Committee on Children , Youth, October 29, 2025

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.