**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency**

**Prevention Quarterly Meeting**

**June 6, 2008**

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531

**Abstract**

At the June 2008 Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, members heard presentations
on the Girls Study Group research findings and their implications from
Margaret Zahn, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Research and
Evaluation, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice; Stephanie R. Hawkins, Project Director,
Girls Study Group, and Research Clinical Psychologist, Crime, Violence
and Justice Program, RTI International; and Delbert S. Elliot, Director,
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral
Science, and Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Department of
Sociology, University of Colorado. Members then heard from a panel of
practitioners about Best Friends and other prevention programs for girls
in the District of Columbia. Panelists included Elayne Bennett,
President and Founder, Best Friends Foundation; Pauline Hamlette,
National and Metropolitan Program Director, Best Friends; Anita
Josey-Herring, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.

In addition, Council members heard updates on Council partnership
projects, and several attendees provided program updates on behalf of
their agencies.

Action items emanating from the June 2008 Council meeting are as
follows:

-   Council members requested an update at the September meeting on
    federal collaborative efforts to serve youth in the New Orleans
    area, including information on the U.S. Department of Labor's
    National Emergency Grant funds going to the Orleans Parish Juvenile
    Court.

**Meeting Summary**

**Welcome and Opening**

***J. Robert Flores, Vice Chair, Coordinating Council; Administrator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ)***

Mr. Flores called the June 6 quarterly meeting of the Coordinating
Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) to
order and welcomed Council members, federal staff, presenters, and
members of the public. He reviewed the meeting agenda and invited
members of the audience to submit their written questions to staff
members.

**Presentation on and Discussion of Girls Study Group Research
Findings**

Mr. Flores observed that the Girls Study Group (GSG) has done exciting
work during his tenure at OJJDP. When he first arrived at OJJDP, many
were beginning to ask questions about the rising rates of arrests for
girls. OJJDP staff developed a comprehensive \$2.5 million solicitation
for a 5-year research project on female delinquency. Following a
competitive selection process, RTI International was awarded the grant
to coordinate this effort. He observed that RTI selected a first-rate
team of experts from across the nation to participate. Products include
a literature review on girls, identification of gaps in information, and
a series of publications on research findings. Mr. Flores introduced the
panelists and welcomed them to the meeting.

**Girls Study Group Overview**

***Margaret Zahn, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Research and
Evaluation, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
DOJ***

Dr. Zahn, who served until recently as principal investigator for the
GSG, provided an overview of the history of the project. By 1999, there
was growing media attention and public concern about the perceived rise
in violent behavior among girls, and national data revealed an increase
in juvenile female arrests and an increase in juvenile female offenders
in custody. As researchers and practitioners in the field tried to
understand this phenomenon, they recognized that there was very little
research focusing on juvenile female offending. A number of questions
were raised:

-   Are girls becoming more violent?

-   What are the causes and pathways to delinquency among girls?

-   Are the causes and pathways different from those of boys?

-   What delinquency intervention programs are effective for girls?

-   Are existing risk assessment and screening instruments relevant for
    girls?

To answer these questions, the GSG was convened in 2004. Funded by OJJDP
and coordinated by RTI, the GSG consists of a multidisciplinary group of
researchers and practitioners. The mission of the project is to develop
the research foundation that communities need to make sound decisions
about how best to prevent and reduce delinquency and violence by girls.

The group's research activities included (1) a comprehensive review of
the literature related to girls' delinquency, (2) secondary data
analysis, (3) review of programs designed for girls and facilitation of
focus groups of youth and practitioners, and (4) review of screening and
assessment instruments.

Dissemination of research findings is a major component of the project,
and the following dissemination activities are under way: (1) an
interactive Web site (http://girlsstudygroup.rti.org/), (2) a book to be
published in November 2008, (3) OJJDP Bulletins, and (4) conference
presentations (to date, study group members have presented at 40
conferences to share findings with practitioners and academics).

**Research Findings**

***Stephanie R. Hawkins, Project Director, Girls Study Group; Research
Clinical Psychologist, Crime, Violence and Justice Program, RTI
International***

Dr. Hawkins outlined highlights of the GSG research findings.

