99–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–688 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

YOUTH PROMISE ACT 

DECEMBER 16, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1064] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 23 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 24 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 35 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 35 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 35 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 37 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 37 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 37 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 39 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 39 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 39 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 39 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 45 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 50 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

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. 

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. 

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. Designation as a comprehensive gang prevention and relief area. 

Sec. 503. Interagency Gang Prevention Task Force. 

Sec. 504. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle B—Community and Police Collaboration 

Sec. 511. Gang prevention grants. 

Subtitle C—City Youth Violence Recovery 

Sec. 521. 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 system-involved youth. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

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

Sec. 704. Partnerships with professional athletic leagues. 

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 

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 PREVENTION.—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) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States, the District 

of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American 

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territories or possessions of the United States. 

(9) 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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 

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— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

‘‘(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 

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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 

(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; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

(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 

(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 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

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. 

(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 evidence-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 evidence-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). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

(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). 

(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 appropriated 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 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

(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. 

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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 

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 

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, evidence-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 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

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; 

(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 evidence-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; 

(5) criminal street gang activity; and 

(6) the ‘‘stop snitching’’ culture pervasive among youth. 

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 evidence-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 evidence-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, techVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

nology 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 prevent 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; 

(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; and 

(4) develop, compile, and disseminate to youth-oriented police— 

(A) information about the ‘‘stop snitching’’ culture pervasive in many 

communities in the United States; and 

(B) tactics to counter such culture. 

(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— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 

(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 

(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. 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 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

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

SEC. 503. 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 502, 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 Weed and Seed, 

Operation Cease Fire, and 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; 

(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. 504. 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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 

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 

rules and 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, restorative justice programs, employment and 

legal assistance, family counseling, and other safe, community-based alternatives for crime-involved or high-risk youth; 

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

resistance procedures and programs; 

(4) identifying (and disaggregating by race, ethnicity, and gender, where applicable) and addressing early childhood risk factors for violence and gang involvement, including parent training and childhood skills development; 

(5) identifying (and disaggregating by race, ethnicity, and gender, where applicable) 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 

(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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
17 

Subtitle C—City Youth Violence Recovery 

SEC. 521. 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: 

(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 effective and culturally-appropriate crime prevention and 

intervention strategies, including strategies that are responsive to gender-specific needs; 

(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). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
18 

(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— 

(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President; 

(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. 

(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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

(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 

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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

(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 

representing the law enforcement, social science, and juvenile justice 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 DELINQUENCY 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 RECIPIENTS.—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 National Institute of Justice; 

(B) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy; and 

(C) 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.— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

(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, rules, 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 may 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. 

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, including outcome measures disaggregated by 

race, ethnicity, and gender. 

(B) METHODOLOGY OF STUDY.—Each study conducted under subparagraph (A) shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the National Institute of Justice. Approval of such an evaluator and study design 

shall be required before a grant is awarded to an entity under this section. 

(4) DATE OF AWARD.—Not later than 6 months after the date of receiving 

recommendations relating to a subcategory from the Commission under section 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

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) 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. 

TITLE VII—ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO 

JUVENILE JUSTICE 

SEC. 701. YOUTH VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702(5) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862(5)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, including juvenile witness and victim protection programs,’’ after ‘‘victim protection programs’’. 

(b) 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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

1The terms ‘‘evidence-based’’ and ‘‘promising’’ are widely used in the research relating to 

crime prevention and intervention strategies. Both terms are defined in the bill. In general, an 

evidence-based strategy or practice has shown statistically significant juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity reduction outcomes based on experimental trial, in which participants are randomly chosen, or quasi-experimental trial, in which participants are compared to 

a control group. A promising strategy is one that is not yet evidence-based, but that has been 

demonstrated to reduce juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity, and for which 

a study is being conducted to determine if it is evidence-based. 

SEC. 704. PARTNERSHIPS WITH PROFESSIONAL ATHLETIC LEAGUES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may establish a program to provide for 

a youth initiative to end youth violence and other youth crime in collaboration with 

professional sports leagues and players in the United States, which may include the 

National Football League, National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, 

Major League Soccer, and other professional sports organizations. 

(b) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that the program under subsection (a) is established, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Attorney General shall conduct a study of the potential for reducing youth violence and other youth crime through collaborations with professional sports organizations and players in the United States, such as the National Football 

League, National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, and Major 

League Soccer. 

(2) CONTENTS.—The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) identify and describe all efforts undertaken by professional sports 

organizations and players in the United States to reduce youth crime; and 

(B) include a description of the progress of these efforts in achieving 

the goal of reducing youth violence and other youth crime. 

(c) REPORT.—In the case a study is conducted under subsection (b), not later 

than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 

submit to Congress a report on such study, which shall— 

(1) include the findings of the Attorney General; 

(2) describe significant programs reviewed as part of the study; and 

(3) make recommendations, if any. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1064, the Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunity, 

Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education Act (‘‘Youth 

PROMISE Act’’) is designed to prevent youth violence, delinquency, 

and street gang crime, and to redirect youth already involved in 

the juvenile or criminal justice systems toward law-abiding and 

productive lives. 

H.R. 1064 will provide Federal support for evidence-based and 

promising programs 1 that work to prevent the involvement of atrisk youth in juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity, 

and that provide positive alternatives for youth who have become 

involved in juvenile delinquency or criminal street gang activity. 

Rejecting ‘‘one size fits all’’ approaches that funnel more youth into 

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, the Youth PROMISE Act 

supports evidence-based and promising local community efforts to 

prevent youth from entering the justice system in the first place. 

Under the Youth PROMISE Act, communities facing the greatest 

youth gang and crime challenges come together and form a local 

PROMISE Coordinating Council. This council consists of stakeholders within the juvenile and criminal justice systems, including 

law enforcement leaders and practitioners, educators and representatives from the school system, community-based and social 

service organizations, faith-based organizations, health and mental 

health providers, court services, prosecutors and public defenders, 

and housing officials. Once formed, the council is charged with developing a comprehensive plan for implementing evidence-based 

and promising prevention and intervention strategies. These strateVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

2 Extensive background information relating to the bill is available at 

http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/ypa. 3See generally, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform 

(cataloguing research and best practices of ‘‘what works’’ in juvenile justice reform): 

http://www.aecf.org/∼/media/PublicationFiles/AEC180essaylbookletlMECH.pdf. 4See, e.g., New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth, Mark A. 

Cohen, Vanderbilt University and University of York (U.K.) and Alex R. Piquero, John Jay College of Criminal Justice & City University of New York Graduate Center, December 2007. 5 Id. 

gies are geared toward young people who are at risk of becoming 

involved in, or who are already involved in, gangs or the criminal 

justice system, and operate to redirect youth toward productive and 

law-abiding alternatives. 

The Youth PROMISE Act also promotes effective law enforcement techniques through Youth Oriented Policing Services 

(‘‘YOPS’’). YOPS provides training, hiring and support for officers 

to implement strategic and age-appropriate community-based activities that are designed to minimize youth crime and victimization and reduce the long-term involvement of youth in the juvenile 

and criminal justice systems. The Act also provides for thorough 

evaluation and analysis of the reductions in incarceration and 

criminal justice costs and other financial savings resulting from the 

investment in prevention and intervention.2

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The problems of youth violence and gang crime have taken a toll 

on communities throughout the country. The impact is particularly 

felt by residents of our most distressed and impoverished communities. Such crime forces families to live in fear, and destroys the 

lives of many young people. 

National experts in a variety of fields have called on Congress to 

adopt legislation to prevent and address the issues of gangs and 

youth violence. Extensive research on youth violence, child development, and education reveals that evidence-based and promising 

education and community-based prevention and intervention strategies can prevent and curtail youth crime, and redirect young people away from gang involvement toward productive participation in 

society.3

Experts around the country have argued that to prevent and reduce violent crime, policymakers must support community-based 

strategies that can reach all young people, especially those who are 

disconnected from school, work, and family, and those who are 

from distressed and impoverished neighborhoods.4 These researchers and experts have developed a substantial body of knowledge 

that further establishes that such strategies can prevent violence 

and crime in a cost-effective manner.5

BACKGROUND

Despite the wealth of research on the effectiveness of evidencebased and promising prevention and intervention strategies in preventing and reducing crime, for decades we have moved away from 

prevention techniques as too many elected officials simply supported ‘‘tough on crime’’ punitive policies that translated into expanded police and prosecutorial power. This punitive approach genVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

6See Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, No More Children Left Behind 

Bars, available at: http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE 

CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf (concluding ‘‘Incarceration is a spectacularly unsuccessful treatment.’’). 7 Id. 

8 US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009. See also One in 100: Behind 

Bars in America, Pew Center on the States, 2008, available at http:// 

www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTSlPrison08lFINA Ll2-1-1lFORWEB. 

pdf. 9 Id. 

10See generally http://www.childrensdefense.org/helping-americas-children/cradle-to-prisonpipeline-campaign/. 11See Pew Center on the States, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/ 

PSPPl1in31lreportlFINALlWEBl3-26-09.pdf. 12Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, http:// 

www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTSlPrison08lFINALl2-1-1lFORWEB. 

pdf. 13See note 18, infra. 14Willam J. Bratton, Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, emphasized this point on 

June 11, 2009 in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime 

and Drugs, hearing ‘‘Exploring the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009.’’ 15 In Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 18 (2009), the United States Supreme Court adopted 

a more expansive interpretation of the scope of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizaContinued 

erally yields more arrests, more trials, and more incarceration, but 

without reducing crime commensurately.6

Furthermore, notwithstanding the political appeal of such ‘‘tough 

on crime’’ policies, research demonstrates that choosing enforcement over prevention produces flawed and costly policies that often 

inflict incalculable harm on the very communities the policies are 

intended to protect.7

Today in the United States, far too many of our poorer, urban 

communities have staggeringly low high school graduation rates, 

especially for male students of color. At the same time, our nation 

records the highest incarceration rate in the world. There are now 

2.3 million people behind bars in the United States.8 Incarceration 

rates are even higher from poor communities and communities of 

color.9 The Children’s Defense Fund estimates that one in every 

three Black males born in 2001 will end up incarcerated at some 

point in his lifetime, without appropriate intervention. The problem 

is so severe, the Children’s Defense Fund has launched an entire 

campaign to fight what it refers to as the problem of the ‘‘Cradle 

to Prison Pipeline.’’ 10

The social and economic costs to the nation of such high incarceration rates are overwhelming.11 According to some estimates, we 

spend 55 billion dollars annually on incarceration in the United 

States.12 In contrast, preventing young people from joining gangs 

in the first place is projected to save millions of dollars that are 

currently spent to arrest, convict, and imprison them as 

lawbreakers later. 

The overly-punitive criminal justice approach in this country has 

contributed to widening racial and ethnic disparities in our juvenile 

and criminal justice systems. It is stunningly expensive, and it 

doesn’t work. Significant evidence demonstrates that more incarceration will not solve the problem.13 Indeed, law enforcement officials around the country emphasize that we ‘‘cannot arrest our way 

out of the problem’’ of youth gang crime.14 Law enforcement experts have also indicated that there are sufficient Federal sanctions 

to prosecute gang crime and exact severe penalties; the Racketeer 

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a prime example.15 Rather than calling for additional or duplicative sanctions, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

tions Act, making it easier to apply RICO to informal ‘‘Association-in-Fact Enterprises.’’ The 

Court held that prosecutors and civil plaintiffs can use the statute to pursue an ‘‘associationin-fact enterprise’’ without needing proof that it has a structure separate from that inherent in 

the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engaged. 16Making Communities Safer: Youth Violence and Gang Interventions That Work: Hearing 

Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 81 (2007). 17See Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and 

the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, Justice Policy Institute 2007 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=22.htm. 

law enforcement officers have urged Congress to provide support 

for programs in local communities to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. 

On February 15, 2007, in a hearing before the House Judiciary 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, ‘‘Making Communities Safer: Youth Violence and Gang 

Interventions that Work,’’ Paul Logli, then Chairman of the National District Attorneys Association, testified regarding how he 

and other prosecutors endeavor to make charging decisions and 

sentencing recommendations taking into account the accused’s potential to turn his or her life around: 

What helps us make those decisions is if we have available to 

us programs . . . that give us alternatives, that show us that 

this person can be put in that anti-truancy program, if we can 

work with that family to get that person to go to school and 

to learn how to read and write, and how to develop job skills 

so that they can get a job. The most important thing for many 

of these people is to have a job so they can support a family 

and make their mortgage payments. 

But if we don’t have programs that can bring them there, 

then my job is much tougher. . . . I don’t need any more laws. 

I’ve got all the criminal laws I need in the State of Illinois. I 

don’t need any more sanctions. The sentences are plenty tough. 

I have got all the discretion I need. 

What I need is . . . programs on the street that have staying 

power and that have credibility and that will work with people, 

that I can refer people to. Because what I do have is the hammer. I have the coercion that might just make that person 

stick to a program, whether you call it pulling levers or anything else. We make that decision, whether they’re worth 

working with or it is just time to warehouse them. And that 

is a real loss to society.16

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service has also found incarceration does little to disrupt 

the violent activities of gang-affiliated inmates. Research reveals 

that prisons and detention centers can in fact strengthen gang affiliations and become a breeding ground for potential gang activity.17 Insofar as youth in the community form gangs for protection 

and family-like relationships, incarcerated youth have an even 

greater need for protection. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence that incarceration is counterproductive, the continued implementation of punitive criminal justice policies in this country has increased incarceration rates, disproportionately impacting poor youth and youth of color. Moreover, 

these policies exacerbate the problem of gang-related crime, funnel 

into the justice system a disproportionate number of youth who 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

18See generally, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, No More Children 

Left Behind Bars, http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf. A number of other organizations have commissioned or conducted 

related research reaching similar conclusions, including the American Psychological Association, 

the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, the Social Development Research Group of Seattle, Washington, the Justice Policy Institute, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 

and the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 19See Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress, Juvenile 

Justice Reforms Chapter, available at http://2009transition.org/criminaljustice/index.php? 

option=comlcontent&view=article&id=24&Itemid=21. 20 Id. 21See Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress, Juvenile 

Justice Reforms Chapter, available at http://2009transition.org/criminaljustice/index.php? 

option=comlcontent&view=article&id=24&Itemid=21. 22 Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Statistical Briefing Book, Department of Justice. 

have a cognizable mental health and/or substance abuse disorder, 

and make communities less safe.18

Evidence shows that it is entirely feasible to move children away 

from a ‘‘cradle to prison pipeline’’ and onto a positive and productive life trajectory.19 Extensive research indicates that a continuum 

of evidenced-based and promising prevention programs for youth 

identified as being at risk of involvement in delinquent behavior, 

as well as intervention for those already involved, will greatly reduce crime and decrease criminal justice and social welfare expenditures.20 Experts also note these programs are most effective for atrisk youth when provided in the context of a coordinated, collaborative local strategy involving law enforcement and other local public and private entities. 

EFFECTUATING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND

LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERTS

H.R. 1064 is consistent with the recommendations of juvenile and 

criminal justice and law enforcement experts from around the 

country. 

On June 21 and 22, 2007, Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ 

Scott (D-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism 

and Homeland Security, hosted a National Crime Policy Summit to 

examine the causes of and solutions to violent crime in the United 

States. More than 50 crime policy makers, researchers, practitioners, analysts, and law enforcement officials from across the political spectrum gathered to discuss evidence-based and other 

promising strategies to prevent and reduce gang violence and 

crime. 

These experts agreed that a sustained investment in prevention 

and intervention is essential to addressing the problems of youth 

violence and criminal street gangs, and constitutes smart crime 

policy.21 Research reveals that given a strong support structure, 

and effective prevention and intervention services, most young people ‘‘age out’’ or desist from delinquency and crime when they reach 

adulthood. For example, a report of the U.S. Department of Justice 

indicates that ‘‘gang-membership tends to be short-lived, even 

among high-risk youth . . . with very few youth remaining gang 

members throughout their adolescent years.’’ 22

According to top scholars in a variety of fields, including economics, educational psychology, and public health, public dollars spent 

on effective prevention and education programs are far more effective in stemming violence, curtailing crime and delinquency, and 

discouraging gang affiliation than broadening prosecutorial powers 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

23 In recent years, a wide range of organizations have commissioned or conducted research in 

this area and reached similar conclusions. These organizations include the American Psychological Association, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, the Social Development Research Group of Seattle, Washington, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the Justice Policy Institute, and the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. For more information, see http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf. 24See Models for Change, Systems Reform In Juvenile Justice, Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States, available 

at: http://modelsforchange.net/pdfs/WillingnesstoPayFINAL.pdf; see also National Juvenile Justice Network, Polling on Public Attitudes About the Treatment of Young Offenders, available 

at http://www.pendulumfoundation.com/Polling%20on%20Public%20Attitudes.pdf. 

or stiffening criminal penalties for young people accused of 

crimes.23 Public opinion polling studies also reveal that taxpayers 

overwhelmingly favor investing in prevention, education, and rehabilitation programs rather than paying for ever-more prosecution 

and incarceration of youthful offenders.24

Following the summit, and guided by the recommendations of the 

wide array of experts who testified, Representative Scott introduced the Youth PROMISE Act in the 110th Congress. He reintroduced the bipartisan bill in the 111th Congress with Representative Michael N. Castle (R-DE). 

NATIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE YOUTH PROMISE ACT

A national coalition of more than 250 local, State, and national 

entities, including juvenile and criminal justice organizations, law 

enforcement organizations, education groups and school districts, 

community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, cities 

and city councils around the country, local, State and national 

elected officials, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges have all endorsed the Youth PROMISE Act 

and have urged Congress to pass it. 

The following cities and States have passed formal resolutions in support of the Youth PROMISE Act: 

City of Los Angeles, CA 

City of Pasadena, CA 

City of San Francisco, CA 

New Hampshire House of Representatives 

City of East Cleveland, OH 

City of Philadelphia, PA 

City of Pittsburgh, PA 

Santa Fe County, NM 

City of New York, NY 

City of Hampton, VA 

City of Newport News, VA 

City of Norfolk, VA 

City of Portsmouth, VA 

City of Richmond, VA 

The following international, national, State and local organizations have formally endorsed the Youth PROMISE Act: 

International Organizations 

Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), International 

Continental Societies, Incorporated 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Covenant House International 

Human Rights Watch 

International Community Corrections Association 

Penal Reform International 

World Vision 

National Organizations 

Afterschool Alliance 

Alliance for Children and Families 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) 

American Bar Association 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

American Correctional Association 

American Council of Chief Defenders 

American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) 

American Jewish Congress 

American Probation and Parole Association 

American Psychological Association 

Asian American Justice Center 

ASPIRA, Inc. 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Boy Scouts of America 

Boys and Girls Clubs of America 

Campaign for Youth Justice 

Catholic Charities USA 

Center for Children’s Law and Policy 

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice 

Child Welfare League of America 

Children’s Defense Fund 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Coalition on Human Needs 

Correctional Education Association 

Council for Educators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth 

Council for Opportunity in Education 

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) 

Family Justice 

Federal CURE 

First Five Years Fund 

Girls Inc. 

Immigrant Justice Network 

Institute for Community Peace 

Justice Policy Institute 

Juvenile Justice Trainers Association 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

League of Young Voters 

Legal Action Center 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

Mennonite Central Committee Washington Office 

Mental Health America 

Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund 

(MALDEF) 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 

National African-American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

National Alliance of Black School Educators 

National Alliance to End Homelessness 

National Alliance for Faith and Justice 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

(NAACP) 

National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice 

National Association of Counties (NACo) 

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies 

National Association of Secondary School Principals 

National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials (NBC-LEO) 

National Black Police Association 

National Center for Youth Law 

National Consortium of TASC (Treatment Accountability for 

Safer Communities) Programs 

National Council for Community Behavioral Health 

National Council of La Raza 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

National Council on Educating Black Children 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) 

National Council for Urban (Gang) Peace, Justice and Empowerment 

National Education Association 

National Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health 

National Head Start Association 

National Hire Network 

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 

National Juvenile Defender Center 

National Juvenile Detention Association 

National Juvenile Justice Network 

National Network for Youth 

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement (NOBLE) 

National Organization of Concerned Black Men, Inc. 

National Partnership for Juvenile Services 

National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) 

National Trust for the Development of African-American Men 

National Urban League 

National Women’s Law Center 

Open Society Policy Center 

The Peace Alliance 

Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office 

Prison Legal News 

Prisons Foundation 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

Students for Sensible Drug Policy 

The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Law and Policy Section 

The Rebecca Project for Human Rights 

The School Social Work Association of America 

The Sentencing Project 

The Student Peace Alliance 

Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA) 

Time Dollar Youth Court 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 

TimeBanks USA 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries 

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society 

United Neighborhood Centers of America 

U.S. Conference of Mayors 

U.S. Dream Academy 

U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association (USPRA) 

VOICES for America’s Children 

W. Haywood Burns Institute 

Washington Office on Latin America 

Youth Law Center 

Youth Matter America 

State and Local Organizations 

ACLU of Illinois 

ACLU of North Carolina 

ACLU of Ohio 

Action for Children North Carolina 

Advocates for Children and Youth (MD) 

Alabama Youth Justice Coalition 

Alston Wilkes Society (SC) 

Alturas Mas Altas (CA) 

Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of Restorative Justice (CA) 

Asian Law Caucus (CA) 

ATTIC Correctional Services, Inc. (WI) 

Barrios Unidos—Santa Cruz Chapter (CA) 

Barrios Unidos—Virginia Chapter 

CASA of Maryland, Inc. 

Center for Community Alternatives (NY) 

Central American Legal Assistance (NY) 

Chicago Area Project (IL) 

Children’s Action Alliance (AZ) 

Children’s Campaign, Inc. (FL) 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice (MA) 

City of New York Department of Juvenile Justice 

Columbia Heights Shaw Family Collaborative (DC) 

Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 

Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office (CA) 

Correctional Association of New York 

Council for Children’s Rights (NC) 

DC Alliance of Youth Advocates 

DC NAACP Youth Council 

Delaware Center for Justice 

Equal Justice Initiative (AL) 

Everychild Foundation (CA) 

Facilitating Leadership in Youth (FLY) (DC) 

Faith Communities for Families and Children (CA) 

Families & Allies of Virginia’s Youth 

Families & Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children 

Families Moving Forward (CT) 

Florida Public Defender Association, Inc. 

Florida Public Defender, Fourth Judicial Circuit 

Florida Families for Fair Sentences 

Franklin County Public Defender (OH) 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
32 

Fusion Partnerships, Inc. (MD) 

Hispanic Urban Minority Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach 

Program (OH) 

Homies Unidos (CA) 

H.O.P.E., Inc (KS) 

Identity, Inc. (MD) 

The Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence (RI) 

John Howard Association of Illinois 

JustChildren (VA) 

Justice for DC Youth 

Juvenile Court Judges of California 

Juvenile Justice Center of Suffolk University Law School (NY) 

Juvenile Justice Coalition (OH) 

Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois 

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 

Kansas CURE 

Keeping Our Kids Safe: The Newport News Violence Prevention 

Network (VA) 

L.A. Unified School District (CA) 

L.A. Youth Justice Coalition (CA) 

Latin American Youth Center (DC) 

Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc. (CA) 

Life Pieces to Masterpieces, Inc. (DC) 

Law Office of Anthony J. Keber (MA) 

Maryland CURE 

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services 

Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition 

Maryland Office of the Public Defender 

Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania 

Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency 

Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center, Juvenile Law and Policy 

Clinic, University of Richmond School of Law (VA) 

Midwest Juvenile Defender Center (IL) 

Minnesota Juvenile Justice Coalition 

Mississippi CURE 

Mississippi Youth Justice Project 

New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

New Jersey Association on Correction 

New Mexico Council on Crime and Delinquency 

New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association 

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center (CA) 

Parents Who Care Coalition (SD) 

Parents, Youth, Children and Family Training Institute (AL) 

Partnership for Safety and Justice (OR) 

Peace in the Hood (OH) 

Puerto Rico Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

Public Justice Center (MD) 

PTA of Illinois 

Quad A For KIDS/A Rochester Area Community Foundation Initiative (NY) 

Southern Juvenile Defender Center (AL) 

Texas Criminal Justice Coalition 

The Center for Community Development, Inc. (VA) 

The Fortune Society (NY) 

The Law Offices of Public Defender Bennett H. Brummer 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
33 

(Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office) (FL) 

The Pendulum Foundation (CO) 

The Poor People’s Alliance, Connecticut Chapter 

San Francisco Youth Commission (CA) 

The S.T.O.P. Family Investment Center at Oakmont North (VA) 

Southern Juvenile Defender Center (AL) 

Southern Poverty Law Center (AL) 

Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth 

UNC Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill School of Law 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries (OH) 

United in Peace, Inc. (IL) 

Utah Commission on Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice 

Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education 

Virginia Commonwealth University Center for School-Community Collaboration 

Virginia CURE 

VOICES for Alabama’s Children 

VOICES for Children in Nebraska 

VOICES for Ohio’s Children 

Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

Washington Defender Association 

Washington Defender Association’s Immigration Project 

Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (PA) 

Youth Advocacy Project of the Committee for Public Counsel 

Services (MA) 

Young America Works Public Charter School (DC) 

Prominent Elected Officials, Celebrities, and Academics 

Who Have Endorsed the Youth PROMISE Act: 

Casey Affleck, Actor and film director (CA) 

Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles (CA) 

Jason Bateman, television and film actor (CA) 

Carol Oughton Biondi, California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Corrections Standards Authority, Board Member, Child Advocate, Juvenile Justice Expert, Commissioner, 

Los Angeles County Commission for Children and Families Los 

Angeles (CA) 

Father Greg Boyle, S.J., Executive Director of Homeboy Industries (CA) 

Jim Brown, NFL Hall of Famer (CA) 

Scott Budnick, Film Producer, Warner Bros, Youth Advocate, 

Board Member, Los Angeles Conservation Corps (CA) 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, Councilmember, Los Angeles City Council (CA) 

Jacqueline Caster, Founder and President, Everychild Foundation (CA) 

Erika Christensen, Actress (CA) 

Baron Davis, NBA player (CA) 

Rob Dyrdek, professional skateboarder, actor, entrepreneur (CA) 

Kathy Eldon, television presenter, magazine editor, journalist, 

television and film producer 

Flea, musician (CA) 

Tom Hayden, social and political activist and politician (CA) 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
34 

Benjamin Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

NAACP (CA) 

Anthony Kiedis, vocalist, lyricist (CA) 

Joaquin Phoenix, actor, director, producer, social activist (CA) 

Rain Phoenix, actress, musician, and singer (CA) 

Liv Tyler, actress and model (CA) 

Cash Warren, film producer (CA) 

Robin Wright, Actress (CA) 

The Honorable Toni Harp, Connecticut State Senator 

The Honorable Kelvin Rolda ́n, Connecticut State Representative 

Marian Wright Edelman, Children’s Defense Fund (DC) 

Wade Henderson, President, Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights (DC) 

Jolanta Juszkiewicz, Ph.D., American University (DC) 

Hilary O. Shelton, NAACP, Washington Bureau Director (DC) 

Troy Vincent, NFL Vice President of Player Development (DC) 

Aaron Kupchik, Ph.D., University of Delaware 

Judge Glenda Hatchett (GA) 

Donna M. Bishop, Northeastern University (MA) 

Charles J. Ogletree, Harvard Law School, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law and Vice Dean for the Clinical Programs, and 

Founding and Executive Director of the Charles Hamilton 

Houston Institute for Race and Justice (MA) 

Susan J. Carstens, Psy.D., L.P. Juvenile Specialist, Crystal Police Dept. (MN) 

The Honorable Alice L. Bordsen, North Carolina State Representative 

Cory A. Booker, Mayor, Newark, NJ 

Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City 

Maggie Gyllenhaal, Actress (NY) 

Star Jones, lawyer and television personality (NY) 

Russell Wendell Simmons, Chairman, Rush Communications 

(NY) 

Tony Roshan Samara, George Mason University (VA) 

Earle Williams, Psy.D., Hampton University (VA) 

Additional Activities and Support for the Youth PROMISE 

Act 

A national coalition developed in support of the Youth PROMISE 

Act, and held regular meetings over the course of 3 years to 

promote the legislation. 

Film producer Cash Warren, Baron Davis and actress Jessica 

Alba joined Representatives Scott and Castle on May 6, 2009 

at the Capitol Visitors Center for a film screening, discussion 

of the need for youth violence prevention legislation and support for the Youth PROMISE Act. The next day, on May 7, 

2009, advocates from across the country came together to promote the Youth PROMISE Act at a national summit and Youth 

PROMISE Act day on Capitol Hill. 

The Peace Alliance, an alliance of organizers and advocates 

throughout the United States, adopted the Youth PROMISE 

Act as a top priority for its legislative agenda, organizing Hill 

briefings, field hearings, mobilizing celebrity support, and 

working with Ben and Jerry’s to develop a national campaign 

in support of the Youth PROMISE Act. More about the Peace 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
35 

Alliance’s efforts is available on the Campaign website at: 

http://www.youthpromiseaction.org/ 

Prominent entertainment, sports and political figures came together to urge support for passage of the Youth PROMISE Act 

in a ‘‘viral video,’’ available at: http://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=wh3c6ZpGrio 

Supporters of the Youth PROMISE Act and stars from the viral 

video debuted the video and spoke in support of the Youth 

PROMISE Act at the Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, 

D.C. on May 26, 2010. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

held a hearing on July 15, 2009, on H.R. 1064. Testimony was received from Marian Wright Edelman, President and Founder, Children’s Defense Fund; Deborah Prothrow-Stith, MD, Consultant, 

Spencer Stuart; Leroy D. Baca, Sherriff, Los Angeles County; 

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

Date Analysis, The Heritage Foundation; and Tracy Vela ́zquez, Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 29, 2009, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill 

H.R. 1064 favorably reported, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. On December 16, 2009, the full Committee met in open 

session and ordered the bill H.R. 1064 favorably reported with an 

amendment, by a rollcall vote of 17 to 14, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1064: 

1. Motion to table an appeal of the Chair’s ruling that an amendment offered by Mr. Forbes to add enhanced criminal penalties to 

the bill was non-germane. Agreed to 16 to 14. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu .............................................................................................................


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 16 14 

2. Motion to report H.R. 1064 favorably, as amended. Passed 17 

to 14. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei .........................................................................................................

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 17 14 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority or tax expenditures or revenues 

contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1064, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, January 26, 2010. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1064, the ‘‘Youth Prison 

Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director. 

Enclosure. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

H.R. 1064—Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1064 would authorize the appropriation of $886 million over 

the 2010–2014 period, mostly for the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

to make grants to State, local, and tribal governments for programs 

to reduce juvenile delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. In addition, CBO estimates that the bill would authorize the 

appropriation of $300 million annually over the 2010–2014 period 

for DOJ to make Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, 

Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education (PROMISE) 

grants to local and tribal governments to implement initiatives to 

reduce juvenile crime. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1064 would cost about $1.9 billion 

over the 2010–2015 period and another $500 million in subsequent 

years. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

This bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1064 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration of justice). 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2010–2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

PROMISE Grants 

Estimated Authorization Level 300 300 300 300 300 0 1,500

Estimated Outlays 45 171 240 195 255 264 1,170

Other Programs 

Authorization Level 205 168 169 171 173 0 886

Estimated Outlays 20 75 115 146 175 155 686

Total Changes 

Estimated Authorization Level 505 468 469 471 473 0 2,386

Estimated Outlays 65 246 355 341 430 419 1,856

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

H.R. 1064 would authorize the appropriation of $300 million in 

2010 for grants to local and tribal governments for planning, assessing, and developing initiatives to reduce juvenile crime (PROMISE assessment and planning grants). In addition, the bill would 

authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary for each 

year over the 2011–2014 period for DOJ grants to local and tribal 

governments to implement the initiatives (PROMISE implementation grants). CBO estimates that the implementation grants would 

require annual funding equal to the amount provided by the bill to 

plan the initiatives—$300 million per year over the 2011–2014 period. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

In addition, H.R. 1064 would authorize the appropriation of specific amounts totaling $886 million over the 2010–2014 period, 

mostly for DOJ to make grants to State, local, and tribal governments for programs to reduce juvenile delinquency and improve the 

juvenile justice system. 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1064 will be enacted 

during fiscal year 2010. We assume that the authorized and estimated amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal 

year (except 2010) and that spending will follow the historical 

spending patterns for those activities. We assume that supplemental appropriations for 2010 would be enacted. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

This bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, 

local, or tribal governments. Those governments would benefit from 

the authorization of appropriations in this bill for grants and technical assistance. Any costs to those governments would be incurred 

voluntarily as conditions of Federal assistance. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: 

Samuel Wice. 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1064 will prevent and intervene in juvenile delinquency and youth gang violence 

by providing resources for evidence-based and promising programs 

to help youth lead productive, safe, healthy, gang-free, and lawabiding lives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 1064 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9 of rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

Intervention, Support, and Education Act’’ or ‘‘Youth PROMISE 

Act.’’ 

Sec. 2. Table of Contents. Section 2 sets forth the table of contents for the bill. Sec. 3. Definitions. Section 3 of the bill defines 

nine key terms in the bill. Section 3(1) defines ‘‘Administrator’’ as 

the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP). Section 3(2) defines the term ‘‘community’’ for 

the purpose of applying for a grant under the Act. Section 3(3) defines ‘‘designated geographic area’’ in a manner consistent with the 

United States Postal Service. Section 3(4) defines ‘‘evidence-based’’ 

in a manner consistent with use of the term by the Department of 

Justice and research experts in the field of juvenile and criminal 

justice. Section 3(5) defines ‘‘intervention’’ in a manner consistent 

with use of the term by the Department of Justice and experts in 

the fields of juvenile and criminal justice. Section 3(6) defines ‘‘juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention’’ to 

clarify these goals under the Act. Section 3(7) defines ‘‘promising’’ 

in a manner consistent with use of the term by the Department of 

Justice and experts in the fields of juvenile and criminal justice. 

Section 3(8) defines ‘‘State’’ to include all States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all islands, territories or possessions of the United States. Section 3(9) defines 

‘‘youth’’ to include all individuals 18 years of age or younger, and 

all individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system in any State. 

Title I. Federal Coordination of Local and Tribal Juvenile Justice 

Information and Efforts. 

Sec. 101. Promise Advisory Panel. Section 101 of the bill amends 

section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

of 1974 to create a Federal PROMISE Advisory Panel. The Panel 

is charged with assessing successful evidence-based and promising 

practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang 

activity. The Panel is to assist the OJJDP in selecting PROMISE 

community grantees. The Panel will also develop standards for the 

evaluation of juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity 

prevention and intervention approaches carried out under the 

PROMISE Act. Eighteen months after the Youth PROMISE Act is 

enacted, and annually thereafter, the Panel is to submit a report 

of its findings regarding successful evidence-based and promising 

practices and approaches related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to Congress. 

Sec. 102. Geographic Assessment of Resource Allocation. Section 

102 of the bill provides for specific data collection in each designated geographic area to assess the needs and existing resources 

for juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention. This data will inform the strategic geographic allocation of resources provided under the Act to the areas 

with the greatest need for assistance. 

Title II. PROMISE Grants. 

Sec. 200. Section 200 outlines the purposes of the PROMISE 

grant programs established under Title II of the Act. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 

Subtitle A. PROMISE Assessment and Planning Grants. 

Sec. 201. PROMISE Assessment and Planning Grants Authorized. Section 201 establishes grants to local and tribal communities 

to assist the PROMISE Coordinating Council in assessing the 

needs and strengths of juvenile delinquency and criminal street 

gang activity prevention and intervention resources in the community. Based on that assessment, the PROMISE Coordinating Councils then develop plans, which include a comprehensive array of 

evidence-based and promising prevention and intervention programs. Each planning grant awarded under this section has a maximum 1-year duration, and a $300,000 maximum amount. 

Sec. 202. PROMISE Coordinating Councils. Section 202 establishes the eligibility requirements for the PROMISE Coordinating 

Councils. This section also outlines the membership composition of 

the Councils. 

Sec. 203. Needs and Strengths Assessment. Section 203 describes 

the strengths and needs assessment of the community resources, 

which the PROMISE Coordinating Councils will conduct. This section also sets parameters for use of the information collected under 

this assessment: the information may be used for the sole purpose 

of developing a PROMISE plan in accordance with this subtitle of 

the Act. 

Sec. 204. PROMISE Plan Components. Section 204 describes the 

PROMISE Plans that the PROMISE Coordinating Councils develop 

under the Act. The Plans are responsive to the needs and strengths 

of the community; they reflect the community’s linguistic and cultural needs; and they employ approaches that have been proven effective in preventing and reducing involvement in juvenile delinquency, youth violence and criminal street gang activity. The Plans 

also identify the availability of local funds for program implementation; provide strategies to improve the delivery of indigent defense, 

especially for groups of youth who are disproportionately represented in the juvenile and criminal justice systems; and provide 

training for attorneys and members of the legal system who interact with youth in the juvenile justice system. The Plan must ensure that the number of youth in the juvenile and criminal justice 

systems does not increase as a result of the activities undertaken 

with the funds provided under this subtitle. This section also outlines several voluntary components of the PROMISE Plans. 

Sec. 205. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 205 establishes 

the authorization for this subtitle and for section 102 of the bill. 

Subtitle B. PROMISE Implementation Grants. 

Sec. 211. PROMISE Implementation Grants Authorized. Section 

211 establishes grants, which the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention will award to units of 

local government and Indian Tribes to assist the PROMISE Coordination Councils with the implementation of the PROMISE Plans. 

Each grant awarded under this section has a maximum 4-year duration, and a $10,000,000 maximum amount. This section also requires the contribution of non-Federal funds to implement the activities and programs supported by the grant. 

Sec. 212. PROMISE Implementation Grant Application Requirements. This section outlines the required contents for the implementation grant applications. The implementation plans must deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

scribe the activities the grants funds will support, and the anticipated outcomes of the investment in such activities. The plans also 

must identify potential criminal justice and related cost savings 

that will be obtained from the prevention of juvenile delinquency 

and criminal street gang activity. After identifying the savings to 

be obtained, the plans must describe the reinvestment of those savings in the PROMISE Plan’s ongoing implementation. 

Sec. 213. Grant Award Guidelines. This section describes the selection and distribution of grant awards under this subtitle. This 

section charges the Administrator with ensuring that grants are 

awarded to the areas of greatest need. This section also outlines 

the possibility of a PROMISE implementation grant award extension, and a grant award renewal. 

Sec. 214. Reports. Section 214 requires implementation grant recipients to report to the Administration on an annual basis about 

the funds used to implement the PROMISE plan. 

Sec. 215. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 215 authorizes 

the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out 

this subtitle. 

Subtitle C. General PROMISE Grant Provisions. 

Sec. 221. Non-Supplanting Clause. Section 221 requires that a 

grant recipient under this title may only use the grant to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of funds available to support 

youth in the community with respect to juvenile delinquency and 

criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention. 

Sec. 222. Grant Application Review Panel. Section 222 provides 

for a national evaluation of PROMISE plan programs and activities. 

Title III. PROMISE Research Centers. 

Sec. 301. Establishment of the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. Section 301 establishes a National 

Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. This Center 

will collect and disseminate information to PROMISE Coordinating 

Councils and the public on current research and other information 

about evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile 

delinquency and criminal street gang activity. 

Sec. 302. Grants for Regional Research Proven Practices Partnership. Section 302 provides for regional academic research partners 

to assist the PROMISE Coordinating Councils in developing their 

assessments and plans. 

Title IV. Youth-Oriented Policing Services. 

Sec. 401. Purpose. This section establishes the purpose of YouthOriented Policing Services. The purpose is to provide funding for 

youth-oriented community-based law enforcement to coordinate 

with PROMISE Coordinating Councils and other community-based 

organizations to prevent and intervene in the involvement of youth 

in juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. 

Sec. 402. Definitions. Section 402 defines ‘‘youth-oriented policing 

service.’’ This section also defines ‘‘SARA model,’’ which is a problem-solving technique used in youth- oriented policing services. 

Sec. 403. Grants to State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement 

Agencies to Hire and Train Youth-Oriented Policing Officers. SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
43 

25This subtitle incorporates legislation introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer, S. 208. 26This subtitle incorporates legislation introduced by Rep. John Larson in the 110th Congress, 

H.R. 854. 

tion 403 provides that the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services shall award grants for the hiring and training of Youth Oriented Policing officers to help prevent and address 

juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity. A grant 

awarded under this section has a 4-year duration, and shall not exceed $2,000,000. 

Sec. 404. Establishment of a Center for Youth-Oriented Policing. 

Section 404 establishes a Center for Youth Oriented Policing, 

which will be responsible for identification, development and dissemination of information related to strategic policing practices and 

technologies to law enforcement agencies related to youth. 

Sec. 405. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 405 authorizes 

appropriations to carry out this title. 

Title V. Enhanced Federal Support of Local Law Enforcement. 

Subtitle A. Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief.25

Sec. 501. Short Title. Section 501 sets out this subtitle as 

‘‘Mynisha’s Law.’’ 

Sec. 502. Designation as a Comprehensive Gang Prevention and 

Relief Area. This section provides for the application by units of 

local government and Indian Tribes with a PROMISE Coordinating 

Council for designation as a Comprehensive Gang Prevention and 

Relief Area. 

Sec. 503. Interagency Gang Prevention Task Force. Section 503 

provides for Federal coordination and collaboration through an 

interagency task force, including representatives from the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development. This task force is charged with 

identifying and coordinating access to Federal gang prevention resources, and low-income affordable housing. 

Sec. 504. Authorization of Appropriations. This section authorizes 

appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes of this subtitle. 

Subtitle B. Community and Police Collaboration. 

Sec. 511. Gang Prevention Grants. Section 511 authorizes the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to award grants to 

local and tribal governments with a PROMISE Coordinating Council to develop community-based programs that provide crime prevention, research, and intervention services designed for gang 

members and at-risk youth. A grant under this section may not exceed $1,000,000. Grant recipients under this section shall report to 

the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

on an annual basis. This section also authorizes the appropriations 

for grants under this section. 

Subtitle C. City Youth Violence Recovery.26

Sec. 521. Grants to Prevent or Alleviate the Effects of Youth Violence. This section authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to award grants 

to facilitate partnerships between State mental health authorities 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

27This title incorporates legislation introduced by Senator Russ Feingold, S. 3160. 

and local public or private entities to prevent or alleviate the effects of youth violence in urban communities. Grants under this 

section provide violence-prevention education, mentoring, counseling, and mental health services to children and adolescents. This 

section also authorizes appropriations to carry out the section. 

Title VI. PRECAUTION ACT.27

Sec. 601. Short Title. Section 601 establishes this title of the bill 

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. Section 602 describes the purposes of the 

PRECAUTION Act, including the promotion of effective and culturally appropriate Federal, State and local crime prevention and 

intervention strategies, the assessment of such strategies, the provision of resources to promote such strategies, and the reduction of 

the costs that rising violent crime imposes on interstate commerce. 

Sec. 603. Definitions. Section 603 defines the terms ‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘rigorous evidence,’’ and ‘‘subcategory’’ for the purpose of title 

VI. 

Sec. 604. National Commission on Public Safety through Crime 

and Delinquency Prevention. Section 604 creates a national commission on crime prevention and intervention strategies to coordinate the data and research on crime prevention and intervention; 

identify programs that are ready for replication around the country; and, provide guidance to state and local law enforcement about 

the implementation of crime prevention and intervention strategies. The commission is charged with identifying promising areas 

of crime prevention and intervention programming that could benefit from further research and development. 

Sec. 605. Innovative Crime and Delinquency Prevention and 

Intervention Strategy Grants. Section 605 provides that the Director of the National Institute of Justice may award grants to public 

and private entities to fund the implementation and evaluation of 

innovative crime or delinquency prevention or intervention strategies. A grant under this section has a maximum 3-year duration, 

and shall not exceed $2,000,000. Section 605 also authorizes appropriations to carry out this subsection. 

Title VII. Additional Improvements to Juvenile Justice. 

Sec. 701. Youth Victim Witness Assistance Program. Section 701 

increases Federal support for witness and victim protection programs by providing an additional authorization of $5,000,000 to be 

appropriated for juvenile victim and witness protection programs. 

Sec. 702. Expansion and Reauthorization of the Mentoring Initiative for System- Involved Youth. Section 702 provides for an expansion of the Federal mentoring initiative for system-involved youth 

under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

Sec. 703. Study on Adolescent Development and Sentences in the 

Federal System. Section 703 requires the United States Sentencing 

Commission to conduct a study on adolescent brain development 

and culpability; recidivism of juveniles who are released from prisVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

28 H.R. 1064 was introduced and ordered to be reported before the United States Supreme 

Court decided Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 15 (2010), in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to sentence juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide 

offenses. The Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for 

juveniles for homicide offenses. 

on or detention; and, the appropriateness of sentences of life without parole for minor offenders in the Federal system.28

Sec. 704. Partnerships with Professional Athletic Leagues. Section 

704 provides that the Attorney General may establish a program 

in collaboration with national professional sports leagues and players to address youth violence and crime. This section also provides 

that if such a program is established, the Attorney General shall 

conduct a study within 1 year of enactment of the Act of the potential for reducing youth violence and crime through such collaborations with professional sports organizations and players. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 

ACT OF 1974 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

STATE PLANS

SEC. 223. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall provide technical and financial assistance to an eligible organization composed of member representatives of the State advisory groups 

appointed under subsection (a)(3) to assist such organization to 

carry out the functions specified in paragraph (2).¿ 

(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 

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

an organization shall— 

(A) be governed by individuals who— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 

(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. 

(2) ASSISTANCE.—To be eligible to receive such assistance, 

such organization shall agree to carry out activities that include— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(D) advising the Administrator with respect to particular functions or aspects of the work of the Office; and¿ 

(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 

* * * * * * * 

(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 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
47 

(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 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. 

* * * * * * * 

PART E—DEVELOPING, TESTING, AND DEMONSTRATING PROMISING NEW INITIATIVES 

AND PROGRAMS 

SEC. 261. GRANTS AND PROJECTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—The Administrator may 

make grants to and contracts with States, units of general local 

government, Indian tribal governments, public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals, or combinations thereof, to 

carry out projects for the development, testing, and demonstration 

of promising initiatives and programs for the prevention, control, or 

reduction of juvenile delinquency. The Administrator shall ensure 

that, to the extent reasonable and practicable, such grants are 

made to achieve an equitable geographical distribution of such 

projects throughout the United States. 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. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
48 

PART F—GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 299. (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR TITLE II 

(EXCLUDING PARTS C AND E).—ø(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title such sums as may be appropriate 

for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.¿ 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PART E.—øThere 

are authorized¿

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out part E, and authorized to remain available until 

expended, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

ACT OF 1994 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—CRIME PREVENTION 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle Q—Community-Based Justice 

Grants for Prosecutors 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 31702. USE OF FUNDS. 

Grants made by the Attorney General under this section shall 

be used— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe to 

create and expand witness and victim protection programs, including juvenile witness and victim protection programs, to preVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
49 

vent threats, intimidation, and retaliation against victims of, 

and witnesses to, violent crimes. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

øThere are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each 

of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this subtitle.¿ 

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. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
50 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We oppose H.R. 1064, which creates a series of redundant and 

burdensome grant programs, offices, boards, and studies to address 

youth crime and gang prevention and authorizes over $1.23 billion 

in new spending. 

While we agree with the majority that evidence-based, effective 

crime prevention programs play a critical role in deterring our 

youth from participating in gangs, prevention alone is not the answer to quelling the escalating gang violence in America. We must 

also equip the nation’s law enforcement officers and prosecutors 

with the ability to suppress gang violence and gang recruitment. 

The Youth PROMISE Act (‘‘Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act’’) 

seeks to ‘‘provide for evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention.’’ H.R. 1064 purports to do so primarily 

through the creation of (1) PROMISE Assessment Grants, and 

later, (2) PROMISE Implementation grants, to state/local/tribal 

government. Both grants would be funded through the grant authority of the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) after coordination with newly-created State Advisory Groups, a PROMISE Advisory Panel to OJJDP 

comprised of members of the State Advisory Road, and local 

PROMISE Coordinating Councils (PCCs). 

The OJJDP PROMISE Advisory Panel is then charged with, 

among other things, assessing successful prevention and intervention practices carried out by PCCs and developing standards to be 

used in evaluating the programs. Pursuant to H.R. 1064, OJJDP’s 

Administrator may award a grant on a competitive basis, up to 

$1,000,000, to collect and analyze data related to existing juvenile 

delinquency and criminal street gang activity intervention and prevention programs, use the data to compile a list of designated geographic areas that are in need of resources on juvenile delinquency 

and criminal street gang activity, and rank those designated in descending order by the amount of need for resources for such intervention. 

H.R. 1064 proposes to authorize one-year PROMISE Assessment 

grants of up to $300,000, predicated on the creation of a PCC that 

would conduct localized needs and strengths assessment that 

would be mandated to look at, among the number of at-risk youth, 

the number of youth involved in juvenile delinquency and/or street 

gangs, summer youth unemployment, an estimate of those on public welfare in the area, an estimate of the total costs for incarceration of inmates in the local area including a comparison to other 

areas nationwide, and a description of promising intervention and 

prevention practices in use or proposed for the area. The bill proposes to authorize $300,000,000 for PROMISE Assessment grants 

for FY 2010. 

The bill further authorizes four-year PROMISE Implementation 

grants of up to $10 million for any local government unit, predicated on prior receipt of a Youth PROMISE Assessment grant and 

an application that documents the intended use of the grant and 

any estimated efficiencies in criminal justice spending and estimated reduction in crime based on the intervention and prevention 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
51 

1The bill specifically authorizes $1,230,750,000 in new spending while authorizing two provisions for ‘‘such sums’’ as may be necessary, thus pushing the total authorization above one and 

a quarter billion dollars. 

program(s) supported by the grant. H.R. 1064 does not provide an 

authorized amount for the implementation grants, but rather includes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ language for the grants. 

The 2007 version of the Youth PROMISE Act introduced by Chairman Scott authorized $2 billion to be appropriated for implementation grants from 2010–13. 

The bill also creates a National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Programs to collect, analyze, and disseminate intervention and prevention best practices to and from PROMISE Coordinating Council. The bill further authorizes for appropriation $100 

million in grants to state/local/tribal law enforcement governments 

to hire ‘‘Youth Oriented Police’’ (YOPS), trained through the creation of a national Center for Youth Oriented Policing. Grant authority for YOPS would be modeled after and administered by 

DOJ’s COPS administrator. In addition, the bill seeks to create a 

National Commission on Public Safety through Crime and Delinquency Prevention to conduct a study and issue a report on the effectiveness of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention 

strategies. 

H.R. 1064 PROPOSES A REDUNDANT AND COSTLY

APPROACH TO PREVENTION

Unfortunately, H.R. 1064 goes far beyond simply authorizing 

Federal assistance for community prevention programs. The bill 

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 bureaucracy, and 

over a dozen new reports, studies, evaluations, and assessments. 

All of this comes with a price tag of over 1 and a quarter BILLION 

dollars,1 with much of the funding targeted towards studying, analyzing, and assessing prevention techniques and less for funding 

actual youth crime prevention programs. 

H.R. 1064 also legislates its one-size-fits all approach in a vacuum. The bill approaches youth crime and gang prevention as if no 

such program on this subject exists. On the contrary, dozens of 

local government and non-profit programs across the country are 

reaching children every day. Yet, 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 non-profit, community-based programs are all but left out of 

this legislation. Of the 11 new grants created by this bill, only 

one—the Innovative Crime and Delinquency Prevention and Intervention Strategy Grant—can be awarded to private organizations. 

Likewise, a number of these grants fund studies by NGOs and educational institutions rather than putting money in the hands of 

community programs that are currently helping young people avoid 

a life of crime and gang involvement. 

Section 102—new grant program to assess ‘‘designated geographic areas’’ in need of funding. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
52 

2Gang Reduction Program, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, available at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/programs/antigang/index.html. 

Section 201—new grant program for PROMISE assessment 

and planning. 

Section 211—new grant program for PROMISE implementation. 

Section 223—new grant program for evaluation of PROMISE 

grants by institutions of higher education. 

Section 301—new grant program for a nonprofit NGO to establish the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. 

Section 302—new grant program for institutions of higher 

education to serve as regional research partners with PROMISE Coordinating Councils. 

Section 403—new grant program for the hiring and training 

of Youth Oriented Policing Officers. 

Section 404—new grant program for a NGO to establish a 

Center for Youth-Oriented Policing. 

Section 511—new grant program to award PCC communities 

with gang prevention grants. 

Section 522—new grant program to ‘‘eligible entities’’ to prevent and alleviate the effects of youth violence. 

Section 605—new grant program for public and private entities to implement and evaluate innovative crime or delinquency prevention and intervention strategies. 

Section 701—expands the use of existing community-based 

justice grants for prosecutors. 

Section 702—expands the breadth of the Mentoring Initiative 

for System-Involved Youth grants. 

Federal grant programs targeted specifically at youth crime and 

gang prevention also currently exist. The Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) operates the Gang Reduction Program, the Gang Free Schools and 

Communities Program, and the Tribal Youth Program, all of which 

are demonstrating success. 

For instance, the OJJDP Youth Gang Prevention Initiative, 

which includes a Gang Reduction Program (GRP), is ‘‘designed to 

reduce gang activity in target neighborhoods by incorporating research-based interventions that contribute to juvenile delinquency 

and gang activity.’’ Much like Youth PROMISE purports to, the 

GRP is funding pilot sites in communities with significant program 

investment, strong indicators of citizen involvement, and high rates 

of crime and gang activity and integrating Federal, state, and local 

resources into state-of-the-art practices in prevention, intervention 

and suppression.2

H.R. 1064 creates multiple new layers of bureaucracy within 

local, tribal and Federal Government and establishes a host of centers, facilities, and partnerships both in and outside government, 

leading to a myriad of overlapping and duplicative functions. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
53 

Section 101—replaces the existing Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice with a PROMISE Advisory Panel 

within the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the Justice Department. 

Section 202—requires all units of local governments or Indian 

tribes to establish PROMISE Coordinating Councils (PCC) 

comprised of 20 members from a broad cross-section of health 

care, government, juvenile, and community groups in order to 

be eligible for a PROMISE assessment and planning grant. 

Section 211—requires each unit of local government or Indian 

tribe with a PCC to award a competitive contract to an organization (presumably a NGO) that will ‘‘assess the progress’’ of 

the government or tribe in addressing the unmet needs of 

youth in the community. 

Section 222—requires the OJJDP Administrator to establish 

and utilize a transparent, reliable, and valid system for evaluating applications for PROMISE grants. 

Section 301—establishes a National Research Center for 

Proven Juvenile Justice Practices via a grant to a NGO. 

Section 302—designates institutions of higher education to 

serve as regional research partners with PCCs. 

Section 404—establishes a Center for Youth-Oriented Policing 

via a grant to a NGO. The Center will also include a YOPS Advisory Board comprised of 22 members. 

Section 504—establishes an Interagency Gang Prevention 

Task Force to include representatives from DOJ, DOED, DOL, 

HHS, and HUD. 

Section 522—requires the creation of an eligible entity, defined as a ‘‘partnership between a State mental health authority and one or more local public or private providers’’ to receive 

the new grant created under this section. 

Section 604—establishes a National Commission on Public 

Safety through Crime and Delinquency Prevention. 

Section 605—requires the NIJ to designate a full-time employee to oversee the grants under this section. Also requires 

the grant recipient to utilize an ‘‘evaluator’’ approved by the 

NIJ employee for the ‘‘rigorous’’ study required by this section. 

The requirements on units of local government 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. 

H.R. 1064 directs multiple studies, assessments, plans, reports, 

and evaluations of evidence-based programs to deter juveniles from 

crime and gangs. This begs the question: Do evidence-based programs to prevent youth from engaging in crime or joining a gang 

currently exist? If so, why should we expend millions in taxpayer 

dollars to study what we already know? And can we realistically 

expect a program proven to work in one community to enjoy the 

same success nationwide? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
54 

Section 101—requires the newly created PROMISE Advisory 

Panel within OJJDP to annually report to Congress, the President, and Attorney General, as well as to the chief executive 

officer and chief law enforcement officer of each State, unit of 

local government, and Indian tribe. 

Section 102—requires a NGO to compile a list of ‘‘designated 

geographic areas’’ that are in need of resources and provide 

such list to the OJJDP Administrator. 

Section 203—requires each PCC to perform an ‘‘objective 

strengths and needs assessment’’ of the resources of the community. Presumably such assessment must be provided to the 

OJJDP Administrator to demonstrate compliance with the 

grant requirements. 

Section 204—requires each PCC to develop a PROMISE Plan 

to coordinate and deliver evidence-based and promising practices for prevention. This section also requires each PCC to 

partner with an institution of higher education that will provide to the PCC information on evidence-based and promising 

practices. 

Section 211—requires each PCC to award a contract to a 

NGO to assess the progress of the PCC in implementing its 

PROMISE Plan. 

Section 214—requires each PCC to submit an annual report 

to the OJJDP Administrator on implementation of PROMISE 

grants. 

Section 223—requires the OJJDP Administrator to evaluate 

the PROMISE programs and report the results of its evaluation to the National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. 

Section 301—requires the National Research Center to create 

a best practices juvenile justice information-sharing network to 

disseminate research to PCCs. 

Section 404—requires the Center for Youth-Oriented Policing 

to develop and disseminate a model youth-oriented policing 

services training program. 

Section 505—requires the Interagency Gang Prevention Task 

Force to submit an annual report to Congress. 

Section 604—requires the National Commission on Public 

Safety through Crime and Delinquency Prevention to study the 

effectiveness of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention strategies and submit and initial and final report to 

Congress. 

Section 605—requires each grant recipient under this section 

to conduct a ‘‘rigorous study of the effectiveness of the strategy 

during the 3-year period of the grant for that strategy.’’ 

Section 703—directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 

study the appropriateness of sentences for minors in the Federal system. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
55 

3 National Gang Threat Assessment 2009, NATIONAL DRUG INTELLIGENCE CENTER, U.S. DE- PARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Jan. 2009, available at http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/ 

index.htm. 4 Id. 

5 Id. 

6 Id. 

H.R. 1064 IS DEVOID OF ANY ENFORCEMENT MEASURES

Preventing America’s youth from engaging in crime and participating in gangs is a critical component to stemming crime and violence in our communities and breaking the cycle of violence and 

lawlessness by our children and teens. But prevention is not the 

only component. If we are serious about dismantling dangerous 

gangs in our country, we must also have tough enforcement of our 

laws to suppress the violence brought upon our communities at the 

hands of criminal street gangs. 

The Justice Department’s 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment 3 demonstrates the need for tough enforcement. According to 

the Assessment, ‘‘approximately 1 million gang members belonging 

to more than 20,000 gangs were criminally active within all 50 

states and the District of Columbia as of September 2008.’’ 4

Criminal gangs are responsible for roughly 80 percent of the 

crime in many cities and towns across the country, including alien 

smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder, and weapons 

trafficking. 

‘‘Gang members are the primary retail-level distributors of most 

illicit drugs. They also are increasingly distributing wholesale-level 

quantities of marijuana and cocaine in most urban and suburban 

communities. Some gangs traffic illicit drugs at the regional and 

national levels; several are capable of competing with U.S.-based 

Mexican DTOs.’’ 5

The landscape of suppression and enforcement has changed. 

Gangs are no longer limited to urban areas. Many rural communities are experiencing a spike in gang activity and gang-related 

crime and many rural law enforcement agencies lack the resources 

and training to effectively respond to the influx of gangs into their 

communities. 

Gangs actively recruit new members in our middle and high 

schools. ‘‘Gang activity at schools is rising, in part, because gangs 

are using middle schools and high schools as venues for recruitment and drug distribution. Law enforcement agencies in several 

jurisdictions in eastern states report that gangs are directing teenage members who had dropped out of school to reenroll, primarily 

to recruit new members and sell drugs.’’ 6

And gang investigators from across the country agree. The National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association opposes the Youth 

PROMISE Act because it fails to address gang suppression, creates 

redundant centers and agencies, and fails to implement juvenile 

justice and education programs that will effectively reduce gang 

proliferation. 

Unfortunately, the majority rejected an amendment offered by 

Mr. Forbes to include strong gang enforcement provisions in the 

bill. The amendment revised the existing Federal criminal statute 

(18 U.S.C. § 521) to prohibit gang crimes that are committed to further the activities of a criminal street gang. It more clearly deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:34 Dec 19, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR688P1.XXX HR688P1

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
56 

scribes the elements and penalties for the Federal gang offense and 

provides important definitions for ‘‘criminal street gang’’ and ‘‘gang 

crime.’’ This language is similar to provisions included in legislation sponsored by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff and 

Senator Feinstein. 

CONCLUSION

The suppression and dismantling of violent gangs cannot be 

solved simply through prevention. It requires a coordinated approach that includes strong enforcement. This legislation fails to 

acknowledge this, instead relying upon youth crime prevention to 

quell violent gang activity. 

Moreover, this bill seeks to fund these prevention efforts through 

a veritable hodgepodge of research, government bureaucracies, and 

new spending. Considering the dire state of our economy and an estimated $12 trillion national debt, we believe it is irresponsible for 

Congress to approve over a billion dollars in new Federal programs 

for an issue that is first and foremost the purview of the states. At 

the very least, Congress should especially avoid creating new programs that authorize over a billion dollars in new Federal spending. We urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

HOWARD COBLE. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. 

BOB GOODLATTE. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 

DARRELL E. ISSA. 

J. RANDY FORBES. 

STEVE KING. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

LOUIE GOHMERT. 

JIM JORDAN. 

TED POE. 

JASON CHAFFETZ. 

TOM ROONEY. 

GREGG HARPER. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING