U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

35–304 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–32

MENTORING AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS

TO DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH VIOLENCE IN

PHILADELPHIA

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 19, 2007

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Serial No. J–110–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

(III)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND

RELATED AGENCIES

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio) 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

Professional Staff

ELLEN MURRAY

ERIK FATEMI

JIM SOURWINE

MARK LAISCH

ADRIENNE HALLETT

LISA BERNHARDT

BETTILOU TAYLOR (Minority) 

SUDIP SHRIKANT PARIKH (Minority) 

CANDICE NGO (Minority) 

JEFF KRATZ (Minority)

Administrative Support 

TERI CURTIN

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

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

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, 

(guest) .................................................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Carroll, Jennifer, Director, Match Support, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................... 26

Delaney, John, Deputy District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 11

Fair, David, Vice President for Community Impact, United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................... 31

Harkavy, Ira, Associate Vice President and Founding Director, Center for 

Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 34

Johnson, Sylvester, Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 10

McClanahan, Wendy, Vice President for Research, Public/Private Ventures, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 27

Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... 4

Pennington, Mike, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Pennsylvania Commission on 

Crime and Delinquency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ....................................... 29

Ramos, Pedro, Managing Director, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 8

Vallas, Paul, Chief Executive Officer, School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 13

Zahorchak, Gerald L., Secretary of Education, Pennsylvania Department of 

Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ................................................................ 5

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Carroll, Jennifer, Director, Match Support, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ....... 41

Fair, David, Vice President for Community Impact, United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ....................... 46

Harkavy, Ira, Associate Vice President and Founding Director, Center for 

Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................................................. 53

Johnson, Sylvester, Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, statement ..................................................................................... 60

McClanahan, Wendy, Vice President for Research, Public/Private Ventures, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................. 63

Meehan, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ............................................................................ 75

Pennington, Mike, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Pennsylvania Commission on 

Crime and Delinquency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .................... 80

Ramos, Pedro, Managing Director, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................................................. 84

Zahorchak, Gerald L., Secretary of Education, Pennsylvania Department of 

Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, statement ............................................. 91

(1)

MENTORING AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS TO DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH VIOLENCE IN PHILADELPHIA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV- ICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES, COM- MITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m. at Constitution Hall, 111 

South Independent Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen 

Specter, presiding. Present: Senator Casey. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is 

a joint field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and 

Education, the subcommittee which has the jurisdiction over the 

funding for education. 

Senator Casey and I have convened this hearing to address the 

issue of mentoring to try to deal with the at-risk youth in the region. There is no need to recite the statistics on homicides or juvenile homicides or juvenile delinquency or juvenile arrest. Suffice it 

to say that in this city today there is a veritable war in progress. 

Very hard to walk down the streets of many sections of this city 

without being at risk. It is a problem which has deteriorated materially since the days when I was district attorney of this city, and 

there have been many, many efforts at the governmental level and 

at the citizen level to cope with this issue, and none, regrettably, 

with much success. 

In talking to this issue, talking over this issue with the Governor, whom I have known many years, since he was chief of the 

homicide division in my district attorney’s office, and with the district attorney, who I’ve known for many years, since he was an assistant in my office, and in discussing the matters with the school 

officials—the distinguished superintendent of schools, Paul Vallas, 

who is a witness here today—in searching for some measure, the 

thought arose, on the short term, that mentoring might pose some 

realistic chance to deal with at-risk youth. 

Mentoring is an arrangement where we find an adult, or an older 

young person, who will take under his or her wing those in the 9-

to 17-year-old category. When I was district attorney, we had a program called Take a Brother, modeled after the Big Brother program, where young people in their 17s and 18s and 19s would menVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 May 21, 2007 Jkt 035304 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35304.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
2

tor somebody 11, 12, or 13. And a big part of what we are trying 

to do now is to bring some public focus on the mentoring approach 

to see if we can find volunteers. One statistic that I would like to 

know is an approximation of how many at-risk young people there 

are in this city today. And then, I would like to know how many 

mentors we have available to deal on a one-on-one basis with these 

individuals. And then, we need to know how many more mentors 

we need to attract. I have a sense, an instinct, that there are many 

people who would come forward in our community and in the outlying areas to be mentors if there was a program in existence and 

if there was some realistic likelihood that their efforts, in conjunction with many other efforts, would produce some response to this 

problem.And that is what we’re going to be looking at here today. 

We had an earlier meeting, on January the 19th, with Representatives from the city. The mayor was present. Governor had his representatives there. The district attorney was present. And this is 

the next step in what will be a continuing effort. 

On the continuing resolution, which was signed into law last 

week, with the problems of Philadelphia in mind, we got an additional $25 million for mentoring nationwide. That, frankly, is not 

enough money, but, with the budget constraints, it is a start. And 

our city and State are eligible for competition to try to bring some 

of that money. 

Senator Casey and I have in mind to try to bring additional 

funds on the appropriations process this year. And that is why we 

have representatives from the Judiciary Committee, Matt Minor 

and Lisa Owings, who have been working on this matter for a long 

period of time, and ‘‘Senator Bettilou Taylor,’’ from the Appropriations Committee. I call her ‘‘Senator Taylor.’’ She’s actually the 

101st Senator. She’s more powerful than most Senators when you 

have the lead hand with her sharp pencil and the distribution of 

$147 billion, that’s not chopped liver. 

Well, I’m joined by my distinguished colleague Senator Casey 

today. We have the unexpected pleasure of his participation, because he was scheduled to be in Iraq today. I don’t know why any 

intelligent young man like Senator Casey would choose Iraq over 

the Constitution Center; but then, he’s devoted to his duty and 

scheduled to make the trip there on the very tough issues confronting us. But he and I had to work on Saturday. We had a vote. 

And that has kept him in the United States, so we’re the beneficiary of that, because he is with us here today. 

And I’m now very pleased to yield to my colleague. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. Well, Senator, thank you very much. 

And I want to reiterate what—something I said at our meeting, 

a month ago, reiterating my gratitude, as I’m sure everyone this 

room is grateful, for Senator Specter’s leadership on these critical 

issues. And I think it’s emblematic of his leadership on so many 

issues, where he approaches an issue from the perspective of how 

we can improve on something that’s confronting the people of Pennsylvania and the people of America. And he does it in a bipartisan 

way. He does it through eliciting testimony and information from 

3

experts. And he does it in a way that shows the kind of focused 

leadership that he’s provided. 

I was thinking, today, that one of the—one of the great sound 

bites out there that we don’t hear enough of is actually the name 

of a national organization. Many people here will know the name 

of this organization. And it says, very simply, ‘‘Fight Crime, Invest 

in Kids.’’ And a lot of what we’re talking about here today is gets 

to that basic priority, which is, unless we make the effort, here in 

the State and across America, to focus on children in the earliest 

days and months and years of their lives, all—everything after 

that’s going to be that much more difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to improve upon the chance that they can lead healthy 

and productive lives—out of jail, out of harm’s way, so to speak. 

So, we’re—I’m grateful to be part of this. And I know that the 

members of both panels will contribute greatly to what my understanding is of this challenge, as well as Senator Specter’s. And we 

want to make sure that we bring this information back to the 

United States Senate to develop programs not just for this State, 

but for programs across the country. But I’m grateful that Senator 

Specter has once again brought us together to focus on a problem 

which goes well beyond this city and well beyond this State. 

So, Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. 

We now turn to our very distinguished panel. And our first witness is going to be the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick Meehan. Patrick Meehan did not 

have the advantage of being an assistant district attorney in my office. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Because he wasn’t old enough. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. He didn’t graduate from college—Bowdoin—

until 1978. My term of DA ended in 1974. But has made up for it 

in the interim, holding his law degree from Temple University, and 

then serving as my chief of staff in the Philadelphia Senate office. 

And that put him in position to become district attorney of Delaware County, where he had a very distinguished tenure before 

being appointed to the important position of United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Meehan is an expert in the field, having initiated a program 

which is called the Route 22 Corridor Anti-Gang Initiative, on the 

crescent around the city of Philadelphia, all within his district. And 

I might add that we’re going to be undertaking similar initiatives 

in Reading—we’re due to be there in a few weeks—and later, in the 

Lehigh Valley and in Lancaster, and we may go beyond, based on 

what we have learned here, because this is a problem which confronts virtually every community, and as Senator Casey noted, 

really the entire world. 

We’re going to ask the witnesses to stick within the 5-minute 

time limit, which is the custom for the Judiciary Committee and 

the Appropriations Subcommittee. 

And we turn the microphone over to you, Patrick. 

4

STATEMENT OF PATRICK MEEHAN, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Senators. And thank you for the opportunity to speak about this important issue. 

Combating violence in the neighborhoods is a top priority of 

United States attorneys across the Nation. And, through the Department of Justice’s signature program, Project Safe Neighborhoods, my colleagues and I are coordinating efforts of Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement with community groups against 

gun crime. This includes maximizing the use of Federal laws, like 

the Armed Career Criminal Statutes, which you helped to write, 

and the Hobbs Act, to remove the most dangerous criminals from 

the neighborhoods, and the combat gangs and trafficking organizations. But, moreover, I previously served for 6 years as a county 

district attorney, and there our juvenile justice system really 

worked to try to deter crime through prevention efforts aimed at 

our most serious threat, which are at-risk juveniles with a propensity towards violence. And, therefore, I’m very pleased to have this 

opportunity to share with the committee some of my thoughts. 

I’ll focus my remarks on three outstanding programs, which include both a mentoring component and a strong law enforcement 

message to at-risk youth who find themselves at a crossroads. 

These programs are the Youth Violence Reduction Project; a second 

program, called Don’t Fall Down in the Hood; and a third program, 

the Glen Mills Community Management Services Program. A common characteristic of these three programs is a focus on comprehensive intervention with young persons that are most likely to 

seriously harm others or to be harmed, themselves. Each seeks to 

deter individuals from choices that increase their exposure to 

harm, while promoting accountability, responsibility, and personal 

development. Each attempts to show dangerous juveniles there’s an 

alterative to violence and a future beyond crime. 

The first is the Youth Violence Reduction Project. I’ll speak the 

least about that, because another colleague will talk about it today, 

but it provides intensive support with graduated sanctions for noncompliance for youths age 24 and younger who are at the greatest 

risk of killing or being killed. The results have been particularly 

promising here in the city, where it’s been instituted through the 

district attorney’s office. According to that office, when a comparison was made of homicides in three police districts for the years 

just prior to the initiation of this program, the results have been 

significant. For youth 24 and under, homicides decreased 46 percent in the 24th Police District, 48 percent in the 25th, and 9 percent in the short tenure that it’s been in work in the 12th District. 

A second program is Don’t Fall Down in the Hood. It’s a program 

offered by the Institute for the Advancement of African-American 

Youth. It’s a city-funded program that works with juvenile offenders ages 14 to 18—again, much of our target group—and after their 

first arrest for narcotics or assault or firearms or other offenses. 

The ultimate goal is to reduce the criminal behavior of the offenders while showing them how to take advantage of meaningful opportunities in the community. The teens are referred to the program mostly from the Philadelphia Family Court and the Youth 

Study Center. As part of the program, students receive presenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 May 21, 2007 Jkt 035304 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35304.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5

tations from professionals to educate them about life-and-death decisions. According to Archie Leacock, the executive director, Don’t 

Fall Down in the Hood has included more than 860 youths. Only 

7 percent have committed an offense after completion of the program. 

The third program is the Community Management Services at 

the Glen Mills School. It provides a strong component of aftercare. 

This provides reintegration services for court adjudicated juveniles 

who are returning to a community after completing a residential 

commitment. Like adult prisoners after incarceration, they face 

unique pressures and tough choices upon a return to their neighborhoods. Juveniles participate in creating a transition plan, are 

supervised by—face-to-face up their reintegration. They receive assistance in school reentry, employment search, individual counseling, family meeting, and even a 24-hour crisis intervention, if 

that is necessary. Pre-adjudication and truancy services are also 

part of this model. 

Let me conclude my testimony by observing that intensive intervention is a critical component of antiviolence efforts, but other 

longer-term interventions play a vital role in keeping our communities safe. For example, antitruancy programs that that identify 

chronically truant juveniles, and reestablish them in age-appropriate remedial education, are a proven deterrent to crime. Former 

Mayor Wilson Goode and the Amachi Program are a great example. 

Unmarried teenage mothers and their children are often the 

greatest risk of becoming entrenched in the lifestyle of poverty and 

family dysfunction. The Nurse/Family Partnership is an intervention program which deals with support, education, and counseling. 

Let me conclude by saying, law enforcement is one critical piece 

of a solution to the problems of crime and violence, but a comprehensive approach, which includes interventions like the kinds 

I’ve mentioned today, increase the capacity we have to keep our 

neighborhoods safe and to steer young people away from bad 

choices before it’s too late. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Meehan. 

We now turn to the leading authority in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania on this subject, and that is Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, 

who’s the Secretary of Education, which has the responsibility for 

implementation of Federal and State programs aimed at abating 

youth violence and gangs. Dr. Zahorchak is a graduate of St. 

Francis, a master’s degree from Indiana University, a Ph.D. from 

Penn State. 

Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Zahorchak, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD ZAHORCHAK, SECRETARY OF 

EDUCATION, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Thank you, Senator. And thanks for the work 

that you’re doing at the national and local levels in this area. We’re 

very grateful to have the opportunity to speak to you today. 

6

I thought that—I want to tell you that, while I believe that most 

schools are, indeed, safe places, and have been made safer in recent 

years, we have a lot of work to do to improve school safety. And 

I’d like to address, specifically, the important issue of student gang 

involvement. 

In Pennsylvania, we’ve learned that using student assessment 

data to identify the causes of student academic problems is the 

same type of model that we want to use in learning about the root 

causes of student behavioral problems. 

Today, in Pennsylvania, we’re experiencing success in raising 

student achievement in every grade level, in every content area. 

Nowhere is that success more impressive than in our lowest-performing schools. Pennsylvania’s schools that have less than half of 

their students’ population scoring proficient on our State test in 

2001 have experienced double-digit growth increases in proficient 

scores at every grade level in every demographic group, including 

race, family income, language ability, and IEP status. In Pennsylvania, we know our success has resulted from our relentless focus 

on examining student achievement data and asking serious questions not only about the student achievement, but about the educational practices that are most likely to have a positive impact on 

students in a particular classroom in which we increase the level 

of intervention in a school, depending upon the severity of a 

school’s needs. 

So, we line up our efforts, in terms of foundation efforts, what 

we can give to support all schools as they continuously grow, targeted support to intervene where schools need help, and then very 

intensive support for the districts that need corrective action. 

Since school safety concerns encompasses such a broad spectrum, 

I’d like to look at gang topics. And, in the testimony, you’ll see that 

the description of gang factors by—and risk—gangs and risk factors—by sociologists determine or define what a ‘‘gang’’ means, but 

typically it’s a group of kids who identify with each other. Sometimes they fight for claim of a neighborhood territory or use common symbols. But the—and also perhaps engage in illegal activities. All students are at moderate to severe risk of being influenced 

by gangs, gang activities, or risky behavior, in general. 

In responding to that, we think about it in terms of prevention 

and intervention first. And when we think about prevention, we 

think about helping schools understand what they can do to promote resiliency, giving kids opportunities, giving young people opportunities to have high expectations academically and behavioral 

wise, to be meaningfully engaged, to have opportunities to bond 

with each other, to understand clearly the rules of the school and 

the consequences, and see consistent supports for successful behavior, and consequences that are supported for non-good—for not-sosuccessful behavior. So, our students have a resiliency from—in 

terms of meaningful engagement, clear and consistent boundaries, 

as well as setting the high expectations. 

We also teach life skills, as well as have unconditional support 

for our students. We think those five or six elements really do provide the prevention efforts. And we help schools understand ways 

to get about looking for root causes through serious training. In 

general, Pennsylvania has undertaken many steps to increase our 

7

school violence prevention efforts. We’re working closely with the 

Pennsylvania State Police, the Emergency Management Agency, 

the Commission on Crime and Delinquency to support schools in 

creating comprehensive safety plans, and reviewing internal programs for prevention. 

As you know, in Pennsylvania schools are not only required to 

have a safety plan, but to submit it to the Department every year, 

and with a summary of their school safety data. We collect and 

publish, on our Web site, school-by-school reports on violence incidents, and we also provide serious technical assistance from places 

such as our Centers for Safety Schools, our Annual Safety Schools 

Conference, and small limited safety grants. In addition, in collaboration with our partners at the Juvenile Justice Commission and 

Department of Public Welfare, the Department introduced a 

stronger, more aligned, approach and response to truancy which includes a new policy statement, effective practices, resources, and 

strategies that can be used by all stakeholders, especially students 

and their families. 

Our goal in Pennsylvania is to see all students succeed and ready 

for postsecondary education or a career, regardless of background 

or circumstances. It’s our partnership with public welfare, the Governor’s—Children’s Commission and others that we’re building the 

resiliency framework for schools to build protective factors for all 

schools, although we continuously ask our schools to improve their 

practices and implement an aligned, systematic approach to preventing school violence, we acknowledge the importance of sufficient resources to support our work. 

Last year, Pennsylvania suffered at 20-percent decrease in Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools——

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Zahorchak, how much more time will you 

need? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Just 30 seconds. 

Senator SPECTER. Go ahead. 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Thanks, Senator. 

We’ve experienced the decrease of 20 percent in our Safe Schools 

grant. It’s had a negative effect on our school, and we’re concerned 

that the President has asked Congress to—for continued reductions 

and elimination of these funds. 

Our schools and communities have to examine the root causes of 

the students’ behavioral problems, in the same we do examine our 

academic problems. 

We thank you for giving us the opportunity today to be at 

this——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zahorchak appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. 

Zahorchak. 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. We now turn to Mr. Peter Ramos, who is the 

managing director of the city of Philadelphia. That job entails the 

management of all of the departments. Previously, he had been city 

solicitor here. And before that, he was a vice president at the University of Pennsylvania, in charge of their outreach program, which 

gave him considerable experience directly in this field. He’s a gradVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 May 21, 2007 Jkt 035304 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35304.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8

uate of the University of Pennsylvania, and magna cum laude from 

the University of Michigan. 

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Ramos, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PEDRO RAMOS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY 

OF PHILADELPHIA 

Mr. RAMOS. Good morning, Senators. On behalf of Mayor John 

F. Street, thank you, Chairman Specter and Senator Casey, for giving me the opportunity to testify here today. 

Mr. Chairman, your commitment to addressing the issue of youth 

violence is demonstrated not only by your words, but by your actions, such as holding hearings like this one today, and providing 

the leadership to obtain funding to support this city’s violence initiatives, like the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership. 

We all continue to struggle with the challenge of addressing the 

growing problem of violence and the devastating effects it has our 

community, especially our youngest citizens. Violence is shattering 

the dreams and futures of too many children and youth in our city. 

A comprehensive and communitywide strategy is needed to address 

this growing violence. The Street administration has invested heavily in violence prevention programs, and there is no more important priority for this administration than the safety and stability 

of our children and youth. 

A significant component of our comprehensive violence reduction 

strategy is mentoring. My testimony will focus on how current violence reduction efforts—specifically, YVRP, which has been tied to 

significant decreases in youth homicide rates, and the Adolescent 

Violence Reduction Partnership—utilize mentoring as a key component of their approaches. 

Although we are seeing positive trends in the reduction of many 

major crimes, there has been recent growth in violence among 

youth ages 18 to 24. The number of arrests for violence crimes increased by 1 percent between 2004 and 2005. The number of arrests for homicide increased by 4 percent between 2004 and 2005. 

The number of arrests for rape increased by 3 percent between 

2004 and 2005. 

One of the city’s most notable research-based violence-reduction 

strategies is YVRP, which is active in five of the city’s 24 police districts. This proven model targets youth who are most likely to kill 

or be killed, and provides them with intensive supervision, mentoring, and support services. YVRP is a partnership among the 

Philadelphia Police Department, adult and juvenile probation, the 

district attorney’s office, the managing director’s office, the Department Of Human Services, Recreation, Behavioral Health, as well 

as other partner agencies, both public and private. 

The young people enrolled in the program are known as ‘‘youth 

partners.’’ And the paraprofessionals who deliver many of these 

services include—including mentoring, are known as 

‘‘streetworkers.’’ The essential elements of YVRP, each of which I 

will describe in detail, are identification, surveillance, graduated 

sanctions, positive supports, including mentoring, and gun suppression. 

9

Identification: YVRP utilizes research-based indicators to identify 

youth 14- or 16-to-24 who are most at risk to kill or be killed. 

Surveillance: Streetworkers, police, and probation officers provide 

intensive supervision, usually daily, to monitor the youth partners, 

wherever they are, in their homes, schools, and neighborhoods. 

Third, graduated sanctions: When a participating youth violates 

his or her probation, YVRP swiftly imposes sanctions. Research has 

demonstrated that the prompt deployment of sanctions can be a 

key element in deterring further criminal behavior. 

Fourth, positive supports and mentoring: Sanctions alone are not 

enough to deter youth people from criminal behavior. YVRP 

streetworkers help youth partners access a range of positive supports, including educational opportunities, literacy, job placement, 

and drug treatment. 

A key component of job placement and—a key component of positive supports is the mentoring relationship between streetworkers 

and youth partners. Streetworkers are from the same neighborhoods and have similar backgrounds as the youth partners. This 

shared context and experience creates a strong bond between the 

streetworker and the youth partner, increasing the effectiveness of 

the streetworker. 

And finally, gun suppression. YVRP is working with local, State, 

and Federal authorities to deter both access to, and use of, firearms 

by young people. 

YVRP was first introduced in the 24th Police District in 1999, 

and has since expanded to a total of five police districts. Since its 

inception, approximately 2,100 youths have been part of YVRP. 

Given that target population, it is clear that YVRP has saved 

many lives. Through December 2006, only 1.3 percent of YVRP 

youth partners—and I believe that’s a total of 22 youth partners—

have either died or been accused of murder. While a single death 

is too many, the data clearly demonstrate the success we have had 

mentoring 98.7 percent of our youth partners who were at highest 

risk of killing or being killed. 

YVRP has been subjected to rigorous third-party validation, and 

the results are promising, according to research conducted by public/private ventures in the police—in the three police districts 

where YVRP was implemented long enough for evaluation. My 

written comments have a summary of that analysis. 

I’m going to jump ahead, to say that, given the success of YVRP 

with 16- to 24-year-olds, and the reports of growing violence among 

younger youth, it is logical that this initiative be driven down to 

younger youth, lifetime at-risk young offenders between 10 and 12 

years of age. The Philadelphia Story, a briefing paper published by 

Philadelphia Safe and Sound, documents that we know how to 

identify youth at younger ages who are likely——

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Ramos, how much——

Mr. RAMOS [continuing]. To kill or be killed——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. How much more time will you 

need? 

Mr. RAMOS. Less than 30 seconds. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. 

Mr. RAMOS. And we’re doing just that, through the Adolescent 

Violence Reduction Partnership. AVRP is designed to intervene 

10

with 10- to 15-year old youth at the first sign of serious risk behaviors, and connect them with streetworkers, and provide support 

services to help them redirect their lives before becoming victims 

or perpetrators. 

For both YVRP and AVRP, the streetworker naturally takes on 

a role of mentor to the youth, encouraging him or her to make positive choices for the future. Natural mentors have been demonstrated to be a positive influence for at-risk youth, a finding that 

is validated by the success of the YVRP program. 

Thank you, Senator Specter. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos. 

We now turn to Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, who has 

risen through the ranks, some four decades of service in the uniform of the policeman. When he was the Headquarters Investigative Unit head at Hunting Park, he arranged for the unit to adopt 

the Thomas Mifflin School. And to encourage officers to provide 

counseling and direction to the youngsters in that school may well 

be a model for the future, Commissioner Johnson, which we’ll come 

to in the question-and-answer session. But, for now, we thank you 

for coming, and we turn to you for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER JOHNSON, POLICE 

COMMISSIONER, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Good morning, Senator Specter and 

Senator Casey. 

First, I want to thank you for inviting me to this hearing on delinquency and youth violence. As you can tell by this panel, the 

subject is critically important to the citizens, to the city as a whole. 

As a government, we must come together to protect our children 

from violence, but, just as important, from resorting to violence. 

There is no higher duty for me personally, and for all government, 

so I thank you for allowing me to be part of this proceedings. 

At the beginning, let me state clearly, I believe that law enforcement should be the last step in protecting our children. I say this, 

because by the time a child comes to the attention of the police, the 

damage may already be done. I strongly believe we need to address 

the social failures that cause children to resort to crime and violence. We need to address the factors that create such hopelessness 

and lack of respect in our children. 

Obviously, I don’t have all the answers. But what I do know is 

that many children that become victims, criminals, or both, come 

from broken homes. Sometimes there are no parents at all, the parents are in jail or they’re addicted to drugs. Is it any surprise that 

children turn to violence and crime themselves? 

Everyone agrees we need to target these children at risk of becoming victims or killers, and the YVRP is an outstanding partnership among government agencies that does just that. In fact, John 

Delaney, from the District Attorney’s Office, was the founding partner of that program, and I commend him for all the hard work that 

he’s done. But, regrettably, we find that—violence often getting 

children younger and younger. The VRP was originally designed to 

target—address children from 14 to 24. But we have children as 

11

young as 9 and 10 becoming victims and killers, as well. So, the 

VRP has spun off another program called Adolescent Violence Reduction Program to address those youth at risk, age 8 and—old. 

Let me state clearly, if we believe in and support these programs, 

they save lives, plain and simple, but I must state the children in 

these programs have been targeted because they have already been 

involved with the police or been victims. What we truly need is less 

children targeted for intervention. We need to work together as a 

community to give our children the love, compassion, support, and 

guidance every child craves. This will take strong leaders in government who are willing to invest in programs that will not provide 

immediate results. 

The problem with our children did not occur overnight, nor will 

the solution. We need to explore innovative ways to instill the hope 

and self-worth into our children that’ll last a lifetime. Historically, 

this was the role of the family. The family, as we know, is—no 

longer exists for far too many of our children. So, we must explore 

alternate plans that would provide the nurturing environment 

every child requires. I believe that social failures at this point in 

the child’s life are where the violence and delinquency begins. As 

I said at the beginning, there’s no higher duty for government than 

protecting our children, but I believe law enforcement should be 

the last line of defense. The first line of defense is finding a way 

to create a caring and supportive environment for each and every 

child in Philadelphia. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

Our next witness is Mr. John Delaney, who is the deputy district 

attorney. Previously, he had served as the chief of the juvenile section. He’s a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and law degree from Villanova, and specializes, in his current position, on juvenile violence. 

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Delaney, and we now 

turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DELANEY, DEPUTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Mr. DELANEY. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. 

Senator Specter, Senator Casey, as you now, I am here on behalf 

of District Attorney Lynn Abraham, who’s on a previously scheduled trip outside the city. She and I appreciate, Senator Specter 

your longstanding commitment to the safety of the citizens of our 

city, and thank you for the opportunity to offer our thoughts today. 

I want to add a couple of comments about the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership. 

You’ve heard from Mr. Meehan and Mr. Ramos about some of 

this program. There are a couple of things that they didn’t touch 

on that I think are important to recognize. One is that the YVRP 

has been data-driven. I serve, along with Naomi Post, as the cochair of the YVRP Steering Committee. And YVRP started in the 

24th District, because that was the section of the city that had one 

sector that was the most violent for young people. We define 

12

‘‘young people’’ as age 24 and under. YVRP has expanded, over the 

last 7 years, to four additional districts, driven each time by how 

many people were killed in that district, how many young people 

were killed, how many young people were shot, how many young 

people are on probation. So, YVRP has been data-driven. 

Second, YVRP is a true partnership. Managing Director Ramos 

mentioned the city agencies that participate, but it’s also important 

to note that we partner with the school district, with Philadelphia 

Safe and Sound, and with public/private ventures. So, there are a 

number of agencies brought to the table, any of whom can contribute to the partnership, whether it’s by their resources or their 

expertise. 

The third characteristic of YVRP that I think it’s critically important to mention, especially now, is, we focus on juveniles and young 

adults. In our data, we learned that only 2 percent of Philadelphia 

is between the ages of 18 and 24—young adults—but 22 percent of 

the homicide victims are between the ages of 18 and 24, and 40 

percent of the alleged murderers are between 18 and 24. So, I 

would strongly encourage you and your colleagues to consider this 

when trying to create funding programs for mentoring for our most 

at-risk youth. Having been the deputy of the juvenile division in 

the DA’s office, and like Mr. Meehan, I, too, suffer from having 

been born too late to work for you, Senator Specter, but District Attorney Abraham has continued your tradition——

Senator SPECTER. We might give you another chance. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DELANEY [continuing].—District Attorney Abraham has continued your tradition of being a zealous courtroom advocate for 

safety, but also viewing her role as much greater than that: that 

of a public servant. 

And in looking at what we have done over the years, I served for 

a number of years in our juvenile division. Now I head up our trial 

division. There’s a rich spectrum of services available for juvenile 

delinquents. Not as rich as it should be, but a very rich spectrum. 

That spectrum shrinks considerably once the offender reaches his 

18th birthday. And, unfortunately for us in Philadelphia 18- to 24-

year-olds are the gravamen, the source, the focus of our problem, 

in terms of young people and violence. 

So, I’d ask you to consider that, in funding programs, that there 

be flexibility included, if at all possible, to allow for funding of supportive services to people 18 to 24. It’s because of the intensive support, and the intensive supervision that YVRP couples, that YVRP 

has shown success in Philadelphia. 

Senator Specter, we appreciate your support. Your staff has been 

to YVRP meetings. Your staff has joined us on targeted patrol. 

YVRP costs about $1.6 million per police district. That’s because, 

as Commissioner Johnson alluded to, these young people have 

spent their lives getting enmeshed in situations that are very difficult to disentangle. Their lives are filled with challenges. It’s only 

through intensive support and intensive supervision that we have 

an opportunity to get those young folks, in the words of the YVRP 

mission statement, to be alive at 25, to make it to their 25th birthday. 

We thank you for your ongoing assistance. 

13

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Delaney. 

We now turn to the distinguished chief executive officer of the 

Philadelphia school system, Paul Vallas. Came to Philadelphia in 

2002. Previously, he had been the CEO of the Chicago school system, the third largest in the Nation, and turned it from a national 

reputation of one of the worst to a model system. Superintendent 

Vallas has been very deeply involved in the issues of juvenile violence, and has found that dealing with that issue in the school system is an indispensable prerequisite to getting young people ready 

for the education process. 

Thank you for your service and for being here today, Superintendent Vallas, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL VALLAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA 

Mr. VALLAS. Well, thank you so much. I’d also like to congratulate you and thank you, Senator Specter. I’m fortunate that I was 

born young enough to have had an opportunity to work with you 

and to benefit from your leadership and your wisdom and guidance. 

In many ways, I consider you to be the conscience of the United 

States Senate, in so many ways. And we work—we look forward to 

working with Senator Casey on future issues to benefit the children 

of Philadelphia. 

Let me talk about what works. The Youth Violence Reduction 

Partnership and the Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership, 

which targets even younger children, it works and needs to be 

brought to scale. There is absolute—the data is there; it supports 

it. And, as pointed out, it’s extraordinarily cost-effective. 

School-based community policing is the most effective program at 

the local school level for reducing violence in and around the 

schools. But we’ve seen about a 20- close to 28-percent reduction 

in serious incidents on and in our schools because of our community-based policing initiative. 

The Parent Truant Officer Program is the most effective program 

for getting kids off the street. Where we’ve had parent truant officers present, working in the schools, we’ve had an increase in enrollment, an increase in attendance, we’ve had an increase in test 

scores. And we’re currently working with the city to try to bring 

that program to scale. 

The biggest problem we face, youth violence has a direct connection with the dropout problem. I think close to 80 percent of the 

homicides are either—are committed by individuals who have, in 

fact, dropped out. We just recently provided data to the city and 

to Councilman Goode on this particular problem. So, if we get kids 

in school, and we keep them in school, crime’s going to decline. All 

you need to do is to visit the jails and to look at the jackets of those 

who have been incarcerated to see that education failure seems to 

be followed by crime. 

The three highest dropout rates are among students who are incarcerated or put in detention centers or put in AUDI homes, or 

your disciplinary homes; students who are pregnant constitute the 

second highest percentage of dropouts, 70 percent; and students 

who are overaged underachievers. And, as you know, we have this 

wonderful law in Philadelphia that says you don’t have to start 

14

school until you’re 8 years old, and—which means a lot of parents 

take that literally, and it’s not like the kids have been homeschooled. So, obviously, initiatives that target those three categories will have an immediate impact. 

Alternative schools for students who are incarcerated allow us to 

reach those kids, and to give those kids a second chance. Where we 

have our alternative schools, they’re working very effectively, in 

terms of attendance, in terms of giving students an opportunity to 

get back into school, get back into the mainstream. A program 

called the Cradle to the Classroom Program, which identifies pregnant teens and assigns pregnant teens a mentor and a trainer to 

make sure babies are born healthy and put in daycare, and mentors the pregnant teens to get them back into school, has been phenomenally successful. Pregnant teens who have been through this 

program are four times more likely to graduate, and their children, 

by the time they reach third grade, you don’t see an achievement 

gap. And, in transitional schools for overaged underachieves, so we 

can get those 14- and 15- and sometimes 16-year-old middle-grade 

kids out of the middle schools, believe it or not, and into the transition—into transition schools, because that constitutes our—the 

highest—the third highest percentage of dropouts, the third highest 

category of dropouts, in terms of percentages. 

I think, overall, though, if we’re going to keep kids in school, I 

believe that we have to change the dynamic and the expectations. 

Time magazine’s recent piece, special edition called ‘‘Dropout Nation,’’ looked at the dropout problem nationwide, talked about the 

direct links between dropouts and crime, and said that there are 

two principal reasons why people drop out. The children do not see 

college as an option, because they come from families who have 

never had anyone attending college, or—and/or children to not see 

college as a financial option, they believe that college is financially 

beyond their reach. So, as a result, there’s no interest to really 

focus on high school, to do well in high school, to succeed in high 

school. And, likewise, that contributes to underachievement at the 

middle grade levels, because, again, it’s—the high school is kind of 

seen as a dead end, and high school is not seen as a vehicle for 

achieving something else. 

And obviously, counseling and mentoring can help change that 

dynamic, but ultimately we need to make a stronger connection between college, and we need to make a stronger connection—and we 

need to guarantee children that, if they get through high school, 

college is, indeed, an option. 

So, what we’ve begun to look at in Philadelphia is linking college—linking high school to college through programs like dual enrollment, through programs like early college. We’re piloting a 

number of programs right now with some of our poorest-performing 

schools, that, in effect, guarantee high school seniors that, their 

senior year, they will be enrolled in college, taking dual courses; in 

some cases—at Northeast High School, about 100 kids are actually 

taking almost a full freshman load, and it’s having a dramatic impact. We have children from Germantown attending such a program. 

And then, secondly, guaranteeing children employment opportunities before they graduate high school, as an incentive to keep 

15

them in high school, particularly work-study. It’s great to do counseling, but when you incorporate counseling into work-study, it can 

have a dramatic impact, too. So, what we’re piloting in Philadelphia is a program that allows students to go to school and to work 

at the same time, and to earn elective credits through work-study 

programs. I cite, just to close, the Cristo Rey model in Chicago that 

has gotten some national attention, where the children are actually 

going to school 4 days a week, and working 1 to 2 days a week. 

And, obviously, they use that income to help pay for their high 

school tuition at one of Chicago’s more prestigious parochial 

schools. But it’s a 99-percent-poverty school, and yet they have a 

95-percent dropout rate. So, changing the dynamics and changing 

expectations, we think, can go a long way. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Vallas, we now turn to the questions from 

Senator Casey and myself. Let begin with you. On the subject you 

just talked about, the dropouts, what assistance could the Federal 

or State or city governments be to formalize programs where the 

colleges would work with, say, the Philadelphia school system to 

provide the incentives to high school seniors to finish school or, as 

you characterize it, the work-study program, to work with employers to mesh with the high school seniors? 

Mr. VALLAS. Well, let me say that——

Senator SPECTER. Let me start with a question. Are there any 

formalized programs now in either of those two directions? 

Mr. VALLAS. The State has been slowly bringing to scale a dualenrollment subsidy program that gives schools——

Senator SPECTER. That gets the subsidy——

Mr. VALLAS [continuing]. Partial——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. For whom? 