***Literature Review:*** The group reviewed more than 1,600 books,
articles, and reports. A significant finding from the review is that
girls and boys experience many of the same risks, but they differ in
sensitivity to and rate of exposure to these risks. As a result, they
may have different programming and treatment needs.

***Secondary Data Analysis:*** Secondary analysis of several existing
datasets revealed a number of interesting findings.

-   Official arrest data (from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
    Uniform Crime Report) indicate that juvenile arrests for violent
    crimes generally *decreased* from 1996 to 2005, but the decrease was
    greater for boys (--28.7 percent) than for girls (--14.3 percent).
    For simple assaults, female arrests *increased* (24 percent) while
    male arrests declined (--4.1 percent). In contrast to official
    arrest data, self-reported data indicate that levels of assault for
    juvenile females and males have been fairly constant over the past
    two decades and that female involvement in violence has not
    increased relative to male violence. In other words, there has been
    more change in girls' arrests than in underlying violent behavior of
    girls. To explain this phenomenon, the GSG suggested that increases
    in girls' arrests may be an artifact of changing policies and
    attitudes (e.g., mandatory arrest policies and domestic violence
    laws, schools' zero-tolerance policies, widening definitions of
    violence, and shifts in societal attitudes). To explore issues
    related to domestic violence laws, the group analyzed data from
    DOJ's National Incident-Based Reporting System. This analysis
    revealed that mandatory and pro-arrest policies have increased the
    likelihood of arrest for girls and boys, but the effects are
    stronger for girls.

-   To learn more about resiliency and protective factors for girls, the
    study group examined adolescent health data. They found that several
    protective factors exist for girls (such as religiosity, a caring
    adult, engagement in school), but some are not strong enough to
    mitigate the influence of risks. It is important to know more about
    how protective factors operate in the lives of girls, when they are
    most relevant to girls' development, and which protective factors
    are strong enough to protect against particular risks.

-   Meta-analysis of 13 studies found a solid relationship between
    sexual abuse and female delinquency. However, this relationship is
    comparable to many other risk factors for female delinquency. In
    addition, there is no gender difference in delinquency outcomes for
    sexually abused youth. So, although sexual assault is very
    important, it should not be elevated above other risk factors for
    girls.

-   To learn more about pathways to delinquency, the group analyzed data
    from the Fast Track Project and the Denver Youth Study. They found
    that girls are involved in a range of delinquent behaviors and,
    contrary to widespread belief, running away is neither the most
    common nor the first offense. A sizeable number of girls are
    involved in serious delinquency, but this is short-lived and they
    revert back to lower levels of delinquency. Delinquent behaviors
    begin before middle school, so high school is too late to begin
    prevention programs.

***Screening and Assessment Instrument Review:*** The group reviewed 143
screening and assessment tools. Of these, 51 percent provided separate
norms or scoring systems for girls or showed favorable gender analysis.
However, only 3 of the 35 risk assessment instruments reviewed had been
developed and tested across multiple jurisdictions. This finding
suggests that many jurisdictions are using risk assessment tools that
are not necessarily appropriate for girls and points to the need for
more work in this area.

***Program Review:*** The group reviewed programs designed to prevent
and reduce female delinquency.

-   Of the 62 programs catalogued, only 18 had been evaluated. Of these
    18, none met the criteria to be rated as Effective or Effective with
    Reservation. Only 4 programs met the criteria to be rated as
    Promising. These findings point to the need for more evaluation of
    programs to ensure that they are effective.

-   Review of these programs revealed issues of sustainability. Of the
    18 evaluated programs, only 11 are still operating, and none of the
    4 programs rated as Promising are still operating.

-   Review of the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Programs (violence
    prevention and intervention programs that have been identified as
    effective) found that programs identified as Model Programs work
    well for girls as well as for boys. All of these programs are
    multidimensional, have individualized treatment plans, and provide
    connection to pro-social institutions.

Dr. Hawkins observed that gender-responsive programs need more focus on
evaluation to determine effectiveness, and promising gender-responsive
programs need more focus on sustainability.

***Products:*** A number of products are being developed to disseminate
findings.

-   A book, *Delinquent Girls: Findings from the Girls Study Group,*
    will be published later in 2008 by Temple University Press.

-   Several articles have already been published.

-   A number of OJJDP Bulletins are being developed. The first of these,
    *Girls Study Group: Understanding and Responding to Girls'
    Delinquency,* was released in May 2008. Others will cover research
    findings related to resiliency, pathways to delinquency, causes and
    correlates of girls' delinquency, review of screening and assessment
    tools, and review of prevention programs for girls.

-   Tools for the field including a bibliography of citations used in
    the literature review and an online searchable database of screening
    and assessment tools. These resources are housed on the GSG Web site
    (http://girlsstudygroup.rti.org/).

Dr. Hawkins concluded by sharing a quote from a focus group participant:
"Girls become women, and women become mothers who will bring a whole new
generation into this world. So if we don't invest in girls now, we are
going to end up paying later."

**Girls Study Group Project: Implications and Next Steps**

***Delbert S. Elliot, Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science; Professor Emeritus and
Research Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado***

Dr. Elliot congratulated Dr. Zahn, the GSG, and OJJDP on this important
study, which he regards as the definitive work on female delinquency and
a huge contribution to researchers and practitioners in the field.

He provided a brief overview of research on prevention and then
discussed how the GSG findings fit in with this larger body of research.
In 1985, research suggested that "nothing worked"---that is, none of the
various types of programs that were being implemented at the time were
effective at preventing delinquency. He observed that today there is
better theory development and better evaluation methodology. A growing
number of programs have been shown to be effective, and there is
increasing government support for evidence-based programs. He observed
that, with what we currently know about evidence-based programs, we have
the capacity to truly affect national and state-level rates of
delinquency, drug use, and other juvenile problems. However, there is
major confusion over the scientific standard for evidence-based
certification, limited dissemination of evidence-based programs, and
relatively little attention to fidelity when implementing evidence-based
programs.

Dr. Elliot argued for the need to establish consensus on the scientific
standard for certifying programs as "evidence-based." He reviewed the
federal hierarchy of classifications for program effectiveness: Model
Program, Effective, Promising, Inconclusive, Ineffective, Harmful, and
Insufficient Evidence. He observed that, because only Model Programs
meet the highest standards (experimental design/randomized control
trial, effect sustained for at least 1 year post-intervention, at least
one independent replication with randomized control trial, internal
validation, no known health-compromising side effects), only Model
Programs should ever be taken to scale.

He provided an overview of what is currently known about violence, drug,
and delinquency prevention programs. Of more than 700 prevention
programs, approximately 80 percent have no credible evaluation. Among
those with credible evaluations, most are not effective and some have
been shown to actually increase the risk of re-offending. Only 35 to 40
programs have been certified as evidence-based. He observed that we are
continuing to place children in programs that we don't know are
effective, and it is unethical not to evaluate these programs.

He then went on to discuss how the GSG findings fit into this larger
body of research.

-   ***Limitations in Evaluation Evidence:*** Just as there is a serious
    need for evaluation among prevention programs in general, the GSG
    found that few universal program evaluations considered gender
    differences, few girls-only programs have been evaluated, and only
    four girls-only programs can be certified as evidence-based. These
    limitations in evaluation evidence make it very difficult to
    identify common elements/components in evidence-based programs for
    girls.

-   ***Gender Differences:*** The GSG findings confirm Janet Hyde's
    "gender similarities hypothesis." Hyde found that for most
    psychological and behavioral outcomes (e.g., cognitive abilities,
    social behavior, moral reasoning, psychological well-being), there
    are no gender differences; however, there are a few differences. A
    major contribution of the GSG research is to identify those few but
    important differences. The GSG finding about the differential
    sensitivity to and exposure to risk factors is very important; a
    major focus for girls-only programs should be to address risk and
    protective factors for which there are differential sensitivities
    and levels of exposure.

-   ***Evidence-Based Standards:*** Dr. Elliott observed that we cannot
    afford to invest in programs that we do not know to be effective.
    Currently, the choice for girls programming is between universal
    evidence-based programs and non-evidence-based girls-only programs.
    This choice creates a dilemma. There are only four evidence-based
    girls-only programs, so there is a need to evaluate additional
    girls-only programs. Dr. Elliott expressed reservations about the
    GSG recommendation to adapt universal evidence-based programs to
    make them more effective for girls. Any adaptation in a program's
    theoretical rationale or core components would destroy the program's
    certification as evidence-based, and the evaluation process would
    have to start all over.

Dr. Elliot proposed a series of next steps:

-   Validate risk assessment instruments independently for girls (and
    for particular racial/ethnic groups as well). Then ensure that the
    juvenile justice system uses these tools in designing treatment
    programs.

-   Implement rigorous evaluations of a few selected girls-only programs
    (programs that target the cluster of risk factors to which girls
    have greater sensitivity and higher levels of exposure).

-   Complete a cost-benefit analysis of these selected programs. Some
    programs that have been identified as effective are
    cost-prohibitive, which discourages states and local communities
    from implementing them.

-   Develop capacity for disseminating evidence-based programs
    (including training, technical assistance, and monitoring for
    fidelity). The issue of a program's sustainability is linked to its
    effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and proper dissemination.

-   Reassess both the theoretical causal rationales and the change
    strategies for girls programs. The fact that there are differential
    sensitivities to certain risk and protective factors suggests that
    the strategies for changing a given risk or protective factor for
    girls may differ from the strategies used for boys.

**Questions and Discussion**

Mr. Flores opened to floor to questions from Council members.

*Explain the GSG's use of the term "religiosity" rather than
"religious." It is my understanding that "religiosity" is a disparaging
term suggesting superficial, showy, and insincere, whereas "religious"
is meaningful.* Dr. Hawkins responded that the GSG used data from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which uses the
following criteria: frequency of prayer, frequency of attending a
religious-based event, and perceived importance of religion. She
observed that several pieces of research literature use the term
*religiosity* and suggested that there is a lack of consensus in the
field about the term. Mr. Flores observed that the confusion over this
term drives home the point that the research community may not be using
the same language as practitioners and policymakers.

*Tell us more about the four Promising Programs identified by the GSG.*
Dr. Zahn responded that one of these programs was Reaffirming Young
Sisters' Excellence (RYSE), a probation program for girls in California.
It was a comprehensive intervention program with individualized
treatment plans. Probation officers visited the girls' homes to work
with families, provided transportation to necessary services, monitored
school attendance, and worked closely with the schools. The RYSE program
no longer exists in its same form. Dr. Hawkins identified the three
other Promising Programs: Project Chrysalis, a school-based prevention
program in Oregon; the Naja Project, a Washington, DC, school and
community-based prevention program targeting substance abuse and risky
sexual behavior; and Urban Women Against Substance Abuse in Connecticut.

Dr. Zahn observed that the GSG found (but could not verify because of
insufficient research) that programs that consider racial, ethnic, and
language differences seem to be the most effective. Dr. Elliot added
that the good universal programs are sensitive to racial, ethnic,
gender, and social class differences.

*At Council meetings, federal staff say that they require an evaluation
component for their agency grants. Is this not an essential guideline?*
Richard Morris responded that U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) staff have
tried to build evaluation into solicitations, but they are limited
financially. Sometimes legislative language precludes DOL from allotting
funds for evaluation. In addition, because of limited evaluation funds,
grantees often conduct process evaluation and quasi-evaluation rather
than a rigorous randomized control trial.

*You mentioned "adolescent girls" as well as "young women." What age is
the cutoff?* Dr. Zahn said the GSG studied girls ages 11 to 18. Judge
Gordon Martin observed that GSG findings suggest that delinquency begins
before middle school, so it is important for prevention programs to
target girls at a younger age before delinquent behaviors begin. Dr.
Hawkins agreed.

*What is the average age of arrest for juvenile females?* Dr. Zahn
replied that the GSG does not have this information.

*Data show a rising rate of juvenile arrests starting in 1980. To what
extent has society contributed to this trend? Has greater tolerance for
precursors been a factor?* Dr. Zahn responded that the GSG discussed the
impact of the media and the Internet. However, little research is
available. She observed the need for additional research on this issue.

**Practitioner Perspectives on Girls**

***Elayne Bennett, President and Founder, Best Friends Foundation;
Pauline Hamlette, National and Metropolitan Program Director, Best
Friends; Anita Josey-Herring, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia***

Mr. Flores observed that, in addition to funding research projects such
as the GSG, OJJDP funds programs and works with practitioners on the
front lines who help meet the needs of at-risk youth. He said that,
while it is important for prevention programs to address risk factors,
it is also important to address protective factors. Research has shown
that protective factors such as mentoring and connection to school are
effective in helping at-risk youth. He introduced the speakers, who
talked about Best Friends (a current OJJDP grantee) and other programs
that help strengthen protective factors for girls in Washington, DC.

Pauline Hamlette, a retired school principal and now National and
Metropolitan Program Director at Best Friends, described the Best
Friends and Best Men programs as in-school character development
programs for adolescent girls and boys. Best Friends started at Ms.
Hamlette's elementary school in 1987 with 16 girls. Over the past 21
years the program has had an impact on the lives of 50,000 girls passing
through schools in Washington, DC, and has expanded to serve girls in 14
states. She observed first-hand that the program has made a difference
in the lives of girls in the nation's capital. Best Friends asks its
participants to choose to make healthy choices (to come to school, to be
academically stable, to abstain from sex). She said that a major reason
for the program's success is that the District of Columbia Public
Schools allows the program to operate within the schools during the
school day, parents allow the program to work with their daughters, and
the girls share their feelings and thoughts with program staff.

Elayne Bennett, President and Founder of the Best Friends Foundation,
described Best Friends as a risk prevention program that involves
character education. It is an intensive, long-term program with an
abstinence-only philosophy, starting in the fourth or fifth grade and
continuing through high school. Program components include a
developmental learning construct, a field-tested curriculum (covering
friendship, love and dating, marriage, self-respect, decisionmaking,
substance abuse, physical fitness and nutrition, and sexually
transmitted diseases/HIV), school connectedness (a key protective
factor), positive peer groups, longevity and intensity, substance abuse,
fitness and cultural activities (to engage young people and make the
program fun), and encouragement of parental relationships and support.

Ms. Bennett observed that the Best Friends program works. Teen pregnancy
rates in Washington, DC, have dropped remarkably, from 10.2 births per
100 teens in 1996 to 4.2 per 100 in 2005. The percentage of teen girls
reporting that they were sexually active has dropped from 73 percent in
1993 to 41 percent in 2005. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey data
found that self-reported rates of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual
activity among middle school District of Columbia Best Friends/Best Men
participants were significantly lower than the rates among their peers
in the same schools. Another study reported higher standardized test
scores for Best Friends/Best Men participants, and Ms. Bennett
attributed this finding to the fact that program participants regularly
attend school. In addition, parents, mentors, and school principals
report higher school achievement and improved behavior among
participants. Ms. Bennett observed that Best Friends Diamond Girl
leaders become role models for other students, and the program has a
"spillover effect" on the entire school. She concluded by saying: "We
believe that if we give children our best, they will surely respond with
their best."

Anita Josey-Herring, Presiding Judge of the Family Court of the District
of Columbia Superior Court, said that it is important to positively
engage children and families who have typically been in a cycle that
needs to be broken in order for the children to have a chance to succeed
in their lives. The District of Columbia has a 37 percent poverty rate,
and disadvantaged kids are "the primary customers" seen before the
Family Court for juvenile delinquency and abuse/neglect. These children
need a caring adult to reach out to them, support them, and help them
realize their positive qualities. In response to the rising number of
girls seen by the court, the Family Court started Leaders of Today in
Solidarity (LOTS), a strengths-based program for girls in the probation
system and under pre-trial supervision. It offers girls an opportunity
to work with a team of probation officers and a case manager to identify
and work with issues underlying problem behaviors (such as depression or
sexual abuse). Judge Josey-Herring observed that strengths-based
programs that allow at-risk children to develop a sustained, trusting
relationship with an adult (such as Best Friends and LOTS) are
critically needed because they replicate or replace what is often
missing in the lives of these children.

