[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GANG CRIME PREVENTION AND THE NEED TO FOSTER INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 2, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-121
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-112 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 2, 2007
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
The Honorable Joe Baca, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
The Honorable Nicholas V. Lampson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
The Honorable Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
The Honorable David G. Reichert, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Mr. Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow, Center for
Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
The Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones, Judge, Norfolk Juvenile and
Domestic Relations District Court, Norfolk, VA
Oral Testimony................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
The Honorable Richard Roper, United States Attorney, Northern
District of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 47
Prepared Statement............................................. 50
Mr. Paul L. Seave, Director, Gang and Youth Violence Policy
Office of the Governor, Sacramento, CA
Oral Testimony................................................. 73
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
Mr. Kevin Pranis, Researcher, Justice Policy Institute,
Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 75
Prepared Statement............................................. 78
Mr. Peter Scharf, Executive Director, Center for Society, Law and
Justice, Austin, TX
Oral Testimony................................................. 82
Prepared Statement............................................. 85
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 127
GANG CRIME PREVENTION AND THE NEED TO FOSTER INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Waters, Delahunt, Johnson,
Jackson Lee, Sutton, Forbes, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Chabot, and
Lungren.
Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel;
Gregory Barnes, Majority Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional
Staff Member; Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel; Caroline Lynch,
Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff
Assistant.
Mr. Scott. The hearing will come to order.
Good afternoon. I am pleased to open the hearing today on
what is effective in preventing gang crime and what is not. In
working on crime issues over the years, I have learned that
when it comes to crime policy, you have a choice. You can
reduce crime, or you can play politics.
The politics of crime calls for so-called tough on crime
approaches such as more death penalties, more life without
parole, a mandatory minimum, treating more juveniles as adults,
or gang members, even cutting out cable television in the
prisons. However, we can now show of our research and evidence
that, while these approaches sound good, they have done nothing
to prevent crime.
Under the get tough approach no matter how tough you got
last year, you have to get tougher this year. And we have been
getting tougher and tougher year after year for over 25 years
now. Since 1980 we have gone from around 200,000 persons
incarcerated in the United States to over 2 million, with
annual prison costs increasing year after year.
As a result of these approaches, the United States is the
world's leading incarcerator by far, with the average
incarceration rates at seven times the international average.
The world incarceration average is about 100 to 150 persons per
100,000 citizens. The average rate of incarceration in the
United States is over 700 per 100,000. In some inner city
communities the rate isn't 700 or 1,000. It is 2,000, 3,000, as
high as 4,000 per 100,000.
The next highest incarceration rate in the world is 560 per
100,000 in Russia. Everybody else is much lower than that such
as India, the world's leading democracy, the largest democracy
with 36 per 100,000 and China, the largest country by
population at a rate of 118 per 100,00.
And the United States has some of the world's most severe
punishments for crime, including juveniles. Of more than 2,200
juveniles sentenced to life without parole, all but 12 are in
the United States. And some of those given this sentence were
first-time offenders under circumstances such as being a
passenger in a car from which there was a drive-by shooting.
Under proposals before us to expand the definition of a
gang and treatment of conspiracies and attempts the same as the
commission, we will find that we have a lot more of fringe-
involved young people serving life without parole sentences. So
no one can say that we are not already tough on crime.
All States have provisions which allow, if not require,
juveniles, some as young as 12, to be treated as adults for
trial and sentencing as well as incarceration. Most juveniles
who are treated as adults are convicted of nonviolent offenses.
So we are already very tough on crime, including crimes by
juveniles. Yet crime persists and has been growing.
Research and analysis, as well as common sense, tells us
that no matter how tough you are on people you prosecute for
crime today, unless you are addressing the reasons that got
them to the point to commit crimes in the first place, the next
wave developing in the system will simply replace the ones you
take out and the crime continues. So just getting tough on
sentencing has a limited impact on crime.
And the impact for all of this focus on tough on crime
approaches fall grossly disproportionately on minorities,
particularly Black and Hispanic children. Many studies have
been established that when compared to similarly situated White
children, minorities are treated more harshly at every stage of
the juvenile and criminal justice system.
I am concerned that policies such as expanding the
definition of gang and expanding gang databases would only
exacerbate that problem without any impact on reducing crime.
These are kids who are on a cradle to prison pipeline without
appropriate intervention.
When we see how simple it is to get them on a cradle to
college pipeline, it is tragic and even more costly to society
in the long run if we don't do so. So all of the credible
evidence and research shows that a continuum of programs for
youth identified as at risk to involvement of delinquent
behavior, and intervention for those already involved, will
save much more than they cost when compared to the avoided
costs in law enforcement and other costs by reducing crime.
These programs are most effective when they are provided in
the context of coordinated, collaborative strategy involving
the law enforcement community, education, social services,
mental health, nonprofit, faith-based, and business sectors
working with identified children at risk of involvement in the
criminal justice system.
I am developing a bill to incorporate these proven concepts
and will be calling our bill the ``Youth Prison Reduction
Through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and
Education,'' or ``Youth Promise Act.'' The bill is being
developed in consultation with researchers, law enforcement,
juvenile justice practitioners, and child development experts
focusing on research and evidence-based preventive and
intervention approaches which have been proven to reduce crime.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues in adopting
these proven concepts.
I will now yield to my colleague from Virginia, the
distinguished gentleman from the 4th congressional district,
Randy Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And I would certainly like to thank all of our very
distinguished witnesses who will be here today. I guess I could
sum it up with one phrase. Here we go again.
You know, when we deal with gang problems and gang crimes,
it is exactly like the end of the Casablanca movie where they
look around and say, ``Round up the usual suspects.'' Every
time we have a problem with gangs--well, I can't say that.
The first time we had a problem with gangs, and I brought a
gang bill before the Committee, those that are now in the
majority asked this question. They said, ``Do we have a gang
problem? We don't really have a gang problem.''
I don't think anybody questions today whether or not we
have a gang problem. I think at least that part of it is clear.
But beyond that, we continue to do the same thing.
We bring in the same basic arguments. We hear. We chat. We
talk. And yet we don't create the solutions that we need to to
go out and deal with the problem.
My good friend, the distinguished colleague, says that we
can either reduce crime, or we can play politics. Playing
politics is what we do. We talk, and we talk. And we don't put
any solutions in.
The Chairman mentioned the fact that we want to have
evidenced-based programs. The reality is that over and over
again, based on witnesses that the majority has brought in to
testify on these very issues, despite all the money we are
spending on prevention programs, their witnesses have said very
clearly.
And, look, I understand. Everybody that has a program--it's
like after 9/11. Everybody that wanted to renovate an old
building anywhere in the country was coming into my office and
saying, ``This is all about national security and homeland
security.'' And you know, I see people day after day who come
before us, and they have programs and many of them are
meritorious.
But they are getting funding and money. And it is important
for them to keep that money stream going.
But based on the majority's witnesses and the testimony we
have had in here, less than 20 percent of the over 600 programs
that we are funding for gang prevention and prevention of
teenage crime have ever even been evaluated as to whether or
not there was any evidence that they actually helped reduce
crime. And, in fact, based on their witnesses, the testimony
was that of the ones that were evaluated, some of them where we
are spending money were actually harmful.
We have heard so much of the issues that surround gang
violence and gang crimes and the increase in gangs in the
country. And we recognize that we do have this tick up in
violent crime. And a lot of it is related to gangs. But there
are really two big approaches that we have.
One of them is this. If I have a school and outside there
are five individuals who are vandalizing cars and slashing
tires, one approach says we are going to go arrest the people
that are slashing the tires and vandalizing the cars and stop
them from doing it. The other approach is let us go to the
1,000 that are in the school and have a chat with them and tell
them why they shouldn't be out there slashing tires and
vandalizing the cars.
And we support prevention programs. We have said that over
and over again. But one of the things that we have also said is
we are not going to stop the gang violence in this country
until we create the partnerships between the Federal, State and
local levels that are needed to go after these large gang
networks that we are seeing across the country. We have got to
do that.
Number two, we have got to stop just waiting until we have
crimes that are committed, because if we prosecute them, we are
going to see 20 new people out on the street the next day for
every one we prosecute. We have got to pull these networks down
and stop the recruiting machines.
And then we have also got to recognize that based on the
testimony that we have had ad nauseum in this Committee--we
have had testimony that a large portion of some of the most
violent gangs in America were a result sometime between 65 and
80 percent of people who were here illegally, which means that
most of the programs that we have that we are trying to get to
prevent them would never have stopped them in the first place.
And we have got to stop that door from continuing to remain
open.
So we thank you for your work. Thank you for being here. We
are looking forward to your testimony. But I know that hope
springs eternal. And I am still hoping that one day we will be
able to actually get the solutions that we need, and get that
bill passed out of the House and the Senate, so that we can
stop this rising gang problem that we have across the country.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
I want to recognize the presence of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, and the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Coble, and ask that additional opening statements
be made part of the record, without objection. We have two very
distinguished panels of witnesses today to help our
deliberations about Federal solutions to gang crime prevention.
Our first panel will be a panel of Members. Our first
witness will be the Honorable Adam B. Schiff. He represents
California's 29th Congressional District, serves on the
Judiciary Committee and Appropriations Committee during his
tenure in Congress, is focused on bolstering national security,
strengthening our communities, and introducing a kids-first
agenda of initiatives to improve education, safety and health
care for children.
In fact, among many awards that he has received from local
organizations for his commitment to our community is the
President's Award from the Child Education Center Preschool in
LaCanada for his work on his kids first agenda. He also has
been presented with Day One's Community Champion Award for his
effort to protect youth through support of after school
programs, drug prevention programs and children's health care
initiatives.
Prior to serving in Congress, he was a State senator in
California. And before serving in the California legislature,
he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for 6 years.
He is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School.
Our next witness will be Elijah Cummings, from Maryland's
7th District. He serves as a senior Member of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and is Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
He continues the work he began as Ranking Member of the now
defunct Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources.
In that capacity he oversaw the reauthorization of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as the
drug czar's office. And he was an outspoken voice of fair
treatment-based solutions to the country's drug problems, as
well as for increased and comprehensive oversight of our
Nation's clinical laboratory inspection process.
Prior to Congress, he served in the Maryland House of
Delegates for 16 years, graduated from Howard University in
Washington, D.C., and the University of Maryland Law School. He
practiced law for 19 years before entering Congress.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Joe Baca, from
California's 43rd District. He serves on the House Agriculture
Committee and Chairs the Subcommittee on Departmental
Operations Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry. He worked for 15
years in community relations with General Telephone and
Electric.
In 1979 he was elected to the board of trustees for the San
Bernardino Valley College District. He was elected to the State
assembly in 1992 and State senate in California in 1998. He
earned a bachelor's degree in sociology from California State
University at Los Angeles.
And our next witness will be Nick Lampson, from the 22nd
District of Texas. He is a Member of the Committee on Science
and Technology and Chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment. In addition to his Committee assignments, he has
worked hard on behalf of children and education generally.
He is a former high school science teacher. And his wife,
Susan, is a special education teacher. He has two degrees from
Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, a bachelor's degree in
biology and a master's degree in education.
Our next witness will be Jerry McNerney, from California's
11th District. He is a first term in the United States House of
Representatives, and serves on the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee and is a Member of both the Highways
and Transit and Water Resources and Environmental
Subcommittees. He also serves on the House Committee on
Veterans Affairs and House Committee on Science and Technology.
Prior to Congress, he served as a CEO of a startup company
that manufactures wind turbines. During his career in wind
energy, his work contributed to saving the equivalent of
approximately 30 million barrels of oil. Given this unique
background and dedication, he is appointed to the Select
Committee on Energy and Dependence and Global Warming. He has
three degrees from the University of New Mexico, a bachelor's,
master's and Ph.D. in mathematics.
Our next witness will be Charles Dent, from Pennsylvania's
15th District. He serves on the Subcommittee, and he is joining
us just in time, serves on the Committee of Homeland Security
and the Committee on Security and Transportation
Infrastructure.
During his congressional tenure he has also worked for
urban redevelopment and crime prevention. He has a bachelor's
degree in foreign science and international politics from
Pennsylvania State University and a master's degree in public
administration from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
And our final witness will be David Reichert, from
Washington's 8th District. He is serving his second term as a
representative from the 8th district. He serves on three
Committees, Homeland Security, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Science and Technology. He also serves on
the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and
Technology.
Prior to Congress, he served in the King County,
Washington, Sheriff's office, and in 1997 became the first
elected sheriff in over 30 years. Under his leadership the
county saw a significant drop in violent crime. He brought
national recognition to the sheriff's office as head of the
Green River task force solving the largest serial murder case
in United States history. He is a graduate from Concordia
Lutheran College in Portland.
And I would want to mention to each of our witnesses that
your written statements will be entered in the record in their
entirety. I would ask each of you to summarize your testimony
in 5 minutes. You are familiar with the lighting devices. And
so, we will begin with Representative Schiff.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having
this hearing and for inviting us to testify. Those are probably
the nicest introductions we have ever received by any Chairman.
And we are very appreciative.
I also want to thank you for allowing me to suggest a
witness for the second panel, Paul Seave, who I had the
opportunity to serve with in the U.S. attorney's office in Los
Angeles, who then went on to become a U.S. attorney in
Sacramento, who worked with our attorney general on gang
prevention and now heads up Governor Schwarzenegger's office of
gang and youth violence policy.
As the Chairman knows, I have long been interested in the
gang problem, going back to my days as a prosecutor. And I
welcome this opportunity to testify about H.R. 3547, the Gang
Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Act, that includes
strong prevention as well as intervention components.
Los Angeles, unfortunately, probably has the distinction of
being the gang capital of the country, maybe the gang capital
of the world. Our problem is not only extensive in terms of
numbers, but it is multi-generational. We have seen not only
the problem, I think, in Los Angeles, but we have also seen
part of the solution, the positive role that gang intervention
workers, such as Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles, play in
helping gang involved youth find an alternative to a life of
crime.
When I was in the State senate, I authored a bill that was
unique at the time that required that we invest as much in
prevention as we are investing in suppression. As the time we
were investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the COPS
program, which I think was money very well spent. But we
matched that through a bill I authored with Tony Cardenas with
an equal amount of money for prevention.
And Rand has subsequently done an analysis of this approach
and found that this combination of prevention and enforcement
has been very effective in attacking the problem of gang
violence. And I think a model similar to that on the Federal
level could be equally successful.
For that reason, in 2005, I introduced a bipartisan gang
bill along with Representative Mary Bono. And our Senate
counterpart was introduced by Senators Feinstein and Hatch. Our
bill was a comprehensive effort to strengthen gang enforcement
and prevention efforts. It included numerous tools to help law
enforcement and prosecutors combat gang violence. And it
provided resources to bolster the fight against gangs through
law enforcement as well as intervention and prevention programs
for youth.
However, the prevention components of my bill were stripped
out last session. A number of death penalties and mandatory
minimums were added, and the bill was reintroduced and marked
up but with the elimination of all the prevention components of
the bill. I was compelled to vote against the legislation.
This year Representative Bono and I again joined Senators
Feinstein and Hatch to introduce new gang legislation. During
the Senate Judiciary markup, a number of changes were made to
the Senate bill. And that bill has since passed unanimously.
I have also been working with my colleagues here in the
House and with numerous outside organizations interested in
this issue to revise our legislation, which we introduced in
its revised form 2 weeks ago. And I appreciate the feedback
that I have received both from the Chairman of the Subcommittee
and his staff as well as Chairman Conyers. I very much
appreciate having Chairman Conyers' input and support for this
legislation.
The bill provides significant resources for evidence-based
community gang prevention, intervention, and reentry
activities. It revises criminal penalties for gang members who
are convicted of gang crimes. And significant funding in the
bill is directed toward the high intensity gang activity area
program, which targets resources in areas where gang activity
is particularly prevalent.
Significantly, though, half of the funding supports
prevention and intervention initiatives through schools,
community service providers and faith-based leaders to provide
gang-involved or seriously at-risk youth with alternatives to
gangs. And the other half of the funding supports multi-
jurisdictional criminal street gang enforcement teams and
research to identify best practices among numerous gang
prevention and intervention models.
Our legislation also provides new funding for community-
based gang prevention and intervention programs for both
communities with newly emerging gang problems and those with
decades old issues. The bill also recognizes that education and
jobs are critical to help gang involved youth and young adults
that are reentering society from the criminal justice system.
The bill has grants to help youth develop educational skills
and enhance their long-term employability.
Another grant programs works with young adults to develop
the skills and education to be placed in an apprenticeship in
the construction industry. These prevention programs total a
$700 million authorization over 5 years.
H.R. 3547 is a comprehensive bill that recognizes that
enforcement efforts are necessary to address our gang problem
and authorizes $500 million over 5 years for suppression
activities. The legislation includes funding for DOJ's Project
Safe Neighborhoods anti-gang initiative. It expands the FBI
Safe Street Program to support gang enforcement. It also
provides grants to State and local law enforcement and
prosecutors for hiring, technology, equipment and training.
Legislation also amends the criminal code to define
criminal street gang and gang crime and sets out penalties for
commission of a gang crime and furtherance of the gang and for
recruitment. The bill also addresses violent crimes committed
during drug trafficking. And it also limits possession of
firearms by adjudicated gang members and terrorists, and it
raises the statute of limitations on violent crimes and
terrorism offenses.
I am proud of the efforts we have made in this legislation
to comprehensively address the gang problem. And I believe this
takes an important step toward providing the resources and
tools to attack the problem at its roots. The legislation is
supported by members and organizations across the political
spectrum, from the Conference of Mayors to the National
Association of Police Organizations, from L.A. Mayor,
Villaraigosa to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Again, we made substantial changes from the earlier
introduced version of the bill and from the Senate vehicle,
which I encourage the Subcommittee to examine carefully. And I
thank the Chairman again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before the
Subcommittee. This hearing focuses on gang crime prevention and the
need to foster innovative solutions at the federal level. I have long
been interested in gang crime prevention, and I am proud that my
legislation, H.R. 3547, the Gang Prevention, Intervention and
Suppression Act, includes strong prevention and intervention
components.
Since my days as a prosecutor, I have been concerned with the
growing threat posed by gangs. I have seen the destructive impact that
gangs have on families, our youth, and our communities. And I have the
positive role that gang intervention workers, such as Homeboy
Industries in Los Angeles, play in helping gang-involved youth find an
alternative to a life of crime.
As a state Senator, I authored one of the landmark approaches to
dealing with juvenile crime, and for the first time, we invested as
much in the prevention of crime as in the suppression of crime. We put
$100 million into preventive work to keep kids out of trouble, and we
matched it with $100 million in the COPS program. Analyses have
demonstrated its effectiveness. I believe that such a model that
invests heavily in prevention programs should be implemented at the
federal level.
For this reason, in 2005, I introduced a bipartisan gang bill along
with Rep. Mary Bono, and our counterpart Senate legislation was
introduced by Senators Feinstein and Hatch. Our bill was a
comprehensive effort to strengthen gang enforcement and prevention
efforts. It included numerous tools to help law enforcement and
prosecutors combat gang violence, and it provided resources to bolster
the fight against gangs through law enforcement as well as intervention
and prevention programs for at-risk youth. However, the prevention
components of my bill were stripped out, numerous death penalties and
mandatory minimums were added and the reintroduced bill was marked up
in this Committee. I offered amendments to add back in the prevention
elements, but these efforts failed. I was compelled to vote against the
legislation.
This year, Rep. Bono and I joined with Senators Feinstein and Hatch
to introduce new gang legislation. During Senate Judiciary Committee
markup, a number of changes were made to the Senate bill and the bill
has since passed unanimously. I have also worked with my colleagues and
with numerous outside organizations interested in this issue to revise
our legislation. We introduced the revised legislation two weeks ago. I
am proud to have Chairman Conyers' support throughout the process.
The bill provides significant resources for evidence-based
community-based gang prevention, intervention and reentry activities,
and revises criminal penalties for gang members who are convicted of
gang crimes. Significant funding in the bill is directed toward the
High Intensity Gang Activity Area program, which targets resources in
areas where gang activity is particularly prevalent. Half of the
funding supports prevention and intervention initiatives through
schools, community service providers and faith-based leaders to provide
gang-involved or seriously at-risk youth with alternatives to gangs.
The other half of the funding supports multi-jurisdictional criminal
street gang enforcement teams and research to identify best practices
among numerous gang prevention and intervention models to develop best
practices.
Our legislation also provides new funding for community-based gang
prevention and intervention programs for both communities with newly
emerging gang problems and those with decades-old issues. The bill also
recognizes that education and jobs are critical to help gang-involved
youth and young adults that are reentering society from the criminal
justice system. The bill includes grants to help youth develop
educational skills and enhance their long-term employability. Another
grant program works with young adults to develop the skills and
education to be placed in an apprenticeship in the construction
industries. These prevention programs total a $700 million
authorization over 5 years.
H.R. 3547 is comprehensive legislation that recognizes that
enforcement efforts are necessary to address our gang problem and
authorizes $500 million over five years for suppression activities. The
legislation includes funding for DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhoods anti-
gang initiative. It also expands the FBI Safe Street program to support
gang enforcement. The bill also provides grants to state and local law
enforcement and prosecutors for hiring, technology, equipment and
training.
The legislation also amends the criminal code to define ``criminal
street gang'' and ``gang crime'' and sets out penalties for commission
of a gang crime in furtherance of the gang and for recruitment. The
bill also addresses violent crimes committed during drug trafficking.
The bill limits possession of firearms by adjudicated gang members and
terrorists, and it raises the statute of limitations on violent crimes
and terrorism offenses.
I am proud of the efforts we made in this legislation to
comprehensively address the gang problem, and I believe this
legislation takes important steps to provide resources and tools attack
the problem at its roots. The legislation is supported by Members and
organizations across the political spectrum from the Conference of
Mayors to the National Association of Police Organizations, from Los
Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa to California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify on my
legislation.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. We have been joined by the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Waters.
Mr. Cummings?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To Mr. Forbes and to the entire Committee, I appreciate
this opportunity.
And to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
efforts to try to do some things to prevent some of the
problems that we are now seeing in all of our communities.
Today's hearing is extremely timely. Last week during the
Congressional Black Caucus, annual legislative caucus, I hosted
a panel issue forum that discussed a group of gangs and drug-
related gang activity and their impact in our communities.
As you know, gangs are very real and a very serious threat
which do not recognize geographical, socio-economic or racial
boundaries. They are not just plaguing our inner cities. We are
finding them in increasing numbers in the suburbs as well.
In Baltimore City, gang activity has historically been
limited to small neighborhood crews. But we are now seeing an
alarming trend where these smaller groups are beginning to
identify with the national gangs like the Bloods, the Crips and
MS-13. If we do not stop this trend before it spreads, we will
begin to see gang activity across the country that is
comparable to many other cities.
We must also address the allure of gangs to our children.
The number one preventive action we can take to help our
children avoid gang involvement is strong parenting. We must be
active in their lives, whether it is helping them with their
homework, eating dinner with them as a family or just talking
to them, and as my mother would often say, keeping them busy in
positive activities.
It is also critical that parents learn the warning signs so
that they might identify gang activity. While preventing young
people from being lured into gangs is such an important part of
addressing the crime problem plaguing our country, it is only
one of many steps we need to take.
One large part of reducing the violence in our communities
is recognizing that without witnesses there will be no justice.
I am referring to the conspiracy of silence associated with
witness intimidation. Known murderers in Baltimore right now
walk the streets because witnesses are too scared to come
forward.
I was motivated to address the issue of witness
intimidation after the death of Angela and Carnell Dawson and
their five children, ages 9 to 14. They lived only a few blocks
from where I live.
The entire family was incinerated in October of 2002, when
their home was fire bombed in the middle of the night in
retaliation for Ms. Dawson's repeated complaints to police
about recurring drug trafficking in her East Baltimore
neighborhood. In my home town of Baltimore, it is estimated
that witness intimidation occurs in 90 percent, 90 percent of
the cases.
We must also combat the stop snitching movement spreading
through our streets. And we must come together as a community
to rise up against the campaign of intimidation and fear.
Protecting witnesses is a core Government function. It is
standard in the Federal system. And State and local prosecutors
should have the same tools. Currently there is a great
disparity between funding and witnesses services, if any, that
are provided by local authorities and the Federal witness
security program within the United States Marshal Service that
operates on a $40 million budget.
For example, the witness assistance program in my home town
of Baltimore, which has the unfortunate distinction of being
one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, is only
able to obtain $300,000 per year from the state of Maryland.
This is why I introduced H.R. 933, the Witness Security
Protection Act of 2007, that authorizes $270 million over the
next 3 years to enable States and local prosecutors to
establish short-term witness protection programs.
Priority will be given to prosecuting offices in States
with an average of at least 100 murders during the immediate
past 5 years. However, smaller entities also have a chance to
receive funding.
H.R. 933 and H.R. 3547, the Gang Abatement Intervention and
Suppression Act, introduced by the gentleman from California,
Mr. Schiff, will assist in correcting this inequity and allow
us to demonstrate our commitment to our constituents and the
justice system.
In closing, please know that I appreciate this opportunity
to testify before you. But please keep in mind that, without
witnesses and the cooperation of the public, our criminal
justice system and our system of justice simply cannot
function.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummings follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Good Afternoon.
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
regarding gang crime prevention.
This is a very important issue to me. Just last week, during the
CBC Annual Legislative Conference I hosted a three-panel issue forum
that discussed the grip of gangs and drug-related gang activity, and
their impact in our communities.
Violent crime in the United States is on the rise nationwide.
According to a report recently released by the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reporting Program:
robberies surged in 2006 by 7.2 percent;
homicides rose by 1.8 percent; and
violent crime overall rose by 1.9 percent.
Taken together, 2005 and 2006 represent the first steady increase
in violent crime since 1993.
We need look no further than my hometown of Baltimore City, where
we are headed for record-breaking incidents of violence.
Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun reported that since January 1st there
have been 231 homicides, eclipsing the rate set during the same period
last year by 23. At this pace, it is conceivable that the City will
regretfully reach 300 homicides by the end of the year. While this
figure is significantly lower than the record-high 353 homicides in
1993, the current situation is simply unacceptable.
I find these statistics to be deeply troubling, and I know that
they are attributable, in large part, to the ravages of gang activity
in our communities.
As you know, gangs are a very real and serious threat, which do not
recognize geographical, socio-economic, or racial boundaries.
They are not just plaguing our inner cities--we are finding them in
increasing numbers in the suburbs, as well.
In Baltimore City, gang activity has historically been limited to
small, neighborhood crews, but we are now seeing an alarming trend
where these smaller groups are beginning to identify with the national
gangs like the Blood and the Crips.
If we do not stop this trend before it spreads, we will begin to
see gang activity across the country that is comparable to that of
cities like Los Angeles, with whole generations affected.
We must also address the allure of gangs to our children. It is
time for us to come together as a community to minimize these risk
factors. The number one preventive action we can take to help our
children avoid gang involvement is strong parenting.
We must be active in their lives, whether it is helping them with
their homework, sitting down to eat dinner with them, or just talking
to them about the events taking place in their daily lives.
We must be proactive in knowing whom our children are befriending
and what they do in their spare time. We must ensure that our children
know they are loved and valued. We must keep informed of their progress
in school and be in communication with their teachers. We must provide
constructive activities to keep them engaged.
It is also critical that parents learn the warning signs so that
they might identify gang activity. The things our children say at the
dinner table or to their friends on the phone or through the internet
may be more than just harmless slang; they may be specific gang
language. Likewise, a wardrobe filled with one particular color may not
be indicative that the child merely favors it; it could be the color
representing that child's gang.
Most gang members go through progressive stages of involvement, and
early detection can play a key role in helping our children before it
is too late. It is hard for any parent to believe that his or her child
may fall victim to this epidemic, but the risk is real. We must be
prepared to recognize and prevent the risk.
In my Congressional District, I have teamed up with Mr. Frank
Clark, the Director of Gang Intervention and Investigation for the
Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, to hold three gang prevention
summits.
Mr. Clark gives an excellent presentation for parents, teachers,
and other members of the community to educate them about the signs and
language of gang activity to make sure that we do not mistakenly
dismiss dangerous communication from our children as harmless or
useless slang.
While preventing young people from being lured into gangs is such
an important part of addressing the crime problem plaguing our country,
it is only one of many steps we need to take.
One large part of reducing the violence in our communities is
through recognizing that without witnesses, there can be no justice. I
am referring to the ``conspiracy of silence'' associated with witness
intimidation. Known murderers walk the streets because witnesses are
too afraid to come forward.
I was motivated to address the issue of witness intimidation after
the death of Angela and Carnell Dawson and their five children, ages 9
to 14. The entire family was killed in October 2002, when their home
was firebombed in retaliation for Mrs. Dawson's repeated complaints to
the police about recurring drug trafficking in her East Baltimore
neighborhood.
Witness intimidation is a plague on our justice system. According
to the National Institute of Justice, 51 percent of prosecutors in
large jurisdictions find witness intimidation to be a major problem.
These prosecutors also suspect that witness intimidation occurs in up
to 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in gang-dominated
neighbors. In my hometown of Baltimore City, it is estimated that
witness intimidation occurs in 90 percent of the cases that are
prosecuted.
We must combat the ``Stop Snitchin'' movement spreading through our
streets, and we must come together as a community to rise against this
campaign of intimidation and fear.
I have been working closely with the State's Attorney for Baltimore
City Patricia Jessamy to help curb witness intimidation and spread the
message that coming forward as a witness to a crime is not snitching--
it is the right thing to do. In fact, we are working on putting
together a public service announcement to air throughout Baltimore
encouraging witnesses to come forward and educating them about how to
effectively do so without becoming the victim of retaliation.
Protecting witnesses is a core government function. It is standard
in the federal system and state and local prosecutors should have the
same tools.
Currently, there is a great disparity between funding and witness
services (if any) that are provided by local authorities and the
federal witness security program within the U.S. Marshals Services that
operates on a $40 million budget.
In comparison, the witness assistance program in my hometown of
Baltimore City, which has the unfortunate distinction of being one of
the most dangerous cities in the United States, is only able to obtain
$300,000 per year from the state.
This is why I introduced H.R. 933, the Witness Security and
Protection Act of 2007 that authorizes $270 million over the next three
years to enable state and local prosecutors who demonstrate a need for
funds to protect witnesses in cases involving gangs or other violence
to establish short-term witness protection programs.
Improving protection for state and local witnesses will move us one
step closer to alleviating the fears and threats to prospective
witnesses and help safeguard our communities from violence. It is time
that we show our commitment to our constituents and the justice
system--because without witnesses, there can be no justice.
In closing, please know that I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before this Subcommittee. I also commend each of my colleagues
on the panel for their work in the area of gang prevention and
awareness.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I think that is a recess. So it
wasn't a vote, so we are not in as much hurry as we thought we
were when the bells went off.
I want to recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton,
and her presence.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Baca?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Forbes and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
am pleased to present testimony today in behalf of H.R. 1069,
the Mynisha Law.
This bill serves two primary purposes. First, it directs
the attorney general to review an application from cities
wanting to be designated as comprehensive gang prevention and
relief areas.
Second, it establishes an inter-agency gang prevention task
force where Federal agencies will coordinate efforts focused on
gang prevention. I would like to share with you a sad story
behind the creation of the Mynisha Law.
Senator Boxer and I became involved with a local anti-gang
group called Mynisha's Circle that was formed in the wake of a
killing of an 11-year-old named Mynisha Crenshaw, who died on
November 13, 2005. Young Mynisha was from my district in San
Bernardino, California.
She was killed while eating Sunday dinner with her family,
after gang members shot at the Crenshaw home located in Cedar
Apartment in the Del Rosa neighborhood. Another young, innocent
life was lost due to gang violence. And there are 24,500 gangs
operating in the United States.
These acts of violence are not uncommon for city streets.
Young people regularly claim that they live in the world of
domestic warfare.
We hear about the devastation happening in Iraq. And we
honor the soldiers fighting for freedom. But are we not giving
the necessary tools to young people here in our own country to
avoid gang problems? We are willing to provide those in Iraq.
But are we willing to provide the tools for those that are
right here in the United States to fight gangs?
We do not hear about the mother who has to bury the young
son or daughter. We do not see the elementary, middle school
aged children who are recruited to join the ranks of gang
members for sisterhood. And after Mynisha's death, I am proud
to say that our community did unite. We came together and vowed
to find solutions to gang violent crisis. Mynisha's Circle was
created as a forum to address this issue.
Senator Boxer, with the help of Reverend Beamon and Steve
Lambert and other members of the Mynisha's Circle created S.
2671, Mynisha Law. I am proud to sponsor the House companion to
the Senate bill.
This bill is critical to fight against gangs. It creates a
Federal task force with members from the Departments of
Justice, Education, Labor, Health, Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development. This task was to create a comprehensive
national prevention strategy that would focus on all aspects to
fight against gangs from early childhood intervention to at
risk youth intervention, literacy, employment and community
policing.
By allowing the attorney general to decide which city has
the highest gang activity, many communities where gang violence
is growing or is out of control will have a newfound resource
to combat the issue. Anyone who thinks this bill is unnecessary
or that gang violence is no longer a problem in America is
wrong, and I state, is wrong.
There are currently an estimated 24,500 gangs operating in
the United States. Gang violence and drug trafficking remains a
serious problem throughout the country causing injuries and
death to innocent victims and too often, children that will
never fulfil their lives.
According to the National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal
street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of
the cocaine, methamphetamines, heroine, and other illegal drugs
throughout the United States. I thank Chairman Scott for your
leadership and your support.
I thank Reverend Schiff and others for including the
Mynisha provision in the gang prevention bill. It is important
that we explore all avenues, and I state, that we explore all
avenues, in addressing the issue because the cause of inaction,
I state the cause of inaction is too high.
We cannot forget that we are fighting for the future to
make tomorrow a better and safe place for our children. We want
our children to fulfil their lives. We want our children to
have a better quality of life, and we want our neighborhoods to
have a better quality of life.
I yield back the balance of my time. And I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for having this important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baca follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joe Baca, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to present
testimony today on behalf of HR 1069, Mynisha's Law.
This bill serves two primary purposes: first, it directs the
Attorney General to review applications from cities wanting to be
designated as Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Relief Areas; and
second, it establishes an Interagency Gang Prevention Task Force where
federal agencies will coordinate efforts focused on gang prevention.
I would like to share with you the sad story behind the creation of
Mynisha's Law.
Senator Barbara Boxer and I became involved with a local anti-gang
group called Mynisha's Circle that was formed in the wake of the
killing of eleven year old Mynisha Crenshaw, who died on November 13,
2005.
Young Mynisha was from my district, in San Bernardino, California.
She was killed while eating Sunday dinner with her family after gang
members shot at the Crenshaw home, located at the Cedarwood Apartments
in the Del Rosa neighborhood.
Another young, innocent life was lost due to gang violence.
These acts of violence are not uncommon for city streets. Young
people regularly claim they live in a world of domestic warfare.
We hear about the devastation happening in Iraq and we honor the
soldiers fighting for our freedom. But, we are not giving the necessary
tools to young people here, in our own country, to avoid gang life.
We do not hear about the mothers who have to bury there young sons
and daughters. We do not see the elementary and middle-school aged
children who are recruited to join the ranks of gang brother and
sisterhood.
After Mynisha's death, I am proud to say that our community did
unite. We came together and vowed to find solutions to the gang
violence crisis. Mynisha's Circle was created as a forum to address
this issue.
And Senator Boxer, with the help of Rev. Reggie Beamon, Steve
Lambert and other members of Mynisha's Circle, created S. 2671
Mynisha's Law. I am proud to sponsor the House companion to the Senate
bill.
This bill is crucial to the fight against gangs.
It creates a Federal Gang Task Force--with members from the
Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Housing and Urban Development.
This task force would create a comprehensive national gang
prevention strategy that would focus on all aspects of the fight
against gangs--from early childhood intervention to at-risk youth
intervention, literacy, employment, and community policing.
By allowing the Attorney General to decide which cities have the
highest gang activity, many communities where gang violence is growing
or is out of control will have newfound resources to combat this issue.
Anyone who thinks this bill is unnecessary, or that gang violence
is no longer a problem in America is wrong. There are currently an
estimated 24,500 gangs operating within the United States. Gang
violence and drug trafficking remain serious problems throughout the
country, causing injury and death to innocent victims, and too often
children.
According to the National Drug Threat Assessment--criminal street
gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine,
methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs throughout the United
States.
I thank you, Chairman Scott for your leadership and support, and I
thank Rep. Schiff and others for including Mynisha's provisions in your
gang prevention bills.
It is important that we explore all avenues in addressing this
issue because the cost of inaction is too high. We cannot forget that
we are fighting for the future, to make tomorrow a better and safer
place for our children. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Baca.
Mr. Lampson?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS V. LAMPSON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Forbes, for taking our testimony today regarding our efforts to
catch, prosecute, and incarcerate gang members.
Gang participation has reached obviously unacceptable
levels in our country. And it is threatening the safety and
security of big cities as well as small towns. And according to
the Department of Justice, 82 percent of police departments
serving large cities have reported youth gangs while the DOJ
also reports gang activity has been increasing in smaller
cities since 1999.
In my district in Houston, crime has been on the rise. FBI
reports growing trends of murder, rape and assault from 2005 to
2006. And according to law enforcement officials, much of this
increase in crime in Houston is related to the relocation of
street gangs and drug traffickers from New Orleans following
Hurricane Katrina.
The New Orleans gangs are extremely violent and intimidate
many of the established Houston gangs. As such, gang-related
crime, particularly gang-related murders, has increased
significantly. Additionally, New Orleans gangs have expressed
intent to take over large portions of the Houston drug market,
which could lead to further violence. We must be vigilant to
protect our communities from these thugs and criminals.
Recently, I introduced the Prosecutorial Tools Improvement
Act of 2007, which will make our homes safer by providing
greater latitude and resources to our Nation's prosecutors to
go after the gangs with the fullest extent of the law.
H.R. 3462 protects families and communities by enhancing
criminal penalties for violent felonies committed during and in
relation to drug trafficking crimes. According to the National
Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, high levels of violent crime in
Houston, Texas are ``closely associated with the distribution
and abuse of illicit drugs, particularly crack cocaine and
methamphetamine. Crack cocaine is the drug most associated with
violent and property crime.''
The NDIC affirms that gangs involved in drug crimes are
responsible for violent assaults, car jackings, drive-by
shootings, home invasions, robberies and firearm violations.
They commit these acts to protect and to expand their drug
operations. These criminal activities must be stopped. And my
legislation sends a strong and clear message, ``We will catch
you, and we will put you in jail.''
Texas highways have become thoroughfares for the drug
trade. Unfortunately, Houston has become the on ramp. The Texas
Highway Patrol leads the Nation in criminal arrests and
seizures of drugs and in currency. Between 60 and 80 percent of
all drugs pass through Houston alone.
My bill imposes stiff penalties for crimes committed by
drug traffickers and gangs that participate in drug
trafficking. The Prosecutorial Tools Improvement Act of 2007
mandates a life sentence for incidents of murder or kidnapping
that are in relation to drug trafficking.
Other violent crimes will result in imprisonment for a
minimum of 30 years. And crimes such as conspiracy to commit a
violent crime will result in imprisonment for a minimum of 10
to 20 years. By instituting harsher penalties and strengthening
the consequences for gang involvement prosecutors will be given
the tools they need to pursue and punish modern gangs.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, NCMEC, the income drug trafficking provides for gangs
serves to attract many young people, especially runaways and
homeless children. The NCMEC has outlined that gang activity
when combined with trafficking of crack or other drugs is
``becoming increasingly involved in prostitution of youth,''
which can prove to be very profitable for gangs.
As co-chairman and founder of the Congressional Caucus on
Missing and Exploited Children, this is an issue of the utmost
importance to me. As a father and grandfather, I know that the
protection of our children is paramount. We can deter our
Nation's children from joining gangs by imposing stiff
penalties for gang activity, as well as providing opportunities
for young people in their communities that keep them off the
street.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, my bill increases the ability
for our law enforcement agencies to pursue terrorists by
increasing the statute of limitations from 8 to 10 years.
Terrorism is the greatest threat we face as a free Nation. Time
should not stand between terrorists and justice. We must ensure
that prosecutors have every tool they need to fight terrorism.
Gang cause irreparable damage to communities and families
throughout the United States. My bill gives prosecutors the
tools they need to stop gang violence from invading our
neighborhoods.
Violent gang complaints are up 38 percent since 2002. But
convictions have only increased by 12 percent. Clearly, we need
more tools and resources to combat and stop gangs. This is
exactly what my bill, the Prosecutorial Tools Improvement Act,
does.
I thank you for this important hearing and for listening to
our testimony, Mr. Chairman and Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Nicholas V. Lampson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and Members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for taking my testimony today about my efforts
to catch, prosecute and incarcerate gang members.
Gang participation has reached unacceptable levels in our country
and is threatening the safety and security of big cities, as well as
small towns. According Department of Justice, 82% of police departments
serving large cities have reported youth gangs while the DOJ also
reports gang activity has been increasing in smaller cities since 1999.
In my district, in Houston, crime has been on the rise, FBI reports
growing trends of murder, rape and assault from 2005 to 2006. According
to law enforcement officials, much of this increase in crime in Houston
is related to the relocation of street gangs and drug traffickers from
New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
The New Orleans gangs are extremely violent and intimidate many of
the established Houston gangs. As such, gang-related crime,
particularly gang-related murders, has increased significantly.
Additionally, New Orleans gangs have expressed intent to take over
large portions of the Houston drug market, which could lead to further
violence.
We must be vigilant to protect our communities from these thugs and
criminals. Recently I introduced the Prosecutorial Tools Improvement
Act of 2007, which will make our homes safer by providing greater
latitude and resources to our nation's prosecutors to go after gangs
with the fullest extent of the law.
H.R. 3462 protects families and communities by enhancing criminal
penalties for violent felonies committed during and in relation to drug
trafficking crimes. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center
(NDIC), high levels of violent crime in Houston, Texas are ``closely
associated with the distribution and abuse of illicit drugs,
particularly crack cocaine and methamphetamine. Crack cocaine is the
drug most associated with violent and property crime.''
The NDIC affirms that gangs involved in drug crimes are responsible
for violent ``assaults, carjacking, drive-by shootings, home invasions,
robberies, and firearms violations.'' They commit these acts ``to
protect and expand their drug operations.'' These criminal activities
must be stopped. My legislation sends a strong and clear message--we
will catch you, and we will put you in jail.
Texas' highways have become thoroughfares for the drug trade,
unfortunately Houston has become the on ramp. The Texas Highway Patrol
leads the nation in criminal arrests and seizures of drugs and
currency, between 60 and 80 percent of drugs pass through Houston
alone.
My bill imposes stiff penalties for crimes committed by drug
traffickers and gangs that participate in drug trafficking. The
Prosecutorial Tools Improvement Act of 2007 mandates a life sentence
for incidents of murder or kidnapping that are in relation to drug
trafficking. Other violent felonies will result in imprisonment for a
minimum of 30 years. And crimes such as, conspiracy to commit a violent
crime, will result in imprisonment for a minimum of 10 to 20 years.
By instituting harsher penalties, and strengthening the
consequences for gang involvement, prosecutors will be given tools they
need to pursue and punish modern gangs.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, NCMEC, the income drug trafficking provides for gangs serves
to attract many young people, especially runaways and homeless
children.
NCMEC has outlined that gang activity, when combined with the
trafficking of crack or other drugs is ``becoming increasingly involved
in the prostitution of youth,'' which can prove to be very profitable
for gangs.
As co-chairman and founder of the Congressional Missing and
Exploited Children Caucus, this is an issue of the utmost importance to
me. As a father and grandfather, I know that the protection of our
children is paramount. We can deter our nation's children from joining
gangs, by imposing stiff penalties for gang activity, as well as
providing opportunities for young people in their community that keeps
them off the street.
Finally, my bill increases the ability for our law enforcement
agencies to pursue terrorists by increasing the statute of limitations
from eight years to ten. Terrorism is the greatest threat we face as a
free nation, time should not stand between terrorists and justice. We
must ensure that prosecutors have every tool they need to fight
terrorism.
Gangs cause irreparable damage to communities and families
throughout the United States. My bill gives prosecutors the tools they
need to stop gang violence from invading our neighborhoods. Violent
Gang complaints are up 38 percent since 2002, but convictions have only
increased 12 percent. Clearly, we need more tools and resources to
combat and stop gangs. That is exactly what my bill, the Prosecutorial
Tools Improvement Act, does.
Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JERRY McNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Forbes and distinguished Members on the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak here today about gang activity and about my bill, H.R.
3474, the National Safe Streets Gang Crime Prevention Act,
which will provide law enforcement agencies across the country
the tools they need to fight gangs and prevent crime.
My constituents and individuals across the Nation are
fighting to protect their communities, schools and children by
taking strong stands against gangs. Unfortunately, the growth
in gangs and gang activities shows that the existing
enforcement mechanisms alone are not sufficient to stop the
gangs. And in fact, the Ranking Member and the Chairman both
pointed out the difficulties with our current system.
We also need to establish strong prevention tools for our
authorities to manage and reduce gangs and gang-related
problems. We need to stop gang crimes before they get started.
We should provide all levels of law enforcement the
necessary resources to prevent gang activity. And one of the
best things we can do is share information and work together.
Gang activity does not stay neatly within one jurisdiction.
It spreads out across geographic boundaries. Therefore, law
enforcement officials need a mechanism to share intelligence
and track crime. I have witnessed what this level of
cooperation can do locally to prevent gang activity.
In my district, the city of Stockton Police Department
coordinated efforts with the DEA, the FBI, and the ATF and
other local jurisdictions to target suspect drug traffickers
and gang operations in San Joaquin County. Impressively, these
efforts have resulted in 51 arrests since January. It is clear
when law enforcement agencies share information and work
together they can reduce gang activities.
Inter-agency cooperation is critical to preventing crimes.
That is why I introduced the Safe Streets Gang Crime Prevention
Act of 2007. My bill creates a strong gang national database to
allow law enforcement officials nationwide and at all levels of
law enforcement to share information and track gang members and
their activities.
The data will contain information on gangs, gang members,
firearms, criminal activities, vehicles and other background
information that can help solve crimes. This database will be
accessible to law enforcement officers nationwide to prevent
gang crime.
Additionally, my bill provides funding to expand the FBI's
Safe Street Program, which has also been mentioned this
afternoon, which conducts long-term investigations of violent
gangs in coordination with other law enforcement agencies. This
legislation will have a significant impact on reducing gang
activity.
Since coming to Congress I have seen firsthand how Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officers have done an
outstanding job in their fight against gang crime. In fact,
just this weekend the city of Manteca Police Department's gang
unit discovered a large cache of weapons and was able to arrest
the documented gang member who was responsible. Yet despite
some successes, gang crimes still constitute a significant
threat.
In the largest city in my district there are at least 84
gangs and hundreds more in the state of California. With this
level of membership and activity, information sharing is
absolutely vital.
Mr. Chairman, gang crime can be prevented if we work
together. I thank you for this opportunity to testify. That
concludes my written statement.
I want to say that your comments have been useful. There
have been many things that have been tried in the past. We need
to be open to new ideas. And that is exactly what this panel is
trying to produce. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jerry McNerney, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you Chairman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security: I appreciate the opportunity to speak
today about gang crime, and my bill, H.R. 3474, the National Safe
Streets Gang Crime Prevention Act, which provides law enforcement
agencies across the country the tools they need to fight gangs and
prevent crime.
My constituents, and individuals across the nation, are fighting to
protect their communities, schools, and children by taking a strong
stand against gangs.
Unfortunately, growth in gangs and gang activities shows that
existing enforcement mechanisms alone are not sufficient to stop gangs.
We also need to establish strong prevention tools for our authorities
to manage and reduce gangs and gang related problems. We need to stop
gang crime before it gets started.
We should provide all levels of law enforcement the necessary
resources to prevent gang activity, and one of the best things we can
do is share information and work together.
Gang activity does not stay neatly within one jurisdiction; it
spreads across geographic boundaries. Therefore, law enforcement
officials need a mechanism to easily share intelligence and track
crime.
I have witnessed what this level of cooperation can do locally to
prevent gang activity. In my district, the City of Stockton Police
Department coordinated efforts with the DEA, FBI, ATF, and other local
jurisdictions to target suspected drug traffickers and gangs operating
in San Joaquin County. Impressively, these efforts have resulted in 51
arrests since January.
It's clear: when law enforcement agencies share information and
work together they can reduce gang activity.
Interagency coordination is critical to preventing crimes.
That is why I introduced the Safe Streets Gang Crime Prevention Act
of 2007. My bill creates a National Gang Activity Database to allow law
enforcement officials nationwide--and at all levels--to share
information and track gang members and their activities.
The database will contain information on gangs, gang members,
firearms, criminal activities, vehicles, and other background
information that can help solve crimes. This database will be
accessible to law enforcement officials nationwide to help prevent gang
crime.
Additionally, my bill provides funding to expand the FBI's Safe
Streets Program, which conducts long-term investigations of violent
gangs in coordination with other law enforcement agencies.
This legislation will have a significant impact on reducing gang
activity.
Since coming to Congress, I have seen firsthand how federal, state,
and local law enforcement officers have done an outstanding job in
their fight against gang crime. I cannot commend them enough. In fact,
just this weekend, the Manteca Police Department's Gang Unit discovered
a large cache of weapons and was able to arrest the documented gang
member who was responsible.
Yet despite some successes, gang crime still constitutes a
significant threat to our nation.
In the largest city in my district, there are at least 84 gangs and
hundreds more in the state of California. With this level of membership
and activity, information sharing is absolutely vital.
Mr. Chairman, gang crime can be prevented if we work together.
I thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Dent?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. DENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes,
Members of the Subcommittee. I truly appreciate this
opportunity for allowing me to come before you today to discuss
H.R. 3152, the Anti-Gang Task Force Act of 2007. This
legislation will help our local law enforcement communities
combat the scourge of gang violence.
It authorizes $20 million for each fiscal years 2008
through 2011 to establish new multi-jurisdictional anti-gang
task forces bringing together State and local prosecutors with
Federal officials from the FBI, the DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, DHS, as well as others.
Gangs, as you all know, are mobile, and they often cross
jurisdictional lines in order to facilitate the dealing of
drugs or to avoid detection by local law enforcement
authorities. And providing funds to the different
municipalities may, with Federal assistance, pool resources to
track, combat, and prosecute gang activity and will be a major
assist to the quality of life in communities that are plagued
by this gang violence. A multi-jurisdictional approach is
clearly necessary in order to stop the proliferation of gang
violence and gang activity.
My district encompasses a good portion of what is called
the Route 222 corridor. This corridor bisects five cities:
Easton, Bethlehem, Allentown, Reading and Lancaster.
They are located in four Southeastern and East Central
Pennsylvania counties. It is uniquely situated in that it is
linked directly to New York City approximately about 80 miles
due east of the Lehigh Valley via Interstate 78 and through
other easily accessible roads, including Route 222 to
Philadelphia, which is about 60 miles due southeast of the
Lehigh Valley area where I live.
Gang violence along the Route 222 corridor primarily
involving drug trafficking and armed robberies dates back more
than a decade. There has been a chronic problem infecting each
of the five cities within this corridor. And these are small to
mid-sized cities, Allentown being the largest, about 110,000.
The roadways that have allowed commerce to thrive in this
region have also strongly benefited these gangs who can move
between the cities with relative ease thereby making their
operations much more difficult to detect and to track. As a
result, the 222 corridor has been plagued by this insidious
gang activity.
Each of the cities in the corridor has a number of home-
grown violent gangs, most of which are involved in drug
trafficking. According to the United States attorney's office
for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, these gangs such as
the Second Street Gang in Allentown and the Tenth Street Gang
in Reading, usually operate in relatively small areas of their
respective cities and use violence to control and defend their
drug trafficking operations.
While these gangs generally do not use symbols or dress
similarly to identify themselves, they are often as violent as
their national counterparts. And many gang members, according
to the U.S. attorney's office, are illegal aliens who migrate
to the 222 corridor in the Southwest and New York City and join
existing gangs.
H.R. 3152, the Anti-Gang Task Force Act of 2007, would
bring Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies
together to help stop multi-jurisdictional gang activities in
places like the 222 corridor. Further, 3152 would be a nice
complement to a recent anti-gang initiative funded through the
Project Safe Neighborhood Program in our area. And that Project
Safe Neighborhood initiative involves a cooperative law
enforcement effort between the counties and cities along the
corridor.
For the reasons I described earlier, I push very hard to
make sure the corridor was one of six locations included in
this $15 million comprehensive anti-gang initiative undertaken
by the Department of Justice. The initiative has a three-
pronged approach to combating gang violence: first, the
prevention of gang affiliation; second, enforcement of existing
laws; and third, the rehabilitation of gang members seeking to
reenter society.
And again, Mr. Chairman Scott, I commend the work that your
Subcommittee is doing to curb gang violence. And I really want
to thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss this
legislation. And I hope that you and the rest of the
Subcommittee will be supportive of these endeavors in the
future. And I thank you again. And I would like to yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dent follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and Members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for allowing me to come before you today to
discuss HR 3152, the Anti-Gang Task Force Act of 2007.
This bill will help our local law enforcement communities combat
the scourge of gang violence. It authorizes $20m for each of Fiscal
Years 2008 through 2011 to establish new multi-jurisdictional anti-gang
task forces, bringing together state and local prosecutors with federal
officials from the FBI, DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (BATFE), DHS, and others.
Gangs are mobile and they often cross jurisdictional lines in order
to facilitate the dealing of drugs or to avoid detection by local law
enforcement authorities. Providing funds so that different
municipalities may, with federal assistance, pool resources to track,
combat, and prosecute combat gang activity will be a major assist to
the quality of life in communities that are plagued by gang violence.
A multi-jurisdictional approach is clearly necessary in order to
stop the proliferation of gang violence and gang activity. My District
encompasses a good portion of what is called the Route 222 corridor.
This corridor bisects five cities--Easton, Bethlehem, Allentown,
Reading, and Lancaster--located in four southeast Pennsylvania
counties. It is uniquely situated, in that it is linked directly to New
York City, approximately eighty miles away via Interstate 78, and,
through other easily accessible roads (including Route 222), to
Philadelphia, which is 60 miles to the southeast.
Gang violence along the 222 corridor, primarily involving drug
trafficking and armed robberies, dates back more than a decade and has
been a chronic problem infecting each of the five cities within the
corridor. The roadways that have allowed commerce to thrive in the
region have also strongly benefited the gangs, who can move between the
cities with relative ease, thereby making their operations much more
difficult to detect and to track.
As a result, the 222 corridor has been plagued by gang activity.
Each of the cities in the corridor has a number of home-grown violent
gangs, most of which are involved in drug trafficking, according to the
United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. These gangs, such as the 2nd (Street) in Allentown and
the 10th Street Gang in Reading, usually operate in relatively small
areas of their respective cities and use violence to control and defend
their drug trafficking operations. While these gangs generally do not
use symbols or dress similarly to identify themselves, they are often
as violent as their national counterparts. And many gang members are
illegal aliens who migrate to the 222 Corridor from the southwest and
New York City and join existing gangs.
HR 3157, the Anti-Gang Task Force Act of 2007, would bring federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies together to help stop multi-
jurisdictional gang activity in places like the Route 222 corridor.
Further, HR 3157 would be a nice complement to a recent anti-gang
initiative funded through the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) program
in our area.
This PSN initiative involves a cooperative law enforcement effort
between the counties and cities along the corridor. For the reasons I
described earlier, I pushed very hard to make sure that the Corridor
was one of the six locations included in this $15 million Comprehensive
Anti-Gang Initiative undertaken by the Department of Justice. The
initiative has a three-pronged approach to combating gang violence:
prevention of gang affiliation, enforcement of existing laws, and the
rehabilitation of gang members seeking to re-enter society.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the work that your Subcommittee to doing to
curb gang violence, and I want to thank you for providing me the
opportunity to talk about the Anti-Gang Task Force Act of 2007 and the
Project Safe Neighborhoods Anti-Gang initiative. I hope that you and
the rest of the Subcommittee will be supportive of both of these
endeavors in the future.
Thank you, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Reichert?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID G. REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
thank you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I
find myself a little bit confused. And that is because my world
before this world was in law enforcement, 33 years in the King
County Sheriff's office, starting out as a patrol officer and
now finding myself in this position here in Congress trying to
construct laws that might help those that I was recently in the
ranks and members of the ranks.
Now I find myself also in a different position this
afternoon, testifying instead of asking the questions. So I am
happy to be here today, though.
And I want to associate myself with all the comments that
have been made by each of the Members who have testified and
also, sir, with your opening statement and also the Ranking
Member's opening statements. We all recognize there is a gang
problem here in the United States.
It is not a new problem. It has been an old problem, one
that I dealt with in my 33 years in law enforcement.
I would like to mention, though, that, you know, we can
rattle off all these figures and all these statistics. And we
think about our role here and your role in this Committee in
hearing our testimony. And we go about our political world, as
Mr. Forbes said. We sometimes lose sight of the fact we are
talking about lives here, human lives.
I have seen the death on the streets as a cop on the
streets. And not only young people who have lost their lives,
but police officers. And every day this is happening in our
Nation.
And so, if there was a time, if there ever was a time for
us to come together as a party, a party, an American party,
this is the time. You and this Committee listening to the
testimony of each one of us today in presenting our ideas and
thoughts on legislation that can help our local community stop
this killing. This is the time.
And this really is not a part of my written statement, but
I just felt compelled to share this with you. Please come
together. Look at these bills. Add the language that you would
seem to consider to be language that you would want to include
in a bill that would be powerful enough to help people across
this country end this murder, end the drug abuse, end the
ripping and tearing apart of families.
We all know that gangs are an increasing threat to safety.
We all know that there is 25,000 gangs active. We know that
there is 3,000 jurisdictions across the country affected by
gangs. We know there is 750,000 to 850,000 gang members here in
the United States. That is larger than all but six armies in
the world.
We have got to do something today. And to make matters
worse, they are going after our junior high and our grade
school kids now. Gang members are going after junior high, 12,
13-year-old kids and grade school kids. We have got to do
something today.
You know, in order to become a gang member, you have to go
through what some people see as a hazing. But it is called the
jump you. Gangs jump in--and maybe you have heard about this.
They jump on young people, and they beat the holy living you
know what out of them.
They beat them, and they torture them. And then they become
gang members. And there are some other things that they do,
too, that I won't describe. But that is the process our young
people are going through in this country today.
One of the officers that I knew from a police department in
the county that I was sheriff of made a traffic stop one night,
got out of his car and was greeted by a gang member and had a
bullet put in his head. That was the end of his life and the
end of his family's.
The influence of gangs has reached beyond our own
communities. Gangs have become increasingly sophisticated in
their tactics and worked with crime organizations across the
globe bringing guns and drugs into this country and onto our
streets. Drug gangs are now the primary distributor of illegal
narcotics in the United States. And these international drug
cartels now number in thousands across the city, the State and
the national boundaries.
Some gangs collect millions of dollars per month selling
illegal drugs, trafficking weapons, operating prostitution
rings and selling stolen property. These gangs are also
directly linked with human trafficking, I.D. theft, fraud,
violent maiming, assault and murder.
In 2001, there were over 631 gang-related homicides in the
United States. Many police departments in our Nation are not
prepared to handle this problem. They don't know how to address
this growing threat.
Across the Nation gang statistics are maintained
sporadically at best. Our local law enforcement officials who
are on the front line of this battle cannot win the war if they
don't have a clear understanding of what they are up against.
My bill, H.R. 367, the Gang Elimination Act, would require
the attorney general to develop a national strategy to
eliminate the gang epidemic plaguing our neighborhoods.
Specifically, this legislation will identify and target the
three international drug gangs that present the greatest threat
to the United States measuring their ties to terrorist
organizations, the amount of drugs they import and distribute,
and the threat they pose to our children.
In essence, H.R. 367 creates a gang ``most wanted'' list.
With these three gangs put on notice, we will be able to
identify their members and aggressively pursue them.
And I agree, again, with some of the other comments that
have been made. We need to do this by communicating, sharing
our information, partnering not only with law enforcement
organizations across this country, but partnering with our
community and social agencies and bringing everyone together
who touches this problem to address it from the very beginning.
And I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts, Mr.
Chairman. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reichert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable David G. Reichert, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Washington
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much. And I would like to thank
all of our witnesses for their testimony today. Members may
have written questions which we will forward to you, ask you to
answer them promptly. Without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for 1 week for submission of additional
material.
And so, I would like to thank each and every one of our
witnesses. Thank you.
The next panel will come forward.
Our first witness in the second panel is Brian W. Walsh,
senior legal research fellow, Center for Legal and Judicial
Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He directs the Heritage's
project on countering the abuse of criminal law and criminal
process, particularly at the Federal level. His work also
focuses on the efforts to ensure that national and homeland
security measures include protections for constitutional and
other civil liberties.
Before joining the Heritage Foundation, he was an associate
with the Washington office of Kirkland and Ellis. And he served
as a law clerk for Judge Bowman of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 8th Circuit. He is a graduate from Regent University
Law School and holds a bachelor's degree in physics from the
University of Colorado.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones,
judge of the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in
Norfolk, Virginia. He is one of the few people in Virginia
history to hold leadership positions in each branch of
Government.
Prior to his appointment on the bench, he was the director
of the Department of Juvenile Justice for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. As head of the youth authority, he was responsible
for the incarceration, rehabilitation and transitional reentry
of juvenile offenders in the State.
He also served eight terms as a delegate in the Virginia
General Assembly, where he oversaw many positive and
progressive changes within the juvenile justice system. He is a
graduate of Princeton University and the School of Law at
Washington and Lee University.
Our next witness will be Kevin Pranis, researcher of the
Justice Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. He has more than a
decade of experience as a justice educator and policy analyst
and has produced educational materials, training materials,
reports and white papers on topics that include corporate
accountability, municipal bond finance, prison privatization
and sentencing policy. He has two degrees from the University
of Chicago, a bachelor's in Latin American studies and a
master's in social science.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Richard Roper,
United States attorney for the northern district of Texas. He
served as a U.S. attorney since 2004. He is a career prosecutor
having served as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1987 to his
current appointment.
Prior to joining the U.S. attorney's office, he served as
Tarrant County assistant district attorney for five years. He
earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at
Arlington and a law degree from Texas Tech University.
Our next witness would be Paul Seave, director, gang and
youth violence police office of the governor in Sacramento,
California. He served as the governor's director for gang and
youth violence policy since 2005. Prior to that appointment, he
was a career Federal prosecutor, serving as an assistant U.S.
attorney for 13 years and a U.S. attorney for the eastern
district of California from 1997 to 2001.
From 2001 to 2005, he served as special assistant attorney
general until his current appointment. He has a bachelor's
degree from Princeton University and a law degree from the
University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Our final witness will be Dr. Peter Scharf, research
professor of criminal justice and executive director for the
Center for Society Law and Justice at the Texas University. Dr.
Scharf is an expert in criminal justice and with numerous
contributions to progressive policies. He helped found the BJA
Community Policing Consortium, developed a risk assessment
management system and served as a primary consultant to the
governor's report on the Crown Heights civil disorder.
He has received a great deal of media attention in the past
year related to his research in youth violence, particularly
those involving gangs. He is currently conducting research
related to the control of murder and violent crime risk, prison
rape patterns and new technologies related with the potential
of reducing homicide risk. He received his doctoral degree from
Harvard University.
So we will begin with Mr. Walsh.
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN W. WALSH, SENIOR LEGAL RESEARCH FELLOW,
CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Forbes for inviting me here today. I want to touch briefly on
two topics: constitutional principles of federalism that apply
to inherently local gang-related crime and the effective
Federal funding of programs to reduce and prevent gang-related
crime.
Violent street crime committed by gang members is a serious
problem in many States. But turning crimes that are
fundamentally local in nature into Federal crimes is not the
solution.
Approximately 95 percent of the criminal investigations and
prosecutions in the United States are conducted--not by Federal
law enforcement--but by law enforcement at the State and local
level. Unjustified Federal intervention into anti-gang
activities dilutes authority and accountability and detracts
from the most effective anti-gang enforcement strategies that
are available to State and local law enforcement officials.
The Federal Government does have an important role to play
in combating gang-related crime. But that role is limited by
the Constitution and should be further restricted to developing
and funding programs that carry out traditional Federal
functions.
Several broad bills in recent Congresses have attempted to
federalize gang crime, conduct which, in most instances, is
nothing other than ordinary street crime. S. 456 and H.R. 3547,
for example, would effectively transform a broad class of
State-law crimes into Federal offenses.
These Federal criminal provisions would invite serious
constitutional challenges. The bills may in many cases
unconstitutionally attempt to extend Congress' powers beyond
the limits of the Commerce Clause.
No power that civil government commonly uses against its
citizens is greater or more prone to abuse than the criminal
law and criminal process. This is a compelling reason to craft
any new Federal criminal law with great care and attention to
the limitations that the Constitution places on the legislative
power.
S. 456 and H.R. 3547 include language purporting to
restrict the scope of their central criminal provisions to
conduct and activities that ``occur in or affect interstate or
foreign commerce.'' But to fall within Congress' power to
regulate commerce among the several States, a problem must not
merely be common to the States, it must be truly interstate in
nature and substantially affect interstate commerce.
For this reason, Congress' power under the Commerce Clause
does not include the authority to federalize most noncommercial
street crimes, whether or not they share some minor nexus with
interstate commerce. In short, local violent crime that is not
directed at interstate commerce, that is, the sort of crime
that is at the heart of most gang-related street crime, is not
a proper subject matter for Federal legislation.
Not long ago the Supreme Court rejected the Federal
Government's ``costs of crime'' and ``national productivity''
rationales for asserting Federal authority over crime that is
essentially local in nature. The court explained that if it
were to accept these attenuated chains of but-for reasoning,
the constitutional limits on congressional power would be
obliterated.
S. 456 and H.R. 3547 include similar rationales for
justifying the assertion of Federal authority. Their findings
sections state that gang presence, intimidation, and crimes
``directly and substantially'' affect interstate and foreign
commerce--but merely saying so does not make it so, and such
language adds little or nothing to the constitutional analysis.
The good news is this should not be viewed as a failing of
our constitutional system. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese,
my distinguished colleague at the Heritage Foundation, is a
great friend of and advocate for State and local law
enforcement. Ed Meese has frequently stated that unjustified
assertions of Federal authority in State and local law
enforcement dilutes accountability and responsibility and
undermines rather than promotes effective law enforcement.
Constitutional concerns, such as those that arise from the
Federal criminal provisions in these two bills, generally do
not apply to Federal expenditures for gang-related programs,
including those in the Youth PROMISE Act. Congress'
constitutional power to spend Federal money to create programs
involving State and local government agencies is broad and
includes the authority to impose meaningful conditions on grant
recipients.
Federal funding to combat gang-related crime should be
focused on programs that, one, carry out traditional Federal
functions, two, are carefully crafted and evaluated to ensure
they achieve their stated goals, and three, include sufficient
oversight and auditing to minimize waste and abuse of Federal
funds and to ensure that such funds do not merely supplant
funds that would otherwise be provided by State and local
governments.
I would like to direct the Committee's attention to my
written statement for a broader discussion of the principles of
effective Federal funding, and focus just on the second item in
this list. One of the best uses of Federal funding is for
programs to research and promote so-called evidence-based crime
prevention, that is, crime prevention strategies and methods
the results of which can be verified empirically.
Congress should set high standards for measuring
effectiveness. No one other than the administrators of programs
receiving Federal grants are well served by standards that are
easy to satisfy.
As in any well run business, such programs must have
measurable results to demonstrate their effectiveness. The
metrics to be used must be standardized if each grantee's
performance is to be readily compared with the performance of
others. The Federal Government should also impose meaningful
interim benchmarks to ensure that the gang prevention programs
it funds are on target to meet the goals for which Congress has
provided funding.
Thank you again, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes.
And I look forward to responding to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian W. Walsh
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Judge Jones?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JERRAULD C. JONES, JUDGE, NORFOLK
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT, NORFOLK, VA
Judge Jones. To you, Mr. Chairman and to my friend and
former colleague, Mr. Forbes, Members of the Judiciary
Subcommittee, I say good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking
each of you for the invitation to appear before you this
afternoon in order to share with you my experiences and views
on the issue of gang crime prevention. I am indeed honored to
be included as a witness.
I must apologize for the late submission of my printed
remarks. But the invitation to appear today arrived when I was
out of the country at a judicial conference without a laptop
computer. And I did not return home until the wee hours of
yesterday morning fully jet lagged.
In any event, after hearing a full court docket of cases, I
was able to gather my thoughts for this afternoon and reduce
them to writing for your consideration. Again, please accept my
sincerest apologies.
I think I must add that I am not here today to speak for or
against any particular bill or resolution pending before the
Committee, in as much as that would be in violation of my
judicial ethics and of my office. So I want to make sure that
everybody is very clear about that point.
But let me begin by applauding all of you who are focusing
on this most serious issue by emphasizing prevention and early
intervention in the lives of those children who are at risk of
gang involvement.
After many years as a professional in the criminal and
juvenile justice systems and from different vantage points both
in Government and the community, I have concluded that the only
sustainable solution to the problems created by criminal street
gangs and other security threat groups is to focus on the
elimination of the criminogenic factors which are causing some
our Nation's children to become gang involved in the first
place.
Let me hasten to add that we simply must fully enforce the
criminal laws and fairly and appropriately punish the offenders
accordingly. However, such criminal law enforcement, and in
this case, gang suppression measures, cannot and must not be
our only rational response. Put another way, we must not only
lock up children when absolutely necessary, but we must lift
them up in every possible way.
I know that what I am saying to you is not exactly rocket
science, as the saying goes. However, sometimes even the most
complex problems often have very simple solutions. Frankly
stated, I draw this conclusion after over 27 years of
experience as a juvenile prosecutor, juvenile defender, State
legislator, as head of Virginia's youth authority, and now as a
juvenile court judge hearing hundreds of cases per month.
Nothing that I have seen in all of that time has caused me
to lose confidence in the belief that children, even those who
are highly delinquent and criminalized in their behavior, are
in need of the same things that you and I, and I daresay, most
everyone else in this room this afternoon, had as children
growing up, the love and affection of a caring, responsible
adult in their lives. Like many of you, I had parents and
grandparents--today they would be called old school parents--
who fully functioned as such, and who still vigorously and
actively parent me to this very day.
Like us, the children of today need parents and other
caring adults who provide not only love, but who also instill
the proper discipline, values, morals and boundaries in the
life of a child from birth and beyond. The sad reality is that
so many children today lack parents and-or guardians who
perform these functions. In particular, we see the causes and
effects of this condition in the juvenile and family courts
every day.
Each day that I sit as a judge, I adjudicate the cases of
children who come from weak or even nonexistent family
structures. Of course, we know that many children today are not
born of marriage, as it is an institution in decline. It is not
unusual for me to hear a full week's worth of juvenile and
family cases involving children whose parents were never
married.
Also, we know that many children do not live in homes where
there are two parents or any parents at all. You may be
surprised to know how many slightly older siblings are the
primary caregivers for many of our Nation's children. We also
know that many children do not live in homes where there is any
positive reinforcement by parents or other adults of the pro-
social, pro-family values to which we all subscribe.
I mention this situation first and foremost because I have
concluded that this weakened family structure is one of the
principal causes of children becoming gang involved. In
essence, many of them are searching for a sense of belonging,
an affiliation with others who care about them.
They are searching for something that they are not getting
elsewhere in their lives. When asked, many of these children
openly admit to their probation or parole officer, their
teacher or school counselor, and yes, even to the judge, that
they affiliate with the Bloods because it is the Bloods who
care about them.
It is the MS-13's who will be there for them when they need
them, who have their back, so to speak. Arguably then, in many
cases, gang involvement is a child's cry for attention, the
attention that you and I got from the Boy Scouts or the Little
League or the youth group at church
If this is, in fact, correct, then I respectfully submit
that anything and everything that can be done to support and
promote the family is gang prevention and crime prevention. I
think that just one of the innovative solutions that the
Federal Government or that any government, for that matter, can
foster is to promote the establishment of mentoring and other
programs which connect children and young adults with other
adults who will establish positive, pro-social relationships
with them.
Many such programs and services already exist in many
places, but, of course, more human and financial resources are
needed. I am proud to report that the judges of the court on
which I sit have worked to establish such a volunteer program
with our court-involved youth, and the effort thus far is
successful.
The volunteer mentors, many of whom are early retirees, are
responding to the challenge. The mentees are responding by the
avoidance of further acts of delinquency. Generally, our
efforts to divert certain delinquent children from deeper
penetration into the court system will include the
establishment of a mentor-mentee relationship. It works, and it
lasts, and it is cheap.
At this point, I feel obliged to observe that the
suggestions I make to all of you all today are the same or
similar suggestions which many of us made to the State
legislative judiciary committee on which I served as a member,
along with Representative Forbes, back in the middle 1990's. As
you all are today, we were then seeking to find innovative
governmental and public policy solutions to what was then seen
as a rising tide of serious, chronic, and violent juvenile
crime, including a perceived increase in youth gang activity.
Virginia, like most other States, responded with a variety of
responses, which included lowering the age of transfer to adult
courts, automatic adult treatment for certain offenses, longer
lengths of stay in secure confinement, and so on.
In sum, the legislature responded by adultifying the
juvenile justice system. I am obliged to observe that virtually
every State, including Virginia, is now engaged in a
comprehensive review of the long term outcomes of those
changes. In many States, highly reputable and unbiased
evaluators, many of them university-based, have concluded that
such highly punitive policies have not been effective in
reducing delinquency and criminality in juvenile offenders.
Mr. Scott. Judge, I am going to have to ask you to kind of
summarize the rest.
Judge Jones. I will. I will conclude. Of course, I am used
to having the gavel myself. But I am happy to be here, Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee. And I will be happy to
answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Judge Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones
To you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Honorable Members of the Judiciary
Subcommittee, I say good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking each of
you for the invitation to appear before this afternoon in order to
share with you my experiences and views on the issue of gang crime
prevention. I am indeed honored to be included as a witness. I must
apologize for the late submission of my printed remarks, but the
invitation to appear today arrived when I was out of the country at a
judicial conference, without a laptop computer; and I did not return
home until the wee hours of yesterday morning--fully jet-lagged. In any
event, after hearing a full court docket of cases, I was able to gather
my thoughts for this afternoon and reduce them to writing for your
consideration. Again, please accept my sincerest apology.
Let me begin by applauding all of you who are focusing on this most
serious issue by emphasizing prevention and early intervention in the
lives of those children who are at risk of gang involvement. After many
years as a professional in the criminal and juvenile justice systems,
and from different vantage points both in government and the community,
I have concluded that the only sustainable solution to the problems
created by criminal street gangs and other security threat groups is to
focus on the elimination of the criminogenic factors which are causing
some our nation's children to become gang involved in the first place.
Let me hasten to add that we simply must fully enforce the criminal
laws and fairly and appropriately punish the offenders accordingly.
However, such criminal law enforcement, and in this case, gang
suppression measures cannot and must not be our only rational response.
Put another way, we must not only lock up children when absolutely
necessary, but we must lift them up in every possible way.
I know that what I am saying to you is not exactly rocket science,
as the saying goes. However, sometimes even the most complex problems
often have very simple solutions.
Frankly stated, I draw this conclusion after over twenty-seven
years of experience as a juvenile prosecutor, juvenile defender, state
legislator, as head of Virginia's youth authority, and now, as a
juvenile court judge hearing hundreds of cases per month. Nothing that
I have seen in all of that time has caused me to lose confidence in the
belief that children, even those who are highly delinquent and
criminalized in their behavior, are in need of the same things that you
and I, and I daresay, most everyone else in this room this afternoon
had as children growing up--the love and affection of a caring,
responsible adult in their lives. Like many of you, I had parents and
grandparents (today they would be called ``old school'' parents) who
fully functioned as such, and who still vigorously and actively parent
me to this very day. Like us, the children of today need parents and
other caring adults who provide not only love, but who also instill the
proper discipline, values, morals, and boundaries in the life of a
child from birth and beyond. The sad reality is that so many children
today lack parents and/or guardians who perform these functions. In
particular, we see the causes and effects of this condition in the
juvenile and family courts every day.
Each day I sit as a judge, I adjudicate the cases of children who
come from weak or even non-existent family structures. Of course, we
know that many children today are not born of marriage, as it is an
institution in decline. It is not unusual for me to hear a full week's
worth of juvenile and family cases involving children whose parents
were never married. Also, we know that many children do not live in
homes where there are two parents, or any parents at all. You may be
surprised to know how many slightly older siblings are the primary
caregivers for many of our nation's children. We also know that many
children do not live in homes where there is any positive reinforcement
by parents or other adults of the pro-social, pro-family values to
which we all subscribe.
I mention this situation first and foremost because I have
concluded that this weakened family structure is one of the principal
causes of children becoming gang involved. In essence, many of them are
searching for a sense of belonging, an affiliation with others who care
about them. They are searching for something that they are not getting
elsewhere in their lives. When asked, many of these children openly
admit to their probation or parole officer, teacher or school
counselor, and yes, even to the judge, that they affiliate with the
Bloods because it is the Bloods who do care about them. It is the
MS13's who will be there for them when they need them--who have their
back, so to speak. Arguably then, in many cases, gang involvement is a
child's cry for attention, the attention that you and I got from the
Boy Scouts or the Little League or the youth group at church.
If this is, in fact, correct, then I respectfully submit that
anything and everything that can be done to support and promote the
family is gang prevention and crime prevention. I think that just one
of the innovative solutions that the federal government, or that any
government for that matter, can foster is to promote the establishment
of mentoring and other programs which connect children and young adults
with other adults who will establish positive, pro-social relationships
with them. Many such programs and services already exist in many
places, but, of course, more human and financial resources are needed.
I am proud to report that the Judges of the Court on which I sit have
worked to establish such a volunteer program with our court-involved
youth, and the effort thus far is successful. The volunteer mentors,
many of whom are early retirees, are responding to the challenge. The
mentees are responding by the avoidance of further acts of delinquency.
Generally, our efforts to divert certain delinquent children from
deeper penetration into the court system will include the establishment
of a mentor/mentee relationship. It works and it lasts. And, it is
cheap. . . .
At this point, I feel obliged to observe that the suggestions I
make to you all today are the same or similar suggestions which many of
us made to the state legislative judiciary committee on which I served
as a member back in the middle nineties. As you all are today, we were
then seeking to find innovative governmental and public policy
solutions to what was then seen as a rising tide of serious, chronic
and violent juvenile crime, including a perceived increase in youth
gang activity. Virginia, like most other states, responded with a
variety of responses which included, lowering the age of transfer to
adult courts, automatic adult treatment for certain offenses, longer
lengths of stay in secure confinement, and so on.
In sum, the Legislature responded by ``adultifying'' the juvenile
justice system. I am also obliged to observe that virtually every
state, including Virginia, is now engaged in a comprehensive review of
the long term outcomes of those changes. In many states, highly
reputable and unbiased evaluators, many of them university based, have
concluded that such highly punitive policies have not been effective in
reducing delinquency and criminality in juvenile offenders.
Respectfully, I strongly urge the Congress to be informed in these
matters by the experience of the states during the last fifteen years.
I might also add that the costs of juvenile incarceration are
staggering. In Virginia today, it costs over $88,000.00 per bed per
year to incarcerate a child, an increase of about $8,000.00 per year
from when I headed the youth authority five years ago. As is often
observed, one can do a whole lot of juvenile crime and gang prevention
for a fraction of the cost of incarceration.
I would respectfully make one other observation and recommendation
to the Committee. It appears to me that one of the criminogenic factors
to which I earlier alluded is the extent to which delinquent and
criminalized children read below age and grade level. If one reviews
the pre-sentencing report of most juvenile offenders or gang involved
youth, you will find school records and/or test scores which bear out
this statement. Of course, the reading level is an early predictor of
conventional academic success or failure. As the academic achievement
gap grows, so does the likelihood that the child will become delinquent
and eventually criminal. I urge you to ask any prosecutor, lawyer,
probation officer or judge about this common characteristic. I assure
you that they will heartily and readily agree. I am even advised that
some states now look to the reading levels of third graders when
forecasting their juvenile detention and prison bed needs into the next
decade as they age into the crime prone years.
Therefore, one other innovative gang prevention strategy surely
must be strong governmental efforts to promote reading proficiency
among all children, but especially among delinquent children who are at
risk of gang involvement. Again, I am proud to report that the Court on
which I sit, does, indeed, understand the connection. Towards that end,
we have recently established the LEAP into LITERACY program for court-
involved youth in which a retired public school counselor volunteers
every day of the week providing donated books and tutorials. Believe it
or not, the ``Book Lady'' is now getting telephone calls at home from
the little brothers and sisters of children in diversion programs and
on probation who want to know if they can have a book, too! Yes,
reading is fundamental! And again, promoting literacy is one of the
most important and lasting ways to lift up children so that we do not
have to lock them up down the road.
There are many other matters for your consideration but time does
not permit any further remarks.
I do sincerely thank the Subcommittee for your time and attention
to this critical issue in the public safety of our fellow citizens. I
commend you for your good efforts today and in the future. I am honored
by your invitation to participate and I stand ready and willing to
assist you in any way possible. I am now ready and willing to answer
any questions which you might have.
Thank you, again.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Roper?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD ROPER, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. Roper. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Richard Roper, the United
States attorney for the northern district of Texas. It is an
honor to be here today to discuss this important matter.
As a 25-year prosecutor who has worked at both the State
and Federal levels, I know that violent crime and gangs present
a critical public safety challenge that grips communities of
all sizes and demands a strong and coordinated response from
all of us. I want to discuss briefly the department's efforts
in this area and provide examples from my district, which I
think demonstrate that we can work together with our State and
local partners and with community leaders to implement an
effective strategy to combat violent crime and gangs.
The department's comprehensive approach to gangs and
violent crimes involves three prongs. First, the cooperative
enforcement initiatives which assist our State and local
partners in identifying and incarcerating those involved in
firearm and gang violence; two, innovative prevention
strategies and public awareness campaigns designed to
discourage gang membership, gun activity, truancy and violent
crime; and three, prisoner reentry programs geared to keep
former gang members and other violent criminals from returning
to gang membership and criminal activity after they are
released from prison.
Now, first is the enforcement initiative. That initiative
revolves around the Project Safe Neighborhood Program that
started in 2002, which is a cooperative effort among Federal,
State and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to
reduce gun crime.
In the 6 years PSN has been around, the department has more
than doubled the number of Federal firearm prosecutions
compared with the previous 6 years. And the conviction rate has
been high. For example, in 2006, the rate was 92 percent, which
is the highest it has ever been.
We have expanded PSN to include an increased focus on gang
violence. The department's comprehensive anti-gang initiative
has been pushed out to now 10 jurisdictions across the country,
including in my area, the Dallas, Fort Worth area.
The department has also established the anti-gang
coordination committee to organize the department's wide-
ranging efforts to combat gangs. At the district level each
U.S. attorney is appointed an anti-gang coordinator to provide
leadership and focus to our anti-gang efforts locally.
In addition, the department has established a new national
gang task force composed of the Federal law enforcement
agencies, the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshall Service, to
coordinate gang investigations and prosecutions both on a
national level and also to deal with the threat posed by
international gangs. Also the department has established
numerous joint violent crime-related task forces.
You have already heard about some of those, the FBI-led
Safe Streets Task Force, the Gang Streets Task Force that focus
on dismantling organized gangs. The U.S. Marshall-led Regional
Fugitive Task Force and district-based task forces across the
country that focus on fugitive apprehension efforts and, of
course, the ATF Violent Crime Impact Teams, composed of Federal
agents working with State and local partners to identify,
target and arrest violent criminals to reduce the occurrence of
homicide and firearm-related violent crimes.
I wanted to give you some examples of how I think PSN and
the gang initiative have worked. And let me deal with my areas.
First, there is two initiatives I wanted to talk about. The
Cymbal Street investigation involved ATF working with the
Dallas Police Department. And they faced two street gangs who
worked together to maintain control of a neighborhood in East
Dallas for their drug trafficking activities. They excluded
other drug dealers from even working in that area.
The neighbors living there were afraid to go to their
homes, come out of their homes or be seen talking to the police
in public view because of fear of reprisal from gang members.
Following the 2003 arrest and eventual Federal prosecution of
these gang members, crime dropped in that area 47 percent.
Another initiative was the fishbowl initiative where 41
gang members were prosecuted resulting in--in just 1 year since
we prosecuted that case--a 10 percent reduction in the violent
crime rate in that area. But it involves more than just
enforcement. The prevention programs we have that we are
pushing out, the gang prevention summits that U.S. attorneys
offices have put on, the ad council ads that have been put out,
the gang resistance education program has been successful in
bringing to the schools training and to keep the kids out of
gangs.
In my district we have had a very successful program in the
Dallas independent school district in reducing gang violence.
It involves training and also reaching out to kids before they
get in gangs all the way down to the elementary school.
We have also worked with the Boys and Girls Club. And
finally, let me just briefly mention first, just a few seconds.
What I am proud of is our reentry program. In the Dallas, Fort
Worth area we have had two reentry programs, one our Project
Safe Neighborhood Program that essentially is an education
program to essentially scare released probationers and parolees
from engaging in gun crime. Our research partner found that
there was a 48 percent reduction in the incidents of gun crimes
among probationers and parolees in Dallas County since we
started that program.
And also we have initiated as part of the anti-gang grant
that we received from the Department of Justice, a reentry
initiative where we are taking 100 gang members that are
released from prison and provide essential services to them.
And that involves three areas: first, job training, job
placement, and mentoring.
And I am really glad we can partner. We are partnering with
a faith-based group headed by the Potter's House, in Dallas, to
deal with that. And it is both in Dallas and Forth Worth. And I
look forward to doing that.
I think the key to success in this area is cooperation with
our State and local partners. And I think opening the door wide
to crime reduction involves employing that three-pronged
approach of enforcement, prevention, and reentry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roper follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Richard B. Roper
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Seave?
TESTIMONY OF PAUL L. SEAVE, DIRECTOR, GANG AND YOUTH VIOLENCE
POLICY OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Seave. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Forbes, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Paul Seave.
And I am California's director of gang and youth violence
policy, a position to which I was recently appointed by
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today to
testify. And I am here to express strong support of H.R. 3547,
the Gang Prevention Intervention and Suppression Act, sponsored
by Congressman Adam Schiff and Congresswoman Mary Bono.
My support for H.R. 3547 derives directly from California's
long and tragic experience with street gangs. Before I proceed,
however, let me explain by way of background. As the Chairman
mentioned in part, before assuming my current position I was a
Federal prosecutor for 15 years, including the last 4 as the
United States attorney in Sacramento. And after, that I spent 5
years as director of the California attorney general's crime
and violence prevention center, where my staff of 40 promoted
prevention and intervention strategies in a number of areas,
including gang and youth violence.
Now, if there is one lesson that law enforcement in
California has learned after decades of gang violence,
concentrated suppression efforts and more than 10,0000 gang-
related homicides in the last 20 years, it is that we can't
arrest our way out of the problem. So says virtually every law
enforcement leader in California.
This does not mean that law enforcement shouldn't pursue
those who commit violence or that smart suppression efforts
aren't necessary to interrupt the escalating cycle of
retaliatory violence that often attends gang disputes. Instead
what it does mean is that suppression should be viewed as both
a short-term fix to gang violence and the critical first step
to a long-term solution.
And that solution requires prevention and intervention
activities, hopefully those that have been proven effective,
implemented in a sustained and robust fashion according to a
comprehensive strategic plan formulated by many sectors in the
community. A strategy that overlooks any of these components,
suppression, prevention or intervention, will inevitably allow
the conditions that gave rise to the violence and the violence
itself to reemerge.
The primary responsibility for addressing gang violence
belongs to local communities with the support of State
government. But the scope, persistence, and effects of gang
violence leave no doubt that Federal help and leadership are
now needed if we are to bring about a long-term reduction in
gangs and gang violence.
H.R. 3547 delivers that help and leadership hitting all the
marks. For example, Federal enforcement efforts are sometimes
needed to supplement those of local and State agencies when
street gangs are particularly dangerous or violent. This bill
authorizes Federal agencies to prosecute those gangs for the
types of crimes that they commit, particularly for acts of
violence and for retaliation against witnesses.
Prevention and intervention must receive equal attention.
And again, this bill does just that.
The provisions in title 3 that allow designation of high-
intensity gang activity areas promote the most effective
approach, in my view, to reducing gang violence in the long-
term. Targeting the areas most afflicted by gang crime,
requiring each high-intensity gang area to create a multi-
disciplinary working group of law enforcement, educators, faith
leaders, community leaders and service providers, giving
preference for funding to areas that have comprehensive
strategies, requiring Federal, State and local law enforcement
to work together, giving 50 percent of the funds to enforcement
and 50 percent to intervention and prevention, and finally,
creating a national gang research evaluation and policy
institute to conduct further research on programs that work,
programs that don't work, and to facilitate and promote
adoption of those programs that do work. This is an absolutely
essential organization that is best situated at the Federal
level.
California has learned the hard way that suppression is a
critically important part of the answer, but not the complete
answer to reducing gang violence, that prevention and
intervention are absolutely essential to any long-term strategy
to reduce gang violence, and that Federal assistance and
leadership across all three dimensions are necessary. H.R. 3547
promises to deliver the needed help.
I would ask that the House move quickly to address the
national problem of gang violence just as the Senate recently
passed S. 456, a bill sponsored by Senators Feinstein and
Hatch, that takes a similar approach to reducing gang violence.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seave follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul L. Seave
introduction
Good afternoon. My name is Paul Seave, and I am California's
Director of Gang and Youth Violence Policy, a position to which I was
recently appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am here to
testify in strong support of H.R. 3547, the Gang Prevention,
Intervention, and Suppression Act, sponsored by Congressman Adam Schiff
and Congresswoman Mary Bono.
My support for H.R. 3547 derives directly from California's long
and tragic experience with street gangs. Before I proceed, however, let
me explain, by way of background, that before assuming my current
position I served as a federal prosecutor in CA for fifteen years--the
last four as United States Attorney in Sacramento. I spent the next
five years as Director of the CA Attorney General's Crime and Violence
Prevention Center, where my staff of 40 promoted prevention and
intervention strategies in a number of areas, including gang and youth
violence.
california's experience
Now: If there is one lesson that law enforcement in California has
learned after decades of gang violence, concentrated suppression
efforts, and more than 10,000 gang-related homicides in the past twenty
years, it is that ``We can't arrest our way out of the problem.''--So
says virtually every law enforcement leader in California.
This does not mean that law enforcement should not pursue those who
commit violence, or that ``smart'' suppression efforts aren't necessary
to interrupt the cycle of retaliatory violence that attends gang
disputes. Instead, what it does mean is that suppression should be
viewed as both a short-term fix to gang violence and the critical first
step to a long-term solution. And that solution requires prevention and
intervention activities--hopefully those that have been proven
effective--implemented in a sustained and robust fashion according to a
comprehensive strategic plan formulated by many sectors in the
community. A strategy that overlooks any of these components--
suppression, prevention, or intervention--will inevitably allow the
conditions that gave rise to the violence, and the violence itself, to
re-emerge.
need for federal role
The primary responsibility for addressing gang violence belongs to
local communities with the support of state government. But the scope,
persistence, and effects of gang violence leave no doubt that federal
help and leadership are now needed if we are to bring about a long-term
reduction in gangs and gang violence.
H.R. 3547 delivers that help and leadership, hitting all the marks.
For example, federal enforcement efforts are sometimes needed to
supplement those of local and state agencies when street gangs are
particularly dangerous or violent. This bill authorizes federal
agencies to prosecute those gangs for the types of crimes that they
commit--particularly, for acts of violence and for retaliation against
witnesses.
Prevention and intervention must receive equal attention and again
this bill does just that. The provisions in Title III that allow
designation of High Intensity Gang Activity Areas (HIGAAs) promote the
most effective approach to reducing gang violence in the long-term--1)
targeting the areas most afflicted by gang crime; 2) requiring each
HIGAA to create a multi-disciplinary working group of law enforcement,
educators, faith leaders, community leaders, and service providers; 3)
giving preference for funding to areas that have comprehensive
strategies; 4) giving 50% of the funds to enforcement and 50% to
intervention and prevention; and 5) creating a National Gang Research,
Evaluation, and Policy Institute, an absolutely essential organization
that is best situated at the federal level.
conclusion
California has learned--the hard way--that suppression is a
critically important part of the answer, but not the complete answer,
to reducing gang violence; that prevention and intervention are
absolutely essential to any long-term strategy to reduce gang violence;
and that federal assistance and leadership--across all three
dimensions--are necessary. H.R. 3547 promises to deliver the needed
help. I would ask that the House move quickly to address the national
problem of gang violence, just as the Senate recently passed S. 456, a
bill sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch that takes
a similar approach to reducing gang violence.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. We were joined previously by the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. And we also have with us today
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. And Ms. Jackson Lee
was here.
Mr. Pranis?
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN PRANIS, RESEARCHER,
JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Pranis. Good afternoon. I want to thank Congressman
Scott and Congressman Forbes and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to address this important
issue today. My name is Kevin Pranis. And I am here
representing the Justice Policy Institute, a criminal justice
think tank based in the District of Columbia.
Youth crime in the United States remains near the lowest
level seen in decades. Yet public concern and media coverage of
gang activity has skyrocketed since 2000. Some policy makers
have declared the arrival of a national gang crisis tying gangs
to terrorism and connecting their formation and growth to
everything from lax border enforcement to the illicit drug
trade.
Rising fears have prompted calls for a new tough
legislation that would raise penalties for a vaguely defined
gang crimes and spend millions of dollars on gang suppression.
Two years ago in response to these fears the Justice Policy
Institute commissioned my organization to produce an in-depth
report on what is known about gangs and the efficacy of common
gang control strategies.
My colleague, Judy Greene, and I began with an extensive
review of the social science literature on gangs and gang
membership. We also interviewed a diverse group of
stakeholders, including scholars, law enforcement officials,
former gang members. And we conducted original analysis of
youth survey and law enforcement data.
``Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics, and the
Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies,'' was released in
July of this year. As the title suggests, we found that most
common assumptions about gangs are inaccurate and that current
gang enforcement practices are misguided. We hope that the
report's findings, which I will briefly summarize today, will
help policy makers advance more effective approaches to reduce
unacceptably high levels of crime and violence in some of our
communities.
You have heard gangs described as top down criminal
organizations that are driven by their leaders' desire to
maximize power and profit often by recruiting an army of young
men to impose a reign of terror on a geographic area. This
conception of gangs gives rise to a common set of enforcement
strategies: target and remove the leaders, disrupt the gang's
ability to function as a unit, deter youth from joining or
remaining in the gang by exposing them to criminal processing
and penalties.
Unfortunately, our review of the research literature shows
that such strategies have failed time and again to achieve
meaningful reductions in the crime and violence associated with
gangs. The reason? The assumptions that underlie traditional
gang enforcement are dead wrong.
Gangs are, for the most part, bottom-up associations formed
by troubled adolescents who engage in self-directed
disorganized crime. Gangs do not require leaders to get
themselves in trouble. And they fear rival gang members more
than they fear police or prison.
Fortunately, for the rest of us, most quickly outgrow their
gang ties without the help of law enforcement or gang
intervention programs. The typical gang member joins between
the ages of 12 and 15 and quits the gang within the first year.
Ex-gang members typically cite high levels of violence or
maturation as reasons for leaving. Only rarely do they cite
fear of arrest or criminal penalties.
Leaving the gang early sharply reduces the risk of negative
life outcomes. But current policies make it more difficult for
gang members to quit by continuing to target former members
after their gang affiliation has ended.
Media reports are full of stories about cities where crime
goes up, a crackdown is launched, and crime goes down. But a
review of research on the implementation of gang enforcement
strategies from 17 jurisdictions over a 20-year period shows an
overall record of failure. Problems identified in the
literature include: a lack of correspondence between the
problem, typically lethal or serious violence, and a law
enforcement response that targets low-level, nonviolent
misbehavior; evidence that the intervention had no effect, or a
negative effect, on crime and violence; a tendency for any
reductions in crime and violence to evaporate quickly, often
before the end of the intervention period; and failure of
replication efforts to achieve results comparable to those of
the pilot program.
Among our specific findings, police gang units are often
formed for the wrong reasons and perceived as isolated and
ineffectual by law enforcement colleagues. An in-depth study of
four cities determined that the units were formed in response
to political, public and media pressure and that ``almost no
one other than the gang unit officers themselves seemed to
believe the gang unit's suppression efforts were effective at
reducing communities' gang problems.'' There is, similarly, no
evidence whatsoever that other gang targeting programs,
including task forces, prosecution units or gang sentencing
enhancements have any impact on gang activity.
Second, heavy-handed suppression efforts can increase gang
cohesion and police community tension. And they have a poor
track record when it comes to reducing crime and violence.
Results from a Department of Justice-funded interventions
in three major cities yield no evidence that a flood of Federal
dollars and arrests had a positive impact on neighborhoods. For
example, Dallas residents saw the incidents of gang-related
violence fall in target areas, but ended up worse off than
residents of other neighborhoods because overall violent crime
went up during the intervention period.
Third, so-called balanced gang control strategies have been
plagued by replication problems and imbalances between law
enforcement and community stakeholders. For example,
replication of the Boston cease fire model in Los Angeles and
Indianapolis produced no evidence that efforts to disseminate a
deterrence message had changed the behavior of gang members.
The evaluators concluded ``We suspect that the carrot of
the interventions will always lag far behind the stick side, in
spite of the best intentions that it not do so, unless some
extraordinary efforts are made.'' Simply put, there is no
balance in the balanced approach to gang enforcement.
I want to contrast America's two largest cities, New York
and Los Angeles, to provide a case in point. New York City
street work and gang intervention programs were fielded decades
ago during a period when gang violence was on the rise. These
strategies were grounded in social work practices that go
outside the realm of law enforcement.
No seasoned New Yorker would deny the existence of gangs,
but gang-related offenses represent just a tiny blip on the New
York crime screen. Comparing New York to Los Angeles where gang
violence is epidemic, city and State officials have spent
billions of dollars on policing and surveillance, the
development of databases containing the names of tens of
thousands of alleged gang members, and long prison sentences
for gang members.
Taxpayers had not seen a return on their massive
investment. They now report six times as many gangs and at
least double the number of gang members in the region. The
crime statistics tell the story.
LAPD reported 11,402 gang-related crimes in 2005. The same
year the New York Police Department reported just 520. FBI
crime reports indicate New York's homicide rate that year was
half of Los Angeles.
Yet absent better alternatives, lawmakers across the
country risk blindly following in Los Angeles' troubled
footsteps. I would make a plea that we let police do what they
do best, to solve crimes, identify the perpetrators, and
apprehend them, not chasing after kids in baggy clothes under
the assumption that gangs are the primary crime problem in the
country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pranis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Pranis
Good afternoon. I want to thank the Chair, Congressman Scott, and
the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security for the opportunity to testify on this important
issue. My name is Kevin Pranis, and I am here today representing The
Justice Policy Institute--a criminal justice think-tank based here in
the District of Columbia.
I have spent more then a decade working on criminal justice issues:
as a caseworker, an educator, an advocate, and finally as a policy
analyst with Justice Strategies--a nonprofit criminal justice research
organization. During that time, I have authored or co-authored research
reports and white papers on a wide range of topics, including prisoner
reentry, sentencing policy, prison privatization, rising female
imprisonment rates, and the use of substance abuse treatment as an
alternative to incarceration.
Two years ago, Justice Policy Institute commissioned Justice
Strategies to produce an in-depth report on what is known about gangs'
contribution to problems of crime and violence, as well as the efficacy
of common gang control strategies. My colleague Judy Greene and I began
our work with an extensive review of the social science literature on
gangs and gang membership, incorporating research that examined gangs
from multiple perspectives (e.g. crime control, youth development)
using varied techniques (e.g. ethnography, law enforcement data, youth
surveys). We also interviewed a diverse group of stakeholders,
including law enforcement officials, scholars, social service
providers, and former gang members. Finally, we analyzed youth survey
and law enforcement data to test common assumptions about the
prevalence of gang membership and the relationship between gang
activity and crime rates.
The resulting report, ``Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement
Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies,'' was
released in July of this year. As the title suggests, we found that the
most common assumptions about gangs and gang control lack foundation in
the scientific literature. We hope that the results of our research--
briefly summarized in this testimony--will provide an opportunity to
pursue more fruitful approaches to reduce unacceptably high levels of
violence in our communities.
gang wars findings
Youth crime in the United States remains near the lowest levels
seen in the past three decades, yet public concern and media coverage
of gang activity has skyrocketed since 2000. Fear has spread from
neighborhoods with long-standing gang problems to communities with
historically low levels of crime. Some policy makers have declared the
arrival of a national gang ``crisis''-tying gangs to terrorism and
connected their formation and growth to everything from lax border
enforcement to the illicit drug trade. Rising fears have prompted calls
for new ``tough'' legislation that would raise penalties for vaguely
defined gang crimes and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on gang
suppression. Yet the evidence points to a different reality and
suggests a more thoughtful policy response. The following are our key
findings concerning gangs and gang members:
Gangs and gang members
There are fewer gang members in the United States today than there
were a decade ago, and there is no evidence that gang activity is
growing. It is difficult to find a law enforcement account of gang
activity that does not give the impression that the problem is getting
worse by the day. Yet the most recent comprehensive law enforcement
estimate indicates that youth gang membership fell from 850,000 in 1996
to 760,000 in 2004 and that the proportion of jurisdictions reporting
gang problems has dropped substantially. The myth of a growing gang
menace has been fueled by sensational media coverage and misuse of law
enforcement gang statistics, which gang experts consider unreliable for
the purpose of tracking local crime trends.
There is no consistent relationship between law enforcement
measures of gang activity and crime trends. One expert observes that
gang membership estimates were near an all-time high at the end of the
1990s, when youth violence fell to the lowest level in decades. An
analysis of gang membership and crime data from North Carolina found
that most jurisdictions reporting growth in gang membership also
reported falling crime rates. Dallas neighborhoods targeted for gang
suppression activities reported both a drop in gang crime and an
increase in violent crime during the intervention period.
Gang members account for a relatively small share of crime in most
jurisdictions. There are a handful of jurisdictions such as Los Angeles
and Chicago where gang members are believed to be responsible for a
significant share of crime. But the available evidence indicates that
gang members play a relatively small role in the national crime problem
despite their propensity toward criminal activity. National estimates
and local research findings suggest that gang members may be
responsible for fewer than one in 10 homicides; fewer than one in 16
violent offenses; and fewer than one in 20 serious (index) crimes.
Gangs themselves play an even smaller role, since much of the crime
committed by gang members is self-directed and not committed for the
gang's benefit.
Gangs do not dominate or drive the drug trade. National drug
enforcement sources claim that gangs are ``the primary retail
distributors of drugs in the country.'' But studies of several
jurisdictions where gangs are active have concluded that gang members
account for a relatively small share of drug sales and that gangs do
not generally seek to control drug markets. Investigations conducted in
Los Angeles and nearby cities found that gang members accounted for one
in four drug sale arrests. The Los Angeles district attorney concluded
that just one in seven gang members sold drugs on a monthly basis. St.
Louis researchers describe gang involvement in drug sales as ``poorly
organized, episodic, nonmonopolistic [and] not a rationale for the
gang's existence.'' A member of one of San Diego's best-organized gangs
explains: ``The gang don't organize nothing. It's like everybody is on
they own. You are not trying to do nothing with nobody unless it's with
your friend. You don't put your money with gangs.''
Most gang members join when they are young and quickly outgrow
their gang affiliation without the help of law enforcement or gang
intervention programs. A substantial minority of youth (7 percent of
whites and 12 percent of blacks and Latinos) goes through a gang phase
during adolescence, but most youth quit the gang within the first year.
One multistate survey found that fully half of eighth-graders reporting
gang involvement were former members. When former gang members cite
reasons why they left the gang, they commonly mention high levels of
violence, and that they just grew out of it; only rarely do they cite
fear of arrest or criminal penalties. Most youth who join gangs do so
between the ages of 12 and 15, but the involvement of younger children
in gangs is not new. Noted expert Malcolm Klein observes: ``Although
some writers and officials decry the 8- and 10-year-old gang member,
they haven't been in the business long enough to realize that we heard
the same reports 20 and 40 years ago.''
Leaving the gang early reduces the risk of negative life outcomes,
but current policies make it more difficult for gang members to quit.
Gang involvement is associated with dropping out of school, teen
parenthood, and unstable employment, but the risks are much smaller for
those who leave the gang in a year or less. Yet little attention has
been devoted to why and how youth leave gangs, and many gang control
policies make the process of leaving more rather than less difficult by
continuing to target former members after their gang affiliation has
ended. Researchers note: ``Police and school officials may not be aware
of the decision of individuals to leave the gang or may not take such
claims seriously, and records may not be purged of prior gang status. .
. . When representatives of official agencies (e.g., police, school)
identify an individual as a gang member, they are sending a powerful
signal to rival gang members as well as to people in the community
about the gang involvement of that person.''
The public face of the gang problem is black and brown, but whites
make up the largest group of adolescent gang members. Law enforcement
sources report that over 90 percent of gang members are nonwhite, but
youth survey data shows that whites account for 40 percent of
adolescent gang members. White gang youth closely resemble black and
Latino counterparts on measures of delinquency and gang involvement,
yet they are virtually absent from most law enforcement and media
accounts of the gang problem. The disparity raises troubling questions
about how gang members are identified by police.
Gang enforcement
The conventional wisdom on gang enforcement is equally flawed.
Media reports are full of stories about cities where crime goes up, a
crackdown is launched, and crime goes down. But a review of research on
the implementation of gang enforcement strategies--ranging from
neighborhood-based suppression to the U.S. Justice Department Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Comprehensive Gang
Program Model--provides little reason for optimism. Findings from
investigations of gang enforcement efforts in 17 jurisdictions over the
past two decades yield few examples of success and many examples of
failure.
The problems highlighted in the research include:
Lack of correspondence between the problem, typically
lethal and/or serious violence, and a law enforcement response
that targets low-level, nonviolent misbehavior.
Resistance on the part of key agency personnel to
collaboration or implementation of the strategy as designed.
Evidence that the intervention had no effect or a
negative effect on crime and violence.
A tendency for any reductions in crime or violence to
evaporate quickly, often before the end of the intervention
period.
Poorly designed evaluations that make it impossible
to draw any conclusions about the effect of an intervention.
Failure of replication efforts to achieve results
comparable to those of pilot programs.
Severe imbalances of power and resources between law
enforcement and community partners that hamper the
implementation of ``balanced'' gang control initiatives.
Among our specific findings concerning typical gang enforcement
strategies:
Police gang units are often formed for the wrong reasons and
perceived as isolated and ineffectual by law enforcement colleagues. A
survey of 300 large cities found that the formation of gang units was
more closely associated with the availability of funding and the size
of the Latino population than with the extent of local gang or crime
problems. An in-depth study of four cities determined that gang units
were formed in response to ``political, public, and media pressure''
and that ``almost no one other than the gang unit officers themselves
seemed to believe that gang unit suppression efforts were effective at
reducing the communities' gang problems.'' Investigators found that
gang officers were poorly trained and that their units became isolated
from host agencies and community residents. The chief of one police
department admitted that he had ``little understanding of what the gang
unit did or how it operated.'' The authors observed that the isolation
of gang units from host agencies and their tendency to form tight-knit
subcultures--not entirely unlike those of gangs--may contribute to a
disturbingly high incidence of corruption and other misconduct.
Heavy-handed suppression efforts can increase gang cohesion and
police--community tensions, and they have a poor track record when it
comes to reducing crime and violence. Suppression remains an enormously
popular response to gang activity despite concerns by gang experts that
such tactics can strengthen gang cohesion and increase tension between
law enforcement and community members. Results from Department of
Justice-funded interventions in three major cities yield no evidence
that a flood of federal dollars and arrests had a positive impact on
target neighborhoods. St. Louis evaluators found that dozens of
targeted arrests and hundreds of police stops failed to yield
meaningful reductions in crime in the targeted neighborhoods, even
during the period of intense police activity. Dallas residents saw the
incidence of ``gang-related'' violence fall in target areas but had
little to celebrate because the overall violent crime numbers rose
during the intervention period. Detroit evaluators reported initial
reductions in gun crimes within two targeted precincts, but the
apparent gains were short-lived: by the end of the intervention period,
the incidence of gun crime in target areas was at preintervention
levels and trending upward.
``Balanced'' gang control strategies have been plagued by
replication problems and imbalances between law enforcement and
community stakeholders. Gang program models that seek to balance
suppression activities with the provision of social services and
supports have been piloted in Boston and Chicago with some success. But
the results of attempts to replicate Operation Ceasefire and the
Comprehensive Gang Program Model in other jurisdictions have been
disappointing. Replications of the Ceasefire model in Los Angeles and
Indianapolis produced no evidence that efforts to disseminate a
deterrence message had changed the behavior of gang members. Meanwhile,
replications of the Chicago model in five cities produced mixed
results, with just two sites reporting reductions in participants'
violent behavior that approached statistical significance. Prevention
and intervention appeared to lag far behind suppression efforts in the
many sites. The Los Angeles Ceasefire evaluators concluded: ``We
suspect that the carrot side of these interventions will always lag far
behind the stick side in spite of the best intentions that it not do
so, unless some extraordinary efforts are made'' (emphasis added). A
recent analysis concluded that two-thirds of resources expended on gang
reduction in Los Angeles have gone to suppression activities.
African American and Latino communities bear the cost of failed
gang enforcement initiatives. Young men of color are disproportionately
identified as gang members and targeted for surveillance, arrest, and
incarceration, while whites--who make up a significant share of gang
members--rarely show up in accounts of gang enforcement efforts. The
Los Angeles district attorney's office found that close to half of
black males between the ages of 21 and 24 had been entered in the
county's gang database even though no one could credibly argue that all
of these young men were current gang members. Communities of color
suffer not only from the imposition of aggressive police tactics that
can resemble martial law, but also from the failure of such tactics to
pacify their neighborhoods. One researcher argues that in Chicago, for
example, a cycle of police suppression and incarceration and a legacy
of segregation have actually helped to sustain unacceptably high levels
of gang violence.
New York vs. Los Angeles
The contrast between America's largest cities--New York and Los
Angeles--provides a case in point. In New York City, a variety of
street work and gang intervention programs were fielded decades ago
during a period when gang violence was on the rise. These strategies
were solidly grounded in principles of effective social work practices
that fall outside the realm of law enforcement, and they seem to have
helped dissuade city policy makers and police officials from embracing
most of the counterproductive gang suppression tactics adopted
elsewhere. No seasoned New Yorker would deny the existence of street
gangs. But gang-related offenses represent just a tiny blip on the New
York crime screen. Gang experts conclude that the city's serious
problem with street gang violence had largely faded away by the end of
the 1980s. Youth violence remains a problem in some New York City
neighborhoods, but with crime falling to historic lows, the city's
approach to gangs and youth crime seems to be remarkably effective.
Compare New York to Los Angeles, where gang violence is epidemic.
City and state officials have spent billions of dollars on policing and
surveillance, on development of databases containing the names of tens
of thousands of alleged gang members, and on long prison sentences for
gang members. Spending on gang enforcement has far outpaced spending on
prevention programs or on improved conditions in communities where gang
violence takes a heavy toll. Los Angeles taxpayers have not seen a
return on their massive investments over the past quarter century: law
enforcement agencies report that there are now six times as many gangs
and at least double the number of gang members in the region. In the
undisputed gang capital of the world, more police, more prisons, and
more punitive measures haven't stopped the cycle of gang violence. Los
Angeles is losing the war on gangs.
The contrast can be seen clearly in the crime statistics: The Los
Angeles Police Department (LAPD) reported 11,402 gang-related crimes in
2005. That same year, the New York Police Department reported just 520.
FBI crime reports indicate that New York's homicide rate that year was
about half of Los Angeles', while the rate of reported gang crime in
Los Angeles was 49 times the rate reported in New York City. Yet absent
better alternatives, lawmakers across the country risk blindly
following in Los Angeles' troubled footsteps. Federal proposals--such
as S. 456, the ``Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007''--promise
more of the kinds of punitive approaches that have failed to curb the
violence in Los Angeles.
A better way
Our report does not endorse any particular program or approach for
reducing the damage done by gangs and gang members. Instead, it points
toward actions we can take to reduce youth violence. The most effective
route toward reducing the harm caused by gangs requires a more
realistic grasp of the challenges that gangs pose. The objective should
not be to eradicate gangs--an impossible task--but rather to promote
community safety. As one community stakeholder observes, ``The problem
is not to get kids out of gangs, but the behavior. If crime goes down,
if young people are doing well, that's successful.''
The lessons from the past and results from research on more recent
innovations in juvenile justice policy point toward more effective
public safety strategies:
* Expand the use of evidenced-based practice to reduce youth crime.
Evidenced-based practices are those interventions that are
scientifically proven to reduce juvenile recidivism and promote
positive outcomes for young people. Rather than devoting more resources
to gang suppression and law enforcement tactics, researchers recommend
targeting funding to support research-based programs operated by
agencies in the health and human services sector. As Peter Greenwood,
former director of the RAND Corporation's Criminal Justice Program and
an evaluator of Operation Ceasefire in Los Angeles, notes, ``Delays in
adopting proven programs will only cause additional victimization of
citizens and unnecessarily compromise the future of additional youth.''
* Promote jobs, education, and healthy communities, and lower
barriers to the reintegration into society of former gang members. Many
gang researchers observe that employment and family formation help draw
youth away from gangs. White youth have greater access to jobs and
education, which may explain why there are many white gang members but
little discussion of a chronic white gang problem. Creating positive
opportunities through which gang members can leave their past behind is
the best chance for improving public safety. This requires both
investing resources and reforming policies and practices that now deny
current and former gang members access to these opportunities.
* Redirect resources from failed gang enforcement efforts to proven
public safety strategies. Gang injunctions, gang sweeps, and ominous-
sounding enforcement initiatives reinforce negative images of whole
communities and run counter to the positive youth development agenda
that has been proven to work. Rather than promoting antigang rhetoric
and programs, policy makers should expand evidence-based approaches to
help former gang members and all youth acquire the skills and
opportunities they need to contribute to healthy and vibrant
communities.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
Dr. Scharf?
TESTIMONY OF PETER SCHARF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SOCIETY, LAW AND JUSTICE, AUSTIN, TX
Mr. Scharf. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, it is an
honor to be here. I want to continue, I think, what Kevin
started, which is to tear some of the assumptions apart as to
how we deal with the gang issue. We really have two different
paradigms at work.
One paradigm--and many cities are using it--is the
interdiction paradigm. In Las Vegas they have a Squad-Up
program that sort of proactively attacks gangs. In other
cities, such as Minneapolis, they attempt to work with kids,
deal with some of the underlying social issues and ameliorate
gang risk through prevention and early intervention. In truth,
it is a 200-year debate.
In the early 19th century there was a debate between people
who believed in environmental stimuli as the cause of
delinquency and those who believed in innate depravity. And you
look in recent history we have things, programs such as Weed
and Seed. We have community precincts with radically different
assumptions.
And I think it is important that, as we look at the
different bills under consideration, we think about really what
are the differences. But here are a few things I think that are
different between what is being proposed in the Schiff bill and
that in the Scott-Thomas bill, which is under development.
In the Schiff bill, we have a balanced approach, but with a
very strong interdiction approach that could result in large
numbers of young people being sent to jail, sent to prison,
especially those on the fringes of gang activity, as well as
prevention efforts and some research efforts in the gang
institute approach. In the Scott bill we have an attempt really
to do four different things. One, to fund local communities
with intensive early intervention and prevention resources to
address and to provide a wide variety of evidence-based
programming toward young people.
The second is to support and refine what we believe to be
evidence-based by continuing the research. And the third thing
is to train police officers in working with young people, not
in terms of interdiction model, but in terms of understanding
adolescent behavior and the legal and ethical issues related to
diverting them from the criminal justice system.
In the Schiff bill I think there is an emphasis, a belief,
in the model of deterrence and incapacitation, that if you
incapacitate large numbers of gang members, potential gang
members and create general deterrence the public safety will be
increased. In the Scott bill I think there is an assumption
that, through reducing the underlying risks that lead to gang
activity, that that will, in the long run, result in public
safety.
And looking at the two bills through two different lenses,
I think, may be productive for these discussions. One is what
is the evidence behind each of these two positions. In terms of
the Schiff bill, there is a disconnect, I think, between
increasing prosecutorial resources with the goal of increasing
deterrence and incapacitation in the sense there may be minimal
evidence that that, in fact, works.
The most probable case, as we heard, in the crime summit on
June 22nd, is that if you increase prosecutorial resources and
you increase police capacity, what happens is you run up
incredibly high criminal justice costs with the argument that,
in fact, in the long run you increase public safety is almost
nil.
There is a study by Pontell of the capacity to punish,
which argues that the reason we have the rise, as Chairman
Scott said, from 200,000 in 1931 when I started work in the
system, to 2 million inmates today, has very little to do with
changing crime risks. What it has to do with is increasing the
capacity to punish by facilitating prosecutions such as is
funded under the Schiff bill. Is there a chance that, in fact,
what will happen is we will increase our criminal justice costs
with no concurrent increase in safety?
If you just take--I developed a model in my presentation
where I just assume, let us say, you have 2,000 kids a year who
are incarcerated through the enhanced resources. Over the
lifetime of a bill, a 10-year lifetime of the bill, the costs
could be up to $8 billion. If we took that $8 billion and used
it for other purposes, how many special education teachers,
doctors in the inner city schools could be funded and schools
built?
So the argument that in one bill we know that, given the
evidence--well, we haven't been given the evidence of whether
it worked. The one thing that is certain is we will increase
the costs.
The Scott bill under preparation, the PROMISE bill, if
assuming reasonable success of the prevention measures, each
year the bill becomes a better deal, a better bargain for the
taxpayer, in the sense your underlying risks will be reduced
and your criminal justice costs will be abated. I strongly
support consideration of this alternative paradigm.
Harry Lee died yesterday, the sheriff in Jefferson Parish.
They took him to New York--from John Jay College he said, you
have come here expecting the criminal justice to solve the
problems we have in New Orleans, which are obvious to
everybody. And in fact, the system may be the problem as much
as the cure.
And if you look at the bill, this hybrid bill that is
proposed by Congressman Schiff, the risk is that, in fact, the
criminal justice system becomes its own dynamic, more kids
become involved in the system, the costs become excessive, and
also--the disease caused by the treatment, that kids who would
otherwise not stay in the gang life will, in fact, through the
criminal justice system become identified--and trapped into
that system.
Again, summarizing, what do I think? One, this is a huge
problem, astronomic problem financially. The liability is
enormous. We have two different choices, two different
paradigms of how to proceed, one, of a focus on prevention, the
other, the focus on interdiction and high-cost correctional
alternative. I think the choices are profound and absolutely
essential to be considered objectively. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scharf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Scharf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I want to thank all of our
witnesses for their testimony. We will bring 5-minute
questioning beginning with the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Waters.
Ms. Waters. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank all of our witnesses who are here
today.
As I have listened, starting with Mr. Walsh, who thinks
there are constitutional problems with H.R. 3547, Judge Jones,
who talked about the lack of family support and children who
are looking for love, support and attention, to Mr. Roper, who
says they are doing a fine job, and they are being successful,
to Mr. Seave, who said that you don't believe that we can
arrest our way out of this problem, to Mr. Pranis, who had just
wonderful research based on gangs and got rid of for me a lot
of the notions about who gangs are, how they operate, to Mr.
Scharf, who talks about the two different approaches and how we
could end up just increasing young people's involvement in the
criminal justice system and exacerbating the problem.
I don't hear any support for this bill, H.R. 3547, even
though Mr. Seave said he supported the bill. And I don't know
if he has read the bill or not. I think the idea of some
suppression, prevention and intervention as you described it,
makes good sense. But when you take a look at the bill, do you
know the definition of a criminal street gang in the bill?
Mr. Seave. Yes, I do.
Ms. Waters. What is it?
Mr. Seave. The definition of a criminal street gang has
several elements. I believe it requires 5 individuals, each of
them has to have committed a criminal street crime, as defined
in the statute, which is one of the listed Federal felonies, or
a serious State felony requiring 5 years or more of
imprisonment involving violence. And these 5 individuals have
to have collectively committed three serious gang crimes. So
that is my understanding of the definition.
Ms. Waters. Does that definition bother you at all?
Mr. Seave. The definition does not bother me. Perhaps I
could explain why.
Ms. Waters. Does it fit any other associations that you
could think about of people who may be in an association in
some way, some of whom, at least three or more--let us see, as
you have described, with 5 or more persons, each of whom have
committed at least one so-called gang crime. And these gang
crimes are being--a new definition of crime, some of which, I
guess, overlaps with what is considered a State crime now.
Mr. Seave. Yes.
Ms. Waters. Could this then fit other groups or
organizations other than so-called gangs or certain
associations?
Mr. Seave. Well, as I read this, the creation of this new
Federal crime, I read it as being somewhat similar to the RICO
statute but different. I read this as a former prosecutor
creating, frankly, a high bar to be able to bring a
prosecution.
Ms. Waters. But all five need not have committed the three
crimes. Is that right?
Mr. Seave. No, all five need to have collectively committed
three crimes, plus each individually needs to have committed
one crime.
Ms. Waters. That is not how I read it at all.
Mr. Seave. Okay. I am focusing on the word collectively
committed.
Ms. Waters. Let me just move on to the database collection,
the collection of names where people will go into a database.
Are you familiar with the database that in Los Angeles, for
example, that has been created of gang members?
Mr. Seave. Yes.
Ms. Waters. Would you feel comfortable in saying that
everybody on that list is a gang member?
Mr. Seave. No.
Ms. Waters. Do you think it is a good idea to create these
databases that stigmatize young people for the rest of their
lives who may not be in gangs?
Mr. Seave. I think having databases for law enforcement for
intelligence purposes are important. I think, frankly, there is
a lot of room for improvement in the database that you are
talking about, the need to really look at how people who are in
that database can exit out of it and to make sure that those
provisions are applied.
Ms. Waters. Are you aware that there are young people who
live in neighborhoods where there may be a gang, and if you ask
them if they belong to the gang, they will say ``yes,'' but
they don't really belong to the gang?
Mr. Seave. I am not personally aware of that, but I can
believe that that is possible.
Ms. Waters. Well, do you understand why they do it?
Mr. Seave. Yes.
Ms. Waters. Why?
Mr. Seave. They do it perhaps out of fear of the gangs.
Ms. Waters. That is right. And they end up in a database
because they say they belong to a gang to be a part of the
neighborhood. I don't mean to grill you. I just wanted to walk
through some of this because I know a lot about gangs.
I have worked in the Los Angeles area for the past, you
know, 30 years or more. And I have worked with a lot of young
people in public housing projects, many of whom have been in
gangs, many of whom, just as Mr. Pranis said, were in gangs who
became productive members of our society. And while we are all
concerned about gangs and want to do something about them, I
think we have to be very, very careful that we understand, and
that we simply do not move to criminalize or to stigmatize
young people and whole communities with a bill like this.
Because in this bill, the whole community is identified as
a high gang activity operation, kind of. And I think we have to
be very, very careful.
Some of our Members not only are concerned about gangs, but
they really do think it makes them a better legislator because
they are tough on crime and they get reelected on these kind of
issues. I don't intend to sit in this Committee and not raise
the kind of questions that I think should be raised about this
serious, serious, serious leap into trying to come up with a
bill, where many people don't even understand what they are
doing when they look at these definitions and these databases
and all of that.
So I just simply wanted to say I appreciate that everybody
here at least have shown that they understand that this is not
an easy thing to do and that you really do believe in
prevention and intervention and not simply suppression. And
there is a lot of suppression in this bill, a lot of Federal
intervention in ways that Mr. Walsh says would cause some
constitutional problems.
And so, even for my colleagues who were here today I intend
to share with them that those of us who have worked on these
kinds of issues are not going to easily support this kind of
bill. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again, I want
to thank all of you for being here and our previous panel. I
apologize because I would love to sit down and talk with all of
you. And I have worked on gangs a lot, but I know all of you
have. And I would just love to by osmosis pick up some of what
you have in your head.
My good friend, Judge Jones, I know, has worked on these
issues for a long time. And unfortunately, the logistics of how
we are set up with seven previous panelists that we couldn't
even ask questions to and now we have seven new--and I have 5
minutes. I just can't do it.
So I want to try to hone in on some things that are here. I
want to compliment Mr. Schiff. I don't agree with everything in
this bill. I think maybe there are some things I would like to
take a little further. But he has worked hard in this area over
years. And we may disagree, but I certainly recognize his
expertise, as I do the other Members that were here before and
all of you.
But, Mr. Seave, I would like to follow up on some comments
that you made, because you are now the California Director of
Gang and Youth Violence Policy. You are the big guy there
looking at the gangs.
And I am sure you have spent a lot of time in an
evidentiary base analyzing this and pulling data together. And
you know, you are not going to make statements that are off the
cuff without doing the analysis. And the other side brought you
here. We didn't, so I get to ask you, you know, some questions
on that.
And the one question--Mr. Walsh kind of feels like Federal
Government shouldn't be involved in this at all. You, I take
it, since you support this bill, feel the Federal Government
should be involved. And you are nodding your head, so I take it
that is a yes, that Federal Government should be involved.
Correct?
Mr. Seave. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Forbes. And you mentioned the concern with suppression.
I know you were a Federal prosecutor before. Tell us what the
Federal Government can do that the local and the State
government can't do in terms of suppression. Because I notice
you said here that the primary responsibility ought to belong
to the communities and the State government. What do you need
the Federal Government to do, suppression-wise?
Mr. Seave. Let me give you an example. And it was something
that happened when I was United States attorney. I am sure that
this Committee has heard testimony about Operation Cease Fire
in Boston. We did a similar operation like that in Stockton.
Stockton at that time was suffering from an epidemic of gang-
related homicides.
And Operation Cease Fire is an effort to bring in, identify
the dangerous gang members, not all gang members, not all
members of the community, to bring them together and to
essentially warn them if you continue the violence, then----
Mr. Forbes. I know. But why couldn't a State do that?
Mr. Seave. A State could do it.
Mr. Forbes. Okay.
Mr. Seave. But the additional----
Mr. Forbes. But I want you to address--and I don't mean to
cut you off. It is just I have got a limited amount of time.
Mr. Seave. Right. Sure.
Mr. Forbes. The Chairman will gavel me. I want to ask you
what do you have to have the Federal Government to do,
suppression-wise, that the State and the local community can't
do.
Mr. Seave. Sure. The Federal Government had more resources.
Mr. Forbes. I know. I understand you can always pay more
dollars to do it. But what do you need the Federal Government
to do from a suppression point of view? Why is it important
that the Federal Government get involved, other than dollars,
just dollars? Why is it important for suppression?
Mr. Seave. By resources, I meant, for example,
investigative tools. We have the grand jury, which is a very
effective investigative tool. The State and the local does not
have that kind of investigative tool.
Mr. Forbes. So you need a grand jury that can go on a
larger multi-jurisdictional area. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Seave. Yes, yes. In addition, we have the ability--the
State has to some degree--we have a great ability to use
wiretaps. And wiretaps are a very effective way to investigate
a crime, not go in and kick down doors and alienate everybody,
but to target your investigation, get your evidence, and
effectually, your arrests, which is what we did.
Mr. Forbes. And you have more venue opportunities with the
Federal Government, correct?
Mr. Seave. That is correct.
Mr. Forbes. With prosecution. Now, you can quantify the
dollars that are needed perhaps to do some of that suppression-
type of activity. But now tell me on the prevention side of it.
What is it that only the Federal Government could do, not
because of money, but just because of the Federal Government
that the State and the local government couldn't do.
Mr. Seave. They need to do research on programs, I think.
Mr. Forbes. That is money. I am talking about what could
only the Federal Government do that the State and local
government couldn't do.
Mr. Seave. Well, I think it is money, but I think it is
more than money because research is done nationally. To be able
to collect national research, national evaluations, bring in
experts from all over the country in order to conduct
evaluations, find out what works and what doesn't work requires
a national effort. I mean, California itself----
Mr. Forbes. How much money would you need to do that kind
of effort?
Mr. Seave. It would be millions of dollars.
Mr. Forbes. How much, do you know?
Mr. Seave. I am sorry, I don't know.
Mr. Forbes. Well, the reason I ask that is you were able to
testify here that it ought to be 50-50 breakdown. Where do you
come up with the dollars to make it 50-50 in terms of the
allocation of dollars?
Mr. Seave. The 50-50 breakdown in the bill at the high-
intensity gang area is an effort to split the money in half.
Mr. Forbes. I know what the effort is. But, I mean, how do
you testify here today that that is the amount of resources you
need? Have you done anything at all to calculate how many
dollars you need to do what you think needs to be done?
Mr. Seave. No, I have not done a calculation.
Mr. Forbes. Okay.
Mr. Roper, I just want to ask you this question because as
I understand it, when we come down to just looking at evidence
and facts, if I understood your testimony, you stated that when
you prosecuted gangs in Dallas, you had a 47 percent drop in
murder, rape, aggravated robbery, assault. Did I miss----
Mr. Roper. In that target area that we were looking at.
Mr. Forbes. Where you prosecuted the gangs?
Mr. Roper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Forbes. How about Fort Worth? You had a 10 percent
drop----
Mr. Roper. Yes, that was----
Mr. Forbes.--when you prosecuted the gangs there?
Mr. Roper. And what I try to do is pull out some examples
of success we have had by targeting these drug trafficking
gangs and try to essentially get them off the streets.
Mr. Forbes. Now, you have heard some comments today about
mandatory sentences and how they are so horrible and so bad. As
a prosecutor, mandatory sentences useful to you, not useful to
you? What do they do?
Mr. Roper. In my experience, I think over the last 20 years
as a Federal prosecutor, they have come in handy in dealing
with--if they are used in the right way--to either obtain
cooperation. That is a great vehicle, even if you don't impose
the mandatory minimum.
You have that ability to garner cooperation. And also you
have the ability to essentially take out of the community some
really bad people. And a 47 percent reduction in that area--I
went up to a Weed and Seed community meeting, and a lady came
up to me in that area.
And she said, ``You know, thank you for doing that
initiative in that area, because if we hadn't had that
initiative, I couldn't go out of my house at night.'' So
sometimes there are some individuals that really you have to
incarcerate to make the community safer. And that is when
mandatory minimums come into play.
Mr. Forbes. Last question for you, you heard the previous
panelists, one of the legislators, talk about witness
intimidation. What is more important, to give money to the
witness to try to protect them, or to keep the defendant
incarcerated so they can't get back out?
Mr. Roper. We obviously want to put the defendant in jail
so they don't deal with the person, the witness and intimidate
him. That is the best deal. And I think our failed prevention--
some of the provisions to try to strengthen the bill, the
reform act, would go a long way in helping us deal with any
witness intimidation.
Mr. Forbes. Okay, thank you. My time is up.
I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Seave, I mean, you mentioned that States
don't have investigative grand juries. Did I hear you say that?
Mr. Seave. Not in the way that the Federal grand jury
operates. The State grand jury is limited in its jurisdiction.
The State grand jury----
Mr. Delahunt. How is it limited in its jurisdiction?
Because I must have been, you know, living in a----
Mr. Seave. Outside of California.
Mr. Delahunt. Outside of California? I happen to come from
Massachusetts. I was a State prosecutor for 22 years. And I
utilized grand juries in an investigative capacity frequently.
As far as wiretaps is concerned, my office conducted more--let
me emphasize this--court authorized wiretaps in a single year
than the FBI did nationally. So with all due respect, sir, I
have to vigorously disagree with those two observations you
made about State jurisdictions. That is just inaccurate.
Mr. Seave. Well, I believe it is accurate in California. I
recognize that it is inaccurate for Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. I would daresay that my colleagues who served
as State prosecutors all over the country would disagree with
your conclusions. But having said that, let me just pursue the
line of questioning that was being posed by the Ranking Member.
My experience has been that street crime, crimes of
violence are best prosecuted at the State level. My own sense
is that the role of the Federal Government is to provide
resources. When we talk about the FBI and the ATF in the vast
majority of cases, the information in task forces and
collaborative efforts are developed at the State level.
The informants are the informant of, if you will, the
detective bureau in the local police department. And most local
and State jurisdictions will share that information with the
FBI. The FBI rarely develops information independent of State
and local prosecutors' office and investigative agencies. That
is just the reality.
Most FBI walk around with suits on, very difficult to, you
know, go up to a kid in an economically deprived section with a
suit and a tie on and say do you want to be an informant. I
mean, the reality is violent crime in this country is addressed
at the local and State level. And they ought to be provided
resources.
And on occasion, I think you are correct about doing
research and providing forensic services. But I am concerned in
the Schiff bill--and I have great respect for my colleague--
there are references about the FBI leading these task forces. I
think maybe it was the sheriff, David Reichert, earlier talking
about FBI-led task forces.
You know, we have a real problem here. We are having an FBI
that, according to the director of the FBI, is reconsidering
its mission and its emphasis in terms of anti-terrorism. And we
are going to task them now with doing, you know, investigations
into street crimes? Call it what you will, gang violence. But I
daresay we need to hear from the director of the FBI as to what
vision he has in terms of the future of the FBI.
There was a recent report out that referenced a new
intelligence effort mimicking, I think, M-15 on, you know, that
the United Kingdom utilizes. So even before we get to these
issues, you know, you can slap things together and yet it
doesn't coincide with what the reality is on the ground.
And I always, you know, fall down on the side of
prevention. I think it makes a lot of sense. And you know, I
think one of you indicated--I mean, gangs--this is not a new
phenomenon. Maybe in terms of the order of magnitude and the
transnational aspects of it. But gangs have been around since I
was a kid.
I mean, we used to have gang wars back in my era. And I
know there are programs out there that exist today, if we
looked at them and did, I think, a real solid analysis based
upon empirical data--not necessary to go reinvent the wheel and
maybe tweak around the edges.
So, you know, I believe in joint task forces. I mean, we
talk about drugs being the fuel, if you will, for gang
violence. And yet we are talking about the FBI. Maybe we should
be talking about the DEA.
You know, I just think we need a lot more in terms of
having a single panel of, you know, seven, I am sure,
preeminent individuals in the area of criminal justice coming.
But take this thing one by one.
Go out, analyze what works. Let us be smart about it. What
has worked in the past? Let us not reinvent the wheel. And what
is the reality out there today in terms of gang violence?
We can update it. As far as mandatory sentences, are they a
good thing? Of course, they are a good thing if you want to
squeeze somebody. You know, you give them an option, and
oftentimes they are going to tell you what you want to hear.
And oftentimes it is not the truth, because when you have
got somebody and you are saying I am going to give you 20
years, now tell me about Joe, well, he is going to tell you all
about Joe because he is not a fool. And I bet he doesn't carry
around with him a copy of the, you know, United States criminal
code to check the penalties.
I will yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you for having this hearing. I find it very interesting, even
though I wasn't here personally. I was monitoring it from my
office on television to listen to the various commentaries. And
there is a little bit of truth in everything everybody says
here.
All I can do is my experience 8 years in California where
we saw a drop in violent crime by over 35 percent. And we saw a
drop in homicides by 50 percent. Now, I don't know how you
stack those things up, but it seems to me that means people's
lives were saved.
If you can cut the homicide rate by 50 percent, that means
something to people on the street because half the people
otherwise would be homicide victims or not homicide victims.
And I think part of it was tougher laws. And I will even say
some of the laws that allowed us to prosecute juveniles as
adults were appropriate.
But as I said then, and I will repeat it now. And, Judge, I
think you are absolutely right. We can't put everybody in
prison. We can't suppress our way out of a crime wave that
affects our young people. And I understand how we are trying to
solve the problem at all levels, the Federal Government level,
the State government level, and every other level.
And, Judge, I think you were right on when you talked about
the loss of that connection that we call the family, because
when I had a task force from about 17 different disciplines,
including law enforcement and social workers, mental health
workers who spent a year and-a-half looking at the problem, one
of the conclusions we came to is exactly what you said. The
gangs are for many of these young people the families that they
miss. The authority that they don't have anywhere else in their
life is in a perverted way in the gang.
The actions that they take that are anti-social, that are
violent, that are destructive and that we see from the outside
as being self-destructive are, in fact, acts of affirmation
within the context of a gang that serves as the surrogate
family for them. And I am almost at a loss to see how we are
ever going to successfully attack it when we are attacking it
from the opposite side of where the problem is.
Now, to describe the problem is a lot easier than to solve
the problem, because we have a culture today that tells us
families are not important, that adults are more important than
children, and adult responsibility trumps responsibility to
children every time. And it is reflected in our actions. And it
is reflected in our culture.
And so, at the one time we are sitting here worried about
the violence that is going on and how kids are attracted to
violence, kids have always been attracted to violence. But now
it has been put on an altar of celebration by our culture. And
we are trying to overcome that with tougher laws and greater
sentencing and then also programs where we try and act as the
parents that they are missing.
And you know, the real thing is always better than the
artificial. And so, what we are dealing with here is how do we
construct those artificial mechanisms that might prevent the
attraction that kids have, the young people have to it. At the
same time, responding to the cries of the people in the
community that are being victimized.
I remember going and having a school safety program at one
of the high schools in Los Angeles, and after it was all over,
having a young girl come up to me. She was about 14 or 15,
African-American. And she said why is it that it took the death
of one of my fellow students before you adults got your act
together.
Because a young man had been killed by another person who
had brought a gun to school. It had discharged accidentally. He
brought it to school to protect himself, he thought, from other
things.
And I understand why every governor in every State would
like more money. In fact, I even thought I would be in that
position one day. It didn't happen.
But that doesn't determine what the appropriate Federal
responsibility is and how we would parcel out our authority and
our money. It is easier, I think, to justify us if we have the
money, sharing the money than it is in some ways always
assuming that the feds are best.
And, Mr. Seave, I have got great respect for you, but I
must take issue with your delineation of the difference between
the ability of the feds to go after a certain crime and
networks under their Federal grand juries in State.
I remember my friend--I know you know him, George
Williamson. I think the best, in my own opinion, the best
prosecutor in California. He was my top criminal justice
supervisor. And the cases down in Yosemite where the feds went
in and copped a plea to the guy down there using their grand
jury powers. And George went in there and got the death penalty
after he got the California grand jury system to work to indict
that individual and to prosecute him.
I think at times what works best is multi-jurisdictional
task forces so long as the State or local agency or department
has at least a co-equal authority because I have seen too many
task forces where the feds take over and only they know what is
right and how to do things. And the gang problem is a national
problem because it affects many parts of this Nation.
But it is essentially a local jurisdictional problem. And
it is one that we have to attack at that level. I know I am
meandering in my thoughts, but I am just trying to respond to
all the things that I heard here today.
And, Judge, you are the one that hit me the hardest because
I think you are absolutely right. We are going to continue to
be the proverbial dog chasing its tail so long as we don't
understand what the destruction of the family unit has done to
our society, but more particularly, to our children. And what
we are all doing is trying to clean up after we have allowed
tremendous problems to occur. And it is always tougher to try
and deal with it.
So I appreciate what you are doing. And I appreciate your
sentiment. And at times as we--and I think all of us here want
to deal with the gang problem. And we have some differences
about how to do it and where emphasis ought to be.
But I hope as we do that we will understand fundamentally
where kids are denied the network that is the family, they are
going to look elsewhere. And so long as that continues to be an
acute problem in this country, we will have gangs. And we can
do what we can to try and minimize the attractiveness of
violence within those gangs. But if we are going to truly deal
with the problem, we are going to have to get back to basics
and figure out what we do as a society to give the kids what
they need before they reach out and find this as that missing
context in their society.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. Johnson. Behold, how wonderful, how good and pleasant
it must be for politicians to make their way back to their
respective districts and to be able to pound on their chests
and say how tough that we have been on crime. And politicians
have been following that track religiously since at least 1970.
And after remaining roughly steady through most of the 20th
century, the U.S. incarceration rate has soared 470 percent,
about one out of every 133 U.S. residents is in prison or jail
today, as opposed to one out of every 620 in 1970. Behold, we
have been so tough on crime that it has had such a great impact
it has actually reduced crime. No, I don't think so.
Many more people are on probation or parole. The current
U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the world and far
exceeds the global average of approximately one out of every
602 persons. I mean, as we get tougher on crime, as these
proposals do, we are not producing a decrease in crime.
And it is coming at a great societal cost to those who
choose to follow the law. There must be some other way that
will actually get at crime reduction, a way that is different
than levying new or I will say overlapping and harsher
penalties against wrongdoing. Would anybody on the panel agree
with that statement?
Everyone? Or would anyone disagree with it? No one will
admit to disagreement. But let me ask Dr. Scharf.
Mr. Scharf. Sure. Well, I mean, the irony--and I think
Kevin said it so well. Here you have a decline in crime, and we
have an increase in sanctions. And the numbers of people who
would be projected to go through, you know, $400,000
experiences or 10 years in jail. And just what you said, Mr.
Johnson. And that is the absurdity of where we are right now.
I mean, and the fiscal burden of the bill, I think, you
know, you want the GAO or somebody to really look at this and
really do a mathematical model. But, I mean, if you use this
money for prevention, as everybody has said, for parenting, for
childhood, with schools, with doctors, you would have a huge
windfall.
And why would you, just as you were saying, throw that
money down the rat hole? And you know, the racial
disproportionality, the human cost goes on top of that. I mean,
why does society, in my view, want to invest in a great project
for more jails?
I mean, my daughter applied to UCB out in California, and
she was told she couldn't get a fellowship because the
correctional costs were 19 percent of the California budget.
You know? And this is true all over the country.
This is the moral equivalent of the military bankrupting
society. You know? And I absolutely agree with what you said.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. In light of that, I think I have no
further questions or comment. I will yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Texas?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the
Ranking Member.
And, gentlemen, thank you for your very instructive
commentary. Forgive me for being detained in some other
meetings. But I think I have lived through this for a period of
time. I was an associate municipal court judge in the city of
Houston. And so, we saw a lot of the truants and others in the
judicial system.
And we have an interesting structure in Texas, which I
think is replicated in many places. And I think my good friend,
U.S. Attorney Roper--I am looking without my glasses, so
forgive me. But welcome back again--is familiar with our TYC in
Texas. In fact, we had made some inquiries of the U.S. attorney
about some of the crises that we were facing there.
But our TYC, our Texas Youth Commission--you are assigned
to the youth commission. And then that is the end of you. I
mean, you don't really have a term per se, and you can enhance
your term by chewing bubble gum or something else. But we have,
I think, a crisis where we don't sometimes know what to do.
I see my good friend who worked with me and continues to
work with me--a case which involved individuals of a differing
age in Texas. And then I would like to offer the backdrop of
the Jena six, which I think is one of the glaring--two
incidences.
The Georgia case, a young man unfortunately caught up in
the system on an incident in the graduating year, an African-
American, sexual case, still caught up in the system and then
the Jena six, an individual tried as an adult. Thank goodness
for the 3rd circuit in Louisiana who said that was wrong.
So we have a crisis of huge proportions. And I raise these
questions. And I am delighted that some of the Members who are
here offered a number of legislative initiatives. But I am just
going to go on the basic premise that there should be
intervention.
And I will give Mr. Walsh a chance. I am going to ask him a
question directly. But I do think there should be intervention.
Why? Because I think the Federal Government is a bully pulpit.
And I think it has the ability to set the tone and maybe
even, Judge Jones, copy from you because we are the bully
pulpit. But we usually look at the State and say I like what
Judge Jones is doing. Let me copy that. And we have had with
the leadership of our Chairman, Chairman Scott, we have had
that kind of interest.
Let me go to Mr. Pranis because I just love what you said,
if I have gotten the summary of it. Because this is what I
believe. When you see gang exposes on TV, you see big guys with
tattoos, and you see those guys, you know, also when you see
prison stories, big guys with tattoos who graduated. You know,
they are in their late twenties and maybe thirties. If you go
to California, they have got grandpas.
But you seem to be saying that we are losing the battle
when we begin to just put a big umbrella or tent over these
babies that call themselves gangs who are either following the
big tattooed guys. We are chasing them down like regular mafia
rather than intervention.
For all we know, these kids are foster kids. These kids
have not had the removal of the risk factors, which some
Members have said. Help me understand that. And tell me where
Federal intervention can work on understanding and responding
to that population of which you can't intervene on.
Mr. Pranis. Absolutely, I would be happy to. The profile of
the typical gang member of the United States is between the
ages of 12 and 15 years old. And most will leave the gang
within a year. Right? Gangs are a transitory experience for
most, a longer experience for some. And that is a concern.
You know, I was part of a group discussion with a former
gang member who talked about when these 20-and 30-year-old guys
come around. And he said they are kind of weird. They are
losers.
They are these old guys who hang around us and they try to
throw signs. But we don't know why. They are like get a life.
Right? Like, this is kids stuff.
I mean, gangs are first and foremost kids stuff. And I
think they only become, you know, serious adult problems when
there is such a negative environment to grow in and a negative
law enforcement response.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Or they get into the law enforcement
system.
Mr. Pranis. Or they get into the law enforcement system.
They go to prison. They come back out, and all of a sudden, you
know, that is all they have. Right?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, what is your intervention? What
would you offer?
Mr. Pranis. Several things. One is just to provide them--
and the two things people cited before are families and jobs--
--
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I just want to say can I get an answer
on Mr. Roper and Judge Jones?
Mr. Pranis. Yes. Families and jobs are two very big things
and opportunity. So if you engage youth in basketball teams,
you know, in jobs, most people naturally graduate and have for
decades from gangs into jobs. Right?
They have kids, suddenly they have got a kid. They need to
support them. Their parents won't support them. And so, if
there is job opportunities available, if there is housing
available, if there is supports for families, including social
workers to help the families do a better job with the kids, as
Mr. Lungren pointed out, you know, those are the kind of things
that are shown to work.
New York is a wonderful model. But I also think, frankly,
there is a whole lot of White kids in gangs. Yet we don't hear
about a White gang problem.
And I think part of the reason is the opportunities
available to most White suburban kids to transition out of a
gang are very different. But law enforcement also treats White
kids in the suburbs very differently than Black and Latino kids
in inner cities. And I think if we looked at what small towns
and suburbs do, that is probably a much better model than what
Los Angeles does in terms of successfully transitioning kids
out of gangs and not creating those institutional problems.
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I have--yes.
Mr. Roper. I think my answer to this is, it is not just one
solution. I always look at the model that we have now as the
three-legged stool: enforcement, prevention and reentry. That
stool with one leg doesn't work if you just use one leg.
I think one of the panelists is missing the point if he
thinks that incarceration hasn't had a positive effect in the
drop of the crime rate. You look in Texas, Congresswoman, and
remember the time when Texas had such a--everybody in the world
could get parole at the drop of a hat. And we had a high crime
rate.
When we started having sure, certain sentences, the crime
rate dropped. And it dropped all the way until 2006 in
historical proportions. So enforcement does have a role.
But I do agree that prevention and reentry strategies have
to be in place to make a difference. And I think that is what I
like about the Department of Justice's anti-gang initiative
that it involves all three of that important legs of that stool
for crime reduction.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Judge Jones, does that work, putting them
in jail all the time?
Judge Jones. Well, there are a lot of people who have to be
incapacitated and kept away from all the rest of us. That is a
basic, I think, reality that we have to understand.
The thing that I would like to at least comment upon as an
intervention that you suggest is the part of the written
remarks I didn't get to actually read. It just talks about
reading, reading as a basic and fundamental skill that where
reading deficiencies are the common characteristic of everybody
who is delinquent and criminalized.
And the courts that I sit in--and I have been involved as a
prosecutor, as a criminal defense attorney, a juvenile defense
attorney for 27 years, and I will tell you very few of the
people that I ever represented were reading on their grade
level. And to the extent that we can improve the reading and
keep that achievement gap closed and thereby increase the
opportunity that that person or the possibility, rather that
that person will become significantly and gainfully employed.
And if you talk to a lot of the kids who are out there
getting in gangs, they will tell you, you know, I want a job. I
would like to have a job. I wish I had a job that they can, you
know, that they can support and sustain themselves on.
So, I mean, I think that, you know, those are kind of--the
basic academic achievement gap is one of the most important
areas that all Government, all levels of government need to be
focusing on if they really want to kind of eliminate these
problems of delinquency, criminality of which gang crime and
gang involvement is a part of it. It is not the whole thing. I
will tell you it is certainly not the whole thing, but it is
important.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So the baggy pants kids need to learn to
read, the kids that Kevin is talking about, Mr. Pranis is
talking about?
Judge Jones. They do need to learn how to read. And we need
to be reinforcing, you know, reading and other things, other
pro-social values. We don't get as much of that that we need.
And these kids are not getting it from the significant adults,
if there are adults in their lives, which is what I mentioned
earlier. So we are behind the curve on trying to keep these
kids moving in the right direction in the main stream toward
the mainstream of society. And if they don't, then, I mean, we
are going to get what we get.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And I had a couple of questions. I would recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Seave, there has been a lot of discussion about this
definition of a gang crime.
Mr. Seave. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. And you mentioned five previous crimes. Are
those committed or convicted?
Mr. Seave. The statute just says committed.
Mr. Scott. So after you have got the requisite number of
allegations, when you have a defendant charged with, say, armed
robbery who is a member of the gang, five people, other people
in the gang have committed crimes, so that kind of designates
it as a gang. And you have some totally different person in the
gang charged with armed robbery.
In that trial, does the prosecutor get to bring in all of
those five? Well, he would have to bring in all of those five
predicate cases to show that it is, in fact, a gang. Is that
right?
Mr. Seave. Congressman, I thought about that question. The
statute doesn't answer that question. And I think it is really
going to depend on the court.
Mr. Scott. You have got to prove your case.
Mr. Seave. Yes. But having prosecuted many cases, sometimes
you have to prove it before the jury. Sometimes there will be a
stipulation in order--the defense doesn't want that to go to
the jury. And there will be a stipulation. How exactly that
will be proven I am not sure. But that is a good question.
Mr. Scott. Well, the question is that you are sitting up
here charged with armed robbery. And before they get to your
little allegations, they get in all the riff raff from all over
the community and say, well, this is his friend, that is his
friend. You have got murder, rape and mayhem. And then you get
to his little allegation. All that is what the jury gets to
see.
Mr. Seave. Possibly and possibly not. It really depends on
what the judge--on how the judge views the facts of the case
and what is fair to the defense.
Mr. Scott. If he wants to suggest that it wasn't a gang
crime, isn't going to stipulate anything, you have got to prove
all of the elements of the case before the jury. You get to
parade in all the riff raff in the community and associate him
with that riff raff. Is that not true?
Mr. Seave. It could be true, yes.
Mr. Scott. Okay. And so, he is being tried by association
and scare the jury to death. And I guess you would parade in
all these guys and present the evidence and call them to let
them plead the 5th and let the jury see all that. And----
Mr. Seave. I don't think that is the way it would proceed.
I mean, if people are going to plead the 5th, that is not going
to happen in front of the jury. If you remember, one of the
elements of the crime is that the crime is committed to further
the activities of the gang. So hopefully this isn't just--I
mean, I would not support and I don't think the statute
supports just charging somebody with a crime and parading in
people for the sake of ruining their reputation.
Mr. Scott. And well, you have to prove all of the elements
of the case. You would parade in all of the riff raff,
associate the defendant with that riff raff. And even if the
jury were to conclude that this really isn't a gang crime, they
know all of his friends and associates and all of their bad
deeds.
Let me ask Mr. Pranis and Judge Jones. Both got cut off.
And I noticed in their written testimony they had specific
recommendations as to what we could do. Why don't you take a
minute to go through, starting with Mr. Pranis, what some of
your specific recommendations are that you haven't been able to
mention so far.
Mr. Pranis. Sure. The general tenor is that we should be
focusing on the behavior and not, in fact, on the eradication
of gangs, which I think history has shown us is impossible to
get the kids out of the behavior rather than the gangs. But the
three recommendations are expanding the use of evidence
practices to reduce youth crime. And that includes sort of
social work interventions, particularly with the family.
There has been tremendous advances in juvenile justice in
figuring out what works for kids. And a lot of the researchers
we interviewed pointed out that, while there is no really good
evidence of what works for gangs specifically, there is lot of
information about what works with delinquent kids. And so, we
should be focusing on those practices.
The second would be promoting jobs, education and healthy
communities and, specifically, lowering barriers to social
reintegration of former gang members. And that is where, I
think, gang injunctions and databases are particularly
dangerous, because what they can result in is the sort of black
list of people who really need to transition out of gangs. And
this becomes a barrier to their reintegration, which is the
best way to reduce crime.
And then third, I think we need to end the use of failed
gang enforcement strategies in favor of effective public
safety. It is not an argument against doing law enforcement and
enforcing the law. It is an argument against gang-focused law
enforcement because there is no evidence that having law
enforcement organized around gangs as opposed to around crime
and public safety makes any sense.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Judge Jones?
Judge Jones. Well, I did get a chance to at least talk
about the literacy, I think, that we all need to be really
focused on as a common, kind of, criminogenic factor, the lack
of literacy. But I just think also as a former State
legislator, as a former head of a youth authority in a State
and somebody who was responsible for a lot of the juvenile
reform legislation that we went through in Virginia in the
1990's, which was a direct response to the rising tide or the
perceived rising tide of violence and criminality, the
predators all across the countryside, as they used to say in
Virginia.
You know, I think it just would be very helpful if we would
just kind of take a step back, pause, and look very carefully
at what the results and outcomes of that have been. The point
that I always lift up is that it costs in Virginia today
$88,000 per year per bed to incarcerate a juvenile offender in
our juvenile correctional center.
It is up $8,000 from what it was 5 or 6 years ago when I
was the head of the authority. And we have got to look very
carefully at where we are, what we have gotten for all of that
money. And that is, I think, something that I would just
caution.
You know, these automatic waivers, reverse waivers,
lowering the age of transfer, all of the things that were
rushed to implementation in the 1990's as a response for this
has had a consequence. And it has had a very serious and
expensive consequence.
And a lot of places right now, a lot of States, are
actually beginning to roll those policies back, because they
have seen--and it is based upon, you know, very important
research that has been done, a lot of it, as I said,
university-based, a lot of it coming out of, you know,
nonprofit, nonpartisan agencies that are looking at these
things.
And I just would hate to see, you know, that we kind of go
down that road again in the allocation of significant
resources, Federal, State and local into the kinds of things--I
am not saying it has all been bad. And I am not saying, you
know, that getting tough on crime--it has its place.
The Lord knows I am not looked at as a soft touch judge, I
will tell you that. But it is certainly, I think, informative
that we kind of look backward and carefully look at how we have
dealt with these things in the past because it is not all, you
know, a great outcome.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Roper, I asked Mr. Seave about how you would prove a
case if this definition were into effect. Is there any way you
can avoid being able to present to the jury all the community
riff raff and associate it with the defendant as part of the
trial, proving your elements of the trial?
Mr. Roper. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course, the department
hasn't taken a position on the bill that is under
consideration. But, you know, spillover effect is always a
concern for a Federal judge in any kind of case, in conspiracy
cases, even, in RICO cases, in continuing criminal enterprise
cases. We face that all the time. And I think judges are able
to use their discretion to try to avoid that.
For instance, you know, you can't go in and claim the 5th
in front of the jury. That is prohibited. You can't do that.
Well, I would say that, you know, I only have 90
prosecutors in my district. And I have 100,000 square miles,
about 7 million people in that area. In the cases we bring, we
can't fill the Federal court up with every drug trafficker or
every gang member. We have to be selective in what we prosecute
because we have so many other priorities.
And I think the people we bring in to Federal court to
prosecute these cases are folks that need to be prosecuted in
Federal court. At least I hope we are doing that.
Mr. Scott. Well, my concern was the conduct of the trial.
Can you avoid having a defendant in a simple armed robbery
case--can he avoid having everybody in the neighborhood who he
has been associated with and all their crimes presented to the
jury?
Mr. Roper. Well, I think we have done that with the RICO
statute, tried to avoid a spillover effect about that. In
continuing criminal enterprises we have had it. It is similar
to that. And I am not familiar enough with the legislation to
give you an answer.
Mr. Scott. Well, it is not law, so there is no judicial
history on it.
But let me ask one final question to Dr. Scharf. Can you
explain the importance of having collaboration before you start
figuring out a strategy, local collaboration in the locality,
before you start doing a strategy?
Mr. Scharf. Well, the research shows that, you know, it may
not be the program effect, but it is the community effect, that
the community is targeted on a goal of early intervention or
prevention. So, you know, whether anger management or substance
abuse training, multi-systemic therapy is better than something
else we don't know. What we know is that when a community
focuses through education on reducing the risk factors of
juvenile delinquency and gang involvement, it works.
And it is success stories like Dan Lungren mentioned
before, the success in California--what we don't know was it
the prisons or was it the community-oriented policing
activities that you sponsored, you know, the community meetings
that was the result. This is true in New York, Chicago,
everyplace else that has done it.
So the argument that yes, we increased sanctions and crime
went down, we also increased community mechanisms, as Chairman
Scott suggested. And as a criminologist, I think the answer is
we really don't know what was more important. The argument that
it really is the kind of community partnership that Chairman
Scott mentioned is there in California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, and New York where these huge crime reductions
in the 1990's occurred.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much. And I would like to thank
all of our witnesses for their testimony.
Our Members may have additional written questions which we
will forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly as you
can in order they may be part of the record. Without objection,
the hearing record will remain open for 1 week for the
submission of additional materials. And without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this very important hearing
on ``Gang Crime Prevention and the Need to Foster Innovative Solutions
at the Federal Level.'' When crimes are needlessly being perpetrated
against citizens of this country, we as Members of this body have a
duty to use whatever measures necessary to curtail such criminal
behavior and ensure that we provide the most effective measures
possible to be implemented and enforced to ensure the safety of all
members of this society.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses who have gathered here today
to give us guidance and insights in our efforts to create innovative
solutions at the federal level that will address the incredible
challenges that we face in our attempt to curtail and prevent gang
violence: Honorable Adam B. Schiff Representative, California's 29th
District; the Honorable Joe Baca, Representative, California's 43rd
District; the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Representative, Maryland
7th District; the Honorable Jerry McNerney, Representative,
California's 11th District; and the Honorable Nick Lampson,
Representative, Texas' 22nd District. Panel II will include juvenile
justice experts including: the Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones, Judge,
Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court; Dr. Peter
Scharf, Executive Director, Center for Society, Law and Justice,
Austin, Texas; and Mr. Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow,
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, the Heritage Foundation,
Washington, D.C. I hope that your testimony here today will prove
fruitful in guiding this Committee to craft creative and effective
means to help to eliminate such unnecessary and intolerable acts
perpetrated through gang crime.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hearing is to determine an
appropriate response to gang crime in the United States. It is an
opportunity for our witnesses to discuss several pending Congressional
legislative proposals, alternative approaches to stemming violence, and
the appropriateness of federal law enforcement in criminal activity
traditionally addressed by the states.
We are here today to address the increase in violent crime. The
FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program indicates that violent crime--
specifically robberies, homicides, and aggravated assaults--has
increased 1.9% over 2006; whereas some types of crime--rapes,
burglaries and auto thefts have continued to fall, The overall crime
rate--violent crime and non-violent crime considered together--is the
lowest it has been in 30 years. The top five cities suffering from
crime increases are St. Louis, MO, Detroit, MI, Flint, MI, Compton, CA,
and Camden, NJ.
According to the FBI's report, some crime experts suggest that the
increase in violent crime is linked to an increase in juvenile crime,
specifically gang crime. In Oakland, police officials attribute recent
rises to ``an uptick in Latino gang violence, more turf wars between
drug gangs and an increase in . . . `mindless violence' among juveniles
who escalate minor disputes to homicide.'' However, other experts
disagree that gang activity is on the rise. According to a recently-
released report from the Justice Policy Institute:
There are fewer gang members in the United States today than
there were a decade ago, and there is no evidence that gang
activity is growing. . . . [] the most recent comprehensive law
enforcement estimate indicates that youth gang membership fell
from 850,000 in 1996 to 760,000 in 2004 and that the proportion
of jurisdictions reporting gang problems has dropped
substantially.
However, researchers Kevin Pranis and Judith Greene, authors of the
JPI report, conducted a literature survey of all gang research. They
found, paradoxically, that there is no consistent relationship between
law enforcement measures of gang activity and crime trends. An analysis
of gang membership and crime data from North Carolina found that most
jurisdictions reporting growth in gang membership also reported falling
crime rates. Dallas neighborhoods targeted for gang suppression
activities reported both a drop in gang crime and an increase in
violent crime.
Mr. Chairman, some believe that demography has played a role in the
crime increase. Some cities with rising juvenile populations are
experiencing a rise in juvenile crime. In other cities, criminals are
being released from prison after serving lengthy sentences imposed in
the 80's and 90's. Often these newly released people never received
treatment while incarcerated and there are few, if any, services
available to them on the outside. This is a serious problem that must
be addressed if we are to help lead criminals to a path of
rehabilitation and to a life of productive citizenship.
Another explanation for the violent crime increase is diminished
federal funding of local police forces. For example, under President
Clinton the COPS program reached a high of $2.5 billion; in comparison
to 2006 federal funding which was $894 million. The change in funding
priorities is attributed to increased funding for terrorism instead of
``bread-and-butter'' crime fighting, according to Los Angeles Police
Chief Bill Bratton, past president of the Police Executive Research
Forum. Though funding is essential to combating terrorism, we still
must provide funding for what is essentially domestic terrorism, gang
crime.
Prevention saves lives and money. It pulls poor and minority
children out of the Cradle-to-Prison Pipeline. While it saves enormous
amounts in the long run, it can generate higher costs in the short run.
Thus, garnering the political will among elected officials on two-,
four-, and six-year electoral cycles to invest in prevention for at-
risk youths is an ongoing and difficult challenge.
There have also been drastic cuts at the federal level in funding
support for community-level law enforcement that works alongside of
prevention and early intervention to reduce crime. Effective law
enforcement, such as the Community Oriented Policing Services Program
(COPS), complements and supports prevention and intervention efforts
for at-risk youths. The cornerstone of community policing is building
relationships with community members, so that an effective
collaboration between law enforcement and community members takes root
and increasingly contributes to community stability and safety. The
active involvement and concern of community members, sometimes referred
to as ``collective efficacy,'' is critical to sustained crime
prevention, particularly in low-income communities. All of these
programs strengthen the core capabilities of law enforcement agencies
and have greatly improved their ability to fight and prevent crime. Yet
budget cuts are forcing layoffs of state and local officers.
The combination of devastating cuts to critical prevention and
intervention programs and to community law enforcement is a recipe for
disaster for poor children, families, and communities. We spend on
average three times as much per prisoner as per pupil. We don't spend
enough of the money when and where it can actually make a difference in
the lives of poor children and families and prevent the need to spend
more on after-the-fact law enforcement activities and prison.
We need to continue to seek solutions that will put in place
effective guidelines for combating, preventing and eliminating gang
crime in all corners of the United States. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today in our attempt to gain some guidance on this
very serious matter.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]