YOUTH PRISON REDUCTION THROUGH OPPORTUNITIES, MENTORING, INTERVENTION, SUPPORT, 

AND EDUCATION (PROMISE) ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1064 

JULY 15, 2009 

Serial No. 111–86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

YOUTH PRISON REDUCTION THROUGH OPPORTUNITIES, MENTORING, 

INTERVENTION, SUPPORT, AND EDUCATION (PROMISE) ACT 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–015 PDF 2010

YOUTH PRISON REDUCTION THROUGH OPPORTUNITIES, MENTORING, INTERVENTION, SUPPORT, 

AND EDUCATION (PROMISE) ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1064 

JULY 15, 2009 

Serial No. 111–86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 15, 2009 

Page 

TEXT OF THE BILL 

H.R. 1064, the ‘‘Youth Prison Reduction Through Opportunities, Mentoring, 

Intervention, Support, and Education Act,’’ or the ‘‘Youth PROMISE Act’’ .... 8 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 33 

The Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 35 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, Monterey Park, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Ms. Marian Wright Edelman, President and Founder, Children’s Defense 

Fund, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 50 

Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D., Consultant, Spencer Stuart, Boston, MA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Mr. David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data 

Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 61 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

Ms. Tracy Vela ́zquez, Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 78 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 80 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 38 

Analysis of H.R. 3200, the ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’’ 

submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 90

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D., Consultant, Spencer 

Stuart, Boston, MA .............................................................................................. 100 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 121 

Additional Material submitted for the Record ...................................................... 463 

(1) 

YOUTH PROMISE ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Waters, Gohmert, Poe 

and Goodlatte. 

Also Present: Representative Watt. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Carol Chodroff, Counsel; Jesselyn 

McCurdy, Counsel; Karen Wilkinson, Fellow, Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; Ron LeGrand, Counsel; Joe Graupensperger, 

Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) 

and Caroline Lynch, Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to this hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 

H.R. 1064, the ‘‘Youth Prison Reduction Through Opportunities, 

Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act,’’ better 

known as the ‘‘Youth PROMISE Act.’’ 

In this hearing we will discuss and consider the legislation which 

is currently pending before the House and as of today has 226 bipartisan cosponsors. 

As a result of our primary focus on tough-on-crime strategies to 

address crime over the last 25 years, the United States now has 

the highest average incarceration rate of anywhere in the world 

with 2.3 million people behind bars. 

The chart over here shows the incarceration rate in about every 

country you can name, showing the blue—the second blue bar is 

the average U.S. incarceration rate, number one in the world. The 

first purple bar is the African American average incarceration rate, 

and the larger purple bar is the African American incarceration 

rate in the top 10 States in incarceration. It shows at a rate far 

and above anywhere found on Earth that we already lock up more 

people than anywhere on Earth. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

2 


FF-1X.eps
3 


FF-2.eps
4 


FF-3.eps
5 


FF-4.eps
6 

Mr. SCOTT. The impact of this focus on tough on crime falls disproportionately on minorities. A staggering disproportionate number of those that are incarcerated are poor and minority. While the 

average incarceration rate is seven times the international average, 

it averages in 10 States at almost 4,000 per 100,000, a rate about 

40 times the international average. 

For Black boys born today, the Sentencing Project estimates that 

one out of three will end up incarcerated within their lifetime unless there is appropriate intervention. The problem is so bad the 


FF-5.eps
7 

Children’s Defense Fund has launched a campaign to address the 

Cradle to Prison Pipeline, and we are fortunate to have Marian 

Wright Edelman here, who will talk about that in her testimony 

as well as the various contributing factors to the pipeline, including 

poverty, a struggling education system, and an unresponsive, overly punitive justice system. 

One of the issues presented by our focus today talks about the 

ways to effectively address crime. The Pew Research Forum found 

that any incarceration rate above the range of 350 to 500 per 

100,000 were not only counterproductive, but when it comes to addressing crime, it is actually counterproductive. In addition to 

being racially discriminatory and counterproductive, it is extremely 

expensive. 

We have—go to the last slides, keep going, keep going okay. 

This chart shows what we waste in putting money on the table. 

This shows that if you reduce the African American incarceration 

rate to 500 per 100,000, which is the top you can do before you 

have gone into counterproductive, if you do the back-of-the-envelope arithmetic and targeted the money to the one-third of the children that are actually at risk, that you could save in the top 10 

States approximately $10,000 per child per year that you are 

spending in counterproductive incarceration. 

[See previous charts.] 

Now, we know that we can do better. The research shows that 

if you focus in the appropriate investments as the Youth PROMISE 

Act requires, that you can reduce crime by having a focus on the 

continuum of support for juveniles starting with teen pregnancy 

prevention, which will reduce the number of children born into dysfunctional families; prenatal care, reduces mental health and mental retardation problems. Early childhood education and programs 

like that, getting children off on the right track and keeping them 

on the right track, will not only reduce crime, but save more money 

than it spends. 

Based on evidence and recommendations of hearings that we 

have held, we worked with the experts to introduce the Youth 

PROMISE Act. Under the act, communities facing the greatest 

youth gang and crime challenges come together to form a Youth 

PROMISE council. This council will involve all the stakeholders in 

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, including law enforcement, school system, court services, social services, health and 

mental health providers, foster care, community-based and faithbased organizations, prosecutors, defense attorneys, parents, families and, of course, our youth. They will come together and form a 

plan, which must be based on sound evidence and research, not 

just poll-tested slogans and sound bites. 

The Youth PROMISE Act will also enhance local and State law 

enforcement efforts regarding youth and gang violence through a 

provision that provides for youth-oriented policing, or YOPS, to 

work with at-risk youth to keep them from becoming involved in 

crime and appropriately responding to them when they do. 

There is nothing in the Youth PROMISE Act that eliminates any 

of the current tough-on-crime laws. It is obviously understood that 

the laws will continue to be enforced, and the prosecution will go 

forward. But if we don’t do something about the trajectory that the 

8 

children are in, whatever we do to this year’s cohort, next year’s 

cohort will be right back where we started. So we have to do something to actually—something to reduce crime. 

Now, again, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about 

spending more money, we just need to reallocate the money we are 

already spending today. When Pennsylvania invested in about 100 

communities, spent about $60 million in 100 communities, they 

found that the collaborative approach ended up saving $5 for every 

dollar they spent. Other programs have been able to do the same 

thing. So we are not talking about new money, just reallocating the 

money that you are spending. 

The Youth PROMISE Act has, as I indicated, over 226 bipartisan 

cosponsors. It is supported by over 248 national, State and local organizations. Cities have supported by resolution the Youth PROMISE Act, including Los Angeles California; Pasadena, California; 

New York City; Pittsburgh; Philadelphia; Norfolk, Newport News, 

Hampton in Virginia; Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The U.S. Conference of Mayors last month endorsed the Youth PROMISE Act in 

their annual convention. And just this week the Los Angeles Unified School District passed a resolution supporting the Youth 

PROMISE Act. 

So we know it works. We know we can save more money than 

we spend. So it is just a matter of passing the legislation and taking advantage of what we know that works. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1064, follows:] 

I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1064 

To provide for evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to help build 

individual, family, and community strength and resiliency to ensure that youth 

lead productive, safe, healthy, gang-free, and law-abiding lives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. LEE

of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. CAO, Ms. 

CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEINER, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. KENNEDY, 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, 

Mr. FATTAH, Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. 

DEGETTE, Mr. HONDA, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. WATERS, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Georgia, Ms. NORTON, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, 

Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. COHEN, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, 

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BRADY

of Pennsylvania, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RUSH, Mr. PAYNE, 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. STARK, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. 

WATT, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, and Mr. 

RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

9 

the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, Energy 

and Commerce, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to help build 

individual, family, and community strength and resiliency to ensure that youth 

lead productive, safe, healthy, gang-free, and law-abiding lives. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, 

Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act’’ or the ‘‘Youth PROMISE Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

Sec. 3. Definitions. 

Sec. 4. Findings. 

TITLE I—FEDERAL COORDINATION OF LOCAL AND TRIBAL JUVENILE 

JUSTICE INFORMATION AND EFFORTS 

Sec. 101. PROMISE Advisory Panel. 

Sec. 102. Geographic assessment of resource allocation. 

TITLE II—PROMISE GRANTS 

Sec. 200. Purposes. 

Subtitle A—PROMISE Assessment and Planning Grants 

Sec. 201. PROMISE Assessment and Planning grants authorized. 

Sec. 202. PROMISE Coordinating Councils. 

Sec. 203. Needs and strengths assessment. 

Sec. 204. PROMISE Plan components. 

Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle B—PROMISE Implementation Grants 

Sec. 211. PROMISE Implementation grants authorized. 

Sec. 212. PROMISE Implementation grant application requirements. 

Sec. 213. Grant award guidelines. 

Sec. 214. Reports. 

Sec. 215. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle C—General PROMISE Grant Provisions 

Sec. 221. Non-supplanting clause. 

Sec. 222. Grant application review panel. 

Sec. 223. Evaluation of PROMISE grant programs. 

TITLE III—PROMISE RESEARCH CENTERS 

Sec. 301. Establishment of the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile 

Justice Practices. 

Sec. 302. Grants for Regional Research Proven Practices Partnerships. 

TITLE IV—YOUTH–ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 

Sec. 401. Purpose. 

Sec. 402. Definitions. 

10 

Sec. 403. Grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire and 

train youth-oriented policing officers. 

Sec. 404. Establishment of Center for Youth-oriented Policing. 

Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE V—ENHANCED FEDERAL SUPPORT OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Subtitle A—Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief 

Sec. 501. Short title. 

Sec. 502. Findings. 

Sec. 503. Designation as a comprehensive gang prevention and relief area. 

Sec. 504. Interagency Gang Prevention Task Force. 

Sec. 505. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle B—Community and Police Collaboration 

Sec. 511. Gang prevention grants. 

Subtitle C—City Youth Violence Recovery 

Sec. 521. Findings. 

Sec. 522. Grants to prevent or alleviate the effects of youth violence. 

TITLE VI—PRECAUTION ACT 

Sec. 601. Short title. 

Sec. 602. Purposes. 

Sec. 603. Definitions. 

Sec. 604. National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Sec. 605. Innovative crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategy 

grants. 

TITLE VII—ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE 

Sec. 701. Youth Victim and Witness Assistance Program. 

‘‘Sec. 31707. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 702. Expansion and reauthorization of the Mentoring Initiative for systeminvolved youth. 

Sec. 703. Study on adolescent development and sentences in the Federal system. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

(2) COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘community’’ means a unit of local government 

or an Indian Tribe, or part of such a unit or Tribe, as determined by such a 

unit or Tribe for the purpose of applying for a grant under this Act. 

(3) DESIGNATED GEOGRAPHIC AREA.—The term ‘‘designated geographic area’’ 

means a 5-digit postal ZIP Code assigned to a geographic area by the United 

States Postal Service. 

(4) EVIDENCE-BASED.—The term ‘‘evidence-based’’, when used with respect 

to a practice relating to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity 

prevention and intervention, means a practice (including a service, program, or 

strategy) that has statistically significant juvenile delinquency and criminal 

street gang activity reduction outcomes when evaluated by— 

(A) an experimental trial, in which participants are randomly assigned 

to participate in the practice that is the subject of the trial; or 

(B) a quasi-experimental trial, in which the outcomes for participants 

are compared with outcomes for a control group that is made up of individuals who are similar to such participants. 

(5) INTERVENTION.—The term ‘‘intervention’’ means the provision of programs and services that are supported by research, are evidence-based or promising practices, and are provided to youth who are involved in, or who are identified by evidence-based risk assessment methods as being at high risk of continued involvement in, juvenile delinquency or criminal street gangs, as a result 

11 

of indications that demonstrate involvement with problems such as truancy, 

substance abuse, mental health treatment needs, or siblings who have had involvement with juvenile or criminal justice systems. 

(6) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY PREVEN- TION.—The term ‘‘juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention’’ means the provision of programs and resources to children and families 

who have not yet had substantial contact with criminal justice or juvenile justice systems, that— 

(A) are designed to reduce potential juvenile delinquency and criminal 

street gang activity risks; and 

(B) are evidence-based or promising educational, health, mental health, 

school-based, community-based, faith-based, parenting, job training, social 

opportunities and experiences, or other programs, for youth and their families, that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity risks. 

(7) PROMISING.—The term ‘‘promising’’, when used with respect to a practice 

relating to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention 

and intervention, means a practice that is not evidence-based, but— 

(A) that has outcomes from an evaluation that demonstrate that such 

practice reduces juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity; and 

(B) about which a study is being conducted to determine if such practice is evidence-based. 

(8) YOUTH.—The term ‘‘youth’’ means— 

(A) an individual who is 18 years of age or younger; or 

(B) in any State in which the maximum age at which the juvenile justice system of such State has jurisdiction over individuals exceeds 18 years 

of age, an individual who is such maximum age or younger. 

SEC. 4. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds as follows: 

(1) Youth gang crime has taken a toll on a number of urban communities, 

and senseless acts of gang-related violence have imposed economic, social, and 

human costs. 

(2) The use of a wide range of evidence-based and promising programs, integrated into a youth-oriented community system of care, has been demonstrated 

to reduce youth violence, delinquency, and crime risks, as well as criminal justice, public assistance, victim assistance, and other costs. 

(3) Coordinated efforts of stakeholders in the juvenile justice system in a 

local community, together with other organizations and community members 

concerned with the safety and welfare of children, have a strong record of demonstrated success in reducing the impact of youth and gang-related crime and 

violence, as demonstrated in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Richmond, Virginia, Los Angeles, California, and other communities. 

(4) Investment in prevention and intervention programs for children and 

youth, including quality early childhood programs, comprehensive evidencebased school, after school, and summer school programs, mentoring programs, 

mental health and treatment programs, evidence-based job training programs, 

and alternative intervention programs, has been shown to lead to decreased 

youth arrests, decreased delinquency, lower recidivism, and greater financial 

savings from an educational, economic, social, and criminal justice perspective. 

(5) Criminal justice costs have become burdensome in many States and cities, requiring reductions in vital educational, social, welfare, mental health, and 

related services. 

(6) Targeting interventions at special youth risk groups and focusing upon 

relatively low-cost interventions increases the probability of fiscal benefit. 

(7) Savings achieved through early intervention and prevention are significant, especially when non-criminal justice social, educational, mental health, 

and economic outcomes are considered. 

(8) Evidence-based intervention treatment facilities have been shown to reduce youth delinquency and to be cost-effective. 

(9) The prevention of child abuse and neglect can help stop a cycle of violence and save up to $5.00 for every $1.00 invested in preventing such abuse 

and neglect. 

(10) Quality early childhood education programs have been demonstrated to 

help children start school ready to learn and to reduce delinquency and criminal 

street gang activity risks. 

(11) Evidence-based mentoring programs have been shown to prevent youth 

drug abuse and violence. 

12 

(12) Evidence-based school-based comprehensive instructional programs 

that pair youth with responsible adult mentors have been shown to have a 

strong impact upon delinquency prevention. 

(13) After-school programs that connect children to caring adults and that 

provide constructive activities during the peak hours of juvenile delinquency 

and criminal street gang activity, between 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon, have 

been shown to reduce delinquency and the attendant costs imposed on the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

(14) States with higher levels of educational attainment have been shown 

to have crime rates lower than the national average. Researchers have found 

that a 5 percent increase in male high school graduation rates would produce 

an annual savings of almost $5,000,000,000 in crime-related expenses. 

(15) Therapeutic programs that engage and motivate high-risk youth and 

their families to change behaviors that often result in criminal activity have 

been shown to significantly reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders, and significantly reduce the attendant costs of crime and delinquency imposed upon 

the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

(16) Comprehensive programs that target kids who are already serious juvenile offenders by addressing the multiple factors in peer, school, neighborhood, and family environments known to be related to delinquency can reduce 

recidivism among juvenile offenders and save the public significant economic 

costs. 

(17) There are many alternatives to incarceration of youth that have been 

proven to be more effective in reducing crime and violence at the National, 

State, local, and tribal levels, and the failure to provide for such effective alternatives is a pervasive problem that leads to increased youth, and later adult, 

crime and violence. 

(18) Drug- and alcohol-dependent youth, and youth dually diagnosed with 

addiction and mental health disorders, are more likely to become involved with 

the juvenile justice system than youth without such risk factors, absent appropriate prevention and intervention services. 

(19) Research funded by the Department of Justice indicates that gangmembership is short-lived among adolescents. With very few youth remaining 

gang-involved throughout their adolescent years, ongoing opportunities for 

intervention exist. 

(20) Excessively punitive juvenile justice policies, including over-reliance on 

incarceration and confinement of youth, particularly in the early stages of delinquent behavior and for non-violent delinquent behavior, have been shown to increase long-term crime risks. 

(21) Children of color are over-represented relative to the general population at every stage of the juvenile justice system. 

(22) The rise in homicides in several cities in recent years followed declines 

in Federal funding provided for law enforcement, educational, health and mental health, social services, and other support to localities for youth, their families, and other community-oriented programs and approaches. 

(23) Direct expenditures for jails and prisons, correctional personnel, prosecution, and law enforcement strategies that lead to increased incarceration 

have been steadily increasing. In fiscal year 2005, Federal, State, and local governments spent an estimated $204,000,000,000 for law enforcement, incarceration, corrections, judicial, and attendant criminal justice expenses, a 5.5 percent increase over the previous year. 

TITLE I—FEDERAL COORDINATION OF LOCAL 

AND TRIBAL JUVENILE JUSTICE INFORMATION AND EFFORTS 

SEC. 101. PROMISE ADVISORY PANEL. 

(a) ORGANIZATION OF STATE ADVISORY GROUP MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES.—Section 223(f) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 

U.S.C. 5633(f)) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) ORGANIZATION OF STATE ADVISORY GROUP MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES.— 

The Administrator shall provide technical and financial assistance to a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to assist such organization in carrying out the 

13 

functions specified in paragraph (2). To receive such assistance, an organization 

shall— 

‘‘(A) be governed by individuals who— 

‘‘(i) have been appointed by a chief executive of a State to serve as 

a State advisory group member under subsection (a)(3); and 

‘‘(ii) are elected to serve as a governing officer of such organization 

by a majority of the Chairs (or Chair-designees) of all such State advisory groups; 

‘‘(B) include member representatives from a majority of such State advisory groups, who shall be representative of regionally and demographically diverse States and jurisdictions; and 

‘‘(C) annually seek appointments by the chief executive of each State 

of one State advisory group member and one alternate State advisory group 

member from each such State to implement the advisory functions specified 

in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2), including serving on the 

PROMISE Advisory Panel, and make a record of any such appointments 

available to the public.’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows: 

‘‘(D) advising the Administrator with respect to particular functions or 

aspects of the work of the Office, and appointing a representative, diverse 

group of members of such organization under paragraph (1) to serve as an 

advisory panel of State juvenile justice advisors (referred to as the ‘PROMISE Advisory Panel’) to carry out the functions specified in subsection (g); 

and’’. 

