[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 12, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-399 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Major R. Owens, New York
California Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Judy Biggert, Illinois John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
John Kline, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Cathy McMorris, Washington Tim Ryan, Ohio
Kenny Marchant, Texas Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tom Price, Georgia John Barrow, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio, Chairman
Cathy McMorris, Washington Vice Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Chairman Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Tim Ryan, Ohio
Bob Inglis, South Carolina George Miller, California, ex
Luis P. Fortuno, Puerto Rico officio
John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 12, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 5
Tiberi, Hon. Patrick J., Chairman, Subcommittee on Select
Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce........ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Osborne, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Moore, Richard G., Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Planning
Division, Iowa Department of Human Rights, Des Moines, IA.. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
O'Grady, Dr. Michael J., Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Sallee, Marguerite, President and CEO, America's Promise--The
Alliance for Youth, Washington, DC......................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Shubilla, Laura, President, Philadelphia Youth Network,
Philadelphia, PA........................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Steinberg, Dr. Laurence, Distinguished University Professor,
Director, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA............................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
----------
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Select Education
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick Tiberi
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiberi, McMorris, Osborne, Porter,
Inglis, Fortuno, Davis, and Ryan.
Staff Present: Kevin Frank, professional staff member; Lucy
House, legislative assistant; Alexa Marrero, press secretary;
Krisann Pearce, deputy director of education and human
resources policy; Whitney Rhoades, professional staff member;
Deborah Samantar, clerk; Kevin Smith, communications director;
Denise Forte, legislative associate/education; Ricardo
Martinez, legislative associate/education; and Joe Novotny,
legislative assistant/education.
Chairman Tiberi. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on Select Education of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce will come to order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on the coordination
among Federal youth development programs.
Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they
may be included in the hearing record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record
remain open for 14 days to allow Member statements and other
materials referenced here during the hearing to be submitted in
the official hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Good morning and welcome. Thank you all for being here
today.
I want to thank our witnesses, both panels, for taking time
to appear before the Subcommittee today on relatively short
notice, to share your insights and your experience regarding
issues surrounding Federal youth development programs, and
offer suggestions as to where this Congress can go to assist
the efficient and effective operation of these programs.
I look forward to the testimony from all of you.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and
colleague, Congressman Tom Osborne, for an opening statement. I
will yield my time to him. It is a pleasure to have him join us
on the Select Education Subcommittee today.
We came to Congress together in 2000, shared space next to
each other on the fifth floor of the Cannon Building. I have
great respect for the Coach on many levels, and thank you for
your involvement in this issue. I yield to you as much time as
you may consume.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Patrick J. Tiberi
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Tiberi, Chairman, Subcommittee on Select
Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning and welcome. Thank you all for being here today.
I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to appear before
the subcommittee today, on relatively short notice, to share insights
and experiences regarding issues surrounding federal youth development
programs, and offer suggestions as to where Congress can assist the
efficient and effective operation of these programs.
I look forward to your testimony.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague,
Coach Tom Osborne. It is my pleasure to have him join us on the Select
Education Subcommittee today.
I first had the privilege to work with Coach as part of the same
freshman class, and as neighbors on the 5th floor of the Cannon House
Office Building.
I have a great respect for Coach on many levels and I commend his
leadership on the topic of our hearing today--coordination among
federal youth development programs. And hearing no objection, I would
like to yield my remaining time to Mr. Osborne for a statement.
______
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still on the
fifth floor and you have moved on to better things, I guess.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Osborne. I thank you for allowing me to sit in on this
Committee, and I'm obviously not a Member of the Committee,
Subcommittee.
The genesis of today's hearing is the report of the White
House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, which was issued in
December 2003.
Among other things, the report said the following: roughly
one-fourth of U.S. adolescents are at risk of not achieving
productive adulthood. I think everyone realizes that we have a
great deal of dysfunction, family dysfunction. We have problems
with drugs and alcohol. We have violence. We have promiscuity
issues.
A great number of young people are not doing very well at
the present time.
There are many Federal programs designed to help vulnerable
young people, roughly 150. That's a rough figure. It is an
awful lot of them. There is obviously concern on the part of
the Federal Government to help disadvantaged youth.
However, there is little rigorous examination of the
effectiveness of these programs. Few have quantifiable clear
goals.
There is considerable overlap and duplication of these
programs, which is spread over roughly 12 different Federal
agencies. Many of the programs have evolved into initiatives
which has strayed far from the intent of the initial
authorizing legislation.
In many cases, program managers are prevented from
communicating with other managers of similar programs by
statute. They can't legally even coordinate.
We think this needs to be addressed. The Government
Accountability Office report of 1997 calls the Federal response
to youth failure a perfect example of, and I quote, ``mission
fragmentation.''
The GAO recommends that programs with similar goals, target
populations and services be coordinated, consolidated, or
streamlined, and that's what our proposed legislation attempts
to do.
A large number of youth serving groups approached me,
Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman Ford and Payne, to introduce
legislation based on recommendations of the White House Task
Force on Disadvantaged Youth.
I will just take a couple more minutes to describe the
basic nuts and bolts of this Act.
The Federal Youth Coordination Act creates the Federal
Youth Development Council, and this would include members of 16
youth serving agencies, as well as disadvantaged youths
themselves. We think it is important that we have young people
who are in the system, who are in some cases not being served
well, also be on the Council to provide input.
The duties of the Council are as follows: No. 1, evaluate
youth serving programs. No. 2, coordinate among Federal
agencies with youth serving programs.
No. 3, improve Federal programs that serve at risk youth,
such as foster care, homeless, educationally challenged young
people, and so on.
No. 4, recommend ways to coordinate and improve programs in
an annual report.
Right now, there is no annual written document that has
anything to do with how well these programs are doing.
I think maybe the last two points are the most important.
No. 5, set quantifiable goals and objectives for Federal youth
programs and develop a plan to reach these goals.
In other words, each one of these programs should have
measurable, quantifiable goals with a plan to hit the goal. If
you don't know what the target is, you are not going to hit it.
If you don't have a plan to get there, you will not reach it.
This legislation requires these agencies to go through this
process and to do these things.
No. 6, hold Federal agencies accountable for achieving
results. Accountability in Government many times is lacking. We
think this legislation serves a very definite purpose. The
objective is to serve more young people more efficiently than
we currently do, and we think this will do this.
I might mention that the administration certainly has done
some good things, and they are attempting to address some of
these problems, but Administrations come and go. We need
continuity.
Certainly, there are many things that are not currently
being done even under this administration, which is attempting
to do some of the things that were reported by the Task Force.
Last, let me just say this. There are 185 organizations
supporting this legislation. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to
submit a list of those organizations for the record, and with
that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Tom Osborne
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Tom Osborne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska
Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank you for allowing me to join your Subcommittee for
today's very important hearing on federal youth development and
coordination efforts. I have long advocated for a stronger emphasis at
the federal level on youth development programming because I believe it
is critically important in order to help our young people grow up to be
healthy and strong.
The genesis of today's hearing is in the report of the White House
Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth. Although the final report was issued
several years ago, I believe that the Task Force report and its
thoughtful analysis and recommendations deserve a hearing and
discussion in Congress. Although the Executive Branch is charged with
implementing youth programs, Congress creates many of these programs
and funds them. We need to know that our efforts are producing the best
results for young people in the United States.
The White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth noted a number of
facts about America's young people and the programs that serve them:
The National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-
quarter of adolescents in this country--almost 10 million teens--are at
serious risk of not achieving productive adulthood.
Most young people will grow up just fine without
government involvement, but that the most vulnerable young people may
be missed by programs designed to help them. Worse, the programs we
think will help them may, in fact, not and that there is a serious lack
of rigorous evaluation of federal youth efforts.
A large number of youth-serving programs are targeting
large numbers of youth subgroups. These services and target populations
often overlap.
The current federal response to youth failure is
convoluted and complex, and is a perfect example of what the GAO has
called ``mission fragmentation.'' The GAO recommends that programs with
similar goals, target populations, and services be coordinated,
consolidated, or streamlined as appropriate, to ensure that goals are
consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.
The White House Task Force identified a number of goals and changes
that, if implemented, would help to better coordinate the hundreds of
programs across 12 federal departments that serve or at least partially
serve youth. The three largest youth-serving agencies are the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Education.
To support these efforts, in February of this year, I, along with
my colleagues Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Payne, introduced H.R.
856, the Federal Youth Coordination Act, which was crafted to help
implement many of the recommendations of the White House Task Force on
Disadvantaged Youth.
The Federal Youth Coordination Act creates the Federal Youth
Development Council to evaluate, coordinate, and improve federal youth
serving programs and hold federal agencies accountable for achieving
results.
The duties of the Council include:
Evaluating youth serving programs
Coordinating among federal agencies with programs serving
youth
Improving federal programs that serve at-risk youth
Recommending ways to coordinate and improve youth serving
programs in an annual report on federal youth development programs
Setting quantifiable goals and objectives for federal
youth programs and developing a plan to reach these goals
Holding federal agencies accountable for achieving
results.
America's young people deserve high quality, effective, and
meaningful youth development programs. Our nation's taxpayers deserve
their tax dollars to be spent on high-quality, effective and meaningful
youth development programs. The Federal Youth Coordination Act
addresses the disconnect between these two objectives.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to join your
Subcommittee today and to give this opening statement. I would like to
thank all the witnesses and the youth development advocates who have
supported this hearing. I am very much looking forward to hearing from
our witnesses and moving forward with efforts to improve federal youth
development activities.
______
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership,
Coach Osborne, on this issue.
Unfortunately, our Ranking Member is stuck in Texas because
of bad weather, but we have a pretty good fill in for
Representative Hinojosa, so I will recognize Mr. Davis for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
hope that the weather will change so that the Ranking Member
can in fact get here this week. He is indeed stuck deep in the
heart of Texas. I am pleased to fill in for him.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling for this
hearing today. I also thank each one of our witnesses for
taking the time to come to Washington to testify.
Many times in our national discussions and debates, we
discuss the poor, the young, the old, the sick, the unemployed,
but often times we forget about the middle. That is the ones
who are no longer children but not yet adults, our nation's
adolescents.
As one who began teaching Sunday School when I was 12 years
old and who spent many of my early years as a middle school and
high school counselor, and as one who has worked with many
organizations and groups such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters,
youth clubs, youth organizations, and who has simply come into
contact with young people, my home has always been sort of a
haven for young people, and even as I was a kid growing up with
ten brothers and sisters, my parents' home and our house was a
haven for young people.
In many ways, I would certainly agree that the odds are
often stacked against this age group.
Homicide is the second leading cause of death among young
people ages 10 to 24 overall. Yet, many people in our society
really don't have much wind of this. In this age group, it is
the leading cause of death for African Americans and the second
leading cause of death for Hispanics.
In 2001, 5,486 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered, an
average of 15 each day.
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young
people ages 15 to 24. In 2001, 3,971 suicides were reported in
this group.
According to the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged
Youth, in 2003, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that
one-quarter of the adolescents in this country are at serious
risk of not achieving productive adulthood. Nationally, three
of ten young people who enter public high school do not
graduate 4 years later. The graduation rate is only 50 percent
for Hispanic, African American, and Native American youth.
I want to thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska,
Congressman Osborne, for introducing H.R. 856, the Federal
Youth Coordination Act, and shedding additional light on the
need for more discussion, more action, for the health and well
being of our nation's young.
I have always been led to believe that the greatness of a
society can be determined on how well it looks after its old,
how well it looks after those who have difficulty caring for
themselves, and how well it looks after and prepares its young
for adulthood and continuing life.
I welcome this hearing and thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
for calling this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you.
We have two panels of witnesses today. I would like to
remind all panelists that we have a 5-minute limit that we will
go by today.
I will begin by introducing the distinguished witnesses on
our first panel, Dr. Michael O'Grady, Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, and is the principal advisor to the Secretary on
policy development and health disability, aging, human
services, science and data.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary has played a
coordinating function for many of the ongoing interdepartmental
efforts addressing youth issues.
Currently, Dr. O'Grady serves as chairman of the
Interagency Work Group on the Community Guide for Helping
America's Youth.
Prior to his appointment, Dr. O'Grady served as the senior
health economist on the majority staff of the Joint Economic
Committees of the U.S. Congress. At the Committee, his work
focused primarily on Medicare reform, the uninsured, and other
national health issues.
Dr. O'Grady, thank you for being here. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL J. O'GRADY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
PLANNING AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. O'Grady. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased
to appear before you to discuss the important issue of
coordinating our Federal efforts to improve the lives of youth.
The President showed his commitment to our nation's most
vulnerable children and adolescents when he established the
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. He asked the
Task Force to assess how Federal agencies might work more
effectively to improve youth outcomes.
I'm here today to report on the administration's progress
in implementing the Task Force's final recommendations. I will
also discuss the President's and First Lady's most recent youth
initiative, Helping America's Youth.
There is much good news to report on behalf of young
Americans. Almost 72 million children in this country are doing
well. They are being well prepared to take on the
responsibilities of adulthood-self sufficiency, marriage and
family, and civic engagement.
However, while many American children and youth are
thriving in their families and communities, there are still far
too many who are struggling and are at risk.
In December 2002, the President established the White House
Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. The President appointed 11
different Federal agencies to the Task Force. He asked them to
review all the existing Federal programs that served youth and
then to make recommendations for improving agency
effectiveness.
The Task Force concluded that the best way to get the
greatest outcome for disadvantaged youth was to focus on four
goals.
First, better management. Second, better accountability.
Third, better parent/child connections, and fourth, giving
priority to the neediest youth.
We are pleased to report that much has already been done to
implement the Task Force recommendations. Progress has been
made on all four goals.
Since today's discussion addresses coordination, I will
focus my comments on our efforts to improve interagency
coordination.
The report recommended that interagency coordination should
be accomplished around topic areas or special target
populations. This is the approach we have taken to date, and we
think it is working well.
The needs of young people, particularly disadvantaged
youth, are complex. A responsive Federal youth policy often
requires the resources and expertise of multiple agencies.
However, depending on the issue at hand, this may mean a
different subset of agencies.
For example, when we are addressing the impact of
television marketing on youth obesity, we involve the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Trade
Commission, and possibly even the Federal Communications
Commission. But this project is unlikely to have a meaningful
role for an agency such as the Department of Justice.
In my written testimony, I describe how we are addressing
the specific coordination identified in the report. For
example, the Task Force identified the need to focus on youth
aging out of foster care.
I am pleased to report that the Department of Labor, the
Department of Health and Human Services, Education and Justice
have responded to this call by developing a national initiative
to improve Federal, state and local services for these youth.
To provide ongoing support for departmental coordination,
the Domestic Policy Council held periodic meetings to monitor
the progress the agencies have made.
In addition, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention has selected 13 Task Force
recommendations and made them the work of that council.
In my testimony, I have focused on where Federal agencies
have been working together, but they have also been each
working individually to implement recommendations in other
areas, such as improving the quality and comprehensiveness of
our Federal research on youth and youth programs.
The release of the Task Force report did not mark the end
of our Federal efforts at coordination or the President's
concern about helping disadvantaged youth.
Most recently, the President and Mrs. Bush launched the
Helping America's Youth initiative. This initiative seeks to
highlight effective community based programs in the three most
important parts of children's and teens' lives, their families,
their schools and their communities.
At a conference this Fall, the First Lady will unveil the
Community Guide for Helping America's Youth. The guide, or
tool, as it is known within the different departments, is being
developed collaboratively by seven different departments.
It will provide information on youth development and
community partnerships, as well as highlighting programs that
have shown some promise of helping youth. It will help
communities build partnerships, assess their needs and
resources, and select the best programs to help their children
and adolescents.
The development of the HAY tool has been a great example of
how the agencies can be most productive when they collaborate
around a well specified task.
In conclusion, I thank you for your interest in the
coordination of youth programs. I know we share a vision of the
goals we have for America's youth. I hope we can continue to
work together to make this vision a reality.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Michael J. O'Grady follows:]
Statement of Dr. Michael J. O Grady, Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important
issue of coordinating our Federal efforts to improve the lives of
youth, particularly those young people who need our help the most. The
President showed his commitment to our nation's most vulnerable
children and adolescents when he established the White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth and asked the Task Force to assess how Federal
agencies might work more effectively to improve youth outcomes. I'm
here today to discuss the Administration's progress in implementing the
Task Force's final recommendations. I will also briefly discuss the
President and the First Lady's most recent youth initiative--Helping
America's Youth (HAY). HAY is aimed at highlighting effective youth
programs and providing information to communities on how they can come
together to implement the best strategies for addressing the challenges
their young people are facing.
There is much good news to report on behalf of young Americans.
Most of the 72 million children in this country are doing well.\1\
Within the context of their families and communities, they are being
well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of adulthood--self-
sufficiency, marriage and family, and civic engagement. More than two-
thirds are living with two married parents. They feel connected to
their parents and their schools, and these connections are helping them
avoid behaviors that risk their current and future health and well-
being. They are showing a commitment to their communities, with 27
percent of older teens volunteering to help in their neighborhoods or
through service organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data sources for this section include: U.S. Census Bureau;
``Trends in the Well-Being of America's Children and Youth, 2002'',
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. This statistic refers to ages
0--17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, while many American children and youth are thriving in
their families and communities, there are still too many who are
struggling and are at risk of not making the successful transition to
adulthood. About 15 percent of American children live below the poverty
level; these rates are almost twice as high for minority children.\2\
Some have families who are unable to provide a nurturing home with the
structure and support required for healthy development. More than half
a million children are living in foster care due to the inability of
their families to provide a safe environment. About 1.5 million
children had parents in State and Federal prisons. In 2003, just over
900,000 children were reported to have been abused or neglected. Each
year, as many as one-and-a-half million children run away from home or
find themselves on the streets and homeless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 30 percent of black children and 27 percent of Hispanic
children live below the poverty level, 2001 data. $17,650 for a family
of four in 2001, per the U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these difficult home and community environments contribute
to adolescents engaging in risk taking behavior. Not living in a strong
and nurturing family is probably one of the first predictors of poor
outcomes. But even when families are functioning and capable, sometimes
the problems they are attempting to address are simply beyond their
capacity. The President believes every American has an opportunity to
help children and youth in their families and communities to avoid
trouble and lead more hopeful lives. Faith-based, community, and
volunteer organizations across the Nation are involved in efforts to
reach at-risk youth and get them involved in their communities. The
President applauds their efforts while recognizing that the Federal
government also plays an important role by pursuing policies that help
the good works of these organizations.
In December of 2002, the President became concerned that the
Federal agencies could be working more efficiently, individually and
collectively, to develop and implement effective programs to help
disadvantaged youth. This led him to establish the White House Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth.
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
The President appointed 11 Federal agencies to the Task Force and
asked them to review all the existing Federal programs that touched
youth, and to make recommendations as to where there could be enhanced
agency accountability and effectiveness.
Goals for Youth
The President believes in outcomes-based policy. During their first
meetings, Task Force members were asked to consider the outcomes they
hoped to achieve for at-risk youth. It was evident to the members that
while they were focusing on the needs of a very specific population,
what we want for disadvantaged youth is what we want for all our
children. We hope that they will grow up to be:
Healthy and Safe
Ready for Work, College and Military Service
Ready for Marriage, Family and Parenting
Ready for Civic Engagement and Service
Because there were so many Federal programs to review, the Task
Force divided itself into subcommittees focusing on each of these
outcomes. An additional subcommittee addressed issues related to
research and accountability.
Task Force staff then conducted a survey of all the Federal
agencies to identify any program that touched youth. Through this
survey, staff identified that in fiscal year 2002, there were 339
Federal programs that served or addressed issues relating to
disadvantaged youth in some way. A total of 150 programs serve youth
ages 0 to 21; 68 of those focus solely on school-age youth. The
remaining 185 programs serve various ages of youth as well as adults;
this can mean entire families, or adults who are working with youth.
The programs were administered by 12 departments and agencies. Three
departments, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Education, housed
the bulk of the programs.
October 2003 Report Recommendations
Each subcommittee considered the programs that addressed their
focal areas. Programs were reviewed to consider their alignment with
the agencies' mission, their target populations, and the risky
behaviors they hoped to avert. While they each looked at a different
subset of programs, the committees ultimately came to similar
conclusions: The best way to get the greatest outcomes for
disadvantaged youth from the significant Federal funds invested was to
focus on these four goals:
better management,
better accountability,
better connections and
priority to the neediest youth.
Progress on Recommendations
Since the completion of the report, we are pleased to report that
much has been done to implement its recommendations. Progress has been
made in all four areas, but since the bill being discussed today
addresses coordination, I will focus my comments on our efforts to
improve interagency coordination, particularly around prioritizing the
needs of disadvantaged youth.
The report recommended that interagency coordination should be
accomplished around topic areas or special target populations. This is
the approach we have taken to date and that we think is working well.
The needs of young people, particularly disadvantaged youth, are
complex. Just as we acknowledge that a well functioning support system
for youth requires input from families, schools and communities, a
well-functioning Federal youth policy often requires the resources and
expertise of multiple agencies. However depending on the issue at hand,
this may mean a different subset of agencies. For example, when we are
addressing the issue of impact of television marketing on childhood
obesity, we would involve the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), maybe even the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), but there may be no meaningful role
for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Let me give you a few example of how we are coordinating within the
Administration to improve outcomes for specific populations of youth.
Foster Care Youth and Workforce Preparation
The Task Force identified as a priority the needs of youth aging
out of foster care. I am pleased to report that the Department of Labor
(DOL), in partnership with the HHS, the Department of Education (ED)
and DOJ, has responded to this call by developing a national initiative
to improve Federal, State and local services for these youth. Their
joint goals are to develop new and innovative service approaches, to
enhance the quality of services delivered, and to improve program
outcomes and efficiencies for youth who are commonly served across
agency lines. Through a series of Regional Forums, these agencies
convened 52 teams of program administrators from States and insular
areas to identify opportunities for aligning services and creating
ongoing strategies for improving programs across agency lines. Each
team included representatives from the State workforce investment,
education, juvenile justice and foster care agencies--many of whom had
never before met together. This opportunity for discussion and
interaction generated partnerships we hope these agencies will build
over time.
Education and Out of School Youth
Another key area of focus is on providing more access to
alternative education for out-of-school youth and outcome-based
alternative education that is consistent with No Child Left Behind. The
Department of Labor is developing a partnership with Department of
Education to work on aligning efforts around alternative education,
adolescent literacy and numeracy, and enhanced GED programs. Among
other things, this partnership is exploring strategies for youth
workforce development programs funded through the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA), to support public school systems as they undertake the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.
Education of Migrant Youth
ED, HHS, USDA, and Labor have formed an interagency team to address
the education needs of migrant youth. The team has developed a proposal
for a demonstration project that would allow for enrollment of migrant
out-of-school youth in education programs at various locations along
the migrant stream. This proposal is being finalized and soon the
departments will publish a concept paper that details the demonstration
in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
Youth Offenders and Workforce Preparation
DOL has recently announced several other reforms that aim to more
effectively and efficiently serve out-of-school and at-risk youth
through the workforce investment system by focusing on four major
areas. The strategic vision underlying these initiatives specifically
targeted to youth offenders was developed in partnership with ED, HHS
and DOJ. Examples include: helping youth offenders improve reading and
math skills, building partnerships between the public workforce system,
business and industry representatives, the juvenile justice system, and
education and training providers, including faith-based and community
organizations.
Trafficking
The Administration has become very concerned about the issue of
human trafficking. We are seeing a strong coordinated effort between
HHS, DOJ and, now, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on juvenile
trafficking in particular. While HHS provides humanitarian assistance
to trafficking victims, DOJ prosecutes traffickers, and DHS (and the
FBI) are usually the lead investigative agency uncovering and
developing trafficking cases. The structure of the effort is such that
whoever ``first'' uncovers trafficking cases coordinates with the other
agencies to ensure that the statute's requirements related to both law
enforcement and humanitarian assistance are followed.
Coordination Around Specific Topics
But our coordination efforts are not limited to the needs of
specific youth populations. There are issues that affect the entire
youth population and require the attention of multiple agencies. For
example:
The Impact of Marketing on Childhood Obesity:
HHS is working with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine
issues around marketing of food and beverages to children in light of
child health concerns, including the rise in childhood obesity. HHS and
the FTC will jointly sponsor a workshop to examine various perspectives
on marketing, self-regulation, and childhood obesity. The workshop will
bring together representatives from food and beverage companies, media
and entertainment companies, medical and nutrition experts, consumer
groups, advertising specialists, and other key experts for an open
discussion on industry self-regulation concerning the marketing of food
and beverages to children, as well as initiatives to educate children
and parents about nutrition.
These are just some examples of the way we are coordinating our
Federal efforts to help youth. I have focused on where the Federal
agencies have been working together, but they have also each been
working individually to implement activities responding to all four of
the areas in which the Task Force issued recommendations. In
particular, there have been great efforts to improve the quality and
comprehensiveness of our Federal research on youth and youth programs.
The President is committed to our better understanding and supporting
what works for youth and not supporting programs that have been shown
to be ineffective.
Monitoring the Federal Youth Efforts
The Domestic Policy Council has periodically held meetings to
monitor the progress the agencies have made on the Report
recommendation. In addition, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention has selected thirteen of the Task
Force recommendations and made them the work of the Council. The
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974
established the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (Council) as an independent body within the
Executive branch of the Federal Government. The Council's primary
function is to provide interdepartmental coordination of Federal
juvenile delinquency prevention programs, Federal programs and
activities that detain or care for unaccompanied juveniles, and Federal
programs relating to missing and exploited children.
Helping America's Youth
The release of the Task Force report did not mark the end of our
Federal efforts at coordination or the President's concern about
helping disadvantaged youth. Most recently, the President and Mrs. Bush
launched the Helping America's Youth Initiative. This initiative seeks
to highlight effective community based programs in the three most
important parts of children's and teens' lives: their families, schools
and communities.
The First Lady has been touring the country visiting community,
school and faith-based programs and will culminate her tour with a
conference in the Fall, in which researchers, program and community
leaders will highlight what works to help improve youth outcomes. At
this conference she will unveil the Community Guide to Helping
America's Youth. The guide (or the tool, as we have come to call it) is
being developed collaboratively by seven Departments. It will provide
information on youth development and community partnerships, as well as
highlighting programs that have shown research-based evidence that are
helping youth. It will help communities build partnerships, assess
their needs and resources and select the best programs to help their
children and adolescents. The development of the HAY tool has been a
great example of how the agencies can be most productive when they
collaborate around a well-specified objective.
Conclusion
I thank you for your interest in the coordination of youth
programs. I know we share a vision of the goals we have for American
youth. I hope we can continue to work together to make this vision a
reality.
______
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you, Dr. O'Grady, for coming today
on short notice. Appreciate your testimony and your efforts in
this area.
I am going to yield my 5 minutes to the sponsor of the
bill, Congressman Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr.
O'Grady, for your testimony.
A couple of questions. Do the departments have the
authority they need under statute to do as much coordinating as
needed?
We realize there are some cases where actually statute
prohibits one agency from interfacing effectively with another
agency.
Do you feel there are no barriers here, or do you see some
barriers that need to be removed?
Dr. O'Grady. When you mentioned that in your opening
statement, I was a little surprised at that, and I would like
to follow up with you, if you can identify where those are.
The various ones I've been involved with, I haven't seen
that. I am not saying it is not there. I would like to identify
where it is and see if we can't fix it.
At this point, what we are finding is that the ability to
coordinate is working well and it is working better than it has
in the past. These different agencies share a common goal in
fixing things. We have not had some of our own internal
concerns, like turf, competition, or anything like that, or you
pay for it, not me. We are seeing that kind of coordination and
it seems to be working well.
For the most part, this is--my background is in research.
This is a situation where people find other people are working
on the same sort of topics that they are. For the most part, it
is a very positive experience to sit down with other people
wrestling with the exact same problems and seeing if you can't
combine resources and thoughts and come up with something
better.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. Assuming that things are going very
well, what about assurances of the Federal Government to
continue this level of intensity and coordination efforts at
the end of the current President's term in office?
Is there anything that we have ongoing now that ensures
that there will be continued cooperation?
Dr. O'Grady. Certainly we have the leadership of the
Domestic Policy Council. Whether they are transferring into
another Administration is certainly anybody's guess. There is
no doubt about that.
What we have done is by breaking down some of the previous
barriers, and some of them weren't even barriers, they were
just the team at this department did not know the people on the
team at the other department, once you built up that sort of a
working relationship across these lines, that is a working
relationship that we know certainly our senior civil servants
and our civil servants will continue on from one Administration
to the next.
If you plant that seed and you get that sort of working
relationship and you establish it well and you have some
success under your belt, the likelihood of that continuing
certainly is excellent.
Mr. Osborne. I can see that point, that certainly once you
get some communication going, it may continue. We have no
certainty that it will. That is why we are somewhat concerned
about at least some statutory obligation to do so.
Let me give you a personal example. We had an amendment in
No Child Left Behind to establish mentoring programs. We
specified that one of the reasons we were doing this was to No.
1, increase the number of young people in mentoring
relationships, but also to examine the different types of
mentoring programs, what works, what doesn't work, what is
going on in this part of the country that is not happening
somewhere else.
And now about 3 years later, we have asked where is the
assessment. How do we know that this is working.
We got sort of a review of the literature. We have been
told now that they are going to hire a consulting firm to get
this information.
This is the original intent of the amendment. What I am
getting at is that we feel very strongly that despite your
efforts, and I am sure they are very good, and I am sure
progress has been made, we would like to see a little bit more
follow through in these types of areas where we are holding
people to a greater degree of accountability.
I don't know if you have a comment on that or not.
Dr. O'Grady. On that one in particular, I don't know. Back
to your earlier comment, we do know that the Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Council is in statute and will continue on from
one Administration to the next.
The other thing in terms of thinking about how you sort of
build a legacy and how you continue to develop these working
relationships, some of the things that have gone on, what I
would call the management in the executive branch, has
facilitated this. It's much easier than it was years ago.
The ability for agencies to pool and partner with each
other, to share funding, to put it together to be able to build
that critical mass as an investment and the need to move
forward is much easier.
On the idea of coming in with assessments in terms of
coming up with--I had the shop at Planning and Evaluation at
HHS. The world is full of good intentions. What we really need
is to be careful with the taxpayers' dollars and to know what
works and what doesn't. What is best practice.
I agree with you totally on that. I would say also from
everything we have seen from the Office of Management and
Budget over the last few years, they want to know about return
on investment. They want just those sort of measures you were
talking about.
As this program works, what are the parts that are working
well, what are the parts that need fixed, you need to take
another look at because they just don't seem to be producing
results.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Dr. O'Grady. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back. I see that my time limit has expired.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Congressman Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have always had a great deal of respect for planning and
evaluation in the Human Services and the provision of programs.
I thank you very much again, Dr. O'Grady, for being here.
I agree that the problems are of great magnitude across the
country. Of course, I come from an inner city area of one of
the largest cities in the country. I come from Chicago, where
the problems are enormous, just in terms of the sheer numbers,
the magnitude, the difficulty of living in a big urban
environment, all of the competing forces and competing
activities.
I am very interested in youth offenders in the work place.
As a matter of fact, just this past Saturday, we had one
meeting where we had more than 3,000 offenders come, some
young, some older, trying to fit them with cleaning up their
records so they could have access to employment opportunities.
Could you tell us when your report is going to be
available, and could you go a bit more into detail than what we
have been able to gleam from your testimony?
Dr. O'Grady. I think there are a number of different
things, if you don't mind, that I could talk about. Youth
offenders in the work place and that notion, that certainly is
an area that we are looking at, that we are doing the research
on now to try and figure out exactly what can be the most help.
We already have Welfare to Work. Folks coming out of
prison, coming out of incarceration, what about their families
while they are in. What about getting them back in the labor
force.
At this point, there are a number of different pieces that
we have sponsored at the University of Michigan that are
looking at some of these issues. I think it is sort of the next
frontier after Welfare to Work, how to re-integrate folks back
into the community after that sort of a problem.
In terms of some of the other things we talked about, one
of the things that we are trying to do more and more, what we
are talking specifically about today is across Federal
agencies, but one of the things we have had a lot of success
with is the idea of as we start thinking about how the Feds
coordinate with the state, coordinate with local, county and
municipal government, and how you can do that in a more
intelligent way, along the lines of what was talked about
before, where you can identify best practice.
That is a number of things where we found with the
strategic investment of Federal taxpayers' dollars, you can
bring those people together, you can show them what is going
on, you can do presentations, and we have a number of things
having to do with homelessness and other problems, and we have
had very good success bringing those different teams from
different states and different municipalities together.
One of the real strengths we have with our country--because
some of the other work I do, I do some of the international
work at the OECD in Paris, and one of the things is we really
have an advantage here.
If you have a system where the Government runs the entire
health care system or the entire welfare system, my
counterparts in Cleveland or France, they have a heck of a time
figuring out what are their alternatives, what works. I think
that is a real advantage of not only this coordination among
the Feds, but also going to the state and the locals, so you
have that sort of natural laboratory.
We tried this in Indianapolis, this worked, this didn't. We
tried this in Cleveland, this worked, this didn't. You can sort
of learn from other people, and also learn what not to do.
In terms of making those sorts of efforts and figuring out
how to do this smarter, I think there are a number of different
points. Certainly, how you bring folks back into the community
is one of the most important ones I can think of.
Mr. Davis. Let me also suggest--I agree we can get a great
deal out of coordination, because you can connect things and
see who is doing what and really know what is happening.
Of course, many of the people that I interact with in child
welfare and human services complain that they just don't have
any resources to work with, or they don't have adequate
resources.
I know this legislation does not talk about authorization
of money, but is the administration talking about how to get
resources into the activity so that the ideas can in fact be
better implemented?
Dr. O'Grady. Yes. I think in terms of when you think about
the Federal Government, the role they play--it is true, people
appear from all the data we look at that they are eligible for
different programs, and some of that is out reach. You see
people who every indication says they are eligible for
Medicaid. How do you get them in.
Some of that when you think about our mainstream program,
our big one, Medicare, and some of the other big programs we
have, where you know you can provide a lot of resources to
folks, for instance, the children's health insurance program,
those sorts of things. You know you can do better.
The other things that the Federal Government does and it is
always welcome but they always wish there was more, is the idea
of the Feds moving in--it's almost venture capital. Give a
grant to a community, see if it will work, but it almost always
mean there is a 5-year phaseout or something like that.
The Federal Government is more than happy to come in and
kind of take the risk, but then when the program is up and
running, normally that money is phasing out and then it is
either at state or local.
At that point, that is the time, I think, to come back to
Congress and say this seemed to work, this didn't, this state
is really happy with the way this is going.
The traditional Federal role, other than our big programs,
tends more to be sort of we are willing to finance the
experiment, but if it's ready to go to scale, then we are
certainly looking to start other partners.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Congresswoman McMorris.
Ms. McMorris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also, Dr. O'Grady, want to just applaud the goals that
you laid out as far as the management, accountability, and
strengthening the family and then targeting the at risk.
I guess I think one of the biggest challenges with all of
these programs is actually getting the money on the ground to
where services are delivered.
I wanted to start out by just asking you if you could give
me a sense from what you know as to how much money actually
stays within the administration, within the management level,
as compared to the money that actually gets on the ground and
put into services.
Dr. O'Grady. I don't have a specific figure and I don't
want to shoot from the hip, so if you don't mind, I'll have my
staff get back to you with a more detailed answer to that.
I would say there are sort of two parts on that. Some of
the stuff we see in programs like Medicare, there is certainly
an argument that is being made that if you are going to do
something like a prescription drug benefit, you better have an
administrative infrastructure there that is fairly developed to
make sure seniors know what their options are and things like
that.
I think we are always trying to keep the size of
bureaucracy down, the size of Government down. At the same
time, we don't want to short shrift the responsibilities.
Ms. McMorris. One of our continual challenges is dealing
with coordination between the agencies. You spoke about the
disadvantaged youth programs and how they are within Health and
Human Services. They are within Justice, within Education.
Can you give me a sense as to what mechanisms are really in
place to ensure coordination, or if you think it is necessary
that we set up some kind of new mechanism to evaluate?
Dr. O'Grady. I think right now, the working relationship
that we are having, which is coordinated through the Domestic
Policy Council, coordinated through the White House, is the one
that we are finding is working for us.
When you bring together these different people from the
different agencies, not only is it working fairly
collaboratively, but you can see the improved product.
Later this week, we are doing a joint session with the
Federal Trade Commission having to do with youth obesity and
advertising to youth, and kind of what those interactions are.
That has worked very well from our side. The Federal Trade
Commission, they know tons about advertising. They know tons
about the airways and truth in advertising, those sorts of
questions.
Health and childhood obesity was not their strong point. We
brought that to the table. They brought their expertise to the
table. The combined effect was certainly very effective.
At the same time, I guess I would put on the table the idea
that you want to remain as flexible as you can. In my
testimony, I talk a little bit about you want the right players
at the table, but it's not always necessary to have every
player at the table, and it can be sometimes counter
productive.
In a case like this, that is where no, we didn't coordinate
tons with our colleagues at Justice or we touched base with
some people, but there are other people. You want the people
who are really going to contribute and really have the
expertise at the table.
Ms. McMorris. Kind of in that same vein, how do you go
about actually coordinating with the state and local at that
level to ensure that money is targeted in such a way that is
really going to have the most impact in a local community?
Dr. O'Grady. The way that we tend to do that, and I would
say outside the big entitlement programs and some of the other
things going on, is we do have the ability to fairly
effectively and fairly flexibly co-fund different projects like
this.
In the old days, it certainly wasn't true, but our ability
to say that we want to put something together, like I say, we
are putting on this effort with the FTC, the idea of HHS can
move their money over to the FTC, FTC can move their money
over, so you have one source that is handling this.
It is an ability to coordinate not only with the staff and
have them talking and make sure that works right, but also to
do just what you are talking about, can you pool your resources
so there is a coordinated one effort that is sort of moving out
and making sure this thing happens.
Ms. McMorris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Congressman Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me back up, if I may, from the questions on
coordination and those kinds of things to a more general
question.
What can the Federal Government do to replace parents? How
effective is this? What can we really do?
Here is what I am wondering about. I was with a group of
folks on Saturday night who identified that many of the
problems with troubled youth is they lack a parent.
Sitting there in that group, I didn't want to have a
response of let them eat cake, let them go find better parents.
The question is how do you make better parents. An example
was brought up of a 35 year old grandmother who has no
parenting skills and who passed onto her child no parenting
skills, and who is now passing onto her child no parenting
skills.
Here we are, trying to figure out, I guess, as a
government, how to fix that 35 year old grandmother's problem,
and her daughter and her daughter's child.
Backing up a little bit, just tell me, what can we do?
Dr. O'Grady. To your first question, are we ever going to
replace parents, certainly not. That's not the role of
Government.
It is the role of Government to be able to do what it can.
Is it a proper policy goal to be as supportive of parents as
possible? Sure. That is the kind of stuff we can do. That is
the sort of thing we can do to try and help keep families
together.
There are different programs. You laid out a very thorny
problem of what you can do. I am trying to think of the name of
the program, and I am blank.
There are programs that do things like when that person
comes in, this is a pregnant woman, it is clear this is an
average situation, the baby is going to be born. You can send
that visiting nurse in and you can show how to childproof the
house. You can never twist anybody's arm. If they throw you
out, they throw you out.
The Government can support parenting, not try to replace
it, but they can support. That program goes in before the baby
is born, it sort of shows how to get ready. It shows all these
different things, feeding.
It is not the Feds or the states or whatever doing it for
them, but it is simply providing them--along the lines of the
kind of mentoring that Congressman Osborne was talking about.
If there are no skills in the traditional way, we learn from
our parents, we learn from our teachers, are there things you
can do.
I think it is along those models. We know certainly
traditionally the major influences on most of us in our lives
are our parents. We know there are those special teachers, that
Scout leader, that coach, other people.
You can try to build that sort of support network.
The point about coming out of prison, that is a very
tenuous situation. If you can keep that family together, if you
can get somebody back in the labor force, get them back on
track.
Mr. Inglis. A good example you just used about
childproofing the home. We, the Government, send somebody in to
help childproof the home. We have the home childproofed. Now,
we have to talk about how to teach reading, and then we need to
talk about eating properly. Then we need to talk about--in
other words, through this 35 year old grandmother's home, we
may run a whole series of people.
If all the programs are working optimally, I suppose we
would have about ten people knocking on her door and working
with her.
You begin to wonder how do you replace this thing called a
parent, her parent, the 35 year old grandmother's parent. The
parent is this multi-faceted person who does some things well
and some things poorly. I've surely done some things poorly as
a parent, a few things well.
You start trying to replace them, and you literally have 10
to 12 people knocking on the door.
I am wondering is the model working. Is there some other
way to have a single--I don't know what the single mentor would
be, but somebody to really love and care for this 35 year old
grandmother, and to help that whole family, but it takes
somebody very committed to them, and somebody that 35 year old
grandmother can grow to trust, but the 10 to 12 people knocking
on the door, helping childproof first and then food next. The
woman is going to get worn out by the people coming to the
door.
Dr. O'Grady. You are absolutely right. We try to get that
down to kind of one shot shopping, that there is somebody that
comes in.
In this particular area--we have some things like with
folks with disabilities, where really what they need is
somebody who can help them with housing questions, with medical
questions, food, different things.
You have to a certain degree an expertise developing there
in terms of whatever you want to think about, coping skills.
You try to not have this parade of folks going through. You
have somebody who specializes and says, you know, an extra set
of rails on your steps, how to move them up the learning curve.
You are never going to twist their arm. You are never going
to say the Government will come in and replace unless you have
child welfare. If a child is at risk, that is different.
How do you take folks and help bring them along, and just
show them what other people have learned works over time.
You are absolutely right, try to keep that to a minimum.
Some of it, you may not be able to. It may take a few different
people. You do not want to be running 10 or 12 people through
anybody's house.
Mr. Inglis. My time is almost up. It seems to me that what
is clear is you have to find support systems within communities
that really can plug into love and care for that 35 year old
grandmother in a consistent sustained way, and help care for
that whole family.
Certainly, the Government has a role. It is pretty clear to
me that churches and synagogues have a tremendous additional
role in a caring community that can somehow come along side
that 35 year old grandmother.
It is a real challenge. I do not feel I have very
satisfactory answers. I don't know that any of us really do.
That is very frustrating.
I appreciate the comments.
Chairman Tiberi. Dr. O'Grady, thank you for your time. One
additional question by the Ranking Member.
Mr. Davis. Dr. O'Grady, do programs grow out of Planning
and Evaluation activity in terms of planning, and looking at
what has not worked or trying to determine how to get to the
end result?
The question was sort of stimulated by my colleague's focus
on parenting. It seems to me that one of the great needs that
exists in many communities for troubled youth is to have
parenting activities to help their parents better learn and
understand how to become parents.
I had a great experience visiting with my father who just
died last year but he was 92 years old, so he had a great run.
A few years before that, he was living in the State of Arkansas
and I went to visit with him.
We went to the supermarket. A group of young women sort of
converged around him. They were hugging him and kissing him and
all those kinds of things. I jokingly said to him, what is
happening, what's going on? All these young ladies.
He said, what are you talking about. Finally, he said you
know, they are doing that because I'm a foster grandparent. I
help teach them how to raise their children, how to understand
things that perhaps they were not taught.
Is that an area that maybe we can seriously develop more
program activity in? Parenting classes and opportunities for
young parents who really haven't learned how to be parents.
Dr. O'Grady. There are a number of things that are being
done, but is there always something, is there always more
innovation and a more creative way to think about putting these
things together? Of course.
That is the sort of stuff that we do at Planning and
Evaluation. What works. What doesn't. What have you learned
from what other people have tried and what are gaps that you
really do want to move into, because there is just not, for
whatever reason, nobody has done it yet, and it looks like
there is a crying need for it.
In terms of that sort of area, thinking about parenting, we
can see things like--one of the most effective anti-poverty
tools we have is an intact family. It can do more than lots of
other things we have tried in different ways.
How do you keep people--just support that. Not tell people
how to run their lives, but certainly help them out if they
need help, and show them what other people have learned.
Mr. Davis. I want to see us put some money into it. I think
we could not necessarily have to put a lot of money into it,
because you are dealing with groups of people, teaching them
how to do things themselves. I believe if they knew better, as
my mother used to tell us, they would do better.
I thank you for your testimony and appreciate the
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Congressman Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late, Mr. Secretary.
I don't know what has been covered or what actually has not
been covered, but I do want to maybe make a comment and ask
your opinion.
One of the things just growing up, you see kids and
students in certain school districts who have a lot more
opportunities, I think, at a very young age, to kind of grab
onto something that interests them. Many times, it is sports,
but other times it is speech, drama, arts, visual arts, music,
something.
I just think it is very important for young kids to have
that outlet, something that they love, that they are willing to
not be good at at first and then master and develop some kind
of self confidence.
I just think the arts is a great opportunity for a lot of
young students. I think it is a shame that those of us who have
been fortunate in life have those opportunities and a lot of
other students do not.
Just comment for me on how important you think that is or
if it is not important or if I am in la la land somewhere.
Dr. O'Grady. I'm with Health and Human Services, my
traditional jurisdiction. When we think about these situations
of how you help disadvantaged youth, how you move forward, I
sort of take all the tools in the tool box approach to what you
need.
How do you reach somebody? How do you find their passion or
whatever you want to think about it. I tend to think of art in
there with sports and with other things that schools can offer,
other things they can take, Scouting, all these different
things.
Especially if you have somebody who maybe doesn't have the
best home life or had some other bump in the road that they are
facing, is there something that will just motivate them just
the way you talked about.
I guess I think of that within this whole sort of tool box
of things you would like to be able to have sort of catch their
interest and help them to be able, like you said, to focus on
something, develop a real motivation and really develop in that
area, and then feel good about themselves.
Mr. Ryan. The reason I brought this up to you is I have
read articles lately talking about music therapy. Is this an
area worth pursuing or something you are familiar with?
Dr. O'Grady. I don't know enough about music therapy to
comment.
Mr. Ryan. I don't either. That is why I asked you. I
appreciate it.
Dr. O'Grady. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. O'Grady, for
your testimony and your time today. Thank you for being here. I
am sure the sponsor of the bill and other Members of the
Committee are going to look forward to working with you as we
continue to struggle with this issue and improve upon it.
Dr. O'Grady. Thank you very much for having me.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. I am going to ask the second
panel to come forward. While we are doing that, I am going to
introduce our four panelists as we are setting up.
The reason for that is we are being told we are going to
have a vote between 11:45 and 12. I would like to get all four
panelists' testimony in before our next series of votes.
Let me introduce Richard Moore. Mr. Moore serves as
Administrator of the Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Planning and Statistical Center at the Iowa Department of Human
Rights in Des Moines, Iowa.
He has designed and developed original policies and the
service delivery structure for Iowa's family centered and
family preservation service programs, as well as policies to
enable the de-categorization of child welfare and juvenile
justice funds.
Mr. Moore is a convener of the Iowa Collaboration for Youth
Development, an interagency initiative designed to better align
state level youth policies and programs and to encourage
collaboration among multiple state and community agencies on
youth related issues.
I would like to welcome Ms. Laura Shubilla. Ms. Shubilla is
a co-founder of the Philadelphia Youth Network, a non-profit
organization dedicated to the goal of ensuring that all of
Philadelphia's youth have the tools and opportunities they need
to succeed in the workforce and the world.
Philadelphia Youth Network reaches thousands of 14 to 21
year old youth each year, most of whom live in poverty and
would otherwise have few opportunities to envision their own
career potential and a pathway to achieving it.
Ms. Shubilla served as the Philadelphia Youth Network
senior vice president from its inception in 1999 and was
appointed as president of the organization in July of 2002.
I would like to introduce Ms. Marguerite Sallee. Ms. Sallee
is the president and CEO of America's Promise, The Alliance for
Youth, founded after the President's Summit for America's
Future in 1997 with Presidents Bush, Carter and Clinton, and
Ford, with Nancy Reagan representing President Reagan,
challenging the country to make children and youth a national
priority.
Prior to joining the America's Promise, she served as
special assistant to U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, and was
staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on Children and
Families.
Her focus in this Congress has been on education, health
care, social welfare, and the challenges of working families,
especially military families.
And last but not least, Dr. Laurence Steinberg, who is the
distinguished university professor of psychology at Temple
University, a nationally recognized expert on psychological
development during adolescence.
Dr. Steinberg's research has focused on a range of topics
in the study of contemporary adolescence, including parent/
adolescent relationships, adolescent employment, high school
reform and juvenile justice.
He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association
and has been a faculty scholar of the William T. Grant
Foundation, and is currently director of the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.
Thank you all for being here. Before the witnesses begin, I
would like to remind you that we will have an opportunity to
ask you questions after the panel is through with their
testimony, and remind you of Committee Rule 2, which imposes a
5-minute limit on your testimony.
Your testimony will be submitted fully for the record.
With that, Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. MOORE, CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE
PLANNING DIVISION, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DES MOINES,
IA
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak
here today.
I am here representing the State of Iowa. I am also here
representing the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development.
I have worked in my state's government for over 26 years.
Since 1988, I have been the administrator of the Division of
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. I have been appointed
to this office by both Democratic and Republican Governors,
confirmed by Iowa Senate, controlled by both parties, and I am
just starting my fifth 4 year term.
I have been actively involved in the planning and
monitoring of youth policies and programs centered in Iowa's
juvenile justice, child welfare, substance abuse, mental
health, workforce development, economic development, volunteer
services, vocational rehabilitation, public health, public
safety and other state systems.
I have had to respond to many different political
environments and many, many Federal officials, regulations,
mandates, special conditions and reporting requirements.
Before I go any further, I do want to applaud your efforts
to consider the Federal Youth Coordination Act. Its provisions
are quite simply very good ideas.
First, I want to make four points. First, there is a
growing interest in states to do a better job of improving the
coordination of child and youth policies and programs. The
impetus of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
and its concerns over the complexity of Federal responses to
disadvantaged youth are gaining support from outside the
Federal Government.
Support for coordinating Government efforts for children,
youth and families is growing in the National Conference of
State Legislators, the National Governors Association, and a
number of foundations and national organizations.
A number of states currently have children's cabinets and
other states are working on other such coordinating structures,
such as Iowa's.
Iowa's Collaboration for Youth Development is a partnership
of state and local interests. Our community partners regularly
remind us that they know better coordination is needed at their
level to maximize resources and that they are willing partners
for efforts designed to build bridges between the many separate
programs and systems that they are expected to make sense out
of.
There is interest, and I believe energies not yet fully
tapped across states to take bigger steps toward achieving more
coordinated networks of youth programs.
One thing lacking seems to be a clear national vision that
includes recognition of how fragmented Federal initiatives can
hinder emerging and promising state and local coordination
efforts.
The Federal Youth Coordination Act, if passed, could
invigorate current efforts and leverage additional investments
to improve coordination across the board.
My second point is collaboration on children and youth
issues has made an important difference in Iowa. Our
collaboration is designed to better align state level policies
and programs and to encourage collaboration among multiple
state and community agencies.
Initiated in 1999 with funding from the Department of
Health and Human Services' Family and Youth Services Bureau,
FYSB, our state agencies have been partnering with communities
and youth throughout the state, and we have accomplished a
number of things.
We have established a multi-agency state level governance
structure that supports both individual agencies as well as
interagency youth initiatives.
We have agreed upon a common youth results framework that
multiple state agencies are now using in their administration
of both Federal and state programs.
We have established a set of data indicators and providing
data reports to local communities for their use in planning and
evaluating their services across systems.
We have consolidated the planning and application
requirements for some of our Federal and state programs, so
communities are developing one rather than two or three plans.
We have done many other things to increase coordination, a
few more which I have listed in my written statement, but there
is more that we know we can do.
My third point is that support from the Federal Government
has been instrumental in advancing youth program coordination
efforts in Iowa. Our collaboration work would not have been
possible without the assistance of FYSB and funding from their
Positive Youth Development State and Local Demonstration
Project.
Sometimes despite how good an idea might be, it takes
leadership or recognition from the outside for others to join
with you. Being able to highlight the Federal Government's
support of our goals and activities has clearly been an
important aspect of getting people together to work together.
We have also benefited from the technical support and
knowledge of FYSB and its partners. They have given us exposure
and a chance to meet with experts from across the country and
to network with other states trying to do similar things as we
are.
FYSB's modest investment in our work has led to results
noticed by others outside of Iowa. We have received financial
and other supports from the National Crime Prevention Council,
the Mott Foundation, the National Governors Association,
America's Promise, the Form for Youth Investment, and others.
Similarly, using our collaborative entity, we have been
successful in applying for Federal grants from other than FYSB
to add to our collaboration's reach and impact.
Probably the most compelling reason for me to travel from
the Midwest to speak to you today was my belief that the
Federal Youth Coordination Act's provisions to assist the
states in a manner similar to what FYSB has been trying to do
will help Iowa sustain its efforts.
My fourth and final point is the Federal Youth Coordination
Act would have a major impact in Iowa, as well as the Nation as
a whole.
It is only in communities that true service coordination at
the case level can really occur, but local abilities to achieve
such coordination is limited by state and Federal categorical
programs that have different sounding goals and that dictate
separate eligibility criteria, duplicative or disparate program
or case planning activities, different reporting requirements,
and so on and so on.
Community level coordination should be a natural outgrowth
of coordination at the state and Federal levels. Similarly,
state level efforts to assist local coordination needs Federal
leadership to coordinate policies and program requirements from
the different Federal agencies.
I am supposed to sum up and be done. Thank you for your
time and all your efforts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richard G. Moore follows:]
Statement of Richard G. Moore, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Planning
Division, Iowa Department of Human Rights, Des Moines, IA
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you on this important topic.
I am here today representing the State of Iowa. I am also here to
represent the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development of which I am
the convener and a founding member.
I have worked in my state's government for over twenty-six years.
Since 1988, I have been the Administrator of the Iowa Department of
Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. I was
initially appointed and twice reappointed to my office by Governor
Terry E. Branstad. In 1999, my third appointment was continued by
Governor Thomas J. Vilsack who has since chosen to reappoint me for an
additional two four-year terms. My appointments have been confirmed by
Iowa Senates controlled by both parties.
I have watched or helped the creation, evolution, and sometimes the
ending of a multitude of state and federal policies and programs
affecting youth. I have been responsible for the administration of a
variety of state and federal child welfare and juvenile justice
programs in Iowa, and I have been actively involved in the planning or
monitoring of youth policies and programs centered in Iowa's education,
human services, substance abuse, mental health, workforce development,
economic development, volunteer services, vocational rehabilitation,
public safety and other state systems. I have had to respond to many
different political environments and many, many federal officials,
regulations, mandates, special conditions and reporting requirements
affecting programs for youth. Before I go any further I want to applaud
your efforts to consider the Federal Youth Coordination Act. Its
provisions are, quite simply, very good ideas.
In my testimony, I hope to make the following additional points:
1. There is a growing interest in states to do a better job of
improving the coordination of child and youth policies and programs.
2. Collaboration on children and youth issues is making an
important difference in Iowa.
3. Support from the Federal government has been instrumental in
advancing efforts in Iowa.
4. The Federal Youth Coordination Act would have a major impact in
Iowa as well as the nation as a whole.
There is a growing interest in states to do a better job of improving
the coordination of child and youth policies and programs.
The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth found that ``the
complexity of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is matched only
by the complexity of the traditional Federal response to those
problems. Both are confusing, complicated, and costly.'' Similar
situations exist at the state level, but we know that better
coordination can make local responses to the problems of disadvantaged
youth less confusing, less complicated, and more cost-effective.
The impetus of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
has already gained support from outside the federal government. Support
for coordinating government efforts for children, youth and families is
growing in the National Conference of State Legislators, the National
Governors Association, private foundations and organizations, and
states and communities across the country.
The National Governors Association recently released a report
entitled ``A Governor's Guide to Children's Cabinets''. This report
found that ``At least 16 states have a Children's Cabinet, and all
indications suggest that many others are likely to follow.'' A number
of states are attempting to support similar coordination structures
under different names, such as councils, commissions or task forces.
Our Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development is one example.
The National Conference of State Legislators and the National
Governor's Association are currently working together on a youth policy
initiative to highlight ways state executive and legislative branches
can work together to promote better coordinated child and youth
policies.
Foundations such as Atlantic, Robert Wood Johnson, Kellogg and Mott
have moved in parallel fashion by investing in collaborative youth-
oriented efforts. Organizations such as America's Promise, the Forum
for Youth Investment, the National Collaboration for Youth and others
have geared up to provide technical assistance, networking, and
visibility to many state and local collaborative efforts.
Iowa's Collaboration for Youth Development is a partnership of
state and local interests. The community leaders and agencies with
which we interact regularly remind us that they know better
coordination is needed at their level to maximize resources, that they
are willing to try new ways of providing state and federally funded
services, that they want to improve their results and become more cost
effective and that they are willing partners for efforts designed to
build bridges between the many fragmented programs and systems that are
in place to help youth and families succeed.
There is interest-and energies not yet fully tapped-across states
and in many private organizations as well as in most communities to
take bigger steps toward achieving more coordinated networks of
effective youth programs. One thing lacking is a clear national vision
that includes recognition of how fragmented federal initiatives will
hinder emerging and promising state and local coordination efforts.
What does seem clear at this time is that the Federal Youth
Coordination Act, if passed, could invigorate current efforts and
leverage additional investments to deepen and advance collaborative
efforts across the board.
Collaboration on children and youth issues has made an important
difference in Iowa.
The Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development is an interagency
initiative designed to better align state-level youth policies and
programs and to encourage collaboration among multiple state and
community agencies on youth-related issues. Our overarching, multi-
system goals are to increase the extent to which Iowa youth have
opportunities to be involved, to engage in behaviors that are healthy
and socially competent, to achieve success in school and to be prepared
for a career and a productive adulthood. Initiated in 1999 with funding
from the Department of Health and Human Services' Family and Youth
Services Bureau, we have been partnering with communities and youth
throughout the state and have achieved a variety of results.
We have established a multi-agency state-level governance structure
that supports both individual agencies' initiatives and interagency
initiatives related to youth development.
We agreed upon a common youth results framework that multiple state
agencies are now using in their planning and monitoring of otherwise
separate federal and state youth-at-risk programs.
We have established a set of data indicators, combined resources to
conduct a statewide survey of youth to establish inter-disciplinary
measures of youth, school, neighborhood and community risk and
protective factors, and we have provided local areas with data reports
designed to assist program planning, coordination and evaluation across
service systems.
We have consolidated the planning requirements for some of our
state and federal programs so local applicants are developing one,
rather than two or three plans.
We have established ongoing and regular contacts among staff from
multiple state agencies and other organizations to proactively identify
and then carry out collaborative activities, and we have provided teams
of these state agencies' staff to work with communities as they plan
and coordinate their use of funding from a variety of local, state and
federal sources.
We are supporting a youth development collaboration website and
newsletter, and we sponsor policy forums and other activities that
provide information to encourage collaborations across systems and to
assist efforts that promote and achieve positive youth development.
We also have combined resources from multiple agencies to provide
across-systems youth worker and youth leadership training and to assist
officials and local agencies actively involve youth in planning and
other civic activities.
There is much more that we know can be done to better align the
many youth-oriented policies and programs created or administered by
the state. Some of the entrenched challenges still face us, and new
challenges continue to surface.
Support from the federal government has been instrumental in advancing
youth program coordination efforts in Iowa.
Our work through the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development would
not have been possible without the help we received from the federal
Department of Health and Human Services' Family and Youth Services
Bureau. Iowa is one of a handful of states that was chosen to
participate in FYSB's Positive Youth Development State and Local
Demonstration Project. The number of Iowa agencies and organizations
that have agreed to work together and with FYSB continues to grow, and
we are developing visible links with more and more communities across
the state.
Sometimes, despite how good an idea might be, it takes leadership
or recognition from the outside to get others to join with you. Being
able to highlight the federal government's (FYSB's) support of our
collaboration's goals and activities has clearly been an important
aspect of our sustenance and progress to date.
In addition to the funding, we also have benefited from the
technical support and knowledge of FYSB and its partners. Their support
has provided us with opportunities to share problems, ideas and plans
with experts from across the country and has helped us exchange ideas
and develop networking relationships with other states attempting
efforts similar to ours.
FYSB's modest investment of its federal funding in our work has led
to results noticed by others outside of Iowa. Our collaborative work
has been fortunate to receive financial and other supports from the
National Crime Prevention Council, the Mott Foundation, the National
Governor's Association, America's Promise, the Forum for Youth
Investment and others. Similarly, using our collaboration as the
organizing entity, we have been successful in applying for federal
funding other than FYSB's to add to our collaboration's reach and
impact.
Probably the most compelling reason for me to travel from the
Midwest to speak to you today was my belief that the Federal Youth
Coordination Act's provisions to assist the states, in a manner similar
to what FYSB has been trying to do on a limited basis, will help Iowa
sustain and improve its collaboration's progress in the years to come.
The Federal Youth Coordination Act would have a major impact in Iowa as
well as the nation as a whole.
In Iowa, we are trying to break down barriers between programs that
can lead to service gaps and overly complex service planning and
service delivery processes. If a youth has an abusive parent, has
severe emotional disorders, exhibits behavior problems and is failing
in school, is abusing substances, and has been committing delinquent
acts, we should not be intervening with a separate and independent
response to each of his or her problems. And yet, discipline-specific
responses are often all that are available.
We also should not be establishing a separate collaboration at the
local or state level to address each type of youth-at-risk problem
area. And yet, that is what federal programs often require states to
do, and it is often what both state and federal programs require
communities to do. In Iowa, we pretend to make jokes about ``colliding
community collaborations,'' but we do this out of frustration and guilt
and not because we think it is funny.
It is only in communities that true service coordination at the
case level can really occur, but local abilities to achieve such
coordination is limited by state and federal categorical programs that
have different-sounding goals and that dictate separate eligibility
criteria, duplicative or disparate program or case planning steps,
different reporting requirements and so on and so on. Community-level
coordination should be a natural outgrowth of coordination at the state
and federal levels. Similarly, state level efforts to assist local
coordination need federal leadership to coordinate policies and program
requirements from different federal agencies. And, such federal
coordination efforts should be undertaken in a way that maximizes
parallel state coordination capacities.
This is one of the main reasons I believe the Federal Youth
Coordination Act would have a major impact in Iowa as well as the
nation as a whole. Communities and their families and children will
benefit if federal agencies start doing a better job of coordinating
their own policies and also provide real supports to state coordination
efforts and not just mandates or instructions for state-level
collaborations.
I'd like to end my comments with one example. States are now
receiving mandates or guidelines from different federal agencies that
are meant to assure results-based or evidenced-based or research-based
youth programs and services. Unfortunately, what such good-sounding
words mean to one federal agency may not mean the same thing to
another. Local or state efforts that are attempting to improve
interventions by coordinating resources from, for example, special
education funds with mental health funds with substance abuse treatment
funds with juvenile justice dollars may get stalled over a simple lack
of agreement on how to define, measure or report program quality.
This is only one type of issue that we are dealing with in Iowa and
for which we need help from the federal level to address. This is also
the kind of problem that I see the Federal Youth Coordination Act can
help to solve if it is passed and then implemented with care and with
an eye on the common goals of our many federal, state and local
programs for children, youth and families.
In closing, I would like to point out that I have been doing this
work under both democratic and republican administrations. I see my
colleagues in other states doing similar work under both democratic and
republican governors. This is clearly not a partisan issue. Improving
coordination is an ongoing issue that transcends party lines. Using our
resources on children and youth in the most effective and efficient
manner is something all of us can stand behind. It is wonderful to see
both democratic and republican members of Congress working together on
this legislation--it reinforces the central collaborative message of
the legislation itself. This work is long overdue. Please pass the
Federal Youth Coordination Act.
Thank you for your time and your efforts to help our nation's
children.
______
Chairman Tiberi. That was the best I have ever seen.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Ms. Shubilla.
STATEMENT OF LAURA SHUBILLA, PRESIDENT, PHILADELPHIA YOUTH
NETWORK, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Ms. Shubilla. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I want to begin by thanking you and the Members
of the Subcommittee for your leadership on these important
issues.
I appreciate this opportunity to describe some of our work
in Philadelphia for those coordinated multi-agency approaches
that serve our young people, and to address how the principles
of the Federal Youth Coordination Act can assist local effort.
I will also reflect on how our work mirrors and reinforces
some of the key principles of the report of the White House
Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, as well as a memo initiated
by the Campaign for Youth that supports the Federal Youth
Coordination Act and other important youth policies.
Let me start by sharing some good news. In Philadelphia, we
are making real progress and building bridges across programs
and agencies in pursuit of a coordinated system of youth
services.
To a considerable extent, our successes have their roots in
the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. I believe
that in many ways, we have done what the Congress expected us
to do when WIA was passed back in 1998, by bringing together
senior officials from the school district, the city's child
welfare agency, the family court, together with leading
employers, university officials, and youth advocates.
We have created our own local youth development council. We
have developed Workforce Investment Board sponsored requests
for proposals for comprehensive youth services that incorporate
investments from Federal programs, foundations, the school
district, and private employers.
Rarely is an RFP released in Philadelphia that does not
incorporate funding from more than one source. This has not
always been the case.
We have used Chafee, TANF and Workforce Investment Act
support for neighborhood based youth centers that provide
education, training and employment services for out of school
youth, court involved youth, and youth aging out of the foster
care system.
We have coordinated Workforce Investment Board, city and
school district funding to support small alternative high
schools designed to address the needs of struggling students
and out of school youth.
We are proud of our history of collaboration. However, the
fact remains that differing definitions, eligibilities and
outcomes that characterize much Federal youth programming
continues to present significant challenges for youth and their
families as they attempt to assess needed programs and
services, and for local leaders as they attempt to collaborate
and leverage resources.
Yesterday was an interesting example of this for me. In the
morning, I received a call from a young woman nearly in tears
from frustration, trying to go back to school, find work, and
get in touch with other services that she needed. Her refrain
throughout the entire conversation was I'm really, really
trying, I promise.
Then in the afternoon, my colleagues and I spent several
hours discussing an intake system for our new youth system,
that would be responsive to four funding sources included in
the center, that would not require youth, like the young woman
I just spoke about, to be overwhelmed by paperwork and
eligibility criteria.
Whether it is designing procedures or supporting the young
man I met recently who came back from a juvenile detention
facility with 9 months of academic work that did not translate
into high school credit, we simply have to do a better job of
making these systems more transparent and accessible.
That is why I believe the Federal Youth Coordination Act
represents such an important opportunity. With the help of the
Youth Development Council and input from state and local
practitioners, I believe that many of these challenges can be
overcome.
A final big picture thought on cross program coordination
and communication. The kinds of positive pathways we are trying
to produce for struggling students and out of school youth
should be part of the national conversation on high school
reform.
As we re-engineer the educational system, if we ignore the
youth who are already disengaged from it or have one foot out
the door, which can be half of all high school young people in
some communities, then we have already written off hundreds of
thousands of the very young people our programs are attempting
to serve.
My second point is the power of work and other real world
learning experiences for youth, and the support that they need
at a local level to make sure that we can provide these
opportunities for as many youth as need them.
Using the Workforce Investment Board and its Youth Council
as a platform, we have created a city-wide system for youth
workforce development that we call WorkReady Philadelphia.
Through WorkReady, we have built an expanding network of
committed employers that hire hundreds of young people each
year in unsubsidized internships.
We have seen major corporations like Lockheed-Martin,
Citizens Bank, Lincoln Financial Group, and Independence Blue
Cross make major contributions of time, energy and money to
support work experiences for disadvantaged youth.
Our experience underscores the value of collaboration on
model programs and projects that focus on special populations,
which would be a key role of the Federal Youth Coordination Act
Youth Development Council.
Once again, there is more we could and should be doing.
Therefore, the creation of the Youth Development Council could
also be of immense help by identifying employer incentives to
hire and mentor young people, supporting intermediaries that
connect employers to youth in schools, supporting
transportation and other support services that enable youth to
participate in work and service, and expand entrepreneurial
opportunities for young people.
My final point, Mr. Chairman, is the importance of
believing in our young people. Contrary to public perception,
most of our youth desperately want to be productive and do in
fact aspire to a better life.
In Philadelphia, we know these young people, and we know
that not only do they want to succeed, but they have the
potential and the ability to do so.
We appreciate your leadership on this issue, and we hope
that if your Act is passed, that you will continue to provide
leadership, to make sure that the kinds of things that you
envision in this Act actually are implemented to the agencies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Laura Shubilla follows:]
Statement of Laura Shubilla, President, Philadelphia Youth Network,
Philadelphia, PA
Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on
Select Education, my name is Laura Shubilla, President of the
Philadelphia Youth Network. It is my privilege to appear before you
this morning to discuss Philadelphia's work to build coordinated,
multi-agency approaches that serve our young people, and to address how
the principles of the Federal Youth Coordination Act can assist local
efforts. I will also reflect on how our work mirrors and reinforces
some of the key principles of the White House Task Force on
Disadvantaged Youth, including efforts to establish coordination across
federal programs, as well as a memo initiated by the Campaign for Youth
and signed by over 250 organizations supporting the Federal Youth
Coordination Act and other important youth policies. Finally, I will
offer suggestions to the Committee concerning recommendations for your
consideration that can help us to produce better outcomes for our young
people.
While I am here today speaking on behalf of the Philadelphia Youth
Network, I want to acknowledge the thousands of organizations and
individuals across the country that work tirelessly to address the
needs of our young people. I hope that in presenting our experience in
Philadelphia, we honor and, at least in some small way, represent their
efforts as well.
Let me begin by recognizing and thanking the Subcommittee for its
leadership in holding this hearing on such a vital issue. The Report of
the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth and the Federal
Youth Coordination Act are powerful testaments to the importance of
this topic. Rarely do social, economic and moral imperatives align so
clearly, and urge our attention and action. Therefore, the Committee's
focus is both timely and extraordinarily important. I hope that this
hearing will be the first of many that will bring much needed attention
to the needs of some of our most vulnerable youth, and also shed light
on the great potential that these young people have to become active
and productive citizens who can help to drive the nation's future
growth.
The Philadelphia Youth Network is a non-profit youth intermediary
organization that oversees approximately $18M annually from government,
foundation and private investments, dedicated to providing programs and
services to almost 10,000 young people each year through WorkReady
Philadelphia, our City's comprehensive youth workforce system. We
manage Workforce Investment Act (WIA) youth funding under contract to
the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board and staff its Youth
Council. We also oversee internships supported by the William Penn
Foundation and other area philanthropies, and are privileged to serve
as the managing partner for Philadelphia's Youth Transition Funders
Group program, supported by the Gates, Carnegie, Mott and William Penn
Foundations, that promotes enhanced opportunities for struggling
students and disconnected youth. I will focus my remarks on specific
aspects of Philadelphia's cross-sector collaboration, and suggest how
Congressional action could strengthen our efforts.
I would first like to emphasize the clear need for greater
coordination, flexibility and communication within and between major
youth-oriented public programs, including education, workforce
development and juvenile justice. Our Philadelphia experience
underscores the importance of such efforts, and clearly reinforces the
topic of coordination being addressed today.
Leaders in Philadelphia have worked very hard to use all available
program flexibility to bring together a wide variety of system partners
that invest funds from City government, the school district, local
foundations and private employers, with the goal of serving all youth
within one comprehensive system. I'll give you several examples of how
we do this:
(1) First, the advent of WIA enabled the City to build a network
of partners, including the schools, juvenile justice and foster care
agencies, to focus on the needs of disconnected youth with the goal of
identifying approaches that are both more efficient and more effective.
In fact, the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and its Youth Council
issue requests for proposals that leverage multiple funding streams,
e.g. WIA, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), school
district, foundation and private sector dollars, to provide services
critical to reengaging disconnected youth in education and employment,
and preparing these young people for success in education, employment
and life. This is the type of collaboration that the Federal Youth
Coordination Act can identify and encourage.
(2) We are working closely with the City's school system to align
and integrate our efforts in support of disconnected youth with broader
high school reform activities, including joint planning of smaller,
alternative high schools, and efforts to ensure that academic programs
at juvenile placement facilities are aligned with school district
standards so that youth receive credit for their work when returning to
high school. Furthermore, because the school district values the rigor
of programming offered through WIB and Youth Council funding, more than
32,000 Philadelphia youth have received academic credit for work
completed during their summer and year-round programs funded by WIA and
TANF.
(3) WIA funding is also being utilized to support organizations
who are administering schools for over-age, under-credentialed youth
and former dropouts who are trying to return to earn a high school
diploma. This funding augments school district dollars, and enables
organizations to provide much needed employment and wrap-around
services that are often critical to success.
(4) Through leadership of the City's Department of Human Services
and the WIB, we are pooling funding from multiple sources, e.g. WIA,
TANF and Chafee program grants, to support youth centers where we
provide access to work experience, education and training for out-of-
school, court-involved and foster care youth.
(5) As part of our Youth Transitions Funders Group grant,
Philadelphia is looking closely at strategies to better serve low
literate learners in traditional and non-traditional settings. We have
found that literacy is often the critical barrier for youth seeking to
reconnect to education or training programs. This effort will yield
lessons and best practices for working with older youth, and has the
potential to provide important professional development models for
educators.
(6) Also with support from the William Penn Foundation and the
Youth Transition Funders Group, Philadelphia is pursuing data
integration strategies that will analyze youth information across the
School District and all relevant city agencies to better define the
scale and characteristics of the out-of-school youth population. One
key aim of this discussion is to understand and address the differing
definitions for dropouts and out-of-school youth that have the
potential to hamper access to needed programs and services. In this
regard, we applaud efforts by the National Governors Association to
build support for uniform definitions of high school graduation and
dropout status.
(7) Additionally, while we are discussing coordination, I would
like to mention the needs of Philadelphia's 1,000 youth who each year
exit juvenile placement facilities, and that action on the bipartisan
Second Chance Act would strengthen collaboration between state and
local youth-serving systems to support their successful reintegration
into their communities.
We are proud of our history of collaboration and are eager to share
with other localities what we have learned about leveraging funds to
reconnect youth to positive pathways. However, the fact remains that
the differing definitions, eligibilities and outcomes that characterize
much federal youth programming continue to present significant
challenges for youth and their families as they attempt to access
needed programs and services. We simply have to do a better job of
making these systems more transparent and accessible.
To this end, I believe that the Federal Youth Coordination Act
represents an important opportunity to rationalize eligibility
requirements, programmatic definitions and performance measures that
too-often preclude the kinds of efficiencies that we all want to see in
public programs. Clearly, the Act's Youth Development Council would be
an excellent vehicle to address this goal.
In a broader sense, I also urge that the Subcommittee consider the
issues of disconnected youth as an integral part of overall high school
reform efforts. At present, the state- and national-level high school
reform conversations are focused on increasing academic rigor, which is
a laudable goal and critical for every student. But we must ensure that
schools, districts, and states are held accountable for improving
graduation rates as they work to improve academic achievement. Efforts
towards this goal could be enhanced by strategies and incentives for
school districts to engage multiple partners and funding streams to
create menus of educational options designed for all youth, with
particular attention to appropriate learning environments for students
who are struggling, who have multiple barriers to success, and for
those who have disconnected but wish to re-engage.
Finally on this point, even the most effective, efficient and
collaborative approach to youth service delivery cannot overcome
chronic under-funding of programs and services for disconnected youth.
Therefore, appreciating the profound fiscal challenges faced by the
Congress and the Administration, I hope that you will find the means to
make levels of public investment that would enable us to expand efforts
to help more disconnected youth successfully enter our nation's
economic mainstream.
My next point concerns Philadelphia's successes in building cross-
sector partnerships to provide work experience and service
opportunities for disadvantaged youth. Our experience underscores the
value of public agency collaboration on model programs and projects
that focus on special populations, which is a key role of the Youth
Development Council that would be authorized by the Federal Youth
Coordinating Act.
Research demonstrates conclusively that work experience during the
high school years yields long-term employment and earnings benefits. In
Philadelphia, we have seen first hand the power that work and service
can have to create life-changing benefits for young people. Our
WorkReady Philadelphia campaign has produced numerous examples of area
employers, city government, foundations and community organizations
mobilizing to host interns and provide employment support to more than
6,000 young people each year. A few examples include:
(1) Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solution has hired
three dozen IT registered apprentices, recruited from students enrolled
in a half-dozen Philadelphia high schools;
(2) St. Christopher's Hospital for Children has an extraordinary
program that has introduced hundreds of local high school students to a
range of health-related occupations, and has been responsible for
inspiring dozens of young people to pursue health careers;
(3) Citizens Bank and Lincoln Financial Group have offered dozens
of young interns opportunities for summer employment and have
contributed over $100,000 to support aspects of WorkReady Philadelphia;
and
(4) We are working with Philadelphia's Coca-Cola Bottling Company,
Herr's Snack Foods and ShopRite Stores to design a secondary
merchandising enterprise that will prepare out-of-school youth and
juvenile offenders for jobs and careers in a number of related
industries.
If the Federal Youth Coordination Act is passed, it would provide a
mechanism, via the Youth Development Council, for sharing information
on Philadelphia's successes and lessons learned, including the
WorkReady Philadelphia model for possible dissemination to other states
and localities.
While the power of work for youth is clear, research also tells us
that young people in urban and rural areas too often face challenges in
finding jobs and therefore lose out on its potential benefits. We
experience this directly in Philadelphia, as we are forced to turn away
thousands of young people each year who seek jobs but can't be
accommodated for want of funded slots. Therefore, the Youth Development
Council could also provide invaluable assistance by:
(1) Identifying employer incentives to hire and mentor young
people;
(2) Supporting intermediaries and other organizations that connect
employers to youth and schools;
(3) Supporting transportation and other support services that
enable youth to participate in work experience, community service and
service learning, and other forms of field-based learning that have
such powerful benefits; and
(4) Expanding entrepreneurial opportunities that have the
potential both to provide work experiences for our youth and to produce
valuable community services or products.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me share what I believe is perhaps
the most important underlying message of our work. Contrary to public
perception, most of these youth desperately want to be productive, and
aspire to a better life. In Philadelphia, we know that these young
people not only want to succeed, but that they have the potential and
ability to do so. We know this because:
(1) More than 15,000 young people each year seek summer and year-
round programs through WorkReady Philadelphia, far more than can
possibly be served with available resources. These young people produce
remarkable projects and portfolios that earn them academic credit
towards high school graduation, and result in valuable work experience
and employer connections;
(2) Young people participating in WIA-funded and other WorkReady
Philadelphia programs design and administer a Youth Satisfaction Survey
to their peers, in order to elicit recommendations that enable funded
agencies to continue to make improvements in their programs;
(3) Hundreds of out-of-school youth enroll in our neighborhood
based youth centers eager to improve their employment and earnings
prospects through work experience, education and training; and
(4) When given the chance, literally thousands of former high
school dropouts return to alternative educational opportunities because
experience has taught them how much they need a high school credential
and additional education to earn a living. For example, when three
small alternative high schools opened recently, with the capacity to
serve 450 students, they were deluged with almost five times that many
applications for admission.
These are but a few examples of young people who are seeking to
learn, earn and grow into productive employees and self-sufficient
citizens.
Your voices can contribute immeasurably to the public discussion on
these issues by delivering this essential message about young people.
Please use every available opportunity: every relevant piece of
legislation, every town meeting, every speech; to counter the
prevailing stereotypes of our young people and to express the reality
that they have the potential to become the active and productive
citizens that we all want and need them to be.
Furthermore, please continue to lend your leadership to the Act
once it is passed. The only way that The Federal Youth Coordination Act
will be effective is if leadership from each agency sends
representatives who are willing to understand each other's systems and
navigate the various governing rules and regulations to actually
implement the desired changes. This leadership will need to be ongoing
and persistent as this kind of system integration takes patience and
creativity. If our experience in Philadelphia has taught us nothing
else about systems coordination, it is that a few determined people in
each agency can make great things happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the need to promote
collaborative, multi-partner approaches for disconnected youth. Our
Philadelphia experience validates and strongly reinforces the Federal
Youth Coordination Act's goal to strengthen coordination and
communication across federal, state, and local government agencies and
funding streams. I applaud your efforts, and look forward to working
with you to elevate these issues, and to help our young people to
realize their potential as involved and contributing citizens.
______
Memo on Reconnecting Our Youth
from A Coalition of Voices from the Field
The undersigned organizations represent youth practitioners, policy
makers, educators, advocates, community and faith-based institutions,
and others who are concerned about the future for the millions of young
people who have fallen outside of the education and labor market
mainstreams with little opportunity to reconnect. As a coalition we
elevate this situation to the President's attention and advance a set
of recommendations. We stand willing to work with the President, his
administration, and the Congress to advance an agenda that will restore
hope and promise to these youth.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
Academy for Educational Development: Center for Youth Development and
Policy Research
Alliance for Children and Families
Alliance for Excellent Education
American Youth Policy Forum
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
Camp Fire USA
Center for Law and Social Policy
Chesapeake Center for Youth Development
Child Welfare League of America
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth
Connect for Kids
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
Eckerd Youth Alternatives
Education Works
Forum for Youth Investment
Friends of the Children
Jobs for the Future
Justice Policy Institute
Kids Project
Learning Disabilities Association of America
National Association of Service and Conservation Corps
National Association of Street Schools
National Association of Students Against Violence Everywhere
National Association of Youth Service Consultants
National Collaboration for Youth
National Council on Employment Policy
National Education Association
National Foster Care Coalition
National Independent Living Association
National Institute on Out of School Time
National Mental Health Association
National Network for Youth
National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and Prevention
National Partnership for Careers in Law, Public Safety, Corrections and
Security
National Youth Advocate Program
National Youth Employment Coalition
National Youth Leadership Council
New England Network for Child, Youth & Family Services
New Ways to Work
Northwest Youth Corps
Pacific News Service/New California Media
Puerto Rican Youth Development and Resource Center, Inc.
Sar Levitan Center for Social Policy Studies
School Social Work Association of America
Search Institute
Society for Research in Child Development
SOS Children's Villages-UAS
The Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
The First Place Fund for Youth
US Conference of Mayors
Western States Youth Services Network
Youth Build USA
Youth Development Institute
Youth Law Center
Youth Service America
STATE, TRIBE, AND LOCAL
Alaska
Alaska Youth Corps
Serve Alaska Youth Corps
Southeast Alaska Guidance Associations/Serve
Arizona
Children's Action Alliance
Coconino County Juvenile Court Services
Run Drugs Out of Town Run, Inc.
Youth Corps of Southern Arizona
California
Bridge of Faith
California Conservation Corps
California Youth Connection
Conservation Corps of Long Beach
Diogenes Youth Services, Inc.
Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission
Los Angeles Youth Network
Marin Conservation Corps
Orange County Conservation Corps and YouthBuild Program
Reality House West, Inc.
Riverside County Economic Development Agency
Sacramento Local Conservation Corps
San Jose Conservation Corps
Southwest Youth Corps
Tulare County Conservation Corps
Thomas Jefferson Youth Organizers
Workforce Development Board of Riverside County
Youth Justice Coalition
Colorado
Colorado Youth Corps Association
Larimer County Youth Conservation Corps
Mile High Youth Corps
Southwest Youth Corps
Urban Peak
Western Colorado Conservation Corps
Connecticut
Connecticut Association of Nonprofits
Lighthouse After School Program
Pride Cultural Center
Southend Community Services, Inc.
United Services, Inc.
District of Columbia
City Year Washington DC
Washington Partners, LLC
Florida
Centro Campesino Farmworker Center Inc.
Florida's Children First
Kids@Home, Inc.
The Children's Services Council of Broward County
The Children's Trust
Westcoast School for Human Development
Georgia
Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic
Communities in Schools of Colquitt County, Inc.
Fulton Atlanta Community Action Authority, Inc.
Southern Juvenile Defender Center
United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta
Hawaii
Hale 'Opio Kaua'I
Illinois
Cabrini Connections
Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc.
Emerson Park Development Corporation
Futures Unlimited, Inc.
Prologue Westside Youth Build
Uhlich Children's Advantage Network
Youth Conservation Corps, Inc.
Indiana
Crisis Center, Inc
Indiana Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group
Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, Inc.
The Incorporated Concord School
Kansas
Children and Family Services
Louisiana
NZBC Urban Corporation
Maine
Maine Children's Alliance
Maine Independence Corps
Maryland
Advocates for Children and Youth
Community Coalition for Education Options
Mental Health Association of Montgomery County
Public Justice Center
Massachusetts
Cambridge Housing Authority
Center for Youth Development and Education
Youth Voice Collaborative, YWCA Boston
YWCA of Western Massachusetts
Michigan
Albion Community Foundation
Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency
Michigan's Children
Michigan League for Human Services
Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools
Sault Tribe Youth Education & Activities
Minnesota
Achieve! Minneapolis
Hearthstone of Minnesota
McLeod Treatment Programs, Inc.
Minnesota Conservation Corps
Minnesota Council on Child Caring Agencies
Workforce Development, Inc.
Youth and Adult Programs, Orono Community Education
Mississippi
AIRS
Missouri
Accion Social Comunitaria
Citizens for Missouri's Children
Operation Weed & Seed
Youth Education and Health in Soulard
Montana
Discovery House
Montana Conservation Corps
Nebraska
Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska
Panhandle Community Service
Nevada
Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board
New Hampshire
Kearsarge Assets Network, Inc.
Odyssey House Executive Offices
Odyssey Youth Rebuild
New Jersey
Gloucester County Economic Development Workforce Investment Board
New Jersey Youth Corps of Trenton
The Work Group
Volunteer Center of Monmouth County
New Mexico
Education and Workforce Consultants
Forest Guild
Indio Hispano Academy of Agricultural Arts & Sciences
Pueblo of Acoma
New York
Advocates for Children of New York, Inc.
Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement Corporation
Community of Unity
EAC, Inc.
Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services
Family Recovery Center
Good Shepherd Services
Neighborhood Family Services Coalition
Niagara County Workforce Investment Act Youth Council
Niagara County Youth Bureau
Schenectady County Center for Juvenile Justice
Lighthouse Youth Services
West Seneca Youth Bureau
WSOS Community Action Commission, Inc.
Youth Communication/New York
Youth Resource Development Corporation
North Carolina
Haven House
Ohio
Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio
Native Village Publications
Ohio Youth Advocate Program
Oregon
Juvenile Rights Project
Washington
Northwest Service Academy
Pennsylvania
Episcopal Community Services
Pathways
Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth
Philadelphia Youth Network
South Carolina
Communities in Schools of Lancaster
Sumter County YouthBuild
Tennessee
Jackson State Community College
Memphis Shelby Crime Commission
Memphis Ten Point Coalition
Texas
American YouthWorks
Communities in Schools--Central Texas Inc.
Houston Metropolitan Federation of Families for Children's Mental
Health
Montgomery County Youth Services
St. Jude's Ranch for Children
Texas Network of Youth Services
Youth Works! Goodwill Industries, Central East Texas
Utah
Canyon County Youth Corps
Utah Conservation Corps
Vermont
Brattleboro Area Affordable Housing Corporation
High 5 Adventure Learning Center
Leland & Gray Union High School
Recycle North
Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs
Windham Child Care Associate
Youth Initiative Coordinator
Virginia
Petersburg Urban Ministries
Prince &Princess, Inc.
Virginia Council of Churches
Youth Works!
Wyoming
Wyoming Children's Action Alliance, WY
Washington
Chase Youth Commission
Civic Works, Inc
Clarion County Children and Youth Services
Community Programs, Shoreline Community College
Friends of Youth
Neighborhood House
Northwest Youth Services
2 Designs, Inc.
United Way of Kitsap County
Workforce Development Council (WDC) of Seattle-King County
INDIVIDUALS
Jerry Bennet
Ana Castaneda
Robert Dobmeier
Audrey Corder
Sarah Edwards
Lori Greenberg
Annie Guyton
Heather Ford
Joe Higgins
Curt McDermitt
Molly Shephard
Pat Stephens
Julie Stevermer
Chris Sturgis
Dr. Sue Tenorio
Coordinated by the Campaign for Youth
______
As President Bush begins his second term, he has indicated a strong
interest in reforming the nation's secondary schools to ensure that
every high school student graduates with proficiencies that will enable
them to succeed. The undersigned organizations support the President's
vision, and ask that he also commit to reforms that will improve the
well-being of America's youth, in particular those who are the most
vulnerable and disconnected.
This memo outlines a series of recommendations, many of which can
be implemented within existing statutory and budget authority, to help
the nation's most valuable resource our youth--develop into successful,
self-sufficient adults. Nevertheless, we also recognize that many of
the federal programs that support the transition of disadvantaged youth
to productive adulthood are inadequately funded, leaving many eligible
and needy youth unable to access the services, education, and supports
requisite to successful transition.
According to the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
(April 2003), the National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-
quarter of the adolescents in this country are at serious risk of not
achieving productive adulthood. Nationally, 3 out of 10 young people
who enter public high school do not graduate four years later. The
graduation rate is only 50% for Hispanic, African American, and Native
American youth. This situation is especially devastating in poorer
urban and rural communities.
Far too many young people are in danger of being left behind. Many
of these young people are already in the public's care in the foster
care and/or the juvenile justice systems.
Over time, secondary school reform and innovation should transform
the landscape of education delivery. Until then, each year more than a
half-million youth will leave school without a high school diploma, the
necessary skills to compete in the labor market, or the community
supports they need to constructively engage with mainstream America.
They will join the approximately 3.8 million youth between the ages of
16 and 24 who have already dropped out and are faring poorly in the
labor market and in their communities.
Contrary to public perception, most of these youth desperately want
to be productive, and aspire to a better life.
As a country we have the knowledge and the technology to close the
skills gap and racial disparities that have persisted for far too long.
It takes political leadership, effective policies, and smart
investments in our young people to harness their energy and empower
them with the competencies to contribute to our economic engine.
Our country cannot afford to allow so many youth to linger outside
the mainstream economy, without the skills and supports they need to
succeed. Effective reform must include expanding the boundaries of the
traditional education system to engage communities, parents, employers,
and other sectors in developing effective pathways and supports to help
students remain in school and, just as important, reconnect those who
have dropped out but need a second chance.
The President has made clear his commitment to leave no child
behind. As he turns his attention to our high schools, he can send a
powerful message that he has high expectations for every student. He
can command attention from all levels of government and from American
families, faith- and community-based organizations, and employers to
extend their stewardship to find effective community-based solutions to
this most pressing problem.
Our coalition of organizations stands ready, willing, and able to
work with the President to help all young people reach their full
potential. We ask for the President's consideration and support for the
following recommendations.
Use the Presidential ``bully pulpit'' to set a national
goal to Reach Out and Reconnect our youth
Establish an interagency National Youth Development
Council, as recommended by the White House Task Force Report for
Disadvantaged Youth
Improve youth services through better outcomes evaluation
and accountability
Establish flexibility in public education funds for
disadvantaged youth, to enable enrollment in the most appropriate
educational environments
Use the reauthorization of key federal programs to
strengthen supports for youth transitioning to adulthood.
Expand opportunities for youth to engage in community
service and work experience
Provide incentives and technical support to increase
employer participation in developing internships, pipelines and
intermediaries
Use the presidential ``bully pulpit'' to establish a goal to Reach Out
and Reconnect our youth
By setting goals for reforming the American high schools, President
Bush can send a clear message that our nation is committed to providing
opportunity and support for all young people who want to constructively
engage in their communities, better their academic skills, and be part
of a skilled workforce. The President can ask for the active
participation of governors, municipal leaders, business leaders,
community and faith-based-organizations, and citizens in making sure
our high schools are equipped to serve struggling students and our
communities stand ready to re-engage students who need another chance
to get on track.
Establish a National Youth Development Council
The White House Task Force Report on Disadvantaged Youth found
fragmentation among the various federal youth funding streams and in
service delivery for disadvantaged youth. Lack of coordination among
the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services and the
Justice Department all of which have programs and policies that serve
disadvantaged youth--makes it difficult for state and local programs to
blend funding streams and organize service delivery at the community
level. There are built-in disincentives for local coordination in the
regulations and policies set by the federal departments, and the work
of sorting them out at the state and local level is difficult. A
National Youth Development Council, that brings together the agency
Secretaries, representatives from the youth services field, employers,
representatives from local government, and youth can serve to:
Keep attention focused on the issues of disadvantaged and
disconnected youth, set national priorities, measure progress on key
indicators, and make policy recommendations to the White House
Establish specific task forces or advisory committees,
which include meaningful youth representation, to focus on the most
pressing issues (in particular, systemic issues and policies that
contribute to disparate outcomes for youth in certain subgroups) and
foster cross-sector participation in advancing solutions
Facilitate ongoing federal inter-departmental
collaboration and inter-agency responses to relax the federal
bureaucracy and promote the flexibility needed for more responsive
solutions
Provide interagency support for state and local
government efforts to assess youth-related policies, programs, funding
streams, indicators, and data in order to create and implement
strategic plans for coordinated investment of federal, state, and local
dollars to improve outcomes for youth
The Federal Youth Coordination Act (H.R. 856 or S. 409) bipartisan
legislation to implement this and other recommendations of the White
House Task Force Report was introduced in the 109th Congress by
Representatives Tom Osborne (R-NE), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Donald Payne
(D-NJ) and Harold Ford (D-TN) in the House and Senators Norm Coleman
(R-MN), Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in Senate. White
House support for this bill would bring about greater coordination and
accountability among the federal agencies serving youth.
Improve youth services through better evaluation and accountability
Requiring high schools, foster care and juvenile justice agencies,
and other federally funded agencies serving disadvantaged youth to
publicly report their demographics, service levels, expenditures and
outcomes would enable local communities to assess the magnitude of the
problem, system performance and who is--and is not--effectively served,
and monitor improvement over time. We recommend the following:
Develop a uniform definition for measuring graduation and
drop-out rates for local high schools, alternative schools, charter
schools, school districts, and states. Establish accountability
measures under the No Child Left Behind Act related to graduation rates
and hold states and local systems accountable for making progress
towards those benchmarks for all youth.
Require states to monitor policies and practice that
result in youth being ``pushed out'' or disproportionately tracked to
inappropriate educational alternatives
Require HHS to implement the National Youth in Transition
Data System (the accountability system for the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program as mandated by the Foster Care Independence
Act of 1999)
Provide both incentives and sanctions to state and local
child welfare and juvenile justice systems to ensure effective
transitional services, including the requirement that at key risk
points and before a youth is discharged, there are explicit transition
plans to connect youth to key education, training, housing, and support
services
Continue to support the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing
Children Protection Act of 2003, ensuring implementation of the
provision requiring HHS to coordinate with the U.S. Interagency Council
on Homelessness to develop a Report on Strategies to End Youth
Homelessness
Establish flexibility in federal public education funds for
disadvantaged youth, to enable enrollment in the most
appropriate education environments
High schools must be reconfigured to inspire and retain students,
support those who are struggling , remove the barriers to re-enrollment
for youth who have dropped out, and create non-traditional alternatives
for youth who can benefit from and choose to enroll in smaller, more
supportive environments. Students who drop out can often be re-engaged
and better served in alternative settings, like community-based
academic and experiential learning programs with a demonstrated ability
to achieve high school certification for these youth. Introducing
accountability and flexibility in financing alternative education
opportunities for older youth can allow more communities to work with
their local districts to develop alternate pathways to labor market
success for out-of-school youth.
Provide incentives and technical assistance to enable
public education funds (federal, state, and local) to be directed to
bona fide education programs operated by qualified community-based
organizations, community colleges and other entities that are better
suited to serve the complex education, training, and support needs of
youth seeking to reattach at the secondary level
Strengthen the capacity of the Department of Labor (in
conjunction with the Department of Education) to focus on community-
based alternative education strategies with special attention to
effective instructional technologies, delivery methods, workforce
connections, and performance accountability
Invest in a knowledge development effort to identify the
type of instructional technologies and interventions that work for
youth with low literacy levels, and facilitate the expansion of such
programs
Synchronize the performance expectations for youth served
by the adult education system and the Workforce Investment Act system
to remove the disincentives to blending funding in the service of youth
with extremely low literacy levels
Use the reauthorization process to strengthen systems to support youth,
especially those at risk, in successfully transitioning to
productive adulthood
There are many key federal programs that support the transition of
youth to productive adulthood. Several of these programs will be up for
reauthorization in the next Congress. The recommendations offered below
would improve these programs, and better enable the productive
engagement of our nation's youth and a skilled workforce for employers.
Higher Education Act. Strengthen the ability of the community
college system to serve as a bridge for out-of-school youth seeking to
gain marketable skills and academic skills for success in post-
secondary education. There are promising community college-based models
that allow drop-outs to accrue credits towards high school and post
secondary credentialing, sometimes concurrently.
Strengthen the ability of the TRIO programs to provide
college preparatory assistance to disadvantaged high school students
and out-of-school youth enrolled in alternative community-based
programs
Open access to higher education funding for high school
drop-outs who can demonstrate the ability to benefit from post-
secondary education and training; expand the definition of ``ability to
benefit,'' as proposed by the National Association of Student Financial
Aid Administrators, to include individuals without a high school
diploma who have successfully completed six units of college courses
Adopt alternative measures for determining institutional
eligibility for student aid that do not discourage the enrollment of
disadvantaged or higher-risk youth, rather than relying solely on
student loan default rates
Increase the amount of the maximum Pell Grant and direct
the Department of Education to maintain the current formula for
calculating eligibility so that hundreds of thousands of low-income
young people will not be denied access to a higher education
Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 27 & S. 9). Reauthorize the WIA
youth title to serve as an effective transition support system for out-
of-school and extremely vulnerable youth. The WIA youth title already
requires the provision of case management and follow-up for enrolled
youth. Requiring an increased focus on youth who are out of school,
homeless, or transitioning from foster care and the justice system can
provide the necessary community infrastructure to facilitate their
transition. Several other adjustments must be made to accommodate the
complex needs of these youth:
Retain the requirement for Youth Councils under WIA and
encourage and enable the participation of the education and child
welfare systems, runaway and homeless youth grantees, and the justice
system in structuring the transition supports for vulnerable youth.
Adjust the factors of the funding formula to ensure that
the resources target communities with the greatest level of youth
distress and promote increased expenditures per youth to reflect the
need for more comprehensive education, training, and transition support
Implement policies that facilitate the sharing of
information on individual youth to enable better case management and
outcomes tracking across systems
Build on the capacity developed in communities that were
part of the Youth Opportunities and the Young Offender demonstrations;
use discretionary funding to sustain efforts in communities where
successful systems innovation has occurred, which can serve as learning
laboratories for the rest of the system
Recalibrate performance measures to take into account the
increased risk factors so that they don't serve as a disincentive to
engaging the youth with greatest needs
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HR 1160 & S. 667).
Reauthorization provides the opportunity to refocus policy related to
youth in TANF households, young parents on TANF, and TANF's role in
positive youth development. Specific recommendations include:
Make explicit to states that expenditures of TANF funds
on programs that reconnect out-of-school youth to high quality
education and training alternatives is in keeping with national
priorities
Encourage the connection of young parents to post-
secondary vocational training and remove the disincentives inherent in
the definitions of work activity and the start of the TANF time clock
For youth in TANF households who are drop-outs or at
imminent risk of dropping out, require that the Individual
Responsibility Plans identify specific steps to reconnecting them to
education and training support
Serious and Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative. The Second Chance
Act of 2005 (H.R. 1704), introduced in the 109th Congress, would
reauthorize the Serious Violent and Offenders Reentry Initiative. We
encourage the Administration to support the following provisions
already included in the Second Chance Act:
Support the provision to reauthorize the juvenile
offender reentry demonstration grant. With 100,000 youth exiting
juvenile corrections facilities each year, it is critical to aid their
successful reintegration into society through an array of services
Support the provision that requires HHS to review the
role of child protective services after arrest and establish services
to preserve families
Support the provisions authorizing mentoring grants to
community-based organizations and the Federal Resource Center for
Children of Prisoners
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (HR. 366
& S. 250). In reauthorizing the Perkins Act, the Administration can
urge Congress to maintain the federal commitment to strengthening
secondary career and technical education opportunities. We recommend
the following:
Make career preparation and technical education available
to all secondary school students, including those in alternative school
environments
Improve the integration of learning for academic
excellence through the context of careers
Expand strategies, such as work-based learning,
experiential learning, internships, career exploration, etc. for youth
going to postsecondary education or training or the workforce after
high school
Improve the rigor and quality of career and technical
education by ensuring a link to academic standards
Align career and technical education curriculum to post-
secondary entrance requirements
Expand youth opportunities to engage in community service and work
experience
Teen employment is at its lowest rate since 1948. Economically
distressed communities face serious challenges in their ability to
offer young people the opportunities for gainful employment or civic
engagement that are key to preparing them for a productive adulthood.
The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (October 2003)
recommended a youth service initiative that would allow older youth to
``display leadership by providing opportunities for them to serve
children living in high poverty areas of the United States.'' Such
experiences enable youth to give back to their communities and develop
civic pride and leadership skills. They also provide an avenue for
communities to engage youth in the community building process. We
applaud the Administration's expansion of AmeriCorps (administered by
the Corporation for National and Community Service), and ask that the
Administration increase its efforts to identify and support programs
through AmeriCorps--such as Service and Conservation Corps and
YouthBuild--that enroll youth who are low-income and/or out of school.
In addition, much can be achieved by focusing the investment in Learn
and Serve America on successful and innovative programs and promoting
systemic change that leads to the infusion of service-learning
throughout our nation's schools, colleges, and community-and faith-
based organizations.
Provide incentives and technical support to increase employer
participation in developing internships, pipelines and
intermediaries
The high-paying jobs and careers of the future will require levels
of education, skill, and technical competence that far exceed those
typical of youth coming from distressed communities and school systems.
These youth are the least likely to be exposed to exciting new career
opportunities in science, medicine, the arts, and other professions.
Expanding their horizons and aspirations can only be accomplished by
engaging the corporate sector to help young people explore workplaces
and understand the demands, rewards and prerequisites for entry. The
Bush administration can assist in the following ways:
Encourage federal contractors operating in distressed
communities to engage with local intermediaries in providing
internships and learning opportunities for disadvantaged youth
Through grants and technical assistance, expand the
capacity of local intermediaries to work with business, the community
and school systems to create pipelines and work opportunities
Support training and technical assistance to expand
employers' capacity to better manage diversity, serve as mentors, and
constructively engage in the process of preparing youth for success in
the economy of the future
The President has the opportunity to fulfill America's promise to
the millions of youth who, with additional support, can make a
significant contribution to our economic and social well-being. The
undersigned organizations look forward to working with this
Administration using our collective ability to Reach out and Reconnect
our youth to a vibrant future of physical, emotional, and economic
well-being.
______
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you, and thanks for your real life
examples as well. Let me try this again, Ms. Sallee.
STATEMENT OF MARGUERITE SALLEE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICA'S
PROMISE--THE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Sallee. Chairman Tiberi, Representative Davis, Members
of the Committee, thank you for convening today's important
hearing on the coordination of Federal youth programs.
Mr. Davis, with ten brothers and sisters, maybe you could
teach us a thing or two about coordinating activities and
services.
I represent the America's Promise Alliance, which is a
growing group of businesses and non-profits, from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce to Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and lots
more.
We believe the promise of America should be available to
every child, that every child should be able to realize their
full potential, and too many today cannot.
I think the Federal Government has an important
responsibility and a role to play, especially for the 15
million disadvantaged young people in our country today.
Today, our nation is spending over $223 billion in Federal
money across 339 youth serving programs with very little
accountability and even less coordination.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that our children are too
important and our money is too scarce to allow this to
continue.
I come to you as someone who has dedicated my life to
advancing the well being of children and youth. I have worked
on children's issues both in government and in business for 30
years.
In state government, I was the Commissioner of the
Department of Human Services in Tennessee. In the Federal
Government, I was staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on
Children and Families.
I was CEO of a child care company and CEO of a company that
served troubled youth. Today, I am president of America's
Promise.
I mention my background just to simply let you know that I
have seen firsthand at the local, state and Federal levels the
way Government programs work, but also the way they don't work.
I have lived some of the frustrations and limitations of
our well meaning array of services.
Many good things, indeed, are happening. Along with the
Federal Government and state governments and the good programs,
we have community and faith based organizations, such as Boys
and Girls Clubs, YMCA, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Camp Fire
USA, and many others.
There are many Federal programs for children and youth that
do provide invaluable services, but we are not having the
impact that we must have.
In spite of our efforts, we know that one-third of students
do not graduate from high school. We know that the foster care
system designed to protect half a million of our most
vulnerable children is truly broken.
We still have too many youth in our juvenile justice
centers, too many using drugs, too many children having
children. We know that over half of juveniles in detention have
at least one psychiatric disorder, and far too many young
people are killing each other or themselves, and 11 million
children live below the poverty level and another 16 million
live in families without basic needs, even with one income.
In short, our children and youth in today's complex world
face complex challenges. We know we must do a better job
helping them reach their full potential, helping them realize
the promise of America.
How? I think we need to reverse the process. Children,
these whole beautiful human beings should be the focus, not the
myriad of programs. If you start with the child instead of the
collection of programs, we might be able to figure out how best
to serve them.
Our children deserve more focused attention and with the
expectation of measurable results.
One thing that few of us could argue about is that young
people and taxpayers would be better served if there were at
least better coordination across programs.
Representative Osborne and others have introduced
legislation, the Federal Youth Coordination Act. This is a
strong first step.
Today, we have over 339 programs and the White House Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified those. Clearly, we
have lots of programs doing lots of good things, but it is
either a robust system or a complicated web with no way out.
The reality is probably somewhere in between, and we can
and must do better. The Federal Youth Coordination Act can help
us get there.
Currently, the Federal Government has no focal point for
youth. We do not have a single entity responsible for setting
policy and measurable goals for our precious youth, ensuring
communication and coordination across agencies and holding
agencies accountable for achieving results.
H.R. 856 would change this, and would institutionalize this
important focus.
This administration is good with the robust domestic policy
groups, but these efforts must be ensured of continuity. We
can't count on a single Administration each time to figure this
out.
Government programs should add value, reduce costs, and
improve outcomes. For children, we don't know if this is
happening. It might come as a surprise that as a country, we
actually lack a road map for helping young people reach their
goals. We have no way of expecting coordination among agencies.
The Federal Youth Development Council would develop this
road map and for the first time, coordinate and
institutionalize that coordination and focus on children.
Coordination will not fix all of our problems, but it is
certainly a good place to start, and it will build strategic
bridges.
We need to identify duplication, improve efficiency,
streamline red tape, and best of all, focus on the kids.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for co-sponsoring the Federal
Youth Coordination Act. There are over 175 organizations
throughout the country that believe this has a tremendous
impact and great potential in the lives of children.
Thank you again, Congressman Osborne, for your leadership
on behalf of the nation's children and youth, and specifically
for writing and introducing this important bill.
As I close, I would like to recognize several organizations
that have long sought a more strategic Federal youth policy,
and they work daily and tirelessly to enrich the lives of young
people, including the National Collaboration for Youth, Big
Brothers, Big Sisters, Camp Fire USA, Communities in Schools,
Child Welfare League of America, the Forum for Youth
Investment, Girl Scouts of America, Volunteers of America,
YMCA.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we need your
leadership. The children need your leadership. Please do
everything you can to enact the Federal Youth Coordination Act.
You have the ability and the responsibility to act, to be a
leader in the House and an example to the Senate.
Our children are too important and our money is too scarce
not to pass this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marguerite Sallee follows:]
Statement of Marguerite W. Sallee, President and CEO, America's
Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Washington, DC
Chairman Tiberi, Representative Hinojosa, members of the Committee,
thank you for convening today's hearing on the coordination of federal
youth programs. I am honored to speak with you today on behalf of a
growing alliance of businesses and nonprofit organizations, many of
which are here today, on this important issue.
I come to you as someone who has dedicated my life to advancing the
well-being of children and youth, and has worked in and out of
government and the corporate sector for thirty years. At the state
level, I had the honor of serving as Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Human Services after leading then-Governor Lamar
Alexander's statewide ``Healthy Children Initiative.'' At the federal
level, I had the pleasure of serving as Staff Director for the Senate
Subcommittee on Children and Families. I am currently proud to serve as
President and CEO of America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, founded
by General Colin Powell to strengthen the voice for young people
throughout the country.
I make reference to my background because I want you to know the
different ways in which I have experienced government, and specifically
how government serves our children. There are many federal programs for
children and youth that provide invaluable services for our kids. Over
1.2 million children have a safe place to go after school while their
parents are working because of federal support for 21st Century
Community Learning Centers. In 2004, nearly one million children in
poverty received comprehensive services preparing them for school and
life through Head Start. And President Bush plans to provide 100,000
children of incarcerated parents with the love of a caring adult mentor
through the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, and we are well on
our way towards achieving the president's goal.
But despite all of the efforts of the federal government, combined
with the efforts of state governments, community and faith based
organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, Big Brothers Big
Sisters, Camp Fire USA and countless others, we know that about one-
third of students do not graduate from high school; we know that there
are more than 132,000 youth ages 15-19 in foster care who are going to
``age-out'' of the system, many of whom will lack a diploma, health
care, or even a place to live.\1\ And we know that there are over
104,000 juveniles who are detained, incarcerated or placed in
residential facilities, \2\ and President Bush's New Freedom Commission
on Mental health reports that well over half juveniles in detention of
at least one psychiatric disorder.\3\ In short, we know that children
and youth still face multifaceted challenges, and we know we can do a
better job of helping them to reach their full potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to national research, 55 percent of youth aging out
of foster care will leave the system without a high school diploma, 44
percent of them will have trouble obtaining health care, more than half
of the young women will have given birth, and a quarter will be
homeless. See Annie E. Casey Foundation (2004). Kids Count Data Book
2004. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 7-8. Available on-line
at http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/databook/essay.htm.
\2\ Ibid., 50.
\3\ President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003).
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America.
President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Washington, DC,
32. Available on-line at www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how? In these halls of Congress, we debate the mechanics of
various federal programs for youth, and rightfully so. Our children and
youth deserve more attention. But one thing that few people can argue
with, is that young people and taxpayers--would be better served if
there were better coordination among federal youth programs.
Representative Osborne has introduced legislation, the Federal Youth
Coordination Act, that offers a strong first step toward a more
efficient and effective response to the challenges facing disadvantaged
youth.
As you know, H.R. 856 was written to implement the recommendations
of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened by
President Bush to develop a more comprehensive federal youth policy.
The Task Force identified federal youth programs spread across 12
Departments.\4\ It found 145 federal youth programs offering 11 or more
services, \5\ and 112 programs serving 16 or more target
populations.\6\ Clearly, we have numerous federal youth programs
serving a multitude of youth populations with a variety of activities.
This is either a robust system, or a complicated web. The reality is
that it is probably somewhere in between. We can and must do better,
and the Federal Youth Coordination Act will help to get us there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (2003). The
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report.
Washington, DC: White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, 30.
Available on-line at http://www.ncfy.com/whreport.htm.
\5\ White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (2003).
Preliminary Report on Findings for the Federal Response to
Disadvantaged Youth. Washington, DC: White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth, 25. Available on-line at http://www.ncfy.com/
whreport.htm.
\6\ Ibid., 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the federal government lacks a focal point for youth. We
do not have a single entity responsible for setting policy and
measurable goals for youth, ensuring communication and coordination
across agencies, and holding agencies accountable for achieving
results.
H.R. 856 would change this by establishing the Federal Youth
Development Council. This council would be composed of Department
Secretaries and directed by Congress to improve communication among
federal agencies serving similar or the same populations of youth. It
would also assess the needs of youth and develop a comprehensive plan
including quantifiable five-year goals and common indicators of youth
well-being and assist agencies in coordinating their efforts to achieve
results.
Through its annual report to Congress, the council would compile a
comprehensive review of federal research on youth well-being, making
``what we know'' about youth and youth programs more transparent to
Congress and the American people. This, in turn, would help Congress
make more strategic decisions in the future. The report would also
provide recommendations to Congress on ways to better integrate
policies across agencies, particularly highlighting statutory barriers
to effective coordination.
And pending the availability of appropriations, the Council would
provide assistance to States and localities to support State-level
coordination efforts, giving priority to States that have already
initiated interagency coordination focused on youth.
If this bill only improved federal coordination, it would be a good
thing. If this bill only improved state coordination, that would be a
good thing too. But by doing both of these things together, the Federal
Youth Coordination Act is uniquely valuable. It also sends an important
message to States that they, in turn, should be connecting to city and
county level collaborative efforts. In so doing, the federal government
would provide leadership reinforcing work by the National Conference of
State Legislators and the National Governors Association, both of which
have recently launched efforts to support state youth collaboration.
It might come as a surprise to you that, as a country, we lack a
roadmap for helping young people reach the goals we hope they will
achieve. We have no way of directing coordination among agencies that
provide different services to the same populations of youth, so that
individual funding streams are, in the words of the White House Task
Force, ``integrated in ways that add value, reduce cost, and improve
outcomes for disadvantaged youth.'' \7\ The Federal Youth Development
Council will develop this roadmap, and for the first time, coordinate
agency efforts toward a common destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid., 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some may question whether or not the council called for by
this bill will truly be able to complete the Herculean task of
integrating the work of federal agencies, we have every reason to
believe the Federal Youth Coordination Act is a strong step in the
right direction. The continued leadership of this Committee is vital
for this to take place. By holding annual hearings, perhaps centered on
the annual report to be provided by the council, this Committee will
provide the extra accountability necessary to ensure success.
The bottom line is this: coordination won't simply happen by
telling agencies to coordinate. Federal agencies and staff, just like
all of us in the youth serving arena, are rightfully busy implementing
their own programs and strategies and have little time to ``come up for
air'' and look at the broader picture. This notwithstanding, it is not
okay that we allow children to age out of the foster care system
without health care or even a place to live when government programs
already provide both. And considering the existence of government
funded mental health programs, it is questionable that we incarcerate
juveniles with mental health problems but make little attempt to
address this problem, let alone effectively integrating these youth
back into the community.
Coordination will not fix all of these and other problems, but
especially during times where fiscal discipline guides decision making,
improved coordination is a good place to start. To do this, we need
Congress to empower a staffed entity whose full-time responsibility is
building strategic bridges among federal agencies. We need it to
identify duplication of federal efforts and areas for improved
efficiency, and direct interagency efforts to streamline unnecessary
red tape and produce better results for kids.
The concept of enhancing federal coordination is not a new one.
Congress has led much more intense efforts to address other national
priorities, such as the establishment of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy and the newly established National Intelligence
Director. Just as our country needs a coordinated effort to combat
drugs and keep us safe from terrorism, we need a comprehensive strategy
to ensure that those who will lead our country have the resources to be
the leaders we need them to be. While the Federal Youth Coordination
Act does not go as far as these two reform efforts, it is nonetheless a
strong and important step toward a federal youth policy that is
comprehensive, coordinated, and accountable.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for co-sponsoring the Federal
Youth Coordination Act, as I and over 100 organizations throughout the
country believe it has tremendous potential for improving the lives of
children. I would also like to offer special thanks to Mr. Osborne for
your leadership on behalf of the nation's children and youth, and
specifically for writing and introducing this important bill. I also
wish to recognize Representatives Ford, Hoekstra, Norwood, Payne and
Peterson for their co-sponsorship. Finally, I would like to recognize a
few of the organizations that have long sought a more strategic federal
youth policy, and serve daily to enrich the lives of young people,
including the National Collaboration for Youth, Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America, Camp Fire USA, Communities in Schools, Child
Welfare League of America, Forum for Youth Investment, Girl Scouts of
America, Volunteers of America and YMCA of the USA. The work of faith
and community based organizations such as these, as well as private
foundations and generous corporations which have followed the federal
government's lead by investing in collaborative efforts, leaves no
doubt that the Federal Youth Coordination Act would leverage
significant investments within the private sector.
Many feel that Washington is an increasingly partisan city. But we
know, and you demonstrate, that when it comes to the nation's children,
leaders on both sides of the aisle come together for what's right for
our country, and its future. I'd like to leave you with the words of
Terri Harrak, a young woman who aged out of the foster care system.
Terri said:
I believe federal agencies are doing the best they can to
provide services for young people, but there is no
coordination. I would go to one place for healthcare, run to
another place for unemployment, go somewhere else for
education, run all around town and fill out all kinds of forms,
when one person just could have told me about all the programs
together. If I would've gone to get healthcare, or emergency
food stamps, at 18 years old, I didn't even know how to use
them and had no place to put them. If someone would've told me
about the federal transitional living program that was four
miles away from where I was living in the hospital, I could
have saved a year of homelessness.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, children like Terri need
your leadership. Please act swiftly to enact the Federal Youth
Coordination Act. We have made great strides in a number of areas, but
there is still more to do. This Committee has the ability, and the
responsibility, to act.
______
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Dr. Steinberg?
STATEMENT OF DR. LAURENCE STEINBERG, DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR, MacARTHUR FOUNDATION RESEARCH NETWORK ON
ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY,
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Dr. Steinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am a developmental psychologist who specializes in child
and adolescent development, and I have done research on a
variety of topics, including youth development and parent/child
relationships for more than 30 years.
I am here to urge your support of the Federal Youth
Coordination Act, and I say this in light of what behavioral
scientists like myself as well as policymakers and
practitioners concerned with young people have learned about
the mental health and educational, vocational, and social
service needs of America's young people.
The existing lack of coordination among programs for youth
at the Federal, state and local levels is inefficient and
costly, and as a consequence, many young people in need of
services are not receiving them.
The way in which we organize programs for young people and
agencies that serve them reflects a view of teenagers and youth
that partitions their lives into isolated categories,
education, workforce development, now health, juvenile justice,
family life, and the like.
The boundaries between these domains with respect to
funding streams and administrative structures are often
entrenched in the way Government agencies are organized and
funded, but in the real world, the boundaries between these
different domains are very fuzzy and very fluid.
As I am sure that most of you know, different problems that
afflict adolescents often cluster together. Many young people
with special education needs have tremendous family problems.
Many young people who suffer long bouts of unemployment during
the transition from school to work perhaps have substance abuse
problems. Many young people with mental illness have spent many
years in the foster care system, and so on.
Yet, in many locales, individuals in the education, child
welfare, foster care and mental health systems have little
coordinated contact with one another, and nowhere is this more
apparent than with respect to young people in the justice
system, which is a group of adolescents that has been the focus
of my work for the past decade.
One of the studies that I co-direct is an ongoing
prospective study of nearly 1,400 serious juvenile offenders in
Arizona and Pennsylvania. This study is the largest and most
comprehensive of its kind ever undertaken, and I am pleased to
say this is funded mainly by the U.S. Department of Justice
with additional support from the two states in which we are
carrying out the research and several private foundations.
Unlike most studies of juvenile offenders, ours is
different in a very important way. We are not just interested
in understanding their criminal behavior. We are interested in
understanding their mental health, their psychological
development, their education, their labor force participation,
their family life, and the receipt of social services.
Here is what we are learning. We know that young people who
are in the justice system are there because they have violated
the law, but our research shows that this population of young
people can be defined by much more than their illegal or anti-
social behavior.
A disproportionate number of them have had contact with the
foster care system at some point in time. A disproportionate
number of them have been abused or neglected. A
disproportionate number of them have serious mental health
problems. A disproportionate number of them have substance
abuse or substance dependency.
In other words, these kids whom we classify as juvenile
offenders could just as easily be classified as special
education students, victims of child abuse, individuals with
mental illness, individuals with substance abuse problems, and
so on.
Because of the artificial way in which we classify them,
the kids in the juvenile justice system often don't get the
services that they need, and as a result of that, when they
come out of a justice system, they are very likely to re-
offend.
One of the things that we are seeing in the early years of
the study is one of the best predictors of re-offending among
kids coming out of the justice system, having a substance abuse
problem.
We can imagine how much better our justice system would
work if what we did in that system was coordinated with what we
did in the treatment of drugs and alcohol abuse.
Our work suggests that in order to be able to respond to
juvenile crimes, we need to look at the whole adolescent, and
not just at the young person's anti-social behavior.
I am confident that if you were to ask experts who
specialize in education, workforce development, health care,
mental health or foster care, you would receive a similar
assessment.
In closing, let me just say that I think America needs an
over arching youth policy in order to promote positive
development and to prevent problematic functioning during this
critical period of life.
I think the coordination of programs and services for young
people is a very important step toward this goal, and the
Federal Youth Coordination Act is a very important part of this
process.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Laurence Steinberg follows:]
Statement of Dr. Laurence Steinberg, Distinguished University Professor
of Psychology, Director, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA
I am the Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at Temple
University in Philadelphia. I specialize in the study of psychological
development during childhood and adolescence. I received my Ph.D. in
Developmental Psychology from Cornell University and have held faculty
positions at the University of California and the University of
Wisconsin. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, a
former President of the Society for Research on Adolescence, and the
President-Elect of the American Psychological Association's Division of
Developmental Psychology. In addition, I am the Director of the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent
Development and Juvenile Justice. For the past ten years, our Network
has been studying how our juvenile justice policies and practices
should be informed by what we know about normal and abnormal adolescent
development.
I am here today to urge your support of the Federal Youth
Coordination Act. I say this in light of what behavioral scientists
like myself, as well as policy-makers and practitioners concerned with
the development of American youth, have learned about the mental
health, educational, vocational, and social service needs of our
country's young people. The existing lack of coordination of programs
for youth, at the federal, state, and local levels is inefficient and
costly, and as a consequence, many young people in need of services are
not receiving them.
Currently, programs for youth are administered by a wide array of
agencies, many of which do not communicate with one another. The
organization of these agencies reflects a view of young people that
partitions their lives into isolated categories--education, workforce
development, mental health, juvenile justice, family life, and the
like. Although the boundaries between these life domains with respect
to funding streams and administrative structures are often entrenched
in the ways in which governmental agencies are organized and funded, in
the real world these boundaries are fuzzy and fluid. As I am sure you
know, different problems that often afflict adolescents tend to cluster
together. Many young people with special education needs have
tremendous family problems. Many young people who suffer long bouts of
unemployment during the transition from school to work also have
substance abuse problems. Many young people who suffer from mental
illness have spent years within the foster care system, and so on. And
yet, in many locales, individuals in the education, child welfare,
foster care, and mental health systems have little coordinated contact
with one another.
Nowhere is this overlap more apparent than with respect to young
people in the justice system, a category of adolescents that has been
the focus of my work for the past decade. One of our Network's major
research activities is an ongoing prospective study of nearly 1,400
serious juvenile offenders in Arizona and Pennsylvania. This study, the
largest and most comprehensive of its kind ever undertaken, is funded
mainly by the U.S. Department of Justice, with additional support from
the two states in which the study is being carried out as well as
several private foundations. Unlike most studies of juvenile offenders,
which focus only on understanding the causes of individuals' criminal
behavior, ours is examining the interconnections among antisocial
behavior, psychological development, mental health, education, work,
family life, substance use, and the receipt of social services.
Young people who are in the justice system are there as a result of
their violation of the law. But our research, as well as that conducted
by other teams, shows that the population of juvenile offenders is
defined by more than their illegal or antisocial behavior. A
disproportionate number of juvenile offenders have had contact with the
foster care system sometime during childhood. A disproportionate number
have been abused or neglected. A disproportionate number require
special education. A disproportionate number suffer from substance
abuse or dependence. A disproportionate number have a mental illness
such as depression, post-traumatic anxiety disorder, or bipolar
illness. In other words, these young people, whom we classify as
juvenile offenders, could just as easily be classified as special
education students, victims of child abuse, alcoholics, or youngsters
with affective disorder. Yet, because of artificial categorization
based on funding streams and programs, we classify these adolescents as
juvenile offenders, and not in some other, equally valid way, and
because the juvenile justice, education, mental health and child
welfare systems do not always coordinate their efforts, adolescents in
the justice system often do not receive the full range of services that
they need, either while they are in facilities or when they return to
the community, during periods of aftercare. As a consequence, many
juvenile offenders continue to commit crimes after they have been
released from the justice system. In our ongoing study, for instance,
we are finding that one of the best predictors of re-offending is
having an alcohol or substance use disorder. To effectively help
adolescents overcome challenges we need the programs and services
available to them to be coordinated holistically, not categorically.
Our work suggests that in order to understand how best to prevent
and respond to juvenile crime, we need to look at the whole adolescent,
and not just at that young person's antisocial behavior. I am confident
that if you were to ask experts who work in the fields of education,
workforce development, health care, mental health, or foster care, you
would receive a similar assessment.
America needs an overarching youth policy in order to promote
positive development and prevent problematic functioning during this
critical period of life. Requiring agencies that serve youth to work
together toward the common goals that they all share--helping young
people have a positive and successful adolescent experience and helping
to ensure that they make a healthy and successful transition to
adulthood--is a critically important element in the development of an
overarching youth development policy. The Federal Youth Coordination
Act is an important step in the right direction.
______
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. That was awesome. Thank you all
for very, very good testimony.
I am a proud sponsor of this bill and congratulate
Congressman Osborne for bringing folks together to have this
debate.
I want to touch on an issue that my colleague from Ohio
brought up. You all may have heard him bring it up to our
previous witness, Dr. O'Grady, that being music.
Let me put it in this context. Having grown up in a family
where English was the second language when I was growing up,
graduating from the second largest public school system in
Ohio, first in my family to graduate from high school, eligible
for the free and reduced lunch program when I was in high
school, if it weren't for music for me, I can tell you that I
would certainly not be here, but who knows where I would be if
it weren't for that wonderful mentor/teacher and a music
program that really got me interested more than other things I
was involved in. I am still involved in music today.
Taking Mr. Ryan's lead in his question earlier to Dr.
O'Grady, how do we from a Federal policy standpoint maybe try
to help youth who might come from difficult backgrounds get
interested in music, sports, or other particular programs that
might help them through adolescence?
Ms. Sallee. One comment I would make is if we were really
comprehensive in expecting every young person to have a good
thing to do after school, after school activities including
mentors, youth service opportunities.
What do they do when they are not in school? We recently
did a survey of 2,000 young people, and unfortunately, 75
percent have nothing to do and surf the Internet. That is a
great opportunity begging for a solution. They need mentors.
They need music. They need sports. They need productive
activities. They need volunteer opportunities.
We need to take again a coordinated approach to this thing
and make sure that every young person has something good to do
after school.
Dr. Steinberg. May I add to that, we now know from
behavioral science research that the hours between 3 in the
afternoon and 6 in the evening are the prime time for
youngsters' experimentation with drugs and alcohol, precocious
sexual activity, and delinquency.
If we could occupy young people in the after school hours
with these more productive activities that would help create a
passion for something important in their lives, we could also
prevent a lot of problem behavior at the same time.
Mr. Moore. I would echo the thought particularly on
developing positive opportunities for all kids throughout our
nation.
Kids who are already enmeshed in the system either through
mental health or substance abuse or delinquency, the
interventions that we provide to them also need to be looking
at that person as someone who is growing and still developing,
and we need to make sure they have those kinds of opportunities
as well, and that would be in addition to the supervision and
other kinds of interventions that are needed in those cases, if
such exist.
It is not just the prevention side that those things need
to be brought to bear on the kids.
Ms. Shubilla. I guess I would just add music spoke to you.
Community service spoke to me. I think that part of what we
want to create is opportunities to engage kids with things that
are interesting to them, and for young people who have become
particularly disengaged, it is the first way to get them back
in the door and give them some success and some confidence that
then helps them tackle some other issues in their life. I think
it is very important.
Chairman Tiberi. Good point. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr.
Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
you all for your testimony and your insights.
Ms. Sallee, you indicated that it did not appear to you
that we had a focal point or a focus on youth or our young
people. Are you suggesting a separate agency or designation of
something coming out of the Federal Government that just simply
concentrates on the problems, needs, hopes and aspirations of
young people?
Ms. Sallee. Thank you. The purpose of the Federal Youth
Coordination Act would actually set up a council, and that
council would represent all these different agencies that are
serving young people today, and the very act of having a
council and asking them to have a plan and to have measurable
goals and to hold these different programs accountable and call
for an assessment of young people and their needs, there are
some people who said will this create an unnecessary level of
bureaucracy, but in point of fact, this coordination could
eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and get better results and a
better return for our precious investment of real Federal
money.
That would be, I think, the major thrust of this piece of
legislation, to create this council that could become the focal
point and have representation from the different groups and
agencies.
Mr. Davis. The council could really do it? I mean we have
commissions and study groups and all kinds of groups.
It seems to me that you are kind of moving toward an
agency. I am thinking how programs come. Often times, one
agency may very well not know what another agency is really
doing.
If you have put all of the activity in a place, then
somebody knows you are dealing specifically with youth. That
may be separate from dealing with education or dealing with
health care.
I guess there is some----
Ms. Sallee. The representation from those different groups
you listed would be at the table. The two good things about
this Act is No. 1, it is over in 5 years. I like the sunset
provision because it gives a sense of urgency. It says let's
make a plan and let's institutionalize better coordination and
better expectations.
Second, it also has provisions for going down to the state
level, which can then help really organize at the state and
community level, and that is real services and real kids live.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Steinberg, I really appreciate the intent
and the focus of your study. It seems to me that what you found
already, that we are on the right track with Representative
Osborne's legislation.
How can your study or the information help us to become
more effective at determining what is working and what is not
working, and what really helps us get to the end result?
What is it that we are hoping is going to happen as a
result of the activity in which we are engaged?
Dr. Steinberg. Our study was designed to answer the very
question that you are asking, that is what works for what kids
under what circumstances.
I think that in order to answer that question, we need to
take this broad holistic view of children and understand the
different kinds of social and emotional and behavioral needs
that they have.
Just as an aside, we have had a lot of difficulty getting
other agencies to help support this research because it is seen
as a juvenile justice study when in fact we are learning an
awful lot about substance abuse and mental health and
adolescent development and education and labor force
participation.
Currently, there is not an effective mechanism for bringing
together different agencies to fund research that is going to
inform the study of these issues in the kind of comprehensive
way that we need.
I am hoping that with provisions such as those outlined in
the Act that Mr. Osborne has sponsored, it will not only help
in the delivery of services and programs, but it will help us
do a better job as a research community in evaluating and
understanding the problems that kids have and what we need to
do to address them.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
those of you on the panel for appearing here today.
I would like to start with Ms. Sallee. I think you
mentioned $223 billion spent on 125 programs or 150, whatever.
That is a huge amount of money.
I wondered if you had available quickly the comment in your
testimony where you quoted the young lady was somewhat
frustrated by her experience in the system? I have it here. I
can read it for you if you don't have it accessible.
Ms. Sallee. Yes, please.
Mr. Osborne. Anyway, what you said is I'm sure the Federal
agencies are doing the best they can, but there is no
coordination. You have to go to one place for health care and
run to another place for unemployment and somewhere else for
education, and all around town, fill out all kinds of forms,
and one person just told me about the programs together. If I
would have gone to get health care or emergency food stamps, at
18 years old, I don't even know how to use them and had no
place to put them. If someone would have told me about the
Federal transitional living program that was four miles away
from where I was living in the hospital, I could have saved a
year of homelessness.
The reason I am asking this is you folks deal with people
in real life situations and on the ground, so to speak.
As we listened to Dr. O'Grady, and I think his testimony
was excellent, we get the impression that things are really
going pretty well, and as we listen to you folks, I don't have
quite the same impression.
There is a little disconnect here. I wondered--I will throw
it open to any and all of you--where do you think the situation
lies? Where does the rubber hit the road?
I do not want to introduce legislation that is meaningless
or duplicative and doesn't do any good.
I guess in my experience, I ran a mentoring program with
3,000 kids, and as I deal with young people, I don't think
things are going all that well. I do see a lot of confusion,
and most kids in foster care are dealing with at least four or
five different agencies and it is very confusing. Unless they
have a lot of help, they just simply can't negotiate the
system.
Anyway, would you flesh it out a little bit and what are
the facts? Maybe you could say a little bit more on whether
this is a good thing or a bad thing. What do you see happening
on the ground with kids and young people?
Ms. Sallee. I think all of us can reflect from our
different perspectives the frustrations that we live and feel
on behalf of young people we have tried to serve and help and
their family members who can't negotiate the system and the
different eligibility criteria and the different places you
have to go just to put together the basic resources that you
are trying to have to help your child or the family.
Then the workers themselves get frustrated because there
are artificial barriers through these silos of funding streams
that come down.
On behalf of the administration, I do think there has been
an effort to introduce better coordinating vehicles, but I was
suggesting in my summary testimony, we can't be dependent on
one domestic policy advisor to work this through.
What we are all asking for is that this notion of
coordination on behalf of young people and better results for
young people and a more holistic view of young people, that
that be institutionalized through this council and through this
Coordination Act, and then maybe we can have this window of
time to really break through some of these silos and create
some better coordination and get more efficient use of the
money.
If we had more efficient use of money, we could serve more
kids. I think that's what we all are about, touching more
lives.
Ms. Shubilla. I would just add to that, on a local level,
we have been grappling with a similar issue. We have a lot of
good people in place across all of our agencies right now who
are eager and willing to work together.
How does that outlast the current leadership, the current
political appointments that are in place to make sure this is
institutionalized, so that every time there is new leadership,
we are not starting all over again with our coordination
efforts.
I think at the end of the day, that is what is going to
make the difference in terms of returns on investment and being
able to cut administrative costs, since this is a long term
institutionalized system and not just a short lived system.
Mr. Moore. From a state perspective, I will remind you that
I do believe that the real coordination has to happen at the
case level, locally, but at the state level, a number of the
efforts that are going on in the administration are working in
the right direction. They are doing things that make sense and
that are smart.
The devil is in the details. By the time it gets down to
the local community, sometimes it almost feels like a
theoretical construct, what has happened at the Federal level.
An example would be there are some programs where there
have been some joint Federal agencies working together to
develop a program for after care, re-entry of offenders, for
example. Wonderful ideas. Wonderful things. They are doing
well.
The states are having to apply to a number of different
agencies and fill out a number of different reports and deal
with different Federal liaison, even though there are Federal
agencies working together on a common project, there are still
things that could be done to improve the coordination and the
seamlessness of working together.
At the state level, we have the same problem, trying to do
that for our local communities.
There is still work to be done.
Mr. Osborne. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Ms. Sallee, I think you mentioned
better coordination, the more efficient this is, the more money
we could actually get down maybe to the case level and get
actually help to these kids.
In your estimation and maybe in Mr. Moore's as well, what
kind of savings do you think we could extract from this $223
billion? That is a lot of money for any of us to even try to
comprehend. Percentages, numbers.
Do you have any idea what money we would be able to save by
coordinating this and actually pushing the money down to the
kids?
Ms. Sallee. I couldn't say because I think what you have to
do is get everybody at the same table to say what can we do to
serve these kids as holistic human beings, and let's see what
happens.
I also would caution that this is not so much about saving
money. When you think about our children as our future and how
much money should we be investing in those young people and in
our future, and you look at the challenges facing us globally,
this is a big amount of money, but it is not too much to be
investing in our children and our future.
I think what we are calling for as much as anything is
better results for that money.
I agree there could be some efficiencies and some of those
dollars could then serve more young people, but I think it
would be tough to hazard a guess until you got everybody at the
table, because that is part of the problem, even this White
House Task Force report didn't know where the overlaps and the
duplications were when they tried to analyze this problem.
We have to get the agencies at the Federal and state levels
sitting at the same table to say how can we clear the clutter,
get rid of the unnecessary paperwork, and take care of kids.
Mr. Moore. I've been with state government for some time
now, and I have seen lean times where budgets are cut
tremendously and I have seen good times in terms of revenue.
I didn't come here today to try to help understand or help
describe how much money we could save or how much money we
need. I came here today to talk about how whatever money there
is available, we can do better things with it.
Whatever money you give to the states, we are going to do
as good as we can. Any additional help you can give us, other
ways of coordinating and flexibility, so we can help local
folks coordinate is what I think this discussion is about.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. I agree. I think regardless of
what the savings may be here, which I think can be significant,
I still think 50 percent graduation rates and all the
statistics that you have said, we have to make greater
investments.
I think we owe an obligation to the taxpayer to make sure
that this is invested properly and efficiently and everything
else.
I think you guys bring up some great points not only with
youth development. Congressman Osborne, this is terrific. I
hope this can be a model for what we do with health care and
what we do with a lot of other things in Government, to look at
this as a system.
We do the same thing in the schools. We have junk food in
the schools and candy and pop and everything else, and then we
wonder why many years later these kids have certain diseases or
are susceptible to certain diseases.
I think this is a good opportunity for us to have this
broader discussion. I thank you very much.
One question for Dr. Steinberg. Maybe you can help us
understand, too, and we talked about music, and the Chairman
talked about music and the arts and they are what I think will
end up being a great opportunity for all of us to figure out
what the mental health and abused kids--I know a family that
has three kids, all grew up in a terrible environment. Two are
in sports. One is in speech, debate, drama and music.
By far, the one who is in drama and music is much healthier
emotionally than I think the others are.
Why is that? Why are these studies coming out that music
and music therapy and these kinds of things--why are the arts
effective in this regard?
Dr. Steinberg. I think it just may be the case for that
family. Lots of kids do very well in athletic activities.
Others don't connect with sports but connect more with music or
art.
I think the key point is that we need to provide
opportunities for all kids to connect to something, and that is
what is going to make a difference in keeping them healthy and
helping them make a successful transition into adulthood.
We don't fund music and arts as much as we ought to, and
they are certainly not as well funded as athletic activities
are, and that is a problem that we need to address.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear,
I don't play a musical instrument. I don't sing. I don't dance.
I don't do anything.
I see a trend happening with kids who are provided with
that opportunity and others who are not.
I thank you very much. I think this is great. Mr. Osborne,
thank you for doing this. This is wonderful.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for having the hearing.
Chairman Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. So, it's not true
about one of your colleagues from Ohio, what he says about you
and your dancing?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ryan. Not true.
Chairman Tiberi. Not true? OK.
Thank you, Mr. Osborne, for your leadership again. I want
to thank the four of you for the time that you spent here
today, the work that you are doing out in the field, your
testimony. It was very helpful as we move forward.
I want to thank the Members for their time and
participation today, and if there is no further business before
us today, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]