for kids to get to ball games they might not
have been able to get to on their own. For older youth,
mentoring must be provided in the context of adolescent
developmental needs, including working with the influence and
importance of peer relationships and addressing the pressures
of academic and employment demands. We have an urgent need to
create a much larger cadre of mentors that is determined in its
approach to this work, is willing to learn new ways of engaging
and working with their mentees, and which comes from the
communities where the youth live. We need to make sure that
these mentors learn the skills they need to overcome the
barriers that keep them from being more effective with their
mentees, and that sometimes discourage them from sticking it
out when the child tests their commitment. We need community
organizations to find more effective ways to nurture and
support both mentors and mentees in what for both can be among
the most important relationships they ever have. We need to
provide the context for safe and effective mentoring for older
youth, including alternative approaches, such as group
mentoring and career- or academically focused mentoring.
This is not going to be easy. Today's young people are not
growing up in the world that most of us did. A growing body of
research is recognizing the impact of chronic violence and
community trauma on these children. Our teens today grew up
during the height of the crack epidemic, a time characterized
by a spike in murder and addiction. This violence and drug
penetration was significantly higher in the neighborhoods in
which these young people grew up than citywide statistics
reflect. Many of these young people grew up believing that the
adults could not care for them adequately, or even protect
them; and so, they organized themselves, as best they could, to
care for and protect themselves. The resulting culture has
redefined our work with young people, many of whom we have
taught to be leery of adults, hypervigilant about perceived
threats, and despondent about their own futures.
We're not ignorant of these realities, but we are somehow
disconnected from our power to do something about them. We
often respond to the crisis facing so many of our children as
if it was a forest fire. As you may know, there's a couple of
ways to fight a forest fire. You can put it out, or you can set
up a fire break. A fire break creates a barrier around the fire
so that it doesn't spread. Then you wait for the fire itself to
burn itself out.
At United Way, we suggest that we--that various public
systems of care recognize that quality mentoring can be an
essential tool that they each must use to achieve their
objectives for the people they serve. In the field of
mentoring, we need to create new and stronger ways of training
mentors, especially those with intensive challenges. In the
community, we need to prioritize----
Senator Specter. Mr. Fair, how much more time will you
need?
Mr. Fair. Just 15 seconds, sir.
Senator Specter. Okay.
Mr. Fair. In the community, we need to prioritize support
for new strategies to recruit mentors, especially mentors of
color and male mentors. We need to invest in new models of
mentoring that address the developmental needs of older youth.
Part of the 30 years I spent in social services was in the
behavioral health field, and one thing I learned from those
days was how important hope and expectation are to the success
of psychotherapy. I think that is also true about mentoring. We
ask that we resist giving in to the despair that makes us think
that youth violence is inevitable and that it can only be
solved with a police response. We ask that we choose to invest
in hope for our children rather than in simply managing their
pain. We ask that we don't just build a fire break and let the
fire burn, because we've learned another lesson in those 86
years. We know we have it within us to put the fire out.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fair appears as a submission
for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Fair.
Our final witness is Dr. Ira Harkavy, who is the associate
vice president and founding director of the Center of Community
Partnerships at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Harkavy
holds a bachelor's degree and Ph.D. in history from the
University of Pennsylvania.
We welcome you here, Dr. Harkavy, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF IRA HARKAVY, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT AND FOUNDING
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Harkavy. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Specter. I want
to thank you for inviting me to testify at this most important
hearing. I want to thank Senator Casey for your participation.
Truly democratic partnerships between universities and
schools is a powerful strategy for changing communities,
school, and higher education itself, and for reducing youth
violence. The partnerships that I will describe represent the
fruits of over two decades of collaboration between Penn,
community organizations, and the public schools in Philadelphia
and West Philadelphia. I should note, Senator Specter, that
your--you have been a supporter of this, as initially Joan
Specter was when she was a council member, and Senator Casey's
father, Governor Casey, provided enormous support over the
years for this effort. I want to thank both of you for that
support.
The Penn Center for Community Partnerships, together with
community partners, have created University-Assisted Community
Schools that are centers of education and engagement that
provide a range of services for students, their parents, and
other community members. This approach works toward tapping,
integrating, mobilizing, and galvanizing the resources of
communities, including colleges and universities, to improve
the community, the school, and the education of students.
Somewhat more specifically, the strategy assumes that, like
colleges and universities, public schools can function as
environment-changing institutions that can become the strategic
centers of broadbased partnerships that genuinely engage and
coordinate a wide variety of community organizations and
institutions.
