Governor Corbett Responds to Child Protection Questions

Governor Corbett now advocates an independent Office of Child Advocate that was stonewalled by DPW and The PA Task Force on Child Protection.

Cathleen Palm

To

contact@c4cj.org

Friends of Children:

Late last night, Governor Tom Corbett’s campaign staff provided his responses to the 12 child protection questions shared with him and Mr. Wolf on September 3rd. 

Upon receiving the Governor’s responses last night, I outreached to the senior policy staff for Mr. Wolf and they responded that he also intends to answer the questions. 

It is heartening that we are half way there for PA’s at-risk and abused children.  It will be great to soon share Mr. Wolf’s responses as well! 

Before sending Governor Corbett’s responses, I did ask his campaign to place his answers on his letterhead so that it was clear that the answers were his.  I just received the updated document on Corbett letterhead and am sharing it with you now. 

Governor Corbett’s responses provide a positive reflection on his service in law enforcement.  Also pride is evident that, as Governor, he signed 20+ pieces of child protection legislation put on his desk over the last year, including dedicated funding for children’s advocacy centers (CACs).   While he technically answered all the questions, he remained silent on any actionable plan to reduce child abuse fatalities and near-fatalities and in outlining specific strategies to improve the safety and well-being of young children birth to age three.  He indicates that in a second term he will support: 

1.      Evidence-based prevention programs and services by directing a portion of the fees, paid by potential employees/volunteers for criminal and child abuse background checks, into prevention services/programs. 

2.      Independent auditing of ChildLine – the state’s child abuse reporting hotline – to analyze staffing trends and the implementation of modern technology.

3.      Legislation establishing an independent Child Protection Advocate (he notes it is his “belief” that such an office “would require legislative authorization”).  He writes that a Child Protection Advocate “will serve a critical function in coordinating and implementing child protection programs across agencies.” 

4.      Changes to the criminal and civil statute of limitations (SOLs) in child sexual abuse cases. 

By way of background, both #3 and #4 were issues that the Task Force on Child Protection, which was chaired by the Governor’s appointee intentionally opted against addressing.  Legislation on both fronts (Child Protection Advocate and SOL reform) have been introduced in the current legislative session.  

The independent Child Protection Advocate effort, via legislation sponsored by Republican Representative Scott Petri in multiple legislative sessions, always hits a wall with officials in the Governor’s Budget Office and Department of Public Welfare (now the Department of Human Services).  Hopefully the tide is turning on that front.  With regard to SOL reforms, this has been an extremely contentious issue in the legislature with bipartisan leaders of the House Judiciary Committee working to limit action, including opportunities for objective and civil debate.    

Please review the Governor’s responses for yourself and trust that when (underscore WHEN) Mr. Wolf’s responses come they too will be shared.

Thank you, thank you for being a VOICE for PA’s at-risk and abused children.  If we had not joined together (and so quickly last week), it is possible that this gubernatorial election would have forced abused children into the shadows and permitted silence to win out!

Be well,

Cathy

Cathleen Palm

Nurture, protect, listen to and speak up #4PAKids

The Center for Children’s Justice

www.c4cj.org

On Twitter @ProtectPAKids - Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/centerForChildrensJustice

Old Guard Plus Shows Ignorance, Hypocrisy, and Bias In 10/28 Votes

Eckel, Frazier, Dandrea, and Casey provided voices of ignorance, hypocrisy, and bias when justifying their votes not to complete the Freeh Report and supporting Casey's resolution to "do nothing."  Today's losers: Pennsylvania's children and Penn State.

By
Ray Blehar

The results of the vote on Al Lord's resolution went as most expected.  The unaccountable, Old Guard Plus (OGP) voting against the resolution, while the accountable Alumni-Elected Trustees voting in support.  For a complete list of the child abuse enablers who voted down the resolution, please go here. 

The big losers today were Pennsylvania's children and Penn State.

Vote Will Enable Continued Abuse of PA's Kids

By not voting to complete the Freeh Report, the OGP continues to hide behind a report that made the ludicrous conclusion that Sandusky's serial child abuse was enabled by his access to Penn State facilities and a decision by PSU officials not to report him to DPW.

Unfortunately, because the PSU BOT not only failed to challenge these ridiculous conclusions, but actually decided to pay victim settlements based on them, the public still believes it was access to PSU facilities and a failure to report that enabled Sandusky.  

For evidence of the ridiculousness of Freeh's conclusion, one only needs to examine the Freeh Report itself and the timeline of the crimes in the Sandusky case and the lawsuit of D.F.   That information reveals that Sandusky continued to commit his child abuse crimes off campus after 2001, which was AFTER his inappropriate behavior was reported to The Second Mile charity. 

Sandusky established The
Second Mile, which provided
him with continuous access
to procure child victims.

Moreover, Freeh's assertion that facilities were the "very currency that enabled him to attract his victims" describes a technique used by "stranger offenders" who use lures and ruses to gain access to children.  Those who know how serial child molesters like Sandusky operate (e.g., James Clemente, Ken Lanning, etc), understand that most are acquaintance offenders, who have established relationships and built trust with their victims. To repeat, these victims were not "lured" to PSU facilities, they went there willingly with Sandusky, just as they went with him to many other places.

PSU had nothing to do with Sandusky's access to kids, which was cemented when Sandusky established the Second Mile charity for at-risk youths.  Organizations that enabled access were obviously The Second Mile,  the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and the PA Office of Attorney General.  The latter has responsibility for oversight of charities, while the former two ensured Sandusky's continuous access to children.  

So far, all three have escaped scrutiny for their roles in enabling Sandusky. 

PA DPW overlooked at least a dozen signs of possible child sexual abuse during the 1998 Sandusky investigation and concluded no abuse occurred.  Its decision to nor indicate Sandusky, which would have resulted in him losing his clearance to work with children,  allowed him to access and abuse children from 1998 forward.

As we have seen in several cases since 2011, the DPW's "drive by" investigations of abuse cases have resulted in continued abuse and at least on death of a child.

The OGP, by allowing the Freeh Report to go unchallenged, is keeping the most serious problem (i.e., poor investigations and lack of oversight) in the PA Child Welfare system under wraps.

Ignorance and Hypocrisy Revealed In Arguments Against Completing Freeh Report

When it comes to ignorance and hypocrisy, if it weren't for Mark Emmert, the OGP would be unrivaled.

Starting off today's display of nonsense/misinformation was Keith Eckel, who stated:

Eckel: Proud that
PSU has overcome
the BOT's negligence
& bad decisions

"I am proud that the credit rating has been raised of this University, not raised them because we always had an A plus rating, they removed the watch because of the decisions that this board made as far as governance is concerned and its responsible addressing of the issues. Those are absolutely the facts."


Penn State had an AA (Aa2) credit rating which was lowered one rank to AA- (Aa3) because of the "possible financial impacts" of the Sandusky scandal -- according to Moody's.  PSU's rating was never A+ (a lower rating), as Eckel stated.


When the rating was raised back to AA (Aa2) - not removed "the watch" as Eckel erroneously stated --  Moody's cited the following:

The Aa2 rating and positive outlook reflects Penn State's significant liquidity, limited financial leverage, and rapid response to governance, management and financial challenges over the last year.


Eckel then added this doozy:

"At the end of the day my responsibility, my fiduciary responsibility is to our students and our constituents. My votes have been since that fateful day in November, they'll continue to be to this day, I urge the defeat of this resolution and the moving forward with this University and the continued observation of the results of the investigations and trials that are ongoing and because of which we cannot make any decisions today."

However, had it not been for the Board's negligence in May of 2011 when briefed on the Sandusky investigation and then disastrous decisions on 11/9/11 and beyond, PSU's credit rating would never have been revised downward.  The "financial impacts" to PSU were created by Eckel and his board cohorts when they hired Freeh, failed to challenge his report, then decided to pay victim settlements based on Freeh's erroneous conclusions.  

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy for Eckel to say that a decision couldn't be made today because of ongoing investigations and pending trials, considering that investigations and trials were underway when he and his cohorts made every ill-fated decision in the aftermath of the scandal.

Richard Dandrea echoed Eckel's hypocrisy. He also appeared to be in denial about the evidence that has emanated from other investigations and proceedings -- which has already rendered some of Freeh's findings moot:

Dandrea:  In denial that
some of the Freeh Report
conclusions have been
rendered moot?

Until these legal proceedings are substantially concluded we cannot -- we could not achieve the objective that Bill sets out. We could not comprehensively evaluate the Freeh Report while these legal proceedings are pending. For those who believe this is an important objective I believe patience is the order of the day. I'm not demeaning the objectives but I think it is certainly premature for the board to invest  substantial energy in the evaluation of the Freeh report and misguided to believe so that we could do so comprehensively at this time because there could be evidence coming from any of these pending legal proceedings, that the day after we were to issue some report on the further evaluations of the Freeh conclusions, the day after, the week after, the month after, there could be significant evidence coming from any one of these legal proceedings that would render moot what would be at best a premature attempt to address these questions. I'm opposed in significant part because I believe we cannot achieve the objective that Bill set out to comprehensively evaluate the Freeh Report.

By your own definition, Mr. Dandrea, wasn't the Freeh Report a premature attempt to address the questions about Sandusky's serial child sex abuse?

Kenneth Frazier remarkably made the admission that the Freeh Report was incomplete, which should have been one of the biggest news items to come from today's meeting (after the vote tally).  Frazier, who previously praised the report for being "thorough and comprehensive," backed away from that statement today.

Frazier finally admits
Freeh Report was
incomplete.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask trustee Frazier, do you believe that Louis Freeh did a complete, thorough investigation? 

Frazier:  I think Louis Freeh did an investigation that was limited from the very beginning by the constraints that happened because there was an ongoing criminal proceeding. The answer to that is no. 

However, in the very next breath, Frazier went stated his delusions about the utility of the Freeh investigation.

At the same time I would say I think that investigation produced evidence that made a significant impact on the sandusky prosecution and more importantly the facts and conclusions it led us to make (indiscernible) a number of changes in how we ran the University.."


None of the evidence used in the Sandusky prosecution was obtained by Freeh's team, according to the evidence exhibits listed in the trial transcripts.  Even if you believe that Freeh found the emails and Schultz file (he didn't), those were not used in the prosecution of Sandusky.

Casey Resolution Reveals Bias, Ignorance

Casey resolution to
"do nothing" gained
support of the OGP.

After the Board waited approximately 90 days to vote on Al Lord's resolution, they voted on a proposal to "monitor the ongoing investigations and trials" that was crafted by Kathleen Casey (with help from Ken Frazier) last Friday.

In response to the resolution, Al Lord scoffed, "This is to do nothing."

The alumni-elected trustees requested the vote be tabled until it could be more fully reviewed and discussed, but the motion to table was defeated.  

The preamble to the Casey resolution was:  


"Whereas, Penn State reviewed and analyzed the recommendations made by Freeh and implemented substantially all of such recommendations in ways that strengthened the University’s compliance, safety, governance, child protection and other functions.."

Casey, like most of the OGP, appears ignorant of the fact that one of the new policies enacted in the lead up to the Freeh Report would actually create an environment conducive to child abuse occurring on PSU's campus. 

PSU Policy AD73, which requires that a person with a PSU ID can only have one guest when using campus facilities, would promote one-on-one adult/child situations like those Sandusky used to perpetrate abuse.  The fact that facilities can only be used during operating hours would not inhibit offenders like Sandusky, who have the ability to abuse their victims in plain sight. 

Not only does the policy provide an atmosphere conducive to acquaintance offenders, but it also disenfranchises the State College and Central Pennsylvania community who formerly were able to utilize the recreation facilities.  The policy was a knee-jerk reaction to the scandal based on the flawed understanding of child sex abuse possessed by Louis Freeh's team.  The origination date of the policy is July 9, 2012.

Ironically, PSU Policy AD39 discourages one-on-one contact between adults and children during University sponsored programs.  This policy has been on the books since 1992 and its revision history indicates the one-to-one provision had been there since inception.

The resolution, with a minor amendment, passed 17 - 8, with Adam Taliaferro not voting.

Penn State Loses Too

With the defeat of the Lord resolution -- and again, the public perception that PSU accepts the Freeh Report -- for  the forseeable future, Penn State will have to live with the stigma of being "Pedophile State University" and being unjustly characterized as a culture that put the welfare of children below that of its football program.

Trustee Pope's stance reflected the views of her constituents: 

“I don’t want to stand behind this report one more day.” 

PSU will also continue to suffer the financial consequences as civil attorneys continue to utilize the Freeh Report to justify their lawsuits filed by Sandusky's victims.  

Trustee Lord laid out the impact of the Freeh Report on tuition:

I wish that besides this we were actually talking about matters like instead of -- instead of being pleased with only increasing tuition 2, 3%, we're actually able to talk about reducing tuition.

What's next?

The pending lawsuits where PSU is a defendant will force discovery and more of the truth will be revealed.  In addition, it appears gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf is poised for victory and will be able to appoint a new set of trustees to replace Corbett's selections.

Finally, Senator Yudichak continues to monitor the recent board proposal approved by the governance committee, but raised questions about the legality of the Board reorganizing itself.  

While the OGP won yet another battle, they have by no means won the war.  

Former SITF Members Should Be Prohibited From Tomorrow's Vote

The former members of the SITF should be excluded from tomorrow's vote due to their conflict of interest regarding the Freeh investigation.

By
Ray Blehar

Tomorrow's history making vote on Al Lord's resolution to "complete the Freeh investigation" most assuredly calls into question the proper oversight of the Freeh investigation by the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF).  

As such, the SITF members have a conflict of interest in taking part on a vote that could determine that the task force fell short of their responsibilities.

According the press release on November 8th, 2012, the SITF was charged with the following:

At its regular meeting on Friday, November 11, 2011, the Board will appoint a Special Committee, members of which are currently being identified, to undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. This Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable. The Special Committee will have whatever resources are necessary to thoroughly fulfill its charge, including independent counsel and investigative teams, and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees.  Penn State has always strived for honesty, integrity and the highest moral standards in all of its programs. We will not tolerate any violation of these principles. We educate over 95,000 students every year and we take this responsibility very seriously. We are dedicated to protecting those who are placed in our care. We promise you that we are committed to restoring public trust in the University." 

The SITF Fell Short

A fair review of the passage reveals that SITF failed to fulfill their charges. Specifically:

1.  The SITF did not hold Freeh to conducting a full investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report.

The Freeh investigation covered Sandusky's crimes from 1998 forward.  However, the Amended Bill of Particulars of May 18, 2012 identified that Sandusky committed crimes against Victim 7 (on and off campus) in 1995 and 1996.  These crimes (convictions for attempted indecent assault, corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of children) occurred before there is any record of PSU officials being aware of Sandusky's behavior.  Who was responsible for enabling Sandusky's crimes against Victim 7 and have they been held accountable?


2.  The SITF did not correct/revise scope of Freeh's investigation.  

The Freeh Engagement letter stated:

a.       “perform an independent, full, and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse at the facilities and the alleged failures of The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) personnel to report such sexual abuse to appropriate police and government authorities.”

The SITF did not revise the statement to:
a. Broaden the scope of the investigation to include individuals other than PSU personnel.
b. Strike the words "appropriate police and" from the statement.  Under 23 Pa.C.S.§ 6313, which states reports should be made to the Department of Public Welfare or the county agency, there is no requirement to make a report to police. 


3.  The SITF has never made a presentation of the Freeh Report at a public session of the Board of Trustees.

While it's rather obvious there has not been a complete investigation, the Freeh Report has never been presented at a public session of the Board.

4.  The SITF disbanded before it fulfilled its obligations.

Based on emails uncovered by Ryan Bagwell's Right-To-Know efforts, Ken Frazier considered the work of the task force complete just two days after the issuance by Freeh and before a full review of the Freeh Report could be undertaken by the Board.

 Conflict of Interest 

According to the By-Laws (page 36) of the PSU Board of Trustees:

"a conflict of interest exists when a reasonable observer, having knowledge of all the relevant facts and circumstances, would conclude that a Trustee has an actual or apparent conflict of interest in a matter related to the University."

The remaining members of the BOT who were members of the SITF include:  Kenneth Frazier, Mark Dambly, Keith Eckel, and Karen Peetz.  

Frazier went on the record on July 12, 2012, thanking "Judge Freeh for his diligence in uncovering the facts in the last eight months and issuing such a comprehensive and thorough report today."

Since the time Frazier made the statement, considerable information has come to light showing that Freeh:

Peetz and Frazier praised Freeh Report and
accepted responsibility for "failures."

-- excluded email evidence relating to the 1998 incident from the report;
-- excluded Appendices 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9 from the report;
-- wrongly concluded Paterno was actively involved in the concealment of information;
-- lied about his team making independent discovery of the email evidence;
-- lied about his team finding the Schultz file in conjunction with the OAG;
-- did not properly reflect the trial testimony in the Victim 8 incident; and, 
-- incorrectly stated the crimes against Victims 5, 6, and 7.


As pressure mounted as the evidence against the validity of the report became obvious, Frazier staunchly defended the report.  After a tirade in response to a question by alumnus Bill Cluck, the Merck CEO stated:

“It is crystal clear that we, as a board, cannot and should not reinvestigate the Freeh investigation.” 

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/03/15/3538896_penn-state-trustee-frazier-dismisses.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Peetz also went on the record the same day and stated the Board "accepted responsibility for the failures that occurred," in effect accepting the findings of the Freeh Report on behalf of PSU (prior to a vote of the Board taking place).  

The former board chair also stated that the Board would conduct a full analysis of the Freeh Report, but later (at 1:27) contradicted herself, the Freeh Engagement letter, and the SITF's charter by stating that the investigation was only for the purpose of getting recommendations for   improving governance.

"We do not intend to do an independent review.  Because that's not part of what we commissioned the report for. We commissioned the report so we could have a set of recommendations for how we could improve our governance."

Eckel: "..not our
responsibility"

Keith Eckel also went on the record in an attempt to duck responsibility for Freeh's findings of culpability, which was in conflict with their charter as provided on November 8, 2011.

“Comments were made as far as the conclusions Judge Freeh reached as far as the culpability of individuals. We didn't, nor did we ever, feel that that was our responsibility,” Eckel said. “We’re not challenging Judge Freeh’s conclusions. We’re only indicating that those conclusions have no role in our implementation of Freeh’s recommendations.”

Dambly backpedaled too.

 Mark Dambly similarly backed away from the SITF's oversight role in determining who was responsible for enabling Sandusky's crimes.  However, his statement that the PSU officials would go through their process was nothing more that letting PSU officials be convicted in the court of public opinion, which was driven by the Freeh Report.

"The four people spoken about most in the report, we're certainly not going to take a position on their guilt or innocence," trustee Mark Dambly later told reporters. "They'll go through their process ... We're going to allow that process to play out in the courts."

Conclusion

Clearly, these four individuals failed in their responsibilities to properly oversee the Freeh investigation and, later, three of four made false statements about the purpose of the SITF as the public began to raise the issue of alumni questioning the validity of the Freeh Report.  

Tomorrow's vote on the completing the Freeh Report will determine if PSU believes in accountability and transparency.  

Those who have already shown their lack of accountability should be excluded from the vote.

News for the Center For Children's Justice re: PA Gubernatorial Election

Thank you for signing onto the letter urging that Mr. Corbett and Mr. Wolf use the remaining days of this election cycle to step forward and speak up about their goals to protect PA’s children.  Should we hear back from the candidates be assured that I will share any responses. 

The letter sent to their campaign offices today is attached.  Also attached is a press release that will be sent out later today. 

Thank you again for quickly responding and being so dedicated to being a voice and force for PA’s at-risk and abused children!

Be well,

Cathy

Cathleen Palm

Nurture, protect, listen to and speak up #4PAKids

The Center for Children’s Justice

PA Gubernatorial Candidates Silent on Child Protection In Aftermath of Sex Abuse Scandals 

  

Contact: Cathleen Palm, Founder   

610-488-5059 or 717-215-1440  

October 22nd - Today, more than 100 Pennsylvania advocates for children called on gubernatorial candidates Tom Corbett and Tom Wolf to provide voters with specifics about how they would prioritize prevention and ensure that children can live free from child abuse growing up in safe and supported families.     

In early September, advocates led by the Center for Children’s Justice asked the gubernatorial candidates to answer 12 child protection questions including:  

• Will you support designating a portion of the fees charged for background checks toward evidence-based child abuse and neglect prevention services/programs?

• What is your actionable plan to reduce child abuse fatalities and near fatalities?    

• Will you initiate an independent audit of ChildLine in order to analyze the hotline’s staffing trends (e.g., number of staff, turnover rates, use of overtime) and the recent implementation of modern technology?    

• Within your early childhood care and education plan, do you have specific strategies and outcome measures to improve the safety, health (including mental health), and permanency for children from birth to age three?   

• Do you support a state-level independent Child Protection Ombudsman or what some refer to as the Child Protection Advocate?    

Child sexual abuse survivor and author Marsha Barth urged the gubernatorial candidates to speak up for children.  “I recognize that there are many competing concerns for government to address, but none are greater than ensuring a child’s trust is not betrayed, their bodies not violated.”  Barth, who is from Berks County, continued, “Please speak up and exercise leadership on behalf of vulnerable children and abuse survivors.”    

Child advocates acknowledged that, over the course of the last year, more than twenty child protection bills were enacted with strong bipartisan support in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.  These reforms were enacted after the serial child sexual abuse perpetuated by Gerald Sandusky proved a critical tipping point in advocates’ decade long fight to reform PA’s child protection laws and practices, including in how child abuse is defined, reported and investigated.    

“For too long Pennsylvania children lingered in abusive situations, perpetrators continued to have the upper hand and too many of our infants and young children died, in part, because laws were flawed and state-level leadership hard to find,” said Cathleen Palm, founder of the Center for Children’s Justice. 

“PA’s time in the national spotlight should be incentive for leaders to vow that protecting PA’s children will be a sustained state priority.”    

Advocates prepared the child protection gubernatorial questions to raise awareness that passing laws is the easy part.  Leadership is needed now to ensure an on-going commitment to effective implementation, measurement of outcomes (intended and unintended), and for continuous quality improvement.      

“Passing legislation will not be enough to affect the change needed, these laws must be linked to smart prevention-focused investments accompanied by strong leadership from PA’s Governor,” said Linda Crockett from Lancaster County’s Samaritan Counseling Center.    

Frank Cervone from the Support Center for Child Advocates in Philadelphia reinforced, “Ensuring Pennsylvania children are safe will require supporting high quality practice, transparency, and accountability for outcomes.”    

Advocates welcomed the recent decision to dedicate state funding for children’s advocacy centers in order to minimize a child’s trauma and to promote coordinated child-centered investigations.    

Teresa Smith, who is a Centre County resident and leading expert in developing and maintaining high quality multi-disciplinary investigative teams, called on the candidates to “grow investment in children’s advocacy centers meeting national standards.”  She joined with fellow advocates to urge focus on assuring abused children and non-offending family members have access to trauma-informed services (e.g., mental health and victim services) within and, well beyond, the formal abuse investigation.    

The PA gubernatorial candidates were asked to address their views on PA’s criminal and civil statute of limitations in child sexual abuse.    

“Too often a child sexual abuse victim feels guilty, betrayed and even frightened to come forward convinced that they were somehow responsible for their abuse,” said York County Nurse Practitioner Deborah Mangan Gobel.  She urged the gubernatorial candidates to examine the impact of statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases.  “PA’s statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases can either be a tool for or barrier to healing and justice as well as fuller protections for all PA children.”  

A copy of the letter and the child protection questions sent to the candidates are attached.   

October 22, 2014  

Governor Tom Corbett

c/o Tom Corbett for Governor 

 P.O. Box 1145

Harrisburg, PA 17108

Mr. Tom Wolf Tom Wolf for Governor     

PO Box 22454     

Philadelphia, PA 19110  

Dear Governor Corbett and Mr. Wolf:  

  

We are joined together as advocates for children dedicated to ensuring that every Pennsylvania child is able to live free from abuse and sexual violence and to grow up in safe, supported and permanent families.   

We are also linked in understanding that the prevention of child abuse and the implementation of effective interventions is a shared community responsibility – one in which government is a critical, but in no way the singular, partner to healing and changed culture.    We also believe that change doesn’t happen without leadership.  

This election is shaping up as quite ironic.  Virtually every media report about the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race is written with some reference to a high-profile child sexual abuse case.  Still, both of you have yet to articulate intentional and measured child protection goals.  In early September, you were provided with 12 child protection questions developed with insight from inter-disciplinary stakeholders (e.g., child welfare caseworkers, physicians, educators, child advocates, and victim service providers).  We hoped by September 30th to know your answers.    

As a result of recent high profile cases, voters better understand there are life-long consequences when a child’s trust is betrayed, their body violated.     

There is also heightened awareness about the ripple effect on our society, including when taxpayers are asked to aid in fighting the consequences of child maltreatment (e.g., poor school readiness or performance, addiction, chronic health conditions, and crime and corrections).  Consider just one state budget line item linked to child abuse.  This fiscal year Pennsylvania will spend more than $1 billion in state funds to investigate and immediately respond to child abuse.  This $1 billion plus figure does not include federal or local funding or private charitable contributions.  It also does not capture related health, education and human services expenditures.  Most troubling is that this $1 billion plus line item is most often about reacting to, not preventing, abuse against PA’s infants, children and youth.  

    

Abused children, especially very young children, are powerless counting on an adult – either operating alone or as part of a system – to step forward and speak up so that cycles of abuse and violence can stop and healing can begin.    

And so today we jointly ask, how will you step forward and speak up for PA’s at-risk and abused children, if elected Pennsylvania’s next Governor?  

Sincerely, 

Center for Children’s Justice Mary Achilles, Board Chair, Cathleen Palm, Founder   

Children's Alliance Center of Berks County Melissa Haydt, Vice President  

Children’s Crisis Treatment Center,  Anne Holland Brown, Director of Trauma Services  

Community Prevention Partnership of Berks County Cheryl Guthier, CEO

  

Court Appointed Special Advocates of Philadelphia Wendy Graham, Executive Director  

Court Appointed Special Advocates of Venango County Cinnamon Evans, Executive Director  

Crime Victim Center of Erie Paul Lukach, Executive Director  

Defend A Child, Bob Daman, Child Advocate  

Family First Health Kara Kehm Waltemeyer, NFP Supervisor  

Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse Tammy Lerner, Vice President  

HAVIN Jo Ellen Bowman, Executive Director  

Maternity Care Coalition JoAnne Fischer, Executive Director 

  

National Association of Social Workers, PA Chapter Justin Fleming, Director of Government Relations 

Network of Victim Assistance Barbara P. Clark, Executive Director   

Nurse-Family Partnership National Service Office Tara Dechert, Business Development Officers  

Pathways PA Brenda Dawson, President & CEO  

Pennsylvania Children's Trust Fund Bruce Clash, Chair  

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence Peg Dierkers, Executive Director  

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape Delilah Rumburg, CEO  

Pennsylvania Council of Churches Rev. Sandra L. Strauss, Director of Advocacy and Ecumenical Outreach

  

Pennsylvania Court Appointed Special Advocates Dennis Hockensmith, Executive Director  

Philadelphia Children's Alliance Chris Kirchner, Executive Director Jackie Block Goldstein, Associate Director  

PinnacleHealth Children's Resource Center Lynn Carson, Executive Director  

Prevent Child Abuse PA Teresa Olsen, Director   

  

Project Child, Pam Wallace, Project Coordinator  

Protect PA Kids, PAC Susan Matthews, Founder

  

Samaritan Counseling Center Linda Crockett, Director of Education & Consultation and SafeChurch Developer  

Sexual Assault Resource & Counseling Center Jenny Murphy Shifflet, President & CEO 

Support Center for Child Advocates Frank Cervone, Executive Director   

The Women's Healthcare Group William M. Unwin, M.D., Partner Alyce Soffer, Practice Manager 

Turning Point Women's Counseling & Advocacy Center Kristen Pfautz Woolley, Founder & Clinical Director, Deborah Mangan Gobel, Board Member 

York County Children’s Advocacy Center Deborah Harrison, Executive Director Rebecca Burdette, Board Member  

York County Cribs for Kids Dr. Michael Goodstein, Director

  

Individuals (County of residence) Jennifer Aglialoro (Lackawanna County) Allison Altman (York County) Victoria Arnold (Bucks County) Hollie Ayers (Mifflin County) Marsha Barth (Berks County) Arthur Baselice (Philadelphia) Nadine Bean (Chester County) Raymond Blehar (Centre County) Gail Boone (York County) Stephanie Bradley, Ph.D. (Centre County) Pat Bruno, M.D. (Snyder County) Elizabeth Charleston (York County) Amber Chronister (York County) Asahel Church (York County) Bridget Conway (Lackawanna County) Shari Copenhaver (Perry County) James Crook (York County) Gerald Davidson (York County) Alison Delmonte (York County) Joe DeVizia (Luzerne County) Perri Druen (York County) Steven J. Fair, CPA (York County) Sandra Federo (Lackawanna County) Ray Firth (Allegheny County) Bill and Cheryl Fleagle (Schuylkill County) Cheryl Friedman (Lackawanna County) Janet Fromkin (Allegheny County) Karen Galbraith (Cumberland County) Dan Gilbert (York County) Connie Graham (Crawford County) Warren Hartenstine Lucinda Hartshorne (York County) Susan Hennemuth (Lackawanna County) Hannah Holliway (York County) Pamela Hoover (Lancaster County) Kristen Houser (York County) Maria Jirau-Torres (Pike County) Karl Jones (Schuylkill County) Kathy Kane (Chester County) Ruth Kolb (Allegheny County) Maryanne LaMonaca (Delaware County) Mary Ann LaPorta (Lackawanna County) Laurie Lears (York County) Nichole Lehr (York County) Nancy Lee (Chester County) Benjamin Levi, MD. (Dauphin County) Alexa Livelsberger, LSW (Cumberland County) Venus Malave (Dauphin County) James Maranki (Northampton County) Claire Matthews (Montgomery County) Tammy Mikler (Berks County) Dolores Miller (Philadelphia) Joan Mills (Allegheny County) Kathryn Monk (York County) Micah Pflaum (York County) Jeff Pizutti Joyce Pruszenski (Beaver County) Ashley Rehm (York County) Jane E. Rice (Adams County) Ebony Robinson (Allegheny County) Gabe Rosetti (Philadelphia) Mark Rozzi (Berks County) Dr. Janet Rosenzweig (Bucks County) Julie Rudolf (Lackawanna County) William Rupert (Clarion County) Joanne Van Saun (Luzerne County) Dianne Schwartz (York County) Lee Sharon (Mercer County) Gary Shuey (Cumberland County) Stephanie Siegel-Mock (Lebanon County) Wendy Silverwood (Chester County) Rebecca Singer (York County) Carole Siskind (Washington County) Teresa M. Smith (Centre County) Andrea Sodaro (York County) Letty Thall (Philadelphia) Joanne Walcerz (Lancaster County) Michelle Weiss (York County) David Weitoish (York County) Jeff Winslow (Lebanon County) Meghan Winslow (Lebanon County) Elva Winter (York County) Travis Woolley (York County)

  

*Note the list of individuals or organizations signing onto this letter may be updated.  

It includes those signing beginning on October 20, 2014 and through 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 22nd. 

PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THIS PETITION

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/14PAGov?utm_content=buffer606d7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer