U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–596 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–77

PREVENTION OF YOUTH AND GANG VIOLENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 13, 2005

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Serial No. J–109–26

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 18

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 2

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 99

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

WITNESSES 

Arias, Ileana, Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention, Centers 

for Disease Control, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 8

Flores, J. Robert, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent 

Prevention, Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 11

Hart, Sarah, Director, National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 7

Johnson, Sylvester, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... 25

Kane, James, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Council, Wilmington, Delaware ............................................................................................... 27

McDonald, Regina, Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 32

Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 23

Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ............... 5

Vallas, Paul, Superintendent, School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 30

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Arias, Ileana, Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention, Centers 

for Disease Control, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....................................................................... 41

Flores, J. Robert, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent 

Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 53

Hart, Sarah, Director, National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 64

Johnson, Sylvester, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement ............................................................ 82

Kane, James, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Council, Wilmington, Delaware, prepared statement ............................................................ 93

McDonald, Regina, Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement ..................................................................... 100

Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement .............................................. 102

Vallas, Paul, Superintendent, Schools District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement ..................................................................... 115

(1)

PREVENTION OF YOUTH AND GANG 

VIOLENCE 

MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m., in the 

Kirby Auditorium, National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, Biden and Feinstein. 

Also Present: Senator Santorum. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

United States Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed with 

our hearing on juvenile violence. This is a problem nationally of 

epidemic proportion, a very, very serious problem in this city of 

Philadelphia and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Where we 

reside during the week, in Washington, it is the subject of daily 

headlines just as it has been here in this city. 

We have a distinguished array of national witnesses today to 

focus on what are some of the programs which work and where our 

Federal resources ought to be directed. We’re being joined here 

today by the distinguished Senator from California, Senator 

Dianne Feinstein, who has been a national leader on this subject 

and has introduced very important legislation which is now pending before the Judiciary Committee. My distinguished colleague 

Senator Santorum and I welcome Senator Feinstein and thank her 

for coming to Philadelphia this morning. We will be joined a little 

later by Senator Biden. 

This is an issue which I have seen on the personal level for more 

than four decades going back to my days as an assistant district 

attorney and then district attorney. In the late 1960s, early 1970s, 

there was a race between Chicago and Philadelphia as to which 

city would have the most gang deaths. Those statistics, ominous as 

they were at that time, pale in significance with the current problems with juvenile violence. 

In the first five months of this year there has been an enormous 

increase in juvenile violence with some 63 deaths recorded among 

those 24 years of age and younger, compared to 41 for the first five 

months of last year, an increase of, as you can note, of more than 

50 percent. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania receives funding—

2

We are going to have to run the clock, whoever is in charge of 

the clock, because the Chairman gets five minutes like everybody 

else for an opening statement. I will estimate that I have used twoand-a-half minutes so we will maintain a parity of time. That is 

one of the difficult matters in Senate hearings, and that is keeping 

people on time. But I think it is worth noting that the Majority 

Leader has scheduled a vote this afternoon on Thomas Griffith for 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, so that we all have duties 

to be back in Washington and we are targeting a conclusion in advance of 12 o’clock. So we will be asking everybody, not only Senators but witnesses, to maintain the time limits. 

But as I was in mid-sentence before noticing the absence of the 

clock running—the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania receives some 

$160 million a year, and Senator Santorum and I on behalf of the 

Pennsylvania delegation are working coordinately with the Governor for an evaluation of what programs work and what programs 

do not work. The same evaluation is being made on the national 

level, and through the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee we 

are going to be taking a close look on reauthorization as to which 

programs are going to be continued, because I am convinced that 

if we target our finances that we have a good chance to deal effectively with this problem. It is never going to be eliminated but it 

certainly can be reduced. 

There is another significant dimension which is worth comment 

and that is that the Centers for Disease Control has now identified 

juvenile violence as a mental problem. I coordinately chair the Appropriations Subcommittee which funds the Centers for Disease 

Control and have talked to the director Dr. Gerberding with the 

view to perhaps targeting an earmark for this city or elsewhere in 

Pennsylvania, or elsewhere in the United States, to see to what extent the mental health issue may be a factor to be considered. 

My time has expired so I am going to yield to the distinguished 

Senator from California, who has had a lot of experience in this 

field in her tenure as mayor of San Francisco, another wonderful 

city but a tough city on crime. Senator Feinstein, thank you for 

joining us. We look forward to your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I 

may, I would like to enter into the record the statement of Senator 

Leahy, the ranking member of the Committee. 

Chairman SPECTER. Yes, without objection, Senator Leahy’s 

statement will be made a part of the record. He had wanted to join 

us here but could not because of a scheduling conflict. He is the 

ranking member of the Committee. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Thank you for holding 

this hearing, and I am delighted to be able to make it. 

Criminal street gangs have grown over the past two decades 

from a local problem into a national crisis. Every day we read 

about a new tragedy where a gang member has shot a police officer 

as part of an induction ceremony, used a machete to murder an innocent victim, or tracked down and killed someone who may have 

witnessed a crime. There are reports of gangs actively recruiting elVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
3

ementary schoolers seven and eight years old into the criminal enterprise. They must be stopped. 

I would like to take a moment to outline the magnitude of the 

problem. It is estimated that there are 840,000 active gang members in the United States operating in every State of the Union. 

Ninety percent of our large cities with a population of over 100,000 

report gang activity. And that is not the full extent of the problem. 

In 2002, 32 percent of cities with a population of 25,000 to 50,000 

reported a gang-related homicide. In California, my State, the most 

recent statistics available indicate that between 1992 and 2002—

now listen to this, 7,851 people were killed in gang-related violence. 

In the first quarter of 2005, Los Angeles County alone reported 

1,727 gang crimes. In 2003, nationally there were 115 gangland 

murders and 817 juvenile gang killings. Now this is organized 

crime with a 115 and juvenile gangs with 817. That gives you the 

ratio. 

Youth gangs kill seven times as many people as so-called organized crime. In fact many street gangs are now highly organized, 

hierarchical corporations with boards of directors, governors and 

regional coordinators. The Los Angeles chief of police, Bill Bratton, 

has said this, ‘‘There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. 

They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York 

where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You cannot.’’

In recognition of this emerging, the FBI last month formed a nationwide task force to disrupt the organization of the notorious 

MS–13. This single gang operates in 33 States with an international membership in the hundreds of thousands. On Christmas 

Eve 2004, MS–13 members gunned down 28 commuters on a passenger bus in Honduras. The mastermind of that attack was arrested in Texas in February, so you see the international connection. This same gang is responsible for the brutal murder of a 17-

year-old informant in Virginia. She was four months pregnant and 

stabbed 16 times in the chest and neck. I need not remind my colleagues of the wave of machete attacks perpetrated by MS–13 in 

the Washington, D.C. area. 

Just as the RICO Act—that is the racketeering statutes—were 

needed to break up Mafia rings, I believe Federal and local law enforcement need a strong set of tools to combat violent gangs today. 

With my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch, Grassley, Kyl 

and Cornyn I have introduced S. 155, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. Its main point is to create a new 

type of crime by defining and criminalizing criminal street gangs. 

This recognizes the basic point of a street gang. It is more powerful, more dangerous than its individual members. Defeating gangs 

means recognizing what is dangerous about them and then making 

that conduct illegal. This bill does that. 

First, it makes participation in a criminal street gang a Federal 

crime for the first time. And it defines a criminal street gang. The 

legislation also makes it a crime for a member of a criminal street 

gang to commit, conspire, or attempt to commit two or more predicate gang crimes, or to get another individual to commit a gang 

crime. The term gang crime is defined to include violent and other 

serious State and Federal felony crimes such as murder, maiming, 

manslaughter, kidnaping, arson, robbery, assault with a dangerous 

4

weapon, obstruction of justice, carjacking, distribution and sale of 

a controlled substance, certain firearms offenses, and money laundering. And it criminalizes violent crimes in furtherance or in aid 

of criminal street gangs. 

These two provisions are at the heart of this legislation. Armed 

with this new law, Federal prosecutors working in tandem with 

State and local law enforcement will be able to take on gangs, in 

much the same way as they did traditional Mafia families having 

been systematically destroyed by effective RICO prosecutions. 

I was told I could take a few extra minutes since I came all this 

great distance. 

Senator SANTORUM. I yield my time. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Feinstein, I was about to give you 

as much time as you needed, but with that concession—

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do not want to be overbearing but I would 

like to finish. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Santorum will have his time too. We 

will give you 20 seconds a mile. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

The Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act is a comprehensive bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts. 

The bill authorizes approximately $750 million over the next five 

years to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts 

against violent gangs, including the funding of witness protection 

programs and for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk 

youth. In support of this effort the bill increases funding for Federal prosecutors and FBI agents to increase coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs. 

In addition to enforcement, we have got to encourage community 

response to the gang problem. Gang members are increasingly 

seeking to silence those who step forward to incriminate them. 

Routine witness intimidation has given away to routine witness 

execution. 

As an example, recent press reports from Boston show that gang 

members are distributing what is, in essence, a witness intimidation media kit, complete with graphics and CDs that warn potential witnesses that they will be killed. One CD depicts three bodies 

on its cover. In another incident a witness’ grand jury testimony 

was taped to his home. Soon afterward he was killed. I believe it 

is vital to support those who speak out against the violence in their 

communities and this bill provides $60 million to create and expand witness protection programs. 

Most of all, we have got to keep our children and grandchildren 

out of these gangs. We must identify and fund successful community programs that stem gang recruitment and participation. Additionally, my bill would make it a felony to recruit a juvenile into 

one of these gangs. 

Today we will learn from those on the front lines in the effort 

to combat crime and youth violence, how to best approach this 

issue, what works, what does not work, and how to combine effective law enforcement tools with workable prevention mechanisms. 

The bill authorizes $250 million to make grants available for community-based programs to provide for crime prevention and intervention services for gang members and at-risk youth in areas desVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

ignated as high intensity interstate gang activity areas. We must 

ensure that this funding is used wisely. 

The bottom line is that this legislation would provide the tools 

and the resources to begin the national task of destroying criminal 

street gangs. It is designed to emphasize and encourage Federal, 

State, and local cooperation. It combines enforcement with prevention. It is a tough, effective and fair approach. For nearly 10 years 

now I have been working with my friend Senator Hatch on legislation to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to prosecute, prevent and deter illegal gang activity. Last Congress we 

reached a bipartisan consensus and this committee reported our 

bill to the Senate floor favorably. Unfortunately, there was not 

enough time for the whole Senate to consider the bill. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing. We 

urge that there be a markup on this bill. We very much hope that 

you will join us as a co-sponsor, and we presented for the audience 

a pamphlet which I would like to urge you to take with you which 

describes the growth of gangs all throughout the United States. For 

example, Bloods and Crips began in one American city: Los Angeles. It is now in 120 American cities. Gangster Disciples began in 

Chicago. It is now in more than 33 cities. And on and on and on. 

So I hope this proves helpful and I thank you very much for the 

time. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. I 

will be joining as a co-sponsor. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you; delighted. 

Chairman SPECTER. And we will be putting the bill on our executive session to move it along for enactment. 

I now turn to my distinguished colleague, Senator Rick 

Santorum. Rick and I have been closely watching the situation on 

national juvenile violence with special reference to what is happening in Pennsylvania and here in Philadelphia, and some time 

ago decided that it would be very useful if we came one day here 

for a hearing and invited colleagues, and I am pleased to turn to 

him now for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

very much for holding this hearing. This is an important issue here 

in the city of Philadelphia and across the country. It is great that 

you could bring some of our best and brightest from around the 

country to address this issue. 

Senator Feinstein, thank you too for being here today, and you 

can add my name as a co-sponsor to your legislation also. I had 

watched it last year and find that it, I think will be a very helpful 

contribution to the effort that we have before us. 

Let me also thank the panelists for being here and again appreciate all the work that you have done in this area of gang violence, 

and violence and criminal justice in general. 

As Senator Specter and Senator Feinstein both said, this is a 

problem that not just is confronting big cities like San Francisco 

and Los Angeles and Philadelphia, but has spread throughout the 

United States. There is not hardly any small town in America anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

more of any kind of size that does not have some sort of gang activity located. If there is any center of poverty in those communities 

there is likely to be gang activity. I think that points in large measure to some of the problems that we have confronting us. When you 

have hopelessness, when you have people who are disconnected, 

they seek to get connected, and in many cases, particularly for 

young males but increasingly, unfortunately, for young females 

also, they get connected to gang activity, to an organization that 

they feel some sense of belonging to. 

We need to get at those root causes that Senator Specter talked 

about, as well as be very tough on those who are the recruiters and 

those who are the organizers of these gangs, as Senator Feinstein 

has talked about. So we need to both look at prevention as well as 

attack the problem that exists today. 

The area that I have focused on quite a bit is on the prevention 

side, which I think goes to anti-poverty programs and programs 

that help strengthen families. The fact is that you are three times 

more likely to be in a gang if you were raised in a home without 

a father in the home. That to me is a pretty good indicator that 

we need to do something to strengthen the role of fathers in our 

families. 

Senator Bayh and I have worked together on a national fatherhood initiative program, everything from taking fathers who are released from prison to try to mentor them and help them to try to 

reunify them with their families so they can be a positive influence 

on their children, to the President’s healthy marriage initiative to 

try to, before the child is even born, trying to stabilize and to assist 

those families that are in the making, if you will, so fathers do not 

separate from the mother of their child and stay and participate, 

whether in marriage or whether just in a way that they are connecting to their children. To me, it is obvious from the statistics as 

well as common sense that that is a severe problem that leads to 

not just gang problems but a whole myriad of problems in our society, and that we have some role, limited as it may be, some role 

in the Government to try to be helpful in that regard. 

So I look forward to hearing the testimony today. I thank you 

again, Senator Specter, for holding this hearing in Philadelphia 

and tried to save a little time for you. I have got a minute and 26 

seconds left to yield back to you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum. 

We now turn to our first witness, Ms. Sarah V. Hart, the distinguished Director of the National Institute of Justice where she has 

served since 2001. Prior to the time she was a delegate to the 

United Nations Crime Commission 2002 conference and a member 

of the National Academics of Science Roundtable on Terrorism. For 

six years from 1995 to 2001, she served as chief counsel for the 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and was a 16-year prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. It goes to 

show you how time has flown because you were there after I was 

there, which is some time ago. 

She has her bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from the University of Delaware and her law degree from Rutgers School of Law 

where she was an associate editor of the law review. So she brings 

7

a background in Pennsylvania crime control and very extensive experience on the national level. 

Thank you for joining us, Ms. Hart, and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH HART, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Institute of Justice is the research and development arm of the Department of Justice and our primary mission 

is to research criminal justice issues for State and local governments. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are honored to be able to present research findings to you on this very important question, and it is also an honor to be here in my hometown of Philadelphia. Thank you. 

The National Institute of Justice has a long history of supporting 

research relating to local efforts to reduce gun crime, especially 

among 18- to 30-year-olds. NIJ sponsored the Boston Ceasefire 

Project as well as similar efforts across other major cities. My written testimony provides detailed information about short-term and 

long-term strategies to address these issues. Given the time constraints of this hearing, my colleague Bob Flores of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention will focus on prevention 

strategies. I will primarily focus on interventions that reduce and 

disrupt violent crime and the questions posed by the Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked from a national perspective what programs and other interventions have been successful. In the area of 

effective policing, comprehensive problem-solving strategies have 

proven to be effective. These approaches require a systematic analysis of the nature of the crime problem, a focus on geographic locations with high concentrations of crime, a focus on likely offenders, 

and community and criminal justice system coordination. 

Because problem-solving approaches involve tailoring a response 

to the local problem, these are not a canned program. However, 

components of successful programs usually involve the following: 

crime mapping, much like you see here on a Philadelphia map; disruption of illegal gun markets; addressing illicit gun use; focus on 

particular gangs or focus on particular known offenders. Project 

Safe Neighborhoods incorporates many of these strategies. 

Mr. Chairman, you also asked about the cost of successful programs and their potential impact. Problem-solving approaches usually involve numerous public and private entities that redirect existing resources. For this reason, it is often very difficult to parse 

out precise overall costs. But cost-benefit research suggests that 

the overall benefits to successful intervention programs clearly offset their anticipated costs. Some of the most effective programs can 

be very intensive and expensive, but the estimated long-term savings to taxpayers and crime victims can be substantial. 

This research even tends to undervalue societal benefits. For example, current cost-benefit comparisons tend to undervalue the cost 

of crime. For example, they often do not consider community costs, 

such as crime-related declines in property values, loss in tax revenues when citizens will move out of a jurisdiction to avoid a crime 

8

problem, private security costs that homeowners and businesses 

incur to harden targets against potential crime. In addition, there 

are often intangible costs such as pain and suffering of crime victims and lost opportunity costs. 

Mr. Chairman, you have also asked about unsuccessful programs. Research has shown that a number of programs, including 

some very popular ones, are not effective. Some of these programs 

include the DARE program, traditional boot camps, gun buyback 

programs, and group therapy programs that often bring together 

delinquent youth where they can reinforce negative behaviors. 

You also asked how the research can address Philadelphia’s increased youth violence problem. The research supports a comprehensive approach like Project Safe Neighborhoods that targets 

high crime locations and likely offenders. Potential interventions 

should include homicide and violent incident reviews, chronic violent offender lists, gun violence case screenings by prosecutors, violent offender notification meetings, police probation teams, and prevention programs with proven effectiveness. In addition, current jurisdictions should look at their existing programs to see if they 

should be reevaluated in light of other successful programs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you asked me why some successful youth 

violence programs have become ineffective. In addition to economic 

incarceration issues, there are also legitimate questions about program sustainability. Oftentimes successful programs are victims of 

their own success. There is a reduced sense of urgency for the problem and it is harder to compete for scarce resources. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

speak here today and we would be happy to provide additional information to the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hart appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Ms. Hart. Your full statement 

will be made a part of the record, as will all of the statements. 

We turn now to Dr. Ileana Arias, Acting Director for Centers for 

Disease Control’s Injury Center since June of last year. She is responsible for the expansion of State programs for injury prevention, 

and new research in areas of child maltreatment. Prior to her appointment as acting director she was chief of the Division of Violence Prevention at CDC, and she had been director of clinical 

training and professor of clinical psychology at the University of 

Georgia in Athens. She has a bachelor’s degree from Barnard, and 

an M.A. and a Ph.D., both in psychology, from the State University 

of New York. 

Thank you for coming to Philadelphia today, Ms. Arias, and we 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ILEANA ARIAS, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION, CENTERS FOR DISEASE 

CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. ARIAS. Good morning, Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein, 

and Senator Santorum. Thank you very much for the opportunity 

to share the exciting work that CDC is doing to address the issue 

of youth violence in the United States. 

9

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Arias, would you pull the microphone 

just a little closer? Or as Senator Thurmond would say, pull the 

machine—

Ms. ARIAS. Is that better? 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Santorum says, he said, speak into 

the machine. We miss Senator Thurmond. 

Ms. ARIAS. I am also very honored to join my colleagues from the 

Department of Justice to address the issue today. In addition to my 

warm greetings and thank you, I also bring you greetings from the 

director of CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding. 

Youth violence is a very important public health issue. Homicide, 

as a lot of us know, is the second leading cause of death among 

youth in America between the ages of 15 and 24. It is the leading 

cause of death among African-American youth between the ages of 

15 and 34. And the problem does not stop with the deaths. Injuries 

severe enough for emergency department responses leading to longterm consequences and treatment are very common. In 2002, over 

875,000 injuries resulted from violence against youth, and one out 

of 13 of those required hospitalization. 

Injuries are the obvious consequences to youth violence. However, there are others that are significant and important as well. 

We know that youth violence is a precursor to a number of mental 

health and chronic health conditions like anxiety disorders, depression, asthma, headaches, and other kinds of problems that are usually associated with prolonged exposure to stress. 

As difficult as it is to report these numbers, I do have some good 

news. We know that youth violence is preventable. At the CDC, we 

gather information on the impact and causes of youth violence and 

try to translate that information into what you can be done in 

order to prevent it. We know that early prevention and intervention are extremely critical in order to be successful in our efforts 

to prevent youth violence. We also know that the role of parents 

is equally critical in that effort. Experiencing and witnessing violence either in the home or the community is a significant risk factor. But we also know that there are significant factors that protect 

youth against violence, both against perpetration or victimization. 

Most importantly connectedness to family, to community, to 

schools, et cetera, has been and could show to significantly protect. 

We have used this information to identify and disseminate programs that have been shown to be effective in reducing youth violence and preventing the significant consequences associated with 

it. The Resolving Conflict Creatively Project at Columbia University that is being conducted by members of the Academic Centers 

of Excellence have shown that not only is the program effective in 

increasing pro-social behavior on the part of youth who participate, 

it is also effective in reducing violent behavior. Likewise, Peace 

Builders, which was developed in Arizona to deal with very young 

children, that is K–5 equally have shown that it is possible to increase pro-social patterns of behavior among children and decrease 

violence, including injuries associated with that violence. 

We have recognized via home visitation programs can be very effective in reducing child abuse. In fact, 40 percent reduction in 

child abuse associated with families who have been recipients of 

those programs; child abuse, which is a significant precursor to 

10

youth violence. More importantly, we recognize the importance of 

communities deciding what it is that they need to do in order to 

prevent the problem of youth violence in their communities appropriate to the conditions that face them. 

In order to address that issue we have published Best Practices 

for Youth Violence Prevention, a source book for community action, 

that presents a number of different strategies that can be adopted 

by a community on the basis of expert opinion that can be effective 

in reducing youth violence. The practices included run the gamut 

from individually focused practices to community interventions 

that rely on the collaboration community organizations, faith-based 

organizations, et cetera. 

Youth violence is a complex problem best addressed in a very 

comprehensive way. We recommend that efforts to address youth 

violence begin early in infancy and continue through adolescence, 

involving schools, community and faith-based organizations, public 

health, social services, criminal justice and families. 

In conclusion, I would like to say that CDC has been committed 

to addressing the issue of youth violence. We remain committed to 

that effort, bringing the expertise and the strengths of the public 

health perspective to prevent youth violence. In conclusion, thank 

you very much for the ability and the opportunity to share what 

it is that we have been working on and again expressing our continued interest in continuing to address the issue of youth violence 

across the Nation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arias appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Arias. 

We have been joined by our distinguished colleague, Senator Joseph Biden, from Delaware. Senator Biden, first elected in 1972 at 

the age of 29, has served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

now as ranking member of Foreign Relations, had been Chairman 

of Foreign Relations, and is really a national spokesman on matters of international affairs. 

Senator Biden, we yield to you for an opening statement. 

Senator BIDEN. I will wait till just before the second panel. I do 

not want to interrupt this panel. I thank you very much though, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Biden. Then 

we will proceed with the testimony of Mr. J. Robert Flores who is 

the Administrator of the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice for juveniles. Before that appointment, in 2002 he 

was vice president and senior counsel of the National Law Center 

for Children and Families, had been senior trial attorney in the Department of Justice in the Obscenity Section where he prosecuted 

the first case involving computer child pornography to go to trial. 

He has a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Boston 

University and his doctorate in law from the Boston University 

School of Law. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Flores, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

11

STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT FLORES, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF JUVENILE JUSTICE & DELINQUENT PREVENTION, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Committee. I am really pleased to have an opportunity to be here 

today and to testify about the current state of violence and juvenile 

crime in our major cities. 

I want to emphasize that OJJDP, the office that I head, advocates and employs a comprehensive approach to addressing juvenile justice problems with the goal of providing today’s kids with 

opportunities for a better tomorrow. We recognize that here in the 

city of Philadelphia citizens have been faced with the tragic reality 

of innocent children being caught in crossfires. In preparation for 

today’s hearing I have taken a close look at the juvenile arrest data 

for Philadelphia County. As with the national numbers, the overall 

arrest rates for juvenile violent crime have gone down since 1993. 