Public schools belong to all members of the community. They
are, therefore, particularly well suited to function as
neighborhood hubs or a nodes around which local partnerships
and youth programs can be generated and formed. When they play
that role, schools function as community institutions par
excellence. They then provide a decentralized democratic
community-based response to significant community problems and
simultaneously help young people make positive contributions to
the community and learn better--and learn better through
action-oriented, collaborative community-based problem solving.
Begun in 1985 by Penn and its school and community
partners, the University-Assisted Community School Program now
involves over 6,000 children, youth, parents, and community
members each year in its six primary sites in West
Philadelphia. Additional school-day, after-school, family, and
community program reach several thousand more individuals.
Through collaboration between school, university, and
community partners, each University-Assisted Community School
site has a variety of locally determined activities and
partnerships, often with a focus on health, environment, arts,
and culture. The programs engage students K through 16 in real-
world, hands-on community problem solving that is integrated
into the school curriculum, as well as through extended-day,
weekend, and summer programs.
Young people at each of these schools are engaged in
creative work designed to advance their skills, abilities, and
personal and social development through service to their
school, families, and community. At Penn, faculty and students
are engaged in service learning activities that involve the
application of knowledge to solve these problems. Over 150
courses have been offered, 57 in 2006-07 academic year alone,
engaging more than 60 faculty members. More than 1,400 students
participate in academically based community service courses.
Penn student support all aspects of this program by assisting
evenings, weekends, and during the school day.
Briefly summarized, I'll cite one program. That is a
program at Sayre High School that involves the creation of a
school-based community health center. That health center now
involves faculty and students from throughout the University of
Pennsylvania, literally hundreds of students and over 20
faculty, linking the academic work of Penn students to
improving the school and community.
Simultaneously, the students at the Sayre School are
learning through the delivery of healthcare and the
implementation of health services, under the leadership of
university faculty and students. For example, medical intake
procedure programs have developed in which Sayre students learn
about community health concerns, such as hypertension, obesity,
diabetes, and gain clinical experience through working on the
school-based health center. When this--a school health center
will actually formally open, they will work under Penn doctors
and nurses on a basis of linking their entire academic program.
Also, this program has extended to after-school activities
that involve students and faculty working after school, weekend
programs, 21C programs, and a variety of other activities. K
through 8 programs exist, programs for high school students,
evening programs for adults, basketball leagues, summer
programs serving hundreds, if not thousands, of members of that
community and school. And a major antiviolence initiative has
been developed by the community school and Penn's faculty and
staff.
The issue here is that, simultaneously, this increases and
improves the functioning of the University of Pennsylvania and
the functioning of the school and links to the learning and
development of students.
In summary, University-Assisted Community Schools serve,
educate, and activate students and their families and other
local residents. Students not only learn by doing, but also
learn by and for service. Simultaneously, the university
benefits from the unique critical opportunities community
schools provide for learning, research, civil consciousness,
outreach, and program development. Putting this theory into
practice, the Sayre-Penn University-Assisted Community School
model holds promise for West Philadelphia, Penn, other
communities across the country. We currently work with over 100
universities----
Senator Specter. Dr. Harkavy, how much more time will you--
--
Mr. Harkavy. About 17 seconds. Right at the very end.
To speed and advance the development of University-Assisted
Community Schools as a vehicle to make our schools and
communities safer for students, teachers, parents,
neighborhoods, businesses, and the Federal Government, the
Government could, in fact, do the following:
One, develop and apply innovative funding strategies that
provide support to broadbased local coalitions designed to
develop and sustain University-Assisted Community Schools.
Two, create a multi-agency Federal commission designed to
advance and implement University-Assisted Community Schools.
And, three, strengthen and expand community-based work-
study to engage more students with local public schools.
I want to thank you, Senator Specter, for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harkavy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you, Dr. Harkavy.
Ms. Carroll, you estimated that there are some 80,000 at-
risk young people in the city of Philadelphia. How do you come
to that figure?
Ms. Carroll. That's our estimate based on census data,
that--children currently living at or below poverty level, in
addition to other risk factors, such as parents that did not
graduate high school, difficult family circumstances, other
different factors that factor into children being at risk.
Senator Specter. And you have testified--or, in your
written testimony--that you are short some 1,300 mentors,
because 1,300 requests have been made.
Ms. McClanahan, you have noted in your testimony that there
are tens of thousands of college students in the Philadelphia
area, where they could receive credit for functioning as
mentors. Has your organization undertaken any effort to try to
get the colleges and universities in the area to provide
mentors?
Ms. McClanahan. We have not. The bulk of our work, looking
at where mentors can be recruited from, have been with--in
terms of new strategies--have been----
Senator Specter. Do you think----
Ms. McClanahan [continuing].--Actually with the----
Senator Specter. Do you think the----
Ms. McClanahan [continuing].--Faith-based communities.
Senator Specter. Do you think that such an effort would be
likely to be successful? Let me direct that question to you,
Dr. Harkavy. The University of Pennsylvania has a relationship
with Sayre High School. Are you able to counsel or mentor
students at risk at Sayre?
Mr. Harkavy. Absolutely. The mentoring occurs both through
classroom day experiences, and also a variety of after-school
activities, that involve a relationship in which students work
on such issues as college access, work on issues such as
improving academic performance, but also form a relationship in
which the college student works with the high school student in
a broad range of areas to improve the academic work and
performance of the student.
Senator Specter. How success is that?
Mr. Harkavy. Over the period of time that we've had this
program and a variety of others throughout this city and around
the country, the data indicates very strong results. It
indicates results from the youngest children all the way
through high school.
Senator Specter. How many students from the University of
Pennsylvania are engaged in that program?
Mr. Harkavy. Currently, I would say, at the Sayre program
alone, there must be--over 200 students must be engaged----
Senator Specter. What would you say----
Dr. Harkavy [continuing]. With Sayre.
Senator Specter [continuing]. The potential was for Penn
students to participate? You have--what's the size of your
student body now?
Mr. Harkavy. It's about 9,000 students. There are currently
1,400----
Senator Specter. There is enormous potential there.
Mr. Harkavy. Absolutely. I actually--just one note,
quickly--there are 1,400 students currently----
Senator Specter. Do those students get any benefit or
credit for doing that?
Mr. Harkavy. They do, do this. The benefit they--a number
of the students do this work as part of their academic work at
Penn, so they're involved in active service learning courses in
which they focus on, How do you improve reading? How do you
improve nutrition? How you improve healthcare in those
communities? And I would argue, Senator Specter, that colleges
and universities are the single greatest resource available for
engaging mentors and helping to improve local public schooling
in a comprehensive model in which mentoring is one strong
component.
Senator Specter. Mr. Fair, your written testimony, you
point out that there are billions of dollars spent each year
in, quote, ``not preventing situations that lead to violence,
but in ineffective temporary fixes of a haphazard symbol--
symptom relief.'' What, specifically, would you suggest, to
redirect those billions of dollars?
Mr. Fair. I think, Senator, that it's important for us to
hold accountable the more high-end interventions to the same
standards we hold prevention services accountable to. For many
years, I ran a--the Division of Prevention Services for the
city's Department of Human Services, and we always were asked
to meet incredibly high standards, and quick standards, of
effectiveness in how we were preventing child abuse, neglect,
or delinquency. But what we don't spend enough time looking at
is when we place 1,700 kids in delinquent care every year, but
don't help them reintegrate into the community, as several
others have testified. And they recidivate, and they become
adults who are homeless or adults who are incarcerated. But
those are outcomes that should make us question whether or not
incarceration of teenagers is, in fact, an appropriate
response. My----
Senator Specter. Mr.----
Mr. Fair. My reference was basically that we need to
rethink, What are we trying to achieve with taxpayer dollars?
And stop treating just the symptoms, but also try to invest in
prevention.
Senator Specter. Mr. Pennington, would you have any
projection as to how many at-risks youths there are statewide?
Mr. Pennington. I don't have that figure on hand. I now
that there's--in 2005, is--concerning the juvenile justice,
there were 45 dispositions of kids in the juvenile justice
system. But from--we administer the Federal and State funds
throughout the State, and what I do know, from getting those
applications in on a yearly basis, is the tremendous need out
there, when local communities apply for funding.
Senator Specter. Would you give some thought to that, so we
could have a statewide projection there?
Mr. Pennington. Sure.
Senator Specter. The red light went on as I was asking you
my last question, Mr. Pennington. So, I'll turn now to Senator
Casey.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator.
I know I--in my questioning last time, I went over, so--
I've been on this committee for all but an hour, so if I want
to stay on the committee, I'd better be careful here.
Thank you. I want to commend all of you for your work and
for the scholarship that went into your testimony, and,
obviously, the hours and days and weeks and months of the work
you do to bring us the benefit of that experience.
One thing I wanted to ask you is something very practical.
Senator Specter was focused on this. I want to follow up on it.
Obviously, from the numbers that you've given him and given
today by way of testimony, we have a big shortage. What do you
think is the most effective recruitment strategy? Let me just
preface this by saying that it--in my experience in State
government, for example the Children's Health Insurance
Program, a program that helps kids and their families,
obviously, with healthcare, often the only way to get families
to enroll is to buy television time. Everything else was
secondary to television time. I don't want to be too simplistic
here, but other than having a nonprofit or government pay for
television ads, which I think will actually work, what else can
we do, or what else can be done, to recruit people to serve as
mentors?
Ms. Carroll. I'd like to answer that, Senator Casey. One
things we've seen--one thing we've seen other States do is to
encourage employees of the State or the police department or
any local or State departments, to volunteer on their lunch
hour by giving them paid time off to do so. And that's been
very successful in other States, like Florida. Specifically,
the Amachi program, which targets children of incarcerated
parents, and giving individuals working in the juvenile justice
system time off to volunteer, which--they make great mentors;
that would be a great strategy.
Senator Casey. So, employers--and Senator Specter was
mentioning the fact that government employers, like all of us
here, should participate in that. And I think that's a great
idea.
Let me ask another very basic question, just to give people
a sense of what we're talking about here. I know there may not
be one definitive model here, but, just generally, based upon
your experience, describe the average week of a mentor. In
other words, how many hours, what's the interactions, how many
hours a day. Can anyone, kind of, do a quick summary of what
is--in other--what's it like to be a mentor, in a particular
workweek?
Ms. Carroll. What Big Brothers Big Sisters asks is two to
four visits per month. We offer a variety options. So, you can
visit a child at school during their lunch hour. You can visit
them after school. And that may take an hour a week. But, to
that child, it means a lot that you came to visit. We also have
the community-based option, which can be anywhere from 2 to 4
hours on the--in the evenings or on the weekends and lets you
engage in a wide variety of things together, doing things in
your community, exposing the child to new experiences. So, it
really can vary.
Senator Casey. And I'm almost out of time. I'm giving
Senator Specter back a minute that I stole from him earlier.
But I wanted to--Ms. McClanahan, I wanted to highlight
something you testified to by way a--emphasis, not necessarily
a question. But on page 3 of your testimony, you say, and I
quote, at the bottom of the page, that ``mentoring can
contribute to measurable benefits in a variety of settings,
including programs for high-risk youth, violence-prone youth,
and ex-prisoners.'' So, is that a longer way of saying
``mentoring works?'' You can say that definitively?
Ms. McClanahan. We can say definitively that mentoring
works, with the important implication, as I talked about during
my testimony, that it also needs to be coupled, for this
population, with other core services, like employment and
education.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Senator Casey,
for your participation. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Without objection, my full statement will be made a part of
the record.
And I want to thank the Constitution Center and its
president, Joe Torricella, for making available these
facilities to us again today. We have been here with some
frequency in the past on our hearings, and it is a great spot
to talk about matters of public policy.
And for those who may be watching on the Pennsylvania Cable
Network, let me say that it's a rare treat to come to the
Constitution Center and to come through the interactive
exhibits which are here. You can ask a question and get a
dissertation on cases argued in the Supreme Court of the United
States. You can vote for President, whether you think President
Washington or President Lincoln or President Kennedy was the
greatest President. We have a set, set up, where you can raise
your hand and be sworn in as President of the United States,
and have your picture taken as if you were really there. That's
the closest I've come. And others might----
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter [continuing]. Be interested in having a
similar experience. So, that--the Constitution Center is a
great spot to come and visit.
We intend to follow up on this hearing in a number of
directions. Senator Casey and I, on the work of the Senate,
will see if we can find some directed funding to those other
nine police districts, at $1.6 million each, which have had
such good results. And we'll take a look at the 18- to 24-year
category that testimony was given to. And I intend to write to
all the university presidents, and college, and will ask
Senator Casey to join me in suggesting that they try to
structure programs to give credit or encourage students to
participate as mentors. With the testimony of Ms. Carroll, of
80,000 at-risk students, that's quite a lot, and there are
1,300 seeking mentors right now. And Ms. Carroll's additional
testimony, that many who need mentors haven't requested them.
And I'm going to follow up with Director Ramos on the question
of whether we might find some volunteer funds to clean up the--
to make the streets safe, as people are willing to pay to make
the streets clean. Safety--cleanliness is next to godliness.
Safety is survival, so that--that's another avenue to be
directed.
And I would encourage the media covering this event to put
the specific request by Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, that
people ought to come forward and ought to volunteer to be
mentors. And write to Senator Casey or myself on that subject,
or pick up the phone and call my Philadelphia office, 215
repeat that, Michael?
Senator Specter. 215-597-7200.
That concludes our hearing. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
<all>