[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION: INVESTMENTS
IN JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-485 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Marina Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BOB GOOD, Virginia
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan, Vice Chairman LISA McCLAIN, Michigan
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan MARY MILLER, Illinios
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
MONDAIRE JONES, New York SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MICHELLE STEEL, California
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Florida VACANCY
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin VACANCY
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Chairwoman
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina RUSS FULCHER, Idaho,
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut Ranking Member
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana LISA McCLAIN, Michigan
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisonsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Ex
(Ex Officio) Officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 8, 2022................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Fulcher, Hon. Russ, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Hawkins, Dr. Stephanie, Founding Director, Transformative
Research Unit for Equity (TRUE), RTI International......... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Smoot Evans, Naomi, Executive Director, Coalition for
Juvenile Justice........................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Boes, Father Steven, President and National Executive
Director, Boys Town........................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Muhammad, David, Executive Director, National Institute for
Criminal Justice Reform.................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairwoman Bonamici:
Testimony submitted by Abbie Evans....................... 47
A Report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal
Justice Reform......................................... 55
A joint issue brief titled ``Police in Schools Are Not
the Answer to School Shootings''....................... 61
Statement for the Record dated September 13, 2022, from
Pace Center for Girls, Inc (PACE)...................... 80
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Ms. Naomi Smoot Evans.................................... 83
Mr. David Muhammad....................................... 88
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION: INVESTMENTS
IN JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
----------
Thursday, September 8, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:04 p.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Suzanne Bonamici (Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Bonamici, Hayes, Bowman, Scott (ex
officio), Fulcher, Fitzgerald, and Foxx (ex officio),
Staff present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Rashage
Green, Director of Education Policy; Christian Haines, General
Counsel; Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner,
Director of Information Technology; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy
Communications Director; Kota Mizutani, Press Secretary; Max
Moore, Staff Assistant; Casey Peeks, Professional Staff; Kayla
Pennebecker, Policy Associate; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Staff Assistant; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Sam Varie, Press
Assistant; ArRone Washington, Clerk and Special Assistant to
the Staff Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Tyler
Dufrene, Minority Research Assistant; Cate Dillon, Minority
Director of Operations; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority
Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Audra McGeorge,
Minority Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Minority
Legislative Assistant; Ethan Pann, Minority Press Assistant;
Gabriella Pistone, Minority Staff Assistant; Katy Roberts,
Minority Staff Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief
Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; and Krystina
Skurk, Minority Speechwriter.
Chairwoman Bonamici. The hearing of the House Education and
Labor Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services will come
to order. Welcome, everyone. I note that a quorum is present.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on ``An
Ounce of Prevention: Investments in Juvenile Justice
Programs.'' This is an entirely remote hearing, and as such,
the committee's hearing room is officially closed.
All microphones should be kept muted as a general rule to
avoid unnecessary background noise. Members and witnesses will
be responsible for unmuting themselves when they are recognized
to speak or when they wish to seek recognition.
I also ask that members please identify themselves before
they speak.
Members should keep their cameras on while the proceeding
is happening, and members shall be considered present in the
proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they shall be
considered not present when they are not visible on camera.
The only exception to this is if they are experiencing
technical difficulty and inform committee staff of such
difficulty.
If any member experiences technical difficulties during the
hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, make sure
you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call the
committee's IT director, whose number was provided in advance.
Should the chair experience technical difficulty, Chairman
Scott or another majority member is hereby authorized to assume
the gavel in the chair's absence.
To ensure that the committee's 5-minute rule is adhered to,
staff will be keeping track of time using the committee's field
timer, which should appear in its own thumbnail picture and
will be named 001 Timer.
There will be no 1-minute warning. The field timer will
show a blinking light when time is up. Members and witnesses
are asked to wrap up promptly when their time has expired.
Pursuant to committee rule 8(c), opening statements are
limited to the subcommittee chair and ranking member. This
allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all
members with adequate time to ask questions.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we are meeting to discuss the need to invest in
prevention, to keep young people out of the justice system and
on a path to success.
Research shows that, in recent decades, our communities
have seen a steady decline in violence among young people, but
unfortunately too many juveniles continue to come into contact
with formal court systems where they face detention or
incarceration.
Unfortunately, these systems are poorly equipped to address
delinquency, and actually, they increase the chances of
recidivism.
This is especially true for youth of color. Black and Brown
youth are gravely overrepresented in juvenile courts compared
with White youth.
Additionally, LGBTQ+ youth also face disproportionate rates
of involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Research shows that youth who identify as LGBTQ are twice
as likely as their heterosexual peers to be arrested and
detained for nonviolent offenses.
Although the juvenile justice system is intended to
rehabilitate, not punish young offenders, data shows that the
more a young person interacts with the juvenile justice system,
the more likely they are to reenter the system and struggle
throughout life.
I am going to say that again.
The juvenile justice system is intended to rehabilitate,
not punish young offenders. Data shows that the more likely a
young person interacts with the juvenile justice system, the
more likely they are to reenter the system and struggle through
life. That bears repeating.
We know these outcomes can be avoided. With evidence-based
prevention and intervention initiatives, we can limit
juveniles' exposure to the system and effectively and
efficiently address and reduce delinquency, recidivism, and
crime overall.
That is why Congress established grant funding, to help
States and localities prioritize prevention and intervention
through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or
JJDPA.
Prevention initiatives, like after-school programs,
bullying prevention programs, mentorship programs, they help
keep young people out of the juvenile justice system and reduce
both adult criminal careers and the likelihood of serious and
violent offenses.
This, in turn, can reduce the burden of crime in our
society and, importantly, save taxpayers billions of dollars.
For example, Multnomah County, in my home State of Oregon,
like in many places across the country, youth of color
experience exclusionary school discipline, disconnection from
school, and a lack of educational attainment at
disproportionate rates.
One program helping to reduce violence is the Community
Healing Initiative. This program is a partnership among
Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center, Rosemary
Anderson High School, Latino Network, and Multnomah County.
It focuses on reducing the disparities faced by youth of
color in the juvenile justice system through culturally
appropriate services and education and workforce opportunities.
The Community Healing Initiative works to eliminate
disparities at the point of law enforcement involvement through
its range of intervention and prevention programming, including
risk and needs assessment, needed services referral, and
resources for gang violence affected youth and families.
Simply put, prevention programs are proven to help youth
lead meaningful lives outside of the justice system, and they
also save taxpayer dollars.
We know, however, that prevention programs do not eliminate
all delinquent activity. When youth do engage with the justice
system, it is critical that they be cared for holistically.
To that end, intervention programs like workforce
development training, mental health treatment, and drug courts
seek to redirect offenders from the juvenile justice system
without removing them from their existing support structure,
school, and family.
By allowing youth to receive the support they need without
generating an early record, these initiatives help young people
stay out of the system, succeed in school, and ultimately avoid
delinquency.
In addition to better serving justice involved youth,
intervention programs help cut the cost of the juvenile justice
system by redirecting young people out of the system and into
community services.
Billions of dollars and futures would be saved if even a
fraction of eligible youth were rerouted into these programs.
Despite the clear benefits of prevention and intervention
initiatives, Congress has generally underfunded these programs
under JJDPA, limiting their capacity to serve our youth in our
communities.
Despite resource constraints, Congress has recognized the
need to enhance crime prevention programming nationally. Under
Chairman Scott's leadership, Congress included funding for
evidence-based programs that are designed to reduce juvenile
delinquency, known as Youth Promise Grants, in the last
bipartisan reauthorization of the JJDPA.
If we are serious about supporting our Nation's young
people, we must provide full funding for evidence-based
prevention and intervention programs that will keep them on a
path to success.
Our commitment to supporting young Americans and those in
the juvenile justice system must be treated with the urgency
this important issue demands.
Thank you again to all of our witnesses. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to invest
in the future of our children and communities, and I now
recognize Ranking Member Fulcher of Idaho for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that
commentary and that opening statement.
Supporting America's young people and keeping our
communities safe are priorities Republicans have long
supported. Federal policies have focused for years on
empowering local efforts to place at-risk youth on the right
path.
In fact, Republicans shepherded the last reauthorization of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to reflect
those priorities.
In that reauthorization, we took steps to improve the
juvenile justice system with legislation that promotes public
safety through prevention efforts and gives State and local
leaders more flexibility to meet the needs of at-risk youth,
while also implementing transparency and accountability
measures.
As we heard during our last hearing on the juvenile justice
system, juvenile crime is on a downward trajectory. A witness
stated that the number of youths arrested in 1997 has declined
by 74 percent.
My home State of Idaho is following these trends,
especially on property-related crimes. This is good news and
tells us we need to stay focused on prevention efforts.
We know prevention efforts are crucial to helping at-risk
youth avoid entanglement with the juvenile justice system.
Intervening early reduces the likelihood of this happening.
Once a young person has a run in, they are far more likely to
have another. That is why prevention is key.
Programs at the State and local levels will help secure
brighter futures for these young people. We must promote
positive and holistic youth programs, and young people who have
their educational, relational, emotional, spiritual, and
physical needs met are far less likely to participate in
illicit activity.
These kinds of programs are best developed, implemented,
and run at the local level, utilizing community partners,
including those in the faith community, to address the unique
needs of the youth in that community.
We must do a better job utilizing public-private
partnerships. Local educators, social workers, faith-based
providers, and community leaders, not Washington bureaucrats,
should lead the efforts on the front lines of this youth
crisis.
Community involvement utilizes the expertise out there,
yielding better results for our Nation's young people, without
further burdening schools which needs to focus on education.
We must also give young people as many opportunities as
possible. Work experience, for example, is one of the most
effective ways to set at-risk youth on the right path.
Career and technical programs give youth opportunities to
set them up for success. Our community colleges, with their
structured programs and work with local employers, offer paths
for young people that at risk and a second chance for those who
have gotten into trouble.
Our witness today, Father Boes, will discuss the importance
of looking at the unique needs of the children involved,
providing support to schools, and help address the needs of at-
risk students, and putting those students on the path to
success.
I look forward to hearing more about Boys Town, its work,
and partnership with schools to address these issues.
Thank you, Father Boes, and to the other witnesses for
coming today, I look forward to the testimony, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulcher follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. Ranking Member Fulcher, it
is encouraging to hear that we have so much in common on this
important issue.
Without objection, all other members who wish to insert
written statements into the record may do so by submitting them
to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format
by 5 p.m. on September 22d.
I will now introduce the witnesses. Dr. Stephanie Hawkins
is the founding director of the Transformative Research Unit
for Equity, or TRUE, at RTI International.
Dr. Hawkins has extensive experience researching the impact
of the juvenile justice system involvement on outcomes for
girls, trauma, and boys and men of color, youth mentoring,
structural violence, and program and systems-led evaluations.
She holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Spelman
College and master and doctoral degrees in clinical psychology
from Howard University.
Ms. Naomi Smoot Evans is the executive director of the
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, or CJJ. CJJ represents a State
Advisory Group, SAGs, that oversee juvenile justice systems in
the individual States.
Naomi oversees member relations and development,
fundraising and grant management, and CJJ's initiative in
government relations, leadership development, juvenile justice
reform, communications, and training and technical assistance.
She received her JD from the University of the District of
Columbia, David A. Clark School of Law, and her bachelor's from
Christopher Newport University.
Father Steven Boes is the executive director of Boys Town,
where he oversees a wide array of high-quality programs and
services that touch the lives of more than 2 million people
nationwide every year.
Father Boes is a leading advocate for reforming the current
child welfare and juvenile justice systems to make them more
responsive, effective, and just.
Father Boes was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of
Omaha in 1985. He earned a master's degree in counseling from
Creighton University and has a master's degree in theology and
a Master of Divinity from the University of St. Thomas.
Mr. David Muhammad is the executive director of the
National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. He has worked
to implement positive youth development into youth justice
systems around the country and was the primary author of
NICJR's seminal report, ``A Positive Youth Justice System.''
Mr. Muhammad has also previously served as the chief
probation officer for the Alameda County Probation Department
and the deputy commissioner of the Department of Probation in
New York City.
He is a graduate of the Howard University School of
Communications and has completed programs at the MIT Sloan
School of Management and the Georgetown Public Policy
Institute.
Welcome to the witnesses. We appreciate you all for
participating today, and we look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind you that we have read your written
statements. They will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to committee rule 8(d) and committee practice, you
are asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary
of your written statement.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to unmute
your microphone.
During your testimony, staff will be keeping track of time
and a light will blink when the time is up. Please be attentive
to the time and wrap up when your time is over and remute your
microphone.
If you experience technical difficulties during your
testimony, you should stay connected on the platform, make sure
you are muted, and use your phone to call the committee's IT
director, whose number was provided to you in advance.
Then, after the witnesses make their presentations, we will
move to member questions. When answering a question, please
remember to unmute your microphone.
The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide
accurate information to the subcommittee, and therefore we will
proceed with the testimony. First we will hear from Dr.
Hawkins.
Dr. Hawkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE HAWKINS, FOUNDING DIRECTOR,
TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH UNIT FOR EQUITY (TRUE), RTI
INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Hawkins. Chair Bonamici, Ranking Member Fulcher, and
members of Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services, I
am Dr. Stephanie Hawkins. I use she/her pronouns, and I am the
vice president and founding director of the Transformative
Research Unit for Equity at RTI.
RTI is an independent, nonprofit research institute
dedicated to improving the human condition. Research and data
are core components to policymaking, and I appreciate the
opportunity to share my testimony today in my role as a
research scientist.