However, between 2001 and 2004, the most recent number that we 

have, there have been increases in juvenile arrests in some key 

areas, including aggravated assault, robbery, weapons law violations, and murder. In fact the rates nearly doubled during those 

years with regard to weapons law violations and murders. 

While all of the rates are still far below the 1993 rates, these recent increases emphasize the importance of our continued attention 

to juvenile violence. Other cities like Philadelphia are also experiencing the pain of burying children due to similar circumstances, 

and oftentimes these harsh and unacceptable crimes leave communities with a sense of hopelessness. Today I want to provide you 

with a national snapshot of current information on efforts our 

agency has in place, both here in Philadelphia and throughout the 

Nation, to address this issue. 

Through violence evaluation we have advanced our knowledge 

substantially about what leads to juvenile violence and delinquency. We also know something about how to prevent and address 

it. Violence prevention and intervention efforts hinge on the identification of risk and protective factors, and the determination of 

when they emerge during child development. Since 1996, OJJDP 

has sponsored longitudinal studies on the causes and correlates of 

delinquency, which are designed to improve understanding of serious delinquency, violence, and drug use by examining how individual juveniles develop within the context of family, school, peers, 

and communities. I have to underscore the importance of being 

able to do that research and the important information that that 

research leads to. 

Early warning signs of disruptive behaviors must not be dismissed. Rather than assuming that these behaviors will pass, 

teachers, parents, and mental health practitioners need to recognize that the research clearly shows that disruptive behavior 

should be taken seriously. Interventions are more successful if the 

child has not already begun moving along pathways towards more 

serious delinquent activity. 

Through a grant to the National Center for Juvenile Justice in 

Pittsburgh, OJJDP compiles a complete set of informational data 

pertaining to the juvenile justice field. The substantial growth in 

12

juvenile violent crime arrests that began in the late 1980s peaked 

in 1994. In 2003, juvenile arrests for violence were the lowest since 

1987, and juvenile arrests for property crimes were the lowest in 

three decades. A very small percentage of juveniles commit these 

violent and property crimes. If one assumed that each arrest involved a different youth, which is unlikely, then about one-third of 

1 percent of all juveniles age 10 to 17 living in the U.S. were arrested for a violent crime. The proportion of property crime offenses 

resolved by the police that involved juveniles in 2003 was about 20 

percent, the lowest level since 1980. 

If we take a look at the things that we can apply from the research that we have done, we realize that clearly one of the things 

that has to happen is that we have to provide some comprehensive 

efforts to address some of the needs of these kids. We have invested substantially at the University of Colorado in Boulder at the 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence in taking a look 

at what programs work. We call it the Blueprints Project. That 

project is a way of taking a look, a very hard look at programs to 

see whether or not not only do they deliver on what they say they 

will show and do, but also whether or not those programs can be 

replicated across the country. It is a very rigorous review, and after 

taking a look at nearly 600 programs the Blueprints Initiative 

identified 11 model programs and 21 promising programs. 

As demonstrated by these model and promising programs, prevention is one of the most cost-effective methods for reducing juvenile delinquency. Through the Title V community prevention grants 

and the juvenile family drug courts, we are also providing services 

and evaluating the impact of focusing on the promotion of healthy 

childhood development. 

I want to underscore also that through the coordinating council 

and the work that is being done now in the OJJDP gang reduction 

pilot programs we are working with our colleagues at HHS, at 

HUD, at Labor, with our other components, with sister agencies 

like NIJ and BJA so that we are not leaving this just to the Justice 

Department’s budget, just to the Justice Department’s resources 

but really taking a look at making sure that we bring all of the resources that Congress has provided to bear to address this very significant problem. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flores appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much. Mr. Flores. 

Senator Biden, would you care to make your statement or in advance of the second panel? 

Senator BIDEN. No, I will wait. 

Chairman SPECTER. Then we will now proceed to our customary 

questioning by members of the panel by the Senators, each of 

which is within a five-minute time parameter. 

Ms. Hart, you testified about group therapy and about an evaluation of programs related to drug addiction. I attended a program 

on group therapy many years ago at Swan Lake where they had 

ex-drug addicts with a group of 10 people in counseling, with sessions which ran all night for a very protracted period of time. I 

would be interested in your evaluation as to, if you are familiar 

with what happened at Swan Lake, how successful that has been 

13

on the national level. I know it has been copied at Cadencia House 

which originated here in the Philadelphia suburbs and is now of 

national import. 

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that particular 

program but we would be very happy to go back and look and provide the Committee with additional information that we may have 

on that. 

Chairman SPECTER. With respect to the addictive programs, that 

is a subject which we have examined in the Subcommittee on 

Health and Human Services over many years. Are there really reliable statistics to tell us what programs on curing addiction, alcoholism or drugs are really successful? 

Ms. HART. I believe we have some information on that. There obviously is wide variation in different types of drug treatment. Some 

are more effective than others. 

But one of the things that we definitely know is the very close 

link between criminal behavior and drugs and the need to invest 

in appropriate to drug treatment to reduce crime. 

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Arias, I am fascinated by the approach 

of the Centers for Disease Control in some conversations with Dr. 

Gerberding who is the director as to the impact of mental health 

on juvenile violence. Could you expand on what is the thinking of 

CDC as to the causal connection there, if any? 

Ms. ARIAS. CDC is committed to addressing issues of mental 

health, as you know, both—

Chairman SPECTER. Speak into the machine, Ms. Arias. 

Ms. ARIAS. CDC is committed to looking at mental health issues, 

both in terms of mental health as a precursor to youth violence and 

youth violence then producing or leading to mental health problems. There is a significant association there. There is, unfortunately, a very high rate of violence among children who have been 

diagnosed with having a psychiatric disorder, and equally likely for 

children who have been exposed both as perpetrators and/or victims to be at very high risk for developing those disorders over 

time. 

The issue for us is trying to identify what are the common factors in both the development of psychiatric disorders and development of youth violence in order to address those issues as early on 

as possible in order to both. So that by identifying what are the 

common risk factors, what are the common protective factors, what 

we hope to do is create a situation where we do not have to then 

come up with interventions later on after a child has developed either a psychiatric disorder and/or a violent behavior pattern. 

Chairman SPECTER. This is a subject we are going to want to 

pursue with you and we may do so on our subcommittee hearings 

on health and human services. 

Mr. Flores, you talk about prevention as the most cost effective 

and you refer to the 11 model programs with 21 promising programs after reviewing over some 600 programs. What are the common elements of the programs which work? 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the common elements 

are, one, that the process of implementation is very clear. These 

programs have taken the time to really document what they do, to 

make sure that they have identified those things which are critical 

14

and have to be repeated, and that they have a very clear method 

of operation, so that it is not left—

Chairman SPECTER. What are the factors identified as critical? 

Mr. FLORES. Let us take Big Brothers-Big Sisters for example. 

That is one of the model programs. One of the things that we know 

is that while mentoring is an incredibly important and very positive program, if it is carried out without the proper support and if 

it lasts less than six months the results are sometimes worse than 

if the mentoring did not take place at all. One of those is probably 

common sense. 

Chairman SPECTER. Are you familiar with the program called 

GEAR UP which Congressman Fattah originated which has been 

funded by the subcommittee for about $2 billion over the last six 

years which focuses on mentoring? 

Mr. FLORES. I am only familiar with the fact that we are funding 

that, Senator. I can get you additional information. 

Chairman SPECTER. You are not funding it. We are funding it. 

Mr. FLORES. I understand that. 

Chairman SPECTER. That is an important distinction. My time is 

up. 

Senator Feinstein.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Flores, in defense of who is 

funding what? 

Mr. FLORES. No, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Very wise. 

Senator Feinstein.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very interested in the testimony. 

Let me give you my observation. I think a lot begins very early 

in life in school. Youngsters cannot socialize, they cannot connect 

to the rest of the class. Generally it is all right up to about grade 

four, and then the emotional dropping out takes place, and by 

grade seven and eight they are ready for something that adds to 

their life. That is where the early gang recruiters come in. 

In two of your papers you discuss two projects. One is the Pathways to Assistance here in Philadelphia, an OJJDP funded program, and the other is a program K–5 in Arizona, CDC funded, 

Peace Builders, both of which it seems to me try to deal with the 

problem of the school youngster who really cannot connect to anything meaningful in their life. I am wondering if you could speak 

more about this as an issue. 

On one level you get the Columbine youngsters, which probably 

have two parents. Nonetheless, they went through all of the machinations they went through. Then you have youngsters who really 

do not have much parenting, who never learn basic values at home 

who come into the school system. It seems to me, regretfully, that 

schools are charged with doing more and more and more for youngsters. But there is this critical dimension and the only word I know 

is socialization, and I do not like the word. But there needs to be 

more mechanisms in elementary school to see that that is achieved, 

whether it is Big Brother or GEAR UP or Big Sister, but programs 

which can drive a positive sense of value and connect youngsters 

to each other. 

15

Could you comment on that, anyone? Mr. Flores, let us begin 

with you and go right down the line. 

Mr. FLORES. One of the things that we do find is extremely helpful are afterschool programs, things that allow these kids to really 

connect outside the normal school day. They really provide a tremendous motivation. It is an opportunity for teachers, volunteers, 

the people who run those programs to really connect. It is really 

the same basis that we believe that mentoring works so well, and 

that is it puts an adult into the life of the child as a resource, 

somebody to connect to. 

We have an opportunity, because we have developed really good 

assessment tools at different ages, and now we have assessment 

tools that can really be used at very early ages to identify some of 

the places where these kids probably will face some challenges. We 

will be working with HHS to talk about how we can use those assessment tools to better effect, to really gather some of that information early. It is said that teachers typically know after just a few 

days who the children are in their class who really have some educational deficits and some problems at home. We want to be able 

to take advantage of that information. 

So I would say that most of these programs here that we find to 

be extremely helpful address a multiple of these challenges that 

these kids have and really try to either connect them to the school, 

to the community or back to their family. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Start at what age? 

Mr. FLORES. I think, quite frankly, we should looking at Head 

Start ages and on up. Why would we want to wait? So I think we 

are having those conversations already between the Administration 

for Children and Families in our office as to what kinds of assessment tools are there, what can we build, what kind of resources 

and volunteering can we bring to the table. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Dr. Arias? 

Ms. ARIAS. Senator Feinstein, that is an excellent observation 

and I thank you for raising that. As mentioned in the testimony, 

and you alluded to it, Peace Builders has been shown to be effective, both in changing the children and also the teacher’s perception of the environment that those children are growing up in. It 

is a very interesting observation in that the other program that I 

mentioned, the resolving conflict creatively which is a K–8 program, also found significant effects. However, interestingly, the effects were not as great for the older children, suggesting that as 

early as possible that intervention—that is, before they actually get 

to that stage in seventh or eighth grade where they have already 

developed those patterns. So that early intervention is critical. 

We rely on school programs because teachers are amenable, 

teachers are interested in helping out in dealing with the issue of 

youth violence. However, we are also currently conducting some 

work looking to see the extent to which we can further improve the 

benefits that kids get from those programs in school by adding a 

community component and by adding also a family component. We 

are looking forward to that data being available soon to be able to 

say the extent to which a more holistic approach is going to be the 

way to go. 

16

Senator FEINSTEIN. So if this bill does pass and we have the 

funds, in my view it would make sense, and I do not know if you 

agree, to target the monies toward troubled schools as young as 

possible with children and combine it with mentoring programs 

very early on. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. ARIAS. I would agree, and again focusing on the family and 

the broader community as a whole. I think the community has to 

also engage in and put into place procedures that are going to support what is being done in the school and what is being done at 

a family level. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Ms. Hart? 

Ms. HART. I would just like to follow on what my colleagues have 

said but approach it from a slightly different perspective. From a 

societal perspective, if you are looking at what are the long term 

benefits of those early investments, we are looking after deterring 

people potentially from a life of crime. If one invests later, for example, let us suppose you invest when somebody is 45 or 50 years 

with prevention programs, you may be only deterring them from 

10, 20 years of crime. But if you are talking about a 15-year-old, 

you are talking about a very, very significant criminal career. So 

from a cost-benefit analysis is certainly seems to make sense to invest money, if you can, on people that are likely to have the longer 

criminal careers, and also to the extent you can have appropriate 

tools for trying to figure out which ones of the juveniles are the 

highest risk and most likely to go into that criminal pathway. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Santorum.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like 

to pick up on where Senator Feinstein was headed because I agree 

with her that that is a very key area, at least from the testimony 

that I listened to. Senator Feinstein did not like the term socialization. I will borrow Robert Putnam’s term, social capital. I think 

that is what we are talking about, the connectedness that we have 

to each other. That is, obviously from your testimony, Ms. Arias, 

is what is missing. They are not connected. 

I think the remediation that Senator Feinstein is talking about 

in her legislation and some of the programs that you have defined 

here are good connecting kids to other healthy kids. Not just other 

groups, but healthy groups of kids, neighbors, faith communities, 

as well as maybe—this is where I am heading in the next direction—to their families. Because the other aspect that you talked 

about in your testimony is was that you have very low rates of delinquency when parents are engaged, when, obviously, the parents 

are not abusive, and then when parents are home when kids are 

home. 

So maybe another area, if you can comment, are there programs 

out there that have been effective? This is an area where Government tends to fear to tread, and that is somewhat directly getting 

involved in the family situation. But are there programs out there 

that have been effective in helping parents do a better job of parenting so we do not to do the remediation down the line outside 

of the home in the schools? 

17

Ms. ARIAS. There are some programs currently that, or there are 

some programs that we have looked at and supported that have 

been shown to be effective in doing that. Then there are some that 

actually we are expanding and looking at as well. 

So, for example, I mention home visitation programs that intervene very, very early on among high risk families have been shown 

to be effective in reducing child maltreatment for sure, and then 

down the line improving the quality of life for that family. We are 

also looking at programs currently that are looking at various levels of intervention, again looking at how it is that communities can 

support families in order to have them engage in those functional 

patterns of interaction that are necessary, including also schools in 

that intervention. So looking at different levels of dose, if you will, 

and see where it is that we can get the most benefit from. 

For the record, I can send additional information about those 

projects that we are currently looking at and some of the ones that 

we have evaluated more critically. 

Senator SANTORUM. I would like that information. Also if any of 

you have a component as to what, if any, of these programs have 

focused on communities of faith and whether there has been a 

faith-based intervention and the success of those vis-a-vis more traditional programs. 

Ms. Hart, I would like to focus on—you mentioned four things 

that do not work: the DARE program, boot camps, gun buybacks, 

and group therapy, and I suspect that there is testimony in here 

as to why they do not work. But you mentioned Project Safe Neighborhood as a program that does work. Can you explain why the 

programs you mentioned failed and why Project Safe Neighborhood 

is successful? 

Ms. HART. Project Safe Neighborhoods is really more of an approach as opposed to a particular program, and the concept behind 

Project Safe Neighborhoods is to go in and analyze a local problem. 

Much of what Senator Feinstein mentioned about how out in California they especially have a problem with Bloods and Crips and 

gangs, you may be in another jurisdiction where you do not see 

that exact problem; it has not arisen yet. Project Safe Neighborhoods contemplates the idea that crime is different in different locations and you need to be able to analyze the crime at that particular location, see how it is changing over time and be able to respond appropriately to those particular dynamics that are causing 

the crime problem. 

Senator SANTORUM. And why these other programs have not 

worked, particularly the DARE program? That is a program as you 

travel around in schools you see quite a bit of. 

Ms. HART. It is immensely popular. You see DARE license plates 

here in Pennsylvania even, and it is enormously popular. But there 

have been comprehensive evaluations of that and they have shown 

consistently that it does not work, and I would be very happy to 

provide them to you. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

Finally, Mr. Flores, in reading your testimony it is actually a 

fairly good news story that you present in here on the reduction in 

youth violence. Is that a fair characterization of your testimony? 

And why do—summarize this—because you did not really get into 

18

that in your testimony, that there has been a fairly dramatic decline overall in youth violence in America. 

Mr. FLORES. I think that the picture is a positive one overall, in 

spite of the fact that we have some very serious challenges. One 

of the things I would point out is that when we collect data, the 

data points out that there are some hot spots in different communities and that the crime, as I did testify orally about the fact that 

when we look at the numbers, even if we assume that each of those 

crimes is committed by a different kid, you are talking about onethird of 1 percent of kids 10 to 17. 

I think that we are in a position as adults and as communities 

to really take charge of that. I do not think that we have lost control by any means. I do think that a lot of the interventions are 

working. Congress has really provided a tremendous amount of 

support for Boys and Girls Clubs, for instance. These clubs serve 

as an anchor across the country in community after community. 

They provide tremendous opportunities, not only for the kids, but 

as you so correctly point out, for the parents to engage as well, to 

have a place where they can come in and they can see their children assisted in everything from schoolwork, extracurricular activities and sports. 

So I do think that one of the major challenges though is the connection. How do we strengthen that connection? I think our kids 

are amazingly resilient, and I think that many of them when offered the opportunity really do seize upon it. I do think though that 

we are not always as competitive in some places as we ought to be 

for our children’s affections in terms of really providing something 

that they are going to want to respond to, and I think we have 

some room for improvement there. 

But I think that we have got a number of programs, we have volunteers stepping forward, the President’s call has been really extremely positive in bringing volunteers to the table. And then the 

First Lady’s effort really has been remarkable in terms of providing 

some focus into ways that we can help kids across the board. We 

have talked about the nurse practitioner program. We have got 

mentoring programs that are being pushed by faith-based communities, and we got a lot that is going on now with the fatherhood 

initiative in terms of really challenging men to come back, be involved with their families and take the responsibility that they 

really appropriately bear and share with their spouse or the mother of that child. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum. 

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could make a brief opening statement now, because it relates to what both my colleagues 

have just said. 

Chairman SPECTER. Fine. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator BIDEN. First of all, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for refocusing on this issue. This is 

something you and I have worked on, and Senator Feinstein and 

Senator Santorum have for some time and trying to find out—one 

19

of the most difficult things I find in my years in Congress and the 

Senate is that we author a program and we get invested in it, and 

even if it does not work we stay with it. One of the things I have 

tried to do, and you have done, is notwithstanding what we 

thought at the front end, if it is not working we should discard it 

and we should move on and invest our money in the areas that 

have the best prospect for success. 

One of the things that—money will not solve this problem, but 

this problem cannot be solved without money. To me, looking at the 

numbers, which I have been doing the bulk of my adult life, is 

there is a—how can I say it—fighting crime and dealing with juvenile delinquency is a little bit like cutting grass. You can never 

spend less. I have never seen a single, solitary time where we 

spent less, the grass has not grown. It is like cutting your grass 

on Sunday and if you do not cut it for a week it looks okay. You 

do not cut it for two weeks, it looks a little ragged. Do not cut it 

for a month, it is a little jungle. That is how crime is. 

So there has got to be a correlation here, and I think the Chairman is trying to find out, is between programs that work but investing in those programs that work, and investing more in those 

programs that work, not less. 

Now one of the things for a long time—and I want to, by the 

way, point out, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Hart is a University of Delaware graduate. That is why she is so brilliant. And I want to publicly thank her for helping me so much on the DNA issue, and I 

want to thank all of you for your work. 

But let me say that certain things that your testimony, which I 

have seen and what little I have heard because I was late—I want 

to make it clear I told the Chairman I would be necessarily late. 

I knew I was going to have to be late. But there are a couple things 

we know. Senator Feinstein has been a leader in focusing on preschool and how we focus in the place where it is most impressive. 

But one of the things that we know about that is that those children who are in homes that are dysfunctional and there is violence, 

tend to be the children who are the children who are most at risk. 

So the Violence Against Women Act, which is, I admit, a pet of 

mine, I think is very, very important and I would like to talk to 

you at some point about the funding of that and the continuation 

of that, and the relationship if you—if there is none, I should know, 

between those efforts and getting at these kids early so they do not 

end up carrying the baggage that—you get at them indirectly. If 

the mother is no longer being beaten in front of their child then 

that takes away one of those things. 

There are only a couple things I have observed that we have in 

common with adult prisoners or prisoners there because they have 

committed violent acts. They cannot read and they were subject of 

or witnesses of abuse. The only two things I have found in all the 

studies I have read the last 23 years that show the only commonality. There are other things that you could—but that is most 

significant thing shared by most of the violent offenders. 

We also know that afterschool programs matter. The bulk of the 

crime of these kids is committed between the hours of 3:00 and 

6:00. You have got what, 5.7 million kids in that range or ages 12 

to 15-years-old that do not have any supervision at all. 

20

The third I have noticed since the days I was a public defender 

is, those committing the most violent crimes are not age 18 to 21. 

They are ages 15 to 18. That is a gigantic change. And what we 

know about after arrest is unless there is supervision after arrest 

it does not matter. I do not know why we cannot figure this out, 

why this is so hard. We understand if you go in for a serious medical problem, you have the operation and there is no follow up with 

the doctor, you are not going to get healthy in almost all instances. 

What do we do in our system? Whether it is letting a person out 

of jail, or whether it is dealing with drug treatment? You are talking about drug treatment. You all have been involved with that. 

None of these programs work in 30 days. None of these programs 

work in 30 days. None, none, none, none, none, none, none, none. 

None. Yet we go through this little game. We have these 30-day 

programs. We are talking for heroin, you are talking a year, six 

months a year to a year for any effective program unless—I stand 

corrected. I am in the question period now. Anybody interrupt me 

if there is any program you know for heroin, methamphetamine 

that in fact has worked in less than six months you can show to 

me. Have any of you ever heard of any? 

Number two, we find that after they get out of even those programs, any program you know that works where there is not a follow-up, routine follow-up with these folks coming out of this treatment facilities? I have done this for the bulk of my adult life. I 

have not found one single one. Not one. 

And when you deal with juvenile delinquency certain things are 

precursors we know. We know if you are a truant, look out. Truancy is the first indication. Am I wrong about that? Is there any 

indication that is not the case? And yet what do we do with truancy? We had programs that worked. We had programs and we 

funded them that followed up on all truants immediately. In certain cities where those programs have been done, they work. That 

is the first precursor. That is the first little red flag that goes up 

beyond the kid sort of poking another kid in class. 

So my question for the panel is, that is there any way we are 

really going to get a handle on this unless we continue to impact 

on the violence witnessed in the home, have serious afterschool 

programs, and treatment programs that in fact have a duration 

that gives you a statistical possibility that recidivism will be reduced? That is my first question. Anyone. 

Mr. FLORES. Senator, with respect to truancy, for example, we 

have not missed that. In fact for the very first time the Department 

of Education as well as the Department of Justice joined together 

to have really a national conference addressing that. That is a significant problem and one of the things that is great about the opportunity that is presented there is that the infrastructure to help 

solve that has only been bought and purchased. We have the 

schools, and one of the real challenges is finding a way to get those 

kids back into those seats. 

With respect to the issue of literacy, there is a tremendous 

amount of frustration if you are closed out of any world, and being 

illiterate does just that. On top of which, if you are a young student 

and you go to school and you are forced to sit in front of a group 

of people and you are asked questions that you could not answer 

21

because you could not read, at a certain point you just drop out. 

You do not want to be there. 

Lastly, we view truancy as a tremendous sign a something else 

going wrong in the home, especially when it is young children. A 

five-year-old is not truant in the sense. They are not in school because their parents or their caregiver is not getting them to school. 

Senator BIDEN. Why are we cutting the programs? Why are we 

cutting the money? I mean, I know it is above your pay grade and 

mine, but do you think it makes sense for us to cut out the money? 

We have cut Federal funding for—generically, for local law enforcement, local prevention monies. We have cut it by, I do not know 

what, 60 percent, 70 percent? Why are we doing that? 

Let me put it another way, you cannot tell me why, I know. Does 

it makes sense to cut these problems that make available monies 

for communities to work on truancy problems? That is what we are 

doing. 

Ms. ARIAS. The support definitely is needed. I think what is also 

important is that we have learned from the work that we have 

done in the field generally that it has to be a more comprehensive 

approach than we have done to date. So that rather than developing a program here, a program there, whether it is school-based, 

community-based, and implementing those, that there has to be a 

multidimensional, multifactorial effort so that a community is encouraged to look at the totality of things that do influence the development of that child. Family being one. School being another. 

Their peers, et cetera. 

The other way that we like to think about it and one of the reasons why we are continuing to go in this direction is, as you mentioned, changes that are created in a child in school have to be supported in a community. We cannot expect, for example, a thirdgrader to change and then be responsible for maintaining that 

change, given all the developmental changes that they are undergoing. 

The family violence issue is a very significant one, and the work 

that we have done in the prevention of domestic violence in the 

home, we do not perceive it only as then dealing with domestic violence but dealing with that next generation of violent youth and 

then violent adults. So that we see as an investment both in terms 

of what is happening to those women at the time, but also what 

those children then grow up to do to other women or to each other. 

So the relationship is not only there in terms of youth violence, but 

we know that those children are at high risk for suicide and other 

forms of violence, so it is an investment in, again, that early intervention. But again, that comprehensive approach is critical so that 

no kid who is ever touched by a program is going to fall through 

the cracks and then go back to where they were before. 

Senator BIDEN. We have a fairly comprehensive program in some 

of these areas—my time is up—and we are having trouble keeping 

the funding going for these comprehensive programs. That old expression, in the long run we will all be dead. There is a lot of stuff 

we can do now. The Boston program is an example. It worked incredibly well. The community decided on a comprehensive—how to 

do it and then we stopped funding. So anyway, I will get back to 

that. My time is up. 

22

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Biden. 

Thank you for coming today to Philadelphia for these hearings. 

Just one brief comment on violence in the home. It ought to be 

noted that Senator Biden has taken the national lead on violence 

against women, which is a major source of that particular issue, 

and I have been privileged to be his co-sponsor; something that I 

have seen over the years since my first days as an assistant district 

attorney many, many years ago. 

Thank you for coming, Ms. Hart, Ms. Arias, Mr. Flores. This is 

just the beginning. We are going to be calling on you, Ms. Hart, 

from the National Institute of Justice to give us a comprehensive 

evaluation of what works and what does not work on the national 

scene. The fact is that there are sometimes three major departments which handle programs which have the same name and 

same purpose. The Judiciary Committee is going to be taking a 

very active role this year on our reauthorization function to evaluate the programs which work and which do not work, and we are 

going to be calling upon you from the National Institute of Justice 

to provide that information to us. 

Mr. Flores, the same goes for you from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. You are right at the center of the 

juvenile crime issue, and you have studies on what works and what 

does not work, and we are going to want the specifics. This is going 

to be done at the staff level, but this is just the beginning. We cannot even tabulate how much money the Federal Government is 

spending, although we have been looking at it for several months. 

We have tabulated that it is $160 million for Pennsylvania. We are 

going to ask you to do double duty, Ms. Hart, on Pennsylvania because of your background here. Ms. Arias, when you talk to Dr. Gerberding, tell her her $5 billion appropriation for CDC is secure, providing we do something on 

mental health as it applies to juvenile crime, and maybe even a little earmark for something in this city which has such an acute 

problem. 

So this hearing has been in process now for many months working out the schedules of the Senators and working out the schedules of the witnesses, but I repeat, this is just a start to find out 

what works and what does not work and use the money we are 

now spending effectively, and then to take up the issue of additional funding where warranted. So thank you very much. 

We will take a brief recess while the second panel is seated. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SPECTER. The hearing will resume. We will begin with 

the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Patrick Meehan. 

Mr. Meehan comes to the position with a very distinguished 

record in government and in law enforcement, having been the district attorney of Delaware County and having handled some of the 

highest profile cases in the past decade in the United States, and 

recently led his office to a very, very important jury verdict in a 

case of political corruption in the city of Philadelphia. He has been 

active in government, having managed the successful reelection 

campaigns for Senator Santorum in 1994 after having done the 

same thing for me in 1992. 

23

Senator BIDEN. Are you available? 

Chairman SPECTER. He is susceptible for the draft, Senator 

Biden. 

But his second most important achievement is as a hockey referee; a really tough job, and his principal achievement is the father 

of two beautiful twin boys and a third beautiful boy all attributable 

to his beautiful wife. 

Mr. Meehan, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK MEEHAN, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MEEHAN. Good morning, Senator, and thank you for that 

kind introduction. My wife will appreciate that. I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify about youth violence on behalf of 

U.S. Attorneys from around the country and about our offices’ efforts to combat juvenile violence in a nine-county area which comprises the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I understand the Committee is looking at violence committed by offenders between the 

ages of 15 and 24, and also the crimes committed against those 

young people. We have, as all the panelists, submitted significant 

written testimony so I will try to focus on the salient points of that. 

In defining the problem, we are keenly aware of the problem of 

juvenile violence and we understand the urgency of stopping the violence committed by youth and the violence committed against 

them. According to statistics compiled by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, across Pennsylvania, and I suspect this is the 

same across the country, we are continuing to see a larger number 

of violence incidents reported by school officials. For just the 2002–

2003 school year, the number of incidents involving a weapon at a 

school has grown from 859 to 932 in our city of Philadelphia, and 

statewide we continue to see about 41 incidents a year involving 

firearms in the schools. 

What should not be lost in these statistics is the harsh impact 

that firearm violence has on families and communities. Violence 

tears at the very fabric of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods, and as the 

neighborhoods go, so goes the city. The death of 10-year-old 

Faheem Thomas-Childs on the Pierce Elementary School playground in North Philadelphia brought that reality home to many 

in our region. On February 14, 2002 at approximately 9:00 a.m., 

two rival gangs started shooting at each other, firing more than 60 

rounds outside a school playground. One bullet found Faheem 

Thomas-Childs, and his tragic death pierced the spirit of an entire 

city. 

Let me tell you what our office is trying to do to try to prevent 

youth violence. As the Committee knows, prosecution of juvenile offenders is done almost exclusively by local prosecutors. Federal 

prosecutors are constrained by Federal jurisdiction limits and are 

focused on adult offenders. But that is not to say that Federal prosecution efforts are divorced from the problem of violence committed 

by youth. Our office is engaged in a robust effort to attack firearms 

violence, and to the extent that this coincides with youth crime, we 

are involved. You have heard many comments about Project Safe 

Neighborhoods, the chief vehicle we use to combat firearms vioVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
24

lence in the nine-county Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Our district includes Philadelphia, but also includes cities like Chester, 

Coatesville, Reading, Allentown, Lancaster, all of which have experienced gun violence. 

PSN, or Safe Neighborhoods, recognizes that violent criminal organizations—I saw criminal organizations as Senator Feinstein had 

noticed, are the most disruptive force in many neighborhoods, and 

the responses to these criminal organizations among various law 

enforcement agencies, both Federal and State, need to be coordinated. We use Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative to coordinate 

diverse law enforcement resources around a strategic plan that is 

defined by those who work in each district. The priorities are to 

dismantle violent organizations first. Second, to stop illegal gun 

traffickers. And third, to enforce the law against prohibited persons 

possessing firearms. 

But there are interlocking components of Project Safe Neighborhood initiative which our office has coordinated to combat firearms 

violence in the district. As Sarah Hart said, we strive to match 

shorter term law enforcement efforts with longer term community 

intervention and prevention programs to leverage our impact in the 

schools and with our youth in the neighborhoods, pay particular to 

Project Sentry and the Youth Violence Reduction Project. Project 

Sentry is designed to bring both Federal, State and local law enforcement to prosecute and supervise juveniles who violate Federal 

and State firearms laws, to prosecute the adults who illegally provide firearms to juveniles, and to promote safety throughout the 

community. 

With your help, we had Federal monies. We gave $700,000 of 

those funds from our Project Sentry program and contributed it to 

the city’s youth violence reduction program. This program is an intense supervision program designed to prevent the offenders from 

slipping back into criminal behavior. Once juvenile and law enforcement officials identify violent juvenile offenders, local probation officers provide constant monitoring of the offenders. Educational and vocational training are made available to make sure 

that they do not commit new offenses and they become productive 

members of the community. YVRP is a model program. It targets 

those 15- to 24-year-olds most likely to kill or to be killed, with intensive supervision. One element is Archie Laycock’s Don’t Fall 

Down in the Hood. He worked with 14- to 18-year-olds who are on 

probation because they have been in possession of a firearm. 

Similar though less intensive programs, Porchlight Programs, 

are operating in Delaware, Berks, Lehigh and Lancaster Counties. 

Chairman SPECTER. Can you summarize and your full statement 

will be made a part of the record? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, Senator. 

The conclusion is that by working together, focusing prevention 

with intensive law enforcement efforts collectively, as we wrap 

around the prevention efforts, we can have an impact on violence 

both in our neighborhoods and in the homes to make a difference. 

But that key is the collaboration and communication. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

25

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much. We are on a very 

close time schedule, regrettably, and we want to save as much time 

as we can for questions and answers. 

Our next witness is the distinguished Commissioner of Police of 

the city of Philadelphia, Sylvester Johnson, who has been in this 

position since January 4, 2002. From 1998 until his appointment 

as Commissioner, he was deputy commissioner for operations. He 

has a long list of awards, including the award of valor, received the 

director’s award from the U.S. Department of Justice executive office for the Weed and Seed Program. He attended the senior management institute for police at Harvard and the FBI National Executive Institute, and he has been on the police force since 1964, 

Commissioner Johnson, which makes you only five years junior to 

me on service in Philadelphia law enforcement. Draw a murmur 

from the crowd. Thank you for—I hate to talk about dates. It is too 

reminiscent of age. But thank you for the good work you are doing 

and for joining us here today, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, PHILADELPHIA, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Thank you. It is an honor to be here 

and I appreciate being here with the people that are on the panel. 

My comments are not going to be very, very long and I will try to 

keep it as brief as I possibly can. I thank the Committee for traveling to Philadelphia for this important hearing and I hope the testimony you hear today will provide the Committee valuable insight 

into how youth and gang violence can be reduced in cities across 

the country. 

Violent crime is an assault on our communities. Violent crime 

committed by juveniles is especially disturbing. Watching our children gunned down in the streets, bringing knives and guns to 

school, stealing, robbing, drug dealing can lead to a sense of hopelessness for the future of our community. There are many factors 

that lead to juvenile crime and violence. It is fueled by poverty, 

drug dealing, broken families, and a popular culture that glamorizes narcotics and gunplay. 

We must, therefore, effectively and efficiently use our limited resources to continue successful initiatives, and develop new programs to reverse this trend. The city as a whole is deeply invested 

in this problem. Not only law enforcement and the courts but community organizations, faith-based groups, health care providers, everyone with an interest in keeping our children and our streets 

safe. 

Youth homicides in Philadelphia for 2005 have seen a tragic increase due in part to gun violence. From January 1, 2005 to May 

31, 2005 there was a total of 63 homicides for youth 24 years old 

and under. For that same period in 2004 there were a total of 41 

homicides by youth 24 years old and under. From January 1, 2005 

to June 7, 2005 the city of Philadelphia has had a total of 340 

shooting victims of youth 24 years old and younger. 

The Philadelphia police department considers youth violence a 

serious threat to the future and quality of life for our young people. 

26

Philosophically, we believe that arrests alone will not solve the 

problem of youth violence. As I have said repeatedly, we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. Only a holistic approach will decrease the incidents of youth violence in the city and around the 

country. The police department has in the past and will continue 

to partner with other city agencies, religious and community 

groups and organizations, State and local law enforcement agencies, business and private organizations dedicated to working with 

our youth. The goal of this partnership and collaboration is to identify at-risk youth, intervene in the most effective way with a goal 

of decreasing youth violence. 

As a police department we handle youth violence in the same 

way that we handle adult violence, intervene immediately and 

work diligently to protect against retaliation and ongoing disputes. 

We believe strongly that the key to success in preventing future violence is our ability to analyze incidents, gather intelligence and 

make the necessary connection. A strong police presence on our 

streets in our communities has proven successful as a deterrent to 

crime, as a strong role model to our youth. In the past year we 

have developed two new strategies that we expect will make a significant difference. 

The Youth Violence Reduction Project is a multiagency effort 

aimed at reducing youth homicides by focusing on youth seven to 

24 who are most at risk to kill or be killed. The Youth Violence Reduction Project operates in three police districts, 24th police district 

begun in June 1999, 25th began in two phases, southern section in 

January 2000, and full district by October 2000. The 12th district 

began August 2002. Since 1999, the Youth Violence Reduction Program has 1,440 youth partners. The majority of them, 90 percent 

are male and 89 percent are Afro-Americans or Hispanic. The median age is 17. Of these youth partners, 13 have died, 10 by homicides, two by suicide and one by auto accident, and seven have 

been arrested for murder. 

The Youth Violence Reduction Program currently costs approximately $3,594,000 a year including $929,000 in city funds and inkind services. We estimate the cost expansion to an additional police district amounts to about $1,546,000 to pay for more intensive 

police, probation and parole supervisors, and street workers to deliver positive support, additional prosecutorial and court expense, 

data monitoring, job training and other costs. With economy of 

scale, we believe that Youth Violence Reduction Program could be 

expanded to three high risk districts for a total additional cost of 

less than $4,574,000 annually. 

We are grateful for the Federal, State, local and private support 

that has allowed us to establish and sustain this initiative at its 

current level. We hope that the success demonstrated from these 

initiatives will justify additional funds. 

In conclusion, youth violence in American cities remains an extremely persistent problem. There has been considerable research 

in recent years of how to tackle it. A 2001 Surgeon General report 

on youth violence noted that the key to preventing a great deal of 

violence is understanding where and when it occurs, demonstrating 

what causes it, and scientifically demonstrating which of many 

strategies for prevention and intervening are truly effective. 

27

If given a choice, most law enforcement officials would choose 

successful prevention or early intervention programs over arrest 

and prosecution. To that end, the Philadelphia police department 

works to foster programs that emphasize prevention, DARE, 

GREAT, Explorers Youth, Heads Up, Police Athletic League. We 

are closely monitoring the results of all our initiatives, continually 

emphasizing accountability for performance and adjusting our approach as the need demands as we are keeping our eyes on the ultimate goal of saving lives. 

Thank you very much for your time today. Thank you very much 

for your invitation to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Johnson appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Commissioner Johnson. Thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Santorum, do you have any closing comments? I know 

you have a plane to Pittsburgh. 

Senator SANTORUM. I have to head to Pittsburgh. I appreciate 

your having this hearing and I thank my colleagues for coming. I 

am going to take the testimony with me and I will read it on the 

plane. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much for joining us, Rick. 

Appreciate it. 

Our next witness is Mr. James Kane, executive director of the 

State of Delaware’s Criminal Justice Council where he has served 

since 1996. He has a very distinguished record in government work 

in Delaware including the Governor’s Advisory Commission on 

Youth, the Governor’s Council on Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental 

Health, and the Governor’s Safe Streets Committee. He served as 

president of the National Criminal Justice Association from 2001 

through 2003 and has had a number of important publications. We 

thank Senator Biden for his recommendation of Executive Director 

Kane and we look forward your testimony, Mr. Kane. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES KANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 

Mr. KANE. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify. My 

parents are originally from Philadelphia. It is nice to come home. 

My mom went to Kensington and my dad went to West Catholic 

in LaSalle. 

At the Criminal Justice Council we tend to look at the criminal 

justice system as a continuum of events involving clients as they 

flow through the system. The council began looking at the characteristics of convicted criminals approximately 20 years ago. We 

have reviewed social and economic demographics of violent criminals. We have looked at the same criminals as juvenile 

delinquents, and we have looked at these same delinquents as 

abused children prior to their involvement in the criminal justice 

system. 

Over the years, we have become very adroit at arresting, prosecuting and convicting serious violent offenders. One of the few 

things that we know for certain is that a two-time violent felon has 

an excellent chance, in our State about an 80 percent change of 

28

being convicted of another violent felony. We have concentrated 

most of our efforts in the law enforcement area on serious predators who we know are difficult, if not impossible, to rehabilitate. 

We have concentrated on these individuals with the assistance of 

the United States Department of Justice through crime bill money. 

We have usually been able to reduce crime in whatever geographic 

area that we maximize our law enforcement effort. We have been 

less successful in the area of rehabilitation. 

In the last several years, the Criminal Justice Council planners 

in Delaware have conducted some landmark research on the demographics of serious violent adult and juvenile offenders, and social 

and economic conditions that produce these offenders. Obvious to 

the most casual observer, but it still is vital to continue to indicate 

that single female head of households, poverty, high school dropouts, extensive drug and alcohol abuse, terrible housing, and a general condition of socioeconomic hopelessness tend to produce our 

worst violent criminals. In selected grids within the city of Wilmington, and Delaware as a whole, we can probably predict which 

neighborhoods will produce what amount of inmates for our correctional facilities. 

Until we can develop some type of formula that provides hope for 

our young people in a comprehensive fashion we will continue to 

produce criminals that employ large numbers of law enforcement 

officers, defense attorney, prosecutors and court personnel and correctional personnel. Earlier there was some discussion about the 

cost of inmates. In Delaware it is about $30,000 an inmate and we 

have got about 6,500 in prison and 20,000 on probation. We are already suffering in Delaware from a huge expansion of our correctional facilities. We cannot hire enough guards to staff the prisons 

because we cannot pay them enough and it is not the greatest kind 

of work. The cost for these inmates is becoming astronomical. 

Programs that we tend to know that do not work are one-shot 

events, or events that do not impact the child’s life in a long term 

fashion. Over the years we have paid for countless speakers who 

have, in spite of their environment, made it in the world. They 

would come in, conduct a one-day seminar, charge us $5,000 and 

go away, and the young people go back to the same neighborhood 

where they came from. We have invested large amounts of money 

for law enforcement education in schools on the evils of drugs and 

crime. And we have funded well-intentioned programs that work on 

one aspect of the child’s life. Examples could be child abuse, tutoring, cultural development. 

The success that we have had in working with youth has been 

in the area of providing comprehensive services to that youth. 

Where we have funded it involved tutoring, cultural development, 

value development, recreational activities, and basically supply a 

family environment outside of the home. We have had some success 

in increasing the educational levels of these youth. These programs 

have included Boys and Girls Clubs, Police Athletic Leagues, and 

other community centers that provide this comprehensive environment. 

Still these programs are scattered in nature. We have provided 

these programs in at-risk neighborhoods to at-risk children but we 

still do not capture the very, very high-risk individual who may beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
29

come violent. Our studies indicate that 80 percent of the shootersshootees in the city of Wilmington are African-American males between the ages of 14 and 24. If you look at the criminal justice system and criminals as a pyramid, at the top of the pyramid are twotime violent felons. The pool of individuals at the bottom of the pyramid tend to be poor African-American male children who do not 

have the means to make it in society. 

Recently we developed a value-based education program that will 

provide a comprehensive school for African-American boys in the 

city of Wilmington. After extensive bidding we contracted to a concept called the Nativity School. They operate about six of these in 

the country. They have agreed to take 25 African-American male 

children from poor neighborhoods grades four and five. The program operates from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the evening and children are with school personnel all day on Saturdays. They leave for 

a month in the summer to different colleges and live in a dorm. 

The program has worked in other areas of the Northeast and it 

provides disadvantaged African-American males with an opportunity for success. They just sent me their first newsletter in Latin. 

I could barely read it, but I was an alter boy so I had a shot at 

it. 

If I knew the answer on how to reduce the current problem I 

would probably be a million-dollar consultant. I do know that the 

only way to change the behavior of young people before they become violent in the criminal justice system is to provide some form 

of comprehensive environment similar to that of a high-functioning 

family. 

In the past, the crime bill provided the States with a balanced 

funding approach to criminal justice so that we could create innovations for different components of the criminal justice system. Examples of our innovation have included projects funded under the 

JJDP Act, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

This act literally removed thousands of abused and neglected children from the criminal justice system. The crime bill created many 

innovations in the arena of speedy processing that otherwise would 

not have been initiated. Also community policing initiatives have 

made countless neighborhoods safer around the country and definitely in Delaware. 

I thank you for your time and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kane. 

Our next witness is the Chief Executive Officer of the School District of Philadelphia, Mr. Paul Vallas, who has been in that position since July of 2002, and his tenure has been marked by very, 

very substantial improvements in the school district. He previously 

had served as CEO of the Chicago public schools from 1995 to 2001 

and was the budget director for the city of Chicago, but also the 

revenue director. 

I can personally attest to his financial skills because he and Ben 

Schmidt came to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education a 

few years ago and told us about a $20 million shortfall. To make 

a very long story very short, the funding was directed through the 

30

State to distressed schools. And somehow he returned the next 

year and said he needed $20 million more. And he came back the 

year after that and you will be surprised to hear what he said that 

year. It has practically become an entitlement, but it has been put 

to very good use with the summer school program last year being 

funded by that Federal appropriation, and I think being a significant factor in helping on the crime issue, the juvenile crime issue, 

although it seems to be very, very difficult. 

I give him further credit in a conversation we had months ago 

for making suggestions about what programs had worked in other 

jurisdictions, and being an innovator and suggesting these hearings 

here today. 

Beyond that, he was a candidate for Governor of Illinois a few 

years back. I forget on which ticket and I forget what the result 

was, but he may want to testify about it. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. The floor is yours, Superintendent Vallas. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL VALLAS, SUPERINTENDENT, 

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOLS, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. VALLAS. Thank you so much. I am going to do something unprecedented by me. I tend to be a little too talkative. I am going 

to use my five minutes to refer to a binder that I have provided 

to the Senators and to staff. What I have attempted to do, this is 

my legislative staff experience coming out, is to provide background 

material, reference material that I think will prove to be very helpful to the Committee and to their staff. 

Tab one lays out my testimony which I am going to defer commenting on. 

Tab two lays out some relevant statistics about school safety, 

specifically in the city of Philadelphia. 

Tab three is a discussion of a Project Peace Initiative which is 

an initiative designed to get students involved in peer mediation 

and resolving problems through non-conflict resolutions. 

Tab four is background material on the Philadelphia youth violence prevention partnership which all of the previous speakers 

have made reference to. Let me point out that where the partnership has been implemented it has had tangible, substantive success. It is certainly a model worth expanding to other districts in 

Philadelphia. 

Tab five, relevant articles of interest, again in support of the 

Philadelphia youth violence prevention initiative. 

Tab six and seven is the Philadelphia juvenile justice curriculum, 

a curriculum that is being integrated into the school district at the 

middle grades, and it is designed to teach the young children not 

only conflict resolution but also values, character, and to teach 

them about the consequences of committing serious offenses. It is 

also supplemented by a comprehensive anti-violence initiative initiated by the district attorney’s office. I am sorry, the district attorney’s office is the author of the juvenile justice curriculum. The 

U.S. Attorney’s Office is the author of the anti-violence initiative 

that is designed to teach young people the consequences of the use 

of firearms. 

31

Tab eight is some background material on the Boston miracle, 

the Boston Operation Nightlight, which was a significant effort at 

reducing youth violence in Boston, had great success and is considered to be a national model. 

Tab nine is background material on the Chicago community 

youth program. Chicago has had a significant reduction in youth 

violence in the last couple years due in large part to this initiative. 

So background material, summary materials well worth referencing. 

Then finally, Tab 10, which is not available yet, only because we 

do not want to violate copyright laws, we are providing the commission with an excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping 

Point, the chapter on broken windows that talks about the New 

York miracle. 

So our objective here has been to provide background material in 

a very concise, specific way that can be helpful to the Committee 

and that can also be helpful, obviously, to the Committee staff; material I am sure the Committee staff has been able to access on 

their own. 

Before I finish my statement I would like to offer a few brief policy principles that I feel are evident or emerge from all of these 

models, from the New York experience, to the Boston experience, 

to the Chicago experience, and even the Philadelphia experience 

through the Philadelphia Youth Violence Prevention Partnership. 

One is, to be successful, violence prevention must be coordinated. 

So obviously we support programs and equipment that will allow 

for greater coordination among local agencies in tracking and dealing with chronically and habitually disruptive students, as well as 

habitually disruptive youth. According to the public-private ventures report, one of the key successes to the YVRP initiative and 

the key successes to initiatives that have been undertaken in Boston and Chicago and elsewhere have been the coordination among 

many of the participating groups and agencies. And of course, this 

coordination can be further enhanced through technology. 

Second is that students at risk to engage in violent acts benefit 

from specialized attention. If you look at the Chicago initiative, 

they have an extensive early assessment program designed to look 

at the health care and educational needs of students and then to 

literally develop what I would characterize as anti-violence IEPs 

designed to intervene before a child has gone down the path of violence. But early intervention, early diagnosis, focusing on the problem as really a public health problem are ways that we can overcome these tragic incidents and help us address the problems and 

challenges that we face. 

Third is the need to provide young people with constructive alternatives to violence. Summer school and afterschool programs such 

as those that have been provided in Philadelphia, in large part 

through the good offices of Senator Specter and Senator Santorum, 

providing for youth job programs, providing children with extracurricular activities to get them off the street, values character 

education. In the Philadelphia public schools partnering with faithbased institutions, we have a youth net program, a program that 

is designed to use faith-based institutions to provide afterschool 

32

and extracurricular character education and intervention services. 

All these things can make a big difference. 

But again, I will refer you, with your permission, to the reference 

material we provided in the book, and again in Tab one it lays out 

my opening comments where I not only discuss some of these 

issues in general but I also identify a number of what I consider 

to be best practices that we are adopting in the school district of 

Philadelphia. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vallas appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Superintendent 

Vallas. 

We now turn to the distinguished Assistant Chief of Police of 

Pittsburgh, Ms. Regina McDonald, who comes to that position after 

a very distinguished academic and professional career. Of particular interest to the Committee is the portion of her testimony relating to the narcotic impact squads and putting uniformed officers 

into areas which experience a surge in violent activity. 

We thank you for coming across the State, Chief McDonald, and 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF REGINA MCDONALD, ASSISTANT CHIEF, 

PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 

Chief MCDONALD. Thank you, Senator. 

The Pittsburgh Police Bureau’s philosophy of policing incidents of 

youth violence involves a two-pronged approach. First we try to be 

proactive in preventing such incidents from occurring. And second, 

we aggressively investigate and prosecute incidents when they do 

occur. 

Our proactive approach includes a close working relationship 

with the Pittsburgh public schools and their school police, Allegheny County Juvenile Court, the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office, and the ATF Violent Crime Impact Team. When we 

see a spike in incidents or get reliable information of possible violence in a specific area of the city, we detail our Narcotics Impact 

Squads to the area and our Uniform Ten Car Officers. We’ve found 

this to be very effective in squashing violence as it occurs. 

After the Impact Squads and Ten Cars leave the area, Zone Officers are responsible for the maintenance. Several areas of the city 

are being targeted by the ATF Violent Crime Impact Team with 

ATF agents and city officers working together to get guns and violent offenders off the streets. Both adults and juveniles have been 

targeted. This has been a very effective project. 

We are also in the process of preparing a detailed description of 

gang activity in the city. Although gang activity has not reached 

the magnitude we see in other major cities, we are seeing a reemergence of gangs in the city. We are working closely with Federal and State law enforcement agencies and the Allegheny County 

Juvenile Probation in identifying gangs, members, and associates 

within the city of Pittsburgh. Once we get a picture of gang activity 

in the city we are planning to work closely with U.S. Attorney’s Office in prosecuting those gangs. 

33

With recent reductions in our police force—we have lost 100 officers, we are now at a staffing level of 900—we were forced to discontinue the Community-Oriented Policing Program. This program 

included 86 Community-Oriented Police Officers working out of 

each of the five police zones in the city. We currently have four 

Community Problem-Solving Officers assigned to each zone. Zone 

Commanders use these officers to target specific problems, including acts of violence around schools and illegal drug activity. We 

continue to work closely with community groups and organizations 

throughout the city. Zone Commanders meet monthly with community leaders at their Public Safety Zone Council Meetings. Crime 

Prevention/Crime Analyst Officers also work closely with community-based organizations, and zone officers attend community meetings held in their patrol areas. 

As I have mentioned, we have been working closely with Allegheny County Juvenile Probation. Probation Officers participate in 

ride-alongs with Zone Officers, and our officers and Intel Squad Detectives assist Juvenile Probation with their Warrant Squad when 

they conduct the round-ups of juveniles who are wanted on outstanding arrest warrants. This relationship has been very beneficial to both agencies. 

We have found that these proactive approaches have been very 

effective and they have enhanced our ability to prevent and reduce 

the spread of juvenile violence as well as increase our ability to arrest and convict violent offenders. We work closely with the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office in preparation and prosecution of those cases. Our close working relationship with Allegheny 

County Juvenile Probation enables us to get repeat offenders off 

the street as soon as possible. 

Our major concern today is with the prevalence of firearms and 

the increasing number of juveniles carrying and using firearms. In 

the year 2000 our officers made 269 VUFA arrests. That increased 

to 364 in 2001, 401 in 2002, 472 in 2003, and to an all-time high 

of 616 in 2004. For the first five months of 2005, we have made 

231 arrests, which is in line with last year’s figures. In the year 

2004, we had 47 individuals in the age group from zero to 16 years 

of age arrested for VUFA, with the age group 17 to 24 years of age 

accounting for 363 arrests. The figures for these age groups for the 

first five months of this year include 12 and 143 arrests, respectively. We need to do more to keep these violent offenders off the 

street. Strict enforcement of all firearms statutes should include juveniles as well as adults. 

In closing, I would like to thank Senator Specter for inviting us 

to this committee meeting. I would also like to mention that with 

the discussion of previous panel members you have concentrated on 

what funding sources have been beneficial to various agencies, and 

I would like to say that the Project Safe Neighborhood grant program is very beneficial to us, as well as Weed and Seed and the 

Local Law Enforcement Grant Program. 

[The prepared statement of Chief McDonald appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Chief McDonald for 

coming to testify. I appreciate your references to a number of the 

programs which there have been Federal funding on. We have been 

34

very solicitous of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and the tremendous economic problems with the problems in the steel industry 

and coal. One of the programs which we coordinated with Mayor 

Murphy of specific assistance was when there were witnesses who 

were being targeted by gangs we came in with a special appropriation to be of assistance on witness protection. It is a major concern 

to know about your having terminated some 100 police officers. We 

know the problems that Pittsburgh is having financially; well 

known. 

To what extent has that reduction in your force impacted on the 

problem of juvenile violence? 

Chief MCDONALD. Amazingly enough, with the reduction from 

1,000 to 900 officers we have still seen a decrease in crime. It is 

a testament to the abilities and hard-working efforts of our police 

officers. So with the loss of those 100 officers we have not seen anything—no one dropped the ball and in fact our officers are performing outstandingly well. 

Chairman SPECTER. That is a good response. We are going to 

take a very close look at your success rate. Maybe we can cut 

some—I would not say that coming to Commissioner Johnson as to 

his situation in this city. Mr. Johnson, I note your testimony from 

January 1, 2005 to June 7 of this year, a total of 340 shooting victims of youth age 24 and younger, and this is in the same period 

of time roughly where the number of homicides went to 63 in the 

first five months of the year compared to 41 last year. But the 63 

homicides are vastly under the 340 shooting victims, which is obviously very distressing. 

Your program on youth violence reduction partnership which is 

in effect in some three police districts has had a very salutary good 

effect. How much additional funding do you need to carry that citywide to try to have some impact on this juvenile crime problem? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. I think what I testified before is approximately, if we put it into another district it would be approximately anywhere from $1.5 million per district. To give you a little 

more statistics, when we put it in the 24th police district in 1999, 

murders in the district among youth from age seven to 24 declined 

by 62 percent. That went from 11 in 1998 to just 4.2. In the 25th 

district from 2000 they declined 52 percent, and in the 26th district 

they declined by something like 32 percent. 

Chairman SPECTER. What percentage, Commissioner, is that of 

the whole city? Three districts represents what percentage of the 

city? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. We have 23 police districts so when you 

are talking about—

Chairman SPECTER. Okay, I can figure that out then if they are 

all roughly equal in size. What I would like you to do is to tell the 

Committee what kind of funding you would need to put that program in effect on a citywide basis. That is what I would like you 

to do. But I would like you to submit it in writing because of the 

limited time we have here today. 

Superintendent Vallas, thank you for the big book. We are going 

to be studying it and following up with you on some detail. From 

our prior conversations you have suggested that there are some 

areas where, some jurisdictions which have had some marked sucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
35

cess. We want to pursue that with you further. Frankly, when we 

took a look there they were not quite as rosy as some of the preliminary suggestions had been. And when we asked for the statistics they were not available. So the business of finding what has 

worked is somewhat elusive. 

Director Kane, I am going to leave you to Senator Biden because 

that will be sufficient. 

In conclusion, my time is almost up, I want to ask you, Mr. Meehan, for your thinking on a coordinated approach on the Federal 

programs. You have a lion’s share with the Eastern District and 

you have had a lot of experience in this field. One of the items that 

I did not mention is your serving as executive director for my 

Philadelphia office and really running the State program. What we 

are going to be looking to you to do, when we come up with what 

works and what does not work, is to ask you to take on an additional burden, if we may, to coordinate where these Federal programs are going, because you have got the best handle on the way 

it looks in a variety of counties. 

Your testimony summarized where crime has gone down. But I 

think that a big job of the prosecuting attorney—and I have had 

some experience at it—is to be proactive in the prevention field as 

well as in the prosecution field because you have special insights 

as a prosecutor. So we are going to be calling on you to do that. 

You do not have to give an answer now because I have gone over 

my time which I do not like to do. 

I now yield to Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

First of all it is great to see Paul Vallas. I first met him, Mr. 

Chairman, in Chicago when he was running things there and found 

him to be an excellent superintendent, and now here in Philadelphia, and my hope would be we would be able to get him in California one day, so I will leave that one out there. 

I am somewhat surprised by the testimony of this law enforcement panel. No one has mentioned a specific gang, and my information from the National Drug Intelligence Center indicates that 

there are four specific gangs functioning in Pennsylvania today. 

They are Bloods, they are Gangster Disciples, they are Crips, they 

are MS–13, and there is the group Tiny Rascals also. I guess I see 

gangs very differently, because they are a massive interstate criminal enterprise today. What surprises me is that none of the law enforcement people talked about this. 

So my question of them is this, which gangs do you find operate 

here, meaning Pennsylvania? What ages are they? What crimes do 

they commit? And what would you say is the total gang membership in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and this State, if you 

have it? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. If I can go first—but I would give it to 

the U.S. Attorney first. I am sorry. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Not at all. 

Commissioner JOHNSON. We do not really have a gang problem 

here in the city of Philadelphia, per se. We do not have the Bloods, 

the Crips. I think MS–13 is starting to arrive here. Most of our 

problem is drug related and has been drug related for a long period 

of time. But as far as organized gangs here in the city of PhiladelVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
36

phia it does not exist, at least not on a large scale like Chicago or 

California or some other place. Maybe the U.S. Attorney might 

know a little more. I mean, we have some people who are identifying themselves as gangs. In the early 1970s we had a lot of 

gangs, territorial type things, but that does no longer exist here in 

city of Philadelphia. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Senator, if I may, to be responsive to your question, we have seen some activity from the Almighty Latin Kings. 

It is largely in the Latino community and actually largely outside 

the city of Philadelphia. What the commissioner says is my impression as well, and it is due to the nature of Philadelphia being a city 

of neighborhoods where we have an indigenous population. It is difficult for the gang culture to break into the neighborhood context. 

But it because they are working very effectively already; they have 

got their own industry. They do not need direction from Chicago or 

Los Angeles to be effective at selling drugs or committing crime. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So what you are saying effectively is that you 

do not have the type of gang problem that we are talking about on 

the West Coast of large organized gang syndicates, bigger than organized crime ever was. 

Mr. MEEHAN. We do not have it, but I do not want to make that 

a misstatement. You are so correct in saying, we still have the 

same issues with younger people being recruited into criminal organizations and those organizations controlling the tempo of neighborhoods. What we have is a structure of a lot of loosely-knit independent organizations that do not rely on the national structure 

like MS–13 and the Latin Kings. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chief MCDONALD. We see the same thing in Pittsburgh. We are 

a city of neighborhoods as well, so when we see gangs we see 

neighborhood groups, even down to the level of streets, specific 

street groups, sprouting up. Then on numerous occasions there are 

altercations among those groups. 

But recently we saw a group in our Oakland section of the city 

which identified themselves as the Oakland Crips, but they are no 

relationship to the Crips from California or anywhere else. But this 

was a youth gang, two juveniles were arrested for bank robbery 

and they were under the leadership of an adult who was later arrested. Because those are the types of organizations we are looking 

at. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I just want to say one thing. This 

is a very important distinction; violence, drug trafficking, drug use, 

other crimes to what has really grown up in the United States. You 

should really be very proud and pleased that you have escaped it, 

maybe because of your diligence and your ability to deal with it. 

I certainly hope that is the case. But, Mr. Chairman, my recommendation would be that you hold a meeting like this in Los Angeles. Trust me, you will hear a very, very different story. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Feinstein, that is a suggestion 

which I think it is a very important one and we will try to accomplish that consistent with our schedule. I know in the nation of 

California you have special problems. How many do you have now, 

34 million? 

37

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thirty-five-and-a-half million. 

Chairman SPECTER. How many times is that the size of Delaware? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Delaware is not bigger than city and county 

of San Francisco. So we will leave it at that. 

Senator BIDEN. I would point out we are in Constitution Hall. 

The Connecticut Compromise which guaranteed there was a Constitution—the Founders were brilliant enough to provide two Senators from Delaware, as they have from every other—

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. How did Delaware get to be the number one 

State though? 

Senator BIDEN. We seceded from Pennsylvania. 

Chairman SPECTER. The start of the Civil War. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Biden, your time is on for questioning. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know I could speak for the panel when I say, our drug problem 

is immense here. It is gigantic. Reconfigured a different way, I am 

not going to take my five minutes to go into it, but for the record, 

Pat—Mr. Meehan and Chief, both of you, and Chief McDonald, I 

think you should submit for the record what the nature of the drug 

problem is in your communities, as well as I would ask Jim to do 

the same thing for the record as it relates to Delaware. Because we 

have some of the, unfortunately, the purest heroin and the purest 

stuff that comes through here, and it comes into the port, and 

comes into the port of New York and works its way down 95, and 

we have a gigantic problem that manifests itself the same way but 

different levers. I think we should not leave the impression that we 

are just doing fine here. 

I know that is not what you are saying. You are responding to 

specific questions and it is important to do that. 

Let me ask me you, Chief McDonald, you indicated that you had 

to move away from the community policing. How recently did you 

have to do that? 

Chief MCDONALD. About three years ago. 

Senator BIDEN. Chief, you indicated in your written testimony 

that a strong police presence on our streets and in our communities 

has proven successful as a deterrent to crime, and a strong role 

model for youth out of this community policing. Have you been able 

to maintain your force, Chief, at the same—at its end strength, its 

authorized end strength? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. No, from July 1, 2003 to the present we 

are down approximately 620 police officers. 

Senator BIDEN. Has that had an effect on your ability to provide 

services in the city? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. No, it does not. I have a philosophy that 

law enforcement by itself is never going to change the quality of 

life. And I think we place—police officers more on the streets of 

Philadelphia and have to understand the fiscal concerns of the city 

and I have to deal with that. But the facts are that it has to be 

a holistic type approach. I also feel as though traditional policing 

38

is not working, and traditional policing is only locking people up, 

and we will never arrest out of the problem that we are having. 

I think that the clergy, the community, the politicians, everyone 

has to be involved in this. If they are only going to depend on law 

enforcement to change the quality of life, it will not happen. We 

can make a whole lot of arrests, but I think what happens, the 

community is not concerned about the arrests. They are concerned 

about quality of life. It is not about statistics, it is about quality 

of life and I think that is very important. 

Senator BIDEN. Some of you have mentioned various acts that 

have worked, the community prevention grants, the juvenile accountability block grants, the program that you mentioned, Pat, 

that was so successful, Project Safe Neighborhoods, et cetera. If my 

numbers are correct, each of those programs is suffering fairly significant cuts. So on the one hand we are cutting police either because we are stopping the COPS program or the cities do not have 

the money so you end up with fewer police. And I understand your 

generic point, Chief, that cops alone are not going to stop crime by 

any stretch of the imagination. You have to have this holistic approach. 

That then means that you are talking about prevention programs 

and programs dealing with recidivism. Yet, Superintendent Vallas, 

have you been able to significantly increase your afterschool programs? 

Mr. VALLAS. We have, but only because of the support of Senator 

Specter and Senator Santorum. Let me point out that the additional funds we have been able to secure have allowed us to have 

probably one of the largest per capita afterschool extended day programs probably in the country. I will point out that obviously it has 

an effect of keeping our young people out of harm’s way. It has the 

added benefit of helping us meet AYP. I think we have gone from 

22 schools making adequate yearly progress to 160 in just the last 

two years. So clearly we have been—but it has required that type 

of special intervention and special assistance for us to have the 

type of afterschool extended day activities. 

Let me also point out that 180 of our schools, which is about 80 

percent, about 75 percent of our schools not only have school district afterschool extended day programs but we have communitybased programs. So many of our schools, for example, the Maris 

Beacon program goes on into the early evening. So our buildings 

are utilized for more than just school-based afterschool extracurricular activities. 

Senator BIDEN. There is one thing each of you—my time is up. 

Chairman SPECTER. Go ahead, Joe. 

Senator BIDEN. If there is one thing, just one thing that each of 

you could have us do—not generically, specifically—if you had one 

specific request what would you have us do? What would you have 

the United States, the Federal Government do? What one thing, if 

you only got one? 

I am not being facetious. Because, look, when we get through all 

this—we all know about holistic approaches. We have been doing 

this for as long as you all have been doing it. We care very deeply 

about it. We know the relationship between preschool, afterschool. 

We know the relationship between law enforcement dealing with 

39

gangs, dealing with treatment, et cetera. But when it gets down to 

it, we end up with trying to figure out what works and what does 

not work, and for each one of you—it may very well be you decide 

you need more probation officers, or you need more funding for 

afterschool, or you need more funding—what one thing—it is unfair, but what one thing, if you had to pick, would you want more 

help on from the Federal level? 

Mr. VALLAS. Obviously, fully funding No Child Left Behind, but 

let us focus specifically on the issue at hand. Summer jobs, jobs 

programs for young people, and I will tell you why. One of the 

things that we have attempted to do is to create an incentive for 

children to stay in school and to stay well behaved. Congressmen 

Fattah, who is in the audience, initiated his corps Philly scholar 

program which basically says, if students are in good standing, 

when they graduate they will be provided a scholarship equal to 

their first year differential, what they access through obviously 

loans and student grants and what they do not have to go to college their first year. 

Same thing, drivers ed is something that if children are in good 

standing we will provide them. Summer jobs, summer internships 

so we can get the kids into constructive activities and then use 

those summer jobs and summer internships as an incentive to keep 

kids in school and to keep—and to help influence student behavior. 

I think it would be the one thing beyond, obviously, fully funding 

No Child Left Behind that would make a dramatic difference. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Senator, I need to identify, because I am in law enforcement, my appreciation, and I would ask you to continue to 

sustain the Project Safe Neighborhoods kind of program, and by extension, the violent crime impact teams. We have an ability to 

work at the local level in a unique way. Each district attorney 

works with my office and local policy to identify unique problems 

to their neighborhood. It gives us flexibility. Those assistant prosecutors are assigned to my office. We make decisions about which 

cases to bring locally or federally. That gives us tremendous leverage, and we use the resources well. 

I will say, we help clear the field. I am speaking for law enforcement. But once we have done that, I need to be able to rely on the 

support mechanisms from youth violence and others to wrap 

around, to prevent the future violence once we have cleaned it out. 

Senator BIDEN. Chief? 

Chief MCDONALD. Like Mr. Meehan, I would ask you to continue 

to fund Project Safe Neighborhood. Also to encourage and continue 

to encourage local law enforcement’s working relationship with 

Federal agencies. We think we in the city of Pittsburgh have an excellent working relationship with ATF, the FBI, the DEA, as well 

as State agencies and local, county agencies as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I think by working together in a coordinated effort 

we are able to pool our resources with the limited funding that is 

available. So I would ask you to keep encouraging those efforts. 

Senator BIDEN. Jim? 

Mr. KANE. We are trying to roll nine into one. Continue to provide the balanced resources that you have had the wisdom to do 

in the past, ranging from prevention all the way through the sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 022596 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22596.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
40

tem to incarceration and aftercare, and also leadership in telling us 

what works and what does not. 

Commissioner JOHNSON. I just came from Sun Valley Saturday 

from a major city chief conference and the consensus was with all 

the major city chiefs, and there are 56 of us, is that international 

terrorism is a problem and we understand that. But domestic terrorism is just as big of a problem and we need funding not just for 

law enforcement, for all agencies that are going to be proactive to 

save our children. 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Biden. I 

thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Biden for coming from their 

home States and from Washington to this hearing, and my colleague Senator Santorum. I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses, Ms. Hart, Ms. Arias, Mr. Flores, Mr. Vallas, Mr. Meehan, 

Chief McDonald, Mr. Kane, and Commissioner Johnson. I want to 

acknowledge formally the presence of Congressman Fattah whom 

I had referred to earlier on the GEAR UP program where he had 

the idea and my subcommittee had $2 billion. He had a little of the 

advantage on that. And also acknowledge the presence of Ms. Ruth 

Dubois here who has been a leader in drug rehabilitation. She 

brought her husband, Federal Judge Jan Dubois as well. 

In conclusion, let me say that this is just the beginning. We are 

going to be pursuing the issues which have been raised here with 

going over the programs nationally which work and discarding the 

ones which do not. Also, the State of Pennsylvania and there are 

outstanding questions here which we are going to be pursuing with 

Mr. Meehan and Chief McDonald. We have asked Commissioner 

Johnson to help us beyond, and we thank Superintendent Kane for 

coming and we are going to be studying Superintendent Vallas’ 

compendium. 

But this is not going to be a hit-and-run hearing. The Judiciary 

Committee is going to be following up. We have the authority on 

reauthorization and authorization to identify programs, and some 

punch also on the appropriations process. So this is an issue which 

is beyond challenging. It is daunting. Beyond any question, it is 

daunting to make any significant inroads in it, but we are determined to do that. 

So thank you all for coming and that concludes our hearing. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

41


22596.001
42


22596.002
43


22596.003
44


22596.004
45


22596.005
46


22596.006
47


22596.007
48


22596.008
49


22596.009
50


22596.010
51


22596.011
52


22596.012
53


22596.013
54


22596.014
55


22596.015
56


22596.016
57


22596.017
58


22596.018
59


22596.019
60


22596.020
61


22596.021
62


22596.022
63


22596.023
64


22596.024
65


22596.025
66


22596.026
67


22596.027
68


22596.028
69


22596.029
70


22596.030
71


22596.031
72


22596.032
73


22596.033
74


22596.034
75


22596.035
76


22596.036
77


22596.037
78


22596.038
79


22596.039
80


22596.040
81


22596.041
82


22596.042
83


22596.043
84


22596.044
85


22596.045
86


22596.046
87


22596.047
88


22596.048
89


22596.049
90


22596.050
91


22596.051
92


22596.052
93


22596.053
94


22596.054
95


22596.055
96


22596.056
97


22596.057
98


22596.058
99


22596.059
100


22596.060
101


22596.061
102


22596.062
103


22596.063
104


22596.064
105


22596.065
106


22596.066
107


22596.067
108


22596.068
109


22596.069
110


22596.070
111


22596.071
112


22596.072
113


22596.073
114


22596.074
115


22596.075
116


22596.076
117


22596.077
118


22596.078
119


22596.079
120


22596.080
121

Æ


22596.081