[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 42 (Thursday, March 21, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E353-E355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INTRODUCTION OF THE YOUTH PROMISE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 21, 2013

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones, to introduce the ``Youth 
Prison Reduction through Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education 
Act'', or ``Youth PROMISE Act'' (YPA), a bill we believe will greatly 
reduce crime and its associated costs and losses. Senator Landrieu of 
Louisiana and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania have indicated their intent 
to file companion YPA legislation in the Senate.
  The Youth PROMISE Act implements the best policy recommendations from 
crime policy makers, researchers, practitioners, analysts, and law 
enforcement officials from across the political spectrum concerning 
evidence- and research-based strategies to reduce gang violence and 
crime. Under the Youth PROMISE Act, communities facing the greatest 
youth gang and crime challenges will be able to enact a comprehensive, 
coordinated response and intervention that includes the active 
involvement of representatives from law enforcement, court services, 
schools, social service organizations, health and mental health care 
providers, the business community, and other public and private 
community-based service organizations, including faith-based 
organizations. These key players will form a council to develop a 
comprehensive plan for implementing evidence-based prevention and 
intervention strategies for young people who are involved, or at risk 
of becoming involved, in gangs, delinquency, or the juvenile or 
criminal justice system to redirect them toward productive and law-
abiding alternatives.
  Title I: Federal Coordination of Local and Tribal Juvenile Justice 
Information and Efforts. Sec. 101 creates a PROMISE Advisory Panel. 
This Panel will assist the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention in selecting PROMISE community grantees. The Panel will also 
develop standards for the evaluation of juvenile delinquency and 
criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention approaches 
carried out under the PROMISE Act. Sec. 102 provides for specific data 
collection in each designated geographic area to assess the needs and 
existing resources for juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang 
activity prevention and intervention. This data will then facilitate 
the strategic geographic allocation of resources provided under the Act 
to areas of greatest need for assistance.
  Title II: PROMISE Grants. Sec. 202 establishes grants to enable local 
and tribal communities, via PROMISE Coordinating Councils (PCCs) (Sec. 
203), to conduct an objective assessment (Sec. 204) regarding juvenile 
delinquency and criminal street gang activity and resource needs and 
strengths in the community. The assessment will include an estimate of 
the total amount spent in the previous year by the community and other 
entities for the incarceration of offenders who committed offenses in 
the community. Based upon the assessment, the PCCs will then develop 
plans that include a broad array of evidence-based prevention and 
intervention programs. These programs will be responsive to the needs 
and strengths of the community, account for the community's cultural 
and linguistic needs, and utilize approaches that have been proven to 
be effective in reducing involvement in or continuing involvement in 
delinquent conduct or criminal street gang activity. The PCCs can then 
apply for federal funds, on the basis of greatest need, to implement 
their PROMISE plans (Sec. 211-213). In addition, each PCC will be 
required to identify cost savings sustained from investing in 
prevention and intervention practices and explain how those savings 
will be reinvested in the continuing implementation of the PROMISE Plan 
(Sec. 212). Title II also provides for national evaluation of PROMISE 
programs and activities (Sec. 223) based on performance standards 
developed by the PROMISE Advisory Panel.
  Title III: PROMISE Research Center. Sec. 301 establishes a National 
Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. This Center will 
collect and disseminate information to PROMISE Coordinating Councils 
and the public on current research and other information about 
evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency 
and criminal street gang activity and intervention. Sec. 302 provides 
for regional academic research partners to assist PCCs in developing 
their assessments and plans.
  During my more than 30 years of public service, I have learned that 
when it comes to crime policy, we have a choice--we can reduce crime, 
or we can play politics. For far too long, Congress has chosen to play 
politics by enacting so-called ``tough on crime'' slogans such as 
``three strikes and you're out'', ``mandatory minimum sentencing'', 
``life without parole'', ``abolish parole'' or ``you do the adult 
crime, you do the adult time''. My personal favorite is ``no cable TV 
in prisons.'' You can imagine the cable guy disconnecting the cable and 
then waiting for the crime rate to drop. As appealing as these policies 
may sound, their impacts range from a negligible reduction in crime to 
an increase in crime.
  In spite of the counterproductive nature of these ``tough on crime'' 
laws, over the past two decades, Congress has continued to enact 
slogan-based sentencing policies. As a result, the United States now 
has the highest average incarceration rate of any nation in the world. 
At over 700 persons incarcerated for every 100,000 in the population, 
the U.S. far exceeds the world average incarceration rate of about 100 
per 100,000. Russia is the next closest in rate of incarceration with 
about 600 per 100,000 citizens. No other nation is even close. Among 
countries most comparable to the U.S., Great Britain is 153 per 
100,000, Australia is 129, Canada is 116, Germany is 95, France is 89, 
and Japan is 63. India, the world's largest Democracy, is 33 per 
100,000 and China, the world's largest country by population, is 119 
per 100,000. Since 1970, the number of individuals incarcerated in the 
U.S. has risen from approximately 300,000 to over 2 million.
  This increase in incarceration does not come for free. Since 1980, 
the cost of corrections in this country has risen from about $7 billion 
annually to over $68 billion a year.
  And the U.S. has some of the world's most severe punishments for 
crime, including for juveniles. Of the more than 2400 juveniles now 
serving sentences of life without parole, ALL are in the U.S. Some were 
given their sentence as first-time offenders under circumstances such 
as being a passenger in a car from which there was a drive-by shooting.
  The impact of all this focus on tough law enforcement approaches 
falls disproportionately on minorities, particularly Blacks and 
Hispanics. While the incarceration rate in the United States is 
approximately 700 per 100,000, for Blacks the average rate is over 2200 
per 100,000, and the rate in some jurisdictions exceeds 4,000 per 
100,000 Blacks, a rate 40 times the international average. For Black 
boys being born today, the Sentencing

[[Page E354]]

Project estimates that one in every three will end up incarcerated in 
their lifetime without an appropriate intervention. These children are 
on what the Children's Defense Fund has described as a ``cradle-to-
prison pipeline.''
  Despite all of our concentration on being tough on crime, the problem 
persists, and reports suggest that it is growing in some jurisdictions. 
While nothing in the Youth PROMISE Act eliminates any of the current 
tough on crime laws, and while it is understood that law enforcement 
will still continue to enforce those laws, research and analysis, as 
well as common sense, tells us that no matter how tough we are on the 
people we prosecute today, unless we are addressing the underlying 
reasons for why they develop into serious criminals, nothing will 
change. The next wave of offenders will simply replace the ones we 
incarcerate, and the crimes continue. So, just continuing to be 
``tough'' will have little long term impact on crime.
  There is now overwhelming evidence to show that it is entirely 
feasible to move children from a cradle to prison pipeline to a cradle 
to college and career pipeline. All the credible research and evidence 
shows that a continuum of evidenced-based prevention and intervention 
programs for youth identified as being at risk of involvement in 
delinquent behavior, and those already involved, will greatly reduce 
crime and save much more than they cost when compared to the avoided 
law enforcement and social welfare expenditures. There are programs for 
teen pregnancy prevention, prenatal care, new parent training, nurse 
home visits, Head Start, quality education, after-school programs, 
summer recreation and jobs, guaranteed college scholarships, and job-
training that have been scientifically proven to cost-effectively 
reduce crime. And the research reveals that these programs are most 
effective when provided in the context of a coordinated, collaborative 
local strategy involving law enforcement, social services and other 
local public and private entities working with children identified as 
at risk of involvement in the criminal justice system. This is what the 
Youth PROMISE Act supports.
  Aside from reducing crime and providing better results in the lives 
of our youth, many of these programs funded under the Youth PROMISE Act 
will save more money than they cost. We know this because it has 
already been done at the state level. For example, the state of 
Pennsylvania implemented similar type programs in 100 communities 
across the state using a process very similar to the one provided for 
in the Youth PROMISE Act. The state invested $60 million over a ten 
year period, and as a result of the programs implemented, the state 
yielded a savings of $300 million. In other words, the state found that 
it saved, on average, $5 for every $1 spent during the study period.

  The bill is supported by 53 original co-sponsors and a coalition of 
over 250 national, state and local government, professional, civil 
rights, education and religious organizations listed below, a list that 
continues to grow. We know how to reduce crime, and we know that we can 
do it in a way that saves much more money than it costs. Our children, 
victims of crime, taxpayers and our economy can no longer afford for us 
to delay adoption of the Youth PROMISE Act. So, I ask my colleagues to 
join me in passing this bill and seeing to it that it is quickly 
enacted into law.

             Organizations Supporting the Youth PROMISE Act


                         National Organizations

       African American Ministers in Action; Afterschool Alliance; 
     Alliance for Children and Families; American Academy of Child 
     and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP); American Bar Association; 
     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); American Correctional 
     Association; American Council of Chief Defenders; American 
     Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO; American 
     Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Friends Service 
     Committee (AFSC); American Jewish Congress; American 
     Probation and Parole Association; American Psychological 
     Association; Asian American Justice Center; ASPIRA, Inc.; 
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Boy Scouts of America; 
     Boys and Girls Clubs of America; Campaign for Youth Justice.
       Catholic Charities USA; Center for Children's Law and 
     Policy; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense 
     Fund; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human 
     Needs; Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional 
     Learning (CASEL); Correctional Education Association; Council 
     for Educators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth; Council for 
     Opportunity in Education; Council of Juvenile Correctional 
     Administrators (CJCA); Democrats for Education Reform; Family 
     Justice; Federal CURE; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; First 
     Five Years Fund; First Focus Campaign for Children; Girls 
     Inc.; Immigrant Justice Network; Institute for Community 
     Peace.
       Justice Policy Institute; Juvenile Justice Trainers 
     Association; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of 
     Young Voters; Legal Action Center; Lutheran Immigration and 
     Refugee Service; Mennonite Central Committee Washington 
     Office; Mental Health America; Mexican American Legal Defense 
     & Educational Fund (MALDEF); National Advocacy Center of the 
     Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National African-American Drug 
     Policy Coalition, Inc.; National Alliance of Black School 
     Educators; National Alliance to End Homelessness; National 
     Alliance for Faith and Justice; National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Association 
     of Blacks in Criminal Justice; National Association of 
     Counties (NACo); National Association of Criminal Defense 
     Lawyers.
       National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies; 
     National Association of Secondary School Principals; National 
     Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials (NBC-LEO); National 
     Black Police Association; National Center for Youth Law; 
     National Consortium of TASC (Treatment Accountability for 
     Safer Communities) Programs; National Council for Community 
     Behavioral Health National Council of La Raza; National 
     Council on Crime and Delinquency; National Council on 
     Educating Black Children; National Council of Juvenile and 
     Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); National Council for Urban 
     (Formations) Peace, Justice and Empowerment; National 
     Education Association; National Federation of Families for 
     Children's Mental Health; National Head Start Association; 
     National Hire Network; National Immigration Project of the 
     National Lawyers Guild.
       National Juvenile Defender Center; National Juvenile 
     Detention Association; National Juvenile Justice Network; 
     National Network for Youth; National Organization of Black 
     Law Enforcement (NOBLE); National Organization of Concerned 
     Black Men, Inc.; National Partnership for Juvenile Services; 
     National Parent Teacher Association (PTA); National Trust for 
     the Development of African-American Men; National Urban 
     League; National Women's Law Center; Open Society Policy 
     Center; The Peace Alliance; Penal Reform International; 
     pre[k]now; Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office; 
     Prison Legal News; Prisons Foundation; Restorative Community 
     Foundation.
       Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Southern Poverty Law 
     Center; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; The Academy of 
     Criminal Justice Sciences, Law and Policy Section; The 
     Rebecca Project for Human Rights; The School Social Work 
     Association of America; The Sentencing Project; The Student 
     Peace Alliance; Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA); 
     Time Dollar Youth Court; TimeBanks USA; Unitarian 
     Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United Methodist 
     Church, General Board of Church and Society; United 
     Neighborhood Centers of America; U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors; U.S. Dream Academy; U.S. Psychiatric 
     Rehabilitation Association (USPRA); VOICES for America's 
     Children; W. Haywood Burns Institute; Washington Office on 
     Latin America; Youth Law Center; Youth Matter America.


                     State and Local Organizations

       Alabama: Alabama Youth Justice Coalition; Equal Justice 
     Initiative; Southern Juvenile Defender Center; Southern 
     Poverty Law Center; VOICES for Alabama's Children; Parents, 
     Youth, Children and Family Training Institute. Arizona: 
     Children's Action Alliance. California: Alturas Mas Altas; 
     Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of Restorative Justice; 
     Asian Law Caucus; Barrios Unidos--Santa Cruz Chapter; 
     California Public Defenders Association City and County of 
     San Francisco; City of Los Angeles; City of Pasadena; Contra 
     Costa County Public Defender's Office; Everychild Foundation; 
     Faith Communities for Families and Children; Homies Unidos; 
     Juvenile Court Judges of California; Juvenile Probation 
     Commission of San Francisco, L.A. Unified School District; 
     L.A. Youth Justice Coalition; Leaders in Community 
     Alternatives, Inc.; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; San 
     Francisco Youth Commission. Colorado: The Pendulum 
     Foundation. Connecticut: Connecticut Juvenile Justice 
     Alliance; Families Moving Forward; The Poor People's 
     Alliance, Connecticut Chapter. Delaware: Delaware Center 
     for Justice (DE). District of Columbia: Young America 
     Works Public Charter School; Columbia Heights Shaw Family 
     Collaborative; DC Alliance of Youth Advocates; DC NAACP 
     Youth Council; Facilitating Leadership in Youth (FLY); 
     Justice for DC Youth; Latin American Youth Center; Life 
     Pieces to Masterpieces, Inc. Florida: Children's Campaign, 
     Inc.; Florida Public Defender Association, Inc.; Florida 
     Public Defender, Fourth Judicial Circuit; Florida Families 
     for Fair Sentences; Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office. 
     Illinois: ACLU of Illinois; Chicago Area Project; John 
     Howard Association of Illinois, Juvenile Justice 
     Initiative of Illinois, Midwest Juvenile Defender Center, 
     PTA of Illinois, United in Peace, Inc. Kansas: H.O.P.E., 
     Inc. Kansas CURE. Louisiana: Families & Friends of La.'s 
     Incarcerated Children; Juvenile Justice Project of 
     Louisiana. Maryland: Advocates for Children and Youth; 
     CASA of Maryland, Inc.; Fusion Partnerships, Inc.; 
     Identity, Inc.; Law Office of Anthony J. Keber; Maryland 
     CURE; Maryland Department of Juvenile Services; Maryland 
     Juvenile Justice Coalition; Maryland Office of the Public 
     Defender; Public Justice Center. Massachusetts: Charles 
     Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice; Citizens 
     for Juvenile Justice; Youth Advocacy Project of the 
     Committee for Public Counsel Services. Michigan: Michigan 
     After-School Partnership; Michigan Council on Crime and 
     Delinquency.

[[Page E355]]

     Minnesota: Minnesota Juvenile Justice Coalition. 
     Mississippi: Mississippi CURE; Mississippi Youth Justice 
     Project. Nebraska: VOICES for Children in Nebraska. New 
     Hampshire: New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense 
     Lawyers. New Jersey: New Jersey Association on Correction. 
     New Mexico: County of Santa Fe; New Mexico Council on 
     Crime and Delinquency; New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers 
     Association. New York: Center for Community Alternatives; 
     Central American Legal Assistance; City of New York; City 
     of New York Department of Juvenile Justice; Correctional 
     Association of New York; The Fortune Society; Juvenile 
     Justice Center of Suffolk University Law School; Quad A 
     For KIDS / A Rochester Area Community Foundation 
     Initiative. North Carolina: ACLU of North Carolina; Action 
     for Children North Carolina; Council for Children's 
     Rights; UNC Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of North 
     Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. Ohio: ACLU of Ohio; 
     Franklin County Public Defender; Hispanic Urban Minority 
     Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Program; Juvenile 
     Justice Coalition; Peace in the Hood; United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; VOICES for Ohio's 
     Children. Oregon: Partnership for Safety and Justice. 
     Pennsylvania: Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania; 
     Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico 
     Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Rhode Island: The 
     Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence. South 
     Carolina: Alston Wilkes Society; The Children's Trust of 
     South Carolina. South Dakota: Parents Who Care Coalition. 
     Tennessee: Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. 
     Texas: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. Utah: Utah 
     Commission on Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice. 
     Virginia: Barrios Unidos--Virginia Chapter; Families & 
     Allies of Virginia's Youth; JustChildren; Keeping Our Kids 
     Safe: The Newport News Violence Prevention Network; Mid-
     Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center, Juvenile Law and Policy 
     Clinic, University of Richmond School of Law; Richmond 
     Peace Education Center; The Center for Community 
     Development, Inc.; The Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity 
     Project (S.T.O.P.); The S.T.O.P. Family Investment Center 
     at Oakmont North; Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice; 
     Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education; 
     Virginia Commonwealth University Center for School-
     Community Collaboration; Virginia CURE (VA); Virginia 
     Department of Juvenile Justice. Washington: Washington 
     Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington 
     Defender Association; Washington Defender Association's 
     Immigration Project. Wisconsin: ATTIC Correctional 
     Services, Inc.; Wisconsin Council on Children and 
     Families.


                          Local Jurisdictions

       City of East Cleveland (OH); City of Hampton (VA); City of 
     Los Angeles (CA); City of New York (NY); City of Newport News 
     (VA); City of Norfolk (VA); City of Pasadena (CA); City of 
     Philadelphia (PA); City of Pittsburgh (PA); City of 
     Portsmouth (VA); City of Richmond (VA); City of San Francisco 
     (CA); City and County of San Francisco (CA); County of Santa 
     Fe (NM);


                    Elected Officials and Academics

       Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles (CA); Donna 
     M. Bishop, Northeastern University (MA); Susan J. Carstens, 
     Psy.D., L.P. Juvenile Specialist, Crystal Police Dept. (MN); 
     The Honorable Toni Harp, Connecticut State Senator; The 
     Honorable Alice L. Bordsen, North Carolina State 
     Representatives; Jolanta Juszkiewicz, Ph.D., American 
     University (D.C.); The Honorable Kelvin Roldan, Connecticut 
     State Representative; Tony Roshan Samara, George Mason 
     University (VA); Earle Williams, Psy.D. Hampton University, 
     (VA); Aaron Kupchik, Ph.D., University of Delaware.

                          ____________________