United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J.

Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 online

. (page 40 of 51)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JTaking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 → online text (page 40 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


federal funding through the Esenhower Foundation and by state funding, is a comprehensive

- 17-



464



vocational skills training program for at-risk teenagers in three inner-city Chicago public high
schools. Implemented by Youth Guidance, Inc., a citywide, nonprofit community organization,
the multiple solution project offers intensive job skills training linked to job placement and
support services (such as counseling and crisis intervention). One key component of Project
Prepare is the partnership with local businesses who help train students in exchange for offering
them jobs upon completion of the program.

Two hundred and seventy-two students in three schools participated in the first year of
the project; another two hundred and twenty-seven students served as comparisons. (They did
not receive services from the project but continued in standard vocational education courses.)
Upon entry into the venture, both project youth and their comparison groups possessed similar
low grade point averages, low job readiness skills and low class attendance rates. The
program's planned services were implemented fiilly in one school, Roberto Clemente Community
Academy, and in lesser degrees at the two other schools. As might be expected, full
implementation yielded stronger improvements in students' attendance, job readiness and
retention rates.



At Clemente, Hyatt Hotels Corporation has built a state-of-the-art kitchen which trains
students in culinary arts, donated a chef from Hyatt to train them and instituted a three-year
curriculum and internship program. Students like the food vocational education program because
of the high-tech equipment, serious commitment from Hyatt and the dynamic teachers and



- 18-



465



counselors. The annual operating cost of the project, including the corporation's donations,
amounts to less than $2,000 per youth.

The evaluation of the first year of the project showed that Clemente students who
received Project Prepare's comprehensive services improved their job readiness skills and
attendance rates and stayed in high school longer than comparison students. These differences
were statistically significant. Dropout rates at Clemente for Project Prepare students were
thirteen percent lower than for comparison students. Lower dropout rates are correlated with
reduced antisocial behavior.

These evaluation findings are sufficiently promising to allow for replication.
Accordingly, Project Prepare has now expanded to another inner-city high school in which the
McDonald's Corporation has pledged to train and place fifty two sophomores from Wells High
School after they complete a three-year, intensive management and business curriculum modeled
after McDonald's Hamburger University management courses. While attending the courses and
finishing high school, the students are eligible for part-time jobs with local owners-operators of
McDonald's restaurants.

7. The Argus Community Learning for Living Center

The Argus Community on East 160th Street in the Bronx was founded in 1968, by
Elizabeth Sturz, a poet and former probation officer. Argus is a community-based center with

- 19-



466



programs for high-risk youth and adults ages seventeen to twenty-one, mainly African-American
and Puerto Rican. It provides "an alternative life program for adolescents and adults who have
been on the treadmill of unemployment, under-employment, street hustling, welfare, substance
abuse, crime and prison, and who saw no way out for themselves."

Through residential and nonresidential programs, Argus seeks to offer some fundamentals
too often lacking in the fanulies and communities from which these youth come. It creates an
"extended family" of responsible adults and peers who offer "warmth, nurturance,
communications, and structure," and who teach productive and family values. Within that
extended family setting, the program offers prevocational, vocational and academic training,
substance abuse treatment and aftercare ~ and works to link those trained and treated with
employers in New York City. Training is offered in computer skills, desktop publishing,
building management, weatherization, and horticultural services. Basic literacy skills and GED
preparation classes are delivered through an alternative school at Argus.

Over time, Argus has added programs for housing, treating and training homeless drug-
addicted men, mentally ill drug-addicted men, and drug-addicted women with children. In
addition, family planning, health care and early education are offered, which not only provide
parenting assistance for the children of teen mothers in the program but also teach the young
mothers ~ and fathers — how to be good parents. Ms. Sturz believes that "angry, alienated
teenagers can be pulled in, can be brought to the point where they not only do not steal and
assault but have something to give to the society. " Punctuality, good attendance and self-respect



-20



467



are stressed in small-sized classes by teachers who come from the neighborhood surrounding
Argus.

A new Argus residential treatment center for pregnant women, mothers and their young
children now is being built between East 135th Street and East 136th Street in the Mott Haven
neighborhood of the South Bronx. As part of the complex, Argus hopes to create a police mini
station at which an assigned offer will actually live. The officer will become acquainted with
neighborhood residents; become involved with the children, mothers and community; and help
secure the neighborhood for human and economic development. The concept will build on the
residential police mini station already operating in San Juan at Centro Sister Isolina Ferre (see
below).

The nonresidential Argus program, the Learning for Living Center, is mostly for
teenagers who have a history of drug use, have dropped out of school, are victims of sexual
abuse and child neglect and abuse and who have been involved with criminal acts. It is designed
as alternative life training to prevent the need for youth to end up in the residential program, for
those somewhat older with more serious problems - today, especially drug addiction. So a full
range of intervention has evolved, from early prevention to treatment.

Some people are referred to Argus from throughout New York City. Mostcome from
the neighborhood. -Argus youth are at higher risk than the clients of most other community-
based youth agencies in New York City. Despite this extremely troubled clientele, the program
has had encouraging successes.



-21



468



The Eisenhower Foundation evaluated a cycle of the Argus day-time, nonresidential
Learning for Living Center. Youth were assessed over twenty weeks of training and then over
a follow-up period. Measures were taken before and after, nine months apart, with one-hundred
high-risk Argus youth and one-hundred comparable youths who did not receive training. Argus
youths had higher salaries, and received more job benefits than comparison youth. To
complement the Eisenhower findings, recent audits of the Argus job training programs found that
no students had criminal involvement during these training periods and that eighty seven percent
had been placed successfully in training-related jobs. The cost per person for the training
program was $16,000. An earlier U.S. Department of Justice-funded study also found that
Argus had the best outcomes among fifty New York State programs surveyed in terms of less
criminal justice involvement and less drug involvement among program youth.

8, .Tob Corps

Job Corps is an intensive multiple solutions program over one year that takes seriously
the need to provide a supportive, structured environment for the youth it seeks to assist. Job
Corps features classroom courses, which can lead to high school equivalency degrees, counseling
and hands-on job training for very high-risk youths. Hence, as in individual community-based
nonprofit programs, like Argus, Job Corps carefully links education, training, placement and
support services.



22-



469



Corps programs are located in rural and urban settings. Some of the urban settings are
campus-like. Others essentially are "on the street." In the original design, a residential setting
provided sanctuary away fh)m one's home. Today, nonresidential variations are being tried, and
it will be important to compare their cost-effectiveness to the live-in design. Yet, even for the
non-residential programs, the notion of an extended-family environment has been maintained.

In 1991 Job Corps trained roughly seventy thousand young people aged sixteen to twenty-
two, most of them at serious risk of drug abuse, delinquency, and welfare dependency. The
average family income of Job Corps participants was less than $6,000; two out of five came
from families on public assistance; more than four out of five were high-school dropouts.

As with Head Start, the Job Corps surely is not perfect. For example, there have been
examples of violence and drug abuse. But the Job Corps population is very high risk. And its
results have been consistently positive and its performance highly cost-effective. A 1991
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office calculated that for each $10,000 invested in the
average participant in the mid-1980s, society received roughly $15,000 in returns ~ including
about $8,000 in "increased output of participants" and $6,000 in "reductions in the cost of
crime-related activities."

Evaluations conducted during the Reagan Administration found that seventy-five percent
of Job Corps enrollees move on to a job or to full-time study. Graduates retain jobs longer and
earn about fifteen percent more than if they had not participated in the program. Along the
same lines, a U.S. General Accounting Office study concluded that Job Corps members are far



23-



470



more likdy to receive a high school diploma or equivalency degree than comparison group
members and that the positive impact on their earnings continues after training. According to
one evaluator, "Naysayers who deny that labor market problems are real and serious, that social
interventions can make a difference, or that the effectiveness of public programs can be
improved will find little to support their preconceptions in the experience of programs like Job
Corps."

Yet, incomprehensibly, the Reagan Administration tried to eliminate Job Corps year after
year. To its credit. Congress resisted. To be sure, the program is not cheap. Today, a year
in the Job Corps costs over $20,000. But no one seriously challenges that the cost remains
lower than the $30,000 average for a year in a juvenile prison ~ or that the money provides a
much more impressive return than the similar $19,000 average cost for long-term residential
drug treatment, which rarely provides anything resembling serious preparation for the world of
work.

In addition, fourteen states and twelve cities now operate year-round Youth Corps
programs that incorporate various elements of the Job Corps experience. Other states and
communities operate summer programs. An evaluation of the California Conservation Corps
found that the work of Corps members generates a positive economic return. (The fad of "boot
camps" as diversion programs for delinquent youths in recent years incorporates some elements
of Job Corps discipline but little in the way of effective remedial education, training and
placement.)



24



471

9. The Violent Juvenile OfTender Program

The Violent Juvenile Offender Program was implemented from 1981 to 1986 through
neighborhood-based organizations in the Bronx, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans and
San Diego. Each local version of the program involved an ongoing needs assessment through
which neighborhood resident councils planned and revised their efforts. Each local program was
required to include violent-crisis intervention, mediation, family support networking and youth
skills development. After thirty-six months of planning and implementation, serious juvenile
crime decreased in three of the six targeted neighborhoods, compared to crime rates in their
respective cities as a whole. Most of the programs developed means of financial support to
carry on all or part of the effort after federal funding ended.

10. The Fairview Homes Crime Prevention Program

The Fairview Homes Crime Prevention Program, which was begun in Charlotte, North
Carolina public housing in 1979. The Charlotte Public Housing Authority received $450,000
from four federal departments ~ HUD, HHS, Labor and Justice ~ as part of multiple solution
interagency agreements.

The monies were used mostly to hire staff to run programs within Fairview Homes over
two initial demonstration years. Persons employed included professionals, adult public housing
residents who were "natural leaders," and high-risk youth who lived in the project. With the

-25-



472



assistance of the Fairview tenant organization, a staff of sixteen adult residents and former
residents was hired. Jobs also were supplied for forty-eight high-risk youth, aged sixteen to
nineteen.

The program provided residents job training and work opportunity in money
management, employment, health and anti-drug services. Residents also were trained in
ombudsman and advocacy skills—so that they might leverage resources to continue the program
after the initial funding ended. Employment was chosen to nurture personal growth, skill
development and control over one's environment and life.

An evaluation between 1979-1981 showed that crime rates in Fairview Homes as
measured by police declined during the program; crime in the remainder of the census tract and
within the city of Charlotte rose. The most dramatic decreases in Fairview Homes, as measured
by police, were in serious assault, robbery and burglary rates. Fairview crime rates based on
interviews with residents also decreased. For the high-risk youth employed, between their
employment in the early 1980s and the late 1980s, only three of the forty-eight had been arrested
for serious crime (drug dealing and assault), based on housing authority and police records.



Parallel to Centro and Argus, the Fairview program was founded on the assumption that
participants - here public housing residents ~ were competent to deal with their own problems.
The Fairview evaluation observed, "In those areas in which the commitment to involving



26-



473



residents as working partners in progiam development and implementation was achieved, the
greatest amount of success was experienced. Where residents were involved as partners with
professional staff and management [of the public housing authority], the program reached and
exceeded the goals. When the residents played only menial or limited roles, only a partial
achievement of goals could be found."

The evaluation concluded, "Rather than talking to and planning ^r the residents of low
income communities, programs seeking to serve these communities should begin to talk and plan
with the residents for the services that will be offered."

After the 1979 to 1981 period, Fairview Homes fought severe fiscal constraints. For
example, federal cutbacks during the 1980s "snipped the drug and alcohol program just as it
started to gain some headway...." Yet, through funding from private foundations, local
government and other sources, the program has continued in various forms and has been
extended to other housing properties within the Charlotte Housing Authority.

11. Problem-Oriented. rnmmimitv-Based Policing

In problem-oriented policing, the idea is not to react to crime after it occurs, which is
what most American police do, but to prevent crime before it occurs by dealing with some of
the problems which cause crime. For example, in a comparison group demonstration program
by the Police Executive Research Forum in Newport News, Virginia, the burglary rate in high

-27-



474



crime public housing was reduced by thirty five percent over two years. This was done not
through making more arrests after crime had occurred, but, for example, through improving
maintenance of the public housing properties, among other preventive rather than reactive
strategies.



-28



475



PEHHY PRE3C:iODL PRIIS2AM IN TPSIUWTI, mZ'dl^H



"C::-roci 3a0up




SoBCK ltr:iS3. au.



476




s o c

a ^ 5

I « II

5 S = ~

■£ r^ C —

9 15



z -= *= •=•



— CTv Z -

r 23 ^

sll




o

U



C_)



QJ
■D
T3



C

o

m
o

CD



c



o



o



O s



477

Mr. McCoLLUM. Judge Gebelein.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD GEBELEIN, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFES-
SIONALS

Judge Gebelein. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to have
the opportunity to appear before this committee as a representative
of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. I will
speak briefly about substance abuse treatment's role in crime pre-
vention, and in particular about drug courts and their role in the
war against crime.

I would also ask that a resolution that we passed at the first an-
nual meeting of Drug Court Professionals be made a part of the
record and we will submit that.

[Information not received by time of printing.!

Judge Gebelein. Addressing this topic, however, I might say
that much of what I heard in the opening remarks of the commit-
tee yesterday was encouraging to a former prosecutor. Like many
of the drug court judges, I began my professional career as a line
prosecutor in our State in the office of attorney general. Later, I
was privileged to serve as our elected attorney general and in that
role was responsible for all criminal prosecutions in Delaware.

In both roles, I felt many of the same frustrations I heard ex-
pressed yesterday. Primarily, I was frustrated by the constant recy-
cling of criminal defendants. As attorney general, I was able to act
to address some of those frustrations by drafting our first manda-
tory sentence statute for drug traffickers, and later by drafting leg-
islation that allocated all seized and forfeited property to a special
law enforcement assistance fund.

As a judge and as chair of our sentencing commission, I drafted
our truth-in-sentencing-law, which after its enactment in 1989 has
resulted in violent offenders serving much longer prison sentences.
This past year, with the cooperation of our attorney general, law
enforcement officers and corrections officials, I began Delaware's
Drug Court. And that was no mean feat.

Our attorney general last year was a Democrat and he and I had
a number of political fights during the course of our careers but we
were able to put those aside to do something that we felt was effec-
tive in fighting crime.

Our court began^as most drug courts do. It arose from the frus-
tration over the lack of effective sanctions for repeat petty offend-
ers who are addicts. We all know that seriously addicted individ-
uals will commit countless thefts, forgeries, shopliftings, et cetera.
Some will graduate to burglaries and even more serious crimes to
support their addiction.

These offenders take up a large percentage of police time, court
time and jail time while awaiting trial. Few of these offenders early
in their careers make it to prison as sentenced inmates, as those
expensive and scarce resources are needed for violent offenders and
serious felons.

A drug court does not act as an alternative to prison for violent
offenders. Rather, it is an intensive, intrusive, early intervention
with offenders who are at the beginning of their criminal careers.
It is swift in that it begins treatment and supervision shortly after



35-667 96-16



478

arrest and not many months later, as is the case in most criminal
courts.

It is intensive in that it provides far more control and super-
vision than these offenders would receive if placed on probation.
And all of you know that these youthful nonviolent offenders with
little or no record do receive probation. That is not to say that
without this intervention they would not continue their careers to
the point where they would spend considerable time in prison.

Drug court is intrusive. It requires treatment. It requires urine
tests. It requires the offender to meet with a judge on a regular
basis. Each week a participant must attend three group treatment
meetings, an individual counseling session, five to seven NA or AA
meetings, meeting once at least with the probation office and meet-
ing with the judge. In addition, they are made to work a job. Some-
one who keeps that schedule does not have time to commit crime.

The goal of these courts is to prevent criminal activity by ad-
dressing the root cause, substance abuse. Studies have consistently
shown that offenders who are addicted commit hundreds of crimi-
nal acts each year to support that addiction. Studies also show that
compelled treatment reduces that criminal behavior by 70 to 80
percent.

Our initial results in our court indicate that our defendants stay
in treatment longer, are discharged from treatment less frequently
and walk away from treatment less frequently than other partici-
pants in those treatment programs. Drug courts are able to achieve
these results by use of increasing sanctions.

The judge can increase the level of treatment and supervision as
needed to address relapse. The judge can use shock incarceration
when an individual begins to go out of control and before they com-
mit new crimes. Drug courts enhance both punishment and treat-
ment, while saving money and resources.

Less pretrial jail time is involved, police are freed up from nu-
merous court appearances, and prosecutors spend less time prepar-
ing cases and having trials in these petty cases. Drug courts that
work frequently save lives and save other resources as well.

Addressing the substance abuse problem of these offenders re-
duces their medical problems. In our first year, we have seen two
drug-free babies born where there was a certainty that but for our
intervention, we would have had crack-addicted babies with all the
medical costs attendant.

One of the requirements of most drug courts is that the offender
work. In working, the offender can then make restitution to his or
her victims. While in treatment, the offender is working and paying
back a victim instead of stealing and creating new victims.

The best that the criminal justice system can do for victims is
to prevent them from becoming victims in the first place. The per-
son whose bike was not stolen need not worry about restitution.
The shopkeeper whose goods remain on the shelf need not go to
court and waste his or her time.

I would implore you not to eliminate funding that would allow
States and localities to create drug courts and to experiment with
these treatment modalities. We wish to continue the movement
that began in 1988 with the first drug court in Chicago and has
continued throughout the ensuing years.



479

The 1994 crime bill provided an authorization of $1 billion in dis-
cretionary grants over a 5-year period to support the development
and evaluation of drug courts. The law allowed wide discretion and
flexibility in how those courts can be designed and implemented.

Virtually no two drug courts are identical. The bill did require
a few basic definitional terms. The court had to have direct super-
vision of the offenders. It had to have intensive supervision, it had
to have graduated sanctions and it could not be used for persons
charged with violent crime or those with a violent criminal history.

It required the drug court to be the product of a coordinated ef-
fort by the community, that is all the players had to be on board
before a drug court could receive funding. This money was and is
important to the spread or growth of the drug courts, primarily to
pay for treatment services.

To make these courts effective, most communities must increase
the availability of treatment resources. Many communities simply
do not have enough resources to place even a small percentage of
their offenders in reputable treatment, and without those re-
sources, drug courts will not act effectively and we will start to see
negative results and to negative publicity those results warrant.

In short, drug courts act through specific intervention to prevent
crime. They save money, they free up police to pursue more serious
offenders, they save jail resources for violent offenders and they
save lives. They fight crime smart and that is why in communities
where they have been created, they are supported by the prosecu-
tors and by the police.

As Chief Heineman well knows, these nonviolent petty offenders



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JTaking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 → online text (page 40 of 51)