As you stated, I earned my doctorate degree in clinical
psychology from Howard University and completed a post-doctoral
fellowship in violence prevention research at Stanford
University.
During my career of more than 25 years, prevention and
equity have been the through line. I have led national research
studies that span topics relevant to our discussion today,
including girls' involvement with juvenile justice, boys and
men of color and their experiences with community violence, and
suspension diversion programming as a strategy to interrupt the
school-to-prison pipeline.
It is important to acknowledge that the risks associated
with the juvenile justice system involvement are not equally
distributed in the United States. Research shows that Black,
Hispanic, Latin, and Native American youth, especially boys,
are disproportionately represented.
For many young people born into violence, violence-burdened
and under-resourced communities, there is no post to their
trauma, as typically experienced by those diagnosed with
posttraumatic stress disorder.
Investments in prevention need to address the broader
structural factors that our young people must live in and
navigate.
Prevention is typically classified in three levels:
primary, secondary, and tertiary. Effective intervention should
include a combination of these strategies.
However, research shows that primary prevention, which
seeks to avoid the initial occurrence in juvenile justice
system involvement, offers the greatest societal return on
investment.
Primary prevention efforts that prioritize the underlying
factors responsible for the inequitable distribution of risk
can scaffold our young people, their families, and their
surrounding community with the structural support needed to
create thriving communities.
For example, research has shown that lead exposure in
childhood can increase risk-taking behavior, which is also
connected to an increase in violence and crime later in life.
Thus, ensuring families do not reside in homes with lead-based
paint is more than a public health effort; it too can be an
investment in juvenile justice prevention.
Similarly, research suggests that interventions to prevent
young people from experiencing homelessness can also reduce
their involvement in crime, which means ensuring access to safe
and healthy housing can be a wise investment in juvenile
justice prevention.
The most impactful primary prevention efforts emphasize
resource-rich educational institutions, well-functioning public
services, and economic opportunity for all residents. These
approaches are key to reducing the incidents of juvenile
justice system involvement on a broader scale.
Secondary prevention programs, like the SHAPE program in
Tennessee's Shelby County School District, are also needed.
SHAPE is a suspension diversion program and offers great
promise for interrupting the school-to-prison pipeline, given
that research shows school suspensions have a large, negative
impact on longer term outcomes, and that Black students are
expelled at rates more than twice their share of the total
school enrollment.
When we focus on the broader structural factors that
influence our lives and the outcomes of youth, rather than
interventions that are designed only to change the youth's
behavior, we can amplify our impact with Federal programs and
thereby empower our youngest citizens, especially Black,
Hispanic, Latin, and Native American individuals, to achieve
their greatest potential.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today on
this important topic.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawkins follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much, Dr. Hawkins, for
your testimony, and next we are going to hear from Ms. Smoot
Evans.
Ms. Smoot Evans, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF NAOMI SMOOT EVANS, J.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE
Ms. Smoot Evans. Thank you, Chairwoman Bonamici, Ranking
Member Fulcher, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee
on Civil Rights and Human Services. I thank you for the time to
talk with you today about this important issue.
My name is Naomi Smoot Evans, and I serve as executive
director of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. We are a
national nonprofit that works with State Advisory Groups across
the country to implement and carry out the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act.
We envision a country where fewer young people come into
contact with the youth justice system, and where those who do,
receive the services and supports they need to lead safe and
successful lives.
Over the past three decades, we as a field have learned a
great deal about what works and what does not to keep our kids
and our communities safe.
To put it short, prevention and intervention help keep our
young people in the classroom and out of the courtroom. A
majority of young people who find themselves before the courts
will age out of those delinquent behaviors without court
intervention, because of the development of the prefrontal
cortex as people age into their 20's.
Intervention from the courts, and particularly detention,
have the opposite effect, though. Young people who are placed
in detention are 23 percentage points higher than young people
who engage in the same behaviors but are not placed in
detention, either because of bias or judicial leniency or
prosecutorial discretion.
We know that prevention works, and when we talk about
prevention, we are talking about simple things, right? We are
talking about help from a nurse to teach a young mom how to
interact with her new child.
We are talking about preschool. The Perry Preschool
Project, for example, helps pair young people in high needs
communities with high quality preschool education. The young
people who were able to participate in that program had half
the likelihood of lifetime arrests as their peers in their same
community who did not have access to quality preschool.
It is not just infants and toddlers who benefit from
prevention, it is also teens and older youth. For example, the
Becoming a Man program in Chicago, Illinois, helps equip young
men with coping skills and pro-social behaviors.
That program, the University of Chicago has researched and
found, has a reduced risk of recidivism for participants, a
reduced risk of involvement in violent behavior, and a reduced
risk of arrest rates.
Prevention helps both our young people, and it is good for
our taxpayers and our communities. Prevention programs save up
to $13 for every $1 invested.
Community-based job training, for example, can save $12 per
$1 of investments. Therapy programs as well come with taxpayer
savings, and yet States continue to invest and spend $5.7
billion a year on incarceration of youth across the country.
That is $88,000 per young person, or nearly six times our
investment in elementary and secondary education per pupil in
this country.
The outcomes, as I have mentioned already, are very
different for those two approaches, though, and we know that
ninth graders, if they return to school at all after placement,
two-thirds to three-fourths of them will drop out in 1 year.
We also know that the data shows us that reductions in
incarceration actually improve community safety. Since 1994,
the number of cases in juvenile justice that are referred to
detention have reduced from 321,200 to 195,000.
During that same time period, the proportion of crime
engaged by young people has dropped by over half, and a report
that came out just last week from the Office of Justice
Programs showed that violent crime among youth has dropped
during that time by 78 percent.
We, as a society and a country, are equipped with the tools
and the knowledge to address this issue in a way that we never
have been before.
The 2018 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act enables states and the Federal
Government to invest, through Youth Promise Grants and Title II
programs, and the very programs that we are talking about here
today--therapy, after-school programs, mentoring, things that
work--and I call on Congress to continue to invest in these
things that work and keep our kids and our communities safe.
Thank you again for the time to talk with you today, and I
look forward to answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smoot Evans follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony,
and next we are going to hear from Father Boes.
Father Boes, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF FATHER STEVEN BOES, PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOYS TOWN
Father Boes. Good afternoon, Chair Bonamici, Ranking Member
Fulcher, and members of the subcommittee. I am Father Steven
Boes, the president of Boys Town. I am honored to testify today
on behalf of Boys Town.
Since 1917, Boys Town has successfully educated the most
traumatized, challenged children in America. Boys Town's
founder, Father Flanagan, famously said: There are no bad boys.
There is only bad environment, bad education, bad example, bad
thinking.
Each year Boys Town students have an education plan
individually crafted for them 100 years ago.
Father Flanagan welcomes kids of every race, nationality,
and religion. However, because of Jim Crow laws, he had to go
out into a corn field and start his own town to make that
possible.
This vision sparked a revolution in childcare and education
that echoes today in the work and mission of Boys Town.
Today the boys and girls on our home campus gain about 1
full year of academic improvement for each semester that they
attend our Boys Town school. However, because of our success
educating the most traumatized kids in America, we were asked
to share what we know with other schools.
For the past 30 years, we have partnered with hundreds of
schools to improve their educational environments. These are
primarily public schools, often located in Title I districts.
Our most sophisticated, multitiered, multicomponent
intervention is called LIFT Together with Boys Town. We begin
by providing professional development to teachers,
administrators, and all school employees in positive classroom
management techniques.
Next, we offer education to parents so they can support the
social skills being taught at school. For families whose
students are facing suspension or expulsion, we provide a Boys
Town-trained family consultant that helps them to connect to
community resources, like mentoring, sports, faith-based youth
groups, counseling, and antidrug outreaches.
The results of our LIFT Together schools are simply
amazing. Schools show measurable gains in prosocial skills,
school adjustment and engagement, and as they receive more
teacher praise, all things result in a 20-percent decrease in
classroom misbehaviors.
Schools also see reduced substance use and delinquency. As
a result, we see a 20-percent increase in teacher satisfaction
and student attendance.
We also see a 32-percent reduction in students sent to the
office and a 55-percent reduction in school suspensions. These
are the very students who are statistically much more likely to
end up in the juvenile justice system, but do not because they
stay in school.
The Boys Town LIFT Together model has a three-tiered,
skills-based approach. Our approach helps teachers to catch
kids being good. This means that the students who are the most
disruptive in class are consistently receiving lots of positive
feedback and require less punishment.
Our model focuses on teaching students appropriate
behaviors proactively instead of relying solely on exclusionary
discipline that removes the students from the classroom when
they misbehave.
If a student does need to be sent to the office, we help
administrators remind the students of the social skills they
should have used and then return them to the classroom as
quickly as possible.
When a family needs more help, the school can provide a
Boys Town family consultant to connect them to community
resources that they need to help their child succeed.
The reason that this intervention is so successful is that
Boys Town focuses on educating and empowering those closest to
the student.
Getting all the adults in the school and the family and the
community on the same page and working together, we can solve
some of the most difficult problems facing our children,
schools, families, and communities.
Creating safe and effective school cultures helps us
achieve our Boys Town mission of changing the way America cares
for children and families.
[The prepared statement of Father Boes follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you very much, Father Boes, for
your testimony, and next we are going to hear from Mr.
Muhammad.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MUHAMMAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
Mr. Muhammad. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman
Bonamici and Ranking Member Representative Fulcher, and all the
esteemed members of the Civil Rights and Human Services
Subcommittee. I am honored to testify at this important hearing
today.
My name is David Muhammad. I am the executive director of
the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. NICJR works
to reduce incarceration and violence, improve the outcomes of
system-involved youths and adults, and increase the capacity
and expertise of those that serve them.
We are based in Oakland, California, but we work in cities
throughout the country.
I have spent the past 25 years working in and with the
juvenile justice system. I have worked as a youth correctional
administrator in Washington, DC, and Oakland, California. I
have developed numerous re-entry and youth development programs
and worked on youth justice policy throughout the country.
Since the onset of the COVID pandemic and due to its
related impacts, we have experienced a significant increase in
gun violence in America. Despite inaccurate assumptions to the
contrary, youth are not responsible for this increase.
Nationally, and in nearly every city in the country,
juveniles account for less than 7 percent of gun violence,
victims and perpetrators. My organization has conducted
detailed analysis of gun violence in several cities across the
Nation, and consistently the average age of shooting victims
and suspects are in their mid to late twenties.
In the past 20 years, there has been great progress and
success in youth justice reform in America, resulting in a 70-
percent reduction in youth incarceration.
Studies have shown that this drop in juvenile incarceration
has had no negative impacts on public safety, and in some
jurisdictions, evidence proves that there has been a positive
impact on public safety.
This is due to the fact that youth incarceration is
ineffective, harmful, and excessively expensive. A Federal
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention released
a report last month showing that during the same time as youth
incarceration was dropping, youth crime was plummeting.
The study found that, ``the number of arrests involving
youth fell 84 percent between the 1996 peak and 2020.'' The
report also found that ``the number of youth arrests for
violent crime in 2020 was one-third the number in 2006.''
In 2019, NICJR, in partnership with the city of Oakland and
its police department and local community-based organizations,
launched an innovative youth development and diversion program.
Young people arrested for nonviolent felony offenses are
diverted at the point of arrest to the Neighborhood Opportunity
and Accountability Board. Young people referred to the NOAB are
immediately engaged by a community services coordinator, who
meets with the youth and family and conducts an assessment.
The youth and family are scheduled to meet with the board
for a NOAB conference. The board is made up of community
leaders, faith leaders, business owners, system-impacted
individuals, and victims of crime.
After meeting with the board, a life plan is developed with
the youth and family, and they are connected to an array of
community-based services from our partner local CBOs.
Since its inception in April 2020, OPD has referred nearly
80 youth to the program, and less than 10 have been rearrested.
NICJR is replicating the program in nearby Richmond,
California, and we are in discussions with several other
jurisdictions about starting NOABs.
A national study conducted by the Justice Policy Institute
found that it costs taxpayers $150,000 per year for every youth
detained in the juvenile justice system.
In places like California and Washington, DC, those costs
are much higher, going above $300,000 per youth every year.
Diverting youth from the system involvement is not only
better for their outcomes and their development, it is extreme
savings for taxpayers.
Last, NICJR's National Offices of Violence Prevention
Network has launched an exciting new project, YDII, Youth Data
and Intervention Initiative.
Starting in Washington, DC, but eventually including up to
ten cities throughout the country, YDII is a research, data
tracking, and an intensive intervention initiative that seeks
to prevent youth from becoming--young teens from becoming
involved in gun violence when they are young adults.
Initial research shows that young people who have a
combination of risk factors have increased likelihood to be
involved in gun violence as young adults. Such risk factors
include significant school absenteeism, receive school
discipline, experience trauma, child welfare involvement,
initial juvenile delinquency, developmental and mental health
challenges, lives in a high poverty and high crime
neighborhood.
Young people with all of these risk factors, at 11, 12, 13
years old, are much more likely to be involved in gun violence
10 years down the line.
The goal of YDII is to help jurisdictions track these
factors in youth in real time, and when any young person
reaches the threshold of multiple risk factors, to provide very
intensive community-based supports, including family
counseling, family support, intensive mentoring and life
coaching, cognitive behavior therapy, appropriate mental health
and trauma healing services, tutoring and other educational
services, and, in some cases, therapeutic residential options.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to any questions and discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhammad follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony.
All of the testimony was incredibly insightful.
Now, under committee rule 9(a), we are going to question
the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. After the chair and
ranking member, I will recognize members of the subcommittee in
their order of seniority.
Again, to ensure that the 5-minute rule is adhered to,
staff will be keeping track of time and the blinking light will
show when time is expired. Please be attentive to the time and
then remute your microphone.
As chair, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hawkins, as I mentioned in my opening statement, youth
of color and LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in the juvenile
justice system.
For example, data has shown that although LGBTQ+ youth make
up 9.5 percent of the general population, they make up about 20
percent of the youth in the juvenile justice system.
Additionally, in your testimony, you cite research
suggesting that investing in intervention programs to prevent
homelessness results in a reduction of crime. We also know that
vulnerable youth, including youth of color and LGBTQ+ youth,
are more likely to experience housing insecurity and
homelessness.
Do you have ideas, how can we tailor intervention and
diversion programs to meet the unique needs of these youth, and
how do wraparound services like housing assistance help prevent
delinquency and reduce recidivism?
Ms. Hawkins. Thank you for the question, and it is an
important one. As I shared, I know that the research suggests
and really demonstrates that these structural supports are
critical.
To your question about housing, when young people have
transient or insecure housing, that does lead--and research
does show--it leads them to engage in minor crimes. These
crimes then lead them into a formal relationship with the
juvenile justice system.
One of the many ways that we can think about wrap-around
services or prevention, just really thinking about creating
that safety net, so that there is secure housing, that there
are opportunities for vocational education when young people
may not attend a traditional school, that they are able to seek
job skills training.
When I think of wraparound, I think of--I think of secure
homes--excuse me--secure housing, but I also think about all of
the other supports that are needed in terms of vocational
education, public services that are secure and working well.
Those are some of the ways that the structural components
really need to work together to really create those
opportunities for young people.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you so much. I want
to ask Ms. Smoot Evans, in your testimony you highlight the
Perry Preschool Project, and I am grateful that you did this
research study that provided a group of high-risk young people
with quality preschool education.
Access to high quality preschool for all children is a good
investment, which is one of the reasons why it is a top
priority of mine in Congress. Despite efforts by this committee
to advance universal access to early childhood education, this
investment for our country remains unfulfilled and long
overdue.
We have an effort here in Multnomah County in Oregon, a
county-passed measure, but really, with what we have heard
today from you and the other witnesses, it makes such good
sense.
What role do early childhood education programs play in
prevention of juvenile delinquency, Ms. Smoot Evans?
Ms. Smoot Evans. Sure. Thank you for that question.
Preschool education, and particularly quality preschool
education, helps with mental stimulation, right? We know that
the more a child is read to, that their vocabulary is going to
grow, their ability to succeed in educational environments is
going to grow, and that also is going to help us tap down
against the school-to-prison pipeline, right?
The young person is better equipped when they enter
kindergarten, when they enter first grade, to be successful in
the classroom. It gives us a chance to identify some of those
unmet needs that might exist in that young person's life a
little bit earlier.
It is always better to be addressing the root of the
problem as opposed to trying to react to it later on.
Chairwoman Bonamici. I absolutely appreciate that. I want
to ask Mr. Muhammad, do you agree with this premise that
investing in quality early childhood education is a good
investment and that it cannot be done at the local level
because not every jurisdiction is going to be able to do that.
Why should Congress help?
Mr. Muhammad. There is no question that this early on
intervention is critical. And the investments that come from
the Federal Government, even if it is implemented on the local
level, the investments coming from the Federal Government is
extraordinarily important.
The other thing about it being helping saving lives,
develop young people, improve outcomes, it is money-saving,
right? When we stop the expensive expense of incarceration, the
extraordinary expense of a gun shooting, that actually saves
quite a bit of money. $15,000 in prevention can stop $100,000
in incarceration in response to shootings.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much, and I am going to
try to set a good example and yield back, but I just want to
note that the title of our hearing is an ounce of prevention,
and we all know the rest of that saying, is worth a pound of
cure.
I am going to yield back and then recognize Ranking Member
Fulcher for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. In our briefing
material, I noticed that the first juvenile court was put in
place in 1899, not 1999 but 1899. This is not exactly new, and
looking back, prevention was a key component then.
There are at least maybe some hints that we are trying to
do the right things here, but anyway thank you for that, and I
just want to mention and ask your permission to put something
in the record.
We got a very active law enforcement in our State, in
Idaho. In particular, there is a gentleman that was a resource
officer for 13 years who specialized in this, and he has--he
has got a list of things called ``Lessons Learned From Dealing
with High-Risk Teens,'' and I would like to submit that for the
record with your permission, please. It is from Officer Gomez.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Without objection.
Mr. Fulcher. Just as a mention too, Sheriff Donahue has
been heavily involved with this, and he is big on prevention as
well, so we are very thankful for his input.
To questions very briefly, Father Boes, thank you for your
work and for your testimony you shared about Boys Town. I
understand the organization is not directly linked to the
Catholic Church, but the faith-based values have a big impact,
and they drive a lot of the work that you do.
How do you walk that tightrope, and just discuss with us,
if you would, how you can use those values but stay within the
guidelines of the law.
Father Boes. Yes. From its founding, Father Flanagan set up
Boys Town as nondenominational and non-proselytizing. We
support kids in whatever religious faith they have and even no
faith at all. Like on campus, we have a Catholic and a
Protestant church, and a Native American sweat lodge. There are
three synagogues and a mosque within walking distance of
campus.
When we work with kids in the community, we try to connect
them to all resources, including the spiritual ones. We try to
use a body, mind, spirit approach in all we do.
Mr. Fulcher. Just as a followup to that, you also pointed
out the importance, when you partner with schools, how
important it was to have the school leadership on board and
part of that program.
Can you share with us any examples, maybe, of how you make
sure that you are truly working with a partnership and they are
engaged in that partnership?
Father Boes. Yes. We discovered, through our LIFT Together
program, that buy-in from the principal is absolutely
essential. Their commitment of resources, staff development
time, and ongoing consultation is what makes it work.
Principals who show up physically for the training and make
it a school priority are the ones where LIFT Together is the
most successful.
Parental leadership is just as important. We discovered
that, while every parent may not show up for the education and
social skills that is at the heart of LIFT Together, the ones
that do are often the leaders in their school and in their
community and among the young people in their area.
Their homes are often the ones where the kids hang out
after school and on weekends, and their support of the social
skills we teach are important to our success.
We also need buy-in for community leaders. It has got to be
a public-private partnership. We need that to open doors,
provide resources, and gain trust.
Mr. Fulcher. Well, it is a very worthy effort, and I just
want to say thank you to you personally for your work and
everybody else on this. There is not a more worthy effort to
try to support.
Madam Chair, with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much, Ranking Member. I
would recognize Representative Hayes or Representative Bowman.
Your cameras are off. If one of you is ready?
I will recognize Representative Hayes for 5 minutes for
your questions.
Mrs. Hayes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Sorry about that.
Thank you for holding this very important hearing.
To all the witnesses for being here today, thank you.
We have seen decades' worth of targeted investments in
juvenile justice programs work for our children and our
communities. Recent studies have shown that since the passage
of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, arrests
and incarceration rates for youth have fallen by 70 percent.
If we want to continue this trend and support our children,
we here in Congress must be intentional about the resources we
devote to juvenile justice prevention programs and support
programs.
These programs can be as effective as the infrastructure
and resources around them. During the peak of COVID-19, it took
months for some juvenile offenders to be referred for support
services.
In some instances, these youth had already committed
several infractions by the time support services were offered,
and they were incarcerated anyways.
We have a responsibility, not only to these young people
but to our communities, because much of the information out
there as a result of not seeing any actionable steps taken.
We have seen fear-mongering tactics that harm our children
in the long run, and I look forward to just exploring with the
witnesses today about ways that we can be much more proactive
and prospective and put the networks in place.
I can tell you; I was a classroom teacher at a high school
for many years, and there were times where you could anticipate
or predict that something was wrong or a problem was happening,
but really directing young people or families to where to find
the resources was sometimes an even much bigger challenge.
Dr. Hawkins, in your testimony, you describe three levels
of prevention, the first of which is focused on avoiding the
initial occurrence of a problem. Can you talk more about that
first level of prevention and what is needed to avoid
delinquency in the first place?
Ms. Hawkins. Thank you for the question. Yes, primary
prevention. Primary prevention is the level at which we are
really thinking about how do we create secure environments that
allow our young people to thrive. That is the output of primary
prevention.
Research shows that primary prevention, when you target the
underlying structures that place youth at risk to begin with,
is the most effective strategy.
When I think about data and research that I have engaged
in, young people--and I will give you a concrete example. In
the State that I live, North Carolina, there is a recent law,
as of December, where the minimum age at which a young person
can become involved in the juvenile justice system was just
raised from the age of 6 to the age of 10.
Linking the previous conversation about the importance of
high-quality education, we have young children, just as of
December, where they could have been 6, involved in the
juvenile justice system.
If we think about all of the ways in which we can create
structure in their communities that allow them to thrive, both
with secure housing, great quality education, we would see
opportunities to intervene, and that connection with the
juvenile justice system would never have taken place.
Mrs. Hayes. I am really glad to hear you say that, because
I know this to be true. If we have things like supportive
stable housing in place--I heard the chair talk about childcare
and resources--many of the issues that--the behaviors that
occur in young people, I know are because there is a lack of
structure.
Addressing all of those issues that lead to the
instability, that, in turn, leaves these young people as
products of their environment.
Ms. Evans, in your testimony--I have a very short amount of
time--you mentioned most young people who engage in delinquent
behavior will eventually age out as they enter adolescence.
As these children age into the workforce, what support
services do you think would be helpful for lifetime success?
I will just add that I recently had legislation passed for
YouthBuild and programs like that to get kids involved in job
training programs. Do you have any thoughts on that topic?
Ms. Smoot Evans. Sure, thank you. We work, as part of our
work at CJJ, with young folks who are currently incarcerated
and who are also outside in the community, and this is one of
the questions we have been talking about with that group of
young folks. Job training comes right at the top of the list as
part of what do we need to be successful.
Job training, housing supports, help holistically for a
young person in terms of educational opportunities and also in
terms of taking care of their own children.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Right on time. I appreciate that.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative.
Next on my list to recognize is the ranking member of the
full committee, Dr. Foxx. There she is.
Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the witnesses
for being here today.
Father Boes, thank you particularly. We are supposed to be
focused on evidence-based programs, and you have done the best
job of giving us evidence to show what programs work. We have
heard a lot about changing statistics, but you have told us
what programs are aimed at helping children succeed, what
works, and what does not.
Could you share more information about the evaluations you
have done and how you use the results to fine-tune your
program?
Father Boes. Thank you, Representative. Every component of
our LIFT Together program that I talked about is research-
based. For example, our school training component is currently
involved in two federally funded randomized control trials and
is being conducted with several district partners and is
currently recognized by the Every Student Succeeds Act criteria
as having promising research evidence of effectiveness.
The Boys Town Common Sense Parenting module, as listed by
the California evidence-based clearinghouse, is supported by
research evidence of effectiveness. Our In-Home Family Services
is also in that same clearinghouse as having promising evidence
of effectiveness.
We have a team of researchers that keep researching the
modules of our program and the overall program and then
implementing it into practice.
We also learn from our implementation, right, from the
schools. For example, we learn from the schools that having a
Boys Town-trained support specialist physically in every school
greatly improves the implementation of LIFT Together.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you very much. That is very helpful.
Ms. Evans and Dr. Hawkins, we have heard very little
evidence from you or statistics. I will be following up with
you to see if you can provide more specific information. Broad
conversations on programs are not particularly useful in this
context.
Father, it is important that when we talk about helping
children, we keep families at the center of that conversation.
How do you do that in your LIFT Together program? What
challenges have you faced trying to engage the family, and what
have you done to overcome the challenges?
Father Boes. At Boys Town, there is no cookie-cutter
approach. Oftentimes, for example, our family consultants need
to be able to speak the language of the family. They need to
deeply understand the resources available in their area, and
that might be through local churches, cultural organizations,
or social community supports.
We really focus on working with the parents because--
especially those about to be expelled or suspended. Parents
want what is best for their kids. They want to keep them in
school.
We do everything we can by placing a--offering a Boys Town
family consultant to mentor them in their parenting, help them
communicate effectively with parents and administration, and
then connect to community resources. That is how we engage the
community and the parents.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Father. What role do school resource
officers play in helping to keep the students out of the
justice system? Does your program work with them?
Father Boes. We do. When a school or district has an SRO,
we treat them like the other staff. They go through the same
training as the teachers and the janitor and the coaches and
everybody else.
With our LIFT Together model, we are trying to create a
team around the kids, so everybody is on the same page.
That same goes for school security guards, disciplinary
staff assigned to the building. We actually train them
specifically, and SROs, on de-escalation techniques and
effective praise, you know, catching kids being good.
When they discover that the social skills training makes
their job easier and more fun, what we love to see in one of
our schools is the SROs going down the hallway and high-fiving
kids for their positive behaviors. That is when we know we have
made a real difference in the school community and in their
culture.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I appreciate your doing this hearing. I do
think it is important that we focus on evidence-based programs
and hear more about what programs work.
Father Boes, I would like to followup with you a little bit
more also, to talk about how the programs have changed over the
years as we have seen the skyrocketing number of children being
born to single mothers.
I have a strong feeling we are not getting at the real
problem here. The real problem is how many children are being
born to single mothers.
If you are talking about a structure that is needed for
children, the best structure in the world is a two-parent
family. I do not think we have ever found anything to replace
that. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Foxx, and
next, I recognize Representative Bowman for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
to all the witnesses for being here today. I have been
incredibly moved and inspired by all of your testimoneys and
responses to all the questions that have been asked.
Prior to me coming into Congress, I worked in education for
20 years as an elementary teacher, a high school dean of
students, and a middle school principal, and you are all
speaking my love language right now, so thank you so much for
the work that you are doing.
My first question is for Dr. Hawkins. I believe we have a
shared responsibility, all of us, to dismantle the school-to-
prison pipeline. Based on your work and your research and your
experience, what should schools and school districts be
investing in to ensure that our kids do not end up on the
school-to-prison pipeline? Can you speak to where our school
dollars should be going?
Ms. Hawkins. Thank you for the question. I will leave
exactly where the dollars go to you. I will tell you from my
research that we know, and this is fact, that, as I shared
earlier, Black students, who account for 15 percent of the
total school enrollment, are expelled at rates twice their
share of the total school enrollment.
When we see similar statistics, so an evaluation that I did
with the Shelby County School District, so speaking of
evidence-based, we found that there are similar suspension
statistics there.
With that information, we created a suspension diversion
program because we understand that traditional diversion
programs are not helpful; they are not primary prevention.
We were thinking, if these young people are suspended from
school, let us find ways to really address that issue early on.
That is an example of where we use data, where we use our
evaluation findings to really intervene through that school-to-
prison pipeline.
It has been really successful in that these young people
are not unsupervised because they are at home; they are in a
school setting, but it also creates that opportunity for the
educators to continue to support the students that are in their
class.
It is about the structure that we offer within the school
setting.
Mr. Bowman. Dr. Hawkins, you just made me think of the
adult biases that exist within many of the adults who work in
our schools, both explicit and implicit bias. Can you speak to
the implicit and explicit bias that may exist in teacher and
staff training that may lead to some of the high numbers of
suspensions we see amongst Black boys and Black girls as well,
starting as young as preschool?
Ms. Hawkins. I will frame my response in the research that
I have done. We do see that many educators use the school
disciplinary process when they have students that are not
allowing them an effective space to teach.
Rather than figuring out solutions that might allow that
student to remain engaged in school, they will use suspension
as an option because it is an option.
What we do not take into account perhaps, is what happens
when that young person is no longer in that school environment
and what the opportunities are for that young person, when
unsupervised, to engage in behaviors that might find them
connected to the juvenile justice system.
The opportunity, I believe, that we have, and my research
shows, is that there are alternatives that do keep young people
in school, and those alternatives are successful.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that response.
I have a question for Father Boes--Boes. Excuse me if I am
mispronouncing that. First of all, thank you on your work with
Boys Town. I am a male myself, and I remember the challenges I
had growing up as a young man, and to Ranking Member Foxx's
point, I grew up with a single mom, and it was programs like
yours that really were supportive of me, all of the programs
that have been mentioned, supportive of me in my development.
Why do we not have more Boys Towns across the country, and
how do we get there?
Father Boes. Well, I think part of the problem we have at
Boys Town is that our model right now is intensively person to
person, and we probably need to digitalize our training, and we
are in the process of doing that right now.
Mr. Bowman. Awesome.
One last thing. Thank you, Madam Chair. We need some Girls
Towns too, because our young girls are struggling with some
stuff as well.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative Bowman. It
is my understanding that Boys Town does now work with girls as
well.
Next, I recognize Representative Fitzgerald for 5 minutes
for your questions.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair. Fascinating hearing
this morning.
Father Boes, your work is unprecedented, and I just want to
congratulate you on everything that you have been involved with
at Boys Town.
I did have a question about, when we have had discussions,
especially in the committee, about not necessarily youth that
are incarcerated but those that are kind of on the path to
incarceration, that there are some signs that really stand out,
and one of them was literacy, whether or not a child can read,
and whether or not that is measured on a regular basis.
Obviously, that carries on even to recidivism in our
prisons, when they find out that someone cannot read even at a
fifth-grade level.
That was one thing I just wanted you to possibly comment
on.
The other is, in a lot of situations I find in my State, my
district, is, we have a charter school program. Some of those
charter schools are actually within the public school system,
and others are sponsored by other entities like some of the
universities here. One of the things they have learned very
quickly is, if you can find a child that is at risk and then
also introduce them to a work component, give them kind of a
reason--because many of these kids are hands-on versus just,
you know, sitting in a classroom all day--that that oftentimes
can be the life preserver that kind of pulls them out.
Father Boes, I was wondering if you could comment kind of
on those ideas.
Father Boes. Sure. Thanks for the question.
I definitely think that workforce development--which is
part of what we do on campus here especially. We are starting
to do it at our sites a little bit, getting kids some training
and experience.
We have a partnership with Union Pacific here in Omaha to
get people into the workforce, and they are paying for that. We
have welders that we train, and we ship them to Valmont, and
they get to weld for a very high rate of compensation. Yes,
that is important.
I have not seen the statistics on literacy, but it does
make sense to me, that being able to read makes a big
difference in school and how you learn.
Yes, we think that kind of training is important.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
The one other thing I would just offer is, you know, we
have had other types of unique situations. The Rawhide program
in Wisconsin was one that we received some testimony on. It
seems like there is kind of a critical age. I am just wondering
what that is for many adolescent boys, when you know you are
kind of at a point where either, you know, they have to advance
or, you know, they are going to very quickly maybe lose their
footing and suddenly they find themselves in trouble.
Father Boes. Yes, I would say that the younger you can
intervene is always better.
Most of our services at Boys Town, 96 percent of them, are
for kids that are still in their own home and in their own
community and in their own school. That kind of intervention--
if you can catch a kid before they are 12 or 14, then it is a
lot easier, and the long-term trajectory looks a lot better.
If you have to wait until they are 16, sometimes those kids
have to be pulled out of their home, the therapeutic
residential, and that is a tough, tough thing.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. Very good. Thank you for being here
today.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative.
Now I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia, a leader, a longtime
leader, on these issues.
Chairman Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Fitzgerald is absolutely right; reading is a
key component. Mrs. Hayes will tell us that up to the third
grade you learn to read but after the third grade you read to
learn. If you cannot read by the third grade, you cannot learn
after the third grade, you are dropping out. Dropping out is
highly correlated with getting in trouble. Mr. Fitzgerald is
absolutely right. The ability to read is a component we have to
focus on.
Ms. Evans, welcome to Newport News. I notice that you
pointed out how much savings you can generate by proper
investments--5 to 1, 10 to 1, 12 to 1. You can have $12 for
every $1 you spend. Why would anyone fail to do this?
Well, I can tell you. I have been working on prevention
since I was in the State senate and created the legislation,
the Council on Prevention, to get agencies together so that
they could work together and try to capture those savings. What
happens is, the agency spending the money is not the one saving
the money. The local city spends money in a jobs program,
reduces crime; State Department of Corrections saves some
money.
We have to get--one of the things about the Youth PROMISE
Act is that you require everybody to get around the table and
identify who is going to save money and, as they save the
money, get them to kick the money back in so that those
spending the money will have that savings to spend.
Can you talk a little bit more about the value of the Youth
PROMISE Act and the Title V grants in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act?
Ms. Evans. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I think one of the unique things about the Youth PROMISE
grants is that it really gives local communities leverage to do
local work, right? Using Virginia as an example, we have the
Tidewater, we have northern Virginia, we have rural Virginia.
What works for communities in one portion of our State is not
going to work for folks in other portions of our State, and
Youth PROMISE gives local tools to those communities to look at
what works and invest in what works.
It also looks at those proven programs that we have been
talking about. You know, obviously, we need more research so
that we have more programs that are evidence-based, but many of
these already are evidence-based, in terms of afterschool
interventions, early preschool care, you know, helping mom with
a newborn baby. These are proven programs that work.
It also involves a local match in those dollars, which is
unique and different from Title II of the JJDPA. It is, you
know, Federal seed money that then is built upon by the local
government.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Muhammad, you indicated that juveniles are not the
problem with present violence, that most of it is caused by
people in their mid to late 20's. Have you looked behind those
numbers to see how many were unemployed or high school
dropouts, problems that could have been addressed by
investments during the juvenile years?
Mr. Muhammad. Absolutely. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Good
to be with you.
Yes, a large majority, the vast majority of young adults
who have engaged particularly in gun violence, A, had history
in the juvenile justice system; B, have experienced trauma,
engaged in both the juvenile justice and the child welfare
system, have had delinquency--have had discipline and often
maybe expelled or stopped attending school.
There are a number of identifiable risk factors, a
combination of them, when the 13-year-old was a young person
who needed guidance and support and intervention before
becoming the 24-year-old person involved in gun violence. It is
a small number of people, very identifiable risk factors, and
therefore preventable.
If we did a better job of identifying those young people
and having intensive community-based intervention and
engagement with them, we could not only improve their immediate
outcomes but really reduce violence in the long term.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Father Boes, I notice using positive reinforcement rather
than punishment. Can you tell me the difference between the
value of positive reinforcement in the power of reducing bad
behavior as opposed to punishment, which one works better?
Father Boes. Right. The research is real strong: Random,
positive reinforcement is the quickest way to change behavior
for everybody but especially teenagers.
Catching a kid being good, they will remember that all day
long. You know, ``You used that social skill,'' ``You looked at
me when you talked,'' ``You showed respect with your voice
tone,'' all of those are very positive. Yes, that is what makes
a difference in our schools.
Mr. Scott. That punishment is very poor in terms of
actually reducing future problems.
Father Boes. Yes. It lasts for the length of the
punishment, essentially.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Father Boes. Yes, that is what we have discovered. It still
might need to be used, you know, if a kid is totally disrupting
the classroom. Should be a last resort.
Mr. Scott. Well, I will point out that we use punishment.
On incarceration, we are off the chart compared to everywhere
else, so much so that some studies show it is actually
counterproductive. It is not reducing crime any, and you have
too many people raising families with the parents in prison;
you have too many people with felony records who cannot find
jobs. Using so much money that could have been put to good use
but is actually counterproductive. I think we need to learn
that lesson too.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank you for your
indulgence.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Of course, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so
much. We are just doing one last call to see if any other
members are joining, and it appears that there are no other
members on the platform.
I want to remind my colleagues that, pursuant to committee
practice, materials for submission to the hearing record must
be submitted to the committee clerk within 14 days following
the last day of the hearing, so by close of business on
September 22, 2022, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
the hearing. Only a member of the committee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents
longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
an internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk
within the required timeframe, but please recognize that in the
future the link may no longer work.
Pursuant to House rules and regulations, items for the
record should be submitted to the clerk electronically by
emailing submissions to [email protected].
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for your participation
today. Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we ask that you please respond to those
questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
14 days to receive those responses.
I also remind my colleagues that, pursuant to committee
practice, witness questions for the hearing record must be
submitted to the majority committee staff or committee clerk
within 7 days. The questions submitted must also address the
subject matter of the hearing.
I now would like to recognize Ranking Member Fulcher for a
closing statement.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing formal, just a
word of encouragement for everyone. I hope that your efforts
are not going unrecognized.
Personally, I have a heavy bias toward the faith-based
principles. I think that that and the family structure are the
ones that are the most effective. Over the course of time, I
think it has proven its way out. I know that--or I believe that
everybody here, with their efforts, are attempting to have a
positive impact.
There is no greater call than to do that with our youth,
because it is just that important. They are our Ambassadors to
the future, and we need to try to give them the best path
forward as possible.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher.
Again, as I said before, there is much more in common than
different in this important topic. I look forward to working
with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is too
important to set aside and not get done.
Thank you to our witnesses so much for your time and
testimony.
Today, our witnesses made clear that prevention and
intervention are our best tools to decrease youth delinquency.
By connecting children with strong mentors, development
opportunities, and a quality education, these initiatives not
only best support young people, they also save taxpayer money
and keep our communities safer.
I released a report a while back, early in the pandemic,
about the importance of childcare. When we look at those early
investments that we make, we are talking about the cost savings
here. These were different, you know, to save $13 or $12 for $1
spent. I included a quote from Professor James Heckman, a Nobel
Memorial Prize winner in economics. He has found and said,
``Short-term costs are more than offset by the immediate and
long-term benefits to reduction in the need for special
education and remediation, better health outcomes, reduced need
for social services, lower criminal justice costs, and
increased self-sufficiency and productivity among families.''
That was from a University of Chicago economist about the
importance of those early investments in our children.
Further, we have heard how the disparities in the juvenile
justice system cause harm and trauma for the most vulnerable
youth in our Nation. Making sure LGBTQ+ youth and youth of
color receive the same opportunities as their peers, as well as
culturally appropriate services, will deliver on the promise of
the JJDPA to rehabilitate and not further criminalize youth.
Regrettably, as I mentioned, Congress has underfunded the
prevention and intervention programs authorized through the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, limiting the
ability of States and localities to fully implement these
evidence-based programs. I am grateful that Chairman Scott
asked, why? Why is that happening? We have to work on that.
It requires long-term thinking. These are investments that
we make early on that we do not see the benefits of oftentimes
for years, but we know what a good investment it is. As I said
earlier, if we want to keep children out of the justice system
and on a path to success, it is imperative that Congress
provide the necessary funding to make prevention and
intervention priorities.
I am grateful for Chairman Scott's leadership on this
issue, and I look forward to continuing our work to make sure
that every child has the opportunity to succeed. Thank you
again to all of our witnesses. If there is no further business,
without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
[Questions and responses for the record by Ms. Evans
follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
[Questions and responses for the record by Mr. Muhammad
follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT