Special Committee on Kensington, February 26, 2025

No, no, no. 16 This is just numbers. This isn't 17 percent. So it's like 4% or 18 something like that. 19 DISTRICT ATTORNEY 20 KRASNER: Councilmember, with your 21 permission can we back up just a 22 little bit because I don't want 23 there to be confusion between 24 graduation and what happens after graduation. So, Caleb Arnold, can you explain to the Councilmember what happens if you fail during AMP and what happens after AMP?

Can we step one step back further. How many people were sent to AMP last year?

We had -- let me just pull my notes. So last year, there were -- I don't have the numbers of how many people were sent to AMP just last year. I have more global numbers. I apologize. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: About how many were in AMP last year?

I just have the completion numbers. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: All right. What's the completion --

We could ask -- to the Chair.

But I can get that information for you.

If you can send them to us and we'll make sure that we distribute them to the Committee, that would be great.

But to address your question, we have a good recidivism rate in both programs. The problem is getting people to complete AMP once they get in, right. And so, that's where we see a number of bench warrants where people either bench warrant and then they complete later when they get picked up and their bench warrants lifted or we just have people who are on bench warrants for a long time. And so, it's true like one of the things that we're looking to do is how to push AMP in earlier so that we can get people connected faster to treatment.

And I think that would be a goal from us also. I mean, I think if we see those numbers maybe we could help or at least brainstorm together how we could improve that because again, it's all about outcomes in the end. We would love to say we got people started, but that's one part is the getting started. The second part is to follow them through a process hopefully, right, to become successful. All right. That was my main question. If we could get that data information set to the Chair. And then if we have further questions, we could just do that through email to be able to get answers. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Councilmember, I want to make sure we answer your question properly. So you're looking to see how many people were referred to AMP, how many went into AMP, how many completed AMP and how they did after AMP?

Right. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Okay. We can do that.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there further questions? (No response.)

Thank you so much for being with us today. Will the Clerk please call the next panel to testify on Resolution 240896.

We have Chief Defender Keisha Hudson from the Defender's Association. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)

Thank you. Welcome. Please state your name and begin your testimony. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Good afternoon, Councilmember Jones. Keisha Hudson. I'm the Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. And with me, I have Andrew Pappas who is the Managing Director of Pretrial and specifically tasked with working with our Kensington clients and population and stakeholders.

Welcome. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you. And good afternoon, fellow Councilmembers. I do want to thank Councilmember Quetcy Lozada and this Committee for the opportunity to testify. We did submit very detailed written testimony, and I want to keep this brief and leave time for any questions that you might have. I want to talk a little bit about my experience as a public defender because it is relevant, I think, to the answers the questions you've been asking today and the answers that you seek and what I think some of the solutions are. I've been a public defender for 15 years. It'll be 23 years in 16 September. 17 I am, as my fellow 18 defenders are, experts in what our 19 clients' histories look like and 20 what they need in order to navigate 21 the criminal legal system and 22 successfully navigate the legal system and not to re-enter it. For 10 years, I worked at the Federal Defenders in the Capital Habeas Unit representing clients who were sentenced to death row. And a critical component of that work was what we called mitigation work. And I will tell you that one of the recurring issues in our clients' histories that recur generation after generation in addition to poverty was drug dependency, mental health issues, and these recur. And so, our clients are incredibly complicated. They did not just fall into drug addiction or serious drug addiction. There's a history to how they got there, and we know the solutions to how to help them. I never come to address this body without talking a little bit about the scope of the work we do and our needs as we are in the midst of budget cycle. And just to give you an idea, last year, we represented 44,000 adults last year. In calendar year 2024, we represented 44,000 adults. 1500 of those were linked to arrests within 3000 feet of Kensington and Allegheny. And the majority of the clients were of course from Districts 1, 6 or 7, and 6% of them were homeless. We have -- with that 44,000 client population we only have 29 social workers, 29. One of the questions that you've been asking of each panel is whether or not you can follow clients through treatment as they're going through addiction treatment, whether or not you can measure outcomes and bring that data back to show are these programs and diversion programs effective. And one way you can do that and must do that, as I've been advocating every budget cycle, is we need more social workers. 5 million to fund social workers. I did not 4 get that allocation. This year I'm 5 specifically focusing on Kensington 6 and asking for five social workers 7 to start. It won't be enough, but 8 five social workers to start 9 working exclusively with people in 10 Kensington. And my budget ask is 11 million to support not just an 12 expansion of Wellness Court but a 13 place-based strategy to do the case 14 management where we follow that 15 client the entire time they're in 16 the system, post-treatment, connect 17 them to housing, connect them to 18 other resources, help them get 19 their benefits, help connect them 20 to jobs and make sure that they are 21 not going to filter back into the 22 system and do that re-entry 23 planning component as we're 24 supporting them on a case management basis. As you know, the Defender's Association we don't create diversion programs. That is the Police, that is the District Attorney, that is the courts. But we are the experts on the people who go through them and we can tell you parts of the reasons why we think they could be more successful and ways that they could either expand to address and meet a higher need. So the current diversion programs we see the successes and challenges. For AMP, it's a program I think that is essential. It is successful and provides treatment instead of jail for low-level nonviolent offenses. There was expanded eligibility in November of 2024, which allowed improved individualized assessments.

The key success metrics from our data, right, there were 446 referrals in the last four months, we looked at the last four months, with only one revocation for the people that we represent from the data that we collected. The second -- and we haven't heard much about this today -- is the Forensic Intensive Recovery or the FIR program, something that I know Councilmember Lozada has been asking questions about, how does FIR work and it is for effective. It was designed to reduce the jail population and jail overcrowding by connecting incarcerated people to treatment. The issue we are having with FIR, which the courts are aware and are looking at, is that it takes over two months on average for people to be released through FIR, and 18% of people who are referred, individuals who were released before evaluation, came back through the system and were re-arrested. So that's missed intervention opportunities that we are not getting. The assessments are taking way too long and people are getting out they could be getting out variety of ways, they make bail, their case is resolved, but we are seeing 80% of that population that did not get evaluated come back through our jail system. And then Neighborhood Wellness Court, you have heard a lot about today. It is the pilot stage. It is only one day a week on Wednesday mornings as you know. It is incredibly important that we are lifting bench warrants same day. We have to avoid the necessity of sending anyone to State Road. And we are hopeful that we can navigate issues around detainers so that people who have detainers do not go to State Road. As you know, we've lost two clients -- in addition to Amanda Cahill, we lost two clients in the last year because of bench warrant detainer issues and the jail just was not prepared to treat this population. The numbers coming through now are low because I do think it is one day a week, one morning a week. Well, today is a beautiful day but it's been very, very cold, and we are right around the time when our clients go home and their families accept them back in and there is forgiveness and there's redemption. But I do think you're going to see the numbers rise significantly in the spring and summer months. And so, it's going to have to expand if we're keeping Neighborhood Wellness Court. My part of the 1 million ask as I said before is to be able to staff that expansion addition to the five social workers that would just be dedicated to Kensington. My recommendations and then I'll close for any questions. I do think we should expand pre-arrest diversion. I see what happens once my clients come into the system. The outcomes for them are incredibly poor once they are in the system. And so, for our youth and adults I think expansion of prearrest is important. We have to invest in the Defender Association. We absolutely have to. 44,000 adults last year and 29 social workers is just not a tenable way to make an impact on our client population, much less the high-needs population which are our dependent kids and our drug-addicted and mentally-ill population. So we need more social workers. And we have heard now a lot of discussion around housing and housing being part of the solution. So I do think these diversion programs are working. They can work better. They can have a much broader reach. But I think the answer you've been seeking today about how can we measure outcomes and whether people who successfully go through PAD or AMP or Wellness Court, are they cycling back through, is you have to have someone who stays with them the entire time they're in the system from start to finish. One last point, our highest population of dependent children that we represent is in the Kensington area.

I do think we have to take a holistic look at the fact that our clients who are substance-addicted have children who are in the dependency system and whether or not reunification and helping them reunify with their children can be a path for them to get better, because I will tell you our clients who have their children in that system talk about the impact of not seeing that light or reunification at the end of the time and whether or not that would help them stay on track so that they can their families back together. Dependency is a multi- generational recurring issue that we see when I talked before about the indicators that we see in our clients' lives. Not just poverty, not just substance abuse and drug addiction and not just mental illness, dependency recurs generations after generations after generations. I see this as a particularly important time with our budget. And I say that to say that our client population at the Defender Association is going to be and has been in some real pain and I think is going to be feeling even more pain across the board in the next four years, and arming us with the ability to actually do case management work and not the light touch of referrals is going to be key if we're going to weather now and weather the next four years. And I'll take questions now. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for all of the work that you're doing. I want to go back to something that Dr. Ahmad referred to, and I'm sure that you all have heard it sitting in this room. There are a lot of programs. At what point or do you believe that it is important for us to sit down and figure out, lay out all these programs and figure out how do they overlap? Right now everybody's working in their own silo. And I think to Dr. Ahmad's point I think that is the problem, that either we are refusing to do it, we don't have the capacity or the systems to be able to do it, but everybody just -- instead of figuring out how to better improve a diversion program, how to invest in order for this diversion program to work effectively and respond to hundreds of people, we decide we're going to create another program, right. How do you think that is -- what barriers do you think that is creating? What additional barriers do you think that is creating, right? We already know some of the barriers. We've heard of them today. But having all of these programs and having people work in their individual silos, how do you think that's hurting us and what do you recommend? What do you recommend that as a committee we advocate for moving forward to continue to respond not just to the crisis that we're seeing in Kensington, but to the need that we have in the city of Philadelphia, right? Yes, diversion programs are extremely important. Yes, we want to keep people from entering our systems or going up to State Road and, yes, we believe in opportunities, opportunities that you're going to take advantage of right, not opportunities for you to beat the system, opportunities that you're going to take advantage of that are going to lead you to a quality of life. What do we need to do? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: So at the Defender Association we have two data people, right. And we, I think, do an excellent job because we can ask questions and we have information that none of the other stakeholders will ever have about our clients. They won't. We are covered by attorney-client privilege. We have access to information from them and their entire family history, their medical history starting with prenatal to the day they came into the system. The police will never have that data point. The DAs, the courts won't have that data point. We have that data point, so we can see what is what got you here and what is working and what is not working. We can look at your record and see, okay, you've been through AMP, you've been through three other programs and you're here again on your 5th or 6th or 10th arrest, clearly what is happening there. We specially assign our clients with complicated needs to social workers, but with 29 that is a triage that we make the really high-needs population, particularly with mental health. And we have a very large mentally-ill population of clients that we represent. So we actually can -- we have the solutions now. We have to desensitize the data. We can't tell you names and other information, but we can at least tell you key markers about what we think are some of the issues that need to be worked on and fixed. Is it more resources? Possibly, but the right type of resources. I think it's much more effective to invest in social services for us and then put aside some Kensington specific housing, right. Much less expensive to say I'm going to invest 2 million into very modest apartments or across the city for people to see a light at the end of the tunnel and know I I actually have a place to live or if I my child is in the dependency system and I want to reunify in addition to my addiction, I have a place where we can stay and sleep and be a family. So I think it's where we are investing.

And while I'm all for prevention, and I've always said I would love to be out of a job, I don't want our clients to come through our doors because their outcomes are much worse once they are, if we're not doing the prevention and interventions, we have to support the prevention, interventions like diversion and even before then. But once they're in the system, if you're going to effectively get them out of the system, then you have to devote resources in the right ways. And connection to housing is one of Philly's biggest problems right now, but a housing first model to addiction recovery works. If I know -- even for outpatient or inpatient if I know I have a place to lay my head or I will, that is going to help me actually succeed rather than if I know I'm going to go back to the streets of Kensington where within two days I'm back on drugs again. So I think we have that information. And if we're invited to the tables, we want to be invited at every table with the city and the courts and the DA and the Office of Public Safety, we have a lot of ideas in terms of what works and what doesn't. But we have to take a new look at where we're sending our dollars and where they can effectively make the most impact.

Thank you. One more question. In your testimony you refer to a Kensington pretrial diversional hub and shifting towards prearrest diversion initiatives. Could you explain how the proposed hub would function within the broader arrest model and what immediate steps would we need now to implement a hub like that? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: And the funding that I've asked for would be partly dedicated to this. Right now our office is at 15th and Sansom. It is not easy to get to. Transportation is an issue for a lot of our clients and for this population. We want to have a presence. We want to be there every day. We want to have a place-based model with staff, with social workers who are also case managers, with five -- again, we're not going to meet every need and every client, but then I can come back before you next year or the following year, whenever you want to measure it, and say here is what we are doing, here are the clients we worked with, and here are the outcomes because we stayed with them. The only reason I say when we come back is the legal system sometimes takes a very long time for things to end. And so, what data would you want to see at what point to see is this place- based model working. We are over here in our interesting but comfortable offices at 15th and Sansom. We want to be in Kensington with that presence, with people who are going to stay with that client for that downstream data that you want to see.

What would that cost? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: 1 million.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To go back to the original question of what the Defender's Association can do to help the situation in Kensington, it was crystal clear to me. 29 social workers, right, that can help to a case management and they are uniquely positioned to be able to go from beginning to resolution unlike other people. And I think by investing in that way, we can get a better outcome. And my question becomes, the children that you mentioned that are in the Kensington area that are victims of some of this abuse through drug use, do they wind up becoming your adult clients? Is there a trend? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: There will be a forthcoming article 13 in The Inquirer about what we call the womb-to-prison pipeline. So in of our dependent children do end up in delinquency, and that's 25%. And 1 in 5 of our adult clients started with dependency system involvement. And as I said before, it is cyclical and multi- generational and the outcomes for their children will be similar unless we can really effect that change with -

It's like breaking a cycle. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: It is a cycle, yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.

Thank you for your work you do. I'm a fan. You guys know that -- CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you.

-- I'm always glad to see you guys and I really appreciate the work you do. I've been through that part and I remember sitting over there waiting and seeing everybody that was in there and going, what the hell am I doing here, part of my wake-up, I guess. But I'm working on some stuff with the restorative justice and I'm seeing a kind of disconnect as far as women are concerned. From what I'm gathering, women in the system end up doing almost all their time because there's no place to parole them to. There's not enough halfway houses for women. There's not enough programs for women. And one of the things that I've been asked a few times is what happens with a woman with a child or a pregnant woman being denied service at the Wellness Court because of those issues, you know what I'm saying. I don't want to see a pregnant woman go to jail because we don't have a program to put her in. It's common sense, you know what I mean. I don't want to have a pregnant woman sent to jail when she should be in rehab or she should be in an alternative program. So is that what's going on right now? How do we fix that? And then the other question was about money so you already answered that. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: And I'll just ask Mr. Pappas to just address how Neighborhood Wellness Court has been going. And we overall need, I think, more expansive services, especially for women. Currently in the state of Pennsylvania we have for our young girls absolutely no placement that is nonsecure for young girls. So regardless of how they came in, they go to a secured facility. So for women and girls in general we need more programming. But in regards to Neighborhood Wellness Court in terms of the people that we're seeing, certainly we would not want a client like that to go into the system because then that baby is going to be removed and possibly if there is no family or kinship care, possibly enter the system. But we can talk about --

And it gives them another added trauma that's going to affect them. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Correct.

And thank you for that question. With regard to the people that we've seen coming to Neighborhood Wellness Court, they're all being arrested --

State your name. State your name for the record.

Andrew Pappas, Managing Director of Pretrial for the Defender Association. The people that we've been seeing coming into Wellness Court by definition are being charged with low-level summary offenses. And the first person that they see when they get to Wellness Court is a triage nurse from Penn Addiction Services, who is there to assess their medical needs, whether that's substance use disorder. I don't believe we've had a pregnant woman come through Wellness Court, but certainly looking at their big picture in terms of the medical needs. And the people who are not stable enough to proceed through the system are immediately transported to Episcopal Hospital and they're given a summons to come back to Wellness Court the following week if they've been released from the hospital. So that's kind of how it's been working in Wellness Court. I agree that our system is severely lacking in programs designed specifically for women. There's an initiative now through the MacArthur grant to look at creating a problemsolving court for women that would be more expansive than the former project Dawn Court, which was limited exclusively to women who had been charged with prostitution. So there are ideas in the work. We would like to be involved in those conversations and have a say in how that court looks and is formed if it's going to come to fruition. And that is our ask of every diversion court and problemsolving court that is created. We are the experts in the field. If we're not at the table when these courts and ideas are being talked about, they are lacking when they are rolled out. And we've seen that time and again.

That's good. Thank you. I'm going to be reaching out to pick your brain about a bunch of different stuff. I mean, I know that we said a million dollars to get you guys into K&A. But how can we better fund the Defender's Association to pay for the influx of services we're going to have to be using besides -- CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: I know this isn't my budget testimony, but you all know me that I go high and I'm asking for 15 million overall. That was my ask last year. I'm asking for 15 --

15? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: 15 million. I need 15 million. And I can sit here and go line-by- line of what that need looks like and had a really great meeting with your team, and happy to do a one-on-one and follow up in terms of the line item for that need. But a lot of the requests in addition to starting our first Immigration Defense Unit, which we think is key right now for our fellow citizens of Philadelphia, supporting re-entry for youth and adults, Kensington Initiative of course is important, and we want to take on because we are best-suited to take on up to 40% of homicides. We now do 20. We'd like to do 40% because we're the best lawyers and we end with finality. The cases do not come back again and again. It is the best homicide unit in the country. Every defender quite frankly that we have our experts and fantastic representatives here in the city of Philadelphia. But my ask is 15 million.

Thank you. Yeah, for sure. And you're right on with the -- I'm seeing an influx of younger people out there on Kensington Avenue and they're not selling drugs. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: That's correct.

These are other kids that are out there. And like you said, it seems like they're getting younger. But I appreciate the work you do. Thank you. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you. Appreciate the remarks.

Thank you, Councilmember. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Keisha. We really do appreciate your input and services. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you.

I know sometimes you feel excluded in that process, but it is important that the Defender's Association is there because you do see what you see not only within the system, but also within the streets. So that input is invaluable and I believe it is invaluable. And you were very supportive of the diversionary court programs and working with the District Attorney's Office right before you to try to get some of those numbers to see how maybe we can improve on them, whether it's AMP Court or Wellness Court or Drug Court or whatever other court is being created, even the support for Community Court, right, to get people in and out of -- instead of becoming part of the system, there are challenges that we could face, and then people could get the help they need so that we preventively stop them from going to that next level. And you mentioned the resources necessary to do that. Now, one question on the warrant release that you guys are working with also right now that courts only happen in one day a week; is that correct?

That's correct. So Neighborhood Wellness Court is operating Wednesdays at B and Lehigh, starts at B and Lehigh and then goes to 3901 for the afternoon summary list. So that's one day a week. Myself and Sarah Allen from the Defender Association have been staffing B and Lehigh for the purpose of addressing Philadelphia bench warrants.

But to go five days a week or to have that, obviously there's a resource needed.

There's a resource need associated with that obviously, but the benefit to that is every day when we're out there we've kept someone from being transported to State Road. Given the current state of the prisons and the understaffing, every person that we can keep off of State Road is a benefit not only to that person but to the entire system.

Do you believe with the additional funding, if additional funding is there for that, that you would be able to operate five days a week as far as that is concerned, as far as least releasing the warrant part of it and to be able to work with Wellness Court for five days a week? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: That is correct, yes. We cannot do it without the resources. Sarah Allen is my second in command and Andrew's on the upper leadership team, and this is what they've been doing. It's ours every Wednesday. So we are working with the City to do the pilot. But if we go beyond Wednesday, we need additional staff.

If you go beyond Wednesdays, you need additional staff? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Yes.

And I think that's important to hear too because I think if this is successful, if it's working the way we want or if we have to make changes, we can't say that. We can't do it because we do not have the resources to do it, right. And I think that's something we all have to work on with the Administration obviously, but seeing that you're involved in that and as we talk even with AMP Court, right now is it still only three days a week, is that correct, no?

Two days a week.

It's only two days a week?

Correct.

And we want to work on that to even work with the DA's Office and you all to see how do we get people into those programs, into that instead of just going to court and what we could do together. And those conversations obviously with you and the District Attorney and with us, if we could get the people into these programs and then follow them, and that's what you said about caseworkers, right. You have how many caseworkers and how many clients? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: We have for our adult 5 population. We have 29 social 6 workers for 44,000 people that we 7 represented last year. 8

9 That's amazing. And they follow -- 10 they try to follow. They do not 11 follow? 12 CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: 13 Only the very, very high-needs 14 clients get someone that will work 15 with them. And we have a different 16 unit called the Mental Health Unit 17 and we have a couple of social 18 workers there because that's a 19 high-needs population, and the 20 bureaucracy for our clients in getting access to Norristown and then placement once they are coming home is a lengthy, lengthy process. When I asked for social workers last year, that was a 2.5 million ask. I had a more realistic view this year of just focusing on Kensington which is part of what would be the 1 million ask. But just any social workers we get would be dedicated to the Kensington population.

And they would then be able to follow those individuals through? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: If it's five social workers, which is part of what that 1 million ask is, they can only have -- I think the recommended caseload is 25 to 30 for that kind of population. So it won't be everyone, but it'll make an impact, right. And then I can come back and answer your questions about what our data shows.

Yeah, exactly that. And that's what we want to see, right. We want to see outcomes because it's easier for us to make decisions based on that. And I think at the end of the day -- I said I'm going to be real short so I will, but I think it's important to make sure that you're at the table along with the District Attorney's Office along with the courts, right, and along with the police department so that we all could work and follow this together. So thank you all for your effort. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you all for your support of the Defender Association.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Dr. Nina Ahmad.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Good afternoon.

So first, I want to say thank you for your service. Thank you for fulfilling what our Constitution says that everybody has to have legal counsel, and I think that should be the bedrock of how resources are allocated between DA's Office and Public Defenders. I said this to you before and we've had a conversation. So I think that's the premise of where we start with your office, but that's going to be a budget conversation in this frame of addressing the needs in Kensington, addressing people with substance disorder who are your clients. The follow through issue is really what is coming up, right, then people you have intake. And so, you're saying that if your office had social workers and who would be case workers following them through, how would that add or how would that be in the whole frame, meaning you would be a portion of resolving people's needs, right, those who come to you for counsel and then the rest go through other diversionary programs? You're almost acting like a diversionary program. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: I wouldn't call it a diversionary program. Best practices has always been a holistic one. And what I said earlier about all of these issues being multi-generational for our family is that we often can address issues with our clients without getting an understanding of what's going on around them in terms of their family and other support networks because there's a reason they are where they are and often times it's the family's history and encounters issues that led them into or contributed to the system. So case management really is ensuring that they're getting to and from treatment, that they have the resources to get there, if they're outpatient, checking in with them. Auditing the actual organization, is it appropriate -- is it meeting your needs, the needs that you need, is it geographically good for you, are you actually getting the medication and the type of medication and the type of treatment. And it's that kind of case management where you're constantly following up and checking in with the client, that when you look at research of how other PD's offices that have this kind of holistic practice, Bronx Defenders is one of them. They're the gold star of a public defender office is the Bronx Defenders, because inhouse they have civil legal aid. They have an immigration. You just have to walk down the hall at Bronx Defenders. You don't have to cross the street and go to one agency or go across town to one agency. Everything is housed in the same organization. So this case management if it's place-based, community will know us, right, and we get to know them. And our clients know where to find us, not at 14th and 15th and Sansom, but we are right in the neighborhood and we can follow them and work with them throughout the entirety of their ecosystem involvement.

So what you are doing is also being done by other entities who encounter people in this continuum? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Yes.

And you're serving a certain population, but you're checking in with other providers who are serving the medical needs, mental health needs, so you're like the coordinator of understanding that, and this is what reduced recidivism in terms of people getting back on the vicious cycle? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Yes.

All right. I just wanted to make sure I understood what your role was in this whole ecosystem. Thank you. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: And the overall goal really is to move the entire adult social work team to increase its capacity so eventually 5, 10 years down the way we're in that kind of model because I do think you will then see a real impact on the recidivism issues that we have here in Philadelphia. Thank you.

The benefit that we have in doing case management is that we also have the legal team in house, right. So we're not only looking at the social service needs and our client holistically, we're also looking at their legal needs and how is their case impacting their social service needs, how are their social service needs impacting their case. And at any point, one of our social workers can call up the attorney who's assigned to that diversion program or to that client's case and say, hey, they're not going to make court this week because it's more important for them to be in inpatient treatment and everybody knows what's going on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. Are there any other questions?

I just want to know if the 12 million, is the 1 million included 13 in that? 14 CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: 15 It is.

Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for your testimony. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you.

Thank you.

Before the Clerk calls the next panel, I'd like to take a moment to recognize David Ayers on his retirement. David, stand up. Stand up. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

David has led the diversion program for DBHIDS and has been a public servant for the city of Philadelphia since 2005. Thank you so much for everything that you've done for us as a city and for other citizens that live here. Thank you. Will the Clerk please call the next panel to testify.

Yes, Madam Chair. Dr. Evan Anderson from Thomas Jefferson University. (Witness approached Witness table.)

Welcome. Thank you so much for being with us this afternoon and thank you for your patience. I know it's been a long, long afternoon but an important topic and important conversation. Thank you. Please state your name for the record and begin with your testimony.

Good afternoon. Evan Anderson. Thank you, Madam Chair and select Committee members for having me here today. I'm a researcher at Thomas Jefferson University and I was asked to come here today because I've conducted research on a number of the programs listed in the resolution.

Oh, my goodness. All of these programs that we heard about today?

Particularly PAD and CERT, so Police-Assisted Diversion and CERT, Crisis Intervention Response Team and a little earlier work on some of the court programs as well. I've published that research in seven peer-reviewed papers and I submitted fairly lengthy and detailed written testimony. I'm happy, delighted to answer questions about that written portion that I submitted. My oral testimony today is going to be brief and general and targeted mostly at PAD, but I'm happy to talk more broadly. And I think the place to start, I know that this Committee is rightfully very interested in how PAD is experienced in Philadelphia, but I did just want to take a moment and recognize that outside of Philadelphia, PAD is really viewed as an incredible example of transformative systemic change, interagency collaboration and sort of relentless and persistent problemsolving. Deputy Commissioner Healy mentioned earlier the sort of history of PAD and how the police department went down to consult with the Baltimore Police Department, which was planning to create a similar program. They were never able to get their program off the ground. Their program really never got beyond the pilot phase and it's not working now. So I just want to recognize really the impressive work that all the collaborators have done locally, too many to mention, and obviously the support from City Council too. When I travel and when I present my work, people are always astonished at what Philadelphia has accomplished in standing up PAD. So I want to make sure that that, you know, I want to make sure that I say that to start. I think the broad question is does PAD work as intended, right. And my overall answer is, yes. I can confidently say based on my surveys and my interviews and my research, talking to stakeholders all across the sort of PAD process, people who have gone through the program, police officers, people who developed it, residents living in communities where PAD operates, that people broadly believe that PAD provides an important pathway away from unproductive involvement with the criminal justice system and, two, potentially supportive services and resources. I wish I could quantify the benefits of PAD for you here today. That's difficult for I would say two main reasons. One is it's very resource-intensive. It's not easy for some reasons that I'm happy to talk more about. With colleagues from Brown University, Johns Hopkins and NYU, I have submitted a proposal for a large federal grant to comprehensively study outcomes of PAD, including really robust cost-benefit analysis which I think is really important, and hope would be very valuable to all of you. Can't say for sure what the status of federal funding is, but we did submit that with important support from the police department, from other agency heads locally. The second reason, and I'll sort of broadly wrap up my comments after I make this point. Second reason why it's just hard to be very precise about the effect of PAD and a lot of these diversion programs is because they still rely on the general ecosystem for providing treatment and housing and all those supports. They are onramps and pathways to those other systems, and those other systems continue to have inadequacies. In preparing for the testimony today, I read the transcript from your hearing in July which was an amazing hearing. And I think a lot of the issues and the problems that you elevated in that hearing they continue. There's been important work, but I just want to be really clear that even operating as well as possible, the ultimate effect of our diversionary programs will be contingent on our ability to provide accessible, high-quality resources and care in all the ways and the people, especially my wonderful colleagues from Thomas Jefferson I think, could articulate the limitations of that system much better than I can.

But I just want to end by noting that PAD and these diversion programs often work as important pathways understanding their effects and really maximizing their effects (inaudible) us to continue to come back to these questions of what do the back-end services look like. I'm delighted to take any questions and thank you for having me here today.

Thank you for being with us and thank you for your work. I guess my question in your research and what you heard here today, right, do you feel like some of us up here feel, right? All of these programs -- I think no one is challenging that all of these programs are good programs. They all serve as pathways to treatment and prevention and recovery and housing and education and all of those things we know that people need. But did you hear what I heard which was that everyone is kind of working in their own silos and often times don't communicate with one another, whether it be by choice or just that systems don't talk to each other and that they could be providing better quality service over quantity, right. I think that part of my issue is that there are so many programs that often times we don't give people a real opportunity to succeed because we push them through the system and say just finish this and they came back into -- they took that program, they succeeded, they were sent about their business but no one ever really did what the Defender just said, right. Nobody really followed them to say, here's what you need to do next, here, here, here. And after, I don't know, five years of us holding your hand you are now prepared to live a successful life in the city that you choose or was that just me? I don't know.

No, I appreciate that question. I want us to highlight -- I'm a data person so I want to highlight two uses of data. One use of data is operational. It's having data to be able to make decisions about individual people, like the Defenders were just talking about. That's important. Another type of data is to inform your decision-making to give you a sense of how the whole system is working, right. And you're in a difficult position because you're asked to make decisions about these programs and people come up and talk rightfully about the benefits of those programs, but it's hard to see them without seeing them in the whole context, right. So we can talk about Wellness Court and I'm happy to do that. My perspective on whether investing in Wellness Court makes sense given the scarcity of resources, what I would want to know is for that person going through Wellness Court, have they had 10 hospitalizations in the last year and have eight of those hospitalizations ended in that person self-discharging? Have they had 10 contacts with our housing support services, 8 of which haven't worked out? Have they had the same amount in our outpatient treatment? Because diversion is really important. It will always be easier to intervene and to provide health services at a health services setting and it'll always be harder to do that at a criminal justice (inaudible). And that's not to say we should do all of this diversion stuff, it's important. But as you think about and as I think about what could really guide your work longer term, it's just visibility into all of these touch points, being able to look and say, how are these folks who are touching a lot of these different systems, what does that look like, where are the best opportunities to intervene, where are the dollars spent. I think about PAD as a health service I think about it as a pretty lean budget. And it might not feel that way if you think of it as a public safety intervention. But if it's a health service, $3, $4 or $5 million is a rounding error on the health services that are provided around town, right. And I think that's really important to think about. It's also important to think as you think about the value of these programs. If PAD succeeds in helping people get onto healthier trajectories, it prevents -- for every 10 people that go through PAD, that prevents one hospitalization. Those dollars add up very, very quickly. And there's lots of savings there that can be recouped, reinvested in things like housing. So that's just something that I would encourage the Committee to think about.

What do you believe -- in hearing and studying all of these programs, what do you believe we need to do to, give me three things, to make a person's journey in the process a successful journey if you had to pick three topics?

Immediacy, stability -- and I'll come back to these. Immediacy, stability and humanity. People are ready for change in one moment. And if you wait a week, they're out of it --

Hours.

Hours, right. Lots of benefits to court programs, but we all know those court programs are months down the road, right. I think the logic of PAD is we can in that interaction in that moment, if we can provide a real warm handoff, then our batting average is going to be much higher. So I think immediacy, and that takes resources. It's hard for the people doing this in the field to do this. It's complicated. My second one was stability. It's also being able to -- someone talked about identification earlier. It's being able to handle the other issues that people have going on in their lives so they can make those changes. People might have child care issues. Someone wants to join a program, but I need someone to watch my kids. There's all these things. And from having done research on PAD and we're talking about the relatively better outcomes, I think a lot of that has to do with the people that are helping with all of these things that are kind of around the supportive issues. And then any system has to just put the humanity of people first. We have to just keep talking to people and asking, why does this program work for you or not work for you, right. And that's hard, you know. It's really hard work, but it's really important and we can create those. From what I see locally, we're trying to do that across a number of places. I think we can do more.

Thank you for that. In your research did you examine any diversion programs that are currently in place that you believe were not effective?

I did not, not recently.

You're not going to get in trouble here.

No, it's okay.

This stays between us and the thousands of people that are watching online.

No, no. 9 You know, one thing I would say is that maybe almost 10 years ago at this point I did a study where my team, we worked with the medical examiner's office to get the identifying information for all the people that fatally overdosed in a year, 900 people, that's 2016. And then we worked with the District Attorney's Office to look at all their previous arrests and hearings. And one of the things we noted is that very few of those people had been through drug treatment court -

Been through what?

Drug treatment court. And when we looked at the people who had an arrest in the year before they fatally overdosed, something like 98% of them weren't eligible. And that study I think was actually fairly influential and that has changed, which is good. But it's important for us to really mind the eligibility criteria. I think Philadelphia is a leader. Unlike a lot of cities that have diversion programs, they put on eligibility criteria that filters out people with the most complex needs. It makes the programs look good. Doesn't change people's lives in the way we want, or communities health in the way that we want.

I agree with you on that. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I was glad to hear some of the things you said which goes right with what I tell everybody all the time. It's about services and giving them services to succeed. I always tell everybody that the two most important things that we could help with outside of them actually getting sober is mental health and housing, two keys. So I was glad that you said that. And of course, the fact that we need to get them out of Kensington because in the program we have a lot of sayings, one of which are people, places and things. If you stay around the same people in the same place, you're going to do the same things. You know, a little bit of a cliché but it's the God's honest truth. So that being said, how would you suggest that PAD and the entire drug treatment system better develop and adjust to the current cumbersome program to better connect individuals treatment? In other words, how do we streamline this process to get people into recovery? PAD is great, but like you said there's other ways to get people in and some people aren't having court cases and ended up having to go through that justice system. What would you -- if you had something that you could do, what would it be?

Thank you for that question which is really important. Again, I would refer back a little bit to the June hearing, which really had the experts on that issue. And I think there's still important work to be done on some of the issues that you raised. Programs like the L4 program, programs that address the medical complexity of people are really important. More supportive housing. There's an important initiative, the Hospital to Home Program that I think you've heard testimony on, those need to be expanded and the impact of them needs to be measured. And I would just highlight for sort of city finances that when the city contributes to these programs, the city pays. Often times when they work, they save state and federal dollars, right, because so much of health care spending is state and federal. Just have to think about how we can document it and then recuperate that or make arguments to the state that, hey, we've spent all this money on PAD and we're saving. You know, we spend $4 million on PAD but we've saved $10 million in Medicaid spending for infections and amputations. And then the conversation would be if you give us more, we'll save more and that's a virtuous cycle. And I think the same thing with housing, too. And I'd like to think that's where research can play a key role.

During your research, what were your findings as far as inadequacies but the differences between male and female opportunities? Because what I'm hearing is that there are more opportunities for a male to get into a program than it is for a female. And also, we already had this conversation yesterday with our group at the Wellness Center, we're able to take men right now but we can't take women. And the messed up situation is that I've been saying and spouting to anybody that will hear it is the fact that we got women that are doing most of their time in prison when they could have been paroled or released to another program earlier on. I mean, they're doing an extra month, an extra year or whatever it is because we have no 15 place to send them. How do we fix those inadequacies? And did you come across any of that in your studies?

I have come across that generally in other research. I would say at the time I was studying the experiences of PAD that wasn't -- I studied it a little earlier and I think things have changed a little bit. But I'm very confident that's still an issue and that would be an important area to expand and a place to dedicate some resources.

Thank you.

My final question is, based on your expertise how does the current diversion programs align with the latest versions of or the latest research on public health and the criminal justice system reform?

I think in theory, they align really well. Warm handoffs, you know, no wrong door, right, being able to act quickly, being able to address people's social needs and increasingly health needs with the wounds, really multidisciplinary care. It is not easy, but that's the model that is being built in Philadelphia and that's great. I think the issue is still invest more in building that up because it is so challenging and it's hard to coordinate all these services. It's a real challenge. But I think in theory, I think it's designed the way it should be.

The Chair recognizes Dr. Nina Ahmad.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for staying so long. I appreciate it. Just a generalization, if one can make it in the sort of trajectory of someone who has substance disorder and goes through treatment, say they have a year of treatment and they have all the social services, they get housing, they get job training and they're ready to re-enter into regular society. What is the rate of recidivism for someone who has all of these resources and someone who has maybe a three-month -- because you talked about the financial model and to justify this long-term investment, we need to show the dollars saved by doing the long- term which would happen if someone was just cycling in. So I don't know if there's numbers like that, a generalization of someone with this disorder what is the expectation of someone?

I'm not sure this is fully going to be answering your question the way you want, but I think the best opportunity to understand the cost savings is to look at hospitalizations. And that's something that's measurable, and it's also something that's very costly. And my belief is that, and I hope we get funded and can do this and I hope to do it otherwise because I also have some funding from the Sheller Family Foundation, my sense is that you'll see those cost savings accruing pretty quickly.

So if one were to generalize, as I said, somebody who gets that yearlong investment, the chances of them relapsing is that correlated with that amount of care or is there something else in the chemistry or the brain chemistry of the individual that doesn't -- we can't predict that? I'm just trying to understand can we say, you put one year, get them all in and then the relapse rate is 0 or or whatever. And if you don't -- but I know people's brains are different.

So thank you so much for that question. This is not my area of expertise I would say and there are clinical psychiatrists and addiction medicine folks who would answer with more precision. From my sort of not fully expert perspective, there's a lot of variation in people and it has to do with a lot of factors in people's life course, and it has to do with their social networks and their engagement with family and friends and hope and these things that are hard to sometimes measure. But broadly speaking, the more social connection the more basic needs that you can fill for people, it is directly correlated with their likelihood of engaging with treatment and having success when they do it.

Yeah.

Kind of quantifying that is tricky. But again, if the City can build up its data infrastructure you can start to make those arguments. And it's likely to be a little different in Philly than in some other places, and it's a legacy investment that can help the City be nimble.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for your research. I wish you success in your application in the future and I look forward to being able to continue to communicate with you because I know that we're going to have a thousand more questions after this. So look out for us continuing to tap into your knowledge and your expertise. Thank you so much.

My pleasure. Thank you so much.

Will the Clerk please call the last three panelists all at the same time.

Yes, Madam Chair. We have Mr. Solomon Jones, author and radio host; Mr. Seth Williams, former District Attorney and CEO of Second Chances Strategies, LLC and Raquel McNichols, participant in the First Program. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)

Thank you all. Good evening. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for your patience. I know some of you have been here since the very beginning. Please state your name for the benefit and begin with your testimony.

My name is Solomon Jones. I am a radio host, columnist and author, and I thank you for having me here this afternoon. I know you'll be pleased to hear that I'm not here to ask for any money. I am here simply as a lifelong Philadelphian whose family has called this city home for five generations. And as we talk about the issue of Kensington, we need to talk about the things that I believe drive the push to fix Kensington and drive what has happened to Kensington to this point. I think those three things are race, class and cash. I don't talk about this lightly or without an investment in the issue. I don't speak as someone who lives outside the city. I speak as a taxpayer and homeowner, a father of two children who graduated from Philadelphia schools and have gone on to college. I speak as a voter and as a community activist who owes a lot to this city. But before I talk about what I owe to the city, I want to talk about what the city owes to me because I'm the person that this government represents. I'm the reason there are lights and heat and offices in this building. I'm the reason there's gold inlay in the paint and the ceilings. I'm the reason that there are marble floors and stone columns and spiral staircases. I am the taxpayer and everything here belongs to people like me. And this city owes a debt to our taxpayers, a debt of service, a debt of representation, a debt of respect to every taxpayer and every homeowner and every person who's trusted each of you not to represent yourselves but to represent us. But for far too long our city failed taxpayers of one of our poorest communities, Kensington. It's an odd thing to watch because the problems in Kensington can be traced to one thing in my view. They can be traced to addiction. But addiction is treated differently based on who's experiencing the problem. During the crack crisis, for example, when the problem was thought to be Black, there was a language of destruction. But when the complexion of addiction changed, so did the approach. For Black folks there was a war on drugs. For White folks, there was an opioid crisis. For Black folks, helping people use drugs was enabling. And for White folks, it was harm reduction. When we suffered from this illness, it was addiction. When the complexion changed, it became substance use disorder. When Black and Brown folks went to a place to shoot heroin, it was called the shooting gallery. But for the new users, it was called a safe injection site. I call it the gentrification of addiction because for Black and Brown folks, addiction ended with jails, institutions or death. For the new crop of users that brought Kensington to everybody's attention, the treatment has been different, less punitive, less real. The community has often told me that these youths have been treated much differently than we were. That's structural racism and it's wrong. But it's about so much more than race. It's also about class. It's about people like Shannon Farrell and Tim McCloskey in Harrowgate and Kensington, people who are lifelong Philadelphians just like me, who live at ground zero in the opioid crisis. I don't look like them. We don't share the same backgrounds, but they're Philadelphians. I consider them my neighbors and I will fight for my neighbors no matter what they look like, no matter where they come from, no matter how they vote because they understand like I do what it means to have drug addiction invade a neighborhood. They know about the car break-ins and the burglaries, the robberies and the gun violence, the prostitution and disease, the hopelessness of being trapped in a community where drugs are at the center of the economy. I've been to Kensington and seen human waste on the ground, watched dozens of addicts shooting up against the back of a day care center, heard the cries of neighbors who just want their children to be able to walk to school without traipsing through dirty needles.

Kensington is the visible part of the problem, but the problem really exists in the shadows. That's why safe injection sites were never the answer. Because allowing somebody to watch people using Kensington, it does not reach into the shadows. 75% of the people who overdose in Philly do it at home and they shoot up at home to hide. They shoot up at home so nobody knows. They shoot up at home because that's part of their ritual. How do I know so much about it? Because I've gone through an addiction of my own. And after 28 years clean, I know more about this disease than any so-called advocate who's never lived in a community where drugs are the ultimate trap. Because conquering addiction is never instant and it's never soft. You can't beat addiction by just moving it someplace else. You can't beat addiction just by blaming somebody else. You can't beat addiction just by calling it something else. So calling it substance use disorder might sound nicer, but it doesn't change the nature of the disease. Addiction is progressive, incurable and fatal. And no matter what you call it, where you move it or who you blame, addiction will kill the addict if he or she continues to use. While we tend to focus on the instant death of an overdose, the more common truth is that addicts die one needle at a time, one puff at a time, one day at a time, as addiction eats away at our bodies and our spirits and our minds. So we try to get clean and we fail. We go a little farther and we fall. We stand to our feet and then we stumble, and the lessons we learn from each fall allow us to finally stand with the help of those who love us and care for us and assist us along the way. But no matter how much help we're given, we can't succeed unless we want to. Addiction operates the same way in the neighborhood. It eats away at the bones of the streets. It whittles down the sense of community. It embeds itself in the cells of homes and schools and businesses. And so, it will take time to treat the community of Kensington. I believe we have to work to get people off drugs, not help them to keep using. That means that there has to be an opportunity for treatment. There must be opportunities for housing and for those who continue to hurt the community, there must be discipline. You can't coddle someone into wanting to get clean. They have to want it for themselves. When those who are living with addiction can do that, the demand decreases. The supply dries up and the community starts to heal. Providing a place to get clean and sober is a first step. Providing the presence of social workers is a second step. Providing the presence of support systems and housing is a crucial step, but there has to be order. So the presence of law enforcement is also a vital step. But the final step is up to those who are living through the hell of addiction. They have to want to change. If they do, then not only will they heal, Kensington will heal as well. Thank you.

Wow. I had a question. I don't have a question anymore because that was right on point, right. And I want to thank you. I want to thank you because my very first opportunity to talk about something that I was extremely afraid to talk about because I didn't know about it. I didn't experience it. I was only a new Chief of Staff walking into a government office that I had no clue what in the heck I was doing. The one person that gave me an opportunity to represent that office and be able to speak my truth for the first time and advocate for my community was you. And I was in that space probably with a whole lot of people not thinking the same way that I thought, but you were there and you had my back and I appreciate that. But this is the first time that I hear that. And so, I want to say thank you. Thank you for continuing to fight. Thank you for continuing to be a voice for the people of Kensington even though you don't live in Kensington. We always get the opposite. We always get people that want to be louder than the people that live there telling us that we have to put up with that, that that is what they have to look at every day. We don't hear that. We don't hear people who are not from that community saying all of the things that you just said. And so, know that I'm grateful. I appreciate you, and I'm proud to say that I know you and that you are real. You're not afraid to speak truth because everything you said is true, right. We can't fight that. It is the truth. Thank you so much. Thank you for your courage.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Vice-Chair Jones and then Harrity.

Mr. Jones, you ain't no hustler. And that's a personal -- he has a speech that he does. But you are a clarion voice of truth. And I appreciate the fact that you don't live in Kensington and that you're advocating for Kensington. I do not live in Kensington, but I understand until Kensington is safe, no other area is safe. There is needle injection, Narcan vending at 60th and Market. And there's a dirty little secret in parts of my District that people travel down to Kensington and bring it back up to that part of the District and do their thing. So the reason we are here, just like I believe you are here, is to help nip it in the bud and fight for it. Our Chair Lady and Member Harrity live in that area, and he faces it every day when he walks out of his door. And people have threatened Member Lozada because they're interrupting, you're interrupting their commerce. But she's not scared and we aren't scared. But what we need is that voice that you bring to make people understand that this section of town is important too. So thank you, brother.

Yes, sir.

Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.

I just want to commend you, man. I like you am open about my recovery. Congratulations on 28 years.

Thank you.

I'm halfway there, but I'm only living for today. I got ahead of myself before and ended up back. I ain't going back this time. And I want to thank you for saying what I have been saying. People don't understand if they're not in recovery, that the way we were going about this before we got involved was not the way. You mentioned safe injection sites. I went all after that. When people were telling me to keep my mouth shut, it's a hot button issue and I said, no, I live there. I live at G and Allegheny on Willard Street. I'm in the heart. I'm there. I ain't going nowhere. I really made up my mind. I'm staying. I'm fighting. They're going to bend my will. But people like you with your name coming in here and admitting that it doesn't matter who you are, we all can be taken down by this thing, but we can all also rise like you did and be an advocate and come out. Man, I thank you so much because I live there. I appreciate you coming in and fighting for my people, for my relatives, my neighbors. That's all they want is a little piece, you know. I'm an addict, so I understand about addicts. I also understand, like you said, we can't coddle an addict. You can't give them everything because you give us a foot, we're going to take 9 yards. Got to show them love, but 10 it's got to be tough love. It's got to be regimented. It's got to be on point. And I thank you for coming and speaking the truth when so many people, especially in your stature, would not because they wouldn't want the comments to come with it. So I appreciate you and I thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Dr. Nina Ahmad.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much, Solomon, for making it. I know you have things to do. But as everybody said, speaking truth to power is what you have been doing as long as I've known you, right. And I have a question about an important thing you have said and others have said, that the person has to want to go to treatment. How do we solve that because what's happening now is there's a vicious cycle? People are going in for detox and there's no long-term or don't want to do long-term and then cycle right back and they're very vulnerable, and then the dose they had before is enough to kill them, right. So, how does one -- and, you know, I'm sure there's psychiatrists and others who can address this even more, but we need to get to this crux of what is with saying they need to be ready to go in order for that to work. Because the rest of us ready or not, we're having to deal with this. So I just want real reality around this, that what do we mean by waiting for people to self-select to do something when the rest of the community is sitting there imprisoned by the circumstances?

Yeah.

I don't know how fair that is, right. So someone who's in recovery, I know you have gone through this. I read all of your things you've written about this. I just would like your insight into -- I know this is one person's insight. I don't know if you can generalize, but I'd like to hear about that.

I think that people have to reach the point where it hurts more to continue than it does for them to stop. And that's an individual thing for everybody. You can't say what that might be for someone else, but for me it was a hospital room. So doctors tell me you might not walk out of here. You know, it's different for everybody else. For somebody else it might be, oh, my God, I drank out of the bottle. You know, it's different for everybody. But I think that as government and as society we have to make sure that when a person reaches that point, that the resources are there for them to walk into. We can't say we don't have any beds, we don't have enough room, we don't have the professionals to treat you. We can't say that. Those things have to be available when that person is ready. And I do want to reiterate that you can't coddle a person into wanting to be ready. They have to want it for themselves.

That's my question really.

They have to want it for themselves.

Yeah. So in the interim while they're waiting to be ready or we're waiting them for them to be ready, what is our responsibility as a society to host this, to allow this? Where is that line? Everybody else you violate something, you're held accountable, and there's consequences. But here we are saying, no, we'll wait until you're ready. No consequences until then. But how does that work for everybody?

It doesn't. That's why I said one of the things that you have to have is order. You have to have that. People have to face consequences for their actions no matter who they are, no 5 matter what consequence they're going through, because if they don't they'll never stop.

Yeah. I just wanted to air that because, yes, we seem to skip over that part a lot. We seem to skip over that everybody has responsibility in society regardless of how inebriated you might be because you are living not on an island. And so, we as government serve the people who are imprisoned because they can't leave that area and the people who have substance disorder, all of them. And when we see the differential in resources going to one space over the other, that's a fair question for the constituents to ask us, how much are you spending, which is why I asked the guy before you to tell us what the value is so that we can say it's worth it to spend this money because in the long run all of us will benefit from that, right. We need that business model, that financial model to put in front as we are doing these things. But the personal responsibility is still there regardless, and I would love for our city to start talking about that some more. We seem to skip over that for certain people. Thank you. I'm, like, this has been bothering me for a while.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and thank you for being with us today. Please state your name for the record and begin with your testimony.

Thank you and good afternoon. Might I say good evening.

Good evening.

Madam Chair, Lozada, how are you? Mr. Vice-Chair, my former Councilman, how are you, Mr. Jones?

Outstanding.

That's my line. Dr. Ahmad, how are you? And my very good friend and fellow cigar aficionado, Councilman Harrity, how are you?

I'm good, my brother.

I'm just honored and humbled to have been invited by you to come here to share my professional and my personal experience. I was telling a person that was out here earlier that I've been coming and testifying before City Council for years now. 5 First time was when I 6 was the Inspector General when 7 Mayor Street appointed me to be his 8 Inspector General. I later came as 9 the District Attorney of 10 Philadelphia and I was the 24th 11 District Attorney in our city's 12 history. I came most recently with 13 my very good friend and fellow 14 Central graduate Police 15 Commissioner Richard Ross, when we 16 were talking about gun violence and 17 reducing gun violence. 18 But I think more than 19 any other topic, a topic we're 20 talking about today is the most important topic I've been called to speak with you about. And like my very good friend -- oh, I thought you were Solomon at first. I'm sorry. Like my very good friend Solomon who just left, I'm not here to sell you anything. I'm not here for any money. I'm here on behalf of the residents of Philadelphia. I've been one my entire life, on behalf -- Stacy's here with me, my children. I'm here on behalf of -- I'm here with a singularly unique perspective of everyone you'll hear. I was an Assistant District Attorney here in the city of Philadelphia. I was the Inspector General. I was a law school professor. I taught criminology at Penn State. I was the elected District Attorney. I was an Army officer, where at one point I was the senior defense counsel so I was the public defender for the 28th Infantry Division. I was a criminal defense attorney. And as you know, I had my own dispute and disagreement with the federal government which led to my federal incarceration, where I spent the first five months in single solitary confinement, 8 hours a day five days a week and 9 all day on Saturday and Sunday. 10 When I did have that one 11 hour a day to go to what they 12 called rec, which was my own SPCA 13 kennel, the men that were my 14 closest friends were there because 15 they were serial killers. But I 16 got to see them as three- 17 dimensional people in a way that I 18 never had before. 19 While I was 20 incarcerated, I taught GED, I 21 taught workforce development. I 22 learned how to play the saxophone 23 and the piano and became the beginner saxophone instructor. I taught Bible study. I went to every Catholic mass, every Catholic Catechism, every Protestant Bible study, Protestant worship service, held a hand with every Muslim I could at night. I was in a program called the Residential Drug Abuse program. And again, for the purposes of time I've submitted my written testimony. I'm just freestyling right now so you can get home with your families. I was in the Residential Drug Abuse program. For 13 months I lived with 90 men who they had decided were in need of substance abuse disorder or were struggling like I with a maladaptive schema. And now -- you know what blew my mind when I was there the guys that were with me were these White guys from Kentucky that were meth addicts that the feds had claimed were drug dealers, but really they were drug addicts. They lost all their teeth. There were these brothers from the city that were heroin dealers or crack dealers but they were really heroin addicts and heroin abusers. And then there was a few of us that were doctors and lawyers or accountants that when we wanted to numb ourselves from whatever our struggle was, we chose martinis or Jack Daniels or women other than our wives and girlfriends as a way to numb ourselves. And what I had to come to realize was that while I could never imagine sticking a needle in my arm, and just last week I was at Sunshine House on Kensington Avenue, I routinely go there and volunteer with the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania's Clare Project, and we do a street ministry of just being present, and I would never imagine sticking a hypodermic needle into my leg or into my eyeline.

But once you get past that, the underlying reasons of why we were numbing ourselves were universal. And that's what Councilman Harrity talks about and what we talk about in those rooms. And so, the reason why I'm here, and I'll try to expedite what I'm saying, is that diversionary programs work. And just sitting here, I've been here for three hours, four hours now, very educational. I was called before to testify about crime prevention, right, recidivism reduction as the District Attorney, and I created a diversionary program that is considered the gold standard of diversionary programs. It's The Choice is Yours. And what I include here in my testimony is that as a young -- you know, I'm no 3 criminologist, but I grew up in West Philly. I rode SEPTA every day to school. I then became an Assistant DA. D. in criminology while I was in prison. Where I learned most of the men that I taught GED, most of the men that I lived with were incredibly intelligent. They had gone to Yale and they had gone to jail and not Yale, or they'd gone to the state pen and not Penn State like me. But they were incredibly intelligent and most of them were great entrepreneurs. But almost all of them, all of us, were struggling with some sort of trauma that had led to either an emotional trauma that led to us numbing ourselves or some being having physical traumas, taking pills prescribed and then taking pills off the street. I wanted to come here and talk to you just being an honest broker because people were here earlier today. I think everybody's with good intentions. But there are some programs, right. Me speaking now as a returning citizen, right. I came home from prison April of 2020. Josh Shapiro used to work with me at Stradley Ronon, right. When I ran the Obama campaign in 2008, he helped me. He was one of the first State Reps to endorse then Senator Obama. Knew Jim Kenney. Everybody -- when I got home, did anybody want to give me a job? No. 20 But probation, parole, I had to have a job and I had to have a place to live. My probation officer told me he knows that Judge Diamond wants to send me back as quickly as he can. But did anybody help me get a job? No. Did anybody help me get a place to live? No. They just put an ankle monitor on my left ankle, and that's how I was. I was fortunate. m. m. and I've slowly rebuilt. We have to address we can't arrest our way out of crime. So I didn't always know that. I was a young assistant DA. And when I was in the charging unit, I saw on the criminal files there's something that always stuck out. And Councilman Jones knows when I would go speak to students in schools, I would say what's the number one thing people have in common that get arrested in Philadelphia --

(Inaudible).

Too frequently though -- you're correct, Dr. Ahmad -- but the kids would go, ooh, they're Black. And I would go, unfortunately a disproportionate number of people in our criminal justice system are Black and Brown people. But the number one thing across all race gender is they didn't finish high school. So if you were to ask me first off at the macro level what should we do to address the problem in Kensington and all across the city, we have to hold kids accountable that are truant in grade school. And when you're 17 and you're cutting school like I did to go see Star Wars III when it came out and I got in trouble that day, that's a different thing than 4th graders and 5th graders being chronically truant. And generally, the root cause of that -- the kid didn't decide I'm just going to stay home today and watch Jerry Springer. There's some sort of dysfunction in the home. They might need the child to babysit a younger sibling or there might be other issues. We need to address those root causes early on. Fast-forward in 2000 the District Attorney Lynn Abraham asked me to become the Chief of the Repeat Offenders Unit. I said, okay, what's that? She said, we don't know, we want you to figure it out. I was like, okay. Now, I had no training in criminology but I began looking at everybody who's getting arrested every day, right. Those are -- finally we determined to look at people who had been arrested who had or more felony convictions, or more total convictions, or 25 arrests or more. But what stuck out in my head was some of these people, like Chris Rock said, gotta go, gotta go, some people needed a time-out. But we as a society and as a system had failed these people the first and second time they got arrested. So asking me what should we do we need? Everyone has different criminogenic needs. That is the criminological term for what issues do we need to address in that person so that they don't commit, they don't re-offend. And Solomon and I might commit the same crime for totally different reasons. So it's not one-size- fits-all. We need to address what that person needs, right. Again, stats are important. Data is important. Approximately -- and to your numbers of the business model, we're spending in Pennsylvania close to $41,042 per person per year to incarcerate them, where we have a failure rate of 40% of all people get re-arrested in the first year they come home from state, county and federal prison. 4% get re-arrested within the first three years. 70% in five years. 80% in eight years after release. So from a business model, from a far right-wing Koch brothers business return-on- investment model what we are doing now is horrific. From a far left wing Mother Teresa let's-help- everyone perspective, what we're doing is horrific. So I was a DA for 10-and-a-half years. I decided I'll leave because it's got to be done in a better way. I ran against my predecessor and our T-shirt said Seth Williams, Smart on Crime Not Just Tough as a slight jab at my predecessor. I began learning all these smart things, to be smart on crime. So we try to go back and forth with this pendulum, tough on crime, soft on crime, tough on crime. We need to be smart on crime. So I started reading as much as I could. Before I became the District Attorney, I traveled to San Francisco. And I met with the District Attorney of San Francisco who had a great program called Back on Track. But I was totally enamored with all these different things that she was doing. And the first one I wanted to implement, she had a program called Back on Track. We called it The Choice is Yours here in Philadelphia. So what does that mean? At the time -- and you heard Brother Jones talking about the crack epidemic. Because of the crack epidemic we had a war on drugs that was completely a failure. We were sending people in Pennsylvania to state prison for selling two grams of crack. There was a mandatory minimum of one year.

That's like two Splenda packets will get you one year at then $35,000 a year with a recidivism rate of 63%. So what we did, I spoke with then District Attorney Harris, now our Vice-president most recently, right, Kamala Harris, and I replicated what she did there. And so, what we did was instead of prosecuting them, we addressed their criminogenic needs. We'd find out what each person needed. The three things they have the greatest impact on reducing recidivism, education, getting your GED. Number two, substance abuse disorder treatment, helping people that are addicted, learn how to have coping skills. When you have an addiction, you will give up everything for one thing. When you're in recovery, you're willing to give up that one thing for everything. So education, substance abuse disorder, and a third one which is incredible. I told you there's a 63% recidivism rate for people that get released within three years, get rearrested, right, 63%. It's only 14% for people that spend one hour a week while they're incarcerated in spiritual formation, in Bible study class, going to chapel, be it Hindu, Orthodox, Jewish, if they're going to whatever. What do those three things have in common? It's changing the hearts and minds of people, so diversionary programs work. And what I detailed here is that I went to San Francisco, met with then District Attorney Harris, came back to Philadelphia. See, nobody had any money to give me. Despite everybody think I had a great idea, all the money goes to the prison, the state prison system. All the money goes to all these other things. It was only because of Gerry Lenfest. My very good friend Dr. Keith Lee Park connected me with Gerry Lenfest. Gerry Lenfest said, it's a great idea, I'll give you all the money. So, you know, this great billionaire gave us the money to get started and we were -instead of spending $35,000 a year to incarcerate people, JEVS was only spending -- we're spending $4,000. Well, JEVS got -- we have the RFP. , former Mayor, now Reverend Dr. Goode was our chairperson. We had an RFP. JEVS won the RFP. They've been doing it for years. We're spending only 11 $4,000 a year to get people into 12 this program, and I detailed what 13 services they get here. Okay. There's only an 11% recidivism rate. 70% of the students get jobs. It's just phenomenal. That's just an investment that we have to make these investments. But the thing is when I first started The Choice is Yours, when I started -- we had de minimis amounts of marijuana, just taking them out of the criminal court. Well, my predecessor called me a-hug-a-thug DA. I was vilified for that back then. But these are the things that are smart. So what does it take? It takes the political will to know, and I detail in here that Commissioner Bethel with David Irizarry have a wonderful program in PAD. It's phenomenal. That's something we need to replicate to expand, right. The programs the way people get pulled into the system, right, I used to be the president of the Overbrook Park Civic Association in Councilman Jones' District. Who has the most power on the street? The person who's going to come into contact with the person first, so we need to have more programs. The last gentleman here, I wish I could just go have lunch with him right now, this guy that just left here. It has to be immediate. And a lot of these things don't cost a lot of money. There needs to be some of the greatest -- I had an Eisenhower fellowship back when people still liked me, and I went to Australia. I went to South Africa to learn about recidivism-reducing programs and diversionary programs. If you were to ask me, what are the things that are most important in them, you have to have community involvement, right. So we have the youth -- Lynne Abraham, good thing she did, she created the Youth Aid Panel. So that's a good thing in Philadelphia, the Youth Aid Panel.

In a lot of places around the country and I list three here: The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, the National District Attorneys Association. There are a lot of organizations that provide resources if you want to learn about the good, the bad and the ugly of diversionary programs. But as a person who is an advocate and a returning citizen himself and a person who's been in recovery since June the 29th of 2017, what I really think is important again is the humanity. We have to think about the people who are in it and how you're treating them. And again, there are people that represent organizations that were here today that have great ideas and concepts. But if you, as Councilman Jones went with them on a tour of this thing to treat people that are in their programs, it'd be great. If you went with a hoodie on and some Timbs and some jeans and just rolled in there to see what they do for Pookie and Man Man, you would leave disgusted. And that's what I've experienced as I've been home. And that's why -- I'm not just talking out of a book anymore, right. I teach in the Philippine prisons every Tuesday and Thursday, a class I made up for free to reduce recidivism by addressing the things that people need the most, right. They need the conflict de-escalation skills. Gratitude, I could go. I could talk to forever and I'll come back whenever you want. But I know she's got places to go. But there's so much money that needs to be directed on the right things and a lot of it isn't. With that, I will submit my written testimony and say good night.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for sharing your story with us. I think that a lot of the things you said are some of the things we need to respond to in the Kensington community. And it's no secret, right. I mean, I want to start off with the fact that I represent the District with the lowest-performing schools when compared to other schools across the city of Philadelphia. I represent the District where the opioid epidemic crisis is happening. And the Defender said earlier, right, responding to a question that Councilmember Jones had, some of these children if we don't respond now will become part of our system, our criminal justice system, our DHS system, our mental health system, our substance abuse disorder system, which is why it is -- and all of that keeps me up at night, right. All of that keeps me up at night because I feel directly responsible for ensuring that when little Jose or Johnny see me in 9 years that they are not able to say 10 that I had an opportunity to change 11 their quality of life and I did 12 nothing about it. And so, it is 13 why I fight the way that I fight 14 regardless of who I take on as an 15 enemy or who I take on as somebody 16 that doesn't dislike me or who 17 thinks that I'm being reckless or 18 crazy when I'm responding to the 19 needs of my community. And that is 20 because of a lot of what you said, right. We need to figure out how we do better responding to not just those that are living in substance abuse disorder in the Kensington community but those who are raising their children in that community as well. Because if not, they will be sitting across from us in a few years as being part of a system that they believe that failed them. So thank you so much for sharing your story. My office is definitely going to continue to reach out to because we have a lot of questions, but I'm going to give Raquel an opportunity to share her story. And I have a 7:00 p.m. meeting that I'm supposed to be at in the District. And so, I want to make sure that I'm respectful to the residents over there as well. So please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. MS. McNICHOLS: So I am Raquel McNichols.

You can begin your testimony. MS. McNICHOLS: So thank you for the opportunity to come out to share my story with you all. It was pretty cool sitting next to the former District Attorney because I was actually convicted when he was in office. So thank you for that.

(Inaudible). MS. McNICHOLS: We both were. We have a lot in common. I'm also in recovery, but thank you for being part of my story that saved my life because that was exactly what I needed. So I am going to read a little bit off of -- I don't want to get in trouble by Gianna because I'm going to go a little bit off of my testimony. I submitted it. So I've been in long- term recovery from substance use and alcohol use disorders since August 5, 2016. I've been working in behavioral health since October 2017, so this is not only my just my job but this is my purpose as well. So I was once part of the problem in Kensington. Now, I am a tireless advocate and I try to be part of the solution one day at a time. And I don't live there anymore but that was where -- I grew up in that area, Port Richmond, Fishtown, Kensington. My mom is still over there. My grandmother's in Harrowgate. You know, everyone's still there. So I began drinking at 12 years old. And by 15, I started using Percocet. It was easier to get Percocet than it was to get a cigarette. I had my first Percocet before I even smoked the cigarette and it escalated. By years old I was using heroin daily. So I am very afraid of needles, not tattoo needles but like needles when you have to go to doctors. I became addicted to the needle when I was using heroin, which is wild. I've literally traumatized myself and can't go get blood work. I'm always sitting on blood work because I'm so afraid to get it. So before I got sober this time, my first encounter with the diversion program was the AMP ARD program. So I had gotten arrested for possession and then I was entered into the AMP ARD program. And I got several, I don't even know how many, but several bench warrants from that program because I wouldn't show up for court. But then I did start showing up and I would always go and talk to the social worker there, but I still wasn't quite ready. What pushed me to finally enter into treatment was in October 2014 I was finally homeless, so the family was finally like we're done with your shenanigans and we would like for you to figure things out. So I didn't run away, but then I went to treatment. But I can say this, like I was -- I might have looked physically broken, but I was not emotionally broken. But I did go and I did give this a shot. So then by January 2015 I did complete the program of ARD and had my record expunged. I did remain in recovery for a while and found employment, but I eventually disconnected from my network, put everything in front of my recovery and I truly didn't know then what I suffered from. So then when I relapsed, I will say that it was an eight- month relapse and it was the eight- month relapse of hell. So I relapsed in November 2015. I wanted to die every day. It was that powerful that I wanted to die, but I didn't have the guts to kill myself. And they had such a power over me. I remember I would get home, I had an apartment in Port Richmond and I would make a right on Somerset -- or I'm sorry, I would drive and I would be like, all right, got my turning signal and I'm making a right on Somerset. My car would just take me to Kensington Ave. I had no control over it. And it is just that powerful. I remember crying when using drugs, crying when drinking. I remember getting on my knees and praying and begging God, whoever was up there, to remove it. It was just that powerful. And I couldn't stop. So my addiction, now I had my record expunged, nothing. But on july 29, 2016 I robbed a bank because I needed money, and I needed money to get high and that was my only motive. I did not want to hurt anyone. I just went in there with a note and passed a note and got some money. And then I was arrested on August 4, 2016. My mom turned me into the FBI. And I'm a mom now and I get that. I totally get that. And I remained in Philadelphia County so I came through this system. And that was when Mr.

Williams -- like, I was under the system when he was there because the amount of money was not enough to be considered a federal crime. While incarcerated, I experienced severe, severe withdrawal symptoms and was hospitalized for suicidal thoughts in there. Before my arrest, I was receiving methadone maintenance. I was an outpatient. I went every day. I went to all my groups, but I always had dirty urines during that eight months. It was never offered to me do you want to go to a higher level of care ever. There was a missed opportunity there. When I was incarcerated, a fax didn't go through to the provider that was giving the methadone. So I ended up withdrawing from methadone, heroin, benzos, alcohol, every other substance I was using. While I was incarcerated, I participated in the Options program. I attended AA meetings and began therapy. I pled guilty on October 19, 2016 and the judge ordered a FIR evaluation. Two weeks later I was informed -- I'm sorry. Two months later, it was not that quick. Two months later I was informed that I would receive a 6 to 23 month sentence with time served, immediate parole to FIR and three years probation. I entered the treatment facility on January 17, 2017 and was discharged February 12th. I was attending outpatient treatment, meeting with my probation officer weekly and engaging in biweekly sessions with my FIR case manager. By May 2017, due to consistent engagement and treatment, 12-step fellowship meetings, volunteering and attending certified recovery specialist classes, I was discharged from FIR and continued regular probation. I was able to get off of probation two years early with an early termination, probation termination. FIR played a crucial role in my recovery. After incarceration I needed a therapeutic environment to transition before reintegrating into society. It provided the necessary stepdown treatment that I needed. I had to work on myself and heal from the root causes of my addiction. Through FIR, I learned that I could learn how to survive, how to live. I learned that I would -- and through my 12-step fellowship that I didn't have control over my drinking and I needed to do some work internally, and I need to begin the process of self forgiveness. However, there are significant delays which we did hear about earlier in the FIR process that need to be addressed. Individuals in need of substance use disorder treatment often wait for extended periods in prison custody, which costs a lot more money too, sometimes for six months or more before receiving an update on whether they qualify for FIR, followed by another six to eight weeks for bed placement and transport. This process feels inhumane as people are held in limbo after experiencing withdrawal and uncertainty. I have personally supported individuals who have waited for FIR evaluations only to be released in the middle of the night with no treatment or place to go and return back to Kensington, and then that's a missed opportunity. So what happens, what I've been noticing is it seems like everyone's not coordinating proper communication. The lawyers aren't, the judges aren't, the prison isn't, you know, or the social workers, so then people are falling through the cracks. And I always tend to get these really hard cases. I think I'm just like a magnet for them, but I've learned over the years how to navigate them and it's amazing. So I strongly believe it needs to be more efficient and person- centered. There must be a time or way to receive updates on assessments and sentencing with better communication between the person getting the services, attorneys, the District Attorney's Office, the FIR department, and judges to ensure no one falls through the cracks and the prison. The system needs to be more coordinated to avoid unnecessary delays. I would also recommend that prison staff is better trained to manage individuals going through withdrawal.

I can relate to being that person that was very mistreated by prison staff and couldn't see a doctor for days when I was going through withdrawal. I -- hold on, I'm trying to go through this quickly. I think this will also promote the well-being of those incarcerated and create a more compassionate and effective correctional environment. I also think that medical staff needs to be better trained, maybe a better medical provider. I don't know who it is, but someone that's used to our population. So I just want to say this, this addiction is the opposite of connection. When individuals are connected to services through diversion in a humane and compassionate way, recovery becomes possible. Thank you for concluding with success stories. Today we've heard a lot of quantitative data demonstrating the effectiveness of diversion programs, but the qualitative data, the real-life stories are just as powerful, if not more. Success is measured in the ripple effect of recovery, from the individual reclaiming their life to the families who heal alongside of them. It's seen in the children who get their parents back or like myself, the new children that come into this world and don't have to see their mom drink or get high and the mothers who no longer have to search for their child on the streets of Kensington and in the connections that are rebuilt. Thank you for taking the time to hear my testimony. I hope these recommendations will be considered to enhance the treatment and support for individuals involved in the criminal justice system who are struggling with substance use disorders in our city. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for sharing your story and thank you for your willingness to continue to show up and be supportive of those who are going through these challenges in the community, right. In another situation, the person would not want to stay in their neighborhood to be able to give back and do the work, right, just for a lot of reasons. So I applaud you and I appreciate the fact that you do, that you do what you do every day and that you're always willing to tell your story regardless of who you're in front of. Appreciate you. Wish you luck on your continued journey, right, because it's a journey every day. I've heard from Councilmember Harrity that every day is an opportunity to stay on course and not always is it easy. And so, thank you. Thank you for what you do every day.

Salud.

Anything else? (No response.)

Thank you so much for being with us. Hearing no other witnesses to testify today, this concludes the business before the Special Committee on Kensington. Thank you all very much for your attendance and for staying with us. Thank you. (Special Committee on Kensington concluded at 6:37 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL