[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9633-S9634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CRIME PREVENTION

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing 
problem of juvenile crime, and the failure of this Congress to 
adequately address it. As the former chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, I am particularly alarmed by the 
growth of juvenile violence today, and the fact that we are doing 
little to slow this trend with investments in our young people.
  At a time when crime is generally falling, a growing number of young 
people are becoming the perpetrators--and victims--of violence in 
America. Juvenile offenders are now responsible for 14 percent of all 
violent crime and 25 percent of all property crime. Criminologists 
report that 14 to 24-year-old-black males, who represent just 1 percent 
of the population, comprise 17 percent of all homicide victims and 30 
percent of all offenders. Arguments that used to be solved with fists 
in a school yard are now being settled with Uzi's and Tech 9 semi-
automatic weapons. Some schools are starting to resemble prisons, with 
metal detectors, armed guards, and bars on the windows.
  This is not the healthy environment that will nurture a new 
generation. Instead, this is a recipe for disaster--a formula for 
creating an army of young criminals whose only future is to commit more 
heinous and vicious crimes with each passing year. And this army is 
likely to expand: there are now more pre-teenagers in America--39 
million under 10 years old--than at any other time in the past 
generation.
  There are many ways that society can combat this juvenile crime 
trend--and I support all of them. First, we can get tough on the most 
violent juveniles--trying them as adults and locking them up--so that 
serious crimes receive serious punishment. Second, we can improve our 
ability to catch all juvenile offenders through more vigilant law 
enforcement. Accomplishing these goals requires more prisons and more 
police, and Congress is providing billions to build penitentiaries and 
fund 100,000 new police officers through the Crime Act of 1994.

  However, a third part of the Crime Act calls for a different 
approach. Instead of spending all the money on prisons and police, 
Congress wanted some of it, about 20 percent, to be spent on preventing 
crime before it happens.
  Now, crime prevention used to be a dirty phrase in Washington, 
something that so-called liberals touted and conservatives criticized 
as a strategy for coddling criminals. I hope we have moved past those 
simplistic arguments and are prepared to recognize the value of crime 
prevention programs. For years we have heard evidence about the value 
of investing some funds in crime prevention, and the fact that these 
programs measurably reduce crime. More recently, numerous studies have 
documented how small investments in a troubled young person's life will 
not only save that child from a life of crime and misery, but will also 
save society thousands of dollars in court costs and prison fees. Most 
important, these investments protect the lives of citizens and prevent 
tragic crimes before they occur.
  There are literally hundreds of examples--I'll note only two here. A 
few years ago Fort Worth, TX, initiated a program called Code Blue. The 
program offered year round structured social, education and 
recreational activities for young people. Kids not only engaged in 
sports, but received homework assistance and help with college and GED 
preparation. Five community centers were established to help young 
people get on the right track and make a difference in the local 
neighborhoods.
  According to the Fort Worth Police Department, crime dropped by 28 
percent within a one mile radius of each center. Gang crimes declined 
by 30 percent city wide in the first 6 months of 1995. This was 
achieved at a cost of $10 a year per student--that compares with the 
$40,000 a year it costs to incarcerate a juvenile offender.

  The results are the same across the country. A program called 
Children-At-Risk [CAR] coordinates social service agencies, police, and 
school officials to target intensive education, counseling, and family 
services at 11-13 year olds. A National Institute of Justice quasi-
experimental study in five cities found that the CAR test group had 
almost half the number of contacts with police as the non-participant 
control group, and had less than half the number of contacts with the 
juvenile court as the control group.
  We have seen these kinds of case studies proving the value of crime 
prevention programs for years. But, Mr. President, we are now seeing 
comprehensive reports demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of crime 
prevention. Last month the Rand Corp. released a 2-year study comparing 
the value of investing in crime prevention versus tougher penalties and 
incarceration. It compared prevention programs such as graduation 
incentives, delinquent supervision, and parent training to a ``three-
strikes-and-you're-out'' law. The study found that crime prevention was 
three times more cost-effective than increased punishment.
  The study concluded that a State government could prevent between 157 
and 258 crimes a year by investing $1 million in crime prevention, 
compared with preventing 60 crimes by investing the same amount in 
incarceration.
  Law enforcement officers--the troops on the front lines in this 
battle--are also calling on Congress to fund prevention programs. A 
recent Northeastern University survey of more than 500 police chiefs 
and sheriffs found that three-quarters of them believe the best way to 
reduce crime and violence is to increase investment in prevention 
programs. This is not surprising: it confirms what we found out last 
year when we polled Wisconsin police chiefs and sheriffs: almost 90 
percent supported the Crime Act's prevention programs. These front line 
crime fighters know--better than anyone else--that crime prevention 
works.

  Mr. President, let me be clear on this point. I am not advocating 
that we commit all our resources to crime prevention and no money to 
punishment and incarceration. Like the police chiefs and sheriffs, I 
support the Crime Act funding formula which allocates 80 percent for 
punishment, tougher penalties, and more police, as well as 20 percent 
for crime prevention.
  Unfortunately, in the last 2 years since that legislation was passed, 
Congress has not lived up to its promise to adequately fund crime 
prevention programs and is actually moving toward eliminating the few 
programs that it has funded. Just this week, two bills were reported 
out of Committee which either defund or eliminate virtually all 
effective prevention programs. As a member of both relevant committees, 
I spoke out against these cuts in committee, and will work to reverse 
them on the Senate floor.
  First, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted out the Commerce, 
State, Justice appropriations funding measure for 1997. Despite 
mounting evidence of the cost effectiveness of crime prevention, this 
bill fails to fund more than $500 million in prevention programs 
authorized under the Crime Act. While I commend the drafters for 
appropriating $20 million for Boys and Girls Clubs, this is a fraction 
of the prevention Congress authorized 2 years ago.
  During the same week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the new 
4-year authorization for the Juvenile

[[Page S9634]]

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The legislation eliminates all 
crime prevention grants and uses that money for ``research and 
evaluation.'' Mr. President, I am a strong advocate of research and 
evaluation, and have introduced a bill with Senator Bill Cohen of Maine 
that would require federally funded prevention programs to set aside 
money for rigorous, independent evaluation. But this proposed 
reauthorization funds research at the expense of all crime prevention 
programs. That is unacceptable.

  Mr. President, at a time when juvenile crime is on the rise, when law 
enforcement officials are asking for more prevention funds, and when 
case studies and statistical evidence are proving that we can prevent 
crimes, protect citizens, and save money in the long run--how can this 
Congress cut funding for crime prevention and eliminate these programs?
  When I walk the streets with police officers in Wisconsin and I tell 
them what Congress is considering, they are shocked. These people know 
what works and they want our help. We should not turn our backs on 
America's police officers and future generations, and resign ourselves 
to even more prisons and police. We have other alternatives that we 
should fund--cost effective measures which can prevent crime before it 
happens.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in a 
bipartisan fashion to correct the lack of juvenile crime prevention in 
the proposed versions of the Justice Department's funding bill and the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This is not a partisan 
issue--members from both parties recognize the common sense of spending 
at least a small portion of federal funds on prevention. As these bills 
come to the floor, I hope more colleagues see the tremendous progress 
we can make if we just move past the simplistic arguments and recognize 
the value of a small investment in crime prevention programs. 

                          ____________________