(b) PROMISE ADVISORY PANEL.—Section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633) is further amended by adding at 

the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(g) PROMISE ADVISORY PANEL.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—The PROMISE Advisory Panel required under subsection 

(f)(2)(D) shall— 

‘‘(A) assess successful evidence-based and promising practices related to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention carried out by PROMISE Coordinating Councils under such Act; 

‘‘(B) provide the Administrator with a list of individuals who have experience in administering or evaluating practices that serve youth involved in, 

or at risk of involvement in, juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang 

activity, from which the Administrator shall select individuals who shall— 

‘‘(i) provide to the Administrator peer reviews of applications submitted by units of local government and Indian tribes pursuant to title 

II of such Act, to ensure that such applications demonstrate a clear 

plan to— 

‘‘(I) serve youth as part of an entire family unit; and 

‘‘(II) coordinate the delivery of service to youth among agencies; and 

‘‘(ii) advise the Administrator with respect to the award and allocation of PROMISE Planning grants to local and tribal governments that 

develop PROMISE Coordinating Councils, and of PROMISE Implementation grants to such PROMISE Coordinating Councils, pursuant to 

title II of such Act; 

‘‘(C) develop performance standards to be used to evaluate programs 

and activities carried out with grants under title II of the Youth PROMISE 

Act, including the evaluation of changes achieved as a result of such programs and activities related to decreases in juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity, including— 

‘‘(i) prevention of involvement by at-risk youth in juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity; 

‘‘(ii) diversion of youth with a high risk of continuing involvement 

in juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity; and 

‘‘(iii) financial savings from deferred or eliminated costs, or other 

benefits, as a result of such programs and activities, and the reinvestment by the unit or Tribe of any such savings; and 

‘‘(D) provide the Center for Youth-oriented Policing with a list of individuals the Panel recommends for membership on the Youth-oriented Policing Services Advisory Board, pursuant to section 403(c) of the Youth 

PROMISE Act. 

‘‘(2) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the Youth PROMISE Act, and annually thereafter, the PROMISE Advisory Panel shall prepare a report containing the findings and determinations 

14 

under paragraph (1)(A) and shall submit such report to Congress, the President, 

the Attorney General, and the chief executive and chief law enforcement officer 

of each State, unit of local government, and Indian Tribe.’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 299(a)(1) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671(a)(1)) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title— 

‘‘(A) $6,800,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

‘‘(B) $7,800,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

‘‘(C) $8,800,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(D) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(E) $13,600,000 for fiscal year 2014.’’. 

SEC. 102. GEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION. 

(a) GRANT FOR COLLECTION OF DATA TO DETERMINE NEED.—Subject to the 

availability of appropriations, the Administrator shall award a grant, on a competitive basis, to an organization to— 

(1) collect and analyze data related to the existing juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention needs and resources 

in each designated geographic area; 

(2) use the data collected and analyzed under paragraph (1) to compile a 

list of designated geographic areas that are in need of resources to carry out 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; 

(3) use the data collected and analyzed under paragraph (1) to rank such 

areas in descending order by the amount of need for resources to carry out juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention, 

ranking the area with the greatest need for such resources highest; and 

(4) periodically update the list under paragraph (2) and the rankings under 

paragraph (3) as the Administrator determines to be appropriate. 

(b) DATA SOURCES.—In compiling such list and determining such rankings, the 

organization shall collect and analyze data relating to juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention— 

(1) using the geographic information system and web-based mapping application known as the Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography 

(SMART) system; 

(2) from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department 

of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Education; and 

(3) from the annual KIDS Count Data Book and other data made available 

by the KIDS Count initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

(c) USE OF DATA BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.—The list and rankings required by 

this section shall be provided to the Administrator to be used to provide funds under 

this Act in the most strategic and effective manner to ensure that resources and 

services are provided to youth in the communities with the greatest need for such 

resources and services. 

(d) LIMITATION ON USE OF COLLECTED DATA.—The information collected and 

analyzed under this section may not be used for any purpose other than to carry 

out the purposes of this Act. Such information may not be used for any purpose related to the investigation or prosecution of any person, or for profiling of individuals 

based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or any other characteristic. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION AND LIMITATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010 to carry out this section and subtitle A of title II of this 

Act (as authorized under section 205), not more than one percent of such amount, 

or $1,000,000, whichever is less, shall be available to carry out this section. 

TITLE II—PROMISE GRANTS 

SEC. 200. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of the grant programs established under this title are to— 

(1) enable local and tribal communities to assess the unmet needs of youth 

who are involved in, or are at risk of involvement in, juvenile delinquency or 

criminal street gangs; 

(2) develop plans appropriate for a community to address those unmet 

needs with juvenile delinquency and gang prevention and intervention practices; and 

15 

(3) implement and evaluate such plans in a manner consistent with this 

Act. 

Subtitle A—PROMISE Assessment and Planning 

Grants 

SEC. 201. PROMISE ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING GRANTS AUTHORIZED. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Administrator is authorized to award grants to 

units of local government and Indian Tribes to assist PROMISE Coordinating Councils with planning and assessing evidence-based and promising practices relating to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention, 

especially for youth who are involved in, or who are at risk of involvement in, juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. Such PROMISE Coordinating 

Councils shall— 

(1) conduct an objective needs and strengths assessment in accordance with 

section 203; and 

(2) develop a PROMISE Plan in accordance with section 204, based on the 

assessment conducted in accordance with section 203. 

(b) GRANT DURATION, AMOUNT, AND ALLOCATION.— 

(1) DURATION.—A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period not 

to exceed one year. 

(2) MAXIMUM GRANT AMOUNT.—A grant awarded under this section shall 

not exceed $300,000. 

(c) ALLOCATION.— 

(1) MINIMUM ALLOCATION.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 

Administrator shall ensure that the total funds allocated under this section to 

units of local governments and Indian tribes in a State shall not be less than 

$1,000,000. 

(2) RATABLE REDUCTION.—If the amount made available for grants under 

this section for any fiscal year is less than the amount required to provide the 

minimum allocation of funds under paragraph (1) to units of local government 

and Indian tribes in each State, then the amount of such minimum allocation 

shall be ratably reduced. 

SEC. 202. PROMISE COORDINATING COUNCILS. 

To be eligible to receive a grant under this subtitle, a unit of local government 

or an Indian Tribe shall establish a PROMISE Coordinating Council for each community of such unit or Tribe, respectively, for which such unit or Tribe is applying 

for a grant under this subtitle. Each such community shall include one or more designated geographic areas identified on the list required under section 102(a)(2). The 

members of such a PROMISE Coordinating Council shall be representatives of public and private sector entities and individuals that— 

(1) shall include, to the extent possible, at least one representative from 

each of the following: 

(A) the local chief executive’s office; 

(B) a local educational agency; 

(C) a local health agency or provider; 

(D) a local mental health agency or provider, unless the representative 

under subparagraph (C) also meets the requirements of this subparagraph; 

(E) a local public housing agency; 

(F) a local law enforcement agency; 

(G) a local child welfare agency; 

(H) a local juvenile court; 

(I) a local juvenile prosecutor’s office; 

(J) a private juvenile residential care entity; 

(K) a local juvenile public defender’s office; 

(L) a State juvenile correctional entity; 

(M) a local business community representative; and 

(N) a local faith-based community representative; 

(2) shall include two representatives from each of the following: 

(A) parents who have minor children, and who have an interest in the 

local juvenile or criminal justice systems; 

(B) youth between the ages of 15 and 24 who reside in the jurisdiction 

of the unit or Tribe; and 

16 

(C) members from nonprofit community-based organizations that provide effective delinquency prevention and intervention to youth in the jurisdiction of the unit or Tribe; and 

(3) may include other members, as the unit or Tribe determines to be appropriate. 

SEC. 203. NEEDS AND STRENGTHS ASSESSMENT. 

(a) ASSESSMENT.—Each PROMISE Coordinating Council receiving funds from a 

unit of local government or Indian tribe under this subtitle shall conduct an objective strengths and needs assessment of the resources of the community for which 

such PROMISE Coordinating Council was established, to identify the unmet needs 

of youth in the community with respect to evidence-based and promising practices 

related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and 

intervention. The PROMISE Coordinating Council shall consult with a research 

partner receiving a grant under section 302 for assistance with such assessment. 

Such assessment shall include, with respect to the community for which such 

PROMISE Coordinating Council was established— 

(1) the number of youth who are at-risk of involvement in juvenile delinquency or street gang activity; 

(2) the number of youth who are involved in juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity, including the number of such youth who are at highrisk of continued involvement; 

(3) youth unemployment rates during the summer; 

(4) the number of individuals on public financial assistance (including a 

breakdown of the numbers of men, women, and children on such assistance), 

the estimated number of youth who are chronically truant, and the number of 

youth who have dropped out of school in the previous year; and 

(5) for the year before such assessment, the estimated total amount expended (by the community and other entities) for the incarceration of offenders 

who were convicted or adjudicated delinquent for an offense that was committed 

in such community, including amounts expended for the incarceration of offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities that are located in the United States 

but are not located in such community; 

(6) a comparison of the amount under paragraph (5) with an estimation of 

the amount that would be expended for the incarceration of offenders described 

in such paragraph if the number of offenders described in such paragraph was 

equal to the national average incarceration rate per 100,000 population; and 

(7) a description of evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention available for 

youth in the community, including school-based programs, after school programs (particularly programs that have activities available for youth between 

3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon), weekend activities and programs, youth mentoring programs, faith and community-based programs, summer activities, and 

summer jobs, if any; and 

(8) a description of evidence-based and promising intervention practices 

available for youth in the community. 

(b) LIMITATION ON USE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION.—Information gathered 

pursuant to this section may be used for the sole purpose of developing a PROMISE 

Plan in accordance with this subtitle. 

SEC. 204. PROMISE PLAN COMPONENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each PROMISE Coordinating Council receiving funds from a 

unit of local government or Indian tribe under this subtitle shall develop a PROMISE Plan to provide for the coordination of, and, as appropriate, to support the delivery of, evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to youth and families who 

reside in the community for which such PROMISE Coordinating Council was established. Such a PROMISE Plan shall— 

(1) include the strategy by which the PROMISE Coordinating Council plans 

to prioritize and allocate resources and services toward the unmet needs of 

youth in the community, consistent with the needs and available resources of 

communities with the greatest need for assistance, as determined pursuant to 

section 102; 

(2) include a combination of evidence-based and promising prevention and 

intervention practices that are responsive to the needs of the community; 

(3) take into account the cultural and linguistic needs of the community; 

and 

(4) use approaches that have been shown to be effective at reducing the 

rates of juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity in communities. 

17 

(b) MANDATORY COMPONENTS.—Each PROMISE Plan shall— 

(1) include a plan to connect youth identified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 

section 203(a) to evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; 

(2) identify the amount or percentage of local funds that are available to 

the PROMISE Coordinating Council to carry out the PROMISE Plan; 

(3) provide strategies to improve indigent defense delivery systems, with 

particular attention given to groups of children who are disproportionately represented in the State delinquency system and Federal criminal justice system, 

as compared to the representation of such groups in the general population of 

the State; 

(4) provide for training (which complies with the American Bar Association 

Juvenile Justice Standards for the representation and care of youth in the juvenile justice system) of prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, judges and 

other court personnel related to issues concerning the developmental needs, 

challenges, and potential of youth in the juvenile justice system, (including 

training related to adolescent development and mental health issues, and the 

expected impact of evidence-based practices and cost reduction strategies); 

(5) ensure that the number of youth involved in the juvenile delinquency 

and criminal justice systems does not increase as a result of the activities undertaken with the funds provided under this subtitle; 

(6) describe the coordinated strategy that will be used by the PROMISE Coordinating Council to provide at-risk youth with evidenced-based and promising 

practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; 

(7) propose the performance evaluation process to be used to carry out section 211(d), which shall include performance measures to assess efforts to address the unmet needs of youth in the community with evidence-based and 

promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; and 

(8) identify the research partner the PROMISE Coordinating Council will 

use to obtain information on evidenced-based and promising practices related to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention, and for the evaluation under section 211(d) of the results of the activities 

carried out with funds under this subtitle. 

(c) VOLUNTARY COMPONENTS.—In addition to the components under subsection 

(b), a PROMISE Plan may include evidence-based or promising practices related to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention 

in the following categories: 

(1) Early childhood development services (such as pre-natal and neo-natal 

health services), early childhood prevention, voluntary home visiting programs, 

nurse-family partnership programs, parenting and healthy relationship skills 

training, child abuse prevention programs, Early Head Start, and Head Start. 

(2) Child protection and safety services (such as foster care and adoption 

assistance programs), family stabilization programs, child welfare services, and 

family violence intervention programs. 

(3) Youth and adolescent development services, including job training and 

apprenticeship programs, job placement and retention training, education and 

after school programs (such as school programs with shared governance by students, teachers, and parents, and activities for youth between the hours of 3:00 

and 6:00 in the afternoon), mentoring programs, conflict resolution skills training, sports, arts, life skills, employment and recreation programs, summer jobs, 

and summer recreation programs, and alternative school resources for youth 

who have dropped out of school or demonstrate chronic truancy. 

(4) Heath and mental health services, including cognitive behavioral therapy, play therapy, and peer mentoring and counseling. 

(5) Substance abuse counseling and treatment services, including harm-reduction strategies. 

(6) Emergency, transitional, and permanent housing assistance (such as 

safe shelter and housing for runaway and homeless youth). 

(7) Targeted gang prevention, intervention, and exit services such as tattoo 

removal, successful models of anti-gang crime outreach programs (such as 

‘‘street worker’’ programs), and other criminal street gang truce or peacemaking 

activities. 

(8) Training and education programs for pregnant teens and teen parents. 

(9) Alternatives to detention and confinement programs (such as mandated 

participation in community service, restitution, counseling, and intensive individual and family therapeutic approaches). 

18 

(10) Pre-release, post-release, and reentry services to assist detained and 

incarcerated youth with transitioning back into and reentering the community. 

SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Subject to the limitation under section 102(e), there are authorized to be appro- priated for fiscal year 2010, $300,000,000 to carry out this subtitle and section 102. 

Subtitle B—PROMISE Implementation Grants 

SEC. 211. PROMISE IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS AUTHORIZED. 

(a) PROMISE IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Administrator of 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is authorized to award 

grants to units of local government and Indian Tribes to assist PROMISE Coordinating Councils with implementing PROMISE Plans (developed pursuant to subtitle 

A). 

(b) GRANT DURATION AND AMOUNT.— (1) DURATION.—A grant awarded under this section shall be for a four-year 

period. 

(2) MAXIMUM GRANT AMOUNT.—A grant awarded under this section shall not be for more than $10,000,000 per year for each year of the grant period. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED.—For each fiscal year during the four-year 

grant period for a grant under this subtitle, each unit of local government or Indian 

Tribe receiving such a grant for a PROMISE Coordinating Council shall provide, 

from non-Federal funds, in cash or in kind, 25 percent of the costs of the activities 

carried out with such grant. 

(d) EVALUATION.—Of any funds provided to a unit of local government or an Indian Tribe for a grant under this subtitle, not more than $100,000 shall be used 

to provide a contract to a competitively selected organization to assess the progress 

of the unit or Tribe in addressing the unmet needs of youth in the community, in 

accordance with the performance measures under section 204(b)(7). 

SEC. 212. PROMISE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) APPLICATION REQUIRED.—To be eligible to receive a PROMISE Implementation grant under this subtitle, a unit of local government or Indian Tribe that received a PROMISE Assessment and Planning grant under subtitle A shall submit 

an application to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention not later than one year after the date such unit of local government or Indian Tribe was awarded such grant under subtitle A, in such manner, 

and accompanied by such information, as the Administrator, after consultation with 

the organization under section 223(f)(1) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(f)(1)), may require. 

(b) CONTENTS OF APPLICATION.—Each application submitted under subsection 

(a) shall— 

(1) identify potential savings from criminal justice costs, public assistance 

costs, and other costs avoided by utilizing evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; 

(2) document— 

(A) investment in evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to be provided by the unit of local government or Indian Tribe; 

(B) the activities to be undertaken with the grants funds; 

(C) any expected efficiencies in the juvenile justice or other local systems to be attained as a result of implementation of the programs funded 

by the grant; and 

(D) outcomes from such activities, in terms of the expected numbers related to reduced criminal activity; 

(3) describe how savings sustained from investment in prevention and 

intervention practices will be reinvested in the continuing implementation of 

the PROMISE Plan; and 

(4) provide an assurance that the local fiscal contribution with respect to 

evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention in the community for 

which the PROMISE Coordinating Council was established for each year of the 

grant period will not be less than the local fiscal contribution with respect to 

such practices in the community for the year preceding the first year of the 

grant period. 

19 

SEC. 213. GRANT AWARD GUIDELINES. 

(a) SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION.—Grants awarded under this subtitle shall be 

awarded on a competitive basis. The Administrator shall— 

(1) take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that grants are awarded 

to units of local governments and Indian Tribes in areas with the highest concentrations of youth who are— 

(A) at-risk of involvement in juvenile delinquency or criminal street 

gang activity; and 

(B) involved in juvenile delinquency or street gang activity and who are 

at high-risk of continued involvement; and 

(2) give consideration to the need for grants to be awarded to units of local 

governments and Indian Tribes in each region of the United States, and among 

urban, suburban, and rural areas. 

(b) EXTENSION OF GRANT AWARD.—The Administrator may extend the grant period under section 211(b)(1) for a PROMISE Implementation grant to a unit of local 

government or an Indian Tribe, in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator. 

(c) RENEWAL OF GRANT AWARD.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, 

the Administrator may renew a PROMISE Implementation grant to a unit of local 

government or an Indian Tribe to provide such unit or Tribe with additional funds 

to continue implementation of a PROMISE Plan. Such a renewal— 

(1) shall be initiated by an application for renewal from a unit of local government or an Indian Tribe; 

(2) shall be carried out in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator; and 

(3) shall not be granted unless the Administrator determines such a renewal to be appropriate based on the results of the evaluation conducted under 

section 223(a) with respect to the community of such unit of Tribe for which 

a PROMISE Coordinating Council was established, and for which such unit or 

Tribe is applying for renewal. 

SEC. 214. REPORTS. 

Not later than one year after the end of the grant period for which a unit of 

local government or an Indian Tribe receives a PROMISE Implementation grant, 

and annually thereafter for as long as such unit or Tribe continues to receive Federal funding for a PROMISE Coordinating Council, such unit or Tribe shall report 

to the Administrator regarding the use of Federal funds to implement the PROMISE Plan developed under subtitle A. 

SEC. 215. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subtitle such sums 

as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2014. 

Subtitle C—General PROMISE Grant Provisions 

SEC. 221. NON-SUPPLANTING CLAUSE. 

A unit of local government or Indian Tribe receiving a grant under this title 

shall use such grant only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of funds 

that, in the absence of such grant, would be available to address the needs of youth 

in the community with respect to evidence-based and promising practices related to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention. 

SEC. 222. GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW PANEL. 

The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

in conjunction with the PROMISE Advisory Panel, shall establish and utilize a 

transparent, reliable, and valid system for evaluating applications for PROMISE Assessment and Planning grants and for PROMISE Implementation grants, and shall 

determine which applicants meet the criteria for funding, based primarily on a determination of greatest need (in accordance with section 102), with due consideration to other enumerated factors and the indicated ability of the applicant to successfully implement the program described in the application. 

SEC. 223. EVALUATION OF PROMISE GRANT PROGRAMS. 

(a) EVALUATION REQUIRED.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under 

this title, the Administrator shall, in consultation with the organization under section 223(f)(1) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 

U.S.C. 5633(f)(1)), provide for an evaluation of the programs and activities carried 

20 

out with grants under this title. In carrying out this section, the Administrator 

shall— 

(1) award grants to institutions of higher education (including institutions 

that are eligible to receive funds under part J of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended by Public Law 110–84)) to facilitate the evaluation process and measurement of achieved outcomes; 

(2) identify evidence-based and promising practices used by Promise Coordinating Councils under PROMISE Implementation grants that have proven to be 

effective in preventing involvement in, or diverting further involvement in, juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity; and 

(3) ensure— 

(A) that such evaluation is based on the performance standards that 

are developed by the PROMISE Advisory Panel in accordance with section 

223(g) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (as 

added by section 101(b) of this Act); 

(B) the development of longitudinal and clinical trial evaluation and 

performance measurements with regard to the evidence-based and promising practices funded under this title; and 

(C) the dissemination of the practices identified in paragraph (2) to the 

National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices (established 

under section 301), units of local government, and Indian Tribes to promote 

the use of such practices by such units and Tribes to prevent involvement 

in, or to divert further involvement in, juvenile delinquency or criminal 

street gang activity. 

(b) RESULTS TO THE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR PROVEN JUVENILE JUSTICE PRACTICES.—The Administrator shall provide the results of the evaluation 

under subsection (a) to the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice 

Practices established under section 301. 

TITLE III—PROMISE RESEARCH CENTERS 

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR PROVEN JUVENILE 

JUSTICE PRACTICES. 

(a) CENTER ESTABLISHED.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Administrator shall award a grant to a nonprofit organization with a national reputation for expertise in operating or evaluating effective, evidenced-based practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention or intervention to develop a National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. 

Such Center shall— 

(1) collaborate with institutions of higher education as regional partners to 

create a best practices juvenile justice information-sharing network to support 

the programs and activities carried out with grants under title II of this Act; 

(2) collect, and disseminate to PROMISE Coordinating Councils, research 

and other information about evidence-based and promising practices related to 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to inform the efforts of PROMISE Coordinating Councils and regional research partners and to support the programs and activities carried out with 

grants under title II of this Act; 

(3) increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of effective juvenile 

justice practices to prevent crime and delinquency and reduce recidivism; and 

(4) develop, manage, and regularly update an Internet website to disseminate proven practices for successful juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014. 

SEC. 302. GRANTS FOR REGIONAL RESEARCH PROVEN PRACTICES PARTNERSHIPS. 

(a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Administrator shall, subject to the 

availability of appropriations, establish a grant program to award grants to institutions of higher education to serve as regional research partners with PROMISE Coordinating Councils that are located in the same geographic region as an institution, 

in collaboration with the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice 

Practices authorized under section 301. Regional research partners shall provide research support to such PROMISE Coordinating Councils, including— 

(1) assistance with preparing PROMISE grant applications under title II, 

including collection of baseline data for such applications; 

21 

(2) assistance with the needs and strengths assessments conducted under 

section 203; and 

(3) provision of support services to PROMISE grant recipients for data collection and analysis to assess progress under the PROMISE grant. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2012. 

TITLE IV—YOUTH–ORIENTED POLICING 

SERVICES 

SEC. 401. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this title is to prevent involvement by youth in, and to divert 

youth from further involvement in, juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang 

activity by providing funding for youth-oriented community-based law enforcement, 

through coordination with PROMISE Coordinating Councils and other communitybased organizations, to carry out evidenced-based and promising practices related 

to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention that are aimed at reducing— 

(1) the number of youth who are victims of crime; 

(2) the number of youth who lack proper education and community-based 

resources, training, and support; 

(3) self-destructive behaviors in youth; 

(4) juvenile delinquency; and 

(5) criminal street gang activity. 

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) YOUTH-ORIENTED POLICING SERVICE.—The term ‘‘youth-oriented policing 

service’’ means a strategic effort by a State, local, or tribal law enforcement 

agency to— 

(A) provide evidenced-based and promising practices related to juvenile 

delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; 

and 

(B) use strategies based on the SARA model, in collaboration with community-based public and private organizations, to reduce— 

(i) the number of youth who are victims of crime; and 

(ii) the risks of juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. 

(2) SARA MODEL.—The term ‘‘SARA model’’ means a problem-solving technique used to organize approaches to recurring problems, which requires action 

with respect to a problem that includes scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. 

SEC. 403. GRANTS TO STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO HIRE 

AND TRAIN YOUTH-ORIENTED POLICING OFFICERS. 

(a) HIRING GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, 

the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services shall award 

grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies— 

(1) to hire law enforcement officers as youth-oriented police to work collaboratively with PROMISE Coordinating Councils, other community-based organizations, and youth at high risk of becoming involved in delinquent activities to 

reduce such risks through specialized training related to— 

(A) youth development; 

(B) investigation of offenses committed by youth; and 

(C) the effectiveness of evidenced-based and promising practices related 

to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and 

intervention, as compared to the effectiveness of traditional law enforcement approaches, when dealing with youth; and 

(2) for training and capacity-building of law enforcement agencies related 

to youth-oriented policing practices and efforts, including— 

(A) carrying out youth-oriented community-based policing activities including systematic needs and strengths assessment, coordination, technology deployment, technical assistance, and problem solving techniques 

(such as strategies based on the SARA model); and 

(B) working with PROMISE Coordinating Councils to develop effective 

initiatives and practices that promote healthy youth development and preVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Jun 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\071509\51015.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51015
22 

vent involvement by youth in, or divert further youth involvement in, juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. 

(b) DURATION.—A grant awarded to a law enforcement agency under this section shall be for a 4-year period. 

(c) MAXIMUM GRANT AMOUNT.—A grant awarded to a law enforcement agency 

under this section shall not exceed $2,000,000. 

(d) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, the Director of the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services shall give priority to law enforcement 

agencies that serve designated geographic areas that are ranked highest in the 

rankings of such areas determined under section 102, and shall consider whether 

a law enforcement agency serves a community for which a PROMISE Coordinating 

Council was established. 

SEC. 404. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTER FOR YOUTH-ORIENTED POLICING. 

(a) GRANT TO ESTABLISH CENTER FOR YOUTH-ORIENTED POLICING.—Subject to 

the availability of appropriations, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services shall award a grant, on a competitive basis, to an eligible organization to establish a Center for Youth-oriented Policing to— 

(1) develop a model youth-oriented policing services training program to 

train representatives from State, regional, and local law enforcement training 

academies to provide youth-oriented policing services training to law enforcement officers, which shall— 

(A) be based on evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention; and 

(B) include training related to specialized police services for preventing 

youth at who are involved in, or who are at high risk of becoming involved 

in, juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity; 

(2) support the adoption of new technologies related to— 

(A) the prioritization of risks related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity; 

(B) the safety of juveniles in custody; and 

(C) the prevention of gun violence; and 

(3) develop, compile, and disseminate to youth-oriented police information 

about evidence-based and promising practices that are best practices for Youthoriented Policing Services for preventing and reducing involvement of youth in 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. 

(b) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—In this section, the term ‘‘eligible organization’’ 

means a nonprofit organization that has demonstrated— 

(1) experience in providing training, advice, and support to law enforcement 

agencies; 

(2) commitment to helping youth avoid delinquency, crime, and involvement 

with the juvenile and criminal justice systems; 

(3) experience in providing law-abiding alternative life styles to youth who 

are participating in delinquency and criminal street gang activity, or who are 

involved with the juvenile or criminal justice systems; and 

(4) ability and commitment to work in partnership with community-based 

organizations that provide services to reduce juvenile delinquency and criminal 

street gang activity. 

(c) YOPS ADVISORY BOARD.— 

(1) BOARD ESTABLISHED.—The Center for Youth-oriented Policing established pursuant to subsection (a) shall establish a Youth-oriented Policing Services Advisory Board to develop an annual work plan for the Center (in accordance with the conditions and requirements of the grant provided under this section). Such Board shall meet at least once each calendar quarter to consider reports of the Center’s activities (including progress made toward accomplishing 

such work plan), and to approve continuation of or amendment to such work 

plan. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The membership of the Youth-oriented Policing Services 

Advisory Board shall— 

(A) be composed of— 

(i) an appointee of the chief executive of the Center for Youth-oriented Policing, who shall serve in an ex-officio capacity; 

(ii) an appointee of the PROMISE Advisory Panel established pursuant to section 223(g) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (as added by section 101(b) of this Act), who shall serve 

in an ex-officio capacity; and 

23 

(iii) individuals who are selected by the Center for Youth-oriented 

Policing from a list of recommended individuals provided by the PROMISE Advisory Panel in accordance with such section 223(g), as follows: 

(I) 8 law enforcement officers from international, national, 

State, and local law enforcement organizations; 

(II) 4 juvenile justice administrators (including judges), including 2 administrators from the State level and 2 administrators 

from the local level; 

(III) 4 representatives of community-based organizations that 

advocate for juveniles, one each from a national, State, local, and 

tribal organization; and 

(IV) 4 individuals who research juvenile crime prevention 

issues; and 

(B) to the greatest extent possible, have a demographic composition 

that represents the demographic composition of the population of the 

United States. 

(3) TERM OF MEMBERSHIP.—Members of the Youth-oriented Policing Services Advisory Board shall serve for 3-year staggered terms. 

SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title $100,000,000 for 

each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014, to be made available as follows: 

(1) Such sums as may be necessary in each such fiscal year to carry out 

the activities of the Center for Youth-oriented Policing established pursuant to 

section 404, except that such sums shall not exceed $5,000,000 or 10 percent 

of the total amount appropriated to carry out this title, whichever is less. 

(2) Of the funds remaining for each such fiscal year after sums are made 

available for under paragraph (1)— 

(A) 80 percent shall be available to award grants to carry out the activities in section 403(a)(1); and 

(B) 20 percent shall be available to award grants to carry out the activities in section 403(a)(2). 

TITLE V—ENHANCED FEDERAL SUPPORT OF 

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Subtitle A—Comprehensive Gang Prevention and 

Relief 

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as ‘‘Mynisha’s Law’’. 

SEC. 502. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds as follows: 

(1) According to the 2008 National Gang Threat Assessment, there are over 

20,000 gangs operating within the United States, and gang violence and drug 

trafficking remain serious problems throughout the country, causing injury and 

death to innocent victims, often children. 

(2) On November 13, 2005, a gang-related dispute broke out in San 

Bernardino, California, and gunfire sprayed an apartment building, killing 11- 

year old Mynisha Crenshaw and seriously wounding her 14-year old sister as 

they ate Sunday dinner with their family. 

(3) This tragic shooting symbolizes the struggle that so many communities 

across the United States, like San Bernardino, face in combating gang violence, 

and serves as a reminder of the nationwide problem of protecting children from 

senseless violence. 

(4) According to the National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street 

gangs are responsible for the distribution of a significant amount of cocaine, 

methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs throughout the United 

States. 

(5) The Federal Government has made an increased commitment to the 

suppression of gang violence through enhanced law enforcement and criminal 

penalties. 

24 

(6) More Federal resources and coordination are needed to reduce gang violence through proven and proactive prevention and intervention programs that 

focus on keeping at-risk youth in school and out of the criminal justice system. 

SEC. 503. DESIGNATION AS A COMPREHENSIVE GANG PREVENTION AND RELIEF AREA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Units of local government and Indian Tribes with a PROMISE Coordinating Council (established in accordance with subtitle A of title II of this 

Act) may submit an application to the Administrator for designation as a Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief Area in accordance with this section. 

(b) CRITERIA.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall establish criteria for reviewing 

applications submitted under subsection (a) and for evaluating and selecting 

areas for designation as Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief Areas. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In establishing criteria under subsection (a) and 

evaluating an application for designation as a Comprehensive Gang Prevention 

and Relief Area, the Administrator shall consider— 

(A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity in the area, 

based on the information collected and analyzed under section 102; 

(B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears to be related 

to criminal gang activity; 

(C) the extent to which the area is implementing a PROMISE Plan, or 

is otherwise already engaged in local or regional collaboration regarding, 

and coordination of, gang prevention activities; and 

(D) such other criteria as the Administrator determines to be appropriate. 

SEC. 504. INTERAGENCY GANG PREVENTION TASK FORCE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to coordinate Federal assistance to Comprehensive 

Gang Prevention and Relief Areas, the Administrator shall establish an Interagency 

Gang Prevention Task Force (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’), consisting of a representative from— 

(1) the Department of Justice; 

(2) the Department of Education; 

(3) the Department of Labor; 

(4) the Department of Health and Human Services; and 

(5) the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

(b) COORDINATION.—For each Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief Area 

designated by the Administrator under section 503, the Task Force shall— 

(1) coordinate the activities of the Federal Government to create a comprehensive gang prevention response, focusing on youth through early childhood 

intervention, at-risk youth intervention, literacy, employment, community policing, and comprehensive community-based programs such as Operation Cease 

Fire or Homeboy Industries; and 

(2) coordinate such comprehensive gang prevention response with local and 

regional gang prevention efforts, including PROMISE Coordinating Councils 

and PROMISE Plans (where such Plans are established). 

(c) PROGRAMS.—The Task Force shall prioritize the needs of Comprehensive 

Gang Prevention and Relief Areas for funding under— 

(1) the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

9858 et seq.); 

(2) the Even Start programs under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.); 

(3) the Healthy Start Initiative under section 330H of the Public Health 

Services Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–8); 

(4) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.); 

(5) the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program under part B 

of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

7171 et seq.); 

(6) the Job Corps program under subtitle C of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2881 et seq.); 

(7) the community development block grant program under title I of the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.); 

(8) the Gang Resistance Education and Training projects under subtitle X 

of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 

U.S.C. 13921); 

(9) any program administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services; 

25 

(10) the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program under part R of title 

I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee 

et seq.); 

(11) the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under 

subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.); and 

(12) any other program that the Task Force determines to be appropriate. 

(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than February 1 of each year, the Task Force 

shall submit to Congress and the Administrator a report on the funding needs 

and programmatic outcomes for each area designated as a Comprehensive Gang 

Prevention and Relief Area. 

(2) CONTENTS.—Each report under paragraph (1) shall include— 

(A) an evidence-based analysis of the best practices and outcomes 

among the areas designated as Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief 

Areas; and 

(B) an analysis of the adequacy of Federal funding to meet the needs 

of each area designated as a Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief 

Area and, if the Task Force identifies any programmatic shortfalls in addressing gang prevention, a request for new funding or reprogramming of 

existing funds to meet such shortfalls. 

SEC. 505. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to 

carry out the purposes of this subtitle, including any needs identified by the Task 

Force as necessary to carry out this subtitle. 

Subtitle B—Community and Police Collaboration 

SEC. 511. GANG PREVENTION GRANTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—The Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services of the Department of Justice may make grants, in accordance with such 

regulations as the Director may prescribe, to units of local government and Indian 

Tribes with a PROMISE Coordinating Council (established in accordance with subtitle A of title II of this Act) to enable such PROMISE Coordinating Council to develop community-based programs that provide crime prevention, research, and 

intervention services that are designed to prevent violence and gang involvement by 

youthful offenders and at-risk youth. 

(b) USE OF GRANT AMOUNTS.—A grant under this section may be used (including through subgrants) for— 

(1) preventing initial gang recruitment and involvement among younger 

teenagers; 

(2) preventing violence and gang involvement through nonviolent and constructive activities, such as community service programs, development of nonviolent conflict resolution skills, employment and legal assistance, family counseling, and other safe, community-based alternatives for crime-involved or highrisk youth; 

(3) developing in-school and after-school gang safety, control, education, and 

resistance procedures and programs; 

(4) identifying and addressing early childhood risk factors for violence and 

gang involvement, including parent training and childhood skills development; 

(5) identifying and fostering protective factors that buffer children and adolescents from violence, crime, and gang involvement; 

(6) developing and identifying investigative programs designed to deter 

gang recruitment, involvement, and activities through effective intelligence 

gathering; 

(7) developing programs and youth centers for first-time, non-violent offenders facing alternative penalties, such as mandated participation in community 

service, restitution, mentoring, counseling, job training, and education and prevention programs; 

(8) implementing multidisciplinary approaches to combat youth violence 

and gang involvement through coordinated programs operated by law enforcement and other public, private, and faith-based community organizations for 

prevention and intervention (including street outreach programs and other 

peacemaking activities) or coordinated law enforcement activities (including 

crime mapping strategies that enhance focused crime prevention, intervention, 

and reintegration strategies for offender reentry); or 

26 

(9) identifying at-risk and high-risk students through home visits organized 

through joint collaborations between law enforcement, faith-based organizations, schools, health and mental health providers, other community based organizations, and social workers. 

(c) MAXIMUM GRANT.—The amount of a grant under this section may not exceed 

$1,000,000. 

(d) ANNUAL REPORT.—Each recipient of a grant under this section shall submit 

to the Director, for each year in which funds from a grant received under this section are expended, a report containing— 

(1) a summary of the activities carried out with grant funds during that 

year; 

(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the crime prevention, research, and 

intervention activities of the recipient, based on data collected by the grant recipient; 

(3) a strategic plan for the year following the year described in paragraph 

(1); 

(4) evidence of consultation and cooperation with local, State, or Federal 

law enforcement or, if the grant recipient is a government entity, evidence of 

consultation with an organization engaged in any activity described in subsection (b); and 

(5) such other information as the Director may require. 

(e) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘units of local government’’ includes 

sheriffs departments, police departments, and local prosecutor offices. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $35,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 

through 2014. 

Subtitle C—City Youth Violence Recovery 

SEC. 521. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following: 

(1) The mental health of young people is essential to their overall wellbeing. Mental health affects how young people think, feel, and act; their ability 

to learn and engage in relationships; their self-esteem; their ability to evaluate 

situations and make choices; and their ability to handle stress, relate to other 

people, and acquire the skills and training needed for adulthood. 

(2) Each year many children and adolescents sustain injuries from violence, 

lose friends or family members because of violence, or are adversely affected by 

witnessing violence. 

(3) Youth violence, perpetrated both by and against young people, results 

in enormous physical, emotional, social, and economic consequences. 

(4) The National Institutes of Health has found that inner-city children experience the greatest exposure to violence, and youngsters who have been exposed to community violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior or 

depression within the following year. 

(5) Any event that can cause a person to feel fear, helplessness, horror, and 

a sense that life or safety is in danger puts a person, especially children, at risk 

for posttraumatic stress. 

(6) Many cities lack the resources to provide the appropriate youth counseling and therapy services to minimize the long-term emotional harm of community violence. 

SEC. 522. GRANTS TO PREVENT OR ALLEVIATE THE EFFECTS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE. 

(a) GRANTS.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, may award grants to eligible entities to prevent or alleviate the effects of youth violence in eligible urban communities by providing violence-prevention education, mentoring, counseling, and mental health services to 

children and adolescents in such communities. 

(b) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, the Attorney General 

shall give priority to applicants that agree to use the grant in one or more eligible 

urban communities that lack the monetary or other resources to address youth violence. 

(c) LIMITATION.—The Attorney General may not make a grant to an eligible entity under this section unless the entity agrees to use not more than 15 percent of 

the funds provided through the grant for violence-prevention education. 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

27 

(1) The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means a partnership between a State mental 

health authority and one or more local public or private providers, such as a 

local agency, State agency, educational institution, or nonprofit or for-profit organization. 

(2) The term ‘‘eligible urban community’’ means an urban community with 

a high or increasing incidence of youth violence. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. 

TITLE VI—PRECAUTION ACT 

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal 

Activity Using Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act of 2009’’, or the 

‘‘PRECAUTION Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 602. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this title are to— 

(1) establish a commitment on the part of the Federal Government to provide leadership on successful crime prevention and intervention strategies; 

(2) further the integration of crime prevention and intervention strategies 

into traditional law enforcement practices of State and local law enforcement 

offices around the country; 

(3) develop a plain-language, implementation-focused assessment of those 

current crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies that are 

supported by rigorous evidence; 

(4) provide additional resources to the National Institute of Justice to administer research and development grants for promising crime prevention and 

intervention strategies; 

(5) develop recommendations for Federal priorities for crime and delinquency prevention and intervention research, development, and funding that 

may augment important Federal grant programs, including the Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title 

I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 

et seq.), grant programs administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice, grant programs administered by 

the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of Education, and 

other similar programs; and 

(6) reduce the costs that rising violent crime imposes on interstate commerce. 

SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions shall apply: 

(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the National Commission 

on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention established under section 604(a). 

(2) RIGOROUS EVIDENCE.—The term ‘‘rigorous evidence’’ means evidence 

generated by scientifically valid forms of outcome evaluation, particularly randomized trials (where practicable). 

(3) SUBCATEGORY.—The term ‘‘subcategory’’ means 1 of the following categories: 

(A) Family and community settings (including public health-based 

strategies). 

(B) Law enforcement settings (including probation-based strategies). 

(C) School settings (including anti-gang and general anti-violence strategies). 

(4) TOP-TIER.—The term ‘‘top-tier’’ means any strategy supported by rigorous evidence of the sizable, sustained benefits to participants in the strategy 

or to society. 

SEC. 604. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH CRIME AND DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime and Delinquency Prevention. 

(b) MEMBERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall be composed of 9 members, of 

whom— 

28 

(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney General; 

(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as the President, in which 

case 1 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

and 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; 

(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made under subparagraph 

(B)); 

(D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, unless 

the majority leader is of the same party as the President, in which case 1 

shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; and 

(E) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate (in addition to any appointment made under subparagraph (D)). 

(2) PERSONS ELIGIBLE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each member of the Commission shall be an individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be studied by the Commission. 

(B) REQUIRED REPRESENTATIVES.—At least— 

(i) 2 members of the Commission shall be social scientists with experience implementing or interpreting rigorous, outcome-based trials; 

(ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement practitioners; and 

(iii) 2 members of the Commission shall be youth delinquency prevention or intervention practitioners. 

(3) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.—The President, the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the 

majority leader and minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable representation of various points of view with 

respect to the matters to be studied by the Commission. 

(4) TERM.—Each member shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. 

(5) TIME FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS.—The appointment of the members 

shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(6) VACANCIES.—A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner 

in which the original appointment was made, and shall be made not later than 

60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurred. 

(7) EX OFFICIO MEMBERS.—The Director of the National Institute of Justice, 

the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

the Director of the Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

and the Director of Community Oriented Policing Services (or a representative 

of each such director) shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission to provide advice and information to the Commission. 

(c) OPERATION.— 

(1) CHAIRPERSON.—At the initial meeting of the Commission, the members 

of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from among its voting members, by 

a vote of 2⁄3 of the members of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain 

this position for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of 2⁄3 of the members 

of the Commission. 

(2) MEETINGS.—The Commission shall meet at the call of the chairperson. 

The initial meeting of the Commission shall take place not later than 30 days 

after the date on which all the members of the Commission have been appointed. 

(3) QUORUM.—A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting hearings scheduled by the Commission. 

(4) RULES.—The Commission may establish by majority vote any other 

rules for the conduct of Commission business, if such rules are not inconsistent 

with this title or other applicable law. 

(d) PUBLIC HEARINGS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall hold public hearings. The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 

29 

testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable to 

carry out its duties under this section. 

(2) FOCUS OF HEARINGS.—The Commission shall hold at least 3 separate 

public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of the subcategories. 

(3) WITNESS EXPENSES.—Witnesses requested to appear before the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to witnesses under section 1821 

of title 28, United States Code. The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid from funds appropriated to the Commission. 

(e) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME AND DELINQUENCY PRE- VENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall carry out a comprehensive study 

of the effectiveness of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized around the 3 subcategories. 

(2) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The study under paragraph (1) shall include— 

(A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of incorporating 

crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies into an overall law enforcement plan; 

(B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate the wealth 

of social science research to practitioners; 

(C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of specific crime 

prevention and intervention strategies, focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence; 

(D) an identification of— 

(i) promising areas for further research and development; and 

(ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge that 

would benefit from additional research and development; 

(E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing prevention 

and intervention strategies; 

(F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering rigorous evidence 

regarding the implementation of intervention and prevention strategies; 

and 

(G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited for duplication 

efforts in a range of settings across the country. 

(3) INITIAL REPORT ON TOP-TIER CRIME AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES.— (A) DISTRIBUTION.—Not later than 18 months after the date on which 

all members of the Commission have been appointed, the Commission shall 

submit a public report on the study carried out under this subsection to— 

(i) the President; 

(ii) Congress; 

(iii) the Attorney General; 

(iv) the Chief Federal Public Defender of each district; 

(v) the chief executive of each State; 

(vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts of each 

State; 

(vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts; and 

(viii) the attorney general of each State. 

(B) CONTENTS.—The report under subparagraph (A) shall include— 

(i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission; 

(ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including— 

(I) a review of the rigorous evidence supporting the designation 

of each strategy as top-tier; 

(II) a brief outline of the keys to successful implementation for 

each strategy; and 

(III) a list of references and other information on where further 

information on each strategy can be found; 

(iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally; 

(iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness of crime 

and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies; and 

(v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the Commission in 

preparation of the report. 

(C) CONSULTATION WITH OUTSIDE AUTHORITIES.—In developing the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous evaluation of top-tier 

crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies under this 

paragraph, the Commission shall consult with the Committee on Law and 

Justice at the National Academy of Science and with national associations 

30 

representing the law enforcement and social science professions, including 

the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social 

Science Associations, and the American Society of Criminology. 

(f) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISSEMINATION OF THE INNOVATIVE CRIME

AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY GRANTS.— (1) SUBMISSION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the final 

hearing under subsection (d) relating to a subcategory, the Commission 

shall provide the Director of the National Institute of Justice with recommendations on qualifying considerations relating to that subcategory for 

selecting grant recipients under section 605. 

(B) DEADLINE.—Not later than 13 months after the date on which all 

members of the Commission have been appointed, the Commission shall 

provide all recommendations required under this subsection. 

(2) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The recommendations provided under paragraph 

(1) shall include recommendations relating to— 

(A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory that would 

best benefit from additional research and development; 

(B) any geographic or demographic targets; 

(C) the types of partnerships with other public or private entities that 

might be pertinent and prioritized; and 

(D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention 

strategies that should not be given priority because of a pre-existing base 

of knowledge that would benefit less from additional research and development. 

(g) FINAL REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE INNOVATIVE CRIME AND DELIN- QUENCY PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY GRANTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Following the close of the 3-year implementation period 

for each grant recipient under section 605, the Commission shall collect the results of the study of the effectiveness of that grant under section 605(b)(3) and 

shall submit a public report to the President, the Attorney General, Congress, 

the chief executive of each State, and the attorney general of each State describing each strategy funded under section 605 and its results. This report shall be 

submitted not later than 5 years after the date of the selection of the chairperson of the Commission. 

(2) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE REGARDING GRANT RECIPI- ENTS.—The Commission’s collection of information and evidence regarding each 

grant recipient under section 605 shall be carried out by— 

(A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at the National Institute of Justice; 

(B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including at least 1 

member of the Commission) to the site where the grant recipient is carrying 

out the strategy with a grant under section 605, at least once in the second 

and once in the third year of that grant; 

(C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy; and 

(D) other means as necessary. 

(3) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 

include a review of each strategy carried out with a grant under section 605, 

detailing— 

(A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or intervention strategy; 

(B) where the activities under the strategy were carried out, including 

geographic and demographic targets; 

(C) any partnerships with public or private entities through the course 

of the grant period; 

(D) the type and design of the effectiveness study conducted under section 605(b)(3) for that strategy; 

(E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under section 

605(b)(3) for that strategy; 

(F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that strategy or of the 

effectiveness study conducted under section 605(b)(3), including recommendations regarding which types of environments might best be suited 

for successful replication; and 

(G) recommendations regarding the need for further research and development of the strategy. 

(h) PERSONNEL MATTERS.— 

31 

(1) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Commission shall be allowed 

travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized 

for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 

States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the 

performance of service for the Commission. 

(2) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.—Members of the Commission shall serve 

without compensation. 

(3) STAFF.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The chairperson of the Commission may, without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and such other additional personnel as may be necessary 

to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission. 

(B) COMPENSATION.—The chairperson of the Commission may fix the 

compensation of the executive director and other personnel without regard 

to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 

United States Code, relating to classification of positions and General 

Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive director 

and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title. 

(4) DETAIL OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—With the affirmative vote of 2⁄3 of the 

members of the Commission, any Federal Government employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the 

Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privileges. 

(i) CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH.— 

(1) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.—With a 2⁄3 affirmative vote of the 

members of the Commission, the Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 

this title. The National Institute of Justice shall contract with the researchers 

and experts selected by the Commission to provide funding in exchange for their 

services. 

(2) OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 

to limit the ability of the Commission to enter into contracts with other entities 

or organizations for research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under this section. 

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

(k) TERMINATION.—The Commission shall terminate on the date that is 30 days 

after the date on which the Commission submits the last report required by this 

section. 

(l) EXEMPTION.—The Commission shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

SEC. 605. INNOVATIVE CRIME AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY GRANTS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Director of the National Institute of Justice may 

make grants to public and private entities to fund the implementation and evaluation of innovative crime or delinquency prevention or intervention strategies. The 

purpose of grants under this section shall be to provide funds for all expenses related to the implementation of such a strategy and to conduct a rigorous study on 

the effectiveness of that strategy. 

(b) GRANT DISTRIBUTION.— 

(1) PERIOD.—A grant under this section shall be made for a period of not 

more than 3 years. 

(2) AMOUNT.—The amount of each grant under this section— 

(A) shall be sufficient to ensure that rigorous evaluations may be performed; and 

(B) shall not exceed $2,000,000. 

(3) EVALUATION SET-ASIDE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A grantee shall use not less than $300,000 and not 

more than $700,000 of the funds from a grant under this section for a rigorous study of the effectiveness of the strategy during the 3-year period of 

the grant for that strategy. 

(B) METHODOLOGY OF STUDY.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each study conducted under subparagraph (A) 

shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the employee 

32 

of the National Institute of Justice hired or assigned under subsection 

(c). 

(ii) CRITERIA.—The employee of the National Institute of Justice 

hired or assigned under subsection (c) shall approve— 

(I) an evaluator that has successfully carried out multiple studies producing rigorous evidence of effectiveness; and 

(II) a proposed study design that is likely to produce rigorous 

evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy. 

(iii) APPROVAL.—Before a grant is awarded under this section, the 

evaluator and study design of a grantee shall be approved by the employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or assigned under subsection (c). 

(4) DATE OF AWARD.—Not later than 6 months after the date of receiving 

recommendations relating to a subcategory from the Commission under section 

604(f), the Director of the National Institute of Justice shall award all grants 

under this section relating to that subcategory. 

(5) TYPE OF GRANTS.—One-third of the grants made under this section shall 

be made in each subcategory. In distributing grants, the recommendations of 

the Commission under section 604(f) shall be considered. 

(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out this subsection. 

(c) DEDICATED STAFF.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Justice shall hire 

or assign a full-time employee to oversee the grants under this section. 

(2) STUDY OVERSIGHT.—The employee of the National Institute of Justice 

hired or assigned under paragraph (1) shall be responsible for ensuring that 

grantees adhere to the study design approved before the applicable grant was 

awarded. 

(3) LIAISON.—The employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as a liaison between the Commission 

and the recipients of a grant under this section. That employee shall be responsible for ensuring timely cooperation with Commission requests. 

(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out this 

subsection. 

(d) APPLICATIONS.—A public or private entity desiring a grant under this section 

shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 

information as the Director of the National Institute of Justice may reasonably require. 

(e) COOPERATION WITH THE COMMISSION.—Grant recipients shall cooperate with 

the Commission in providing them with full information on the progress of the strategy being carried out with a grant under this section, including— 

(1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the site where the 

activities under the strategy are being carried out; 

(2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of establishing the strategy for which the grant under this section was received, including details on 

partnerships, selection of participants, and any efforts to publicize the strategy; 

and 

(3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made by the Commission. 

TITLE VII—ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO 

JUVENILE JUSTICE 

SEC. 701. YOUTH VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe to create and expand witness and victim protection programs to prevent threats, intimidation, 

and retaliation against juvenile victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.’’. 

33 

(b) EXPANSION OF FEDERAL WITNESS RELOCATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM.— 

Section 3521(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘criminal 

street gang, serious drug offense, homicide,’’ after ‘‘organized criminal activity’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 31707 of the Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2010 through 2014 to carry out this subtitle.’’. 

SEC. 702. EXPANSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MENTORING INITIATIVE FOR SYSTEMINVOLVED YOUTH. 

(a) EXPANSION.—Section 261(a) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5665(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘Within 6 months of the date of enactment of the Youth PROMISE Act, the Administrator shall expand the number of sites receiving such grants from 4 to 12.’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM.—Section 299(c) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671(c)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘There are authorized’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MENTORING INITIATIVE.—There 

are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth Program under part E $4,800,000 for each of fiscal years 

2010 through 2014.’’. 

SEC. 703. STUDY ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT AND SENTENCES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Sentencing Commission shall conduct a 

study to examine the appropriateness of sentences for minors in the Federal system. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The study conducted under subsection (a) shall— 

(1) incorporate the most recent research and expertise in the field of adolescent brain development and culpability; 

(2) evaluate the toll of juvenile crime, particularly violent juvenile crime, 

on communities; 

(3) consider the appropriateness of life sentences without possibility for parole for minor offenders in the Federal system; and 

(4) evaluate issues of recidivism by juveniles who are released from prison 

or detention after serving determinate sentences. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

United States Sentencing Commission shall submit to Congress a report regarding 

the study conducted under subsection (a), which shall— 

(1) include the findings of the Commission; 

(2) describe significant cases reviewed as part of the study; and 

(3) make recommendations, if any. 

(d) REVISION OF GUIDELINES.—If determined appropriate by the United States 

Sentencing Commission after completing the study under subsection (a), the Commission may, pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States 

Code, establish or revise guidelines and policy statements, as warranted, relating 

to the sentencing of minors. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. I am pleased at this point to recognize my colleague, 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from 

Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

Crime prevention does play an important role in helping to deter 

our youth from committing crimes and joining gangs. The best prevention really does begin at home, though, with a solid family 

structure, strong morals, and proper role models. As a judge I saw 

teenagers and young adults come through the criminal justice system whose lives could have been remarkably different if they had 

received the proper support and guidance from their families. 

34 

Sadly, some children did not have a supportive family that can instill in them the values to lead a productive, law-abiding life. For 

these youth our local communities, churches, schools play a pivotal 

role in helping shape their lives, and many communities across 

America are dedicated to this cause. 

The Youth PROMISE Act goes far beyond simply authorizing 

Federal assistance for these community prevention programs. The 

bill also proposes to implement broad, sweeping, nationalized programs to address youth crime and gang prevention. H.R. 1064 creates 11 new grant programs, a multitude of new layers of government, and over a dozen new reports, studies, evaluations and assessments with a price tag of over $11⁄4 billion. 

H.R. 1064 spends much time and money reviewing, assessing 

and studying what constitutes evidence-based and promising practices relating to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention. Yet in its findings the bill 

claims that the use of a wide range of evidence-based and promising programs has been demonstrated to reduce youth violence, 

delinquency and crime risk. So this seems to beg the question as 

to whether evidence-based prevention programs currently exist. If 

so, the question arises as to why we would spend millions in tax 

dollars to study and assess what constitutes an effective program. 

In fact, a number of studies have been conducted in recent years 

to identify what works when it comes to youth crime and gang prevention. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, the National Center for Mental 

Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency are just to name a 

few. They have undertaken examinations of best practices in youth 

crime prevention. 

H.R. 1064 also legislates what seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach in a vacuum. The bill approaches youth crime and gang prevention as if there are no such programs on this subject right now 

in existence. On the contrary, dozens of local government and nonprofit programs across the country are reaching children every day. 

San Antonio Fighting Back, the New Jersey Gang Intervention and 

Prevention Project, the Chicago Area Project, the Rescue Youth 

Mentoring Program are just a few examples of government an nongovernment prevention programs that are operating and succeeding today. 

Under the Youth PROMISE Act, the local government programs 

will have to be set aside or scrapped and replaced with the Youth 

PROMISE programs in order to receive any of the bulk of the authorized funding, and the nonprofit community-based programs are 

all but left out of this legislation. Of the 11 new grants created in 

this bill, only 1, the Innovative Crime and Delinquency Prevention 

and Intervention Strategy grant, can be awarded to private organizations. 

Moreover, Federal grants programs targeting specifically youth 

crime and gang prevention also currently exist. The Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention operates the Gang Reduction Program, the Gang-Free Schools and 

Community Program and the Tribal Youth Program, all of which 

are demonstrating success. Requirements on units of local governVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Jun 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071509\51015.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51015
35 

ment or Indian tribes to even become eligible for the PROMISE assessment grants are likely cost-prohibitive for most communities 

which seek out Federal assistance because they don’t have the 

funds to operate these programs. 

For PROMISE Planning and Assessment grants, a unit of local 

government or Indian tribe must establish a 20-person PROMISE 

coordinating council, conduct objective strengths and needs assessment examining 8 criteria, implement a PROMISE plan that must 

include 12 components including the institution of higher education 

that will serve as the council’s research partners. 

For PROMISE Implementation grants, units of local government 

and Indian tribes must award a competitive contract to an outside 

organization that will assess the progress of the government or the 

tribe in assessing the unmet needs of youth in the community; 

must also submit annual reports to the Justice Department on implementation of their PROMISE plans. 

While the intentions of H.R. 1064 are wonderful and meritorious, 

serious concerns do arise on the effectiveness of a multilayered, 

burdensome and redundant system of new Federal grants and 

more government on actually preventing our children and teenagers from engaging in crime. 

I do have to say I was so struck by the testimony of one gang 

member who had committed murder before he was sentenced in my 

court, saying, I don’t understand why people are so down on gangs. 

I have got no other family. They are the only family I have. That 

is why I turn to a gang. 

We need to do something to help with morality, with family 

structure, and then we can go even further down the road to helping prevent crime. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I am going to introduce—does the gentlelady from California 

have a comment? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was conducting a hearing over in Financial Services under my Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunities, but I asked 

some one to take the Chair while I come here to this hearing today 

for a number of reasons. 

Number one, I know that you have been working on this issue 

for an awfully long time. You have talked to an awful lot of the 

people, and you have worked hard at putting together a public policy proposal that will recognize that there needs to be substantial 

prevention in the criminal justice system, and to recognize that 

locking them up and throwing the key away is not successful. It 

does not stop gang violence and crime. 

A lot of this is, of course, targeted toward the gangs that have 

caused many of us so much pain in our communities. And I know 

that you join with and perhaps provide the leadership for trying to 

address these issues. 

I must say that I have heard some of the experts. I know that 

there are no sure answers; that even with those who have had experience working with gangs, still a lot of this is just trial and 

error. But it seems that the legislation that you have put together 

involves the community and some new and different ways in setVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Jun 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071509\51015.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51015
36 

ting up councils and funding groups that will be not only using 

their knowledge and experience, but people who are close to the 

problems are trying to deal with them. 

I understood that our sheriff, Sheriff Baca, was going to be here 

today. I don’t know if he has shown up yet. 

Mr. SCOTT. He is right on the front row. 

Ms. WATERS. Oh, there he is. 

Sheriff Baca, how are you? I guess I needed just to look up. 

I think when he first was elected to office, I was in the California 

State Assembly, and while serving in the assembly, I served parts 

of south central Los Angeles that included several of the wellknown public housing projects, Nickerson Gardens, Jordan Downs, 

Imperial Courts, and the Pueblos, and I think it is Gonzaque now. 

It used to be Old Hacienda. Prior to going to the California State 

Legislature, I worked in the Head Start program. My Head Start 

program was located in Nickerson Gardens housing projects, one of 

the sites. 

So I got to know an awful lot about the communities, and particularly the housing development in south Los Angeles that was 

considered notorious. And at that time we had a police chief most 

of those years, Daryl Gates, who used everything from the ramming rod to break into homes and the choke hold that killed some 

young people as he tried to apprehend so-called drug dealers, et 

cetera. 

I came to learn a lot of things working with the gangs. I worked 

with the Crips and the Bloods and the Grape Streeters, and on and 

on and on, the Hoovers, you name it. I see Gator from Illinois shaking his head, who worked with the gangs, and we got to know each 

other doing this work. And these are the things that I discovered 

that caused me to try and identify—at the time of the outbreak referred to as riots in Los Angeles, I tried very hard and took a lot 

of time trying to describe to the Nation what was happening. 

One of the things that I discovered was that there was a lot of 

isolation; that people who were poor and living in public housing 

and other areas of our country were dropped off of America’s agenda. There were not a lot of programs of assistance. The old poverty 

program days were gone, and basically private councils and other 

things that were developed were not connecting in some of the 

poorest and most vulnerable areas. 

And I saw the influx of drugs. It was at a time when, as identified by Gary Webb from San Jose, that drugs were coming into 

South Central based on the conflict going on in Nicaragua. But the 

crack cocaine became a reality. Young mothers and fathers were 

addicted, children were left alone, and children became very, very 

angry. They did organize into gangs. They were living in vacant 

homes, as you know, Sheriff Baca, calling themselves a family because they didn’t have anything else. And I maintain that when 

you pull the safety net out from a lot of these young people, when 

their mothers and fathers are drug-addicted or off in prison, you 

basically have some dangerous people on your hands, and no 

money, no family support. 

And so I started to work with gangs in a different way. We went 

into public housing, and we created our own job-training program 

out of Wagner-Peyser money that came from the Federal GovernVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Jun 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071509\51015.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51015
37 

ment. We started hugging people. They told me we were hugging 

and getting friendly with tough killers, but they came to my classes 

in the daytime, and all they said was, Ms. Waters, what do you 

want me to do? And we were able to hold classes, connect people 

with jobs, to find out Private Industry Council and others had no 

real job developers, on and on and on. 

Mr. Chairman, what I discovered was a lot of love, a lot of attention, and a great deal of resources was needed to deal with the 

problems that had been created or had developed into these communities. We saved a lot of people, and we lost a lot. We have people now who are homeowners, that we got homes built with Habitat and others, who have gone on to do some fine things. The Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center was developed where 

we trained people to do all kinds of things. Many of them got jobs, 

and they moved out of the community, they bought homes. But I 

went to a lot of funerals also, because we were not able to save everybody. 

Now, having said all of that, many politicians have built their careers on law and order and talking about locking up the gangs and 

trying young people as adults. And they were willing to throw 

away young people based on their desire to be elected officials. 

Now, will this bill change what I have attempted to describe? I 

don’t know if it will do that or not, but we don’t have a lot of other 

things that we can point to and say it is better than this. This is 

an attempt to try and do something that has not been done before, 

and I would hope that at some point we could add to this the understanding that many of the poor people that we are dealing with 

who don’t have health care, Head Start, other programs. We determined and found out there were children that were dyslexic, autistic, et cetera, problems that never got attended to. I hope we can 

attend to health problems, we can create jobs and put money in 

people’s pockets and give the love and support and involve the community in ways that you want to. 

Thank you for your time. You have been very generous. I just 

had to get that off my chest. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you very much. 

We have a vote pending. We have about 1 minute and 12 seconds 

to get to the floor. We will reconvene. We have, I believe, five votes, 

so it will be at least a half an hour before we get back, but we will 

get back as soon as we can. The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The gentleman from Michigan—we are joined by the Chairman 

of the full Committee Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Because Sheriff Baca is on a tight time line back to California, 

I will enter my statement in the record and observe that this noble 

idea of 226 Members joining a bill of this dimension is absolutely 

incredible to me. And I commend the Chairman for his leadership 

in that respect. 

What is the bill about, spending more on the front end than on 

the back end? And the nice thing about it, it doesn’t expand Federal jurisdiction into State criminal law. 

38 

And with that, I will yield back and welcome Marian Wright 

Edelman and all the rest of you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Today’s hearing will focus on the Youth Prison Reduction Through Opportunities, 

Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education Act, also known as the ‘‘Youth 

PROMISE Act.’’ 

This bill, introduced by Crime Subcommittee Chair Bobby Scott and Congressman 

Mike Castle, is designed to address the problems of gang crime and violence by preventing the problems before they start. 

It is based upon extensive evidence and research that demonstrate the effectiveness of prevention and intervention resources in preventing and reducing youth 

gang crime and violence. 

The research underlying the Youth PROMISE Act reveals that prioritizing prevention and intervention makes sense from a public safety, economic, and criminal 

justice perspective, which is why I am one of the 225 co-sponsors. 

Let me highlight three reasons why I believe prevention and intervention resources play a critical role in addressing the serious problem of youth gang crime 

and violence in this country. 

First, the Youth PROMISE Act makes sense from a pro-active public safety perspective. Extensive scientific research on youth violence and juvenile and criminal 

justice reveals that intervention programs for youth who are involved in, or at risk 

of becoming involved in, gangs, crime, and delinquency can significantly reduce 

crime. 

By redirecting youth away from gang involvement and onto paths of productive 

participation in society, effective prevention and intervention programs reduce violence and help make communities safer. 

Experts agree that such programs as teen pregnancy prevention, pre-natal care, 

new parent training, nurse home visits, Head Start, quality education, after-school 

programs, job training, summer jobs and recreation, and college scholarships help 

to prevent and reduce crime, in a cost-effective manner. 

That brings me to my second point. Investment in proven prevention makes sense 

from an economic perspective. It’s clear that an investment in prevention yields significant cost savings through reduced law enforcement, criminal justice, and incarceration costs, as well as reduced social welfare expenditures. 

Research also reveals that these programs are most effective when provided in the 

context of a coordinated, collaborative local strategy involving law enforcement, social services, and other local public and private entities working with children identified as at risk of involvement in the criminal justice system. 

The Youth PROMISE Act will achieve precisely that kind of collaboration. 

Third, by infusing resources into the most challenged communities in this country, 

the Youth PROMISE Act promotes important juvenile and criminal justice reform, 

which will move us in the right direction, and away from the flawed approach we 

have adopted for too long toward youth gang violence in this country. 

For more than a decade, this flawed approach focused on incarcerating too many 

vulnerable children and youth, living in our most challenged communities, which, 

in turn, has contributed to widening racial and ethnic disparities in our juvenile and 

criminal justice systems. 

In an effort to appear ‘‘tough on crime,’’ we have slighted the importance of prevention and intervention, and instead prioritized crackdowns and policies that 

translate into unduly expanded police and prosecutorial power. 

While more arrests, more trials, and more incarceration may have seemed logical, 

or at least politically expedient, at the time, research now shows that we cannot ‘‘arrest our way out of the problem’’ of gang crime and violence. 

Prioritizing enforcement and incarceration over prevention and intervention can 

inflict tremendous harm upon the very communities elected leaders are trying to 

protect. 

Far too many of our poorer, urban communities throughout this country produce 

staggeringly low high school graduation rates, especially for male students of color. 

Meanwhile, our nation has the highest incarceration rates in the world, with more 

than 2.3 million people behind bars, many of whom are poor and minorities. 

Indeed, 1 in 9 African American men between the ages of 20 to 34 in this country 

are in jail or prison at this very moment. 

39 

Earlier this year, I and other Members of Congress watched a film screening of 

the film, Crips and Bloods: Made in America. 

The film offered a powerful depiction of the gang problem in this country, and the 

toll that gang violence takes on our most challenged and vulnerable communities. 

These communities are crying out for effective prevention and intervention resources to build hope, provide positive alternatives to gangs, and revitalize neighborhoods. 

The Youth PROMISE Act will provide these resources, so that ultimately crime 

is reduced, and vulnerable communities are made safer and healthier, all at reduced 

expenditure of taxpayer dollars. 

I thank Chairman Bobby Scott for his leadership on this important bill and for 

holding this timely hearing. 

I look forward to hearing more from today’s witnesses about the Youth PROMISE 

Act, the issues underlying the bill, and what Congress can do to provide solutions 

to the problem of youth gang crime and violence. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the gentleman from North Carolina Mr. 

Watt as well. 

We have five very distinguished witnesses today. First panelist 

will be—from left to right is Marian Wright Edelman, president 

and founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. She established the 

Children’s Defense Fund in 1973 and has been an advocate for disadvantaged children and families her entire professional life. She 

is a graduate of Spelman College and Yale Law School and began 

her career in the mid-1960’s as the first Black woman admitted to 

the Mississippi bar. She directed the NAACP Defense and Education Fund in Jackson, Mississippi, and also served as director of 

the Center of Law and Education at Harvard University. 

Next is Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, a consultant for Spencer 

Stuart. She has 26 years’ experience as a nationally acclaimed public health leader, physician and educator. Previously she was associate dean and professor of public health practice at Harvard 

School of Public Health. She has coauthored Deadly Consequences, 

Sugar and Spice is No Longer Nice, Murder is No Accident, and 

Health: Skills for Wellness. She has 10 honorary doctorates and received the 1993 World Health Day Award, 1989 Secretary of 

Health and Human Services Award, and a Presidential appointment to the National Commission on Crime Control and Prevention. She is a graduate of Spelman College and Harvard Medical 

School. 

The third witness is Leroy Baca, the sheriff of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is the largest sheriff’s department in the 

United States. His department offers the second largest youth activity program in the Nation, managing 14 youth activity leagues, 

serving at-risk youth in after-school programs involving academics, 

sports and cultural arts. He earned his doctorate of public administration from the University of Southern California. He was elected 

sheriff of Los Angeles County in 1998 and was reelected in June 

2006 for his third term. 

The fourth witness is Dr. David Muhlhausen, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis. As an 

adjunct professor of public policy at George Mason University, he 

also teaches program evaluation and statistical methods. He has 

emerged as one of Washington’s top experts in criminal justice programs, particularly law enforcement programs administered by the 

40 

Justice Department. He has a doctorate degree in public policy 

from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a bachelor’s degree in political science and justice studies from Frostburg 

State University. 

And our final witness will be Tracy Vela ́zquez, executive director 

of the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit 

organization focusing on reducing society’s overreliance on incarceration and finding just solutions to social problems. She came to JPI 

from the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City, where she also 

worked in criminal justice policy issues, including parole reform 

and improving alternatives to incarceration for drug offenses. Prior 

to that Tracy advocated for mental health policies and funding as 

executive director of the Montana Mental Health Association. She 

has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and a master’s in 

public administration from Montana State University. 

Each of the witnesses’ statements will be made a part of the 

record in its entirety. I would ask our witnesses to summarize their 

testimony in 5 minutes or less, and to help stay within that time, 

there is a timing device at the table which will start green and go 

to yellow when there is 1 minute left, and will switch to red when 

the 5 minutes has expired. 

I understand that Sheriff Baca has a time problem, so we will 

start with Sheriff Baca’s testimony first. 

TESTIMONY OF LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF, 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, MONTEREY PARK, CA 

Sheriff BACA. Thank you. Good afternoon, Members of Committee, Chairman Scott, Mr. Conyers. Thank you for your generosity in allowing me to speak; and Mr. Gohmert and my dear 

friend Congresswoman Waters. 

Simply this. This legislation—and I am representing not only the 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, but the major law enforcement agencies of America on this issue. I am a Major Cities 

Chiefs member, along with a National Sheriffs board of director, 

and, equally important, I am the chairman of the board of Fight 

Crime and Invest in Kids, which is a policy advocacy group for children and the relationship between crime and the lack of education 

and other factors that affect children’s lives, which they have little 

control over, and the onset is part and parcel to why I am here. 

This legislation, the Youth PROMISE Act, is perhaps—from a 

criminal justice reform perspective is perhaps the most significant 

legislative act that this Congress will have ever considered in the 

history of the Congress. And the point of this is that I have been 

in this work for 44 years, and I have seen deputy sheriffs arrest 

the children of people they arrested when they were children, who 

were now arresting the great-grandchildren of those who were part 

and parcel to this continual dysfunctional system which relies on 

the back end to correct the front end. 

The back end essentially is when a crime is committed, it is too 

late practically. The system of recovery and redirecting and, quite 

frankly, correcting what are the challenges of young people in 

neighborhoods that are at risk, where there is an overreliance on 

law enforcement to solve a problem that is much deeper than the 

crime itself in the absence of a public model, which the colleagues 

41 

here are well aware of, and I am just honored to be in the presence 

of a panel that you have brought forth that has considerable knowledge on this subject of how to deal with it the right way. 

When you conceptualize, it simply is a learning problem. It is 

also an environmental problem. It is an institutional problem when 

it comes to schools, family, neighborhood and resources that perhaps are overwhelmingly in the way of successful childhood 

growth. That thus causes this legislation to simply be defined as 

it is, a Youth PROMISE Act, something that says that children in 

and of themselves are powerless to guide themselves out of the morass of difficulties they are in by no choice of their own. 

So they obviously need help, and the resources are really in place 

in terms of some of the research that Fight Crime: Invest in Kids 

has done. We know how to do it the right way. We understand evidence-based solutions; they are there. What we don’t understand is 

the absence of commitment due to local governments’ competing interests and perhaps even the Federal Government’s competing interest in strategies. 

In summary, law enforcement needs a lot of help, but more than 

law enforcement, it is the youth of our communities that need the 

core help. And the dollars spent there, as been established by Mr. 

Scott’s Committee, and all the things that have gone into this by 

Members of this Committee are things that must be brought to full 

action nationwide; and in particular, looking at this not as a solution of cost, but a solution of preventing cost, and then also preventing, more importantly, human misery. 

Children should not grow up with the idea in mind that it matters not that they live to be an adult. That is a lot of the reality 

that Congresswoman Waters was describing earlier in her experiences with children who literally are begging for solutions, finding 

none, and resorting to negative solutions, which ultimately result 

in what the crime problems are. 

So thank you again, Congressman Scott. As I said before, you are 

a visionary. The time is now. Law enforcement and people who 

have thoughtfully researched these problems are all on board. And 

I just thank you for allowing me to say these few words. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Sheriff. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baca follows:] 

42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEROY BACA


Baca-1.eps
43 


Baca-2.eps
44 


Baca-3.eps
45 


Baca-4.eps
46 


Baca-5.eps
47 

Mr. SCOTT. Marian Wright Edelman. 

TESTIMONY OF MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. WRIGHT EDELMAN. I thank you for being here. I am thrilled 

at your leadership, and I am even more thrilled that there are 226 

cosponsors of the Youth PROMISE Act. I think that is absolutely 

wonderful, and I am looking forward to trying to begin to see a paradigm change in this country away from overreliance on punishment as a first resort, to cost-effective, to prevention and early 

intervention in this act, I think, will be a major, major step in that 


Baca-6.eps
48 

direction. I just want to thank all of you who are here who are supporting this. 

We are deeply concerned about the Cradle to Prison Pipeline at 

the Children’s Defense Fund. It is driven by racial disparities in almost of all of our child-caring systems and by continuing poverty. 

So many poor babies in very rich America enter our world with 

multiple strikes against them and never, ever get on the track to 

successful adulthood. They are born without prenatal care, at low 

birth weight, without ongoing health and mental health supports. 

And again, I want to thank the Chair again for his chief cosponsorship of the All Healthy Children’s Act, and if we could get 

health care reform for children this year as a part of overall health 

reform, it will stop a major feeder system into that Cradle to Prison 

Pipeline. We see so many children who are born to a teen or a poor 

and poorly educated single mother and absent father. I think that 

the Youth PROMISE Act will be a major response to that because 

it understands about the importance of a continuum care and recognizes that children don’t come in pieces. And so I think again it 

will be a major step forward. 

At crucial points in their development, until adulthood, more 

risks pile on poor children, and poor children of color especially. 

They don’t get the quality early intervention services they need and 

are likely to fare more poorly in school. We know that the dropout 

rates are a disgrace in our country. We know that school discipline 

policies, zero-sum school discipline policies, are pushing children 

out at earlier and earlier ages. I think sometimes we adults have 

lost our common sense. Expelling and arresting on school grounds 

5-, 6-, and 7- and 8-year-olds for behaviors that used to be handled 

in the community, are now in the principal’s office. This is not the 

way to deal with our children’s problems. We are just pushing 

them out. 

We know about the problems of neglect and abuse in our country, 

and know that only 4 out of 10 of these children get any services, 

and we know that children who age out of foster care are less likely 

to receive adequate health and mental health care, and are more 

likely to experience homelessness and be involved in the criminal 

justice system. We have got thousands of children sitting up in juvenile detention facilities solely because they couldn’t get mental 

health services in their communities, and children should not have 

to be locked up in order in order to get mental health care. So the 

focus on prevention and community-based services very much, very 

much needed, and, again, that is the value that is reflected in this 

act. 

And as these risks accumulate, it makes successful transition for 

so many hundreds of thousands of children each year to productive 

adulthood significantly less likely and involvement in the criminal 

justice system significantly more likely. So what we have today is 

a Black boy who was born in 2001 with a 1 in 3 risk of going to 

prison; for a Latino boy it is 1 in 6; a Black girl, 1 in 17. This is 

an unfolding child tragedy and a national catastrophe. We must act 

now with urgency to end incarceration, which I believe is becoming 

the new American apartheid, and poor children of color are its fodder. This act is one way of beginning to say let us reverse course 

and reset our compass. 

49 

I want to just point out to you a few things that the act does that 

I just think are so terrific and make so much common sense. And 

I hope that we will proceed with great, great urgency. 

One, I appreciate it invests in evidence-based practices and 

promising approaches that we know work, and is also trying to invest in seeing that a lot of good things can now get evidence so that 

we can then begin to scale up and have more examples on what 

works and focus on solutions rather than problems. 

It recognizes no single organization can tackle this alone. I like 

the fact that you are trying to engage the community, and you are 

coordinating councils, because we do have to reweave the fabric of 

neighborhood and community and family responsibility for children. 

The third thing is it targets services on communities and families 

and youths most in need, and this individualized approach through 

its resources in different communities for youth with differing 

needs is very important. 

It recognizes a need for gang prevention, but also recognizes that 

the answer is not an increase in Federal prosecution of more 

youths, or implicating more youths in communities in gangs’ activities. And I am particularly pleased about the comprehensive gang 

prevention and relief areas of this act. 

Fifth, it recognizes how important it is for law enforcement to 

embrace this new paradigm. If it is going to become a reality for 

youth, we really have to talk about training, staff training, and 

changing the mind-set of those who are dealing with it. 

And finally, it is a very wise investment led by Federal leadership, and we are very pleased. I can’t think of a dumber investment 

policy than our policy of continuing to invest tens of billions of dollars each year in more and more prisons. And I can’t think of a 

worse distinction than being the world’s leading jailer. States are 

spending three times more for prisoners than for public school pupils and that is just wrong-headed. I think that you are trying to 

move in a different direction. 

So I thank you. I hope this year that every one of you will make 

sure that we stop that first feeder system by providing prenatal 

care, and health care, and preventive mental health care so that 

we can begin to turn around and give our young people the things 

that they need for healthy adulthood. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright Edelman follows:] 

50 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN


MWE-1.eps
51 


MWE-2.eps
52 


MWE-3.eps
53 


MWE-4.eps
54 


MWE-5.eps
55 


MWE-6.eps
56 


MWE-7.eps
57 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Prothrow-Stith. 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH PROTHROW-STITH, M.D., 

CONSULTANT, SPENCER STUART, BOSTON, MA 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Good afternoon. I add my thanks to you, 

Chairman Scott, for your tenacity on this particular bill. If I were 

going to write a bill based on my public health knowledge, it would 

be this bill, and I appreciate that you have just continued the work 

and gaining the support. 

To all the distinguished Members of Congress, it is a pleasure to 

be here. I am representing Project UNITY, which is a national effort to help urban context deal with youth violence, and in many 

ways would like to say to you that the opportunity presented by 

the Youth PROMISE Act really is one for not just the urban context, but across America for us to say, finally we are going to invest 

in our children early on. It does not make sense, as my distinguished colleague Marian Wright Edelman just said, to do what we 

do now, which is put all our money after the fact. 

As a public health practitioner, I use lung cancer and smoking 

as an analogy, and if we put all our money into treating lung cancer and none of it into preventing smoking, we would never reduce 

lung cancer. And with violence we put almost all of our money into 

responding to violence, and put very little of it into the up-front 

prevention, knowledge, behavior, attitudes, programs that are 

needed to prevent violence. 

There are in my written testimony five points. There is only one 

that I would really like to highlight with you in this testimony, and 

that is that violence is preventable, that there are programs that 

work, that we do have that sort of evidence base, and Youth 

PROMISE Act really builds on that evidence base. 

One of the key findings of UNITY is that cities that are investing 

resources early on have achieved lower rates of violence, a key finding that is coming up in the literature again and again and again. 

CeaseFire, out of Chicago, has shown 40 to 70 percent drops in 

homicide rates with its implementation. We know from a major 

study of school-based violence prevention programs that on average 

there is a 15 percent reduction in fighting in schools. In Minneapolis, they reported a 40 percent drop in juvenile crime since 

the mayor has taken on a major communitywide initiative and task 

force with very specific activities in their Violence Prevention Blueprint for Action. 

It is clear from the science and public health perspective that violence is a learned behavior, and that we are actively teaching our 

children to fight, and that if as a country we want to reduce the 

homicide rates and reduce our fighting in school, we can. It is 

something that we know how to do at the Federal level; with the 

Youth PROMISE Act, it gives us the opportunity to really do this 

across the country. 

Some of the work we have done has been in Philadelphia, and 

some of the young people in Philadelphia worked with us, and they 

took what we call in public health primary, secondary and tertiary 

prevention, and they renamed it. 

They named it ‘‘up front,’’ ‘‘in the thick,’’ and ‘‘after the fact.’’ And 

I like that. They really helped us out because it makes it very clear 

58 

that we have got to have some up-front work if we are going to do 

prevention. And we have got to help those kids in the thick. 

If we put all our money in after the fact, which is basically what 

we are doing as a country now, it just makes no sense. It is not 

smart. It is not a smart use of tax dollars. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Prothrow-Stith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH PROTHROW-STITH


DPS-1.eps
59 


DPS-2.eps
60 


DPS-3.eps
61 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Muhlhausen. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. 

I am a senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the 


DPS-4.eps
62 

Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Louis Gohmert, and the rest of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the Youth PROMISE Act. The views I express 

in this testimony are my own and shouldn’t be considered representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

Congress’ desire to weigh in on preventing juvenile delinquency 

and gang activity is easy to understand. While I am impressed 

with the Youth PROMISE Act’s focus on evidence-based policies, 

my spoken testimony will focus on five areas of concern. 

First, the tendency to search for a solution at the national level 

is misguided. Juvenile delinquents and criminal gangs are a problem common to all States, but the crimes they commit are almost 

entirely local in nature and regulated by State and local governments. For example, despite the fact that thefts by juveniles occur 

in all States does not mean that these thefts are a problem requiring action by the national government. 

Despite my concern, the Youth PROMISE Act should be commended for not federalizing gang crime, which, in most cases, is ordinary street crime. Street crime is best handled by State and local 

governments. The Youth PROMISE Act does not transform State 

offenses into Federal offenses. 

Second, the Youth PROMISE Act, if enacted, will continue Congress’ march toward fiscal insolvency. The Congressional Budget 

Office recently warned Congress, again, that Federal spending is 

on an unsustainable course. The deficit is over $1 trillion, the largest it has ever been. The national debt is set to reach 60 percent 

of GDP by the end of fiscal year 2010. While the debt is driven 

largely by entitlement spending, the proposed spending on the 

Youth PROMISE Act and all other programs Congress just can’t 

say no to, moves the Nation to closer to fiscal insolvency. 

Third, the Youth Oriented Policing Services Grants are not only 

duplicative and wasteful, but are based on an ineffective community-oriented policing services program that has caused long-term 

dependence on the Federal Government by State and local governments. 

Fourth, policymakers should not assume that prevention programs funded by PROMISE implementation grants will yield the 

same positive outcomes as programs previously found to be effective. Replicating results is easier said than done. Prevention programs that have been deemed effective and serve as model programs have often been implemented under optimal conditions. In 

the real world, program conditions are often less than optimal. 

A good example of a program labeled as successful that has not 

been found to be effective when replicated in the real world is Reconnecting Youth, a school-based substance abuse program. Reconnecting Youth was designated as a model program by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency, and a researchbased program by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. However, 

when evaluated under real-world conditions, Reconnecting Youth 

had no effect on academic performance, truancy, and substance 

abuse. 

However, the outcome measures for Reconnecting Youth participants showed significant decreases in conventional peer bonding 

and prosocial weekend activities and a significant increase in highVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Jun 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071509\51015.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51015
63 

risk peer bonding. The program appears to have done more harm 

than good. 

And this brings me to my last point. Congress should consider 

the fact that government interventions in the lives of youth can 

sometimes cause more harm than good. For example, the national 

randomized evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act found 

that disadvantaged male youth without criminal histories had 

higher arrest rates after participating in job training than similarly 

disadvantaged youth who did not participate in the services. 

For these reasons the Youth PROMISE Act may not prevent as 

many crimes as its proponents believe. I thank the Committee for 

the time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen follows:] 

64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN


DBM-1.eps
65 


DBM-2.eps
66 


DBM-3.eps
67 


DBM-4.eps
68 


DBM-5.eps
69 


DBM-6.eps
70 


DBM-7.eps
71 


DBM-8.eps
72 


DBM-9.eps
73 


DBM-10.eps
74 


DBM-11.eps
75 


DBM-12.eps
76 


DBM-13.eps
77 


DBM-14.eps
78 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

TESTIMONY OF TRACY VELA ́ ZQUEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for allowing me to testify today. I just wanted to 

add that it is great to be on this real illustrious panel, and they 

have said so many things that I would have said as well. 

But I did want to mention that I came here today from a conference for Models For Change, which is a MacArthur Foundation 

juvenile justice reform initiative, and someone there said that the 

issue of at-risk kids and kids where drugs were involved, that society is working very hard today to not see these children. And I 

wanted to thank you, Mr. Scott, for helping your colleagues and 

many others in this country to see these children, because I think 

that is very important; because unless we see these kids, we can’t 

make the improvements that we want in their lives. 

The Justice Policy Institute is one of the organizations in this 

country that has look at the issue of gangs. Our report, ‘‘Gang 

Wars,’’ helped to change—helped open dialogue on the need to 

change our responses to youth violence. 

We applaud the Youth PROMISE Act for building upon evidencebased and promising practices that have been shown to lower recidivism rates and are more cost-effective than punitive programs 

like incarceration that also negatively impact youth. At a time 

when States are facing critical budget crises, we must explore more 

cost-effective solutions to public safety challenges and focus on prevention as a means of improving the lives of youth. 

I would say that I believe this legislation balances the need to 

use what has been shown to work with the need to continue to innovate. Mr. Muhlhausen’s comments are to this point in that we 

do need to continue to find solutions that work in all areas. And 

this legislation does that by having localized evaluations done 

every, I think, year or 18 months. And so we believe that is a great 

thing. 

Although there is no single solution for preventing youth from 

joining gangs or engaging in crime, there are evidence-based practices that have been shown to work which can form the basis for 

where we start in many of these communities. 

For instance, one study found that functional family therapy can 

lower recidivism rates by as much as 16 percent and that for every 

dollar spent, society and victims receive $15 in benefits in terms 

of reduced crime. More punitive approaches like detention and juvenile boot camps yield far lower benefits. 

And in terms of thinking about whether we can afford this now, 

our question would be whether we could afford not to do this now. 

And I think in terms of my own household, you cannot pay your 

credit card now, but you are going to pay a lot more later. And we 

see this as that type of policy need, to fund prevention services to 

reduce long-term costs that we will face in the criminal justice system. 

One of the issues that our report looked at is the racial impact 

of the criminal justice system, the disparate impact on communities 

of color. Mr. Scott mentioned that one in nine African American 

79 

men between the ages of 30 and 34 are currently incarcerated, and 

African men are incarcerated at six times the rate of White men. 

Latinos are also disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. 

The Youth PROMISE Act helps to address this by ensuring that 

policies do not increase the number of youth of color in the justice 

system and helps alleviate some of the overrepresentation of some 

of these youth. 

In particular, community institutions must take into account the 

cultural and language needs of their communities so that policies 

will not increase the number of youth involved in the system. 

I just wanted to touch on some of the ineffective policies and responses to gangs that we see this as being a positive response to. 

For instance, there is ample evidence that police misidentify youth 

as gang members based solely on race, ethnicity, style of dress, or 

association with others who have been labeled as gang members. 

This misidentification can lead to serious consequences for communities, and leading to the increasing numbers of people of color in 

the prison system. 

In 2003, for example, in Los Angeles almost half of African 

American men between the ages of 21 and 24 were labeled gang 

members. This labeling has a very serious detrimental effect on a 

young person’s future. The reluctance of mainstream social institutions to embrace former gang members and other people with felony records makes it harder for a person labeled as a gang member 

to leave behind their past life and engage in appropriate activities 

such as education and employment. The collateral consequences of 

being labeled a gang member can last a lifetime. 

The time has come to put aside our past tough-on-crime rhetoric 

and to make smart policy decisions that rely on research and evidence of what works with youth who may be involved in delinquent 

or violent behavior. Research shows that not only does incarceration not necessarily improve public safety, but it may actually 

make communities less safe. 

The Youth PROMISE Act recognizes that focusing on prevention 

and getting at the root causes of these problems will yield the most 

effective result in terms of public safety, life outcomes for youth, 

and financial costs that we all must bear. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez follows:] 

80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRACY VELA ́ ZQUEZ


TV-1.eps
81 


TV-2.eps
82 


TV-3.eps
83 


TV-4.eps
84 

Mr. SCOTT. And I want to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony. And I now, under the 5-minute rule, will recognize Members of the Committee. And I will begin with myself. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez, Mr. Muhlhausen indicated that some programs 

don’t work. Is that accurate? 


TV-5.eps
85 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I don’t know of any specific instance when a program doesn’t work. Some of them, such as functional family therapy, multisystemic therapy, treatment-based foster care, have been 

shown across a variety of States and systems to be very effective 

at reducing recidivism. The treatment-based foster care can reduce 

recidivism by 22 percent; functional family therapy by almost 16 

percent. I do think that you need to be culturally sensitive and that 

is an issue that this bill addresses. 

So I would say definitely, whenever a new program is initiated 

with a new population, it does need to be evaluated for any impacts 

or effectiveness issues. 

Mr. SCOTT. Some have been evaluated and have been shown not 

to work. And others have been evaluated and shown to be very effective. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Right. And something like, for instance, boot 

camps has been one response in the past that has been shown over 

and over again to not work. So there are definitely some that have 

ample evidence to talk about why they are not an effective solution 

for youth violence. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you are required to have evidence and research-based analysis to support your program, you are much less 

likely to end up with something that doesn’t work, much more likely to end up with the ones that do work; is that right? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Prothrow-Stith, can you indicate why continuum 

of services is necessary and why collaboration is helpful? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Sure. I think the continuum of services, 

the ‘‘up front’’ and ‘‘in the thick’’ and ‘‘after the fact,’’ if I can use 

that, is a critical way for society to address almost any problem but 

particularly this problem. I think Mr. Gohmert raised the question 

of family at the very outset. There are some situations where the 

family, for a variety of reasons, is not able to do all that society 

expects of a family. 

When a family is there, obviously there needs to be support services and that is where you get into some of the up-front activities 

that a community needs to provide. 

But it is not enough to have a healthy child and a healthy family, because if the community is unhealthy, then especially during 

the adolescent years you can start getting some unhealthy outcomes. And that is why that continuum of services becomes extremely important, because you have some situations where children are not getting from family the things that they need. 

And the challenging thing for a society is to figure out how to 

break that cycle, because kids can’t create a family that is healthy 

if they didn’t grow up in a family that is healthy, unless we have 

some mechanism through programs and other sorts of investments 

where they learn and train and understand things differently. You 

only know what you have been taught and what you learn. 

So that continuum of services is important because it will be 

some kids who will need more than just the ‘‘up front.’’ 

Mr. SCOTT. And some of the continuum services start early. Are 

you familiar with the nurse-family partnership? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. The visiting nurses go out to the homes? 

Yes. 

86 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say why that would be helpful? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. What we know from some of the evidence 

that has been shown in that sort of activity is that the nurses in 

that setting are able to detect problems that are early, assist parents with sometimes very small things that can be truly lifesaving, 

like how to put a child down to sleep. And they build that relationship such that families can call upon them in the future. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have they been shown to have an effect on the longterm upbringing of the children? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. It has been shown. I don’t know the numbers offhand, but it has been shown as one of those effective interventions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say why it is important to tailor the programs to the particular community rather than have a one-sizefits-all for all communities? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. I think that is extremely important, this 

notion of allowing a community to tailor the programs. Not only do 

you get the sort of cultural appropriateness and the community 

buy-in, but you get sustainability when the community has been involved in tailoring a program and it is not perceived as something 

that comes from outside. 

Having a national network for these community programs to participate in is also extremely important because they can share best 

practices; and Federal funding, for instance, can be applied in those 

settings. But allowing a community to own that program and give 

it the appropriateness that is culturally and developmentally necessary is a huge part of what has to happen. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I do appreciate 

the testimony. I am sorry that Ms. Edelman and the sheriff had 

to leave. I am sorry that you all hate to wait on us to go vote. It 

is not like you get paid well, because you don’t get paid at all for 

coming. Obviously you do this because you care, and so we appreciate that. 

I understand everybody’s motivation and Ms. Prothrow-Stith—is 

that the proper pronunciation? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. It is. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your comments 

about the family. One of the things that drove me from the bench 

to want to run for Congress was the number of women I started 

having to sentence for felony welfare fraud. And the scenario was 

virtually the same each time. And that was—and tragic, but sometimes it was a family member that said, well, you are bored with 

high school, just have a kid, drop out, and you will start getting 

a check. And they would. And then they would find out this is not 

enough to live on. I will have another kid and get another check. 

And then they would find out you get further and further behind, 

they were never getting ahead. 

And I know that the Great Society legislation was done out of 

the best of intentions. People saw that there were single moms and 

deadbeat dads were not helping out, so they wanted to help them. 

Let’s give them a check. And so what ended up happening, we 

started paying young women for every child they could have out of 

87 

wedlock. And 40 years later, you really do kind of get what you 

paid for. 

But it broke my heart. I am having to sentence these people. I 

never sent one of them to prison for welfare fraud, not these 

women. Some that may have been trying to steal is different, but 

these—they would realize I will never get out of my rut unless I 

do something different. So they think if I go out and get a job, that 

with what I am getting for help for the kids from the Federal Government, may allow me to finally climb out of the rut. But, instead, 

when they didn’t report the income, as you know, then that is 

called welfare fraud and you end up in front of a judge. And so we 

try to use incentives to try to get them on track. 

But we know that people who finish high school are ultimately, 

by and large, going to make more money than people who don’t finish high school. And so I want what you each want. I want a way 

to encourage what helps kids not end up in trouble with the law. 

I am concerned that for 40 years we have thrown money at the 

wrong things. 

And Ms. Vela ́zquez, you mentioned that we know boot camps 

have been shown over and over not to succeed. I was part of the 

juvenile board in our county, and we had gone and looked at lots 

of juvenile boot camps, but it seems if it was a high school boot 

camp, forget it. It wasn’t going to help. They were too well-entrenched in their habits. You were going to make them mad. 

But if we got them at an earlier age—we started a day boot camp 

that was extremely successful, but it got them at an early age. We 

saw we were wasting our money if we tried it later on—but at least 

try. And it seemed to—didn’t seem to—we had wonderful results, 

kids getting off the track they were on. 

So I just want to comment, I wouldn’t write off all boot camps. 

And the only reason—we had a fantastic man running it and he 

ended up getting too familiar with some young women and we lost 

our boot camp, but it was doing some real good. 

But I know there are programs that work. It depends on the locality. 

But Ms. Edelman had mentioned looking forward to a paradigm 

shift. That was the thought with the Great Society. But it seems 

like in trying to find a way to get really a truly different paradigm, 

not just adjusted but a truly different one, that we have to go back 

and say: Wait a minute, what would encourage young women to 

reach their God-given potential rather than allowing them to be 

lured into a rut from which they will never get out? What would 

be better? 

Are we better off saying we will just keep giving you a check for 

every child you can have out of wedlock; or should we put incentives to go back and finish your education, and help with child care 

while they get through? 

I am concerned about the paradigm we have been on for 40 

years-plus now. But I also know, and Ms. Prothrow-Stith, you mentioned there are programs that work. You mentioned that. Can you 

tell me a little more detail about the Cease-Fire Chicago model? I 

understood that had good successes. Can you tell me what makes 

that special and makes it work? 

88 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. I actually have some more materials about 

it. It is an approach that comes out of public health. It really looks 

at, in sort of the epidemiology of the problem, where is the epidemic occurring? And goes right into that setting and begins to do 

community education, but get those who are involved in changing 

the paradigm, changing the culture in that context. And then there 

is a direct intervention when there is a homicide, that is designed 

to prevent revenge, to have that community really galvanize 

around the prevention agenda. So it takes an incident and builds 

a prevention agenda around it and also gets involved in the cultural. 

Larry Cohen who is here, and was speaking at another meeting, 

has come over. He is with me in the Unity Project as one of the 

co-leads and can also, after this, help you with—I will give you this 

information and also help you know more about the project. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thank you. And just to conclude—5 minutes 

is never enough, but I am concerned about a number of things. You 

said the family, for a variety of reasons, is not always able to help. 

A family, for a variety of reasons, doesn’t even exist, really; and 

that is what I saw. 

But as I mentioned, we pay money for every child that can be 

had out of wedlock. We pay people or we allow people to keep more 

of their earned money if they will live together and not be married. 

We give people more Social Security money if they will live together and not be married. It just seems like we have too many financial incentives to hurt a family, instead of having a real community within the family. 

And I would welcome—you know, our time here is so short—but 

any input, any insights to how we can go back to create a stronger 

family that encourages the kid. 

I had to send that kid to prison, obviously, for cold blooded murder. But I have never forgotten those words: This is the only family 

that I have got. They need a better family than a violent gang. 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. I think one of the things that is consistent 

in the programs that are effective is dedicated adults who can connect with children. And schools happen to be a place where many, 

if not all—at an early age children are involved. And when you 

think about how do you break that cycle, how do you give children 

the opportunity, I think we really are as a society needing to invest 

in the schools early on, in the Big Brother, Big Sister, because 

those children who are not in the families that can help them will 

gravitate to the positive influences: that adult at school, or the 

local preacher or an aunt or uncle. It comes up, you know, people 

say it again and again, that kids will gravitate to the positive influences, especially at younger ages. 

And I think what we have seen over time is really an erosion of 

that sort of local investment. And I think Youth PROMISE Act 

gives us a Federal umbrella for a lot of that to really grow again 

and provide kids with that layer, that preventive layer. And we 

have to think about it as trying to break a cycle for some children. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Chairman Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott. I wanted 

to praise the Members of this Committee: Randy Forbes, who is the 

89 

cosponsor of the bill; Judge Gohmert, who is examining it carefully; 

Bob Goodlatte who has always had an interest in these matters. 

Because when you think that we have enough Members to pass 

this bill in the House, I have got a few bills I wish I had 226 cosponsors for. A nice healthy number of them are conservative Members of Congress, 18 to be specific. 

So I come here ecstatic. And not only praise the Chairmen in the 

Committee for their work, but also for putting together such a stellar witness list. 

Now, the question that I ask—oh, by the way, at the celebration 

of the NAACP’s 100th anniversary, Chairman Scott’s name was 

lifted up repeatedly for the great work he had done during his visit 

there over the weekend. And I just wanted that to go in the record. 

There is nobody to talk about mine, because Congress went into 

session when I got there, so I was the only one left. 

But what is important to me is the success we have had here, 

and I don’t know, is there any senatorial interest in this measure? 

Mr. SCOTT. We have bills introduced there by Senator Casey 

from Pennsylvania and Olympia Snowe from Maine, with six cosponsors. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is incredible. 

The one thing I wanted to do, Dr. Muhlhausen, is to make sure 

that we try to reach out to your critique as effectively as we can. 

If there were any one thing you would want us to do to make this 

bill more successful in your view, what would it be? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I think the key here would be to make sure 

that the implementation grants, the PROMISE implementation 

grants are actually evaluated as they are done across the country. 

My fear is that often the case with evidence-based policies is that 

an isolated program that has highly trained staff working under 

unique special circumstances, the program gets evaluated and they 

find the program works. What is often the case is that transferring 

that knowledge and that skill to programs across the country, replicating it is a lot harder than—it is easier said than done. 

And so we need to evaluate the programs as they are implemented in the real world to make sure that the implementation 

grants, which is the heart of this bill from my perspective, are 

working. And if we just evaluate a few programs that are receiving 

very special treatment, that are the cream of the crop, that is not 

going to tell us how these programs operate in the real world. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you for that counsel. We will be careful 

about that. 

Dr. Stith, could you possibly submit for our record the study 

about the Chicago youth study so that everyone else can get the 

benefit of it? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Yes, I will do that. 

Mr. CONYERS. One thing I did was ask my staff, Michael Darner, 

who is working on health care issues, to evaluate the proposed 

three-committee effort on health that was commissioned by President Obama for us to come up with a health bill. We have three 

Committees working on it here, two Committees working on it in 

the Senate. And the question is, how would this bill affect or not 

help at-risk youth? And this quick study shows that it would be 

quite helpful; that it would expand Medicaid to families making up 

90 

to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. And there are a whole 

number of changes. 

I would like unanimous consent to put this in the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3200, THE ‘‘AMERICA’S AFFORDABLE HEALTH CHOICES ACT OF

2009,’’ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

I would like to submit the following analysis prepared for my staff on the effects 

of H.R. 3200, the ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,’’ on the ability of atrisk youth to access comprehensive health care. 

H.R. 3200 would help low-income at risk youth receive access to health care in 

several important ways: 

First, the Act expands access to Medicaid to families making up to 133% of the 

Federal Poverty Level. 

Second, for children whose parents lack health insurance (something that is likely 

common in low-income communities) their families will be able to purchase health 

insurance in a State, Regional, or National Health Insurance Exchange. For those 

families that make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about 73,000 for 

a family of three), the Exchange will provide ‘‘affordability credits’’ that will in large 

part defray the costs families pay for health insurance premiums and out of pocket 

costs like co-pays and deductibles. 

Third, all families who purchase insurance in the Exchange will have access to 

a non-profit, Medicare like public option that will provide comprehensive health care 

benefits with low premiums and low out of pocket costs. 

Lastly and most importantly, all plans in the Exchange will be barred from charging families for preventive care. 

All in all, greater access to health care will keep low-income children engaged in 

school, prevent them from developing unhealthy habits, and identify mental illnesses before they result in destructive or problematic behavior. 

Mr. CONYERS. I was happy to find this out because there is another bill, the universal health care bill, which we know covers everybody in all areas; but this is the one that is likely to come down 

the pike. So I would like to make this available to all of the witnesses, including the two that are not here, to look at this and let 

us make very sure that there are the benefits in it that at first 

glance we think are there. Because that bill is going to determine 

how all of this works out in the long run anyway. So I thank you 

very much for being with us. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. My colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. And I thank you, Chairman Conyers, for your 

kind words about all of our concern about the misspent lives of people who wind up in gangs and what we can do to prevent that. 

I have had conversations with the Chairman, and my staff with 

his staff, about this legislation and we are looking at it very closely. We are certainly looking for solutions to this very serious problem. And it is a problem that exists everywhere. 

My district is primarily a rural district but we have problems 

with gangs in some of the most rural communities can you imagine. In southwest Virginia, we have had in the last few years two 

gang-related, very violent brutal murders that have taken place 

that have gotten a lot of people’s attention. 

91 

We have a lot of local efforts ongoing to combat gang violence 

and a big part of that is to try to prevent people from joining gangs 

or to get them out of them once they are in there. 

And I was going to ask this to Ms. Edelman, but since she wasn’t 

able to stay, could each one of you tell me what you know about 

currently existing programs that you think are effective in preventing youth from becoming members of gangs or engaging in the 

type of activity that we associate with gangs? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I will just say that what we have seen that 

works is trying to intervene early. I believe when they were talking 

about some of the efforts to—sort of the street work that happens 

that can help reduce gang activity. I also wanted to mention that 

most kids age out of gangs. Most of them actually age out within 

a year. They get involved and then they realize that this is not 

what they want to do. This is not, you know—it is not giving them 

the family they want really, and not the kind of activities they 

want to believe in. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You are saying that this average gang member 

stays in a gang only for a year or so? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes. They get in when they are young. They 

might have an older person who they look up to that is in a gang, 

and they get in it and then they realize it is not what they wanted. 

So one of the issues is how do we make it so that kids can get 

out of gangs; how they are not labeled forever as a gang member; 

how they can get involved in other activities, more prosocial activities. 

One of the things that the Justice Policy Institute looks at, making sure that—we all are well-meaning in terms of wanting to protect public safety—that we don’t accidentally make it harder for 

kids to get out of gangs and stay out of gangs. Not unnecessarily 

branding them as gang members, which might even target them for 

rival gangs, violence toward them. It might prevent them or their 

families from being in safe public housing or being able to engage 

in other activities. 

So that is one of the areas that we have looked at: how do we 

make sure that kids who do make a bad decision but haven’t gotten 

to the level where they committed a serious offense that they would 

be incarcerated for, they can get back on track. So that would be 

one area that we are glad to see this legislation is responsive to. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Dr. Muhlhausen? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I think the best prevention program is the 

two-parent family. I do not believe that that explains all crime, but 

I think kids growing up in stable, two-parent family or maybe oneparent family just doing the best they can is important. 

But on the other side there is some evidence that certain programs help prevent delinquency. The evidence on the gang prevention side is a lot weaker. Little is known. But one program that I 

have no ties to is called Multisystemic Therapy that Tracy mentioned, has been evaluated under favorable circumstances because 

it sort of was developed by a bunch of psychologists, and they have 

created the program and they specialize in implementing it. And 

they have done several randomized experiments. And I know of no 

other prevention program that has undergone so many randomized 

experiments as this program. 

92 

It appears to be, based on studies done in the United States, appears to be effective. When it was replicated in Canada, the effects 

were not there. And a study—I made an analysis of all of these 

evaluations of MST and found no effect. But I know of no other 

program that has gone under such a thorough and rigorous scientific review and has several studies that shows that it works. 

I think MST is a promising approach. I think it needs to be considered by communities that want to adopt a prevention program. 

But it is a highly specialized program and probably is going to be 

very expensive to implement because it is individualized. 

I think we need more knowledge. And there are a few programs 

that work, but there are a lot more that don’t work or there is no 

proof they do work. 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. This is where the ‘‘up front’’ ‘‘in the thick’’ 

and ‘‘after the fact’’ model is really helpful to me. So when you 

think about gangs and the role that they play in the lives of children, some of the up-front programs which have been evaluated to 

be effective are Big Brother, Big Sister, for instance, where we 

know from a random assignment from the waiting list that those 

children who get a big brother, big sister, within a pretty short period of time have better outcomes. And it is a very strong design, 

randomization. Those are the kinds of programs that really make 

a difference. And when we think of gangs we can’t forget the ‘‘up 

front’’ activity that needs to make place. 

When you talk about ‘‘in the thick,’’ you really are talking about 

kids who might have been in situations where gangs were the most 

attractive thing in their neighborhood, the most attractive thing to 

to do. And one of the things that is pretty clear is that kids respond 

to healthy things to do. 

So the kinds of activities that the Boston street youth outreach 

workers for instance—and you may remember the dramatic drop in 

crime and youth homicide in particular in Boston. President Clinton and Janet Reno came and celebrated that with the Boston police and some of the community who—community members who 

were involved. 

And it was very interesting that at that point when we had that 

dramatic decline, we had about 125 street youth outreach workers. 

They were there not totally around the clock, but for the most part, 

and connecting young people to service. We went from 120 in the 

city to 40. Actually, 30; we are trying to get back up to 40. And 

our rates of violence have started going up. 

So I think we have got some kids who need that more balanced, 

direct one-on-one sort of work that tends to be a little more expensive but is effective. 

After the fact, you really are talking about some of the gang recovery programs. And there are some of them that have been 

shown to be effective. But I would suggest that the Youth PROMISE Act gives us an opportunity to really look at what is attracting 

kids to gangs and how do we use those ‘‘up front’’ and ‘‘in the thick’’ 

programs to give them an alternative set of activities. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Let me ask a few other questions. Dr. Prothrow-Stith, you indicated Big Brothers/Big Sisters is a primary prevention initiative. 

93 

You said it reduced crime. Did it reduce teen pregnancy, dropout, 

and drug abuse too? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. The study doesn’t go out quite as far to 

claim those outcomes, but the variables included school attendance, 

experimenting with drugs, and some of the other more measurable 

in-the-short-term effects. And interestingly, adolescents are living 

their life in a moment-to-moment sort of way, so some of those 

short-term effects can be quite lifesaving or keep them out of some 

very difficult situations, like early parenting. In some ways we 

know that it can be effective and it can be effective over a longer 

period of type, but not the period of time where we measure drug 

addiction or teenage pregnancy. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the primary prevention strengthens young people 

and tends to empower them not only to stay away from crime but 

also some other negative outcomes; is that right? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Exactly. One of the sort of critical points 

in the psychological literature is if you want to have something go 

away, you pretty much have to substitute another activity or another behavior. And in many ways, giving children healthy things 

to do just becomes a critical part of that. 

I think William Julius Wilson’s work about neighborhood poverty 

is a huge example of what it means often when you have a healthy 

child and a healthy family but a neighborhood that is unable to 

offer those healthy activities in a community-oriented way. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned neighborhoods where the best choice 

a child might have is to join a gang? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Or get pregnant. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you offered other choices, are you suggesting they 

may have made other choices? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Yes, and I am suggesting the earlier those 

other choices are offered, the less expensive and the easier it is to 

have a child go down a different path. It is not 100 percent, but 

as a society, we are experiencing so many children who really just 

need an alternative to what is in front of them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now there is another strategy, and that is the suppression approach, where you increase sentences. What effect 

would increasing penalties do as a deterrent for young people getting in trouble? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. You know, one of the things that I like in 

our discussions of evaluation is to appreciate that many of our punitive strategies don’t have the evaluation data that we require of 

those prevention-oriented programs. So you know, it is very difficult to answer that question. 

I would say that in the face of mandatory sentencing, stiffer sentencing, and incarceration rates that increase dramatically, we in 

society experienced an epidemic of youth violence. It is difficult to 

say which came first, but it is clear that all of that incarceration, 

a half a million people in 1980 to almost 2.5 million people in 

2005—and probably might be at 2,500,000 now—but in the face of 

all that incarceration, we still don’t have the kind of you know, national impact. So I would say that probably very little impact on 

the prevention agenda that we have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

94 

Ms. Vela ́zquez, have you seen studies of the effects of increased 

sentences and suppression on gang violence? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, I think that it is unfortunate that Sheriff 

Baca had to leave because California, their experience with relying 

on suppression as their primary gang policy, has shown that they 

have had increases in violence along with the increases in costs. 

Whereas places like Chicago’s Cease-Fire and also New York City, 

which really used a street worker model as well in the sixties and 

seventies, have seen improved outcomes in terms of public safety 

and outcomes for the youth involved. 

I know that some studies have been done looking at punitive approaches by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy. And 

their research showed that punitive approaches only have about $2 

in benefits for public safety for every dollar spent versus prevention 

and positive interventions which have about $15 in benefits. 

And I did appreciate your comment about evaluation of more punitive approaches. It seems like when you start looking at something like the investment in suppression, or even things like gang 

databases, you have to look at it in terms of what could you have 

done with the money that might have been more effective. And we 

don’t have a lot of—the only evidence that we have is that these 

policies actually have a negative impact in terms of public safety 

outcomes, plus the very large increase in these policies in terms of 

the increased incarceration that they are likely to lead to. 

Evidence shows that kids who are incarcerated do worse than 

kids who were in gangs or kids who had a weapons offense. The 

actual experience of incarceration is detrimental to kids getting 

back on the right track. These policies that tend to concentrate that 

impact do appear to have a negative effect than we want them to 

have in terms of cost effectiveness. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I won’t use the full 5, but I was intrigued by the 

comment that the average is only being in a gang for a year, and 

that didn’t seem to be our local experience. People were in there 

for longer than a year. And it was often very unpleasant to try to 

get out of the gang once you were there. And people in the gang 

didn’t take it very well when you decided to just drop out. It wasn’t 

like a bridge club or something; you just stopped going. They took 

it very personally. And, in fact, one young man was killed as a result. 

So I would love to see the data to understand better the national 

experience, if that is truly the average of just 1 year in a gang and 

then they drop out. And I wonder how many got beat up or hurt 

as a result. 

I don’t know if the Chairman knows this. My wife taught at an 

alternative school in Tyler for years before I ran for Congress. And 

as she said, it was great seeing the light come on for the first time. 

I enjoyed going to the school because the kids that were there, 

every one of them wanted to be there, or they were not there. They 

would go get a GED if they wanted to have a diploma. But these 

wanted to finish high school. And child care was provided so they 

could do so. 

And it is nice when you see something that works as that did, 

at least locally. And it was always great. I wish all high school 

95 

graduations were as enjoyable as theirs was because everyone was 

truly ecstatic. They had done something. And that seems to be 

what we need to do. 

Mr. SCOTT. Was that an alternative school? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, it was called Pace Alternative School, in 

Tyler. 

Mr. Muhlhausen, I didn’t get to you earlier, and I just wanted 

to ask in reviewing the proposed bill, did you find safeguards within the Youth PROMISE design that would ensure against funding 

mediocre or unsuccessful programs? And if not, what would you 

recommend? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, one of my concerns is the interplay between grant-making bureaus and Congress and constituents. And 

as a grant-making agency, their primary duty is to let the money 

flow. That makes Congress happy. Now, that causes a problem 

when providing quick-and-easy money to State and local agencies 

becomes more important than making sure that it is effectively 

used. 

So my fear is that the more programs you fund, the lower common denominator will be for each of the programs funded, and so 

you will lower the bar. And Office of Justice Programs has had a 

lot of problems in the past of monitoring the grants that it gives 

out to make sure that the grant programs are successful. This is 

according to GAO. 

So what I think is, one helpful area would be to make sure that 

all the programs that are implemented in the real world are undergoing some sort of evaluation. I think that is important. If we only 

evaluate, say, 10 programs when we are actually funding a thousand programs, will those 10 programs be representative of the 

thousand programs being implemented? I fear that will not be the 

case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to follow up on one of the things that 

you said about an alternative school. Because there is a theory if 

you kick kids out of school with no services, if they land in an alternative school—let me ask Ms. Vela ́zquez or Dr. Prothrow-Stith. 

If you kick a child out of school with no services, or you for one 

reason or another have to kick them out of the regular classroom 

and put them in an alternative school so that they can continue 

their education, is there a value in the alternative school? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. I was just in St. Louis visiting a school 

that Judge Atweth there is putting together. And in that setting 

he is planning a very short stay for children. And I think there is 

some emphasis on an alternative setting where a child can go back 

to the regular school setting. 

It is—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Was that better than having them out in the street? 

Dr. PROTHROW-STITH. Yes, it is better for the kid. It is better for 

the family. And it is better for society. Because out in the street 

is, you know, obviously uncontrollable from any number of perspectives and I think leads to criminalization of those kids, when often 

there are some very specific either learning or other sorts of health 

issues that often could keep that child in a regular classroom and 

not even need an alternative setting. 

96 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, if I might clarify, too. We had two 

different alternative schools in Smith County. One was a juvenile 

justice alternative school. You commit a violent act, you may end 

up—and basically you are confined and the school is part of the 

confinement. 

But there is Pace Alternative where there were young women 

who had had children and had to drop out of school but decided I 

don’t want a GED, I want a diploma. There were others who would 

have trauma in their lives and drop out but decide they wanted to 

finish. I was referring to the latter. 

Mr. SCOTT. The important thing is that they have services, because those who drop out, the evidence is they are on a different 

trajectory in terms of life, much more likely to get involved in 

crime, much more likely to be a teen parent, much more likely to 

get involved in drugs. And the program that your wife is apparently running gives those children services which they desperately 

need and can make a profound difference in the outcome. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I do know that we can’t maintain a society as we 

have been used to, when a third of our kids drop out of high school. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is right. I would like to thank our witnesses for 

the testimony today. Members may have additional written questions that we will forward to you and ask that you answer as 

promptly as you can so that this may be part of the record. 

And, without objection I would like to incorporate by reference 

into the record the following letters and documents in support of 

the Youth PROMISE Act: 

A letter from 238 national organizations in support of the Youth 

PROMISE Act. 

A letter from the NAACP. 

A letter from the American Psychological Association. 

The American Bar Association. 

The National Council of LaRaza. 

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

A letter from Color of Change referencing a petition signed by 

over 15,000 of their members. 

A letter from the ACLU. 

A Law Review article by Edgar Kahn and Cynthia Robbins—and 

Professor Kahn is here with us today—entitled ‘‘An Offer They 

Can’t Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate 

Indifference Meet Alternatives That Work.’’ 

We also have a letter from Wallace ‘‘Gator’’ Bradley, president 

and founder of United in Peace, Incorporated, in Chicago; and he 

is with us today. 

A letter from Heart of Champion in support of the Youth PROMISE Act. 

A report from Charles Hamilton Youth Institute for Race and 

Justice, ‘‘No More Children Left Behind Bars.’’ 

The National Council for Crime and Delinquency report evaluating Federal gang bills. 

A report on the economic return on PCCD’s investment in research-based programs and cost-benefit assessment of delinquency 

prevention in Pennsylvania. 

97 

A report by the Justice Policy Institute, ‘‘Gang Wars: Failure of 

Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies.’’ 

A resolution in support of the Youth PROMISE Act from the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors. 

Resolutions of support from the following cities: Los Angeles; 

Cleveland, OH; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Santa Fe, NM; Norfolk, 

Hampton and Newport News in Virginia, and Richmond, VA; 

Portsmouth, VA; Pasadena, CA; and New York City. 

And a resolution from the Los Angeles Unified School District in 

support of the Youth PROMISE Act. 

And, at the request of Mr. Conyers, a portion of H.R. 3200, the 

‘Tri-Committee Health Proposal on how it would affect at-risk 

youth. 

[See preceding prepared statement of Mr. Conyers.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, the Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(99) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

100 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY DEBORAH PROTHROW-STITH, M.D., CONSULTANT, 

SPENCER STUART, BOSTON, MA 


B-1.eps
101 


B-2.eps
102 


B-3.eps
103 


B-4.eps
104 


B-5.eps
105 


B-6.eps
106 


B-7.eps
107 


B-8.eps
108 


B-9.eps
109 


B-10.eps
110 


B-11.eps
111 


B-12.eps
112 


B-13.eps
113 


B-14.eps
114 


B-15.eps
115 


B-16.eps
116 


B-17.eps
117 


B-18.eps
118 


B-19.eps
119 


B-20.eps
120 

f 


B-21.eps
121 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


A-1.eps
122 


A-2.eps
123 


A-3.eps
124 


A-4.eps
125 


A-5.eps
126 


C-1.eps
127 


C-2.eps
128 


C-3.eps
129 


C-4.eps
130 


C-5.eps
131 


C-6.eps
132 


C-7.eps
133 


D-1.eps
134 


D-2.eps
135 


D-3.eps
136 


E-1.eps
137 


E-2.eps
138 


E-3.eps
139 


E-4.eps
140 


E-5.eps
141 


E-6.eps
142 


E-7.eps
143 


E-8.eps
144 


E-9.eps
145 


E-10.eps
146 


E-11.eps
147 


E-12.eps
148 


E-13.eps
149 


E-14.eps
150 


E-15.eps
151 


E-16.eps
152 


E-17.eps
153 


E-18.eps
154 


E-19.eps
155 


E-20.eps
156 


E-21.eps
157 


E-22.eps
158 


E-23.eps
159 


E-24.eps
160 


E-25.eps
161 


E-26.eps
162 


E-27.eps
163 


E-28.eps
164 


E-29.eps
165 


E-30.eps
166 


E-31.eps
167 


E-32.eps
168 


E-33.eps
169 


E-34.eps
170 


E-35.eps
171 


E-36.eps
172 


E-37.eps
173 


E-38.eps
174 


E-39.eps
175 


E-40.eps
176 


E-41.eps
177 


E-42.eps
178 


E-43.eps
179 


E-44.eps
180 


E-45.eps
181 


E-46.eps
182 


E-47.eps
183 


E-48.eps
184 


E-49.eps
185 


E-50.eps
186 


E-51.eps
187 


E-52.eps
188 


E-53.eps
189 


E-54.eps
190 


E-55.eps
191 


E-56.eps
192 


E-57.eps
193 


E-58.eps
194 


E-59.eps
195 


E-60.eps
196 


E-61.eps
197 


E-62.eps
198 


E-63.eps
199 


E-64.eps
200 


E-65.eps
201 


E-66.eps
202 


E-67.eps
203 


E-68.eps
204 


E-69.eps
205 


E-70.eps
206 


E-71.eps
207 


E-72.eps
208 


F-1.eps
209 


F-2.eps
210 


G-1.eps
211 


G-2.eps
212 


H.eps
213 


I-1.eps
214 


I-2.eps
215 


J-1.eps
216 


J-2.eps
217 


J-3.eps
218 


K-1.eps
219 


K-2.eps
220 


K-3.eps
221 


K-4.eps
222 


K-5.eps
223 


K-6.eps
224 


K-7.eps
225 


K-8.eps
226 


K-9.eps
227 


K-10.eps
228 


K-11.eps
229 


K-12.eps
230 


K-13.eps
231 


K-14.eps
232 


K-15.eps
233 


K-16.eps
234 


K-17.eps
235 


K-18.eps
236 


K-19.eps
237 


K-20.eps
238 


K-21.eps
239 


K-22.eps
240 


K-23.eps
241 


K-24.eps
242 


K-25.eps
243 


K-26.eps
244 


K-27.eps
245 


K-28.eps
246 


K-29.eps
247 


K-30.eps
248 


K-31.eps
249 


L.eps
250 


M-1.eps
251 


M-2.eps
252 


M-3.eps
253 


M-4.eps
254 


M-5.eps
255 


M-6.eps
256 


M-7.eps
257 


M-8.eps
258 


M-9.eps
259 


M-10.eps
260 


N-1.eps
261 


N-2.eps
262 


O-1.eps
263 


O-2.eps
264 


O-3.eps
265 


O-4.eps
266 


O-5.eps
267 


O-6.eps
268 


O-7.eps
269 


O-8.eps
270 


O-9.eps
271 


O-10.eps
272 


O-11.eps
273 


O-12.eps
274 


O-13.eps
275 


O-14.eps
276 


O-15.eps
277 


P-1.eps
278 


P-2.eps
279 


P-3.eps
280 


P-4.eps
281 


P-5.eps
282 


P-6.eps
283 


P-7.eps
284 


P-8.eps
285 


P-9.eps
286 


P-10.eps
287 


P-11.eps
288 


P-12.eps
289 


P-13.eps
290 


P-14.eps
291 


P-15.eps
292 


P-16.eps
293 


P-17.eps
294 


P-18.eps
295 


P-19.eps
296 


P-20.eps
297 


P-21.eps
298 


P-22.eps
299 


P-23.eps
300 


P-24.eps
301 


P-25.eps
302 


P-26.eps
303 


P-27.eps
304 


P-28.eps
305 


P-29.eps
306 


P-30.eps
307 


P-31.eps
308 


P-32.eps
309 


P-33.eps
310 


P-34.eps
311 


P-35.eps
312 


P-36.eps
313 


P-37.eps
314 


P-38.eps
315 


P-39.eps
316 


P-40.eps
317 


P-41.eps
318 


P-42.eps
319 


P-43.eps
320 


P-44.eps
321 


P-45.eps
322 


P-46.eps
323 


P-47.eps
324 


Q-1.eps
325 


Q-2.eps
326 


Q-3.eps
327 


Q-4.eps
328 


Q-5.eps
329 


Q-6.eps
330 


Q-7.eps
331 


Q-8.eps
332 


Q-9.eps
333 


Q-10.eps
334 


Q-11.eps
335 


Q-12.eps
336 


Q-13.eps
337 


Q-14.eps
338 


Q-15.eps
339 


Q-16.eps
340 


Q-17.eps
341 


Q-18.eps
342 


Q-19.eps
343 


Q-20.eps
344 


Q-21.eps
345 


Q-22.eps
346 


Q-23.eps
347 


Q-24.eps
348 


Q-25.eps
349 


Q-26.eps
350 


Q-27.eps
351 


Q-28.eps
352 


Q-29.eps
353 


Q-30.eps
354 


Q-31.eps
355 


Q-32.eps
356 


Q-33.eps
357 


Q-34.eps
358 


Q-35.eps
359 


Q-36.eps
360 


Q-37.eps
361 


Q-38.eps
362 


Q-39.eps
363 


Q-40.eps
364 


Q-41.eps
365 


Q-42.eps
366 


Q-43.eps
367 


Q-44.eps
368 


Q-45.eps
369 


Q-46.eps
370 


Q-47.eps
371 


Q-48.eps
372 


Q-49.eps
373 


Q-50.eps
374 


Q-51.eps
375 


Q-52.eps
376 


Q-53.eps
377 


Q-54.eps
378 


Q-55.eps
379 


Q-56.eps
380 


Q-57.eps
381 


Q-58.eps
382 


Q-59.eps
383 


Q-60.eps
384 


Q-61.eps
385 


Q-62.eps
386 


Q-63.eps
387 


Q-64.eps
388 


Q-65.eps
389 


Q-66.eps
390 


Q-67.eps
391 


Q-68.eps
392 


Q-69.eps
393 


Q-70.eps
394 


Q-71.eps
395 


Q-72.eps
396 


Q-73.eps
397 


Q-74.eps
398 


Q-75.eps
399 


Q-76.eps
400 


Q-77.eps
401 


Q-78.eps
402 


Q-79.eps
403 


Q-80.eps
404 


Q-81.eps
405 


Q-82.eps
406 


Q-83.eps
407 


Q-84.eps
408 


Q-85.eps
409 


Q-86.eps
410 


Q-87.eps
411 


Q-88.eps
412 


Q-89.eps
413 


Q-90.eps
414 


Q-91.eps
415 


Q-92.eps
416 


Q-93.eps
417 


Q-94.eps
418 


Q-95.eps
419 


Q-96.eps
420 


Q-97.eps
421 


Q-98.eps
422 


R-1.eps
423 


R-2.eps
424 


R-3.eps
425 


S1-1.eps
426 


S1-2.eps
427 


S1-3.eps
428 


S1-4.eps
429 


S1-5.eps
430 


S2-1.eps
431 


S2-2.eps
432 


S2-3.eps
433 


S3-1.eps
434 


S3-2.eps
435 


S4.eps
436 


S5-1.eps
437 


S5-2.eps
438 


S5-3.eps
439 


S6-1.eps
440 


S6-2.eps
441 


S6-3.eps
442 


S6-4.eps
443 


S6-5.eps
444 


S6-6.eps
445 


S7-1.eps
446 


S7-2.eps
447 


S8-1.eps
448 


S8-2.eps
449 


S9-1.eps
450 


S9-2.eps
451 


S9-3.eps
452 


S9-4.eps
453 


S9-5.eps
454 


S9-6.eps
455 


S9-7.eps
456 


S9-8.eps
457 


S9-9.eps
458 


S9-10.eps
459 


S10-1.eps
460 


S10-2.eps
461 


S10-3.eps
462 


S11.eps
463 

f 


S12.eps
464 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


T.eps
465 


U-1.eps
466 


U-2.eps
467 


U-3.eps
468 


U-4.eps
469 


U-5.eps
470 


U-6.eps
471 


V-1.eps
472 


V-2.eps
473 


V-3.eps
474 


W-1.eps
475 


W-2.eps
476 


W-3.eps
477 


W-4.eps
478 


W-5.eps
479 


W-6.eps
480 


W-7.eps
481 


X-1.eps
482 


X-2.eps
483 


Y.eps
484 


Z.eps
485 


AA-1.eps
486 


AA-2.eps
487 


AA-3.eps
488 


AA-4.eps
489 


AA-5.eps
490 


BB1-1.eps
491 


BB1-2.eps
492 


BB1-3.eps
493 


BB1-4.eps
494 


BB1-5.eps
495 


BB1-6.eps
496 


BB1-7.eps
497 


BB1-8.eps
498 


BB2-1.eps
499 


BB2-2.eps
500 


BB2-3.eps
501 


BB2-4.eps
502 


BB2-5.eps
503 


BB2-6.eps
504 


BB2-7.eps
505 


BB2-8.eps
506 


BB2-9.eps
507 


BB2-10.eps
508 


BB2-11.eps
509 


BB2-12.eps
510 


BB2-13.eps
511 


BB2-14.eps
512 


BB2-15.eps
513 


BB2-16.eps
514 


BB2-17.eps
515 


BB2-18.eps
516 


BB2-19.eps
517 


BB2-20.eps
518 


BB2-21.eps
519 


BB2-22.eps
520 


BB2-23.eps
521 


BB2-24.eps
522 


BB2-25.eps
523 


BB2-26.eps
524 


BB2-27.eps
525 


BB2-28.eps
526 


BB2-29.eps
527 


BB2-30.eps
528 


BB2-31.eps
529 


BB2-32.eps
530 


BB2-33.eps
531 


BB2-34.eps
532 


BB2-35.eps
533 


BB2-36.eps
534 


BB2-37.eps
535 


BB2-38.eps
536 


BB2-39.eps
537 


BB2-40.eps
538 


BB2-41.eps
539 


BB2-42.eps
540 


BB2-43.eps
541 


BB2-44.eps
542 


BB2-45.eps
543 


BB2-46.eps
544 


BB2-47.eps
545 


BB2-48.eps
546 


BB2-49.eps
547 


BB2-50.eps
548 


BB2-51.eps
549 


BB2-52.eps
550 


BB2-53.eps
551 


CC.eps
552 


DD-1.eps
553 


DD-2.eps
554 


EE-1.eps
555 


EE-2.eps
556 


EE-3.eps
557 


EE-4.eps
558 


EE-5.eps
559 


EE-6.eps
560 


EE-7.eps
561 


EE-8.eps
562 


EE-9.eps
563 


EE-10.eps
564 

Æ 


EE-11.eps