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 49 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 49 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


classes is dramatically different, where you will have an entire
class of 6th graders enrolled in 4-year colleges, than their age peers
who did not have that incentive in jail, pregnant at 14 and the like.
Has there been any systematic analysis of that program?



573

Mr. Curtis. The I Have a Dream, program evaluation is ongoing
by public/private ventures in Philadelphia. Preliminary evidence is
just what you suggested.

In the neighborhoods where these kids came from, over 50 per-
cent of them dropped out of school and didn't get to college. In the
first class where I have a dream was tried, kids out of 30 dropped
out. There was a huge difference as a result of the program.

Mr. Click. I might add, I am not familiar with the Orange Coun-
ty study. But looking at Dallas County, one of the concerns is that
it takes about eight contacts with the system before we do any kind
of evaluation of a child. The system is overloaded, that we are
spending all our resources on the worst of the worst.

We have kids that are committing murder and rape and those
kinds of things, and those kids that have initial contacts where you
may have been able to do the most good and working with them
and their family, schools, we are doing nothing with. There is al-
most no consequence.

It builds a tremendous amount of arrogance on the part of the
child towards the system. It didn't sting; nothing happened. Those
early contacts are generally for very minor kinds of things, curfew,
shoplifting, truancy and no question that a key component of an
intervention program needs to involve that early intervention
where the child has demonstrated some type of problem, because
you could make some impact there, I believe.

Mr. SCHUMER. Would the gentlelady yield?

I want to make a related point. Not even I Have a Dream, but
there is a program in Roosevelt, Long Island, where these kids
coming from the poorest part of Nassau County get one hour of
guidance a day, adult figure to guide them and help them. They
have been doing it for about 10 years, it was set up by a private
foundation. The dropout rate went from something like 81 percent
to 12 percent.

Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentlelady's time had expired before Mr.
Schumer interrupted.

Mr. Schumer. That was a freebie.

That was a program that could be funded by our bill.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the chief for being here today. I think it
reminds us that good law enforcement includes prevention, and has
to, if we are to solve the problem. From listening to your testimony
today and knowing of your reputation in northwest Georgia, we are
honored to have you here today.

Judge Gebelein, I appreciate your being a late addition to the
panel. I think it is very important to recognize some of the pro-
grams you work with through the drug courts, and I hope that you
will have information that you can submit to us for the record, if
the chairman would allow, since you didn't have a chance, because
you are a late addition, to furnish that.

Mr. Dilulio, I appreciate your very thoughtful paper. I took the
liberty of reading through it while you were testifying and will read
it in more detail, but I found it a very balanced approach with good
information in it, especially the attachments and appendices. I look
forward to reading those as well.



35-667 96-19



574

Mr. Curtis, I might suggest if I could take a page from the
Speaker's book, so to speak, who has recommended reading lists to
us freshmen, that you might want to look at Professor Dilulio's
paper as well. Your paper, while there may be some good points in
it, but I think your political coloration on it reduces whatever credi-
bility they may have. I don't think all the problems of society can
be laid at the door of the fact that we tax citizens less than other
countries that you cite, or in whatever programs you might dis-
agree with in the 1980's; the problems of crime in America are far
deeper than that, and I would suggest that you might have more
credibility if you remove some of the political resentment from your
paper.

I might also suggest that you decried a lack of scientific evidence
on some of our law enforcement programs with regard to whether
they work or not. I will pose the following scientific evidence; that
if you have a wife beater who is in prison, if you have a child
abuser who is in prison, beyond any scientific doubt, that wife
abuser will not be abusing his spouse, that child abuser will not
be abusing a child while in jail, so I think building prisons is effec-
tive prevention.

Let me go back to what I told the chief. As a former law enforce-
ment official, I recognize that there are very important prevention
programs not in the traditional law enforcement sense. Aiid I think
that this bill and I think the legislative history, and certainly these
hearings will accompany it into the record, I think make very clear
that nobody on this panel and nobody in the Congress who will be
voting on this bill is saying that prevention doesn't work and we
should not pay attention to prevention. There are many programs.
And I have talked within the last few days with folks in my dis-
trict, and they have some very innovative programs, and they
weren't funded specifically through the 1994 bill. They are using
them. They are effective because they are based on the views of,
for example, a U.S. attorney, a local district attorney, a police chief.

They know they work and they are going to continue to imple-
ment those because they do work, regardless of whether there is
a line item in this bill or any other bill that specifically funds them.
And I think that it is in that marketplace of ideas in the local com-
munity where these decisions are best made, with regard to wheth-
er a particular program works, whether a particular type of court
system works or what not.

So I am personally very excited about this crime bill. I think it
puts the emphasis where it ought to be, and that is on local offi-
cials, such as yourself, and I appreciate the comments of the panel-
ists, and particularly the background and information the professor
provided to us.

I yield back.

Mr. Curtis. May I respond?

I want to make clear Mr. Barr that many of the prevention pro-
grams that we are advocating on the basis of scientific evidence are
partnerships between police and community groups. I cited four in
Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Juan which we have just
finished evaluating.

Law enforcement is central to what we are saying. We are just
saying, let's do what works and let's not do what doesn't work. I



575

will be pleased to supply documentation of all the other scientific
evidence I have cited. And I would say again, while we have in-
creased our prisons dramatically, violent crime has gone up. Amer-
ica has the highest rates of incarceration in the world and also the
highest rates of violent crime. If prisons were so effective, that
wouldn't be so.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to be here. As you know, I served on this commit-
tee for a number of years and was once its subcommittee chair. I
think that my colleague's comments from Greorgia, that he consid-
ers scientific, that while a person is incarcerated he can't commit
a crime or they can't be continued wife abusers or whatever, is ex-
actly the logic that is fueling the prison industrial complex that is
going on for many decades, but has now become explosive.

We have decided to add to the $10 billion already allocated for
building prisons, $2.5 billion more. Now, this theory, being sci-
entific or not, the way we are going to fight crime is lock up in
America everybody that commits crime and we will build prisons
until we reach some — I don't know what kind of point we will
reach — ^but I think that in itself raises a serious question about
which way we want to go. And I, for one, having come from a State
where we built prisons until we were so bankrupt we couldn't open
them, we had to leave the prison built standing there in Michigan
and in Detroit, because there wasn't any way — we ran out of
money. And now we are rushing in to build prisons. And I think
that this is what this issue is all about in terms of the last crime
bill versus this new proposal.

I shrink from the logic that is involved in building prisons to
take in ever-increasing numbers of people. We already know that
the rest of the criminal justice system is going to be knocking on
our door any moment now, if they aren't already, because you have
got to build up every other part of the system to even begin to en-
tertain such a theory. So as one who has seen that not work, I am
beginning to look at the new methods.

Chief Click, I just met Joseph Brennan of the COPS Program
and we had a discussion about community policing, and for it to be
dismissed in this hearing by one of the witnesses, by it either
doesn't work or won't work, we have never gotten to community po-
licing in the United States. That is a new concept — if it is not a
new concept, it is a concept that has been resisted by police be-
cause of the culture of police.

They don't want to share power with the community, if that is
implied when you put community in front of policing. We were
talking about the exciting possibilities of police really working and
even living in the communities that they serve and what exciting
changes that has for altering the very bureaucratic structure be-
tween police and the communities and the cities that they are in.

And I would like to ask you to comment on it and I would appre-
ciate Dr. Curtis' remarks on this.

Mr. Click. Mr. Conyers, I would probably agree that there is no
major police department in this country that has achieved I think
what we have defined as community policing, although I think



576

every major police department has an initiative in place now to try
to achieve that.

In Dallas, I would disagree that we find a lot of resistance today.
The officers are frustrated. They recognize there has to be more to
the job than just chasing calls and chasing criminals and those
kinds of things, and yet, those things are so pressing. The problem
is just that demand for service will tie our officers up literally the
entire shift, doing nothing but answering calls with no opportunity
to stop by and visit at whatever kind of community event or com-
munity organization, or visit with the youth on the corner, that
they are going from the beginning of the shift to the end.

We are doing some things to try to deal with that, but I find a
lot of acceptance. We have a skeleton of a program in place now
and I like the initial results.

I think that by and large throughout the department, it is pretty
well accepted, and I think it is just a matter of how we get through
the immediate demand for service to have time to do a lot of the
things community policing is about.

Mr. Curtis. I agree with Chief Click. We have scientific evidence
that community policing does work. The need is to replicat it to
scale.

In San Juan, we established a residential police ministation in
the middle of a very tough drug-dealing neighborhood. An officer
lives with his family on the top floor, a police ministation is below,
and below that is an IBM remedial education center. So the police
ministation protects the IBM equipment.

In this neighborhood with a residential police ministation, with
the officer coming from the neighborhood, we reduced crime by 30
percent in the first year, and that was statistically significant com-
pared to other places. In Philadelphia, we took an old drug house,
Chief Willie Williams, and converted it into a police ministation.
The neighborhood is Vietnamese, Cambodian, African-American,
and Latino. In the first 2 years, we reduced crime by over 20 per-
cent, using this partnership between community policing and
neighborhood residents. Such problem oriented, community-based
policing does work, but we need the funds to expand it to a scale
that is equal to the dimensions of the problem.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you for your responses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Professor, did you want to say something?

Mr. DiIULio. I don't know if I was the one you referred to as
being against community policing. I certainly am not. I have writ-
ten in favor of it for a number of years.

What I said was essentially what the chief said, which is I think
it is a great idea that ought to be tried some time. It has not been
implemented fully anywhere in the country.

Furthermore, one thing you will get consensus on among those
who are the Nation's leading students of community policing, Prof.
Mark Moore of Harvard University, Prof. David Bailey, State Uni-
versity of New York at Albany, Prof. James Q. Wilson of UCLA, is
that the scientific evidence demonstrating relationship between
community policing efforts and crime rates is ambiguous or non-
existent.



577

Those who are closest to that evidence, who have looked at all
the evidence, support community policing even though the find-
ings — as a matter of common sense and based on our experience
thus far — no one believes that the literature tells us: Here is the
way in which we ought to proceed and do policing and it will re-
duce crime. Nonetheless, that doesn't argue against community po-
licing.

Mr. CONYERS. I am glad to find out you support community polic-
ing.

Mr. McCoLLUM. We are not going into a full second round today.
But there may be one or two people who want a quick question.
I know Ms. Jackson Lee does.

Do any of you want anything else on this?

Ms. Jackson Lee, no seniority here, just a quick question.

Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it. This is a quick one.

Let me mention again, I guess I mentioned Texas before — ^we
have in the audience the president of the National Association of
Blacks in Criminal Justice from Texas Clete Branch.

Mr. Dilulio, you mentioned that most African-Americans find
themselves working hard in communities to stem the tide of crime,
along with Hispanics and Asians and Anglos and masses of Ameri-
cans across the country. Let me raise with you why not do crime
this way, as we have done some other points of concern in our his-
tory? When we tried to improve child care and child health care,
we did a real push on prenatal care and immunization and have
seen the ultimate results.

Nancy Reagan, a strong spokesperson for "Just Say No to
Drugs," and although we have had criticism, we have seen the im-
pact. Prevention. I would say that even though mother nature
sometimes takes it course, I grew up listening to Smokey the Bear,
"We Can Stop Forest Fires," and you knew for sure you weren't
going around with a lighted match around trees. Where is the dif-
ference with crime prevention, preventing crime by working in pre-
vention, President Curtis, if you could say briefly a word.

Mr. DlIULio. I don't think there is any difference at all. The title
of my statement is "Crime in America Three Ways To Prevent It."
The first way that I talk about would encompass that. I mentioned
explicitly, there has been heated debate over race and IQ triggered
by a book by Charles Murray and the late Richard Hernstein.

What has been buried in that debate is good research evidence
which shows that other things being equal, black kids who receive
adequate prenatal and postnatal care do as well or better than
white kids over time on a whole range of indicators. There is no
question that all of the scientific evidence that I know of, there is
not a single study which suggests that that cannot be construed
meaningifully as a part of crime prevention.

What I am saying, however, and perhaps this is the point on
which some of the (fisagreement and some of the different empha-
ses on what counts, as what kind of evidence under what condi-
tions turns — we have had in 1969, Milton Eisenhower, chaired a
Commission on Violent Crime commissioned by President Johnson.

President Nixon was in office when the report was issued. Then,
as now, we heard there was a lot of scientific evidence telling what
kind of prevention programs work best under certain conditions.



578

Then, as now we heard, we need only to support these programs.
Then, as now we heard, if we only do some things, try to do things
differently, do things better we will succeed.

We now have 25-plus years of experience. Does the evidence tell
us that none of these things were good? No; many worked. Some
things worked well under some conditions.

The point is not that these programs are wrong or bad or don't
under some conditions have good effects. It is that people are de-
ceiving themselves if they believe that hundreds of ounces of these
kind of piecemeal crime prevention programs is going to add up to
one pound of real cure when it comes to preventing or changing the
trajectory of black-on-black crime rates in the inner cities.

We have been there and done that. And if there is evidence to
show that Head Start cuts crime, go back and look at your reau-
thorization hearings on Head Start. See what the evidence says
there. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence. Everybody wishes
there were. There isn't.

Mr. Curtis. The evidence for Head Start is in my testimony. You
can see the charts. All leading experts agree on that.

In 1969, Milton Eisenhower, who was a great moderate Repub-
lican, concluded that there were many programs that already
worked but that we needed to expand their numbers. We needed
to replicate existing successes. We knew much about what worked
in 1969.

What happened was not scientific, it was political. And that is
why I talked politically in my testimony, Mr. Ban*. What happened
was that the (Government didn't fund what worked at a scale equal
to the dimensions of the problem. Much of what works is run by
inner-city, minority-led, nonprofit, private sector organizations, in-
cluding the ones in Philadelphia and San Juan, that I mentioned
in the community policing program, which, by the way, I want to
tell our other testifier, was begun in part by Professor Bailey, who
therefore guided this. And I don't think you can use him as an ex-
ample of this not working, because he was one of the authors of
the program.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of time, I just wanted to make a short statement.
As you said, and as I have said, what we are trying to do is to re-
duce as much crime as we can with the limited resources we have.

We have heard testimony of programs yesterday. Crime Watch,
and the estimated cost was almost de minimis, drug courts have
been mentioned today, a significant reduction in crime. I will be en-
tering into the record, without objection, Mr. Chairman, a report
from the Virginia House of Delegates on the Virginia program to
abolish parole from which you can show the cost per crime reduced
is $58,000 per crime, violent and nonviolent.

If you just did serious violent offenses, it gets up $2 million. The
cost of the program is $500 million, which on a national perspec-
tive, so people can figure out what you are talking about, is $50
million per congressional district, per year, after you have built the
prisons.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about, the major part of the bill
is shifting over $2 billion from prevention programs that we know



579

that work, into prisons. And I wonder what kind of difference that
is going to m2ike.

We heard testimony yesterday that Philadelphia alone needs al-
most $2 billion just to deal with the incarceration needs that they
have got today. A billion dollars for drug courts will go a long way.

As Chief Click said, if we let the next generation grow up with-
out hope, without a job, without an education, we can't reasonably
expect our prisons to do much good in terms of reducing crime.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. LOFGREN. I was interested in the comment that we haven't
seen results in every case from prevention. Our county in San Jose
has been starting for the last several years to do what we hope will
be a comprehensive approach. We have decided with, I think, pret-
ty good evidence, that piecemeal good ideas don't really do that
much even though they are well intended.

We are doing school services where we have counseling, health
care, family-based services and we are just scraping together
money to do it and volunteers and the like. I am unaware, and I
would like to invite any of the panelists to deliver to me later, of
anyplace in the country that has had a comprehensive prevention
program in place. We couldn't find any when we looked for guid-
ance from other communities. I don't know that that has ever been
tried or funded. If it has not been, then we don't see the result.

I am also cognizant, I think the world, obviously, has changed a
great deal since 1969. I was younger and thinner then, mothers
were at home, and today in San Jose, 70 percent of the mothers
with school-age children work full-time outside the home. They
would be homeless families if mothers were not employed, because
of the cost of living. Children have no supervision after school, they
get in trouble, there is nothing for them to do.

I think it has always been true that kids without something pro-
ductive to do tend to get in trouble. That is part of the problem,
along with lack of stability in many homes, drug abuse and the
like.

So I think we need to provide some structure for the Nation's
children with our resources and in partnership with communities,
both local government and nonprofits, to get control of the situa-
tion, not instead of enforcement. We need to have law enforcement.

If we have people harming people, they need to be arrested, they
need to be prosecuted and" incarcerated. I don't think anybody dis-
putes that. But if that is all we do, if we don't address the next
wave that is coming at us and try to keep that from happening,
there is no hope of getting ahead of this.

I would like to invite any of the panelists to give me a full report
on broad-based comprehensive prevention programs.

Mr. Curtis. They do exist, and I will be happy to supply the in-
formation.

Mr. McCoLLUM. I would not ask each one of you to respond ver-
bally, but if you have something to produce, we would like to have
that.

This concludes the hearings on H.R. 3. Next week, we will be de-
liberating and having some informal discussions, and it is antici-
pated that the following week, the full Judiciary Committee will
mark this bill up.



580

Thank you for being here.

We greatly appreciate you being here.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]



APPENDIX




Material Submitted for the Hearing

The Brookings Institution

1775 Uassachusetts avenue, N.W. Washinctoh. D.C. 20036-2I8S
TEUTHONE: 202r797-6OO0 FAX: 2021797-6144

Governmental Sludies Program

January 20, 1995

CongreBsman Bill McCollum

2266 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman McCullom:

I was pleased to testiiy on Friday, January 20, 1995 on crime prevention. For
the record, I want to address three matters that were either confused or left hanging
during the questioning.

First, Congressman Scott quoted a line of my latest article in The Brookings
Review. "Does Prison Pay? Revisited," Winter 1995, pages 21-25. He asked me whether
I agreed with the line. Naturally, I stated that I did. But the quote and my response
must be put in context. The analysis suggests that blanket no-parole policies that
would imprison even first-time, non-violent, low-level drug offenders for 100% of their
sentences are not sensible. But that has absolutely nothing to do with truth-in-
sentencing laws. As the bulk of the article shows, 94% of state prisoners have been
convicted of one or more violent crimes or had a previous sentence to probation or
incarceration. The social benefits of imprisoning these violent and repeat offenders for
all or most of their terms far outweighs the social costs. Also, it should be noted that
every other major study of the subject (e.g., work by Harvard Professor Mark Kleiman
and David Cavanau^) finds even stronger evidence that prison pays for most
prisoners.

Second, there was a great deal of confusion about the state of the scientific
evidence concerning prevention programs. I want to reiterate that none of the
literature on the subject enables us to specify precisely the conditions under which,
ceteris paribus, given types of interventions prevent crime, can be repUcated widely,



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 49 of 51)