**Questions and Discussion**

*There is a correlation between the Best Friends mentoring component
(the role of a caring adult in a young person's life) and the
significant change seen in the population served. Working with in-school
youth helps Best Friends overcome the issue of retention, which is the
major challenge of traditional mentoring.* Ms. Bennett responded that
Best Friends uses teacher-mentors. Teachers commit to at least 30
minutes per week, during the school day.

*Are all the mentors actually teachers?* Ms. Hamlette replied yes,
because teachers have a security clearance and are already in the school
building and because teachers want to be mentors.

*How does Best Friends involve parents?* Ms. Hamlette said that parents
are involved in every Best Friends activity. In addition, they are
invited to attend the curriculum sessions, and parents fill out an
evaluation form to provide feedback to the program. One of the most
common comments from parents is, "I am sorry that I did not have the
opportunity to participate in this kind of program."

*What happens to the young women who graduate from high school?* Ms.
Hamlette responded that many receive Best Friends Foundation College
Council Scholarships. This year the program has 80 girls and boys going
on to college. Over the years, 500 to 600 Best Friend/Best Men students
have graduated from college. She observed that when these young men and
women come home from college, they come back to Best Friends and share
their experiences.

*Has Best Friends studied the effect on teachers of being a mentor and
participating in this program?* Ms. Hamlette responded that the program
has not conducted a formal study. She shared her observation that
teachers are excited about the program and want to be mentors. Ms.
Bennett remarked that, although the general opinion is that teachers in
the District are apathetic, a number of teachers and principals are
"gems."

*This program has accomplished a great deal. I encourage you to do
additional objective evaluation, which will help to legitimize your
project.*

*Long-term programs such as Best Friends tend to be more successful.
Higher Achievement is another example of a successful, long-term program
that works with kids from middle school through high school.*

Mr. Flores thanked the panelists for their presentations.

**Update on Council Partnership Projects**

***Robin Delany-Shabazz, Director, Concentration of Federal Efforts
Program, OJJDP***

Ms. Delany-Shabazz reported that the Federal Partnership Project
consists of several components. The Comprehensive Community Initiatives
Inventory and Federal Collaboration Project, which are well under way,
will develop a set of resources for federal program offices to more
effectively support comprehensive community initiatives. The Delinquency
Development Statement Report, which is nearly completed, will provide a
baseline for joint planning for federal agencies. The projects will be
discussed in more detail at the closed Council planning session
following this public meeting. Ms. Delany-Shabazz referred participants
to their meeting packets for a calendar of project activities.

**Legislative and Program Updates, Announcements, and Other Business**

***J. Robert Flores***

**Legislative Updates**

Mr. Flores referred participants to their meeting packets for
information on pending federal legislation.

**Other Business**

Judge Gordon Martin requested an update at the September meeting on
federal collaborative efforts to serve youth in the New Orleans area,
including information on DOL's National Emergency Grant funds going to
the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court to place young people into the
YouthBuild Program. Mr. Flores said that he would place this item on the
September meeting agenda.

Ron Ashford reported that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is giving funds to take down and replace a number of
dilapidated public housing structures in New Orleans. HUD is working out
a way to dovetail its efforts with DOL to make sure that the young
people from these housing sites get into the YouthBuild Program.

Richard Morris (DOL), speaking for Greg Weltz who was not present, read
a communication from Terri Eggers, Director of Education, Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice, expressing her appreciation and
enthusiasm for the Shared Youth Vision approach.

Mr. Flores expressed his appreciation to all the partners for their
great work with Shared Youth Vision. He observed that, over the past 5
or 6 years, Council agencies have taken concrete steps toward doing work
together. During the next several years, these foundation steps will be
of great value. He observed that it still remains very difficult for
federal agencies to pool money and said that he hopes Congress will look
at this issue.

The Council voted to approve the minutes from the March 2008 quarterly
meeting as written.

**Adjournment**

***J. Robert Flores***

Mr. Flores thanked participants and members of the public for attending
and announced a closed Council planning session following the public
meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.