Mr. VALLAS. For dual enrollment. For the high schools themselves. So, in other words, if students are enrolled in college 

courses while they’re in high school, the State——

Senator SPECTER. How do we—how do we motivate the college? 

It seems to me that’s the motivation line. 

Mr. VALLAS. Well, one of the ways you can motivate them is—

obviously, schools that are receiving State and—State and Federal 

subsidies should—could be encouraged to set aside a number of 

slots for dual enrollment. Let me give you an example. In the 

Philadelphia metropolitan area, there are more degreed—students 

in degreed programs than there—college programs—than there are 

kids in the Philadelphia public schools. There’s something like 

236,000. So, if all the universities, colleges, and institutions would 

set aside, maybe, 2 percent of their seats for an early college program at reduced tuition costs, tuition costs that are aligned with 

what we, in effect, pay to educate that senior if that senior was, 

in effect, taking the same courses that——

Senator SPECTER. Superintendent Vallas let me interrupt——

Mr. VALLAS [continuing]. Could have an impact. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. You, because the time——

Mr. VALLAS. Yes. 

16

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Time is short. I’d ask you to supplement your oral testimony——

Mr. VALLAS. Absolutely. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Here today, and respond to a series of questions. 

One, what specific programs, perhaps by way of tax credit or tax 

incentives, might the Federal Government utilize to get employers 

to tie in to high school seniors? 

And, similarly, what kind of incentives might be provided to universities to tie in? 

And, third, a subject we can’t go into any detail, but something 

you and I have discussed at some length, and that is the number 

of at-risk students you have where you know who they are——

Mr. VALLAS. Uh-huh. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. And you probably have the most 

intimate contact with them, on a variety of indicia, dropping 

out——

Mr. VALLAS. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Attitudes in schools. And what 

kind of a program within the school, directed solely there, would 

be useful? 

Mr. VALLAS. Okay. 

Senator SPECTER. As you know, we’ve been successful in getting 

very substantial additional sums to the Philadelphia——

Mr. VALLAS. Yes, you have. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. School district through the appropriations process. And Senator Casey and I would be interested to 

see if we could target that. 

Director Ramos, let me turn to you on a question of whether we 

might look for some targeted funding outside of the regular channels. We know the shortages of discretionary spending at the Federal level, and the squeeze at the State level and the city budget. 

Private parties have undertaken to finance a cleanup of the Center 

City area, because it is in their financial interest to do so, with the 

funds coming from local merchants. What might be explored to try 

to get voluntary help, maybe from foundations or from citizens, to 

a fund which would be directed solely at the programs we’ve talked 

about here, the Youth Violence Reduction Program, they mentoring 

issue, with an appeal which could be jointly framed from the Governor, the mayor, Senator Casey and myself, and others? What do 

you think of the possibilities of creating such a fund? 

Mr. RAMOS. Senator, I’m sure that the mayor and the administration would want to pursue that jointly with you, and this—and 

representatives of the State. We have—at least with respect to 

Youth Violence Reduction partnership—we’re, as you’ve heard, in 

four areas, in five districts—one of the things that perhaps makes 

that a more achievable goal is—we don’t think we need a YVRP in 

each police district. We believe that going to scale with YVRP is 

probably going into a total of about nine school districts—about 

nine police districts, at a cost of about 1.6——

Senator SPECTER. And what would that cost? 

Mr. RAMOS [continuing]. About $1.6 million per district. With respect to AVRP, we have been funding——

17

Senator SPECTER. So, we’re talking about nine times 1.6, or about $14 million. 

Mr. RAMOS. Of—in the aggregate, including those areas that are 

currently funded through Federal earmark, as well as State grants. 

On the YVR—on the AVRP program for children 10 to 15, we’ve 

been funding it primarily from Department of Public Welfare, and 

are funded at—not funded to have the program at scale, although 

we’ve been taking the program——

Senator SPECTER. Director Ramos——

Mr. RAMOS [continuing]. To scale——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. How does the program work, 

where private parties contribute to a fund to keep the streets clean 

in the Center City area? 

Mr. RAMOS. Well, in that particular example, there’s, by local legislation, a special services district created that assesses the Center 

City businesses and funds those special services. There are other 

models that—where the business community, in the past, for example, around public education, has come together and contributed to 

a charitable fund controlled by the business community. So, there 

are a number of different models out there. 

Senator SPECTER. They’ve joined together to control—create a 

fund. 

Mr. RAMOS. And I guess one final thing, Senator, that I would 

point out, in fairness to the—to all the nonprofit social-service organizations in this city, is that a lot of the front-line service in both 

YVRP and AVRP, in this—particularly streetworkers, slash, mentors—are done by people employed by community-based nonprofit 

organizations, who themselves are charitable organizations, and 

at—to some extent, are probably subsidizing some of this, because 

it’s——

Senator SPECTER. Director Ramos——

Mr. RAMOS [continuing]. A core mission for them. 

Senator SPECTER. I would like you to follow up your testimony 

today and give some thought to whether we might create a voluntary fund. Keeping the streets safe is really a higher priority 

than keeping the streets clean. We like to have clean streets, but 

I think we’d like better to have safe streets. 

U.S. Attorney Meehan, you have gotten an allocation of $2.5 million for the Route 222 Project. Tell us what good use you’ve made 

it to give us an incentive to provide some more Federal funding for 

you there. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Senator, that has had—that has had three components to it. There’s been a law enforcement component, but there 

has also been critical involvement in two other aspects. First, the 

prevention. We’ve worked with mayors from five cities to identify 

how they can utilize this money, frankly, just to serve as a steppingstone to identifying their at-risk youth, and then seeing what 

they have in their community that can be supplemented to intervene with the at-risk youth before they embark on a life of crime. 

You’ve seen almost every person here discuss the idea that we can 

identify those kids that are the most likely to carry out the criminal activity. What we try to do is work with the resources that 

exist in that community, supplement them, and then make a match 

between those at-risk kids and the community-based organizations. 

18

Senator SPECTER. Has the program——

Mr. MEEHAN. A second——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Been going on long enough to 

show any tangible results? 

Mr. MEEHAN. No. We have only begun these processes. We’ve—

as is often the case, it’s the law enforcement piece which is out in 

front. We’ve had some very big takedowns of the gangs. And I 

might focus on the fact that we’re looking at kids who may be identifying with gangs. So, the focus is exclusively on preventing gang 

identification in the neighborhoods and in the schools. Many of the 

kids who are carrying out the violence may not, all the time, be 

gang-associated. So, what we’re talking about today is a little bit 

apart. 

I want to focus, as well, on the aftercare piece. This is—we have 

a piece, that talks about individuals who are returning from incarceration, which is part of our aftercare. But it’s just as significant 

in the juvenile context particularly maybe even more significant, 

which is why I talked about the Glen Mills program. While it’s not 

something that has been broadly followed around the area, I think 

it has tremendous promise, because we spend a lot of time already 

on kids that are at risk, who have been sent to juvenile facilities, 

then they return to their communities, already having had some 

benefit of stabilization while they’ve been in that facility, but they 

return to the streets, and they’re left without the kind of continuing guidance and oversight that may help them return more effectively back to the school-based situation or——

Senator SPECTER. Well, what’s your suggestion? 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. Even——

The funding for programs, like the Glen Mills program, that recognize that, after we have people in our juvenile facilities, much as 

Paul Vallas had said, we want to take advantage of that to return 

them, first, to school, if possible, in an age-appropriate way, or 

with—to some sense of involvement in——

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Meehan——

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. Employment or a community——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Because of the shortage of time, 

would you supplement your answer by giving us a short memo on 

the Glen Mills project——

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, I will, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. How it works and why you think 

it’s been successful? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Zahorchak, the law of the State of Pennsylvania doesn’t require a child to attend school until 8. That seems 

like an archaic provision, especially with all of the modern studies 

which have shown that the earlier years are more determinative on 

development. What efforts have been made to change that law? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Well, we’ve—on a couple of occasions, have 

asked the legislature to change the law. In our school code bill, 

we’ve asked to make it at least age 6. We’ve been unsuccessful at 

doing that, so we, you know, need to get the support from——

Senator SPECTER. What’s the problem in getting it changed? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. It seems that there’s support for not mandating 

from the State a choice that a parent would make. We don’t believe 

19

that. We believe that it’s a good idea to make an earlier start as 

part of——

Senator SPECTER. Is there an objection from the rural part of the 

State, where they might have a little different circumstance than 

the city considerations? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. There could be. There is objections, where——

Senator SPECTER. Have you tried the—leaving it to local option? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Well, today we’ve not introduced anything that 

would say compulsory education would be a local choice to start it 

before 8. Policies could be made. We have not done that. We’ve 

tried to make a sweeping rule, changed from 6 to 8. We——

Senator SPECTER. Well, it seems to me that that’s a pretty glaring problem, not——

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. It’s——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. To have that requirement in the 

city of Philadelphia. 

Commissioner Johnson, what age would you like to see children 

required to go to school? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Well, you know, as far as I’m concerned, 

this is—going by the experts, and these are two experts here, as 

far as education is concerned, and I’m not——

Senator SPECTER. Well, come on, Commissioner Johnson, you 

take ’em off the street, out of your bailiwick and give ’em to Superintendent Vallas. What age? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Okay. I think that 6 or 7 would be the 

appropriate age to take the—

Senator SPECTER. How about—6 or 7, that’s too vague—how 

about 5? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Six, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we’ve made a little progress. 

[Laughter.] 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator SPECTER. Commissioner Johnson, I note what you have 

done with the Mifflin School on one of your assignments earlier in 

your career. Do you think it realistic to do a little more than encourage police officers to participate in this mentoring program, but 

to give them some incentives to do so? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Well, what I did, growing up in North 

Philadelphia—and I rank the—the rank of a captain, I felt as 

though I wanted to give something back, and I called the school 

district, and I tried to find a school that had more problems than 

any other school in the city. They picked Mifflin School, because, 

I guess, at that point, approximately 75 percent of the kids were 

from the Epperford projects, the Epperford development. I asked 

our officers to volunteer to go into the different classrooms. And I 

met with the principals and the teachers first. And our thing that 

was that we’re not going there as security officers, we’re going 

there as mentors and tutors. The only qualification was that if a 

police officer qualified or volunteered to go, he or she had to stay 

the full year, because I thought that would be really bad if they 

go in there and then dropped out. We went there, and we would 

assign a police officer to every single classroom in the school. And 

as that person, say, for example, went through the first grade, 

20

when they went to the second grade, that also went with them, all 

the way up until the time they graduated. The discipline went 

down, the attendance went up. Not only did we go to the schools, 

but we took ’em different places. We took them to the college. We 

even took ’em to Disney World. We took them all over to places. 

Senator SPECTER. Commissioner Johnson, there’s no doubt that 

it would be helpful, and especially police officers who have a pervasive idea as to how young people get into trouble. What I would 

like you to do—and I would like the same thing for Director Ramos 

and Dr. Zahorchak—really, everybody on the panel—to consider 

where we might get more mentors from our own offices as starting 

points. I would be willing to do that in my office, to give some incentives or some time off, if we could find some way. We are going 

to be putting this question, really, more to the second panel, because they’re—have practical experience in the field with the mentoring programs. But I think, with the support of the Governor and 

the mayor, you have the large pool of employees available. Pat 

Meehan and Arlen Specter have some. The DA’s office has some. 

The Department of Education could, but their efforts would be best 

used within the identification of at-risk youth. But I’d like you to 

think about it. My staff’s going to be following up with you to see 

if there’s some way we can find people within government to undertake this mentoring. 

Mr. Delaney——

Commissioner JOHNSON. Well, I——

Senator SPECTER. Did you want to say something further, Commissioner? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

I have all the commanders right now—approximately 30 commanders—we go to the different schools every single week. And I 

think, especially for the Afro-American police officers, they have an 

obligation to give back and go back to the neighborhoods and the 

schools that they grew up in. There’s approximately 2,400 AfroAmericans in the city, and I’ve been talking to the organization—

talking to the City League, without getting paid to go back. I think 

they have an obligation to go back. And I’ve been meeting with 

them, and will continue to meet with them, to go back to our 

schools and go back to our neighborhoods. We have an obligation 

to do that, and we’re starting to do that. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much for what you’re 

doing there, Commissioner. And it’s a good model for expansion. 

Mr. Delaney, you’ve put your finger on a critical spot, 18- to 24-

year olds. My recollection, as DA, is that that’s where we had the 

violence, the armed robberies, the homicides. But how do you deal 

with that category? You’re talking about mentoring, which seems 

to apply more to more impressionable age groups. Can you mentor 

someone in the 18- to 24-year-old category, or do you really need 

a parole officer or a probation officer with the kind of experience 

and toughness that that kind of a position would entail? 

Mr. DELANEY. Senator, I believe you need both. If—the way 

we’ve described YVRP to people who have never heard of it is, it’s 

the stereotypical mother and father, it’s the stereotypical disciplinary father and the stereotypical nurturing mother. And the police 

and probation provide the discipline/supervision side. The 

21

streetworker supplies the nurturing side. And there are a lot of obstacles to getting somebody who’s 18 or 19 or 20, who’s dropped out 

of school, who doesn’t know how to read well or write well, to go 

to a job interview, because he’s not sold on the fact that that job 

interview is going to lead to something productive, the way all of 

us were raised, and the way all of us have raised our children. So, 

it’s a struggle to get at-risk young people to participate in the prosocial activities of everyday life that we all take for granted. 

So, that’s why YVRP, I believe, had shown success, because it 

couples the intensive supervision with the intensive support. 

Senator SPECTER. Does YVRP deal with 18- to 24-year-olds? 

Mr. DELANEY. About 75 percent of our youth partners are 18 to 

24. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, is that the age group which is providing 

guidance to younger people, or is that the age group to which guidance is provided? 

Mr. DELANEY. The latter. It’s the age group—they are our youth 

partners. They’re the subjects, the targets, if you will, of YVRP. So 

that——

Senator SPECTER. So, you are, in effect, mentoring people in the 

18- to 24-year-old category? 

Mr. DELANEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. And, again, who are the mentors? 

Mr. DELANEY. Streetworkers, people employed by the Philadelphia Antidrug/Antiviolence Network, what we know in Philadelphia as PAAN, P-A-A-N, who are, by and large, older people in 

their 20s, 30s, and 40s, who come from the same communities as 

the youth partners now live in. 

Senator SPECTER. And how much does that program have to be 

expanded? And what would be the cost? 

Mr. DELANEY. We’re in five police districts now. There are at 

least five more that we would expand to. So, the total would be 

nine or ten, at a cost of $1.6 million a year. I liked your earlier figure, 14 million a year. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. Well, Senator Casey and I have something to shoot for. 

That leads me to you, Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank Senator Specter again for bringing us together. 

And I should note for the record that, because of Senator Specter’s convening of this panel today, and this hearing, that, by virtue 

of that, he made me a member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Judiciary Committee for one brief shining moment. 

So—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. It’s more than Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, has done for you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASEY. That’s true. That’s true. I’ll talk to him about 

that when I get back. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASEY. But I had a couple of broader questions. But 

first, to Mr. Delaney, and to all the panelists, we appreciate your 

22

testimony and the expertise and the dedicated public service you 

bring to these issues. 

Mr. Delaney, you talked about the elements of YVRP and the—

as others did—but I want to make sure I understand. When you 

talk about a father-and-mother model—in other words, as you’ve—

you phrase it as the stereotypical father and mother—and they’re, 

obviously, broad generalizations there—but in the YVRP model, the 

parole officer, in effect, becomes the tough disciplinarian. Is that 

the right role? 

Mr. DELANEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CASEY. Okay. And then, the more nurturing role is 

played by the streetworker, is that correct? 

Mr. DELANEY. Yes. 

Senator CASEY. Okay. And that streetworker is about the same 

age, usually, or within a range of 18 to 24, a little older, maybe? 

Mr. DELANEY. Usually older. These are people that have come 

from the same neighborhoods that the youth partners now live in, 

who have established a pro-social track record, who want to give 

back to their community. So, most of the streetworkers are in their 

later 20s or 30s—some, older. 

Senator CASEY. Okay. Now, one thing I heard from virtually everyone here—and I think United States Attorney Pat Meehan said 

it first. He talked about comprehensive intervention. Others talked 

about intensive intervention. And it seems like all three of those 

words are important. It has to be comprehensive, which I hope others in Washington hear. I remember, last year, when some of the 

budget cuts were announced, Senator Specter, rare and—and I 

don’t want to get into parties here, but I will for one moment—said 

that those cuts were—I’m—think I’m quoting him accurately—

′′scandalous,’’ health and education cuts. So, there were a lot of people in Washington and some State capitals around the country—

not this State capital, but other States—who really believe the little eyedropper here and there of money can solve problems. They 

don’t want to put the money up, because they’re more interested 

in tax cuts and pleasing the wealthy. But I think those three words 

are critically important: ‘‘comprehensive,’’ which means dollars and 

commitment; and guts to fund it; ‘‘intensive,’’ that it has to have 

a focus when it comes to intervention. 

So, my question for all of you—and chime in one at a time, if you 

can; I know we have limited time here—is, other than YVRP—we 

know that works, we know a number of these other programs work 

well—other than that program, if you had a—an opportunity to directly impact the kind of dollars that the Federal budget puts aside 

for programs like this, based upon your experience, based upon 

your knowledge of these programs, what are the other programs 

that you would fund either significantly or if you could fund them 

to scale? YVRP, a good example. What about—and if you could 

make a quick list. 

Mr. VALLAS. Yeah. Well, very quickly, let me just make a brief 

comment. YVRP and AVRP and those programs, even the Parent 

Truant Officer Program or the School-Based Community Police 

Program, they’re interventions, and they’re interventions a lot of 

times that deal with kids who have—I don’t want to say ‘‘have been 

lost,’’ but it’s difficult for those kids to recover, because once the 

23

kids reach the age of 18 to 24, I mean, you’ve—you’re not—YVRP 

is not going to solve the problem. I think they’re the most—I think 

they’re the best immediate interventions that can be—that can be 

deployed to bring crime down. But we need to look longer-term, in 

terms of the type of things that we need to implement and be 

brought to scale. 

Let me be very specific on specific programs. First of all, the investment in early childhood education, particularly in the 0-to-3, 

Cradle to the Classroom Program, absolutely critical. The biggest 

problem we have is inexperienced parents, parents who just do not 

know how to raise their children. It’s as simple as that. And we’ve 

got to train the next generation of parents. I mean, there’s, you 

know, a—how do parents—how do we learn how to be parents? We 

learn from our parents. And somewhere along the line, that chain 

in that—that link in the—in that long chain was broke. And once 

you have one weak link, the entire chain is useless. 

So, bringing programs to scale, like Cradle to the Classroom, so 

that we can begin to train parents on proper childrearing and proper support, and to get those first-time parents into high school, and 

to get them a high school diploma, is absolutely critical. And those 

programs are not cost-prohibitive. Those programs are extraordinarily efficient. Our—to put one child through a Cradle Program 

costs anywhere from $2,000 to $2,500. It’s extraordinarily effective. 

Second is transition programs. And transition programs to target 

middle grades—middle-aged kids. You know, we can tell you, at 

sixth grade, who’s going to drop out. And actually, I think we can 

tell you, at third grade, who’s going to drop out. But by sixth grade, 

with almost—unbelievable certainty, we can tell you who’s dropping out and who’s not dropping out. Being able to get the overaged 

underachievers into transition programs, transition classrooms, 

transition schools is absolutely critical. Where we’ve done this, and 

where we’ve piloted this, we’ve had dramatic effect. Bringing those 

things to scale—and that does not necessarily mean that you’ve got 

to invest a substantial amount of money, because if the money follows the kids—if the money follows the kids, technically, you know, 

that’s spending the money effectively. But it’s the gap funding that 

we need, because the difference between putting a child in a transition school as opposed to keeping them in a regular school is about 

$3,000 to $4,000 a kid. 

And then, the final thing is, I can’t stress enough, programs that 

expand dual enrollment, early college, programs that create workstudy. If I can tell a sixth-grader, if they go to high school, by their 

senior year, they’re actually going to be enrolled in college while 

they’re still going to high school, and that there’s going to be a 

work-study job for them at the end of their junior year, you’ll see 

the graduation rates skyrocket. So, bringing those type of initiatives to scale—and they’re not cost-prohibitive, because if the 

money is following the kids, you can substitute some of the savings 

from having kids out of the high school in a college university, or 

in a——

Senator CASEY. I want to——

Mr. VALLAS [continuing]. Work-study program. 

Senator CASEY. Paul, thank you. I just want to go to——

Mr. VALLAS. Thank you. 

24

Senator CASEY [continuing]. To others in the rest of the panel, 

because I know we’re—we’re over by 2 minutes now. 

Mr. DELANEY. Senator, thank you for your question. 

I want to identify something which everybody keeps talking 

about, ‘‘at-risk youth.’’ And there has been great work done under 

the Communities That Care model to look at risk factors. Paul had 

identified that we can see ahead of time, often ahead of time, who 

are at the greater risk. And there was a great op-ed piece this 

weekend in the Inquirer by Dr. Bill Schwab from University of 

Pennsylvania. He’s a surgeon that deals in the trauma centers. But 

he talks about looking at this in the same way we deal with the 

healthcare issue, where we identify the greatest risk for heart disease, and then you look to preventions for the kinds of things you 

can do to prevent that from happening. We’re not doing it with violence in the way that we can, by identifying those most at risk. 

There are many great programs, many of which have been identified, once we do that. And I think using that model will be effective. 

I have one other observation, though, that I think is significant, 

that’s often missed. We also have a tremendous moving target 

when we’re discussing the at-risk youth, because there’s remarkable transience, not just from school to school within a district, or 

neighborhood to neighborhood, but really from city to city. And the 

problem is exacerbated when the kids keep moving to different 

areas, and then leave the protection of the programs that we’ve got 

in place for them. 

Senator SPECTER. Would the concluding answerers try to be a little briefer? 

Mr. ZAHORCHAK. Will do. Eighty-two percent of the people who 

are incarcerated are high school dropouts. It begins, I think, as 

Paul said, by the end of the third grade. But by the end of age 3, 

30 million less word utterances to a child in poverty. What can we 

do? We have the Nurse-Parent Partnership that should be on that 

list. The Pre-K Counts and—the supplementing the Head Start 

Program that the Governor is doing to bring students to school as 

3- and 4-year-olds are really vital. And then, of course, the interventions, like, in Pennsylvania, our alternative education programs, our student assistance program, tutoring, mentoring, the 

21st century for—places for kids who are at risk to be after school 

hours with mentoring built into those places, all should be on the 

list. 

Mr. RAMOS. I think most of the programs we’ve spoken about 

today are, as you noted, Senator, short-term-oriented, they’re intervention. And they are, sort of, trying to intervene where many failures have happened before. And we’ve—and the additional YVRP 

and AVRP and other programs you’ve heard about—other—one 

thing we haven’t spoken about that’s—I would put in that shortterm category is dealing with the issue of reentry. We also know 

that violence also relates very heavily—correlates very heavily with 

recidivism among people who have been in the criminal justice system, have been incarcerated at some point before. 

On a more long-term basis, in—can’t—it certainly can’t be overstated—the value of strengthening the educational system, particularly at the pre-K level, but also noting, in addition to education 

25

funding and Head Start funding, the consequences of some of the 

other trends, including cuts in welfare funding and housing. While 

those don’t impact us as instantaneously as some of these other 

failures, they certainly make their way down the pipeline, and they 

come back to bite us. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Johnson, do you care to respond? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Well, the only thing I think from my 

personal point of view, I think if a child, even though he’s neither—

he’s at risk if he’s born into a single-parent home. He’s at risk if 

he’s born to a parent who’s addicted to drugs. He’s at risk if he’s 

born into poverty. So, even from the very beginning of his life, if 

he’s born into poverty if he’s born to a single parent, he’s born to 

parents who are addicted, they’re at risk before they even come to 

the criminal justice system. We have to deal with—something to 

deal with those kids. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Delaney? 

Mr. DELANEY. I would just add two things, Senator. One is the 

recognition that the criminal justice system is a system. Granting 

more funds for more police officers would add additional people to 

prosecute or defend or supervise them is a failure. 

Finally, I would add that we can’t give up on people who, once 

they offend, are still in our communities. We spend a lot of money 

and a lot of resources on people in incarceration, as it should be, 

but we pay very little attention to offenders who remain in our 

community who need both support and supervision. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you all very much. I would like 

you to supplement your responses, in addition to the issues already 

covered, with a projection as to how many at-risk youth there are 

in our city, and what additional mentors we need. And that fits in 

with the request as to whether you would press your own organizations to provide some additional mentoring. 

Well, thank you very much. 

We now turn to our second panel, Ms. Carroll, Ms. McClanahan, 

Mr. Pennington, Mr. Fair, and Mr. Harkavy. 

[Pause.] 

Senator SPECTER. We now turn to our second panel. Thank you 

for joining us. And we will focus now with experts in the field of 

handling at-risk youth, delinquency problems, and the mentoring 

issue. 

And we turn, as our first witness, to Ms. Jennifer Carroll, the director of the Match Support Program of Big Brothers Big Sisters 

of America, Southeastern Pennsylvania. Prior to joining this organization, she worked with special-needs children in a number of capacities. The Big Brothers Big Sisters program has worked with 

some 70,000 youths with some 500 agencies across the country, and 

has found that, with 18 months of mentoring, participants are 56 

percent less likely to skip school, and 46 percent less likely to initiate drug use. 

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

your testimony. 

26

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER CARROLL, DIRECTOR, MATCH SUPPORT, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. CARROLL. Thank you, Senator, for inviting us to testify today 

and for bringing attention to the challenges facing the youth in our 

city. 

I would also like to thank the Senator for his long and strong 

support with mentoring, and acknowledge the work of his Appropriations Subcommittee in funding critical national mentoring initiatives. 

Big Brothers Big Sisters makes and supports one-to-one relationships between at-risk children and volunteer mentors. And we 

know about the power that these friends and role models have in 

young lives. 

In 2006, we served 2,900 children, the vast majority of them from 

Philadelphia. Our near-term goal is to serve 5,000 children annually, because we know that the need in this community is great. 

In fact, we have more than 1,300 children on the waiting list, the 

vast majority of them young boys living here in Philadelphia. In a 

city where 180,000 children ages 14 and over had eight or more absences last year, where half of ninth-graders don’t graduate on 

time, and where the number of murders involving young males continues to skyrocket, it is clear we need to do more to support the 

youth in our community, and mentoring is one approach that helps. 

Other panelists today can emphasize the research documenting 

the positive impacts of mentoring. What I want to emphasize are 

the steps that we take to make it work. 

Since the beginning of Big Brothers Big Sisters over a century 

ago, our organization has focused on at-risk youth, usually children 

from single-parent families growing up in depressed economic situations. Today we also have programs that focus on children who 

are already demonstrating patterns of delinquency or truancy, or 

who are already beginning to engage in violence. 

Our Amachi mentoring program specifically targets children who 

have parents in prison. We serve children ages 6 to 18, though our 

strong preference is to match children before the age of 13. 

Based on census estimates of the number of children living at or 

below poverty level, we estimate there are over 80,000 children in 

Philadelphia who are at risk because of factors such as poverty, 

poor education, or challenging family circumstances. So, as we’ve 

grown over the years, more than doubling the number of children 

we serve annually since 2002, we’ve had to spend more time recruiting mentors for our programs. 

We know we need to match more of the children on our waiting 

list. We’re working to highlight the need and value of mentoring 

so that more men step up. We’re working to counter the image that 

a person has to be a saint or a CEO in order to be a good mentor 

by emphasizing that everyone has experiences, insights, and interests that are valuable for children. In fact, we’re currently working 

on campaigns to emphasize the ‘‘average Joe’’ has much to offer 

children. We’re not looking for perfection, we’re looking for good 

people who are willing to commit to spending time with a child. 

We know that the way to build strong, safe, and impactful relationships is through careful screening of mentors and through proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 May 21, 2007 Jkt 035304 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35304.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
27

fessional support after the match is made. Asking our volunteers 

to commit to meeting their Little Brother or Little Sister two to 

four times a month for a period of a year is important. The total 

volunteer time our mentors spend with children in the program, 

roughly 144,000 hours a year, is impressive and a testimony to the 

volunteer spirit. And 63 percent of our nearly 2,100 open matches 

have lasted more than 12 months. 

In Philadelphia, we’ve benefited from our relationships with the 

city and school district. We would not be able to serve the thousands of children we do each year without their support. The challenges we face—a need for more African-American male mentors, 

unpredictable funding streams, increasing demands for documentation, an overlap of databases and reporting for different funders—

are challenges faced by nonprofits and Big Brother Big Sister programs everywhere. But in a city where millions are spent on incarceration, surely we can find the financial and political will to ensure the children over—the future of our children. 

The reality is that mentoring is a cost-effective intervention. The 

cost of making and professionally supporting a one-to-one relationship for a year is a mere fraction of the cost of juvenile incarceration. 

Finally, we know that there is still enormous untapped potential 

in our community. Just last week, one of our local newspaper columnists did a story on 13-year-old Nasheed, who was just matched 

with his Big Brother. Nasheed has been on our waiting list since 

he was 8 years old. As a result of that story, we’ve had a noticeable 

increase in the number of males inquiring about becoming a Big 

Brother. 

In the end, it’s simple. Mentoring is not a cure for the challenges 

facing the city, but it clearly belongs as part of a multipronged approach. Our children need mentors, and engaging this community 

in the lives of our children is imperative. 

On behalf of Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern Pennsylvania, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Carroll. I inadvertently was looking for Ms. McClanahan as the first witness, but 

thank you. 

Ms. CARROLL. You’re welcome. 

Senator SPECTER. We do now turn to Ms. Wendy McClanahan, 

vice president for the Research of Public/Private Ventures, which 

analyzes the effectiveness of the youth programs. 

Ms. McClanahan holds an MS in human development and is currently working on her Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY MCCLANAHAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

RESEARCH, PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES (P/PV) 

Ms. MCCLANAHAN. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to 

speak before you today. 

Public/Private Ventures’ mission is to improve the effectiveness 

of social policies, programs, and community initiatives, especially 

as they affect youth and young adults. We do this by identifying 

28

or developing promising approaches to critical social problems by 

rigorously evaluating these approaches and, when suitable, by replicating them in new communities. 

Like the other stakeholders, P/PV is deeply concerned about violent crime, which is on the rise in many of our Nation’s cities. 

Homicides in urban areas have increased, and, in Philadelphia, 

homicide was up by 15 percent in 2005. Unfortunately, this increase looks like it might be the start of a trend. 

Many have expressed hope that mentoring can play a role in reducing violent crime. For more than 15 years, P/PV has been investigating the value of mentoring as a strategy to improve the lives 

of young people. In our pivotal report on Big Brothers Big Sisters 

program, titled ‘‘Making a Difference,’’ we presented evidence, persuasive evidence derived from a rigorous random assignment study 

that well-designed mentoring programs could measurably decrease 

negative behaviors and increase positive behaviors among young 

people. 

In a series of projects over the past decade, P/PV has extended 

its reach into mentoring programs in a variety of service environments, including its impact on crime and violence, and has added 

to the findings about mentoring’s potential. 

For today’s panel, I would characterize the findings from this 

work as follows: 

Mentoring offers real promise in reducing violence among children, youth, and young adults, but there are important qualifications that are essential to understanding both the value and the 

limitations of mentoring. Some of the positive findings are heartening. We saw a reduction in homicides through YVRP, decreased 

recidivism rates in an employment-oriented program for ex-prisoners, called ‘‘Ready4Work,’’ lower incidents of depression among 

youth in a program for justice-system-involved juveniles, called the 

National Faith-based Initiative,’’ less violence behavior—violent behavior and substance abuse among youngsters in BBBS, and a significant reduction in child abuse and neglect and subsequent parental behavior of both mothers and their children in the NurseFamily Partnerships. 

Findings such as these should rightfully inform decisions about 

national and local intervention policies and the role of mentoring, 

in particular. That is all to the good. However, the qualifications, 

significant ones, are far too often overlooked or minimized. 

I want to emphasize three qualifications, in particular, that we 

need to keep in mind based on P/PV’s research. First, mentoring 

is not a cure-all social intervention or a magic bullet. Particularly 

for very high-risk populations, the criminally involved, and the 

young adults we’re concerned with today, P/PV’s research suggests 

that mentoring alone isn’t an answer. These young people bring 

rough histories. Multiple supports and services in well-crafted program settings are essential to alter, even slightly, the trajectory of 

their lives. In the Ready4Work Program, for instance, mentoring 

did appear to contribute to improved outcomes, but there was also 

intensive case management, wraparound services, and job-placement assistance, a dense web of support that gave the opportunity 

for these mentoring relationships to take root. 

29

Similarly, the mentoring that took place in the YVRP was accompanied by regular supervision from probation officers. And the 

mentors in this program were full-time employees, paid 

streetworkers. P/PV believes it was the overall service package that 

helped reduce the incidence of violent behavior. 

Second, just as there aren’t free lunches, mentoring is not the 

cost-free social program it’s often made out to be. The experience 

of BBBS makes it clear that the cost of goods, screening, training, 

and ongoing professional support are far from negligible. And in 

programs that use paid streetworkers or paid counselors, such as 

NFP and YVRP, the costs are even higher. But the need for strong 

supports is paramount. P/PV’s work suggests that a solid support 

apparatus is crucial for mentors of high-risk adolescents and young 

adults. But these costs are likely far lower than the costs of longterm incarceration. 

Third, mentoring isn’t easy, either as a programmatic task or a 

personal commitment. For programs, there is the continuing challenge of finding enough individuals prepared to dedicate the time 

and energy to building a relationship and matching them with the 

right mentee. When that mentee is a high-risk youth or a young 

adult returning from incarceration, finding suitable and willing volunteers, and keeping them, is a serious challenge. The 

Ready4Work Program, despite strenuous and sustained effort by 

staff, was able to match mentors with just over 50 percent of its 

participants. 

There are other challenges. For example, the ex-offender him-or 

herself may have no interest in having a mentor, or have other demands on his or her time. 

We also need to be mindful of the larger reality. With these highrisk populations, even our most striking statistical success is modest. Recidivism rates may be reduced, but still remain too high. 

Homicides and violent behavior are lessened, but by too little. 

But the successes are real and substantial, and our work to date 

has established that mentoring can contribute to measurable benefits in a variety of settings. 

On behalf of P/PV, thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McClanahan appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Ms. McClanahan. 

Our next witness is Mr. Michael Pennington, juvenile justice specialist for the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, considerable experience in the issues involving delinquency, substances abuse, school dropout, teen pregnancy, and related programs. 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Pennington, to address the 

subject matter on a statewide basis. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE PENNINGTON, JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIALIST, PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY 

Mr. PENNINGTON. Thank you. Good morning, Senators. Thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about youth violence, which is a major concern for all of us. 

30

Although there are many factors that contribute to youth violence, I would like to focus my remarks today on prevention programs that are grounded in research and on quality aftercare and 

reentry services for youth leaving delinquency placements. 

The demand for prevention programs that have been proven effective in preventing adolescent problem behavior has never been 

grater. Historically, many of the resources committed to the prevention of youth violence, delinquency, and other problem behaviors have been invested in untested programs with little or no evaluation. Without quality, aftercare, and prevention, you will see 

more youth violence. 

Today, we are blessed with a substantial body of research that 

tells us what contributes to these behaviors and what can help us 

prevent them. The goal of our prevention funding is to support the 

implementation of programs that prevention scientists have evaluated and deemed effective at reducing problem behaviors. Some of 

these programs that we have funded, known as Blueprints for Violence Prevention Model Programs, include Big Brothers and Big 

Sisters mentoring programs, multisystemic therapy, functional 

family therapy, bullying prevention, and Promoting Alternative 

Thinking Strategies. 

I think it is critical that we continue to invest in proven, effective 

programs. For example, the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies Program, PATHS, is a program that promotes emotional and 

social competencies, and reducing aggression and behavioral problems in elementary-school-aged children, while enhancing the educational process in the classrooms. Evaluations have demonstrated 

significant improvements in the following areas: increased ability 

to tolerate frustration, improved self-control, and use of more effective conflict resolution strategies. 

One of the requirements of our funding is that applications be 

submitted on behalf of a local collaborative board. Based on—local 

collaborative boards, must conduct a risk and resource assessment 

that includes—identifies priorities—risk factors for problem behaviors. This will help local communities select evidence-based programs that would be most effective, and the development within a 

collaborative environment within their community to ensure that 

the prevention strategy is developed within a collaborative environment. 

Even though these are model programs, they will not result in 

significant improvements for children and families if they are not 

implemented the way each was designed and tested. It is critical 

that we provide strong and proactive technical assistance to local 

communities that receive our funding to ensure quality implementation. Technical assistance is also provided to develop an outcome 

assessment plan, as well as a plan for sustaining the program long 

term. 

It is important that we continue to work collaboratively across 

State agencies and with local community efforts so that our prevention efforts are well coordinated to best utilize and maximize our 

collective resources. 

There are some proven initiatives to build on in Pennsylvania. 

Communities That Care, which is now a critical tool as part of Federal SAMHSA’s strategic prevention framework. CTC is a violence 

31

and delinquency prevention strategy, provides communities with a 

process to mobilize the community, identify risk and preventive factors, and develop a comprehensive prevention plan. 

Another major initiative in Pennsylvania is developing a comprehensive aftercare system by the year 2010. Stakeholders in the 

juvenile justice system, as well as others in relates systems, are 

working together to develop a model aftercare system for youth 

leaving delinquency placements. 

A comprehensive approach to aftercare will ensure that youth receive timely and appropriate social support in areas such as enrolling immediately in school or having a job waiting for them, continuing the follow-up services that are required for those who receive physical or behavior health treatment while in care, having 

strong adult support from family or other caring adults, having sufficient attention paid to developing their competencies while in 

care, so they can successfully return to their home and community. 

It is important that returning juveniles who need to continue 

their treatment in community have access to a continuum of services that have been demonstrated to be effective. Effective aftercare 

is crucial if youths are to benefit from residential treatment programs and successfully return home. 

I think we can all agree that it would be ideal if we could prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system in the first 

place. Successful delinquency prevention programs attempt to increase protective factors, those positive traits, beliefs, relationships, 

and connections in juveniles’ lives that help them overcome diversity. As parents, we want these for our own children. We should 

want no less for children at risk of entering the juvenile justice system. Without quality aftercare and prevention, you will see more 

youth violence in our communities. 

There are no easy solutions to addressing youth violence, but we 

do know that healthy communities, strong families, and quality 

education are critical to the success of our youth. 

I submitted additional supplemental written testimony on our juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plan, and an overview of 

our prevention initiative outline for more detail on our programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to our working together and providing youth with the best opportunities to be successful. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pennington appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pennington. 

Our next witness is Mr. David Fair, vice president for community 

impact for The United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Previously, he worked with the city of Philadelphia on youth services, 

bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and currently studying for a mater’s degree in social work at Temple. 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Fair, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FAIR, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNITY IMPACT FOR THE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHEASTERN 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you. 

32

Since 1921, our United Way has raised an invested several billion dollars of financial contributions and mobilized countless hours 

of volunteer energy to relieve the pain and suffering of vulnerable 

people throughout our region. And in those 86 years, we have 

learned, again and again, a very obvious lesson: it is often easier 

to despair that the problems facing us are intractable than it is to 

make the effort to actually solve them. We commend both of you 

for taking this opportunity today to help us focus on real solutions 

to the challenge of youth violence. 

For too long, we have invested both taxpayer and charitable dollars in experimenting with ever new approaches, while failing to direct adequate resources to the strategies that have already been 

shown to work in today’s world. 

I have worked for over 30 years in a variety of health and social 

service fields, and in each environment we have always recognized 

the importance of mentoring as an essential component of any solutions-focused effort to help our children. But because of regulations, 

politics, habit, when it comes to spending money, priority has always been given to hiring and supporting more and more professional staff to do what we used to rely on families and communities 

to accomplish. We believe that solutions to the problems of youth 

violence can best be found not just in more professional services, 

but by investing in those families and communities themselves. We 

must continue to study the effectiveness of different mentoring 

models, but we don’t have to wait for more studies to know what 

we need to do today 

Expansion of quality programs, matching adult and peer mentors 

to youth is needed now in all parts of our region. We need new approaches to offering mentoring that fit with today’s urban realities 

and reflect the developmental needs of the youth we mentor. Traditional mentoring models, while still effective for many youth, sometimes fall short in helping today’s highest-risk and older youth face 

the many complicated challenges and obstacles that limit their 

chances for future success. We need to address the shortage of 

male mentors and mentors of color, the difficulty many mentors 

have in relating to and supporting more troubled youth, the resistance many young have to trusting mentors because of bad experiences with other adults, and that—the lack of human and financial 

resources at hand, to be more creative in defining what a mentor 

is and ways of mentoring that are designed for today’s world. 

As we’ve heard, more and more of our young people are facing 

more serious and numerous risks, and the mentoring they need is 

much more complicated than it used to be. More and more of our 

adult mentors are finding they can’t handle the challenges presented by their mentees, because they have not been adequately 

trained or did not realize what they were getting into, and because 

no one individual functioning alone can adequately counter the influence of a poisonous peer culture. 

We need to accept that, at least for those youth of higher risk 

of committing or being victimized by violence, we need to do more 

than set up more opportunities for volunteer adults to play only a 

glancing role in their lives. Mentoring is not about ‘‘hanging out,’’ 

and it’s no longer about simply providing a way for kids to get to 

ball games they might not have been able to get to on their own. 

33

For older youth, mentoring must be provided in the context of adolescent developmental needs, including working with the influence 

and importance of peer relationships and addressing the pressures 

of academic and employment demands. We have an urgent need to 

create a much larger cadre of mentors that is determined in its approach to this work, is willing to learn new ways of engaging and 

working with their mentees, and which comes from the communities where the youth live. We need to make sure that these mentors learn the skills they need to overcome the barriers that keep 

them from being more effective with their mentees, and that sometimes discourage them from sticking it out when the child tests 

their commitment. We need community organizations to find more 

effective ways to nurture and support both mentors and mentees 

in what for both can be among the most important relationships 

they ever have. We need to provide the context for safe and effective mentoring for older youth, including alternative approaches, 

such as group mentoring and career- or academically focused mentoring. 

This is not going to be easy. Today’s young people are not growing up in the world that most of us did. A growing body of research 

is recognizing the impact of chronic violence and community trauma on these children. Our teens today grew up during the height 

of the crack epidemic, a time characterized by a spike in murder 

and addiction. This violence and drug penetration was significantly 

higher in the neighborhoods in which these young people grew up 

than citywide statistics reflect. Many of these young people grew 

up believing that the adults could not care for them adequately, or 

even protect them; and so, they organized themselves, as best they 

could, to care for and protect themselves. The resulting culture has 

redefined our work with young people, many of whom we have 

taught to be leery of adults, hypervigilant about perceived threats, 

and despondent about their own futures. 

We’re not ignorant of these realities, but we are somehow disconnected from our power to do something about them. We often respond to the crisis facing so many of our children as if it was a forest fire. As you may know, there’s a couple of ways to fight a forest 

fire. You can put it out, or you can set up a fire break. A fire break 

creates a barrier around the fire so that it doesn’t spread. Then you 

wait for the fire itself to burn itself out. 

At United Way, we suggest that we—that various public systems 

of care recognize that quality mentoring can be an essential tool 

that they each must use to achieve their objectives for the people 

they serve. In the field of mentoring, we need to create new and 

stronger ways of training mentors, especially those with intensive 

challenges. In the community, we need to prioritize——

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Fair, how much more time will you need? 

Mr. FAIR. Just 15 seconds, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. 

Mr. FAIR. In the community, we need to prioritize support for 

new strategies to recruit mentors, especially mentors of color and 

male mentors. We need to invest in new models of mentoring that 

address the developmental needs of older youth. 

Part of the 30 years I spent in social services was in the behavioral health field, and one thing I learned from those days was how 

34

important hope and expectation are to the success of psychotherapy. I think that is also true about mentoring. We ask that we 

resist giving in to the despair that makes us think that youth violence is inevitable and that it can only be solved with a police response. We ask that we choose to invest in hope for our children 

rather than in simply managing their pain. We ask that we don’t 

just build a fire break and let the fire burn, because we’ve learned 

another lesson in those 86 years. We know we have it within us 

to put the fire out. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fair appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Fair. 

Our final witness is Dr. Ira Harkavy, who is the associate vice 

president and founding director of the Center of Community Partnerships at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Harkavy holds a 

bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. in history from the University of Pennsylvania. 

We welcome you here, Dr. Harkavy, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF IRA HARKAVY, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT 

AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. HARKAVY. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Specter. I want to 

thank you for inviting me to testify at this most important hearing. 

I want to thank Senator Casey for your participation. 

Truly democratic partnerships between universities and schools 

is a powerful strategy for changing communities, school, and higher 

education itself, and for reducing youth violence. The partnerships 

that I will describe represent the fruits of over two decades of collaboration between Penn, community organizations, and the public 

schools in Philadelphia and West Philadelphia. I should note, Senator Specter, that your—you have been a supporter of this, as initially Joan Specter was when she was a council member, and Senator Casey’s father, Governor Casey, provided enormous support 

over the years for this effort. I want to thank both of you for that 

support. 

The Penn Center for Community Partnerships, together with 

community partners, have created University-Assisted Community 

Schools that are centers of education and engagement that provide 

a range of services for students, their parents, and other community members. This approach works toward tapping, integrating, 

mobilizing, and galvanizing the resources of communities, including 

colleges and universities, to improve the community, the school, 

and the education of students. 

Somewhat more specifically, the strategy assumes that, like colleges and universities, public schools can function as environmentchanging institutions that can become the strategic centers of 

broadbased partnerships that genuinely engage and coordinate a 

wide variety of community organizations and institutions. 

Public schools belong to all members of the community. They are, 

therefore, particularly well suited to function as neighborhood hubs 

or a nodes around which local partnerships and youth programs 

35

can be generated and formed. When they play that role, schools 

function as community institutions par excellence. They then provide a decentralized democratic community-based response to significant community problems and simultaneously help young people make positive contributions to the community and learn better—and learn better through action-oriented, collaborative community-based problem solving. 

Begun in 1985 by Penn and its school and community partners, 

the University-Assisted Community School Program now involves 

over 6,000 children, youth, parents, and community members each 

year in its six primary sites in West Philadelphia. Additional 

school-day, after-school, family, and community program reach several thousand more individuals. 

Through collaboration between school, university, and community partners, each University-Assisted Community School site has 

a variety of locally determined activities and partnerships, often 

with a focus on health, environment, arts, and culture. The programs engage students K through 16 in real-world, hands-on community problem solving that is integrated into the school curriculum, as well as through extended-day, weekend, and summer 

programs. 

Young people at each of these schools are engaged in creative 

work designed to advance their skills, abilities, and personal and 

social development through service to their school, families, and 

community. At Penn, faculty and students are engaged in service 

learning activities that involve the application of knowledge to 

solve these problems. Over 150 courses have been offered, 57 in 

2006–07 academic year alone, engaging more than 60 faculty members. More than 1,400 students participate in academically based 

community service courses. Penn student support all aspects of this 

program by assisting evenings, weekends, and during the school 

day. 

Briefly summarized, I’ll cite one program. That is a program at 

Sayre High School that involves the creation of a school-based community health center. That health center now involves faculty and 

students from throughout the University of Pennsylvania, literally 

hundreds of students and over 20 faculty, linking the academic 

work of Penn students to improving the school and community. 

Simultaneously, the students at the Sayre School are learning 

through the delivery of healthcare and the implementation of 

health services, under the leadership of university faculty and students. For example, medical intake procedure programs have developed in which Sayre students learn about community health concerns, such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and gain clinical experience through working on the school-based health center. When 

this—a school health center will actually formally open, they will 

work under Penn doctors and nurses on a basis of linking their entire academic program. 

Also, this program has extended to after-school activities that involve students and faculty working after school, weekend programs, 21C programs, and a variety of other activities. K through 

8 programs exist, programs for high school students, evening programs for adults, basketball leagues, summer programs serving 

hundreds, if not thousands, of members of that community and 

36

school. And a major antiviolence initiative has been developed by 

the community school and Penn’s faculty and staff. 

The issue here is that, simultaneously, this increases and improves the functioning of the University of Pennsylvania and the 

functioning of the school and links to the learning and development 

of students. 

In summary, University-Assisted Community Schools serve, educate, and activate students and their families and other local residents. Students not only learn by doing, but also learn by and for 

service. Simultaneously, the university benefits from the unique 

critical opportunities community schools provide for learning, research, civil consciousness, outreach, and program development. 

Putting this theory into practice, the Sayre-Penn University-Assisted Community School model holds promise for West Philadelphia, Penn, other communities across the country. We currently 

work with over 100 universities——

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Harkavy, how much more time will 

you——

Mr. HARKAVY. About 17 seconds. Right at the very end. 

To speed and advance the development of University-Assisted 

Community Schools as a vehicle to make our schools and communities safer for students, teachers, parents, neighborhoods, businesses, and the Federal Government, the Government could, in 

fact, do the following: 

One, develop and apply innovative funding strategies that provide support to broadbased local coalitions designed to develop and 

sustain University-Assisted Community Schools. 

Two, create a multi-agency Federal commission designed to advance and implement University-Assisted Community Schools. 

And, three, strengthen and expand community-based work-study 

to engage more students with local public schools. 

I want to thank you, Senator Specter, for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harkavy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Dr. Harkavy. 

Ms. Carroll, you estimated that there are some 80,000 at-risk 

young people in the city of Philadelphia. How do you come to that 

figure? 

Ms. CARROLL. That’s our estimate based on census data, that—

children currently living at or below poverty level, in addition to 

other risk factors, such as parents that did not graduate high 

school, difficult family circumstances, other different factors that 

factor into children being at risk. 

Senator SPECTER. And you have testified—or, in your written testimony—that you are short some 1,300 mentors, because 1,300 requests have been made. 

Ms. McClanahan, you have noted in your testimony that there 

are tens of thousands of college students in the Philadelphia area, 

where they could receive credit for functioning as mentors. Has 

your organization undertaken any effort to try to get the colleges 

and universities in the area to provide mentors? 

Ms. MCCLANAHAN. We have not. The bulk of our work, looking 

at where mentors can be recruited from, have been with—in terms 

of new strategies—have been——

37

Senator SPECTER. Do you think——

Ms. MCCLANAHAN [continuing].—Actually with the——

Senator SPECTER. Do you think the——

Ms. MCCLANAHAN [continuing].—Faith-based communities. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think that such an effort would be likely to be successful? Let me direct that question to you, Dr. 

Harkavy. The University of Pennsylvania has a relationship with 

Sayre High School. Are you able to counsel or mentor students at 

risk at Sayre? 

Mr. HARKAVY. Absolutely. The mentoring occurs both through 

classroom day experiences, and also a variety of after-school activities, that involve a relationship in which students work on such 

issues as college access, work on issues such as improving academic 

performance, but also form a relationship in which the college student works with the high school student in a broad range of areas 

to improve the academic work and performance of the student. 

Senator SPECTER. How success is that? 

Mr. HARKAVY. Over the period of time that we’ve had this program and a variety of others throughout this city and around the 

country, the data indicates very strong results. It indicates results 

from the youngest children all the way through high school. 

Senator SPECTER. How many students from the University of 

Pennsylvania are engaged in that program? 

Mr. HARKAVY. Currently, I would say, at the Sayre program 

alone, there must be—over 200 students must be engaged——

Senator SPECTER. What would you say——

Dr. HARKAVY [continuing]. With Sayre. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. The potential was for Penn students to participate? You have—what’s the size of your student 

body now? 

Mr. HARKAVY. It’s about 9,000 students. There are currently 

1,400——

Senator SPECTER. There is enormous potential there. 

Mr. HARKAVY. Absolutely. I actually—just one note, quickly—

there are 1,400 students currently——

Senator SPECTER. Do those students get any benefit or credit for 

doing that? 

Mr. HARKAVY. They do, do this. The benefit they—a number of 

the students do this work as part of their academic work at Penn, 

so they’re involved in active service learning courses in which they 

focus on, How do you improve reading? How do you improve nutrition? How you improve healthcare in those communities? And I 

would argue, Senator Specter, that colleges and universities are the 

single greatest resource available for engaging mentors and helping 

to improve local public schooling in a comprehensive model in 

which mentoring is one strong component. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Fair, your written testimony, you point out 

that there are billions of dollars spent each year in, quote, ‘‘not preventing situations that lead to violence, but in ineffective temporary fixes of a haphazard symbol—symptom relief.’’ What, specifically, would you suggest, to redirect those billions of dollars? 

Mr. FAIR. I think, Senator, that it’s important for us to hold accountable the more high-end interventions to the same standards 

we hold prevention services accountable to. For many years, I ran 

38

a—the Division of Prevention Services for the city’s Department of 

Human Services, and we always were asked to meet incredibly 

high standards, and quick standards, of effectiveness in how we 

were preventing child abuse, neglect, or delinquency. But what we 

don’t spend enough time looking at is when we place 1,700 kids in 

delinquent care every year, but don’t help them reintegrate into the 

community, as several others have testified. And they recidivate, 

and they become adults who are homeless or adults who are incarcerated. But those are outcomes that should make us question 

whether or not incarceration of teenagers is, in fact, an appropriate 

response. My——

Senator SPECTER. Mr.——

Mr. FAIR. My reference was basically that we need to rethink, 

What are we trying to achieve with taxpayer dollars? And stop 

treating just the symptoms, but also try to invest in prevention. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Pennington, would you have any projection 

as to how many at-risks youths there are statewide? 

Mr. PENNINGTON. I don’t have that figure on hand. I now that 

there’s—in 2005, is—concerning the juvenile justice, there were 45 

dispositions of kids in the juvenile justice system. But from—we 

administer the Federal and State funds throughout the State, and 

what I do know, from getting those applications in on a yearly 

basis, is the tremendous need out there, when local communities 

apply for funding. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you give some thought to that, so we 

could have a statewide projection there? 

Mr. PENNINGTON. Sure. 

Senator SPECTER. The red light went on as I was asking you my 

last question, Mr. Pennington. So, I’ll turn now to Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator. 

I know I—in my questioning last time, I went over, so—I’ve been 

on this committee for all but an hour, so if I want to stay on the 

committee, I’d better be careful here. 

Thank you. I want to commend all of you for your work and for 

the scholarship that went into your testimony, and, obviously, the 

hours and days and weeks and months of the work you do to bring 

us the benefit of that experience. 

One thing I wanted to ask you is something very practical. Senator Specter was focused on this. I want to follow up on it. Obviously, from the numbers that you’ve given him and given today by 

way of testimony, we have a big shortage. What do you think is the 

most effective recruitment strategy? Let me just preface this by 

saying that it—in my experience in State government, for example 

the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a program that helps 

kids and their families, obviously, with healthcare, often the only 

way to get families to enroll is to buy television time. Everything 

else was secondary to television time. I don’t want to be too simplistic here, but other than having a nonprofit or government pay 

for television ads, which I think will actually work, what else can 

we do, or what else can be done, to recruit people to serve as mentors? 

Ms. CARROLL. I’d like to answer that, Senator Casey. One things 

we’ve seen—one thing we’ve seen other States do is to encourage 

employees of the State or the police department or any local or 

39

State departments, to volunteer on their lunch hour by giving them 

paid time off to do so. And that’s been very successful in other 

States, like Florida. Specifically, the Amachi program, which targets children of incarcerated parents, and giving individuals working in the juvenile justice system time off to volunteer, which—they 

make great mentors; that would be a great strategy. 

Senator CASEY. So, employers—and Senator Specter was mentioning the fact that government employers, like all of us here, 

should participate in that. And I think that’s a great idea. 

Let me ask another very basic question, just to give people a 

sense of what we’re talking about here. I know there may not be 

one definitive model here, but, just generally, based upon your experience, describe the average week of a mentor. In other words, 

how many hours, what’s the interactions, how many hours a day. 

Can anyone, kind of, do a quick summary of what is—in other—

what’s it like to be a mentor, in a particular workweek? 

Ms. CARROLL. What Big Brothers Big Sisters asks is two to four 

visits per month. We offer a variety options. So, you can visit a 

child at school during their lunch hour. You can visit them after 

school. And that may take an hour a week. But, to that child, it 

means a lot that you came to visit. We also have the communitybased option, which can be anywhere from 2 to 4 hours on the—

in the evenings or on the weekends and lets you engage in a wide 

variety of things together, doing things in your community, exposing the child to new experiences. So, it really can vary. 

Senator CASEY. And I’m almost out of time. I’m giving Senator 

Specter back a minute that I stole from him earlier. But I wanted 

to—Ms. McClanahan, I wanted to highlight something you testified 

to by way a—emphasis, not necessarily a question. But on page 3 

of your testimony, you say, and I quote, at the bottom of the page, 

that ‘‘mentoring can contribute to measurable benefits in a variety 

of settings, including programs for high-risk youth, violence-prone 

youth, and ex-prisoners.’’ So, is that a longer way of saying ‘‘mentoring works?’’ You can say that definitively? 

Ms. MCCLANAHAN. We can say definitively that mentoring works, 

with the important implication, as I talked about during my testimony, that it also needs to be coupled, for this population, with 

other core services, like employment and education. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Senator Casey, for 

your participation. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

Without objection, my full statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

And I want to thank the Constitution Center and its president, 

Joe Torricella, for making available these facilities to us again 

today. We have been here with some frequency in the past on our 

hearings, and it is a great spot to talk about matters of public policy. 

And for those who may be watching on the Pennsylvania Cable 

Network, let me say that it’s a rare treat to come to the Constitution Center and to come through the interactive exhibits which are 

here. You can ask a question and get a dissertation on cases argued in the Supreme Court of the United States. You can vote for 

President, whether you think President Washington or President 

40

Lincoln or President Kennedy was the greatest President. We have 

a set, set up, where you can raise your hand and be sworn in as 

President of the United States, and have your picture taken as if 

you were really there. That’s the closest I’ve come. And others 

might—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Be interested in having a similar 

experience. So, that—the Constitution Center is a great spot to 

come and visit. 

We intend to follow up on this hearing in a number of directions. 

Senator Casey and I, on the work of the Senate, will see if we can 

find some directed funding to those other nine police districts, at 

$1.6 million each, which have had such good results. And we’ll take 

a look at the 18- to 24-year category that testimony was given to. 

And I intend to write to all the university presidents, and college, 

and will ask Senator Casey to join me in suggesting that they try 

to structure programs to give credit or encourage students to participate as mentors. With the testimony of Ms. Carroll, of 80,000 

at-risk students, that’s quite a lot, and there are 1,300 seeking 

mentors right now. And Ms. Carroll’s additional testimony, that 

many who need mentors haven’t requested them. And I’m going to 

follow up with Director Ramos on the question of whether we 

might find some volunteer funds to clean up the—to make the 

streets safe, as people are willing to pay to make the streets clean. 

Safety—cleanliness is next to godliness. Safety is survival, so 

that—that’s another avenue to be directed. 

And I would encourage the media covering this event to put the 

specific request by Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, that people ought 

to come forward and ought to volunteer to be mentors. And write 

to Senator Casey or myself on that subject, or pick up the phone 

and call my Philadelphia office, 215 repeat that, Michael? 

Senator SPECTER. 215–597–7200. 

That concludes our hearing. Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

41


35304.001
42


35304.002
43


35304.003
44


35304.004
45


35304.005
46


35304.006
47


35304.007
48


35304.008
49


35304.009
50


35304.010
51


35304.011
52


35304.012
53


35304.013
54


35304.014
55


35304.015
56


35304.016
57


35304.017
58


35304.018
59


35304.019
60


35304.020
61


35304.021
62


35304.022
63


35304.023
64


35304.024
65


35304.025
66


35304.026
67


35304.027
68


35304.028
69


35304.029
70


35304.030
71


35304.031
72


35304.032
73


35304.033
74


35304.034
75


35304.035
76


35304.036
77


35304.037
78


35304.038
79


35304.039
80


35304.040
81


35304.041
82


35304.042
83


35304.043
84


35304.044
85


35304.045
86


35304.046
87


35304.047
88


35304.048
89


35304.049
90


35304.050
91


35304.051
92


35304.052
93


35304.053
94

Æ


35304.054