Committee on Children , Youth, October 29, 2025

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA JOINT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN & YOUTH AND TECHNOLOGY & INFORMATION SERVICES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:05 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILMAN MIKE DRISCOLL COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA

240828 - - -

Good morning, everyone. I now note that the hour has come. Ms. Walton, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate that you are present when your name is called.

Chair Dr. Phillips.

Present.

Chair Landau.

Present.

Vice-Chair Thomas. (No response.)

Member Brooks. (No response.)

Member Gauthier. (No response.)

Member Harrity.

Here.

Vice-Chair Squilla. (No response.)

Member Driscoll.

Present.

Member O'Rourke.

Present.

Thank you. A quorum of the Committee of Children and Youth and Technology and Information Services is present and this hearing is now called to order. So before we begin, I just want to open up with some brief remarks. Today's hearing is more than about children and youth. It's about how we as a city respond when a young person loses their way. Do we help them find a new path or do we simply monitor them when they're struggling to walk. As someone who has spent my career working in youth development and mentorship, I know firsthand what many of our young people need. And so, what I want to say is that young people need a village of support, from our grandparents, our neighbors, our teachers. They need guidance and they also need as much support as possible. What we're trying to do is find a way to balance accountability with compassion, structure and understanding. And the use of GPS monitoring, there are some questions that have been raised about how it's being used. We do understand that in many cases it could be something that could be effective, but how are we using it properly. So we're joined today by professionals who see these young people every day in courts, our schools and neighborhoods, in our homes. And I want to thank each of you for your work. At the end of the day, our goal is simple to ensure that accountability never replaces empathy and that every young person knows the city still believes in their potential. Thank you. I would like to pass it over to my colleague, the Chair of Technology and Information Services, Rue Landau, Councilwoman Rue Landau.

Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. I'd like to say thank you to Councilmember Phillips for your collaboration on today's hearing. I want to also thank everyone here today for participating in this very, very important discussion. As we know, involvement in the criminal justice system has long-lasting impacts on Philadelphians and their families. This is especially true for our youth, who represent some of our most vulnerable members of our community. As Chair of the Committee on Technology and Information Services, I'm proud to co-chair this joint hearing with Councilmember Phillips, Chair of the Committee on Children and Youth. Together we're here to take a closer look at the use of electronic monitoring and GPS tracking for youth involvement in the Philadelphia's juvenile justice system. We know that Philadelphia has made some important strides in recent years. The number of youth placed in secured detention has fallen from nearly 2500 in 2019 to about 1700, and the number of youth served by juvenile probation has also declined. Despite these overall reductions, racial disparities persist and these disparities remind us that while the system has evolved, equity remains an urgent challenge. Electronic monitoring has been one of the tools used to supervise youth in the justice system, often described as an alternative to secure detention. During the pandemic, its use expanded as a way to reduce exposure to the virus in congested settings over time. However, GPS surveillance has become more common, contributing to what some have called a GPS culture where surveillance is now a prevalent method for managing youth. While the intent of electronic monitoring is to provide an alternate to incarceration, we must also recognize the serious concerns it raises for many young people. GPS monitoring can limit access to essential activities like mental health services, workforce training and other social programs. And we've also heard that it can even limit kids from going to the corner store just to buy something that they need from the house. We've heard from families and advocates that GPS restrictions sometimes prevent youth from participating fully in the very supports designed to help them succeed. That's why today's hearing is so important. We're here to get the full picture, to evaluate both the benefits and limitations of electronic monitoring. We want to understand the impact on re-arrest rates, incarceration rates and overall outcomes for our youth. We must also examine ethical and privacy concerns and ensure that technology is being implemented in a way that is both effective and equitable. As Chair of the Tech Committee, my goal is to ensure that technology serves the public good and not the other way around. That includes ensuring that our city's use of technology does not harm or further marginalize our children. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Landau. Are there any other opening remarks from members of the committee? I would like to also acknowledge the presence of Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier, who is also a member of the Children and Youth Committee. We're happy to have her. Any other remarks from members of the committee? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, this is the public hearing of the Joint Committee on Children and Youth and the Committee on Technology and Information Services regarding Resolution No. 240828. Ms. Walton, will you please read the title of the resolution.

Resolution 3 No. 240828, authorizing a Joint Hearing of the City Council Committee on Children and Youth and the Committee on Technology and Information Services on the use of electronic monitoring or Global Positioning Systems, GPS, for youth involved with Philadelphia's Juvenile Justice System.

Thank you, Ms. Walton. Will you please call the first panel we have to testify this morning on Resolution 240828.

Yes. Panel No. 1, Youth and Community Voices, Joshua Levin, Rodney Gardner, Denaisa Hansberry, Kendra Van de Water, the CEO of YEAH Philly; and Paris Bright, Court Advocate from YEAH Philly. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

We're going to go to the next panel. I was really hoping they would be here because I like to have our advocates start first because I think it's important to hear their voice before. Unfortunately, they may not get the opportunity to really speak before the Administration -- hopefully, the Administration remains. What I will say for our Administration that's about to come forward, please keep your testimony hopefully to about three minutes so we can ask questions and have more give-and-take and so forth. Next, can we please call the next panel? Ms. Walton, can you please call the next panel that was supposed to be second.

Yes. The next panel will be Matthew Swando, the Chief Revenue Officer from Track Group. (Witness approached witness table.)

Thank you. Can you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Yes, sir. My name is Matthew James Swando. I'm the Chief Revenue Officer of Track Group, Inc. based out of Naperville, Illinois. I want to begin my testimony --

Sorry. Can you speak directly into the microphone? Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is that better?

Yes.

Okay. Sorry about that.

Wait, wait, hold on. Are we supposed to have the whole panel?

He has posters, large posters so it may block the rest of the panel.

Okay. All right. Please state your name and then we'll call the rest of the panel up.

Sure. Again, my name is Matthew Swando. I'm the Chief Revenue Officer of Track Group, Inc., operated and based in Naperville, Illinois.

Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony.

I want to first and foremost say good morning and thank you to the Committee members and esteemed members of Council who have been so gracious to allow me a little bit of time to meet with you today and to testify a bit on this important topic. I'm here to provide testimony today speaking to how the GPS systems operate and answer any questions obviously that you all have. A little bit of my background, if you don't mind. To begin, I've spent the last years 9 in the criminal justice and 10 corrections industry. First 11 started as a pretrial investigator 12 and supervisor in Detroit, 13 Michigan, working for the courts in 14 Detroit with the responsibility of 15 supervising pretrial detainees as 16 they were awaiting court hearings. 17 I then moved into the 18 private sector, working with 19 technology companies that produce, 20 manufacture and service supervision 21 systems and tools for corrections 22 agencies such as probation, parole, 23 et cetera. So that's really been 24 kind of the bulk of my career working in these arenas. A little bit of an overview on Track Group. -based company out of Naperville, Illinois that manufactures the GPS tracking devices, the actual ankle monitors that go on the individuals. Obviously, this example being juvenile probationers here in the city. That is our sole mission as a company. That is all that we do, is provide these types of systems to government agencies at the state, local and federal level. S. S. We deliver essentially three aspects or three items, if you will, as a contractor for the government agencies that we work with. We work with probation, parole, pretrial, sheriff's offices, work release departments, any type of criminal justice or corrections entity at the state, local or federal level charged with supervising individuals in the community in a non-incarcerated setting. So everything we do is focused on community supervision and obviously, we don't do anything relative to jail, prisons or any types of incarceration settings. We don't track trucks. I can't help you if you lose your pet. We don't make systems for monitoring or tracking anything else. We focus solely on the criminal justice market and that business, if you will. We're a publicly-traded company, again as I mentioned outside of Chicago in Naperville, Illinois. Circling back to my prior point, we provide essentially three items to the agencies we work with. We provide the physical hardware or the GPS ankle monitors that incorporate the tracking systems, the antennas, the cellular modems to communicate, tamper detection, certain sized straps, you know, to fit on the ankles, et cetera. Then the second kind of item that we provide as a company is the monitoring software or the platform that enables officers to see on a map where these individuals going, are they going to school, are they attending treatment, are they abiding by the conditions of their supervision. And then finally, we offer a monitoring service. So in the background, if you will, we have a 24/7 monitoring center in Illinois where our staff are kind of keeping an eye on what's happening with the alarms and the alerts and answering any questions that officers may have. So periodically, officers might see something in the system or receive an alert or an alarm that an individual is maybe tampering with the device or the battery is dying or whatnot, and they'll call our monitoring center asking questions about what's going on. So those are really the crux of the three things that we provide as a contractor with First Judicial. I wanted to give you a little bit of an overview on how GPS works, and I appreciate my colleague here helping me with some slides. I brought along some visual representation for the Committee and the Councilmember so you have a quick understanding.

And that's really what I'm going to focus on, kind of walking through how these systems work and again, for the purposes of giving you all an understanding of it in kind of a pictorial format and of course answering any questions that you might have about its function. The GPS system -- if you could go to the next slide, if you don't mind. Thank you. Everyone has the GPS systems in their pocket these days. Well, I know some we're not supposed to have cell phones in here, but your cell phone, my cell phone, everyone's device, pretty much everyone's vehicle has GPS antenna in it and the ability to locate that device, provide mapping for, provide an Uber right to where you're standing outside of your restaurant or hotel. The GPS system, the commercial system, has been in use since 1996 when then President Bill 2 Clinton opened it up for commercial use. Prior to '96, it was only used exclusively by the military. The GPS constellation consists of 32 satellites constantly orbiting the Earth that are sending down radio frequency signals to the surface of the earth. Essentially, the GPS antennas and the receivers inside those devices, our devices and inside your cell phones, triangulate a position using latitude and longitude based on the rate, time and distance it takes for the signals that come down from the satellites. So it provides worldwide tracking. It provides the ability to locate a device, a person, a car, whatever it might be, based on those satellites orbiting the Earth throughout 24/7. If you go to the next slide. Thank you. The device we manufacture, we'll start with it. It is an ankle-worn GPS monitor. It has of course a GPS antenna, a cellular modem and a number of other features and functions that allow it to operate in pretty much a continuous basis. Our challenge is providing something as discreet as we can, as comfortable as we can and as secure as we can to ensure that the agencies that we work with have the ability to supervise these individuals as ordered by the courts. The hardware, as I mentioned, primarily consists of the GPS capability, which receives those signals from the satellites we just talked about and then secondarily, probably more the secondary main function incorporated in the device is a cellular modem, essentially the ability to report out where that device is, its latitude and longitude, its battery status, overall health and whatnot. So we've got two kinds of primary communication functions occurring in that device 24/7. Number one, it's receiving signals from the satellite and calculating the latitude and longitude. And number two, it's using the cellular networks, Verizon, AT&T, et cetera, to report out to our systems in the software where these individuals are and what they're doing. So I'll pause there for a second. That's kind of the primary function of how these ankle monitors work in terms of the GPS supervision they provide.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Is there anything else you have to share?

I was going to go through a couple of other items, if you could flip to the next.

Okay. All right.

This just gives you a representation of the mapping functionality. So the devices record a GPS location or they attempt to calculate a location every two seconds and every one minute throughout the day on a 24/7 basis. The devices, again over the cellular network, are reporting those GPS locations back to our proprietary software system. C. So the software gives our supervising agencies the ability to see on the map where these individuals have been. They can look back where they were yesterday, last week, et cetera. And then with that -- if you could flip to the next one, my friend -- you have the ability to set up zones, inclusion zones and exclusion zones. We can draw those however large or small we need them. They're primarily used to ensure that youth are attending treatment programs. For example, youth are attending school or wherever they might be ordered by the courts as part of their treatment and supervision in the community to attend, the supervising agencies and officers can create zones and associate schedules with those. So for example, if the youth is ordered to attend a treatment class on Tuesday afternoons after school, we can draw an inclusion zone around that location for treatment, put the schedule at o'clock to o'clock or whatever it might be, and as long as the individual is attending it and in that location, no alarms are going to be generated. If the individual decides not to attend it, we can notify again through geolocation that the person is not at their treatment class as they're supposed to be. The next one. Thank you. Alternatively, we can provide the ability for exclusion zones. This is helpful in potential cases of where the supervising agency is seeking to keep individuals away from particular areas of the city, particular residences, particular locations. This has been helpful in the past with instances of potential retaliatory crimes where the agencies or the officers have a concern that individuals might be seeking to go to areas and potentially commit retaliatory crimes or that they might be in harm's way, given the nature of some of the criminal activity. So we have the ability to create -- whether it's an apartment building, we can create a zone around a section of the city. We can create a zone around a park, a school, a church, whatever it might be and essentially instruct the individual to please stay away from that particular area for their own safety and for the safety of the community. Next slide, please. This is just an example of an individual traversing from their inclusion zone, which is down on the bottom, represented by the green, traveling up towards an exclusion zone. So just to give you a sense of how the software works. This is what the officers see. So they're getting an address, a time and location every minute throughout the day where the individual is. You can go to the next one, buddy. Couple of other things I wanted to cover real quick. The devices have some unique features that give the supervising agency and the youth the ability to communicate. The devices have an ability for an emergency call to be generated. So if the youth is in a potentially dangerous situation, they can simply hit a button on the top of the device on their ankle and it will immediately contact our monitoring center. We can put them in touch with the officers or local law enforcement. And that happens quite a bit, where individuals are placing emergency calls into us and seeking assistance. It also gives the agency the ability to communicate with youth who potentially don't have a mobile phone or don't have a cell phone. So I know that many of the juvenile agencies we work with, including First Judicial here in Philadelphia, utilize that feature quite a bit to communicate with and talk with individuals on the program that don't happen to have a mobile phone. It's a pretty robust device.

Again, I won't bore you with too much of this, but a lot goes into our design to ensure that it can be used in a shower every single day. It has a battery life of three days. It only requires you to charge it about minutes each day and you should be fine. It'll go three minutes -- or sorry, three days if you don't charge it at all. So it's a pretty robust device. It's been in the marketplace about years now. 8 And really in 9 conclusion, that's our role. Our 10 role is to provide these systems to 11 the agencies that we work with. 12 Our role is to assist these agencies with these types of tools in their challenging task of supervising individuals in the community. And again, I'm very pleased and humbled to have an opportunity to meet with you all today and to present on our systems and happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So we recognize the presence of Councilwoman Minority Leader Kendra Brooks is here today as well. We're going to have you stay for questions once the rest of the panel finishes.

Yes, sir.

But we actually have the young people up. I'd like to hear their testimony first while everyone's still here. We're going to have them come and speak. Ms. Walton, will you please call what should have been our first panel to testify this morning on Resolution 240828.

Yes. Panel No. 1, Youth and Community Voices. We have Josh Levan, Rodney Gardner, Denaisa Hansberry, Kendra Van de Water, Co-CEO of YEAH Philly as well as Paris Bright, Core Advocate of YEAH Philly. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Thank you. These are the individuals of why we're here today and I wanted to at least get their information on the record, get what they want to say on the record that will help us inform our questions for the rest of the day. So we have Joshua Levin first. Josh, can you please state your name for the record. Welcome. And you could then proceed with your testimony. Welcome, Josh.

My name is Joshua. I'll start by saying I'm years old. I'm from West 18 Philadelphia. I'm here to tell you 19 my experiences with GPS. I was on and off GPS for almost two years before I was ever found delinquent. I just got off of GPS not too long ago. For a long time it took a toll on my life because I was confined to the house. I couldn't go anywhere. I was very depressed and anxious. I would -- my fault. I would have important opportunities and not be able to attend because of GPS. My PO never wanted me to go anywhere, even if it was for jobs or programming. Also being on GPS, I didn't really have a place that I could be at for more than four months because of housing issues. I would get kicked out, then locked up, which made people think the worst of me before they even knew me. This made it worse being on GPS. Really I needed housing, but they locked me up because there were no housing opportunities. Even my family was looking at me in a different way because they had a lot of doubts of me ever changing my life around. Being a kid with GPS is not -- I'm sorry, being a kid when GPS is not treatment for me, it is embarrassing being outside with a block on your ankle. People are supposed to care about kids in the system, but the city does not care. I'm asking you to do better for kids like me who GPS is not helpful for. Thank you.

Thank you, Josh. And, Rodney Gardner, please state your name for the record. Thank you. Thank you. State your name for the record.

Hello. My name is Rodney Gardner. I am a community organizer, advocate and formerly incarcerated youth. I have witnessed many individuals dealing with the effects of electronic monitoring, including the youth I have advocated for and my brother. I have seen them struggle mentally with increased anxiety, depression and stress. I've observed young people living in fear that someone is constantly listening to them, which results in a loss of privacy. Youth and young adults often face embarrassment and difficulties finding jobs due to the visible monitor on their ankles. Being involved in their lives has deeply affected me, especially watching my brother confront these challenges every day. It often left me feeling helpless because I didn't know how I could support him. Additionally, individuals under electronic monitoring and the criminal legal system face numerous daily challenges. These include warrantless searches on their homes and electronic devices, the collection of sensitive materials and the restrictions on where they can work and whom they can marry and among other limitations. It is important to put it into electronic monitoring because it has been proven that it is more harmful than helpful and it is not a form of rehabilitation. Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney. Denaisa or -- okay. Please state your name for the record.

My name is Levi Sirleaf. My name is Levi Sirleaf. I'm 16 years old. I am from Southwest Philly. I was on house arrest and GPS before it was proven that I committed a crime. In late 2024, I got arrested and served seven months in the Juvenile Detention Center for my first offense. That's when I came home to house arrest and GPS, where I had to fight to get support from YEAH Philly. Being on house arrest and GPS for several months meant that I wasn't able to work, play sports or step foot out of my house. As a teenager, I wasn't able to do anything I wanted to do. I even had to get permission to step outside my front door and that takes days to get permission. One time they mistakenly said I violated when I didn't. I had a curfew, but they lied and said I was out in the middle of the night when I wasn't. In the end, YEAH Philly proved that I was where I was supposed to be and he didn't even say sorry. As kids, we should be able to get support to do things even when we have legal cases. I deserve freedom and proper treatment from the people who say they care about kids. Thank you for listening to my story.

Thank you. It was Leroy --

Levi Sirleaf.

Okay. Awesome. And then do we have Ms. -- is it Kendra and Paris Bright? Okay. So you two can go -- excuse me. You two can go right after each other.

Good morning. My name is Paris Bright and I serve as a youth advocate for YEAH Philly. I come to you this morning with a question, are we lifting our young people up or just weighing them down. GPS monitoring is not about guidance nor growth. Its primary focus is controlling youth before exiting the courtroom. Many young people -- I watch many young people hear these words: If you even take a step outside even on your front porch, you're back in front of me in my courtroom. Because when I say jump, you say how high. This is the control that we see every day. This human behavior is created into an offense. And by doing this, we create fear, not discipline within our young people. A young person under constant surveillance starts to believe that they're already guilty before they've even had a trial. They stop trusting adults and they stop believing in second chances. In Philadelphia, the number of young people being monitored by GPS is higher than ever. According to research completed by the Juvenile Law Center and the Philadelphia Inquirer, the city's juvenile justice system has rapidly expanded its use of GPS-equipped ankle monitors to enforce curfews and house arrests. S. city, per the Inquirer. GPS monitoring piles on stress and confusion. How can one understand the nuances of what violating means. They don't know where the invisible lines are until they've crossed them. And when they do, the system is right there waiting, ready to hand out its punishment senselessly and without discrimination. Studies have shown us that electronic monitoring represents another way that every aspect of use, daily lives is subject to surveillance and control. This is not rehabilitation. This is criminalization. I'll share a brief story of one of the young people that I work with. They were dealing with immense grief. While in placement, they had lost five family members, some to violence, some to illnesses. To cope with these losses back-to-back upon their release, they began to smoke weed at an intense rate. For many young people, therapy isn't always the best solution because the dynamic is lacking in trust. Again, a theme we've seen time and time again. The court placed them in a treatment school, one partnered with probation and house arrest to ensure they attended the school's mandatory group therapy and the random urine testing. For three months, they complied and they stayed sober. Another family member fell ill of theirs and began to transition into death and the anxiety for the young person once again became unbearable. Late one night they snuck out to smoke. This pattern is continuing. The court saw their actions as defiance and direct insubordination. What the actions from the courts and probation tells us is that their freedom, their dignity does not matter. In our world they call it justice. I call it oppression. Another way to say I don't care about your pain, my authority reigns supreme always. However, I see an inexperienced young person navigating feelings so dreadful, feelings that even I may struggle with or you, being called a technical violation. This creates an impending doom that follows them to class, their community and into their futures. If they step out of line, someone is lying in wait to put them back in a cage. We cannot expect them to focus on hope when they're trapped in the house and being seen as a problem. Our prerogative must be to build systems that uplift our young people, not ones that track their stagnancy. We cannot create punishments for being human, for coping, for grieving, for surviving. We have to create a space for them to grow, learn, without fear, without surveillance, that same fear that had led them to being involved in the system in the first place. I leave you with this: When we put a GPS on a young person and label it as guidance, that is an illusion. We are not helping them find their way. We are keeping them from ever moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good morning. My name is Kendra Van de Water and I'm the co-founder and co-CEO of Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout, better known as YEAH Philly across the city. We're an organization that works with young people who've been harmed and who have also caused harm. We create alternatives to incarceration and we center care, community accountability instead of surveillance. I'm here today to urge the Councilmembers' body to look into the harmful practices and end the use of GPS electronic monitoring for young people in Philadelphia. I'm here today to demand transparency and oversight in a system that currently operates in complete darkness. GPS monitors are marked as less harsh alternatives to incarceration, but in practice they expand the system's control and keep young people under 24-hour watch and surveillance. A UC Davis Law Review analysis found that electronic monitoring actually widens the net of punishment where young people are punished for technical violations like low batteries or missed curfews or missed check-ins instead of serious misconduct. National reviews, including those by the Marshall Project and Juvenile Law Center, show no 19 empirical evidence that GPS actually reduces recidivism among youth, instead GPS monitoring causes harm. Young people report stigma, humiliation, anxiety and depression. Families often face hundreds of dollars in monitoring fees and this adds financial strain. This is punishment and it's not rehabilitation, and the juvenile system says that its main goal is to rehabilitate young people. There is no public data on how many young people are actually on GPS, how long they're monitored for or what companies actually profit from these contracts that we have. Families can't appeal GPS orders and there's no 16 independent oversight. This lack of transparency is unacceptable and City Council must demand data from the courts, from probation and any contracted vendors. It's the Council's responsibility to ask who's being monitored, who's profiting and whether any of this actually makes our city safer. Across the country, failures are abound. , a Washington Post investigation found that teens under GPS supervision were repeatedly lost by the system and some were even killed while being monitored. This is also happening in Philadelphia. That is not safety. This is negligence. Adolescent brain science shows that young people are still developing impulse control and need structure and opportunity and not surveillance. Evidence-based programs like multi-systemic therapy and functional family therapy reduce reoffending by up to 50% and cost way less than incarceration or GPS. Other proven models include restorative justice, credible messenger mentoring and evening reporting centers that combine supervision with care. These community-based approaches actually make young people safer and more successful and they also make our city safer. City Council must probe this system and hold the courts, probation departments and vendors accountable because the public cannot fix what it cannot see. I urge Council today to require public reporting on GPS use, costs, vendors and outcomes. We would also like you to ban or sharply limit GPS monitoring for youth because research shows that it does not decrease recidivism. We want you to eliminate all fees associated with monitoring as well and we want you to redirect those funds to community-based supports like therapy, jobs, mentorship and education. I've sat with young people every day who have cried because they can't go to a sibling's birthday, they can't go to a job interview because of their GPS monitor. When we put these devices on kids, we tell them that we don't trust them or see their potential to thrive and be productive citizens. Often times they have not been adjudicated delinquent and they are still on probation and GPS monitoring. Philadelphia can do better. We don't need any more chains. We need more accountability.

We need more truth and we need more support for young people that actually work and is based on science and research. Thank you.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony. The reason why we, you know, normally a lot of committee hearings we start off with the Administration, but I wanted to start off with you all because that way we can get a context of why we're here, what the problem is and then go to the Administration and other experts, per se. So we have questions from the committee. I just want to ask one quick question. Then I'm going to turn it over to the committee. Are youth and families adequately informed about their rights regarding GPS? And that's coupled with this similar question around what do you -- I heard you mention recommendations for changes in terms of reducing the fees, redirecting some money to the community. I just want to hear from you all. Is there something else better in the event of a consequence that you believe could replace GPS altogether? Brother over here, he knows exactly -- he's ready. Thank you, Joshua. And also, want to thank you all for your testimony. It was very informative. And then I'm going to turn it over to the committee.

Can you ask your question one more time?

No 10 problem. So I just want to hear from you. Are you adequate -- being on GPS, do they adequately inform you of your rights regarding GPS, like all the regulations and rights that you have regarding GPS? And then also, do you have any recommendations of something else that could be better than GPS?

Yeah. I feel like if a person case was not, like, at the extreme, I feel like if a kid came in and it was, like, something petty, there's something, like, he could come back from or, like, evolve from then -- yeah, I feel like it should be, like, a program he should be sent to for, like, amount of time. He do that program for that amount of time and then you go back in front of the judge and then see what the judge say. I feel like that would be better than GPS, because the GPS really has stopped, like, kids' life though, like because we growing up, we out here trying to figure out what we doing with our life. I'm pretty sure y'all had mistakes in your life where y'all like I'm not doing this again. We just need somebody to just be, like, I see where they coming from. We just need -- I feel like if there's more programs out here, then it's going to be better. But some of the programs out here now they not really helping us -they help us, but it's, like, help us to keep us in the system. I'm currently housed at like -- I don't know how to say it. I'm housed at supportive independent living. And I came home to, like, they told you, you got to stay on probation and you can get this housing, but then when you get off probation you got to start, like, paying all that yourself. So like, it's all a trap to keep you in the system and all that. So now, I'm doing extra time on probation when I could have been off probably a week ago.

Thank you so much for that. That was the response I was looking to hear. The Chair recognizes Chair Landau, and then after that Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier.

Thank you so much. Thank you for all your testimony. I particularly want to thank Joshua and Levi for your courage to come here and speak to us. I know it's not easy to tell your stories. This is something I've heard, Joshua, before that at this point some people say I'd rather go spend time in a program than to be on GPS monitoring at my home. But let me try to follow up. I want to ask while you're here, just try to ask this question in a different way: When you originally got your monitor on your ankle, did you fully understand the rules? And do they continually talk to you about the rules? And also, when they talk to just you, are they also talking to a parent or somebody else so you know the parameters?

Me personally when I first got it on, I was 16. So I probably didn't know, like, what it really was like. I ain't never been locked up before. That was the first time so I didn't know. But my parents and them knew, like, people that was my guardians they knew. But they was, like, even hard -- they was even harder than the GPS was. I probably couldn't go outside and all that. But they used to push me to do -- like, I couldn't do nothing at all because they felt like I see this on your ankle, you not about to be around the kids basically. So it was basically, like, you got to be confined to this one area. Because if your little brother see that you got an ankle monitor on he's going to ask what it is and he going to think what you're doing is okay.

When you got your ankle --

Yeah. Please, Kendra.

-- monitor on, did probation explain (inaudible)?

Oh, no, they didn't explain. They gave me a paper. And it had three things on there. It just told me I couldn't go outside. It told me to charge it for two hours and then it told me to report to my PO.

All right. This question is for any of you and I do have a question for the manufacturer, a few questions for the manufacturers as well. But when you do violate, if you did violate this by going to a place where you weren't allowed to go to, does it tell you immediately?

No, it like -- it'd be sometimes. Like, if you not where you supposed to be, then it'll ring and it'll say you out of your zone. They will probably be, like, an hour late after you already been gone. You get what I'm saying. Like, you already been doing what you doing. You probably been back to the crib. It's going to ring while you walking back to the crib. Yeah, you was out of your zone, why was you -- and then that's when they ask all them questions. But it don't be accurate. It be, like, an hour after, 30 minutes after.

It's not consistent --

It's iffy. So it could ring and a person will come on the monitor and say why are you out. But we have people who are in the program who are approved to be out where it'll ring and they'll still ask why are you out. So it just depends on --

So it's inconsistent.

Right.

I think I have -- I do have more questions for the manufacturer which I would love to -- although I see Levi here, unless you want to chime in.

(Shaking head).

No, okay. Can I ask the manufacturer to come back up, Matthew?

(Inaudible).

No, he was on the first panel. He just had to sit back because they came up.

(Inaudible).

I see. He went first but was on Panel 2. Okay.

So I'm going to acknowledge other members of the committee and make sure you get your questions for the next one.

Okay.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gauthier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to start by commending all of you for your testimony and talking about things that were traumatic for you but doing something important that could help other young people. I wanted to commend Rodney, especially whom I've gotten to see over the past several days, not just in this chamber, but I was recently at the ribbon-cutting for YEAH Philly Solar Installation and Rodney led that project. He led a solar installation that will save YEAH Philly $90,000 that they can reinvest in the community. So kudos to all of you. Kudos to YEAH Philly. (Applause.)

I wanted to understand a little bit more of what was in the testimony for Joshua and Levi when the GPS system went wrong. So, Joshua, if you can, can you just talk a little bit more about how the GPS endangered your housing situation? I just wanted to understand that more. And then, Levi, you mentioned that the system said you were out at midnight somewhere where you were not actually. I wanted to understand that a little bit better.

So GPS, it messed up my living situation due to, because like, I haven't, like, lived with my real biological parents since I was like 14, so 10 I was with my godparents or aunties 11 or uncles. But it was, like, 12 hopping, like switch or I can't 13 take care of you right now, you have to go -- like, I would just be switching. So when I got 16, that little stuff happened. And when I was 16, I was with my god-dad at the time, but I wasn't staying with him. I had just moved there for a little bit. It was probably gonna be like for the summer. And then I was supposed to go to my godmom or somewhere else. But I ended up getting arrested. They put me on GPS for the three days -- I mean, I was in the youth for three days and then they put me on the GPS and that was my first time on GPS. I never got locked up or none of that. And then I went to his house, and then that's when he just started looking at me different. Like, he was basically threatening, like I could kick you out, you ain't got nowhere -- like they basically use that against you. You ain't got nowhere to go. All you got is me. You can't do nothing or people got to pay their bills and stuff. Sometimes people don't have the right money. So they'd be like, you get a job and all that. I couldn't really get a job because I was on GPS. So at 16, that's when I had violated and then they put me on again. And he said I couldn't go there so they didn't let me go home. I had to go back to the Youth and then I had to do the rest of my time there, and then they let me out again. It was the same thing. People kept saying, well, he could come, he could stay here and they was changing their mind when I got to court. So that's when the judge finally said, well, he's now, you mind as well wait. 13 And then that's when I had the 14 independent living and they came to 15 me with that, like, I could do it 16 when I was 18. 17 That was already like three years ago though. I was fighting for this for three years where I could say, you can't kick me out because I'm in my own house. I actually got finished GPS at my house. I got off like two months ago, three months ago.

And can I add that in the juvenile system --

Before that, he just wants to clarify a question. Vice-Chair Thomas.

So look, and I'm not trying to jump in front of anybody, but we're listening to everything you're saying and you're saying words like they and them. When you say they tried to hold this against you or like -- is this your probation officer? Is it the juvenile center? So if you could just go back, give us the story but also let us know who, and that's for everybody that's talking who is they. Be specific of who you're talking about because we're listening to you, and what you're going through we don't want other people to go through this. But we need to know exactly in detail who's they, who's them and who's telling you things like you don't have family and they hold that against you.

Yeah. All right. So for me, it was, like, it was more than just one they. It was family, it was the court systems. It was just a lot. And then I was crashing down. And then, like, when I was in, like, my little, like, we got a little room 16 in the Youth, when I was in there, I really thinking dang, every time I go to court, like I know what -- I ain't got nobody, I don't got nowhere to live. They telling me, like, you can't go home because you don't have nowhere to live. The POs and the DAs, they was sitting across from me and the judge would be like, do you want him home or do you think he should go home. The DAs would be like, no, we don't think that he changed or nothing like that. And I used to be feeling bad, like dang, they not even trying to hear what I got to say no 10 more. Like, I couldn't go in the courtroom and not be able to talk at all. Like, I thought we could go in the courtroom and, like, advocate for ourselves sometimes, even when you get older it's tight. Like, when you go in juvenile court, you can't talk. It's only your lawyer or your PD, the DA and then the judge. The kids really don't be saying nothing at all, that they really listen to.

I think I understand. So you're saying you already had a tough housing situation. But instead of helping you, everyone, the they, the probation officer, the judge, the DA made it worse?

Yeah.

I think I understand.

Can I add one thing? Can I add that often times in juvenile court they don't bring up housing issues because in delinquency court, they as in the POs and the judges and the hearing officers will use that against you and they will detain you. So you will be put on GPS for housing issues. You will be detained at the Juvenile Detention Center for housing issues because there's limited housing opportunities.

That's horrible. Thank you. Levi.

Can you repeat your question again too?

You spoke in your testimony if I'm remembering correctly about the GPS saying you violated the terms of your probation by being out at midnight, but you said that didn't actually happen. I just wanted to understand that a little bit better.

My PO had reached out to my family member and my mom. He had told her, yeah, your son violated this and the third. And once my folks hear something like that, they already on go. So she called me, I'm in the house. She's telling me about the situation. She like, yeah, they said you violated. You know how parents be, they like you don't listen. But then I had checked back with my case advocate and stuff. I called and I'm like, yeah, Mr. So-and-so, like, they saying I violated but I didn't violate, I was in the house all night. And they saying, like, I violated overnight. So he had reached out to my PO and asked about the situation. And he's saying, like -- it wasn't like overnight. They said I was out past like 9:00-something and my curfew was at 9:00. My case advocate had told him, yeah, his curfew was at 9 o'clock and he was in the house before that, because I made sure I texted him when I got in the house. So they found out about it. They checked, did a little review, found out I really didn't violate. Then the most they said to me was, like, all right, cool, make sure he don't violate. See me, I had a lot of questions for that because you came out your day and say I violated. And then when we proved you wrong, it's like most you say is, yeah, just make sure you do what you do, this, that and the third, duh, duh, duh.

He could have went to jail just off that little thing, you feel me. But a PO could go home off of that. Like, yeah, he violated, send him to jail and then I go home. You enjoy your time with your wife and all that, and you just messed up this kid life all over an accident.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. The Chair now recognizes the presence of Mark Squilla, Councilman Mark Squilla. And then also, Chair recognizes Minority Leader Kendra Brooks for questions.

So I have a few ques -- I'm just trying to get clarity. And I'm a mom first, so I'm coming with my mom hat and Councilmember hat. So I'm hearing housing insecurity with your issue with -- can you give me your name again?

Joshua.

And your Levi, right?

Yeah.

Housing insecurity, so were there any other systems involved? You said you kind of been couch-surfing at 16. Were you involved in any other systems, whether it was DHS? Were these placements through DHS or another system or it was just family, for lack of better words, just passing you off to the next person?

No, it was mostly DHS. It was like -- it didn't get to be that deep only because my family was just like, alright, we could take him for some time. So it was not like where somebody was like, yo, they really can't take me for that time and I had to go down to, you know, you go down to the place and they try to get you in and all that with the DHS. But I was in DHS. And then the court, it was just like a stack of problems. It was just like problems keep stacking. My problems just started fading away. I told you I'm 18. That was four years ago.

Wow. Okay. And my other question was around -- like I said, I'm hearing housing insecurity seems like a reason why they end up on GPS which doesn't make sense. And that's why I was wondering what was your prior history, not legal but who failed you? That's what I'm trying to get to. Who failed you before all of these systems were dropping balls to get you to GPS? And I'm hearing that -- to Councilmember Thomas' point, we're just trying to figure out who are all the who's and where the balls were dropped to prevent some of these situations from happening? I'm sorry all of these systems failed you, because that's what it sounds like before, when people should have been responsible for you while you're developing. People kind of left you to your own devices to figure it out and I apologize for that. So I just needed that piece of clarity. And to you, Levi, you were saying your violation at 9:05, whether you were home or not home -- what's the question -- once they decided that they were wrong and you deserved an apology because it could have caused much more serious damage, what has been your relationship or your ability to navigate the system since then? Once you realize they're assuming you're guilty before innocent, and that's not how our system is designed, how does it affect how you navigate the system moving forward?

Like, what did I start doing after the situation?

Yeah. Like, your relationship with your PO, the relationship with everyone involved, how has that been affected as you move forward after that situation?

After that situation, I made sure it wasn't going to repeat itself again or come close to happening again. So I had a PO, like, he don't answer the call. But I sent a message through like, you know, your little voice message or whatever. So if somebody don't answer the phone, then a little message you send after that, yeah, like I made sure I contacted him saying what I had to say. And he used to read all of them or listen to all of them. So he knows I'm out. And when I come back in the house, I do the same exact thing.

Also, another thing I'm hearing is the inability to be able to look for a job or have any outside activities. When you were put on this device, was there a plan in place for you to be able to secure employment, be able to go to whatever programs? Because I came in on the first presenter, and I had this conversation with the organization, the company that creates these devices and talked about these parameters. But I'm hearing that you guys had no parameters in place, like you can't go look for a job, you can't do certain things, so that's my concern. If the functionality of these systems allow for programming, why are you guys being put on these devices without any programs being in place and who is your support system to make sure that you're navigating this completely? And I'm hearing you're not really having a support system because you're floating from family member to family member and systems have violated (inaudible) you, so was there a treatment plan or placement plan in place in conjunction with the system that you understood and your guardians understood when they put you on this?

It was no 8 type situation -- like, I ain't gonna say -- it was no type problem when they put me on GPS. Like, we understood everything. But one thing, like, alright. So mind you, like, we juveniles or whatever. But if we already on house arrest, right, and then the papers they give us, they say, no backyard, no 17 basement, no nothing. Like, how can we not go in our own backyard, basement or our little front porch step.

Wait, wait. So the paperwork says you can't go in your backyard?

Yeah, they say I can't --

Yeah, it says you can't touch your backyard, basement or front porch. As soon as you step outside your gate, it start ringing. That's how accurate it be if you don't got curfew. But if you got curfew, it take a little while if you start violating. But if you don't got curfew at all, pretrial (inaudible) you can't even step outside your gate.

But it's a house restriction, but you still on your house property so why is that an issue. I'm still on my house property, but according to y'all I can't go in my backyard or my basement.

I think my friend got locked up like that, matter of fact. Matter of fact, Arion. He not here right now. But he on house arrest right now. He told me a story how he was on probation, he was on house arrest. He was about to get off, like a week, and his block had got raided. So another crib had got raided but he wasn't supposed to go on his porch. And he went on his porch to let his aunt in the house and then they locked him up --

The ques --

-- and he violated.

My fault. The question you had asked, once they put you on their GPS they don't tell you -- the only thing they tell you before you leave is when your next court date is and the stuff you got to do on GPS. They don't try to tell you, like, yeah, do this program, go find this job. You got to do everything yourself and your folks.

And to that point, if you have to figure this out on your own, then you have to reach out to your probation officer, get permission to go fill out a job application --

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

So it's not like a part of the plan?

Yeah. But then there's also some strict POS out here. So even if you do tell them what you got going on, it's like, they look at you as a delinquent, a criminal, all that. So it's like, yeah, bro, they think if we let him out, he probably gonna go to the little interview and do something crazy after and get back in the crib like we don't know nothing. And it's just like, yeah, they criminals, they got placed on GPS and we're just going to leave them there.

And, Kendra, this is for you. Do you have young people that are assigned to your program or other programs that you know of and is it assigned to the courts for them to be on GPS and attend your programs? Because I know you guys have amazing programming. I've seen it, I've been a part of it and a couple other programs that work with young people. So I'm trying to understand, like there are programs in place for young people to go through restorative justice and anger management and skills, understand their case, identify the system in place. Why aren't -- if we're releasing young people with GPS because of housing insecurity and we want to know where they are, why is it not a treatment plan that includes programs like yours to allow young people to fix or undo the harm or threaten of harm, because I'm hearing some people haven't even went through the trial so they're not even proven guilty and they're on house arrest? So I'm just trying to understand how the system is working.

So we are advocates in the courtroom and we are not a court-contracted program. So there are maybe three or four court-mandated programs that contract with Juvenile Court, which they will mandate young people to go to. And because we're not court-contracted, we are not always on the court order. But because of our program, if a person is referred to our program and wants to be a part of our organization for our Violent Crime Initiative, we have attorneys and court advocates that go to court and then they are in our program, but the Juvenile Court does not like our advocacy because they do not want people in the courtroom to ask these types of questions that you're asking. And so, all of these people here are in our program. They have not been off of GPS or off of probation or all of these things until they were in our program. So Joshua has been on GPS for years. But when he got to YEAH Philly, he was able to get housing, he was able to get therapy, he was able to get back into school and he was able to get those supports, but they don't want that. So they don't like when even young people go and advocate to get off of GPS --

Who's they?

POs and judges and probation officers and hearing officers.

They don't want them to have housing and so forth?

They don't want you off of probation. You get paid for more people who are on probation. You get paid to go to court-mandated programs because it's a per-diem program. And even for context, I want to add that young people who are on probation and GPS have two POs. They have one regular probation officer and one GPS probation officer.

Just to be clear, you're saying judges as well would not like for these individuals to have housing?

Yes. There's no housing options that are available often times if you're under 18.

For the sake of time, I'm going to keep this going. Councilwoman, was that a good --

Yes. Thank you so much.

Yeah, we have another panel.

Just to go off of what Levi was saying, for all of my caseload I create community plans. So for things with employment therapy, any extracurricular activities that can keep them engaged, I create those each and every time I'm meeting a young person at the JJSC. And after talking with their lawyers, I give it to the lawyers and often times it is not accepted by the judges. It's not even acknowledged most of the time. And they don't even try to build off of the letters that I write and the structure that I try to implement into the young people's lives. So a lot of it is just on appointment. So for Levi in particular, a lot of times I had to just contact them the day before if we had appointments that we needed to make and then move like that. So I just wanted to add that.

Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity and then Councilman Nicolas O'Rourke for our final questions.

Thank you. Ms. Van de Water, I heard in your testimony you talked about the monitoring fees. What's the charge for the monitoring fee, do you know?

So a lot of times there will be fees and fines that end up being waived if you advocate for them to be waived. And there are waivers that people can complete if you cannot pay. But often times they're around $69, and it depends on what types of fines that judges are hearing officers impose. But if you don't work, you can't pay them.

Right, that's just a monitoring. That's what I'm just trying to get at. Now, if they can't pay and they get behind, right, what happens at that point? Do they get violated? How about if they're at the end of their thing but their fees aren't paid, would that hold them on the monitor?

You will remain on probation. So a lot of times even the public defender's office will refer young people who are only on probation because they cannot pay their fines and fees, and we pay a lot of people's fines and fees, but you will remain on probation if you cannot pay.

I guess in the case of a juvenile that would go until they turn 18. And then what happens then?

I also wanted to add they did put me in a little program called PYAP. I think it was my PO, they put me in a program called PYAP. But I got picked up one time only throughout my whole experience on being house arrest. But those were the people that -- the program they put me in they were supposed to help me pay my tuition fee, but they only picked me up one time throughout the whole time I was on the GPS. And then it's like, we had to present that at court and let them know, yeah, y'all put me in a program and the person y'all got as my whatsoever he was, like, the person y'all got that's supposed to be picking me up, taking me to a little building or whatever, we supposed to be learning stuff, doing stuff together and stuff, he only picked me up one time. And he would constantly text me and tell me, yeah, he'll come pick me up Thursday. He'll never come pick me up. Then it's like, I got to make a phone call every time at nighttime and tell him, yeah -- I check in like 9 o'clock before I go to sleep. I make sure I call him, do my little check-in call. Then he keys that in. I had to get dropped out of that program because if it would have kept going on and I never would have said nothing in court, they probably would have kept me on probation to this day because of that little situation. So I feel like if y'all going to put us in -- if the judges, POs or whatever gone put us in a program, they got to make sure it's a solid, legit program, make sure whoever they have assigned to us or whoever we assigned to, make sure they do their job and we do what we supposed to do.

You all have provided very valuable information. Because we have to get to the next panel, if we could just be brief. Councilman, is there any other question you have?

No. 22 Just were you in the juvenile justice system? Did you guys actually go to the detention center?

I was in the detention center, yeah.

Yeah.

They didn't have any programs there either? Don't they have PTTI there or something like that? But that only goes for while you're there.

What's crazy is it's a lot of programs in there, but it's not by the court, you understand what I'm seeing. Like, people come -- the Youth is built off like community. So anybody that work there, probably your neighborhood auntie or your neighborhood mom or something, they bring their own resources in and then they try to help the kids out. That's somebody if they really care. But everybody in there not like that, so it's barely resources. You supposed to see a social worker in there two times one week. I only was seeing a social worker probably one time every month. It get like that. It's so picked in there, they can't even get to every kid. So it was like if they had resources, every kid not getting them.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Harrity. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nicolas O'Rourke for our final question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your testimony, for being here today. This is a joint hearing. There are two different committees that are here. There's Youth and Children and there's also the Tech Committee. I'm part of the Tech Committee. And so, a lot of my questions are kind of geared towards understanding the tech. And so, if some of this sounds a bit repetitive or clarifying, it's because I'm trying to make sure that I got and heard correctly what I thought I heard in your testimonies. Joshua, I think I understood you saying that at some point you were kicked out of your house and as a result of that, you ended up I guess maybe entering an exclusionary zone, violated and then re-arrested as a result of having been kicked out of your house; is that accurate?

Yes.

Okay. Levi, you said that you couldn't step outside your house -you couldn't step in your basement --

Yeah.

-- without setting off an alarm or somehow some violation?

Yes.

And this is a common thing that people can go into their basements and that be some sort of flag as it relates to --

I would go in my basement, like, I'm going to be honest. I'll go in my basement and probably, like, spark something. They'll ring it and they'll be like, it say that you in the zone, like, where a shooting could be happening or something, ambulance could be around, anything, and they just be like gave you (inaudible) the whole time in the house. They'll know I'm in the crib, but they know that it's malfunctioning. So I used to be paranoid because I didn't know, like, maybe it might malfunction and whole time I'm not doing nothing. What if they don't believe me one time. So I just used to be paranoid.

This is a common thing that happens sometimes when you go in the basement?

Yeah.

Yeah, because it'd be a situation like for me when I first came home, like when I first walk in the house, it's a door, it's a porch and a screen door and then you just walk in the living room. Like, on the paper, they were saying front porch, backyard and basement. So it made me think, like, I couldn't even go close my front door without my thing going on. So I did that for like -- I ain't go close to my front door for like two weeks until I start realizing, all right, I'm still on my property. They can't, like -- if they do come and arrest me, I could still stand up for myself and say, yeah, but I was still at home.

I got you. Kendra, you said low batteries can actually cause some sort of infraction. Can you speak to that for a second?

If your battery dies -- so you really should be charging your GPS for two hours a day. They said that you have to be sitting up charging it for two hours a day to keep your battery powered on. If your battery becomes low or powers off, that is a violation of your probation.

This is helpful for me because I think Paris mentioned that folks couldn't step out on their front porch with some of the stuff, without it ended up you going back to court; that's true?

Yes. So this particular young person, they had an enclosed front porch so it wasn't even out in the open. It was enclosed. They couldn't even step into that front porch that you can't even see outside because it's windows and stuff.

It is important -- I'll wrap, Dr. Phillips. It's really important that I think we emphasize -- thank you for your testimony -- that we emphasize the distinction or we clarify the distinction between rehabilitation and reform versus penalty and criminalization. As a Tech Committee person listening to you it's striking to me that anyone might have more understanding for systems than we have for developing humans, clearly faulty systems that are not always working that somehow there needs to be grace given for systems because they're systems or what have you as opposed to grace that should be extended towards developing humans where the goal is supposed to be rehabilitation, not just further criminalization. So I thank you for lifting those points up because I do think that that matters, particularly when cases will be made about the systems, like maybe they're perfect or they're good and we should respect them, and if they fail in some way, should reform in any way and then somehow there should be understanding for that. And I don't know that that's the way that our justice system should be operating. So thank you for sharing that intel.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke. There's a quick question from our Vice-Chair Isaiah Thomas and then we're going to turn to our next panel.

Very, very quick. First of all, thank you young people for making yourself vulnerable. Paris, thank you for the great work that you and your team are doing. I'm sitting here listening. I apologize for being late. I have a lot of questions. I'm not going to do that. Dr. Phillips has a strict schedule. We're trying to get through this stuff. But, Paris, off the record, not now, at some point we would love to hear some of the probation officers and judges that are problematic at some point. Definitely not here, definitely not on this platform. But what I would like you to do --

That is good. That's good to know.

Yeah. What I would like you to do on this platform today, who are the judges and probation officers that's doing a good job, right? Because we need to weed out a lot of the problems and a lot of the issues that you're facing but I can't talk too much about everything, but I think it's important for us on this side to know again off the record who is always -- we don't want to say names. Thank you.

And you know I'm Kendra, right, not Paris. I'm Kendra, not Paris. So are you asking Paris?

No, I was talking to you, Kendra. I'm sorry. I apologize.

Okay. So first, I want to quickly just say that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to probation, that probation is supposed to be providing services that they do not. So there needs to be a distinction of what probation does. We have tried to get public documents about what probation is supposed to do for kids, but they do not provide those documents. So I think there needs to be clarification. I, in my mind, cannot tell you a good probation officer. I can tell you some that are nicer than others, but they are not helpful. So I think it goes back to what is their role and what are they supposed to be doing. So if you want to even at another time, I can give you a whole list of all the probation officers we work with. I can give you specifically what they do, what they don't do, but what judges say that they do that they do not do. Because if they did what they were supposed to do, it would be a duplication of services of YEAH Philly, and YEAH Philly has done all the connection related to the community support and the work.

Thank you, Kendra. Sorry about the mix-up. Thank you.

And quick comment from Councilmember Kendra Brooks.

I just want to be fully transparent. I know you guys see me over here talking and telling people things. I just want to let you know I hear what you're saying and I was just verifying what you're saying, because it happened to me and my stepson. So I just want you to know I hear you, and what I'm talking about is clearly related to the information that you're sharing and verifying that I too have experienced some of the same things that you're talking about up here. So I just want you to know that we're not talking about you. I just want you to know that we're here trying to verify your story, to give it a solid claim as we move forward with this. So I just -- to your point, Levi, I don't want you to feel that what you're saying is hitting on closed ears. So that's why I wanted to clarify.

Wow. Well, you all have made an impact on all of us today. We are literally huddling about our next steps in follow-up. You don't get this many City Councilmembers in one room often so we had the opportunity to listen to you all today. So thank you all so much. All right. There being no further questions, Ms. Walton, will you please call the next panel to testify.

(Inaudible).

Yes. Panel No. 2.

Thank you. We'll call Matthew Swando back, Chief Revenue Officer from Track Group; Faustino Castro Jimenez, Chief of Probation, Juvenile Branch; Commissioner Kimberly Ali, Department of Human Services; Francis Healy, Deputy Commissioner, Chief of Staff and Legal Affairs for the Philadelphia Police Department. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Thank you. And because we want to make sure we get questions from our members, if you can summarize your testimonies. Basically, if you all can find a way to get to the point, right, keep it within three minutes, that'd be nice. All right. Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. Starting with the Commissioner. COMMISSIONER ALI: So good morning. Good morning, Chairperson Dr. Anthony Phillips and Vice-Chair Isaiah Thomas of the Children and Youth Committee, Chairperson Rue Landau and Vice- Chairperson Mark Squilla of the Technology and Information Services Committee as well as other members of City Council. My name is Kimberly Ali and I have the honor of serving as Commissioner for the Philadelphia Department of Human Services, DHS. Joining me today is Gary D. Williams, Deputy Commissioner for Juvenile Justice Services, Nadine Perese, Chief Financial Officer as well as other members of my team. Today we are here to provide testimony on Resolution No. 240828, regarding the use of electronic monitoring or Global Positioning Systems, GPS, for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The Department of Human Services works in very close partnership with the Philadelphia Family Court and juvenile probation to ensure that there is a wide array of services for you to divert or prevent further involvement in the juvenile justice system. DHS funds the services that are provided to youth at all stages of the delinquency processes, from community-based prevention such as Intensive Prevention Services or IPS, to detention at the Philadelphia Juvenile Justice Services Center to longer-term residential placement for youth in need of treatment, rehabilitation and supervision. The FY26 budget for DHS Division of Juvenile Justice Services is $113 million. This funding is critical to support two essential areas of JJS, the Philadelphia Juvenile Justice Services Center and more than 50 professional services contracts that provide services to children, youth and families. As part of our continuum of services, DHS supports the use of approximately 350 GPS units for a total cost of $1.3 million for FY26. GPS units allow youth who might otherwise be detained at the PJJSC or placed in a longer-term residential setting to live at home, attend school or vocational opportunities and participate in community-based services offered through DHS. The Department of Human Services considers the use of GPS to be one of the many tools that we provide to help you stay on a positive path and avoid deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system. Our goal is to provide youth with the least restrictive environment while still supporting their safety and allowing them to receive services to assist with rehabilitation. We will continue to work closely with our juvenile justice system partners to ensure that we are responding to the everchanging needs of the youth, families and communities that we serve. Thank you for allowing DHS to testify today. My team and I are available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Can we now -- yes. Thank you.

So good morning, Chairperson Phillips, Chairperson Landau and all esteemed Councilmembers of the Children, Youth and Technology Committees. My name is Faustino Castro and I humbly serve as Chief Probation Officer in the juvenile branch of Philadelphia Family Court, which is under the leadership of our administrative judge, the Honorable Walter Olszewski. Joining me today are Deputy Chief Bennie Price and Director Sharla Swint, who lead many of the department's efforts and initiatives regarding GPS technologies. Both are members of my management team who, along with other directors, lead a dynamic group of juvenile probation officers that work daily to address the complex needs of our youth who have been arrested, charged and placed under some form of supervision by the court. I am pleased to testify on Resolution No. 240828, in which the Joint Committee seeks to gain additional insight with respect to the use of GPS technologies for youth in the juvenile justice system. The Probation Department is tasked with supervising youth at the pre-trial and post-disposition phases of delinquency proceedings. Once a judge places a youth under our supervision, our strategic mission stays anchored on our statutory mandate to provide balanced and restorative justice, which promotes to achieve restoration of victims, youth accountability and protecting the community from further delinquency and juvenile crime when duly ordered by the judiciary, juvenile probation officers provide direct supervision of youth in communities around the city. Our fundamental approach to change youth behavior centers on the use of promising practices and evidence-based programs that are offered in communities such as CBT, ART, FFT, MST, those types of programs. One of the investments in technology that also helps to respond to behaviors, enforce curfews, reduce criminality and prevent youth from becoming shooters or victims of shootings, is the utilization of the GPS platform. The technology is used as an alternative to secure detention and helps to reduce overcrowding at the Juvenile Justice Services Center. Moreover, it gives the judiciary options to placement when they determine that it is in the best interest of youth to remain in the community, albeit with heightened supervision. Having youth remain in their communities helps preserve important family bonds and is essential for emotional development. Having youth remain at home also saves city taxpayer dollars due to lower per diem costs to have youth in community GPS supervision as opposed to placement at the JJC. Currently, our inventory consists of 300 GPS devices which are used throughout the year. In other words, on any given day there may be up to 350 kids on GPS. Today's count, for instance, is 306. Our records show that on average youth are on GPS for 68 days, on average 68 days. Depending on what is presented in court by the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defenders or private counsel and the recommendations by our juvenile probation officers, youth may exceed or shorten the average length of stay based on risk and responsivity factors or if they have incurred a new arrest. Careful consideration is always given not to be punitive. And I'll emphasize that. We are not to be punitive when responding to behaviors. Rather it is important to use a tool as a means to intervene and deter youth from negative behaviors. Throughout 2024, we had 369 youth placed on GPS who had firearm-related charges. We have young people on GPs who have been victims of gang-related shootings. We also have youth who are in neighborhood feuds that may be gang-related who we try to keep alive, by restricting their access to neighborhoods that can get them shot or can get them killed. We also have youth charged with sexual assault cases who are ordered by the court to stay away from their victims and youth involved in crimes against citizens within the SEPTA transportation system.

I want to add for clarity purposes that unless a safety concern exists or other mitigating factors that judges take into consideration at a court hearing, youth are not denied the opportunity to participate in pro-social activities, mental health or medical appointments or inperson academic instruction. In fact, the court typically orders it so because it helps our young people transition successfully out of supervision. To provide you quick examples, a group of youth were placed on GPS, had traveled to Baltimore Harbor and museum last year, Poconos Mountain camping trips and Clementon Park this summer, and six youth had been approved just this weekend coming up to Six Flags Great Adventure. So in closing, GPS technologies helps us address public safety concerns while ensuring youth participate in pro-social activities that ultimately will help them become productive members in the City of Philadelphia. So thank you for allowing me to testify. And certainly, my staff and I are available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Is anyone -- okay. I think that's it. All right. Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. So the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Landau and then we have Councilmember Driscoll and Councilmember Gauthier.

Thank you so much for being here, for your testimony. I want to ask you some questions, but I also want to just make sure that the Defender Association is going to listen to the questions in case they can weigh in and also maybe YEAH Philly, in case they can weigh in on any discrepancies they might see in this. But I want to just make sure we break down first how somebody gets on a GPS monitor and I have a lot of questions about the GPS monitoring system itself. So it has to be court ordered; is that correct, to start?

That is -- well, at the beginning when youth are arrested, youth sometimes are listed for a detention hearing and at that specific juncture the hearing officer, not a judge, a hearing officer can place a youth on GPS until such time the matter is heard before a judge. A judge subsequently either adds conditions -- by the way, GPS is just a tool. It's not the only thing that a youth may be placed on. There may be other factors, mitigating factors that the court hears, that the judge then decides, well, let's put the youth in a different program or an additional program, so the youth on GPS. But because of the egregious nature of the charge or because the youth may present some factors that is safety-related or community- related, then the judge says we'll add GPS as part of the supervision until the matter goes for an adjudicatory hearing. And at that specific juncture, then another determination is again made.

And how long would it take to have a hearing in front of a judge?

So normally, if a youth is -- for instance, if a youth is held at the JJC Security Detention Center, by law a youth has to have a hearing within days or within days if 8 a youth is coming up for review. 9 If it's for an adjudicatory hearing 10 and the youth is out in the 11 community, usually it's between 30 12 days and 45 days. 13

14 And that's before a judge could 15 even look at the matter to see 16 whether or not the child should be 17 held to begin with and you already 18 have a GPS monitor on them? 19

So, 20 Councilmember, at the beginning determination is made at the JJC Courtroom 1, if a child is to be released or if the child is to be detained. And that is based upon arguments provided by the DA's office, the PD's office or private counsel. And we are not involved at that specific stage because it's still at the pretrial stage. Probation is only involved after disposition is made by the judge to place a child under consent decree, deferred adjudication, interim probation, probation or any other type of disposition that the judge may place a youth under supervision.

Okay. This is great. This is going to help me understand this. So in front of a hear -- you go in front of a hearing officer who might order that you have a GPS monitor on, but you don't have a probation officer yet. You have to wait until you go in front of a judge, which could be 10, 20 or 30 days later?

That is correct. Unless of course, and I will just add a caveat, for instance, if a youth get re-arrested, youth gets held at the JJC for that new arrest, it's heard before a hearing officer. The hearing officer -- by the way if, in fact, there's another matter that the youth is on probation, yes, we have a probation officer because now you're talking about two distinct matters. One is a new arrest and one is a probation matter that the youth is on probation for.

Who is monitoring the GPS at the time that the youth does not yet have a probation officer?

So we have a GPS officer that monitors all youth that are placed on GPS. But if a youth is on probation supervision, we also have a probation officer that monitors the case. That is the case manager of the case that actually reports in court in terms of the adjustment of the youth, whether the child needs additional services or whether the child is adjusting or not adjusting well to probation supervision.

These will be simple questions. I did civil law, not criminal. So I do have to get a handle on this probation. Do you only have one probation officer who works 16 hours a day or do they work in 17 teams? 18

So, 19 Councilmember, we have 11 probation 20 officers, probably 10 or 11 21 probation officers that actually 22 have the responsibility of 23 monitoring GPS youth, used on GPS. 24 So their caseload is between 30 and cases sometimes. It depends.

30 or 45 cases for each probation officer hours a day? 5

So 6 we also have the assistance of 7 Track Group that actually monitors 8 when the GPS probation officers are 9 not working. So they also provide 10 assistance in terms of alarms and 11 responding to some of those alarms 12 for us. 13

14 And the supervision structure, who 15 oversees the probation officers? 16

So 17 the probation officers are overseen 18 by assistant supervisors and 19 supervisors, and they are overseen 20 by directors which are overseen by 21 the Deputy Chief who is here today, 22 and then I oversee the Probation 23 Department. 24

So only the courts are overseeing all of the probation officers?

So the Probation Department is under Philadelphia Family Court, which is led by the Honorable Judge Olszewski.

Okay. I want to get to some of the functionality of the GPS monitor itself. I guess I'll back up one more second. Who enters into the contract between the GPS company? Is it the First Judicial District?

That is correct.

Okay. Do we contract by each monitor? So for right now 350 monitors or is the contract for some amount that is greater than that?

Councilmember, we contract for 350 monitors.

Okay. And is there in terms of the contract a reporting mechanism from the company to the First Judicial District?

Not having the contract before me, I believe there is in terms of agreements between Track Group and the First Judicial District, Family Court, Probation Department.

Just a quick point for clarification. You said 350, but I have testimony here from Children First that says 1900 young people get this every single year. So is 350 young people or is it -- but keep going.

So, Councilmember, for clarification we have 350 monitors. At any given point throughout the year, 350 youth may be on supervision GPS. 1700 is in aggregate throughout the year. Youth may be placed on, discharged. One youth, for instance, may be discharged from GPS during the year three times and then placed back on GPS again, because the judges recognize that youth are going to commit mistakes. And so, they're offering them another opportunity to be on GPS.

Thank you for that. I think you saw it was heartbreaking for us to hear the testimony of the young people. We're actually holding this hearing today because this was not new to us. We had heard these stories consistently. And so, I think it is really important that we talk about the world of young people who are affected by this, not as 350 unique individuals but up to 1900 unique individuals within a year. It's really important that we at least think about that and talk about that as the folks who could be affected by this. We saw two young people today, which is just a tiny, tiny subsection then of that larger amount. I want to get back to monitoring. And to just be super clear, do you enter into one contract per year with the company for the 350 monitors or are you entering into individual contracts every time somebody is going to be placed on a monitor?

Councilmember, it's 350 that we entered -- you can correct me if I'm wrong please. But 350 devices, that is the contract with Track Group.

One contract per year. And I'm going to get back to monitoring and reporting from the city side. Are there reports in that contract that are expected from the company to you based on performance measures that have been set out by the City of Philadelphia -- by the First Judicial District?

So Track Group does provide us when asked, they provide us reports based upon certain criteria and requirements that we ask of them depending upon the case and depending upon what is that we're looking for. They do provide us detailed reports and detailed statistics with regard to GPS and Track Group.

Do you have in the contract any criteria for how long the data will be held in the facility in Texas, I believe you said it was?

I can answer that, Councilmember. Yes, the contracts they vary. The federal government requires certain lengths. States and counties require others. But typically the contract states that we have to hold the data for seven years and make it available immediately. And then the data is then archived indefinitely. And I want to be clear that the contracts specify, as does the First Judicial's contract with Track Group, that the City and the First Judicial Department own the data. We have no rights over that data whatsoever and are bound by strict confidentiality rules of what can and can't be done with it. We can't touch it.

So I will ask the clearest question now that we need to know. Is there anything in the contract that explicitly states that you will not share the data -- the company or the First Judicial District will not share this data with any other government entity, including any federal government entity such as DHS or ICE?

Councilmember, I would have to take a look at the actual language of that contract before answering that question. Certainly, I can get back to you on that. Because you're looking for specific contract language and I don't want to misspeak.

How about this, is it your understanding that the First Judicial District and the GPS company hold this data solely for your purposes, for the First Judicial District, and that you do not share this data with any other entity?

Councilmember, we do share sometimes the data based upon request from law enforcement, from the District Attorney's Office. And so, we have to for public safety reasons and when there's a crime afoot, in order to protect the citizens of Philadelphia and in order to also protect children of Philadelphia that we have under our supervision, it is important for us for investigative purposes to share data with our law enforcement partners.

And that includes federal law enforcement partners?

That may include federal law enforcement -- we are peace officers. Our statutory mandate sometimes compels us to ensure that children remain safe in their own homes in the communities. And sometimes, because we are peace officers, right, and we have to share our investigative information with other law enforcement when there is a need and when we receive a request.

Let me be clear that the children will not be safe in their own homes if the First Judicial District shares this information with ICE. You are doing exactly the opposite.

So, Councilmember, just for clarification we have not shared information with ICE nor I don't believe that there has ever been an opportunity for us to actually share information, if that is what you're referencing.

You could and you also said that you needed to go back to check on that, so we're very concerned that we don't have the clearest answer. And to make sure that all levels, all the way down, from the very top to the probation officers as well, we want to make sure that everyone is under strict rules that their job is not to share this information with any other entity. We're already so concerned about the validity of the information. Whether or not somebody going into their basement means they've disappeared, whether or not somebody who actually went outside to go help grandmom in with groceries have violated your orders, it is really, really outrageous to think that we would put people under these strict of guidelines, these young people. I have a teenager. I know what they think. Frontal lobes are not fully formed and there's something wacky and beautiful about that as well. And I understand kids make mistakes and kids do things wrong, but also to keep them under very, very strict guidelines to the extent that they can't step outside of their houses is absolutely cruel. It's unreasonable and it's just wrong. And I promise you all of us up here are going to do something about it.

Thank you so much, Chairwoman Landau. I'm going to come back to you, Vice-Chair. Councilman Mike Driscoll.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a very important hearing. There's a lot of good dialogue and I do want to thank those young testifiers. But I also want to point out, I heard one of the testifiers, I think it was the young lady from YEAH Philly say that she's never dealt with a good probation officer in the City of Philadelphia. Well, I've been in the city for a long time. I've been a State Representative, I'm a City Councilman, I'm a committee man, I'm a community organizer, I'm a community leader. I want to thank the Probation and Parole Department. I want to thank the Police Department. I want to thank you, Commissioner, because we need you doing your jobs. Look, some of our youth are going astray and there's lots of reasons for that. But when a court orders a device like this, it's for a reason, right. Some of these youth are violating gun safety rules or they have firearms. I mean, these are serious, serious things that are coming before our courts. So I really don't want to ask questions. I know the panel has more questions for you. But as a member of the Technology Committee, and the company I guess Track Group, some of the young folks were testifying, maybe there are some glitches in the system -- I don't know, I'm no expert in that area -- but it's on the record now. And if we can look into that, to the extent that we can improve the system because we want to minimize any psychological damage we can do to these youth that are already going through tough times as it is. So to the extent that we can improve upon that, thank you. And to the rest of you, I just want to say thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Driscoll. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier and then Vice-Chair Thomas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When YEAH Philly and the young people testified, they spoke about a number of technical violations of the GPS monitoring that could lead to a young person being detained. I wanted to hear more about that. Can you tell us how many children are detained per year due to technical violations of GPS? And what are the most prevalent reasons for those technical violations?

So thank you, Councilmember, for that question. First, I want to clarify, youth that go into their basements or their front porch or their backyard are not violated in terms of GPS. We don't bring them back to court for that. What we do is we inquire in terms of why, maybe the inclusion zone needs to be adjusted and modified, and we contact the company and we make certain adjustments. But certainly, Councilmember, we do not bring youth back to court because they're in their basements. We do not. With regard to --

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that young people are not going back to court for going to their porches. But I would argue that there's a certain amount of anxiety and emotional stress from having a monitor go off because you're in the perimeters of your home. That is very damaging to somebody's psyche. And if that's happening, then we need to fix it asap, whether they're going to court or not. If you could answer my questions.

And I would agree with you, Councilmember, in terms of your comments. Year-to-date 40% of youth that are placed on GPS and violate remain on GPS and about 27% are held, and then the rest are different scenarios in terms of what we do with these GPS violations. Certainly, what we try to do is we try to give youth opportunities. If, in fact, they're violating, we find out why they're violating. Normally, when a judge orders youth to attend GPS or to be placed on GPS, the judge usually attaches other conditions to attend a specific program, make sure that the youth is in school, make sure that the youth is home by an 8:00 p.m. curfew, make sure that the youth is not in other neighborhoods where that youth shouldn't be because we're looking out for their safety. So certainly, we then communicate with the families, communicate with the youth and then we communicate with Track Group ensuring, hey, listen, is this a real violation or is it something that there's a technical glitch and we should kind of take a look at that. Certainly, we try to do our best to do an investigation before we bring any matters before a judge so the judge again could address the GPS placement.

Sorry. Can you slow down a bit? Did you say that 40% of the young people on GPS monitoring are detained for technical violations? I missed those stats. Could you give that to me again, please?

So I have Sharla Swint, Director of GPS Programs, and she'll be able to kind of explain a little bit more of that.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. So year-to-date we do have about 663 youth that we have filed motions on. And I would just like everyone to just be mindful that when a youth is placed on GPS, it's an agreement with their attorney, the district attorney, their judge and/or hearing officer. Once they're placed on GPS, they are then ordered GPS stipulations. So it may be regular GPS, it could be house restrictions, first violation, (inaudible) curfew. Whatever their order is, we then, meaning the GPS probation officer, they then supervise that youth in accordance with the court order. So the GPS probation officer, they now have an obligation to supervise solely for that reason. What does a violation look like, it is an investigation. It does include speaking with the youth, speaking with the parent or the agency, speaking with the assigned probation officer. And if I can just also be mindful, another misconception if I could just add that in, we have two sets of youth. We have youth who are on GPS that are not on supervision, they're awaiting trial. And then we have the other set of youth, which we call -- so we call one set alternative to detention. You're awaiting your trial. So opposed to being in detention at JJSC or CBDS, you're placed on GPS. Then we have the second set of youth, which are alternative placement. That youth, they are on some type of supervision, meaning a deferred adjudication or probation. There has been an admission of charges or a finding of guilt. So we have two different youth that we're providing the supervision to. So back to the motions. 40% of the motions -- because again, they are supervised in accordance with court order. They come to court. 40% the judge or the hearing officer ask that they remain on GPS, and we do have about 27% that are held and usually they still come back. But that's what the number reflects.

I'm still not understanding the straightforward answer.

Sure.

How many children are detained per year due to technical violations of GPS? So out of the universe of young people that are on GPS, how many of them are being detained for technical violations? And what are the most prevalent reasons involved with those violations?

So for GPS violations, we have 181 youth that have been held out of the 663 motions.

So that would be -- help me with some math. You said 180?

181, the 27% out of 663 motions.

So almost 30% of the young people who are on GPS monitoring are being detained for technical violations; is that what you're saying?

For a GPS violation.

GPS violations.

Yes.

What do you think that is problematic and what are the most prevalent reasons involved with those technical violations?

Sure. Well, because we are abiding by a court order, the GPS probation officer, we are not ordering youth on GPS. When they come to us, it's already an agreement. So again, we are just supervising in accordance with the order and we don't make a recommendation unless they are coming to court. So we may have youth that come to court for motions. It may be for residency. We're not always asking that the youth is held. Sometimes we are asking for a review terms of GPS. We're not always asking that each youth that may have a violation is held. We are just following the court order of the judicial staff.

You're asking that 30% of the youth --

It's always our recommendation.

Whose recommendation is it?

It could be the judicial staff or it could be the district attorney or it could be the assigned probation officer. It's not always the GPS -- you know, it could be anyone within the courtroom, but it's not always our recommendation for a hold.

Can you talk about the most prevalent reasons associated with those technical violations please?

Sure. The GPS violations is simply being out of the home. We have a significant amount of youth who are repeated offenders. Meaning, they are repeatedly violating. So is it our normal practice to say like, oh, you went to the corner store, we're going to violate? No, that really is not our preference. We'll say, what happened. Oh, I had to go get something. Okay, I understand. So depending on the court order, we'll just give them a warning and say, look, just don't go back to the corner store. Because reality is anything can happen. Reality is we had a young man who a PO would allow him to go to the corner store and he became a victim, he became a fatal victim, and now we're going over to the medical examiner's office to remove a device from them because of going to the corner store. So it becomes a safety concern. It's not always that we just want to violate them because, oh, my gosh, he went outside real quick. It's just that it is a safety concern and we're not always privy to conversations when the youth are placed on GPS in the courtroom. So it's back to our obligation of abiding by the judge's court order because we don't know.

Last question.

Sure.

Do we think a system where 30% of the young people on GPS monitoring are being detained for things like going to the corner store is a good system?

They don't. They will fall more in the remain.

Excuse me?

They will fall within the percentage of the remained on GPS. Very rarely will we see a youth that is held simply for going to a corner store. Even with the front porch, you know, I heard testimony about the front porch. Once again, a safety concern about the front porch. We had another young man who became a fatal victim on his front porch. So for us, you know, they're under our care, they're under our supervision. So for the safety of the youth and for safety of the community, it's important that we stress just to stay in the home per the judge's or hearing officer's court order.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier. I'm now recognizing Vice-Chair Councilmember Isaiah Thomas.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm listening to everything that's being said. And for me, this is all new information for me. So I didn't come in with any predetermined notions. I know that this is an important topic. I'm on both committees. So I came here because I was curious. And I'm going to be honest with you, just sitting here listening I'm not getting more information. I'm becoming more confused. So I just want you to have empathy for a second and put yourself in my shoes. I'm hearing all of this information for the first time. I'm listening to young people tell one story and I'm listening to adults tell a totally different story. What we're hearing is two different, contradicting messages. I listened to Councilmember Gauthier's line of questioning, and it sounds like 100-and-some change out of 600-and-some change young people are being held for a technical violation from the seat that I'm sitting in. You're saying this technical violation by 1 out of 6 is because of their own safety. You don't think they should be on porches and in places that can create other problems. But we just listened to young people tell us that these technical violations are putting them in a position where they're becoming repeat offenders and that's not their intent. They're trying to do things the right way. So I'm going to try to be a good mediator here. Everything you've heard so far, putting yourself in our shoes what can you do different so that the young people who are communicating what they're communicating right now, we don't want to look at them and say they're lying, right, just like you wouldn't want us to look at you and say you're lying. So if we're all going to not be judgmental throughout the course of this process, I think one thing that we can all agree is that there are some flaws in the system. So after listening to everything that you've heard thus far this morning, you are the people in charge. As we listen to what was going on, we've already began to huddle and talk and figure out what can we do and where should we visit and how we could be supportive. That's what we're doing on our end. But technically we're not in charge of any of this stuff, but you all are. What can we do different to put us in a position whereas though their lived experiences that they just communicated to us are parallel to the dialogue and the questions that you're answering? Because right now that's not what's happening.

So, Councilmember, I think from our perspective we need to be a little bit more transparent perhaps with the families. I'm empathetic to children that are going through so many experiences while they're -- I mean, one of the children just said that he was homeless. House insecurity, food instability, our youth are living in very -- some of them, impoverished neighborhoods. As we know, 1 in 5 families in Philadelphia walk in poverty. One of the things that I always say is how can we help, how can we assist. Because the fact of the matter is our kids, even the pandemic, resulted in multiple issues such as mental health. Our youth are traumatized. Our youth are going through so many experiences that they shouldn't go through as young adults. And so, how is it that we can help. And if, in fact, we can provide more information at the front end while they're still on supervision and even before discharge, it is my responsibility to assure my officers do that and I'll make sure that I continue to send that message. Because the fact is every time I get an arrest or any time one of our kids gets shot or they get killed, the first thing I think about is what could I have done better. What tools in our toolbox can I use in order to assure that our youth and families are supported. Because the fact of the matter is that we're humble servants for them. We work for our families in Philadelphia. And so, to your question, Councilmember, what can we do better, perhaps we can be a little bit more transparent at the beginning. We do provide contracts to the youth when they're placed on GPS. But maybe we need to be a little bit more transparent in terms of, hey, listen, this is what can result if you are not abiding by the court conditions that the judge has imposed on you. We're not imposing these things because we want to but because we have to, because we want to keep you safe and we want to keep the City of Philadelphia safe. And then I want to go a step further. What else can we put in place to help you succeed. The fact is that most of the kids that are on probation supervision are on supervision for anywhere from six to nine months, no more than that. Some are more, some are less. But that all depends upon what happens in the court hearing. Each case is individual. Some kids are DHS dependents. They come in with DHS and delinquent matters. Some kids are argued by the DA's Office that they shouldn't be in the Juvenile Division. They should be in the Criminal Division. They should be certified. Some youth are coming from the Criminal Division coming back to us with very egregious charges, charges such as homicides. Homicides, we are having -- this is different for us because historically the Juvenile Division never used to get homicide cases. Now, we see more of that because the philosophy of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act is to treat kids like kids. And so, the Juvenile Justice Services Center, for instance, has kids that are Act 96. Act 96 of those specific youth that are waiting for their adult matters, adult trials. And they have youth that are waiting for their juvenile matters. And so, we have to change our way of thinking in terms of how we handle youth. So in closing, Councilmember, is we can always get better.

So this is what I'm going to commit to because I heard you make a number of commitments, I'm going to Juvenile Court. I want to go. I want to watch myself. I want to see how it goes. I'm then going to go and find about a dozen young people on probation and I'm going to shadow them. I want to see what their experiences are. I want to listen to how their parole officers, probation officers are communicating to them. I have about three months where I'm going to commit to really doing a deep dive into the system. I'm still going to follow the lead of my colleagues who's been running point on this because they clearly know a lot more than I do. But I'm no Dr. Phillips, I'm no Lawyer Rue, but I'm also no 10 idiot. And when we come back to budget, because I'm very good at math and I know how to count, I will have a lot more information than I have. And I'm assuming that you're going to do the things that you said, hopefully talk to some of the folks at YEAH Philly and some of the other people that go through this stuff. And hopefully, when we come back for budget to have another conversation, our tone will be totally different. And hopefully, you all don't leave Commissioner Ali up here by herself to answer all these questions, because clearly the scope of what we're dealing with is much bigger and much more than DHS. So I'm glad that you committed to a couple things. I wanted to commit to a couple things on the record myself. This isn't necessarily an issue that I've done a deep dive in before this moment, but I'm committing to the young people back there as well as all of the folks who are listening right now. I'm going to take about three months to do a deep dive to understand exactly what's going on. I've listened to both sides of the coin and I'm going to put myself in a position to be able to make my own conclusion. And hopefully again, when we come back to have a conversation around budget, we've all learned, we've seen some progress and young people can tell us that their lived experiences are a little different than what was communicated today. One last question to both of my Chairs. Again, I'm no 8 lawyer, but listening to Councilmember Landau's line of questioning around the electronic devices, it seems like we're violating young people's rights. I'm not sure. But when I think about the level of uncertainty around the MOU with whoever it is that's doing the monitoring, the fact that we're not able to decisively communicate exactly what can and can't happen with that data, it ain't me. But if I was somebody else, I'd be suing the city right now. I'd be pulling up litigation right now. I would be saying, okay, hold on, time out. Let me go find that young person who was 1 of 6, whose rights was violated because of a technical issue and maybe lost three years of their life because of something that happened. Maybe their data was shared with somebody that it wasn't and I would be looking to sue. So I don't know how we can sit here and say that we have contracts with private organizations who collect information from people who are presumed to be innocent, because everybody's not guilty listening to some of the information I've learned sitting here today, how can we collect information from a citizen who is essentially innocent and then allow their information to be shared with the private sector, for that private sector or for that entity to essentially do anything they want with it? That's the first part. But then the other part that's confusing just sitting here listening to all of this, crime is down significantly in the city of Philadelphia. We have significantly less juvenile offenders. And if crime is down, how is monitoring going up?

So again, I'm not judging anybody but you have to understand the level of confusion that this has created from listening to one panel to another, understanding what we understand about the law and listening to some of the responses around people's personal privacy and their rights, especially people who are innocent until proven guilty. So help us understand the dichotomy that we're dealing with between this melting pot of information that we've essentially had to absorb over the last hour?

So thank you, Councilman. So maybe I need to clarify my comments a little bit more. Track Group does not share information with any other entity or private organizations. Track Group only shares the data with the First Judicial District of Philadelphia, which means that -- and because it is confidential data, they only share the data with us. That's the first thing. The second thing is with regard to juvenile crime, you know, this year thus far we've confiscated via probation searches, via bench warrant operations with our law enforcement partners, the police, the sheriffs, adult probation, we've gone out on warrant operations and confiscated around 55 firearms and over 330,000 worth of illegal narcotics when we do searches in the homes. It is important to recognize that, yes, crime is down. Thankfully, homicides are down. Thankfully, we are working with the police department each and every day to assure that our youth are not in possession of weapons that can kill others or that can put them in a compromising position to be killed as well. So, yes, we are in terms of crime is down, but we still have to better work to do. Our juveniles -- for instance, you probably, Councilmember, have seen it on social media. They post weapons and they post, you know, in terms of AR-15s. And I'm thinking where are these kids getting these guns from. And as soon as we get a gun off the street, we see another kid posting on the internet, on social media, you know, gang- related signals and pointing information at other groups in the neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Councilmember, we're trying to avoid that. We're trying to reduce crime. We're trying to save kids' lives. Youth shouldn't have access to this. They shouldn't have access to this. So, yes, crime is down, but for our population, the juvenile population, it needs to be zero in terms of the number of youth. I can't recall when I was 15, 16, years old being next to a weapon. Now, it's customary.

Thank you.

We need to do better. I need to do better and we're --

But just to be clear, right, you said 55 firearms confiscated. Crime is down, but monitoring is going up. So two things: Number one, are you saying that crime is not necessarily down with juveniles in the city? That's the first part of question. And the second part -- and this is my last one, Mr. Chairman, so we can move on it -- if 55 firearms were confiscated, how many searches led to those? How many houses did we search total?

I would have to get that information for you, Councilmember, but we do have the --

You understand, right? Like if you search 350 houses to get 55 firearms, the ratios aren't that bad. But if you search 5000 houses to get 55 firearms, that's a different conversation.

So that's why I agreed with you, Councilmember, when you said that crime is down in the city of Philadelphia which we are thankful for. Juvenile crime is also down. In 2003, the courts filed about 10,000 petitions. Last year we filed less than 2000 petitions. So the number of youth being arrested is significantly lower than years past. But for some reason, guns are still out there for our kids to access.

Thank you.

That's how we need to stop that. Thank you, Councilman.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the lead.

Thank you. Vice-Chair Thomas, I just want to note that there is a way that we actually can, you know, work through this as you mentioned through the budget. You know, funding. We don't necessarily have to support some things through our budget, especially if this is being funded through the city. And then the other part is that one of the things when you mentioned, I think it's really important you to note that things that could change. Transparency is really important. I don't think they -- did you get an assigned agreement that they had to sign? Is that something they need to do?

So, Chairperson, we do at the beginning when they're placed on GPS, we provide them a form that they have to sign. It actually states all the rules, conditions and requirements of GPS, including the fact that they have to charge their monitors. So we provide them some paperwork. But what I said is that perhaps maybe we need to sit down with them a little bit more, spend a little bit more time --

Yeah. And --

-- to explain the conditions and the rules. Maybe we need to be a little bit more forthcoming with them.

I think with the parole officers, you have to spend time with helping them. A lot of these folks probably they get excited. I know how that goes, but you probably have to do some training with them to help them understand why, why they can't go on the porch, like what are some of the reasons. Not because it's just a technicality. It's like, you know, some of these folks they just want to understand the why. And I think that's -- the stories may be helpful, right. I'm not sure that often happens, but that type of level -- but also, I heard also programming, you know, is going to be really important as well. So all this needs to be incorporated into the GPS work as well. But I'm going to turn over to Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke for our final questions.

Thank you, Dr. Phillips. That's really, Chief Castro, was where I was going to go to start with, was to get clarity on the record what are the rules and the conditions that are attached to wearing the GPS tracking devices that children must follow? And after explaining that, how are you all going about explaining it to the children, to the young folks that are having to wear these. Because I actually appreciate your response to Member Thomas about the need to perhaps be more transparent. It seems from what I'm hearing that there is minimal, I'll use that term, explanation on the front end, which if we're dealing with young folks, as Member Landau said, whose frontal lobes and cortex are not quite developed, they're not maybe comprehending, all the prudence and wisdom that's being employed for why they're within a particular inclusionary zone and why they have to stay out of a particular exclusionary zone. So I think aside from my issue, which is the issue for me is really vendor accountability and the quality of the technology that we're using, but before we get to that, what are the conditions and the rules and, yes, can we actually get a commitment to shifting to explaining the why for a particular parameter and making sure that they understand that for whatever it is that they're signing off on.

So thank you, Councilmember, for that question. So I'd first like to say that when youth gets arrested, sometimes they last six hours in a police district. Then it in itself is very traumatizing, right, to be at a police district, to be arrested. When youth get sent to the JJC and you're in custody, that in itself is traumatizing. And then when you go to court in front of a judge and getting all this information, sometimes they are not able to process. And to your point, Councilmembers, the youth frontal lobes develop up to age 25. And so, we must understand that they're still trying to get all that information and comprehend, digest, compartmentalize it and then say, all right, this is what's happening to me. And so, that's why I said at the front end maybe we need to spend a little bit more time. Because when they come back from court, they're still thinking about all the things that just happened in court, what did the DA say, what did the public defender say, what did the judge say in order for me to do, all these things are happening. And all of sudden, my probation officer is trying to explain the rules of GPS and the rules of probation. Maybe we need to kind of tone it down a little bit and say, listen, I know you just went through a traumatic experience in itself, it is right being in front of a judge, person that determine your custody or whether or not will be sending you away for placement, not incarceration, placement for the purposes of rehabilitation, treatment and supervision. Certainly, we need to spend -- based upon what I hear from our young folk, and I appreciate their comments by the way, we need to spend more time with them. So I'll have Ms. Sharla Swint present in terms of what do we explain to them.

Okay. I hear that your actions will be taken to actually make that a reality. Okay. Perfect. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate it. We already got on the record that --

He was going to tell you the rules.

Oh, he was going to tell me the rules now?

Yes.

Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that part.

Yeah, we wanted you to hear the rules.

I did. I'm being mindful of time. Thank you, Member Landau.

Hello.

Hello.

So when the youth are placed on GPS from the courtroom, at that point they are meeting with their attorneys and their attorneys are reviewing their stipulations now that they are being placed on GPS. Once they can meet with a GPS probation officer or a GPS technician, we do provide rules and regulations. And the rules is simply how to charge the device, what are the expectations. And we will review the court order. So if the court order says GPS house restrictions, then you have to remain in the home. We always make it known that medical appointments, they are allowed out. Mental health treatment, we never deny mental health treatment. School, you're always allowed to attend school. The appointments, the treatment, we just need to know when to schedule out for an allotment to go to your mental health treatment. School, you get a school schedule and whatever court order program you may be in. But besides that, we review the charging, how to charge, and we do explain you are not to be on the front steps, not in the backyard again for safety reasons. We explain that you do have to charge twice -- I mean, two hours per day. You cannot submerge your device into water. So we always provide --

I'm sorry for cutting you off. You said you explain that for safety reasons, that's included in the explanation?

No. So I hear you, which is why I wrote down should we add language in terms of clarifying what is GPS monitoring. But, no, we just pretty much explain that you should not be on your front porch or your backyard.

Okay.

Yes, and how to notify your probation officer if you need an allotment depending on your court order.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

And to just, because maybe I misunderstood the ending --

Sure.

-- there is a process for us to update this, correct, that can be taken?

I apologize. Real quick it is on here. This is for the juvenile safety.

Okay. One of the things that we agreed to was being more transparent equaling explaining the why, that that's the thing that could be done.

We can verbalize it, mm-hmm.

There is a process that we can go through that can be enacted soon, for that to become a thing, a practice by our city, correct?

That's correct, Councilmember. So we can always get better, right. And so, based upon testimony from our young people, certainly we can get better to explain the why a little bit more, right. And one thing I would like to add, Councilmember, is that when a kid cuts off his or her GPS or is lost for some reason, we don't charge. The FJD, the First Judicial District does not charge a youth for GPS cut-off or that they're lost or thrown away. There is no 24 restitution associated with that because I know that there was a question with respect to that. Fines and costs are different and restitution when there's a victim and a victim wants to be restored, but certainly if a youth cuts off their GPS, which we've had many, and the youth destroys their GPS, we do not charge for restitution.

I understand that GPS monitoring is being used as a way to keep justice-involved children in their homes. You all have articulated that. I hear the way that you frame it at school, involving the communities while they're going through the court proceedings. If you've spoken to it, I apologize, but what, if any, additional rehabilitative supports do the children actually receive throughout their court process?

So GPS is a component or a tool of what we utilize to keep kids safe. But in order for us to assure -- because we're -- I like to call my probation officers agents of change. We want to change behavior. And so, we refer youth to family functional therapy. We work with CBH with regard to FFTs. We refer youth to MST programs. I think one of the other panels articulated in terms of the programs that our youth are actually attending, these cognitive behavioral therapies that change the mindset of youth. We have youth in many programs throughout the city that help to change their behaviors. Also, one of the important things that we do is that we ensure youth are, for instance, attending school. Because if a youth is not in school, in a seat learning and listening to an instructor, they're not going to change their behaviors and they're not going to be productive citizens, right. And so, we want to make sure our youth are in school. But one of the things I also want to mention is that we also have other programs such as Post-DRC. I think one of the other panels actually mentioned it and she gave us credit for it. Post- DRC are programs that we have an aftercare ERC for kids who are coming down from residential placements. It's a step-down program. And all those programs, all those four programs that we have across the city offer additional supports and services that not only offer the children services, but the whole family as well because we want to treat this as holistically as possible. One of the things I always tell my staff is that if you don't communicate, engage with the family, with the father, with the mother or with the guardian, we're not going to have the youth successfully transition out of probation supervision, because there are our eyes and ears and they're the ones that help us transition kids out of supervision. Parents have a say in this and parents have a stake in this. And without their support and help, we're not able to do this. For instance, we've had parents say, hey, listen, we don't have any lights in the house or we don't have any food in the home, and we actually connect our parents to social services within the city, what the city offers, what City Council has funded for so, and we work with DHS with our Commissioner. We work in times -- every time there are dependency issues that we believe need to be addressed, I call the Commissioner right away, Commissioner, can you help. So we are always communicating in terms of are there dependency issues, protective factors that need to be addressed in the court. And for instance, I've had youth and one of you stated that, you know, I think SIL program. It's a program that is funded by DHS.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you had another --

Yeah. One last question, Dr. Phillips. We've already established that data is being collected. What data is being collected in particular as it relates to their GPS monitoring? For example, is there demographic data that's being collected, data about their GPS violations that they've racked up or charges of youth on GPS monitoring that's actually being collected?

The answer to that question, Councilmember, is yes. We have data --

All of the above.

We have data with respect to ethnicity, race. We have data with respect to the violations. We have data with -- we have multiple data associated because we want -- I always tell staff is that I need to know the data because if I don't know the data, I'm not able to manage it. I'm not able to kind of look at what are the things that we need to work on, right. With regard to race and ethnicity, there's a certain population that comes into the system, arrested by the police department, charged by the District Attorney's Office, then we get them. That's the population that we use. We in the court, for instance -- let me say this, police departments divert a lot of youth. I think Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel always comes here saying that, you know, he's very pro-youth and he's always trying to look at other programs to divert youth. The District Attorney's Office also -- I'm not going to speak for them, but they also divert youth in terms of Youth Aid Panel, the courts, what we do and what the judges do is they divert you through deferred adjudication or interim probation. Interim probation by the way is only unique to Philadelphia County. No other counties in the state of Pennsylvania do this, but Philadelphia judges do. And last year, we diverted about 609 youth. That includes consent decrees and that included deferred adjudications. So youth are not being adjudicated. When I say adjudicated, if in the Juvenile Division is found guilty of a crime, because we must make sure that we distinguish language from the penal system, the criminal system and the juvenile system. We don't send kids to jail. We send kids to institutions for the purposes of rehabilitation supervision, right. And so, kids are not found guilty in the juvenile system. They are adjudicated delinquent of certain crimes. And so, in the juvenile justice system judges are looking at kids and looking at certain charges and then the DA's Office is recommending this and say, hey, let's divert this kid, let's give this kid another opportunity. And so, those are the types of charge, yes. And so to your question, Councilmember, yes, we manage the data as much as we can.

Understood. Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Phillips. I'll turn it back over. But it matters in this America when you have the federal government suggesting that your skin complexion is reason enough to detain someone. And so, if the data that's being collected includes their ethnicity, their race, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that becomes an issue when we're clear that the information is being shared with this particular federal administration. So thank you. Or if it's not, it could be potentially so and we see an increasing amount of referencing or pulling for that kind of data in this particular era. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes. I'm proud of all the members of Council for staying for this. I mean, honestly this means a lot to all of us and we've been asking some really good questions. Chair Landau has one quick question before we wrap up this panel.

One follow-up question about the holding of the data for seven years. Does that include data for children who were not adjudicated delinquent, in other words, found not guilty?

Thank you, Councilmember. From our standpoint, I just want to be clear we don't collect any data whatsoever as the vendor. It is up to the First Judicial Department and what they enter into the system, what data that is and whether they're pre-adjudicated or post-adjudicated. That's not something we collect. It's not something that we make any determination of. If that's something that the department wants to enter into the system, then that will be included in the data that we are contractually required to hold for seven years. And the reason that is, just for clarity's sake, is sometimes these cases take a long time and the courts might need to see data that's three years old, four years old, if the case took a long time to make its way through the system. So typically, the contracts require seven years for that reason. And so, yes, we are going to retain all of that data as required by our contract. And again, for clarity's sake that data is not our possession. It is strictly 100%, the ownership and possession of that data is the First Judicial.

Is it your belief there's a law that requires you to hold it for seven years or it is based on the contract with the contracting entity?

I can't speak to exactly which data security laws the City of Philadelphia are held by, but all government agencies like, for example, when we do work with the federal government like Bureau of Prisons or Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, we have to meet the FedRAMP standard of security and I think theirs is slightly longer than seven years. There's certain security and firewall provisions we have to meet. States are all different. Usually they fall under CJIS, the Criminal Justice Information Security Act. So to answer your question, we're not making those decisions on how long it should be. Neither is First Judicial. It's usually governed by state law of security, cyber security.

Okay. I will pass it back over and we're going to move on, but I want to be clear the data that is being held by you is the data from any GPS monitor that's been on any child, some of whom will ultimately be found not guilty, not adjudicated delinquent? So I just want to be clear of that, what we've heard today.

Is the data held? Was that your question, ma'am?

You said it depends on the data that the First Judicial District decides you should have. But I want to be clear from what we've heard today the data that you have is the data of any GPS monitor that's on any child. And some of those children, by the time they get to a judge, will be found not adjudicated delinquent, not guilty. Therefore, you are holding information of children who a judge has determined did not commit the crime. That's all I'm saying, unless I'm incorrect.

No, you're...

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairwoman Landau. We have a quick question from Councilman Jim Harrity.

Thank you. I spent some time at 1801 in the juvenile system so I'm just trying to wrap my head on -- what are we talking about? Why are these kids being put on house arrest? What is that for? Is that to divert them from the detention center and allow them to stay home or what kind of charges are we talking about?

Thank you, Councilmember. So the type of charges that our youth are being placed on GPS; arson, burglary, fraud, auto theft, carjackings, homicides, being a runaway, sometimes just for us to keep track of them, robbery, homicides, terroristic threats. And so, those are the typical charges, right, because we have 306 youth I think I mentioned today. At times, what judges try to do is they try to look at the -- each case is individual by the way. GPS is a tool that the judges use to augment, to support in terms of what's happening with that youth's case. There may be arguments by the District Attorney's Office saying, hold that child at the JJC. The public defender is saying, no, release the child. And so, the judge says, well, what's the middle ground here. Well, the charge is egregious. The DAs want the child to be held at the JJC. PD wants the charge to be released. Well, let me see if I can come to a suitable compromise. And then the judge may decide -- I'm not putting words into the judge's mouth by the way -- is let's put this child on GPS, let's monitor this child, very, very highly monitored in the community so we can keep the child in the community. But guess what, because the child for instance came into the JJC shot in the leg or shot in the back, the judge is going to say, I have concern for that child's safety. I don't want this child out of the house unless it's school or unless the child has to go to a medical appointment until the child comes back to me and I find out and I get more information, right. And so, judges make decisions individually based upon cases. Each case is different, Councilmember. So I'm not able to articulate in terms of generalities. But certainly, judges make decisions on should I release the child and is it going to compromise public safety, should I release the child, is it going to compromise the child's safety. Not sure. Is there a responsible guardian or parent. Each case is individual, Councilmember.

So that's why you were saying sometimes it's for their safety because of retaliation; is that what --

That's correct.

I get you. Thank you.

(Inaudible).

Per Chairwoman Landau, if we could get on record submitted to us without identifying the individuals the charges that people received as well as incidents that had occurred that rendered a GPS tracking. And just to that point and before I turn it over to Councilwoman Kendra Brooks, how, Commissioner, does DHS ensure GPS is used as a last resort? And also, can you describe whether a young person, like what are the most common circumstances or behaviors that lead to the GPS recommendation? COMMISSIONER ALI: So the Department of Human Services does not make a decision in terms of whether or not a young person is going to be on a GPS or not. That determination is made by the judicial system as well as often times agreements between the District Attorney's Office and the Defender's Association. Our role at DHS is to offer a continuum of services for young people. Part of the continuum, as I testified to, is funding GPS, which is $1.3 million a year. However, one of our goals is also to offer what other service can a young person also participate in, in order to ensure that we put that young person on the right trajectory. And so, you heard the testimony in terms of evening reporting centers that was testified by YEAH Philly. So DHS funds evening reporting centers as another alternative to detention. Some young people are on GPSs when they attend the evening reporting centers. We fund inhome detention as well as an alternative to detention placements. Of course, you're familiar with intensive supervision services as well as IPS or Intensive Prevention Services. And so, our role is to continue to meet with stakeholders, in particular the courts, probation, the public defender's office, the district attorney's office and other stakeholders to determine what continuum of services does the department need to fund in order so that we can support young people as they on their trajectory for treatment, rehabilitation, supervision and just trying to get back on the right path.

Thank you. And your department does fully support the GPS system at this time? COMMISSIONER ALI: Yes, we do.

Okay. And for what reason? You see the rehabilitation that comes with it or? COMMISSIONER ALI: So we see it as an alternative to detention as well as alternative to placement. What we will continue to do is determine what are the outcomes. And so, as we have testified to previously we actually just released an RFP and we're in the final process in terms of looking at all of our services that we fund to determine whether or not young people have improved outcomes as a result of receiving services. And so, it's more to come on that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Chair recognizes Councilwoman Kendra Brooks.

Good afternoon. So my question is I hear a lot of collecting of data from the GPS. How much of the data that we're collecting is also being shared with law enforcement and other agencies that may not be the judicial system?

So we don't actually -- I'm trying to be very direct, Councilmember, to your question. We don't share the data, for instance, in terms of demographic, ethnicity, race, age, none of that. What we try to do is when we get information that crime has been committed, a carjacking, for instance, and a youth may be on GPS, we try to see if our youth was part of that crime scene, right. We go back --

In that vicinity that --

Exactly. And then we track the steps. We want to make sure -- and I also want to make clear GPS can clear kids if somebody is accusing them of being in a crime area. No, they weren't because we have the data that supports that. So we don't share the actual data in terms of ethnicity, race, age, family background. None of that stuff is shared. What is shared with our law enforcement partners is, is a crime being committed because we have a duty of public safety, is a crime being committed and is a crime being committed by one of our kids on GPS. And so, that's the information that we share back and forth with law enforcement.

Okay. Just so I can -- like we're all here in City Hall at this moment, right. Something happens right outside City Hall. The information for me and Councilmember Gauthier, if we were on GPS, would it say that we're in the vicinity and that information is shared with law enforcement to come. Is it going to trigger for our devices to be checked? Is someone going to come out? Are we considered a potential suspect? I'm just trying to get clarity on how all of this works.

So it's hard for your example.

I'm using City Hall because a rowhouse, an average block, this could be about 10 houses. So I'm just trying to get clarity on exactly how the GPS system works.

So I want to make sure that any time police are doing an investigation, and I'm not going to speak -- I know that Police is here so they can probably speak on that better than I could. But I know that they don't use GPS solely as the primary kind of way to identify individuals. They have to have other factors, right. They have to have identification, witnesses, ballistics, all the information that the police collect in order to take the case to the district attorney's office. They have to kind of have a case, right. GPS is one of the things that they can say, well, the kid was in the area as well. That's another factor. But they can't use that solely as the only reason why -- let's say this kid was there and a crime was committed there, they can't say that that's the kid who committed the crime, right. They have to have other factors associated with, you know, a gun was used, was the gun recovered, was fingerprints, ballistics, any witnesses in the area, cameras that the police always -- there has to be other substantive evidence that the police collect that takes the case to the district attorney's office before they proceed. So it's not only GPS that they use. I hope that helps answer your question.

It does. I don't want to prolong it. My mind is kind of -- it's kind of vague. If this was 10 houses on a city block and five kids on this block just so happened to be in GPS, one of which is mine, my address is 12. This house is 8. Is it specific to the household? I'm just trying to figure out if someone needed to come in to arrest someone? I think one of the stories they said a nearby house was raided by the police department and the child who was on GPS wasn't associated with it but the assumption that he was. And that's what I'm trying to get clarity, like how these things like that happen?

Councilmember, the only thing that we can do is place the child at the house. But in terms of whether or not the child is committing or was committing a crime or whether there's a crime afoot, we can't determine -- we can only determine whether the child was actually around a specific area. And first, let me give you another example --

And that information is sent to the police department for whatever they need to do?

Yes. We discuss in terms of certain individual -- for instance, if the police are saying that they're looking for -- and again, because you're providing examples, if we find that one of our youth is traveling outside of the restriction zone and the youth is going 80 miles an hour in terms of the GPS tracking, 80 miles an hour, and all of a sudden there's reports that there has been a car crash and we found that that's one of our kids involved because our kid stopped 80 miles an hour, all of a sudden stopped, then we know we can reference what we can do. Obviously, there's other investigation that needs to occur in order to make a specific determination whether or not, first of all, is our youth okay. Was our youth involved in a carjacking, I'm not sure. Again, I don't want to go into suppositions because I guess it's a very kind of gray area there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilwoman Landau has a quick request.

I just want to clarify what we're looking for. We would like data from the last months of what 12 people were charged with, for anybody who was put on GPS what they were charged with and what they were ultimately -- the result of the adjudica -- what they were charged with and what they were ultimately found -- held for. I just messed it up.

Adjudicated delinquent.

Yes.

And if, in fact, they were.

Yes, what they were charged with and what they were ultimately --

Understood. Thank you.

-- yes, found with. Thank you.

And then Councilwoman Gauthier has a -- is that okay? Is that something you could do?

We'll try our best to get that information to Council.

All right. I just want to make sure that was out there. Councilwoman Gauthier had a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add an element to that data request. It just floored me to hear that 30% of the young people on the GPS are being detained for technical violations. And I appreciate your answers, but I really didn't get a sense of what the most common reasons for that are. If you could provide data on that, it would be helpful. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing that there's no 12 further questions, I want to thank all of you today for coming. Clearly, there are some changes that have to be made to this or improvements, enhancements. And I think this Council is interested in doing a tour of the probation system, maybe even a tour of some of the spaces where the young people are having a GPS. We want to see how this goes. We actually need to learn how you even do your training at this point, right, with some of the parole officers. So just know that that we're going to continue on this and hopefully we get a resolution. There being no further questions, Ms. Walton, will you please call the next panel to testify on the bill -- resolution.

Yes. Panel No. 3, Legal and Law enforcement perspectives. We have Ms. Keisha Hudson, the Chief Defender from the Defender Association of Philadelphia; First Assistant District Attorney Robert Listenbee; DAO; Assistant District Attorney Chris Angelo, Chief of the Juvenile Unit as well as Christina Bradley, the Director of Youth Services and Youth Adult Initiative Juvenile Unit, DAO. Thank you. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

All right. So I'm hoping our members can stay tight for this panel. If you have to go, we have one virtual person that's waiting for our last thing but we don't, you know, we can take that on if you have to go for the last one. But this is an important one. We have the Chief Defender's Association and then we also have the District Attorney's Office. Councilman Isaiah Thomas is listening in he says, so I just want to make sure that we get you guys going. So can we actually begin with the District Attorney's Office first and then we can go to the Chief of Defense Association.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Phillips, Chairwoman Landau. My name is Bob Listenbee. I'm the First Assistant District Attorney. Before I get started with my formal remarks, I'd like to just make a comment. I was very pleased to arrive here earlier and have an opportunity to hear the young people talk about their experiences in the juvenile justice system. The District Attorney's Office focuses first on public safety, second on ensuring that. Justice occurs in any cases that we have. And third, on criminal justice reform, a cornerstone of criminal justice reform is to listen to the voices of people who are directly affected by the system. In the juvenile justice system, it's the young people that we have here over on the left here that we heard from. I want to let them know that I heard you and as a person who's been involved in juvenile justice reform for certainly the last years, I'd like to say that we need to do something to make sure that their voices are not only heard, but the ideas that they recommended are implemented in our system. So I would like to make a proposal: I would like to propose that the District Attorney's Office focus as a convener for juvenile justice reform here in the city, involving the parties that have participated in this hearing today, the Probation Department and its probation officers, the Department of Human Services, also the Public Defender's Office, the District Attorney's Office, and also and especially, stakeholders that involve youth who've been involved in the juvenile justice system, specifically YEAH Philly and others who are actively involved. We'd like to begin a convening within the next 30 days. We'd like to have it go for approximately six months. We'd invite the Chairman, both Chairman Phillips and Chairwoman Landau and other Councilmembers to participate, and we could start again within the next 30 days. That's my proposal. I think if we focus on the kinds of issues that have gone in depth here with the kind of questions that were asked, we may be able to get to the bottom of some of these things and bring about some reform. Let me say as a comment. I've been involved in Philadelphia's juvenile justice system for over 35 years. The system today is very, very different from what it was 10 years ago, very different from what it was 10 years ago. One fact of great importance, last year in January the District Attorney's Office had about 100 cases of juveniles charged with homicide, approximately 100 cases, open cases. That's never happened in the 30, 35 years of my existence here. Things have changed dramatically. Today for the last four years where we have data, approximately 25% of all the cases that come into the system are gun-involved cases, gun-involved cases. We have not had that before. There are other dramatic changes. We're very fortunate to have had the system reduced by almost 80% in the last 20, 23 years, from the very height when we 24 had 12,000, 13,000 cases down to below 2000 cases. That's very, very fortunate. That's big. Change has been brought about, but we have not had the kind of discussions involving stakeholders come to the table and talk about solving problems and solving solutions. I'm encouraging Council Chairpersons and members of this Council to be a part of this so we can actively involve and address the specific questions that I heard over and over and over again today that take a long time to get to the answers, but we can do that and we can do it. And we encourage you and invite folks to join us at the at the District Attorney's Office. Now, those are just my opening comments.

Oh, okay. All right. Can you summarize your next one?

There's a great deal that I could go into concerning the issues that have been brought forward. We provided City Council with written remarks and I have more detailed remarks. But let me start by just going over two cases that involve the issues that were raised, that were discussed in detail. These are cases involving the use of GPS in the criminal justice system that we are involved in. On the 13th of October this year in the afternoon, a complaining witness victim was conducting a delivery of Chinese food from a local Chinese store in the 3700 block of Genesee Drive in the city and county of Philadelphia. When that victim arrived at the location for the address where he's supposed to deliver, an offender -- and there's a description of all the clothing, everything connected with this offender and his age and so forth -- he stepped out, pulled out a semi-automatic firearm, brown in color, pointed it at the complaint, the victim, and then told him to empty his wallets. He had a couple 100 bucks in his wallet and he also took his keys and took his car. That's the kind of event that occurred. Now, fortunately there were videos all around the place where this occurred. Those videos are where canvassed neighbors indicated and provided a location where the kid had walked out and the neighbors gave an approximate name of the person. It was with that name that the police officers around were contacted. Police officers, one of them actually knew the young person because he had arrested them before. They then went and checked and required a formal notice to the Probation Department for the GPS information. That GPS information was provided and that GPS information indicated that that person was there on the scene and that that person followed where the car went and that that person came out of the house that was identified by the neighbors. So that is a situation where GPS was very helpful in identifying the defendant who was accused of this particular crime. And it's important to recognize that there were steps that were taken. There was other evidence presented. DNA came out of the car, fingerprints came out of the car. Police officers identified the defendant and we were able to go forward with that case. So that is one particular case there. Let me give you one second case we'll go through very quickly. , at the corner of Broad and Erie there were four young men who were walking down the street. They were going one direction. They turned and they went east, right off Broad Street. They saw somebody that they knew. They turned around, two of them pulled out guns and then fired several shots back towards Broad Street. Again, videos were there. Those videos were very helpful. One of the young people took his mask down so you could see his face. A police officer subsequently identified the person who had taken his mask down. The videos provided some indication of what they looked like. The SEPTA photograph taken at Broad and Lehigh had the same guys with the same clothes and identified them. Then again, the person went back and they requested GPS from the Probation Department, a formal request. GPS then identified one of the defendants as having been there at the scene and tracked him to the point of Broad and Lehigh. So again, lots of evidence involved. A search warrant was undertaken. That search warrant then went and provided information, the gun, identification, proceeds and that kind of stuff. Again, no one was hurt and nothing was taken, but they were able to identify him by looking at him. So again, GPS was helpful there. GPS can also exonerate somebody. If they're taken before the court and they say, well, you were involved, you can pull out GPS and it can show that you weren't there at all. I have with me today my colleagues, Chris Angelo, who is supervisor of the Juvenile Unit over to my right; Bill Fritze, who is also head of our Gun Violence Task Force.

He's sitting next to me because they bring evidence of investigations that they conduct to get details before they pursue certain individuals. They've also been involved not only in several non-fatal shootings, but they've also been involved in bringing down some of the gang members here in the city and county of Philadelphia, particularly those up near 63rd and Market. So they're here. I have also Ciara Sheerin, who is our policy analyst and provided the written material that we submitted to City Council. That being said, I'll wait to have questions now. I'll go into some of the details. We do have some data around what kinds of kids end up on GPS numbers. We have some data around some of the issues raised about disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system.

Thank you. Chief Defender. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Good afternoon, Chairs Phillips and Landau, members of the Committee, Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I want to thank you for introducing this resolution. I'm going to summarize my comments very quickly. Today has been incredibly informative. I learned a lot today that we did not know. With me, I have Nicole El who's the supervisor of the Children and Youth Justice Unit. She deals with our littles, as we call them. They're all our littles, because as we know children as young as can 8 be charged here in Pennsylvania; 9 and Michelle Mason, who represents 10 our kids who are being charged as adults. And I can assure you no 12 child that Michelle represents who's being charged as an adult for a homicide is walking around the city of Philadelphia on GPS. They're on State Road. Regardless, again of their age, they're on State Road. Last year we represented 1200 children. The Defender's Association total staffing for those 1200 children, 15 lawyers, 5 social workers. The majority of the cases are being diverted, dismissed or withdrawn, and we are in a very different climate than when I started as a public defender years ago. 5 We have made progress. 6 But as you have heard today, 85%, 7 let me be clear, 85% of the 8 children who come into the system 9 every year as children are being 10 referred to GPS monitoring. We 11 have moved away from services and 12 programming in our communities and 13 there is an overreliance on GPS. 14 When you look at the 15 mission statement for the Head of 16 Probation, I heard Castro say 17 several times that we want to make 18 sure our children are safe. That 19 is not his job. There is a 20 paternalistic and there are some 21 other isms that I will not mention 22 here with, again no personal 23 comment on motives or intention, but there is a viewpoint that Black boys are dangerous. That is how we see every Black child, particularly Black boys. We do not have time to go over the slavery and post- slavery creation of the criminal justice system, but mass incarceration, particularly of Black and Brown people is and should and I wish was our Civil Rights Movement of the time, because it is slavery by another name. A GPS monitor is a shackle. And our kids are oversurveilled and overmonitored every single second of every day of their lives. You heard a lot of information today about the technology. I am sitting here as the leader of the fifth largest public defender office in the country. I am 48 years old. I have two children. My phone has been dead for an hour and a half and we expect a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14-year-old whose frontal lobe won't develop for another years- 5 plus to have the wherewithal to 6 make sure things are working when 7 they should or charged when they 8 should be or that they're in the 9 right space in the house. 10 I will close with one 11 last point. I am stunned by the 12 lack of due process at every stage 13 regarding GPS and GPS monitoring, 14 but also about the data. Castro 15 was very, very clear, they do not monitor -- they have no staff that monitors our children after hours. That's done by a third-party nongovernmental agency based in Maryland. I'll just keep the thoughts that I was going to say to myself. I'm going to move on to some suggestions. And I was very, very heartened by Mr. Listenbee, District Attorney Listenbee's suggestion because that was going to be my first suggestion, right, encourage or convene a working group where the courts, probation, our office, court-appointed counsel, DAO. We need clear, written criteria for when GPS monitoring can be imposed, its duration and its standards for removal. We have to mandate transparency and data reporting and rely on the investigatory powers of this body to ascertain how many young people are being monitored. We know around 1800 to 1900 children per year. I heard I think 360 of those were for gun charges.

What are we doing with the other 1500. GPS is not just going on kids who are carrying guns. That's what you will see in the Inquirer, but the majority of our children, again, 80 -- like the majority are there for nonviolent offenses, including retail theft. We need to work with local stakeholders, including the Citizens Police Oversight Commission, to ensure local policies and rules designed to protect youth privacy rights, particularly those that limit sharing individual location information with law enforcement without a warrant or court order. And we need to do that. Councilmember Brooks is not here, but the answer to her question regarding her presence in the vicinity of a crime that may or may not have been committed, that simple answer is yes, that data is going to be shared and is being shared with law enforcement officials when the police may request it for any crime committed in the vicinity of where our youth who are on GPS are, and that information is being shared. We don't know the entirety of who this information is being shared with. Local, statewide, federal authorities it is being shared with. Here are all the steps of the juvenile justice process where GPS can be -- our kids can have GPS monitoring court- ordered. The last step is expungement. From what we heard today, seven years maintaining data. So after the Defender Association has filed an expungement petition, that data is being maintained and being shared and can be made shared with anyone at any time for any request and that data is being held by a third- party nongovernmental entity. I will close with this: We have to invest in alternatives. It is not the job of probation to keep our children safe. When our children get to this point in the system, we have failed them. Our communities have failed them. Our schools have failed them. Our public health system has failed them. And then they come into the system and all of a sudden we want to put resources on them, but only with monitoring and oversurveillance which is, as you heard today, extremely traumatic for our youth. 5 million. 3 million is going just to GPS. 5. million per year. 3 million to work with our 3 youth. Thank you. 4

5 All right. That was a lot of 6 information. I want to thank you 7 so much for your testimonies. 8 And are there any other 9 questions from members of the 10 panel? Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rue Landau.

Thank you. Mr. Listenbee, question for you: Do you have internal guidelines for when the DA's Office would request GPS monitoring for your cases?

We do not have specific guidelines. In general what we do is we look at the severity of the case. We look at whether there's repeat offenders involved. We look at the history of that young person's involvement in that particular case and also relationships with co-defendants and that kind of thing. Then we also look to determine whether or not we are recommending that the person be in the community or is going to be detained. If they're going to be in the community and they have a very severe case and if they've had prior contact, then there's a possibility that we would under those circumstances request GPS. But it's on a case-by- case basis. And based upon the experience that we have the lawyers or with the supervisors who have at this point over 20 years of experience in the system.

I appreciate that. A little stunned by the follow-up to the GPS in the surrounding area question that at least the Chief Defender gave us. So I just want to make sure we're clear here. There's gunshots around City Hall and one of the first things you do is to search to see whether or not there's anybody with GPS monitors around City Hall; is that correct? I just want to be clear with it.

First of all, that is something that would be handled by the Probation Department and the Police Department. We would not get involved until there's an arrest. But also, my colleague Mr. Fritze would like to add something.

Thank you.

Hi, Councilmember. And I just want to say there's many different instances. And just as Mr. Listenbee said, right, it's the individual child and why people are requesting GPS. But as far as investigations with shootings, that is a little bit of my area so I can discuss that with you. When an investigation for a shooting occurs, let's say it happened at City Hall. The first thing that you're going to look for are your witnesses. You're going to look at video cameras and you're going to see if there's people in the area. There isn't an immediate request that we know that somebody is on GPS and we want them to search for that. However, there have been shootings, right, by juveniles right out here outside, and those came down to eyewitnesses taking into account certain things. And then we learned that some of those people might be on supervision. That's a request then we can make to find out if the individual has been on supervision. And one of the other things I want to point out is that when we are talking about getting information from probation and parole, they may say to us, yes, we believe that someone is on GPS and they are at that location. As a prosecutor, I still need to get a search warrant for those GPS records and I need to make sure I have the correct person to testify. I'm serving a search warrant on the Probation Department and the First Judicial District. That's where that goes to. It does not go to that private individual company. And also, I know that you had brought up earlier federal concern with the prosecution or with their ability to get into these cases. But as you know juveniles, it would be very, very rare for the federal authorities to ever get authority over a juvenile matter, which is why Mr. Listenbee handled that weapons of mass destruction case here and why we handle homicides and shootings and carjackings in juvenile. So the ability for us to get that GPS information usually comes from a search warrant served upon the Probation Department. They may provide us with initial information that somebody was in that area. But generally having worked with the detective divisions and the investigation that we do on our side, we're going to be looking at other things first to determine, but we're not just doing a blanket let's see who's out there that day.

It seems that I'm going to be all alone here soon. Don't go anywhere. I want to ask a question for Councilmember O'Rourke, who had to leave. Have you seen GPS monitoring decrease recidivism rates in any of the cases that you've worked on? Of course, without sharing any details of the case.

We don't have data on that so I'm not able to give you an answer on that. I was looking over to see if Chris Angelo, who's Chief of our Juvenile Unit, has any information on that.

Chris Angelo from the Juvenile Unit. I don't think we've tracked that as data. Again, our functionality and use of GPS is an alternative to detention. We have different aspects of that information and where are the violations and would positive and negative discharges look like coming from GPS. But in terms of that instrument, that's not a variable we factor for.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jim Harrity.

Thank you all for coming. My question was for Chief Hudson, what you testified to. So say somebody had a charge at 15, right, I'm just trying to wrap my head about the data stuff that you're talking about, had a charge at 15, say, aggravated assault, you know what I mean, but it was a fight, kids, whatever. They don't get in any trouble, right. They're off now probation, whatever that is. So if they were put on a GPS monitor because it was violent, whether they actually got convicted of aggravated assault or pleaded to simple or whatever it was, so what we're saying is when their data is supposed to be expunged at 18, if they're holding it for -- would they hold that data until the seven years is up instead of getting rid of it? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: That is what I'm hearing for the first time today.

That would seem to me to be a violation. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Respectfully, you heard many violations of due process rights at this hearing today and privacy. I could go down the constitutional list.

Yeah, that's disturbing. You know, certain things you understand, if it's very, you know, heinous crimes. But some of these kids, you know, some of it's fighting, some of it's other stuff that they're getting in trouble for. And something like that, there was a kid's fight maybe between two kids or something like that that escalated and -- CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Where they have the presumption of innocence, Councilman.

Right. But meanwhile when they turn 18, they haven't been in any trouble. They're good kids for all intents and purposes, but that information is still held for other people to have access, to law enforcement, even if, you know, things happen, as we heard mistaken identities, stuff like that. It's just disturbing to know that that data is still there. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: And I don't think we got the clearest answers in terms of what that looks like or what is in the contract and what can be shared or not shared and with what entity. I have not seen that contract. None of us here have seen that contract or the MOU in terms of what is being done with that data. What we learned today is that it's maintained for seven years.

Yeah, that's my thing. Because, you know, I grew up in the neighborhood where that's at and some of these kids are thinking about that. I'm going to be 18, it's going to be off my record, I could finally try to do something. If it's in the computer, then somebody has access to it and it's out there, you know what I'm saying. I'd just like to know maybe what are the parameters for somebody to actually look at that data after a person turns and supposedly their record supposed to be expunged. It's not supposed to be there anymore, but we still have this. What I'm saying -- and I'm not technical so I don't know. Why wouldn't we just delete their juvenile record out of -- now, I know data is always still there. But why would we not take that file 13 number, I guess it would be or whatever, and just delete it out of the system at 18, especially if somebody --

18 Councilmember, just to be clear the juvenile court jurisdiction goes up until age so the court can 21 retain jurisdiction and also even place children up until age 21. Secondly, there's a new law that went into effect in April of this year where juvenile records can be expunged after two years after a child completes court supervision or if there's an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense counsel, even sooner than that.

Okay.

I think part of the concern is the data. I mean, we have to identify what the data is. The data, it's a contract between the First Judicial District and the identified vendor. I think we're talking about coordinate and longitude and lateral to data that's kept in a different location. CJIS and CREA, there are different federal statutes that terms what data needs to be maintained. Subject to an expungement petition that we litigate, the various law enforcement authorities, the DC No., MC No., PP No. data tracking is all identified and removed. This data would be separate and distinct from that, and I don't think we have a full handle on exactly where that information is or how that is, probably subject to a different federal criminal justice either CREA or CJIS --

That's what I'm getting at. We don't know what happens to that data. And I'm just trying to see if I understood correctly. So that data, like in our stuff, like your stuff, that number, you would get rid of it at a certain point --

It's deleted, yes.

-- two years after the thing. That's my concern. This is -- not you, you're a government agency. You're bound by oath, by a bunch of other stuff to hold that data to yourself. That's confidentiality, whatever you want to call it. But my concern comes with private companies holding data on our children.

And, Councilman, just my theory when you're talking about hitting a delete button and finding that stuff, I think you're looking for either a needle in a haystack or a needle in a needle stack as to what that data represents. If you were to go to Broad and Market six years from now, you may be able to glean back what that information is as to did someone have a GPS monitor at Broad and Market at 1:15 p.m. on October 29, 2025. No one has aggregated that data, developed that data or knows what that is. So I don't think it's a matter of you can hit a delete button and find what that is. Everything that we've identified personal to the individual use --

Yeah, but they would have the data and that data is assigned to the monitor, so then they would also have that person's other information that's in the computer with that data. When you, you know, I'm not the most tech savvy guy. Rue's our Chair. But I would say when you hit a couple of buttons and you put in a number, just like we do to track constituents and stuff like that, that's where my concern comes in. My concern comes in after a kid that has been adjudicated, you know, they're done. Whether they were convicted, did their probation, they're now 18 and they haven't gotten any trouble, it's supposed to be a fresh start for them. That is what I'm getting at. But there's a private company holding on to our kids' data for seven years. A lot of things can happen. People get hacked. Things happen, you know what I'm saying. So that's where my concern is. I'm a grandparent now, you know what I mean. So thank you.