[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCHOOL VIOLENCE: WHAT IS BEING DONE TO COMBAT SCHOOL VIOLENCE? WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-111
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-843 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Deputy Staff Director
Steve Dillingham, Special Counsel
Amy Davenport, Clerk
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 20, 1999..................................... 1
Statement of:
Chavez, Nelba, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; and William Modzeleski, Director, Safe
and Drug Free Schools Program, Department of Education..... 10
Condon, Charlie, attorney general, State of South Carolina;
Gary L. Walker, vice president, National District Attorneys
Association; and Reuben Greenberg, police chief,
Charleston, SC............................................. 68
Dwyer, Kevin, president elect, National Association of School
Psychologists; and James Baker, executive director,
Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle
Association................................................ 150
Gallagher, Jan, president elect, American School Counselor
Association; Bill Hall, superintendent, Volusia County
Schools, Florida; Gary M. Fields, superintendent, Zion-
Benton Township High School, Illinois; Clarence Cain,
teacher, Crisis Resource, Maury Elementary, Alexandria, VA;
Anthony Snead, officer, Brag Corps, George Mason Elementary
School; and Jeffrey Schurott, officer, Brag Corps, George
Mason Elementary School.................................... 112
Sherman, Lawrence, chair, Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, University of Maryland................... 99
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Baker, James, executive director, Institute for Legislative
Action, National Rifle Association:
Information concerning salaries.......................... 206
NRA's education and training programs.................... 202
Prepared statement of.................................... 191
Cain, Clarence, teacher, Crisis Resource, Maury Elementary,
Alexandria, VA, prepared statement of...................... 142
Chavez, Nelba, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services:
Information concerning allocation of funds............... 44
Information concerning FTEs.............................. 61
Organizational chart..................................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Condon, Charlie, attorney general, State of South Carolina,
prepared statement of...................................... 71
Dwyer, Kevin, president elect, National Association of School
Psychologists, prepared statement of....................... 154
Fields, Gary M., superintendent, Zion-Benton Township High
School, Illinois, prepared statement of.................... 133
Gallagher, Jan, president elect, American School Counselor
Association, prepared statement of......................... 115
Greenberg, Reuben, police chief, Charleston, SC, prepared
statement of............................................... 91
Hall, Bill, superintendent, Volusia County Schools, Florida,
prepared statement of...................................... 126
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 8
Modzeleski, William, Director, Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program, Department of Education:
Information concerning grants............................ 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Sherman, Lawrence, chair, Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, prepared
statement of............................................... 101
Walker, Gary L., vice president, National District Attorneys
Association, prepared statement of......................... 77
SCHOOL VIOLENCE: WHAT IS BEING DONE TO COMBAT SCHOOL VIOLENCE? WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE?
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Souder, Hutchinson,
Ose, Sanford, Mink, Towns, Cummings, Kucinich, and Tierney.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, deputy staff director;
Steve Dillingham, special counsel; Amy Davenport, clerk; Cherri
Branson, minority counsel, and Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting
of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources to order.
The topic of our hearing this morning is ``School Violence:
What is Being Done to Combat School Violence? What Should be
Done?''
I am going to give an opening statement first, as an order
of procedure. Then we will hear from the ranking member and
other members on the topic before us. Finally, we will hear
from four panels of witnesses.
I actually wrote this opening statement before this
morning's news. I said in my opening sentence, ``School
violence, a recurring problem, has dominated the news in recent
weeks,'' and maybe now I should edit it to say ``School
violence, a recurring problem dominates the news even today
with yet another tragic act of violence in Atlanta, GA.'' As we
begin the hearing this morning, our thoughts and prayers are
with that community, and those affected by this senseless
violence.
While student deaths receive the most media attention, the
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice statistics tells us
that thousands of violent crimes occur everyday in, and near
our schools.
In 1996, approximately 225,000 non-fatal, serious crimes
occurred at schools, and about 671,000 away from schools. The
tragic events at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and its
aftermath have riveted our national attention on this pressing
and perplexing issue. Needless acts of violence are always
reprehensible, but vicious and multiple killings in our schools
that take the lives of our innocent children are among the most
tragic and heartwrenching events imaginable. I am thankful that
my children have completed their high school education without
having experienced such violence.
School violence at all levels is an issue that Congress has
a responsibility to address. We are obligated to determine what
more can be done to protect children of all ages, particularly
from acts of violence associated with our schools.
Our subcommittee today is exercising its oversight
responsibility over the Department of Justice, the Department
of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education.
I don't think there is another subcommittee in Congress that
has such broad authority, so our role is very important as it
covers many of these Federal agencies that deal with the
problems of violence in our education system.
Every member of this panel is committed to ensuring that
our Federal, State, and local officials and groups are working
together to confront a national problem. Clearly, those on the
front line in preventing youth violence in our schools and
communities have valuable experiences and insight as to what is
being done and what should be done to combat school violence.
My colleague and the ranking member of this subcommittee, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, has joined me in calling
for a hearing on this critical issue. She was one of those who
originally called for Congress' investigation and a review of
what is going on and I commend her for that.
We have included a number of panelists here today at both
the request of the minority and the majority because we realize
that combating school crime and identifying effective
preventative measures to lessen violence in our schools is not
a partisan issue. I do recognize, however, that members and
those testifying here today may have different opinions
regarding how best to accomplish the shared goal of preventing
school violence, and we look forward to learning more about
these ideas and opinions. I am especially pleased that we have
many representatives of our State and local schools, law
enforcement, and prosecution communities who are involved with
these very serious issues every day.
Today, our Federal Government has a number of Federal
programs and agencies that spend hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars to address the problem of school violence. It
is an especially important matter for this subcommittee that
our Federal programs provide the targeted and effective
assistance that is needed by our States, our cities, and our
local communities and schools.
We will learn, today, that the Department of Health and
Human Resources has vast resources and personnel dedicated to
our Nation's mental health needs. The Substance Abuse and
Mental Administration is a component of HHS and is responsible
for providing leadership and assistance to States and our
communities in meeting the mental health needs of our Nation.
It is clear that mental health aspects of school violence are
particularly significant. What is it that leads a student to
commit or even consider such heinous acts? And if we know some
of the psychological factors associated with these violent
behaviors, what are we doing about it? Do our Federal programs
accomplish their goals efficiently and effectively? Is the
Federal Government helping or hurting with these programs and
policies? Every dollar dedicated to this very significant and
terrible problem must be put to maximum use and problems and
inefficiencies must be remedied.
Another Federal department over which we have oversight
responsibility is the Department of Education. A component of
the Department, which has direct responsibility for combating
school violence through educational initiatives, is the Safe
and Drug Free Schools Program. We must not forget the strong
relationship between drug abuse and violent behavior, whether
or not drug abuse is directly linked with the most recent
tragic events or not. The prevention of drug abuse goes hand in
hand with crime prevention and the reinforcement of lawful and
responsible behaviors. Are Federal agencies, particularly the
Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, maximizing available
resources in these efforts?
Many questions have been raised in the past about program
effectiveness and accountability. Is there evidence that
promised improvements have been made? If not, then why? This
program has a substantial budget of more than $566 million this
year alone--over half a billion--and has spent an estimated $6
billion since 1986. Has this been a wise investment?
We will hear about some of the changes that have been
attempted as well as new programs that are being instituted,
such as the Safe Schools, Healthy Students initiative. Do these
initiatives represent the best knowledge and employ the very
best practices? Are they efficient and effective? Are they
sufficiently targeting the most critical needs? Do States and
local communities have ample discretion to tailor the resources
to their particular needs?
Another issue that we will discuss today is an issue many
people single out as being a major concern, which is violence
in our schools from weapons. Our role today as an oversight
subcommittee for the Department of Justice requires us to also
ask a key question: Is the Justice Department vigorously
enforcing the firearm laws we have had on the books for the
last 6 years? Why is it that Congress passed a law in 1994
criminalizing gun possession by juveniles, and there have been
only 13 cases prosecuted in the last 2 years? There have been
11 prosecutions for illegal transfer of guns to juveniles--that
is only 11 prosecutions. This seems to me to be a serious lapse
in the Department of Justice's commitment to this issue.
I am particularly concerned that our request to have a
representative of the Department of Justice come and testify
about what they are doing has been turned down, but I have
talked to the ranking member. We are not going to subpoena that
witness today, but we will give the Department of Justice an
opportunity in the near future to come and respond to some of
these questions.
What we may not consider today is a more fundamental
question: Are guns, bombs, violent movies and other such
influences causing the problem or has our system of values,
morals, faith, family structure and failed role models brought
about these problems? Hopefully, this hearing will provide us
with insight as to what the Federal Government is doing to
address the problems of Columbine, Jonesboro, Paducah, and,
today, Atlanta.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our panelists from
various States and communities and schools who will share their
experience and insight with our subcommittee. I know that the
introduction into our schools of sworn human resource officers,
skilled counselors, and alternative learning approaches for at-
risk students can play a very important and significant role in
a school's ability to combat and prevent aberrant behaviors and
acts of violence.
I also realize that sometimes too much is expected of our
teachers and schools and that parents, families and churches
are primarily responsible for instilling the values we want our
children to share. I hope that the approaches that we are
employing foster and supplement our families and religious
institutions rather than conflict with them.
Specifically, I would like this hearing to examine the
following issues: first, are our Federal programs operating
efficiently and effectively in combating school violence and
are needed improvements being made? Second, what promising
approaches are being pursued in our States and communities and
schools? What, if anything, should Congress do to facilitate or
reinforce these efforts? Third, what is the current state of
our knowledge of this complex and often perplexing issue, and
what is being done to learn more about factors that contribute
to school violence? And I have added a fourth thing that I
would like to address either in this subcommittee hearing or in
additional hearings that we will conduct. Are we able to keep
the law up to date with technology? I added this because I
received a copy of this from one of my staffers who does work
with the Internet and handles all of our computer operations,
and he pulled up this anarchist's cookbook, and it is pages and
pages of instruction about how to make a bomb or explosive
devices. And, so my fourth question today, is has the law kept
up with technology, and what do we need to do in that regard?
So, with these and other questions, again, on a morning
when we have experienced another tragedy of school violence, I
am pleased to yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink, the
gentlelady from Hawaii, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Mink. I thank the chairman for yielding me time and
for agreeing to call the hearing.
This is a topic that probably, if we had convened before
Littleton, may not have brought the attention of so many
individuals. However, after the tragic occurrences in Colorado
and again this morning being reminded that it is a continuing
crisis erupting in our schools, it is extremely timely that
this committee, having oversight responsibility, take a serious
look at what the Federal Government can do, what it is doing or
could do better, or what it should not be doing? And I think it
is very appropriate that we begin today with an examination of
this very, very serious topic.
I do not believe that it is for members of this
subcommittee or even of the full committee or of Congress to
try to come up with specific ways in which we can assure the
country that these events are not going to happen. I think that
is beyond our capacity and beyond the capacity, really, of
school superintendents or principals or community leaders. To
look around for blame and leveling accusations of failures or
inaction by officials that have responsibility is not the
mission of this oversight committee.
Our search today in calling this vast array of witnesses is
to sincerely make an attempt to examine what, in these
individuals' perspectives, who are all experts--experienced
leaders who work in the field of education or in the field of
research in these matters having to do with violence in our
society--what they think the role of the Congress and the
Federal Government might be.
I think this is a State and local responsibility, something
that the schools, themselves, have to deal with, and I don't--
as one member of this subcommittee and of the Congress--propose
in any way to issue more mandates or more laws that will
dictate policy. I think it is something that the individual
schools and local districts have to come up with. But, at the
same time, I do believe the Federal Government has a unique
responsibility to examine what is there in terms of assistance
on the State and local level and what further things the
Federal Government might do. It is in this area that I think we
have a profound responsibility to make an honest search to see
that these incidents occurring in our schools do not happen.
Of course, if we took guns away and made sure that guns
never had entry into our schools, that would eliminate this
type of violence, but I think it goes far beyond just doing a
physical examination for guns. It goes to the whole psychology
of our youth and what we can do as responsible leaders and
legislators to try to help our youngsters deal with their
internal conflicts, their psychological problems, their anger,
their hate, or whatever it is that motivates them to this type
of criminal behavior.
I would like to take, also, this opportunity to research
the programs that Congress has already enacted and funded to
see whether they are working, to see whether we can expand
them, whether we should move in other directions. So, our
oversight responsibilities are very expansive, and I hope that
we will pursue this inquiry with the diligence which is
required.
Given the announcement of the shootings in Atlanta, we have
a huge impending crisis, and I wondered out loud as I heard
this story come over the television this morning, if it would
not be wise for our schools to shut down the remainder of the
school year--there is only a couple of weeks, in fact, in some
places, days left--in order to calm the environment? I have
absolutely no doubt that young people simulate what they see
and hear, and no one can direct my thinking otherwise. That is
the power of television and the power of the gruesome stories
that we see nightly. So, perhaps, to calm the situation and
make sure this thing doesn't repeat itself in the next several
days and weeks and before the end of the school year, this
might be a serious alternative that could be considered.
Undoubtedly, the Federal Government and the Congress has a
leadership responsibility, and we are here today as a
subcommittee to begin the process of determining what it is
that we should, not as mandates but as leaders, to try to pave
the way toward solutions that lead to prevention, which is my
primary objective. Is it school counselors? What sort of things
can we do to improve the ability of school administrators to
deal with the problem and to try to counsel the parents and the
community and the students affected to lead them away from the
temptation of violence of this sort?
So, I commend the Chair of this subcommittee for taking the
lead and embarking upon this very, very important and crucial
examination of school violence, and I hope that we will
conclude these meetings with some very meaningful suggestions
that we can make to the Government, to the Congress, itself, to
appropriators who fund the programs that we determine to be
important and helpful.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady and yield now to the
gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I am just
delighted that you are conducting this hearing. I think it is
extraordinarily important. We, in Arkansas, certainly
understand the tragedy of school violence with the shooting
that occurred in Jonesboro. It is an issue that concerns our
Nation, each of our States, and, as a parent of teenagers, it
certainly reaches deep into the heart of every American. And,
so I am grateful for this hearing. There are no easy answers,
but we have to address it; we have to hear from people; we have
to hear from teenagers, teachers, and others. I am pleased with
this hearing and look forward to the testimony of the panelists
today and to participating in the hearing.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
I now recognize for an opening statement, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you and also the ranking committee chairperson, Mrs.
Mink, for holding this hearing today.
I think this is a very timely hearing; no question about
that. But I think that Congresswoman Mink touched upon it--that
for some reason we think blame is a solution to the problem.
Well, blame is not a solution to this problem. I think we have
to stop and look at where we are, at what we are doing. We
continue to cut out various programs and then expect not to
have any problems.
Years ago, we had a lot of intramural programs; we had
afterschool programs--we had a debating society; we had varsity
as well as junior varsity--and all these activities gave young
people a sense of value. They felt they were involved in
something; they were involved in the community, but now they
seem to be disconnected. We continue to move in this direction
not recognizing that we are not saving money in the long run
and we are hurting people in a lot of ways. So, I think that we
now have to stop and take a very serious look at where we are
and say, ``Wait a minute, what we are doing is just not
working.'' We have problems. Let us now go back and do some of
the things we have done in the past. Sure, a person might not
be able to make the varsity team, but that doesn't mean they
should not be involved in something. Also, there is no law that
says that the school should shut down at three o'clock and
nobody should be allowed in it. I think that the activities
could go on in many, many ways. I think if we had strong
debating teams, then maybe a lot of the fights that take place
would not occur, because they would be able to talk them out
and they would have the kind of skills that would enable this.
I think all of these things need to be seriously examined
before we start doing all kinds of crazy things to address
school violence.
The last thing that I think is a very serious issue, is toy
guns. We need to take a look at those toy guns that look like
guns and begin to say ``Look, we need to get rid of them.'' We
need to take a position and take a position on that now. We
have too many young people being killed just for the fact they
had a toy gun in their hand. We need recognize that police
officers today, in this atmosphere and climate, are not going
to interview anybody before they make a decision to shoot. They
are not going to say, ``Is your gun a toy or is your gun
real?'' They are not going to do that. They are going to shoot,
and then after that, the issue will come up that it was only a
toy gun and he or she was only 13 or only 14 or only 15.
So, I think we need to look at all these things. The errors
that we can correct, the errors that we can do something about
we should do something about. And those errors that we can't do
anything about, then that is different, but the point is that
we have not even tried in the way that I feel that we should
try.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think you are on the right track by
bringing in the experts and letting us talk with them and try
to get some information and ideas about how we should move and
where we should move and recognize the fact that sometimes when
we eliminate a program we don't save much. Sometimes, when we
eliminate a program, we save money here, but we spend it on the
back end, and I think that we need to be very, very concerned
about that.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.002
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman and now would like to
introduce our first panel of witnesses. Our first witness is
Dr. Nelba Chavez, Federal Administrator of the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Our second witness is
Mr. William Modzeleski, Director of the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program for the Department of Education. Both of these
witnesses, as I said, oversee Federal programs dealing with
this issue for which we already spend hundreds of millions of
dollars. I see that we have more than two there--I did well in
math--is anyone else going to testify? OK, we are not going to
have anyone else testify.
This is an investigation and oversight panel of Congress,
and we do swear in all of our witnesses. So, could I ask the
two witnesses to stand, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. I
would like to welcome both of you today. We are anxious to hear
what you are doing and your perspective on this important
issue.
I might say that normally we have a 5-minute rule, but we
will extend that, since we only have two in this panel.
However, if you have lengthy statements or other documents you
would like to be made part of the record, we will do that upon
request.
So, with that, I would like to, again, welcome you and
recognize, first, Dr. Nelba Chevez, Administrator of Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, also known as
SAMHSA, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF NELBA CHAVEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND WILLIAM MODZELESKI, DIRECTOR,
SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Dr. Chavez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take this
opportunity to thank you for your leadership and to also thank
the other members of the committee for your commitment to the
very, very serious problems that we are facing.
I have an oral testimony, but I also have written testimony
that I would like to enter for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the complete statement will be
made part of the record.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you. I also want to introduce Dr. Bernie
Arons who is to my left. He is the Director of the Center for
Mental Health Services, and, Dr. Karol Kumpfer, who is the
Director for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. They
will be available for any further questions that you may have.
Let me just start out by saying that we are here today
because we care deeply about America's future. A month ago--
and, again, like you, Mr. Chairman, I put this together a few
days ago, so I am talking about a month ago--there was a
chilling message about the future that stunned all of us. That
was the day two students in Littleton, CO opened fire, killing
classmates in cold blood. This morning, we heard about the
shootings in Atlanta. Similar horrors around the country have
become as familiar on the news as random drive-by shootings. A
poll of American adolescents revealed that 47 percent of teens
believe their schools are becoming more violent. In addition to
being perpetrators and victims of violence, children are also
harmed by being witness to violence. Children's exposure to
violence and maltreatment is significantly associated with
increased depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder,
anger, greater alcohol and drug use, and lower school
attainment. It would be inaccurate and misleading to claim that
any single influence leads to violence, whether it is abuse,
emotional and behavior problems, peer pressure, alcohol and
drug use, lack of parental guidance, or pro-violence or drug
use media messages. These and a host of other influences are
involved. Our Nation's children, adolescents, families, and
communities clearly have multiple needs, and they deserve
comprehensive solutions.
We are here to discuss what we, in the Federal Government,
can and must do to turn our commitment into progress for our
children. We have already pulled together research which
outlines the course to take in the short and the long term. The
findings are complex but not surprising. Children exposed to
drugs, family conflicts, academic failure, and whose friends or
peers engage in anti-social behaviors are at risk for negative
and violent outcomes. Conversely, we know children can be
protected from these risks. Even more so than risk factors,
protective factors can have impact for the rest of their lives
in helping them overcome adversity.
Just yesterday, we released findings from one of our
prevention programs. We found, in successful programs,
protective factors start with meaningful contact with adults
who convey positive expectations. Our children all need
opportunities to become involved, and they need support in
building interpersonal skills. Our comprehensive evaluations
also show that programs must be flexible. Interventions that
work take into account the emotional and cognitive level of the
children and the developmental tasks appropriate for different
ages.
As we look at the multiple challenges faced by our
children, perhaps the most troubling observation is that until
they are diagnosed with a serious mental problem, become
addicted or involved in the criminal justice system or worse,
there is no system and very few services available in this
country that identify and intervene with children and families
before problems occur.
Increasingly, we have become aware of the multitude of
problems that children in adolescence face. For example, today,
one in five children in adolescence in this country have a
serious emotional or behavioral problem, yet 60 percent of them
do not receive the treatment they need. If we wait until
children turn to crime, drugs, or enter the juvenile justice
system, we all pay the price. We pay the price in suicide,
child abuse, addiction, violence.
Two initiatives at SAMHSA look at the whole child within
the context of the family and the community. Through these and
other prevention programs, we are working to address the needs
of our children earlier on. First, in partnership with the
Departments of Education and Justice, we announced the Safe
Schools, Healthy Students initiative just last month. This
collaborative effort will provide 50 school districts
throughout the United States with tools to develop and
implement comprehensive, community-wide strategies for creating
safe and drug free schools and for promoting healthy childhood
development; meaning physically and mentally healthy. Second,
we will soon announce the funding of initiatives to help expand
school-based programs and raise awareness about mental health
services for children.
At SAMHSA, we are working to support the President and your
vision for American youth. We know the protections we can offer
are stronger than the risks our children encounter. We know we
must act quickly, but we must act wisely.
I would like to close with the words of Tito, an ex-gang
member. He says, ``Kids can walk around trouble if there is
someplace to walk to and someone to walk with.'' He is telling
us that we all have remarkable potential; our job is to open
the door. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chavez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.017
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, we will hold
questions until the other witnesses have testified.
I will now recognize Mr. Modzeleski, Director of the Safe
and Drug Free Schools Program in the Department of Education.
Mr. Modzeleski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Madam Vicechairman and members of the committee. I would like
to enter my complete testimony into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Modzeleski. Thank you very much. On behalf of Secretary
Riley, I want to say that I am very pleased to testify before
this committee this morning.
We feel that the Department of Education has a key role in
helping to prevent school crime and violence. The Department of
Education has been at the forefront of supporting schools with
resources for drug and violence prevention activities and
assisting schools in ensuring that every child has the
opportunity to go to school and every teacher has the
opportunity to teach in school without being threatened,
bullied, robbed, attacked, pressured to buy illicit drugs, or
present among other students using illicit drugs.
We are, however, not alone in these efforts. Working very
closely with us every step of the way are our colleagues from a
host of agencies within the Departments of Justice, Health and
Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our work with these
other agencies reflects a partnership approach to creating safe
and drug free school environments, an approach we would like to
see every community in this country adopt. We believe success
in creating safe schools is contingent upon our ability to
forge linkages at all levels of government, to share resources
and ideas, and to work together for the common good of our
children and youth.
As you are aware, 1 month ago, two young men walked into
Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and several hours of
random shooting changed the perspective of many people in this
country about the relative safety of our schools. The tragedy
at Columbine, coming approximately 1 year after a string of
other school incidents where there were multiple victims, and
this morning's shootings at Heritage High School in Rockdale
County, GA, gave many the impression that our schools,
regardless of where they are located, are places where neither
teachers nor students are safe. Perception, however, is not
reality. While there are some schools in this country where
students and teachers fall victim to crime and violence, data
collected by the Departments of Justice and Education and the
Center for Disease Control show that schools remain safe
places, safer than many of the communities in which the
students come from, and safer than many of the homes in which
they live.
The report issued by the Departments of Education and
Justice, in October 1998, the Annual Report on School Safety,
provides some evidence of this. It shows that 90 percent of
public schools report no incidents of serious violent crime,
and less than half--43 percent--of schools reported no crime at
all. Children age 12 to 18 are twice as likely to be a victim
of a serious violent crime in the community as they are in
school, and, overall, over the past 5 years, school crime,
generally, has decreased. In 1996 and 1997, while 6,093
students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school,
preliminary data for the 1997-1998 school year indicate that
this number is decreasing.
I may also note that despite recent high visibility
incidents in the last 2 years, school-associated violent deaths
remain extremely rare events. Fewer than 1 percent of all the
homicides and suicides among school age children happen at
school, on the way to school, or at school-sponsored functions.
The study conducted for the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school
years by the Departments of Education, Justice, and the Centers
for Disease Control found that in a 2-year period, 63 students,
age 5 through 19, were murdered at school, and 13 committed
suicide at school. Firearms were responsible for 77 percent of
the total number of school-associated violent deaths. The
victims and offenders tended to be young--the median ages were
16 and 17 respectively--and male--82 and 95 percent
respectively. And that has occurred in communities of all sizes
in 25 different States.
Furthermore, preliminary data from the joint Department of
Education, Centers for Disease Control study indicate that the
number of students who are homicide or suicide victims in
schools has been gradually decreasing since 1992, even though
the number of multiple homicide events has been increasing.
Even though data related to school crime and violence
indicate that schools remain among the safest places for
children and youth-to-be, we should not be satisfied. We can do
better. We can create schools where every child can learn, and
every teacher can teach without being threatened or victimized.
However, in order to do so, we will have to overcome a series
of obstacles that confront many schools. We are working
diligently to this by developing strategies to assist schools
in collecting and utilizing sound objective data for program
planning and decisionmaking; by identifying and encouraging all
schools to implement research-based programs; by viewing school
safety and drug prevention efforts in a broader, more
comprehensive context of violence and drug prevention efforts
and not used in isolation with other prevention efforts or
other things happening in schools; by finding a better way to
target resources, schools and communities and needs; and by
assisting schools to ensure that all students are connected to
an adult in school and all students are provided a range of
opportunities that afford them the opportunity to achieve their
fullest.
We are doing this in a collaborative fashion through a
number of means: through the development and dissemination of a
range of publications, such as the Early Warning Guide, which,
hopefully, Kevin Dwyer will talk about from one of the other
panels; through improved information collection, analysis and
dissemination, such as our Annual Report on School Safety;
through expanded technical assistance opportunities, such as in
the area of school safety, with the joint Department of
Education OJJDP efforts; through targeted training and topics,
such as conflict resolution and hate crimes; through the
identification of exemplary programs and exemplary schools by
our expert panel on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug Free Schools;
through linkage of the Department of Education efforts, such as
the 21st century learning centers; through the development of
discretionary programs which provide resources to hire persons
who assist middle schools, identify the most common sense
strategies available for these schools; and, as Dr. Chavez
said, through the development and support of an initiative
entitled Safe Schools, Healthy Students.
I would like to say one thing about this initiative--it
signals a clear change in the way that we are approaching and
addressing the problem of school violence. Rather than provide
schools and communities with funds to address a portion or
single element of the problem they face and provide funds
independent of what other agencies do, we have designed a
program which will provide funds to local education agencies to
develop comprehensive program approaches to school safety.
Schools will have to develop a plan which addresses six
elements necessary for the creation of a safe school, including
school security, mental health services, and drug and violence
prevention programs.
Last, I would like to quickly mention our proposal to
overhaul the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Our
reauthorization proposal for the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program, which will be submitted tomorrow, will make
significant changes to the effectiveness of the program. The
proposal will balance local flexibility with greater
accountability; it will emphasize the implementation of high
quality research-based programs that are consistent with the
principles of effectiveness; it will strengthen program
accountability requiring recipients of funds to adopt outcome-
based performance indicators in a comprehensive, safe and drug
free school plan; it will help local education agencies respond
to violent and traumatic crises by establishing the School
Emergency Response to Violence Program.
This program would authorize the Secretary to provide rapid
assistance to school districts that have experienced violent or
other traumatic crises that have disrupted the learning
environment. It will require that students found in possession
of a firearm in school be evaluated to determine if they pose
an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others. Other
provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act we
propose would highlight that each State submit information in
its annual report card, including information regarding
incidents of school violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and the
number of instances in which a student has possessed a firearm
in school. Further, it would require districts to have and to
enforce on an equitable and consistent basis, firm school
discipline policies. We think adoption of these changes will go
a long way to improving the quality and effectiveness of drug
and violence prevention programs in schools.
In closing, I would like to state that creating safe and
drug free schools may be a difficult but not impossible task.
We, at all levels, have done a lot to ensure that all students
and all teachers have the opportunity to go to schools that are
safe, disciplined, and drug free, but we clearly recognize that
there is a lot more than needs to be done. We must be willing
to tackle difficult questions, such as how to limit youth
access to guns, and we must do it in a non-partisan fashion. We
stand ready to work with this committee on identifying and
implementing strategies that will make our schools stronger and
safer.
Mr. Chairman, one final comment, and that is to clarify in
your opening statement the fact that the Gun Free Schools Act,
which was passed in 1994, is part of the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Act. That particular provision of the law did
not criminalize the carrying of firearms. It required all
States to adopt policies which, one, require the expulsion of
all students found to have brought a firearm to school, and,
two, to report these incidents to appropriate law enforcement
officials, which in most jurisdictions are the local police or
sheriff. They are the ones who are making the determination as
to what should be done with an individual possessing a firearm.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Modzeleski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.025
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimony. In fact, I thank
both of our witnesses.
We do have a vote, and I think we have got about 6 or 7
minutes left in the vote, so we will recess this subcommittee
hearing until 11:15. I will ask our witnesses to come back at
that time, and we will begin questions. Thank you; we are in
recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call the subcommittee back to
order.
We have heard from our first two witnesses. They have
described some of the Federal programs that deal with the topic
at hand. The problem of school violence.
I would like to start the first round of questioning, if I
may, by directing a couple of questions to the Director of our
Safe and Drug Free School Programs--is it Modzeleski?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. I want to pronounce it correctly. Sir, I am
afraid that if I told the folks that you spent how much? Is it
$566 million?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Is that your amount--$566 million for Safe and
Drug Free Schools, and parents were grading the report card for
the agency right now, you would probably be getting a ``D'' or
an ``F.'' I think the perception out there is that we are not
addressing the problem, and it appears we are spending
significant amounts of money. Was it you that testified that
there is another program that is going to be introduced or you
have an announcement coming?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. And when is that?
Mr. Modzeleski. Either today or tomorrow.
Mr. Mica. And can you tell us the details of it?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir, very much so. Let me first say
that it is not the Department of Education that is spending in
1998 over $550 million on State grants. For the most part,
these are funds that go to the State education agencies and, in
turn, go down to the local education agencies, and the local
education agencies are making determinations and decisions
about how to spend these dollars with a great deal of
flexibility. So, decisions regarding what programs to place in
schools, what activities to engage in, are being made at the
local level. They are not being made at the Federal level.
The entire Elementary and Secondary Schools Act will be
submitted for reauthorization, as I said, either later today or
tomorrow. The President will set up the entire bill, and that
will start a process both here in the House as well as in the
Senate on reauthorizing the entire bill. Title IV of that bill
is the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, and that contains
provisions for overhauling the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program. What it will do is that, No. 1, we are attempting to
balance the flexibility with greater accountability to improve
the quality of programs that are funded at the local level
while continuing to ensure that decisions made about what
programs to adopt, what programs to place in schools, are
decisions made at the local level, not in the State Capitol nor
in Washington.
Two, is it strengthens the Guns Free Schools Act by
requiring that anybody who is found to be in possession of a
firearm or somebody who brings a firearm to school will have to
go through a mental health assessment to determine whether or
not that person poses a threat to himself or to others.
Three, it adds a provision that will provide funds for
recovery to schools, such as Columbine or Springfield, OR, last
year, that have had tragedies.
It also sets up a provision in other titles, specifically
title XI which will require that schools not only have school
discipline policies but that those school discipline policies
be developed with parents and students, that they be enforced
in an equitable basis, and also that schools, school districts
and the States have report cards and that the report cards
contain information not only on firearms but also on other
incidents of serious violent crimes that occur in the school.
Mr. Mica. It is my understanding that prior to 1998, there
was actually more money in the program. Is that correct?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir. Yes, there was.
Mr. Mica. I guess there was an outcry of criticism as to
how moneys for the State schools program was being expended.
The criticisms were--paying for a clown act, magic shows, a new
Pontiac Grand Prix, a holiday awareness campaign, encounter
seminars at a tourist retreat. I guess you got a lot of heat
from Congress about how the money was spent, so there was a
cutback. There is an array of other programs--the camera is
rolling, and I don't want to get into a description of all of
them here--but they arguable were not promoting safe schools. I
guess there was quite a bit of criticism, and that is one
reason why some of these funds got cut. Is that correct?
Mr. Modzeleski. It is one of the reasons why. It wasn't the
sole reason why, and, also, again--
Mr. Mica. If it wasn't the reason why, what has been done
to make certain that these expenditures for which you were
criticized, or your program was criticized, are not reccurring?
Have we taken care of these problems?
Mr. Modzeleski. We think we have. I think that there have
been several steps. One, again, to ensure that the steps that
we have taken are codified. In our reauthorization proposal,
you are going to see significant steps to improve the
accountability of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program.
Second, in July of last year, we issued what is called the
Principles of Effectiveness. What we require now from every
school district receiving funds from the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program is that they do four things: one is that they
conduct an assessment of their problems, so, clearly, they have
a better understanding of what is happening in the school and
programs are based upon that assessment, not upon guesswork or
not upon what an individual says. Two, we are asking every
school district in this country to work with the community to
develop measurable goals and objectives so we know exactly
where they are. Three, we are asking every school district that
uses Safe and Drugs Schools Program dollars to ensure those
dollars are being used for research-based programs. And, four,
we are asking every school district to ensure through a
periodic evaluation, that the goals and objectives they have
set out--not what the Federal Government established--but the
goals and objectives are actually met, and that if the goals
and objectives aren't met, that the program be either altered
or eliminated.
Mr. Mica. How many people do we have administering this
program?
Mr. Modzeleski. Approximately 25, sir.
Mr. Mica. That is the total in Washington?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. You gave some statistics. It was interesting
the way they were presented, and I am not sure--maybe you could
clarify for me--you said 43 percent of the schools reported no
crime?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Does that mean that 57 percent, more than a
majority, experienced some incident of crime?
Mr. Modzeleski. Some incident of crime; yes, sir. I should
also say that one of the statistics--and if you would allow me,
I would love to put the 1998 report into the record.
Mr. Mica. I would be glad to do that. Without objection, so
ordered.
[Note.--The 1998 Annual Report on School Safety may be
found in subcommitee files.]
Mr. Mica. Is that statistic for elementary, secondary--what
schools?
Mr. Modzeleski. For all three levels, sir.
Mr. Mica. For all three levels.
Mr. Modzeleski. And it also includes serious crime as well
as serious, non-violent crimes, such as theft, which is the
largest crime that occurs in schools today.
Mr. Mica. But over a majority of our schools had some
reported incident of crime?
Mr. Modzeleski. Some incident of crime, including less
serious crimes, such as theft.
Mr. Mica. In your recommendations that are coming out
tomorrow, you talked about the law that was passed some time
ago dealing with guns and schools. Is there a proposal to
Federalize this as a criminal act in what is being proposed
tomorrow?
Mr. Modzeleski. No, there is not, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. Dr. Chevez, you oversee our Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. How much does your
agency spend annually?
Dr. Chavez. I am sorry, Mr.--
Mr. Mica. What is the total budget for your agency?
Dr. Chavez. Our total agency budget for SAMHSA is
approximately $2.5 billion. The majority of those dollars are
in block grants for substance abuse.
Mr. Mica. My question would be--and I know you have many
worthwhile substance abuse programs--is there any way for you
to give the subcommittee an estimate of what percentage of
dollars might be directed toward the question of school
violence or problems? I don't know if that is possible, but
maybe you could give us some idea of what level of funds you
think are going toward those programs that deal with this
problem?
Dr. Chavez. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to submit a
detailed report to you and to the committee.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, we will make that part of the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.026
Mr. Mica. We are trying to get some handle on the dollars
that are being spent and how they are being spent. I thought
you gave some interesting statistics. You said one in five
children in our schools have serious emotional or mental health
problems. Was that--I was trying to write it down; I failed my
stenograph course--was that what you said?
Dr. Chavez. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Basically, what
I said--
Mr. Mica. And you said 60 percent are not having their
mental health or emotional problems addressed. Is that also
correct?
Dr. Chavez. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. One of the problems we have here is that it seems
like we have either an emotional or values or mental health
problem with students who aren't conducting themselves in a
normal fashion. In fact, a very abnormal fashion. As far as
correcting that, do you have any specific recommendations? And
I know there have been proposals, that is the first part of the
question. The second part is, the question about parity as far
as coverage with insurance, health insurance, relating to
mental health. I wonder if you have any comments about what we
should do in that regard? So, there are two parts to the
question if you could please respond.
Dr. Chavez. Yes, thank you. Let me respond to the first
part of your question. What we are seeing--and I indicated that
earlier--is that children in adolescence, more and more, have a
multitude of problems, a multitude of needs, and this cuts
across all segments of society--all socio-economic groups as
well as all racial and ethnic groups. We are also seeing that
we have got--as I indicated earlier, approximately one in five
children in this country that may have a serious emotional
problem and/or a behavioral problem. Most of these children--60
percent--are not able to get the kind of services they need. If
you look at our funding, for example, our mental health block
grant under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, the
block grant is targeted for those individuals and for children
who have a serious emotional problem. We don't really have a
system in this country, for example, where parents and teachers
can turn when they see a child in the classroom or in the home
experiencing some problems, either related to depression or
anti-social behavior, unless they have insurance. If they have
insurance, in most instances, the insurance will not cover the
kind of treatment that they may need.
Your question about parity--yes, I strongly support mental
health parity as well as substance abuse parity, because, in
the long run--and we have several studies we have done in this
area where the cost is minimal--in the long run, I believe that
it is very cost effective.
Mr. Mica. I probably agree with you. I oversaw the--in two
sessions of Congress, the Federal Employees with Health Benefit
Program, and I think it only cost about $18 million to provide
9 million people with that benefit. Instead, the administration
proposed a series of mandates and regulations with no medical
benefits--that is another question; we won't get into it at
this hearing. But I agree with your comments on parity as far
as insurance and mental health.
Either of you, just a final question: Do we have in the
agencies and Departments, right now, some type of task force or
some type of activity to address what we have seen reccurring
and the problems that we have? What are we doing right now in
addition to--you said you were coming forward with some
recommendations--but are we really looking at? I imagine we
have studies and other things about this, but are experts
coming together and are we trying to focus in on this problem?
Mr. Modzeleski.
Mr. Modzeleski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is
clearly, yes. There are a variety of things happening, not only
in the Department of Education but in the Department of
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and
within the various agencies within those large Departments.
Both Dr. Chavez and myself mentioned the Safe Schools, Healthy
Children Initiative. This is a program whereby representatives
from several Federal agencies meet on a regular basis to look
at the type of strategy and program that is really needed to
create not only safe schools but healthy children. It is an
effort and attempt to begin to combine funds from not one
agency, but funds from three agencies, in the development of a
comprehensive program designed to create safe schools. So, its
front end is on the prevention side.
Also, and again, I hope that Dr. Dwyer, later, talks about
the Early Warning Guide, because we have been working
collaboratively with the Department of Justice, with the
National Association of School Psychologists, and with a host
of other groups and organizations to identify the front end.
What prevention efforts are needed? What happens when you
identify a child who has some problems in school? Where do you
refer that particular child? How do you refer them? So, there
are some efforts on the prevention side.
Last, in the crisis or the response, what happens when a
Littleton does occur, when a Springfield does occur? In the
fiscal year 2000 budget for the Department of Education, there
is $12 million in there that would basically set up a revolving
fund to help schools recover from such disasters.
And, in my testimony, we outlined a whole series of
prevention and early intervention activities that we are
engaged in. I am sure that Dr. Chavez is engaged in a whole
group of other activities. I just want to say that these are
not activities that we, alone, are engaged in; this is a
partnership. We have got to continue to look at this as a
partnership working collegially and cooperatively with other
agencies in the Federal Government.
Mr. Mica. Dr. Chavez.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working in
several areas. One, we have a prevention roundtable that has
been established by Dr. Karol Kumpfer, the Director of our
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Basically, what they are
doing is working with not only agencies within the Federal
Government but they have also been very, very much involved in
a coalition throughout the United States, the Prevention
Coalition.
In addition to that, we have been very much involved,
through our Center for Mental Health Services, in the incidents
that have occurred in Colorado as well as those in other
communities. Through the work of Dr. Arons and many of the
other Federal agencies, including working very closely with Mr.
Modzeleski, we have been addressing the issue. In fact, I want
to say that we had begun working on this long before this
incident happened in Littleton. In the project I described
earlier where we brought in all the three major Federal
agencies on that one project, that didn't evolve, in terms of
the idea, from the Federal people; this was after having focus
groups with teachers, principals, students, and people
throughout the country. I think it is very important that we
must listen to what our young people are saying in terms of
some of the things they are feeling, some of the things they
see as solutions to these problems.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now to our
ranking member, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
unanimous consent that we be allowed to submit written
questions to all of the witnesses today.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered, and we will leave
the record open for at least 2 weeks.
Mrs. Mink. Two weeks, fine. Because there are so many
questions on my mind that I think are relevant to this inquiry
regarding violence.
What strikes me as being the most provocative of all the
questions relating to the Columbine High School situation is
the fact that most of the witnesses that were interviewed
following that incident stated that there was no drug abuse, no
drugs evident in the two young people. Nor was there, in terms
of the teachers and school principal and other officials that
had contact with the two, any indication that something like
this was part of their intention. Other than what was
discovered after the fact on their website and in various e-
mails, there was no sign.
I am also struck by your statement, Dr. Modzeleski, that in
90 percent of the schools, there were really no reports of
serious violent crimes, that we are talking about 10 percent of
the schools where these incidents happen. With the assets that
the Congress has provided you in this area of safe schools--the
drug issue is separate, because I think that sometimes in the
past we have concentrated our effort on the drug abuse issue.
Today, we are trying to see what we have done in the safe
schools issue, if we can separate it out, and what I wanted to
ask both of you is, of all the grants, the programs that you
have authorized, the funding that you have allowed the State
and local agencies to use, which, in your opinion, have been
the most productive in responding to the type of situation that
we found at Columbine?
Mr. Modzeleski. Let me say that Jefferson County in
Colorado is the largest school district in Colorado; therefore,
it receives the most Safe and Drug Free Schools dollars. It
receives more Safe and Drug Free Schools than any other school
district in Colorado.
Mrs. Mink. How much would that be?
Mr. Modzeleski. I will get that for you, Madam Vice
Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.027
Mr. Modzeleski. I spent a couple days out in Littleton
shortly after the disaster trying to work through some mental
health crisis issues with them and trying to ensure that they
had staff on board to help reopen the school shortly after it
happened. I was struck by the fact that Jefferson County has
one of the better Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs in the
State, not only in the State, I think in country; very
diligent--
Mrs. Mink. What did it do that you found better than
others?
Mr. Modzeleski. First of all, I think it really made an
attempt to connect children to institutions, connect children
to schools. To identify those children who are at risk of
alcohol and drug use, and really provide them with the services
and support necessary to help them along the path. I would also
say that while this is a hearing on school safety and school
crime, I don't think we could decouple the issues of alcohol
and drug use from school safety. Many of the risk factors
inherent in alcohol and drug use are the same risk factors
inherent in violent behavior. I think we really need to find a
better way at the local agencies to deal with both issues and
not segregate the issues out. I think the fear that we have is
that if you begin to segregate the issues out, schools will
focus only on one issue and that is the issue of school safety
to the disregard of the other issue, which is alcohol and drug
use when in many ways they are linked together. We really need
to find a way to get schools to think about what the risk
factors are that children possess, and what are the protective
factors that we can instill in schools, in communities, and in
homes that really protect against violence, drug use, and other
types of behavior which are unacceptable?
So, again, the issue of the dollars that local education
agencies receive are flexible dollars. The community really has
a decision whether they want to put those moneys into conflict
resolution, afterschool programs, peer mentoring programs, teen
court programs, hiring of law enforcement officials, more metal
detectors. Hopefully, those decisions are not made in a vacuum
and hopefully those decisions are made with the help and
support of teachers, parents, administrators, and students,
themselves.
Mrs. Mink. Dr. Chavez.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you, Congresswoman--
Mrs. Mink. Before you answer, how much of your funding
actually is directed to school situations, school-based
situations, other than the general issue of substance abuse and
mental health?
Dr. Chavez. Right now, we have $40 million that we are
directing to school violence, but, as I said earlier, we have
other dollars, as well, but I do not have the breakdown. The
majority of our funding--
Mrs. Mink. Out of $2.5 billion, only $40 million to
schools?
Dr. Chavez. $40 million, that is correct. We have block
grants, which is a substantial amount of money, but, again, as
Bill indicated with their block grant, our block grant goes
directly to the State. Once it reaches the State, the State
makes the decisions--
Mrs. Mink. How much of that State money is directed to the
school-age population?
Dr. Chavez. This is information that we do not have
available. When the State receives those dollars, they are
free, in terms of the flexibility of the block grant, to expend
those dollars based on services that they--
Mrs. Mink. There is no requirement to report back or any
requirement for accountability for funding?
Dr. Chavez. The requirement to report back is a financial
requirement, it is a fiscal requirement, which they do submit
on an annual basis, as the expenditures. In terms of whether
the programs have been effective or not, they are not required
to report that. However, under our reauthorization, one of the
things we are asking for is that the block grants be based on
performance measures, so that we will be--
Mrs. Mink. My question is not really on effectiveness or
how effective or appropriate or whatever; it is just an
accounting question as to whether the funds that are block
granted to States are going to the schools and school-age
children?
Dr. Chavez. The States are required to submit financial
information on how they expend those Federal dollars in
relation to substance abuse, treatment, prevention, and mental
health.
Mrs. Mink. So, you don't really know who the end user is?
Dr. Chavez. If the State reports that information as part
of their application, then, yes, we do, but in terms of being
able to answer the question: Do we know what percent of those
dollars the State is spending through their block grant on
school violence? No, I do not have that answer. We will try and
get that answer for you, but, again, this is something that we
would have to go--it is not in our statute in terms of those
kinds of things that we are required to ask the States, again,
because of the flexibility that is there.
Mrs. Mink. One final question, if I may have this--even
though the red light is on. Under mental health services, are
any of your funds directed to deal with the children in the
category that the Education Department deals with under IDEA?
Dr. Chavez. In our Center for Mental Health Services, we
have an appropriation of approximately $78 million for
children's mental health, to provide comprehensive mental
health services in communities for children that are seriously
mentally ill. The requirement, in terms of communities that are
eligible to apply for this discretionary funding, is that they
must develop a plan that includes the schools, the juvenile
justice system, and other social service agencies.
In the 6 years that this program has been in operation, we
have very positive outcomes to report. For example, children
that are part of this system have improved mentally in terms of
their school attendance, but also we have seen a reduction in
the number of children that have been institutionalized.
Consequently, there have been some dramatic savings to many of
the communities in terms of foster care, et cetera. So, yes,
there is a direct relationship in terms of our children's
mental health in working closely with the schools. However, I
must emphasize that the children that are eligible for this
program must be children that have been diagnosed as seriously
mentally ill.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now to the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like unanimous consent to put this chart in
from ONDCP regarding marijuana use being related to delinquent
behavior and also aggressive behavior.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Souder. Clearly, not every case of every shooting in
the country has drugs or alcohol involved. But, as we heard
from Dr. Kingly over in the Education Committee yesterday, it
is clearly--while not everybody who is on drugs carries a gun
to school--it is the best predictor of whether or not somebody
is going to bring guns to school. If, indeed, they started
their drug abuse at an early age or it is frequent, the odds
soar and I think you are absolutely right that they are
interconnected.
I have a series of questions, and, hopefully, Mr.
Modzeleski, as we work through the Drug Free and Safe Schools
section in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we can
work together with some of the details on targeting. You had
some suggestions here on specific things that you would like
the States to submit, and I would like to do some followup with
that.
I want to make sure in my time here that I can pursue a
question that has come up in a number of other areas, including
our juvenile justice, that I am concerned about. It is
troubling to me, from my religious perspective, how some of the
difficult moral questions are being handled right now in trying
to address the question of hate crimes. Not only have we seen,
in some of these schools, actual persecution and shooting of
kids because of their religious views, I am wondering whether
or not you would have any objection if we continue to push to
try to expand the definition to include those who have strong
moral views. In particular, what I want to pursue here is the
difficulty of how to do conflict resolution and reducing the
tension where kids make judgments about others that lead to
both verbal or physical assault and then how not to, in effect,
offend the religious beliefs that are deeply held of other
people.
In particular, in this report, Preventing Youth Hate
Crimes, in the back of this, you refer to a number of webpages.
The only State webpage referred to in this booklet is
Washington, in that program, in part four on hate crimes, which
you held up--you have a disclaimer saying you don't agree with
everything in each one. At the same time, this is the only
State one held up--this says what is age appropriate at the
elementary school level? And this clause says, ``A gay man is
someone who loves another man best of all. A lesbian woman is
someone who loves another woman best of all. Heterosexuals are
people whose dearest love is of the other sex. People are
bisexual if they sometimes fall in love with a woman and
sometimes with a man.'' And then, underlined, ``people who have
always felt as if they were in the body of the wrong sex are
called transsexual. Some transsexual kids grow up and get sex
change operations and some don't.''
Now, the problem here is that many of us who have deeply
held moral views do not want--and part of the reason there is a
public reaction against public schools--and my kids have been
in public schools; I have gone through public schools; I still
have kids in the public schools--but this is the type of thing
that would drive me to pull out. If I found that my fifth
grader--because this says elementary school level--is being
taught an amoral approach to transsexual sex change operations
rather than what I believe hate crimes should be--it is
something more like this: whether you feel someone's behavioral
or sexual preference is right or wrong, you don't have the
right to verbally assault them, verbally offend them,
physically assault them, because what is offensive is taking
your personal views out on somebody else.
That is the problem here, but in trying to teach tolerance,
we are, in effect, taking a neutral view on the behavior which
is, in effect, counter to what their parents or their church is
teaching.
Furthermore, they can be taught that they are intolerant
and kids become intolerant of them, because they are merely
stating their view of what is right and wrong and what they
have been taught by their families. And, in fact, tolerance
goes both directions. What is intolerable is to have you take
offensive behavior, insulting behavior, or things that restrict
other people as opposed to having those beliefs, and this type
of thing is expanding, and it is particularly discouraging to
me that it is expanding under programs that, while they have
good goals, in fact, are very offensive not only to me,
personally--and it is offensive to me, personally. I am not
claiming this on behalf of other people; it is offensive to me
as a parent and as a christian, but also many, many parents are
voting with their feet and moving out of the schools because of
this type of thing, and I would like to hear some of your
responses. This is a difficult question.
Mr. Modzeleski. It is a very difficult question,
Congressman. Thank you, and I appreciate your comments. As you
stated, and I would agree 100 percent, this is a very, very
difficult question that we are dealing with.
Also, the Department of Justice, the administration is
moving forward with a bill which would expand hate crimes
legislation to cover issues such as you have mentioned
regarding tolerance for sexual behavior. So, that is going down
on different track. But, clearly, I think that in schools we
have to be tolerant of people who are different in any way, and
I think that covers a broad definition of hate crimes,
tolerance because people are of a different race; tolerance of
people who may be of a different religion; tolerance because
they have different sexual beliefs or identities. I think that
tolerance covers a broad range of issues, and we should be
teaching tolerance--and this just isn't in school; I mean,
basically, broadly speaking about tolerance.
I am a little bit--I guess I am a little bit confused that
if we did not teach tolerance about this particular issue, what
would we be doing in public schools? Should we be teaching
children not to be tolerant of somebody who expresses a
different sexual belief? We would be willing to work with you
on that, but this is a very, very difficult position.
We also clearly understand from data that has been
submitted and collected by the Department of Justice that the
whole issue of sexual identity and differences in sexual
identity does lead to fights, does lead to victimization on the
part of those individuals who have different sexual identities,
and we have to deal with the entire student body.
Mr. Souder. But why do you stress--when there are deep
differences of opinions on something--why do you stress--
because the word ``tolerance'' here is actually used as almost
an attitude-changing question as opposed to tolerance in the
sense of different people are allowed to live together even if
they are wrong. In other words, part of free speech in America
says that even someone who, if they don't advocate violent
action as a Nazi or a Communist, we let them speak, but it
doesn't mean we have to say that tolerance means that their
behavior is OK.
I am not asking the schools to say that homosexual behavior
or transsexual operations or bisexual behavior is wrong; I am
merely trying to say that they shouldn't be taking the position
that it is normal either. In other words, what schools should
be teaching in tolerance is that whatever that person's
position is, you don't have a right to go verbally assaulting
them, making fun of them, physically assaulting them. But to
then tell them ``Oh, that is because some people choose this
and that'' is entering into another realm of it, and that is
moral teaching.
Mr. Modzeleski. I see what you mean.
Mr. Souder. And that is what a lot of us are troubled
about. We are trying to get to that, because I may have a
strong view, but I am not going to--I believe it is just as
offensive to my belief to persecute, to mock, to do any of that
type of thing.
Mr. Modzeleski. It was not the intention of that manual to
do that, Mr. Souder, not at all. It was basically, I think, to
expand the whole issue, as you mentioned, of tolerant views
toward people, because they may be different.
Mr. Souder. Then we need to then work--because one of the
extensions of this argument is, because you very eloquently
pointed out, kids are made fun of. There is no question that
any sort of difference from the norm is harassed in school,
whether you are short, whether you don't have designer clothes,
and so on. What I am trying to encourage here is, as we look at
the manuals and try to do tolerance, that what we try to say
is, we are not really going to radically change that kids are
going to torment each other in the sense of changing,
undergirding, things of normative behavior and that we are not
going to make everybody the same size and so on. What we ought
to teach them is regardless--what we have to teach in tolerance
is that in this country everybody is here. It doesn't mean we
have to accept everybody's behavior, but we have to learn to
live together, which is a different goal, quite frankly, than
much of what is in here, which is trying to change the attitude
underneath that says whether a behavior is right or wrong,
which is really not the business of the school. It is the
business of the parents and the church. What you want to teach
is how to live together so we don't become like the Balkans,
and I would like to work with that.
And I know I went over the 5-minutes, but I have a series
of detailed questions on the drug issue and stuff, because we
are looking at whether to separate some of the Safe and Drug
Free Schools, whether we should drive the grants--some of the
problems with these school grants is they are so small when we
get to a given school, I want to look at some creative ways as
we are going through--
Mr. Modzeleski. And we would love to do that and work with
you, Mr. Souder, on that issue, and the bill that will be
coming forward to you very shortly expresses the administration
views, but, as I say, we are open to working with you. Thank
you.
Mr. Mica. Those questions will be made part of the record,
without objection.
I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the witnesses for being here today. I have just listened
to Mr. Souder, and I am thinking about tolerance and looking at
this annual report on school safety, which was prepared jointly
by the Departments of Justice and Education, and it is very
interesting, and I just wanted to know your views on this--I am
sure you are familiar with it, Dr.--
Mr. Modzeleski. Mr. Modzeleski.
Mr. Cummings. Modzeleski. It says, under the category of
creating a climate of tolerance, it says, ``fostering and
maintaining a safe learning environment means creating a
climate of tolerance in which all students are comfortable and
secure, particularly in adolescents who have strong needs to be
accepted by their peers. However, because of stereotypes,
ignorance, and intolerance, certain individuals and groups tend
to be alienated from their fellow students. A source of
conflict in many schools is the perceived or real problem of
bias and unfair treatment of students because of ethnicity,
gender, race, social class, religion, disability, nationality,
sexual orientation, physical appearance, or some other factor
both by staff and peers. Schools can encourage students to be
more accepting of diversity through schoolwide awareness
campaigns, policies which prevent harassment and
discrimination, and offering support groups.''
How do you feel about that?
Mr. Modzeleski. Supportive, fully.
Mr. Cummings. I do too.
Let me go to something that is just--first of all, I want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing and
certainly our ranking member.
I would venture to guess in my district, which is the inner
city of Baltimore, there are probably somewhere in the area of
50 to 75 black kids who are shot dead every year, every year;
probably more than that--teenagers, students not in school.
And, you know, when I look at the Columbine thing, I have a lot
of sympathy, I really do; it is wrenching, and it shocks the
conscience. And when I go in my neighborhoods and I talk to my
constituents, they say, ``I wish somebody would scream and have
it on national--international TV for our children and the
funerals that we go to and the coffins that we have to buy. We
wish that someone would send somebody into our schools, too,
who can deal with the grief and the pain.'' And this is every
year.
And, so I look here at--I was listening to Mr. Souder, and
I started thinking about some of the things that he talked
about, and I just find it very interesting when we are talking
about--the statement that I read talks about alien Nation. When
these young men at Columbine--when they did their little
research on these killers--and, by the way, these are our
children, still. They once played hopscotch and hide and go
seek this is just a few years later. They said one of the
problems with these guys is they felt alienated. They felt like
they weren't a part of anything. They also suffered from
something that is very, very unfortunate about our society--
they were racist. They hunted down that little black boy and
killed him, because he was black. They had a problem with
jocks; people who apparently tried to be good guys, good
students, probably good student government guys and girls--they
wanted to kill them. And then we talk about gun control; we
talk about these factors.
There is a lot that goes into what happened there, and I
don't think it is easy to solve this problem. We have in our
society where we don't have the Father Knows Best society
anymore--where mamma and daddy are at home, where mamma's at
home; daddy works, comes home at 5 o'clock--it is not that way
anymore. You have parents who are struggling trying to make it,
both in neighborhoods like Columbine and in the inner city of
Baltimore. Only in the inner city of Baltimore, usually, there
is only one parent or some grandparents that are barely making
it.
And, so that leads me to this: we have a school--and I
invite you to come to the school with me--called Walbrook High
School in Baltimore, which is located in the inner city where
when everybody was running around putting up all these metal
detectors, they were taking them down.
Let me tell you about the principles, this is a young
principal who is about 40 years old. His name is Andrey
Bundley, and, Mr. Chairman, I invite you have him come speak to
us, because he got it; he gets it. What he has done is decided
that it did not make sense to distrust his students. This is an
all black school--he said, ``Look, we are going to create an
environment of love, excellence, respect, and humanity.'' And,
so he told the students, ``Look, if somebody brought a gun into
your house, what would you do?'' All the students said, ``We
would do something. We would make sure that mamma or somebody
knew that there was a gun in the house.'' He said, ``Well, this
is your house. This school is your house. You spend almost as
much as time in this school as you do your house.'' So, there
is no such thing in this school as a snitch, because they get
it. They get that they are trying to protect their house. Most
of their friends are in that school. They spend a lot of time
there. The school is basically a major part of their life. So,
that is No. 1.
They don't have any discipline problems at this school.
Why? Because they get it. And they have done something else,
they make sure that everybody understands that no matter what
they are or who they are, as long as they go by the rules, they
are part of an entire body. I am not going to alienate you
because you are not a jock. I am not going to alienate you
because you do this or you do that; we are all a part, and it
is creating an atmosphere. But did CBS News do anything on
them? No.
All of the periodicals that I have seen on education here
lately, all I am seeing over and over again on education is how
can we buy more metal detectors? That is what you are hearing.
The guy was on the CBS News--on the news station last night,
one of the national news stations, he said, I can't--the owner
of one of these metal detector companies said, ``I can't keep
up with the orders.''
Some kind of way we have got to get back to something
called parenting. That is what it is all about--parenting,
making children feel like they are part--sometimes I think what
happens is that we, as adults, forget what it is like to be a
child. We get so busy legislating and doing all of this that we
forget the faces of children and how children view life; how
they feel when they are 13 years old and they are fat and they
are being left out of the baseball games or they are not a part
of it or they are not a part of any organization, because there
is no organization to be a part of.
And, so some kind of way, I think that when we begin to
look at these solutions, I want you to come to Walbrook High
School. Maybe we will get some cameras to watch these
wonderful, beautiful, brilliant children as they come in and
out of school feeling safe. Because they know that they care
about each other, and they are not being biased or
discriminating or alienating each other. They have a principal
who understands that some kind of way if they are not getting
it on the outside of school, he is trying to give it to them on
the inside of the school, and, guess what? What he has
discovered is that when they get it on the inside of the
school, they then take it out, back to their homes, and they
are able to teach, sometimes, their parents how to have this
human element that we are all one; we are all human beings, and
we are all in this world together. So, I invite you. I said all
of that to give you an invitation.
Mr. Modzeleski. I would be delighted to take your
invitation.
Mr. Cummings. Well, I want you to do it soon, because the
school year--
Mr. Modzeleski. Well, the school gets out--we will do it in
the next couple of weeks, I assure you.
Mr. Cummings. Because the school year is getting ready to
end, and I am giving them an award, it is an award, and we all
need to do this--it is called the U-Turn Award. We are giving
this, because I think we need to begin to highlight the great
things about our children instead of concentrating on the
negative.
There are schools that are doing it right, and that is
another suggestion is that we do more of that. If things are
working somewhere where there are good parent relationships
with schools and whatever, we need to highlight those
situations instead of getting in this total war mentality,
``Oh, I have got to watch out, and who is going to come in with
a gun?'' I am not saying that we don't need to do those kinds
of things, but we also need to be moving more toward those
schools that are doing it right. And, according to the
chairman, when he asked you a few questions, there are
apparently some schools--they may not be in the majority, but
it sounds like they may very well be--who are doing it right.
Mr. Modzeleski. There are.
Mr. Cummings. And, so, hopefully, we can highlight more of
them so that we can move to that, because these are still our
kids; they are our children. They come from all kinds of
families; they have all kinds of problems; they are dealing
with things that most of us never dealt with when we were
coming up, and so I want to thank you for taking me up on my
invitation, and I am going to--we will followup as soon as the
hearing is over.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman from Maryland.
I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me followup on that for a second, because I thought
that was interesting. Does the Department of Education do
anything in terms of identifying best practices when it comes
to--I use the word ``discipline,'' because that is one that I
saw in your remarks, sir, but I think it is better stated here
probably as ``attitude?'' Do you go out and find schools that
have somehow put together the proper atmosphere or environment
and get those as best practices; find out how they do it and
make that information available to other schools?
Mr. Modzeleski. Yes, we do. Let me just say, if I can take
30 seconds out and comment on Congressman Cummings, because I
do believe that an overwhelming majority--
Mr. Tierney. You are going to take my time to answer his
question?
Mr. Modzeleski. Well, because this gets to your point, too,
Congressman--
Mr. Tierney. I am only kidding; go ahead.
Mr. Modzeleski [continuing]. Because an overwhelming
majority of students in this country are good students. An
overwhelming majority of students in this country don't engage
in crime. The overwhelming majority of students in this country
really are trying to do a good job, and I think that we need to
do a better job identifying those students, identifying those
schools, identifying those practices, and publishing and
rewarding those kids.
Now, what do we do? We do a couple of things. One is, we
have a Drug Free Schools Recognition Program. This is a program
where we go out on a national basis and try to identify schools
that have exemplary drug prevention and violence prevention
programs. We just finished a competition about 3 weeks ago.
Those programs were site visited by fellow principals and
teachers throughout the country, and the results of that should
be available within approximately a month.
Now, I will tell you that while we are moving in that
direction and while there are schools that are promising--they
have great drug prevention and great violence prevention
programs--we are not doing enough; we are not getting enough.
We need to do a better job in identifying the schools that are
doing a good job, because we have over 15,000 school districts,
over 100,000 schools in this country, and we are scratching the
surface on which schools are doing a good job.
No. 2 is that we also have a panel called the expert panel,
which is not looking at schools, which is looking at programs--
drug prevention and violence prevention programs--setting up
objective criteria by which to measure those programs, and
identifying which programs meet that criteria from a research-
based perspective. So, we will have, by the end of this summer,
a list of both what we call promising as well as exemplary
programs.
Mr. Tierney. And you will disseminate that?
Mr. Modzeleski. We will disseminate it widely. I mean,
again, this gets back to the whole issue of accountability of
the program, the whole issue of improving the quality of the
program. We have to, we have a responsibility of identifying
good schools, of identifying best practices, and getting that
information out to as many schools as possible.
Mr. Tierney. In your remarks, at least your written
remarks, it was indicated that even a bigger problem than crime
or violence, really, is discipline in schools. Is there a
Federal role at all that touches on that or where do you think
that appropriately gets addressed and how?
Mr. Modzeleski. It is hard to measure in an issue of
magnitude which is greater, which affects the learning
environment? And I think that as we look at the data, clearly,
more schools have discipline problems than have crime problems.
More schools have discipline problems on a regular basis. More
schools have a few individuals who upset what goes on in the
learning environment on a regular basis, which are not criminal
incidents but disciplinary problems.
In the revised, or I should say, in the proposal, the
administration's proposal for revision of the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Act, in title XI, there is a school
discipline issue where we talk about all schools receiving
elementary and secondary schools funds shall develop strong,
sound school discipline policies--and getting back to a point--
it also clearly states that these discipline policies shall be
enforced equitably, because very often they are not enforced
equitably.
So, it is not only the establishment of sound discipline
policies, because I harken to say that about 100 percent of
schools in this country today have discipline policies, but we
need to do a better job examining those policies; getting
students and teachers involved in the development of those
policies, and equitably enforcing those policies.
Mr. Tierney. Well, in your Safe Schools, Healthy Student
Initiative, you note that the grants are going to be--the
applications are going to be taken as early as June 1st. Has
that been broadly noticed to the world here?
Mr. Modzeleski. It has been broadly noticed to the world.
We are just completing a series of six audio conferences
whereby we are answering questions from the field. The
announcement of that particular program is on our website; it
is on Dr. Chavez' website; it is on the Department of Justice
website. You have mailings that are going out from the
Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human
Services as well as the Department of Justice. There has been
an overwhelming response to this particular program.
Mr. Tierney. What was the basis of the six criteria that
you said in order to have a plan qualify as comprehensive? Was
that research? Was that--
Mr. Modzeleski. It was really a careful examination of a
lot of research which exists. I am sure we could probably
expand that a little bit more, but one of the issues that we
run into is that this is the first time where we have combined
a substantial amount of funding into one partner trying to
manage this program with one application. And what we are
saying to school districts, both suburban, rural, and Indian
tribes, is that we want you to submit one application--one
application for mental health services, for early childhood
development, for school security programs, for a series of
programs and activities. And, really, what we are providing is
a continuum of services along a broad range starting with early
childhood development and ending up with a referral to mental
health services if that is found to be necessary.
Mr. Tierney. It is obviously going to mean that some of
these schools are going to have to bring on new personnel,
particularly in the counseling area. How do schools deal with
the added expense that is going to entail?
Mr. Modzeleski. Dr. Chavez mentioned--and I don't want to
get into her venue--that there was $40 million of SAMHSA
dollars which are going for mental health services for schools;
$25 million of that is in this overall pot. So, there will be
money in this overall pot for mental health services.
Mr. Tierney. And let me just finish, because I know the red
light is on--I was struck by the figures that 82, almost 83
percent of the victims are males, and 95.6 percent of the
offenders in violent situations are males. What are we doing to
focus in on that aspect of this problem?
Mr. Modzeleski. This gets back to a whole lot of issues. It
gets back to the issue of really looking at this from a very
broad-based perspective. The figures and the data you have
there are from the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 school years. The data
from the last 2 school years are still coming in. We don't know
whether it is going to be different or not. I don't think the
data for school crime are much different from the data from
overall crime. We do know that young males are the most
frequent purveyors of crime and violence, and what we are
really trying to do is get schools to have a better
understanding, through assessment processes, as to who some of
these individuals are and then to provide them with appropriate
services.
Some of this gets back to the mental health side where Dr.
Chavez' organization is involved. Some of this you will hear in
the, I think, the last panel where Dr. Dwyer talks about the
early warning signs; identifying those students who may be at
risk of problems and, without doing any harm to those
individuals, making referrals to appropriate services in the
community.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Now, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, hopefully, I
won't take the entire allotted time, but I did have one area of
inquiry.
Dr. Chavez, I was reading the introductory information that
has been provided. It is my understanding that your agency, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has
a staff of approximately 600? Is that correct?
Dr. Chavez. That is correct.
Mr. Hutchinson. And that your agency was created in 1992?
Dr. Chavez. That is correct.
Mr. Hutchinson. And, so, obviously, you had zero employees
in 1992, and there are 600 now, and the responsibility is to
administer a Federal Block Grant Program to the States?
Dr. Chavez. That is one of our responsibilities.
Mr. Hutchinson. And a Federal block grant--I mean, the
whole idea of a block grant is that it is passed along to the
State without extraordinary Federal strings? Is that correct?
Dr. Chavez. Well, it is a little bit more than that, but--
can I correct something? Although we were created as a separate
agency in 1992, SAMHSA's activities had been part of ADAMHA,
which provided alcohol, drug, and mental health services. In
1992, the Congress decided to take NIDA, NIAAA, NIMH and put it
under NIH and take the, at that time, the prevention, the
treatment, and the mental health services programs that were
within ADAMHA and create a separate agency's AMHSA. The primary
focus was on the service part and looking at the development
and the implementation of the research.
Mr. Hutchinson. How has the staff level grown in recent
years?
Dr. Chavez. Actually, that is a very good question, because
it has not grown. In fact, right now, we are having tremendous
problems in terms of trying to administer many of the programs
because of a reduction in our work force.
Mr. Hutchinson. Well, in 1992, obviously, you didn't exist
prior to 1992. You were created in 1992, and you are saying
that a number of different programs were combined? Is that
correct?
Dr. Chavez. That is correct. A number of programs were
combined, and in the combination of those programs that created
SAMHSA, many of those employees worked for NIMH; many of them
worked for NIDA and NIAAA.
Mr. Hutchinson. How many did you start with in 1992, with a
combination of those programs versus the 600 today?
Dr. Chavez. I believe it was about 700 in 1992.
Mr. Hutchinson. Could you get me the information on that?
Dr. Chavez. I certainly can.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.028
Mr. Hutchinson. I know I am catching you cold on that,
perhaps, and I would like to have an organizational chart for
your present circumstance and then compare that to 1992. I
mean, you ought to be applauded if you combined front office
functions and reduced the number of employees, but it is
still--I mean, I just don't understand, quite frankly. Six
hundred employees sounds like an extraordinary number to
administer a Block Grant Program, and I understand you have
other responsibilities, but I either need to be educated or we
need to look at it very closely. It seems like there is a lot
of the money that should be going to the States to support
these programs that is consumed at the staff level, the
administrative level.
Dr. Chavez. Yes, I would be very happy to provide that
information for you, and I would like to also mention that in
1996--in looking at SAMHSA and some of the programs there, we
reduced from 22 offices in the administrative area to 7
offices, and that was working very closely with Chairman
Porter. So, we do have all that information; we will be very
happy to supply you with that, because, as I indicated earlier,
while 600 may seem a lot if you are just looking at a block
grant, there are many other responsibilities that are a part of
that. So, I would be very happy to submit that.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.031
Mr. Hutchinson. I will look forward to that information.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
Now, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Modzeleski, in your written remarks here--and I think I
have been informed also in your oral comments--you talk about
the role of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. What
do they have to do with this?
Mr. Modzeleski. We have been working with the Federal
Emergency Management Association on trying to develop a
response, a FEMA-like response to crises such as occurred in
Springfield, Paducah, Pearl. These are crises which are not
Presidentially declared disasters but nevertheless affect the
school system, and what we are trying to do is develop a
response to enable those school systems to recover from rather
tragic--
Mr. Barr. And you think you can do this by studying how the
Government responds to tornados? I mean, isn't dealing with the
causes of violence in our schools, our families, our
communities, and our businesses somewhat different from dealing
with natural disasters?
Mr. Modzeleski. Well, the answer--yes, we do think we can
resolve this by looking at how a Government agency responds to
tornados.
Mr. Barr. Well, then maybe that is why we are not meeting
tremendous success. Maybe you ought to look at this as a people
problem, not as a natural disaster problem.
Mr. Modzeleski. Let me explain, the FEMA-like response is
not related to the prevention aspect. This is a very small
part.
Mr. Barr. I know.
Mr. Modzeleski. This is the after effects.
Mr. Barr. FEMA is not a responsive aid. They are not a
preventive agency; you are.
Mr. Modzeleski. Each of the districts--
Mr. Barr. What does FEMA have to do with trying to resolve
problems of violence in our schools?
Mr. Modzeleski. We are basically looking at how FEMA
responds to crises, how FEMA responds to disasters. Each one of
the disasters, be it a tornado or natural disaster or the
crises such as Springfield result in sufficient impact on the
student population.
Jamon Kent who is the superintendent of schools in
Springfield, OR has said that his schools probably will not be
restored to teaching and learning as they were prior to the
incident a year ago without adequate resources and services in
the area of mental health services, mental health crisis
counseling for both students and teachers. And SERVE, the
program which is in the--
Mr. Barr. Are we witnessing school violence because there
aren't enough counselors?
Mr. Modzeleski. We may.
Mr. Barr. Really?
Mr. Modzeleski. We may.
Mr. Barr. Maybe that is also why we are not seeing
tremendous success. Do you think that is--because we don't have
enough grief counselors, that is the reason why we are seeing
violence in schools?
Mr. Modzeleski. Well, there is a need for grief counselors
and mental health crisis counselors. I think that there has
been sufficient testimony between various House committees and
Senate committees where there are people, experts--much more
expert than I--that say there definitely needs to be a better
interconnection and a better relationship between schools and
mental health crisis counseling, and we do need more counselors
in schools.
Mr. Barr. Well, I suppose we can have a lot more
counselors, but I don't think that is going to really get at
the root problems, and, again, my impression has always been
that FEMA is a reactive agency. After there has been a natural
disaster, something over which mankind has no control, they go
in and provide assistance, organizational skills to respond to
an emergency that has already occurred--a natural disaster. I
think, perhaps, if you all started looking at the problems of
violence in our schools, not as a natural disaster that is
beyond our control and look at yourself as a reactive agency,
which is the model that FEMA provides and necessarily has to
provide, maybe we would see more success. How many school
murders committed with weapons took place in 1955?
Mr. Modzeleski. We don't have that information.
Mr. Barr. How about 1960?
Mr. Modzeleski. That information is not available. If I
could just comment on the collection of data--
Mr. Barr. I mean, it is nice to go back a couple of years
and say, ``Gee, there are more or less of this category of
violence than there were a few years ago,'' but I suspect that
if one looks at a longer term trend, that there might be some
things that are a little bit more revealing than just looking
and trying to make the current situation look favorable by
looking at 1991 or 1992 or whatnot, and I don't think that the
solutions are going to be terribly simplistic.
Dr. Chavez, do you have any comments on this? Do you see
particular enlightenment being provided by your work through
FEMA?
Dr. Chavez. Mr. Barr, that was a good very question in
terms of the issues that you have raised. You are talking about
the prevention as being a first line of defense, and we agree
that that is very critical. However, when there are traumatic
events--for example, a traumatic event might be a tornado,
hurricane, et cetera, and the impact that has not only on
children but also in terms of families and communities, that
becomes very important in terms of the kinds of intervention
that one must be involved in when there is a traumatic event.
For example, our Center for Mental Health Services was very
much involved when Hurrican Andrew struck Miami. We have been
very much involved in many of these other FEMA-associated
incidents in that we have brought in the mental health
component after the fact for the trauma that exists. In
addition to that, we have been able to do some very effective
programming in terms of prevention.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that your next panel
include somebody from FEMA. They might be able to help us solve
the problem of school violence. I mean, this is amazing that we
look to FEMA as the model for solving the problems of school
violence.
Dr. Chavez. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I please respond
to that if there is time?
Mr. Barr. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. The gentleman yields back.
I think we covered all the panelists. I would like to--we
have gone on for almost 2 hours with this panel or more, and I
do thank you. I think we have raised as many questions as we
may have had answered.
We will, as I said, keep the record open, without
objection, for 2 weeks, and we will be submitting additional
questions on some of the programs and activities and other
concerns from the members of the panel.
So, with that, I would like to excuse both of our first two
witnesses in this first panel and call our second panel which
are State and local officials.
We have the Honorable Charlie Condon, attorney general of
the State of South Carolina, the Honorable Gary L. Walker, vice
president of the National District Attorneys Association, and
Chief Reuben Greenberg, the police chief of Charleston, SC.
As I mentioned, this is an investigations and oversight
panel of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses, which I will
do in a moment. Also, if you have lengthy statements or
additional information you would like to have made part of the
record, we will do that. We would like you to try to keep your
comments, if you could, to about 5 minutes. We are running a
bit behind, but we do want everyone to have an adequate
opportunity to participate.
So, with that, welcome, our three panelists. If you will
remain standing, and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Welcome again, and I am pleased to recognize,
first, the attorney general, the Honorable Charlie Condon.
Welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; GARY L. WALKER, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION; AND REUBEN GREENBERG, POLICE CHIEF,
CHARLESTON, SC
Mr. Condon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a
pleasure to be here.
I want to say, first, that I was, like I am sure you were,
dismayed to hear about the shootings over in Georgia, but I was
equally dismayed, really, to see the proposals that the Clinton
administration made yesterday relative to school crime. They
are proposing mandates and directives that I think are a recipe
for disaster; not that they are not good ideas. In fact, in
South Carolina, we are in the process or have already put into
practice these ideas, but to have a single cookie cutter
approach from the Federal Government, I think, will not work.
I hope I don't get hissed out of this room, but as I am
sure some do recognize--I hope they recognize--under our system
of Government, the general government is the State government,
and the Federal Government is supposed to be the Government of
limited power. We are a Nation of 50 general governments and 1
limited Government, not the other way around. Each individual
State possesses the power to protect the safety of its
citizens, whether that means the streets of the inner city, the
neighborhoods of the suburbs or the classroom or the halls of
our schools.
Now, in this time when school violence is uppermost in our
minds, what we need from the Federal Government are resources
and support, not mandates and directives. In short, Washington,
DC, can no better serve as the principal of Irmo High School in
Lexington County, SC than it can walk the beat of a Charleston
Street. The problem of school crime, which affects South
Carolina differently from Florida and California, cannot be
micromanaged from Washington, DC. Indeed, within the Palmetto
State, South Carolina, different communities require different
approaches. The same cookie cutter approach by the Federal
Government to the school violence problem is most certainly a
recipe for disaster.
Now what does this mean specifically with respect to school
violence? I must say, I was astounded to hear some of the
figures that were bandied about by the first panel in terms of
what is being spent today. I really do want to look into how
those funds are being spent in South Carolina, particularly
from what has been appropriated, and then from the standpoint
as to what gets to the field. I am assuming that in our State--
it is a middle range population State--we must have millions
and millions of dollars annually coming from the Federal
Government for school safety. And I really want to see how
those are being spent.
But I do think you can help us with this: if you truly have
the block grant made--and that is, as I understand what block
grants are supposed to be, they are basically funds sent to the
States to be spent without strings attached--that will work
very, very well. We need funds to put school resource officers
in every high school and middle school in South Carolina. Most
importantly, we need Federal dollars to help us make sure that
we have prosecutors both at the State and local level to
prosecute school crime.
In my view, what will work best with respect to the problem
of school crime is the one approach that has always succeeded
when we follow it, and it is this: it is tough, hard-nosed
prosecutions of those who threaten the safety of our schools.
While, certainly, resources, such as guidance counselors and
psychologists, play an important role in assisting our
students, the bottom line is that our schools are not different
from society in general. If anything, schools, like our homes
and places of worship, should be the safest places in our
society. No serious offense should go unpunished.
Now, there are and will always be certain students bound
and determined to commit serious crimes which prevent the
others from learning. I do think it is much, much worse today
for a variety of other factors I want to allude to. For these
offenders, the three P's instead of the three R's are
appropriate--prosecution, punishment, and, when necessary,
prison.
We are putting this no-nonsense approach to work in South
Carolina right now. As the chief prosecutor of my State, I have
banned plea bargaining for all serious school crimes. Every
school crime is now required to be reported to the attorney
general's office. My office has a school crime prosecutor with
strict instructions to followup on school crimes to see that
our policy of zero tolerance is followed.
We have also implemented a program, which I have stolen
from my good friend, Chief Greenberg, to make sure that we get
these guns out of the schools in South Carolina with a toll-
free tip line--1-877-SEE A GUN. A simple concept: confidential,
toll-free, with a $100 reward for guns and explosive devices.
We have in place a youth mentoring program. We have joined with
the Governor of South Carolina, Governor Hodges, and the
superintendent of education to co-chair a State summit on
school violence.
I am also a big believer in prevention, and we are
implementing a comprehensive approach to prevention strategies
that are attached to this testimony.
But, in short--as I am pleased to see that you have already
recognized the problem to some extent--the problem of school
crime can never be solved by Washington, DC. Washington can
help provide the resources and then really just get out of the
way and let us do our jobs. In the end, no government--neither
Federal, State, nor local--can alone diffuse the ticking time
bomb with school violence.
As always, the willingness of every person to be
responsible for the consequences of his or her actions must
serve as the foundation. Each parent--I want to emphasize
parent--each mother and father, each student, each family,
indeed, each citizen must take responsibility to shatter the
culture of violence which today threatens our schools.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Condon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.034
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I would like to recognize the Honorable Gary L. Walker,
vice president of the National District Attorneys Association.
Mr. Walker. Good afternoon. I would like to introduce
myself. I am the elected prosecutor in Marquette County, MI. I
want to thank you on behalf of the National District Attorneys
Association.
Mr. Mica. Excuse me, Mr. Walker, could you pull that mic up
as close as possible?
Mr. Walker. OK. I want to thank you on behalf of the
National District Attorney's Association for the opportunity to
give our perspective on youth violence and crime in this
country. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to enter into the
record some more lengthy written remarks.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Walker. And I also have for the panel some copies of
the National District Attorneys policy positions on youth crime
and violence.
Mr. Mica. That also will be included, without objection.
Mr. Walker. I have served the people in Marquette County as
their prosecutor for the last 25 years. I am currently a vice
president of NDAA, and I co-Chair the juvenile justice
committee for that association. The views I express today
represent the views of that association and of local
prosecutors across the country.
So that you can place my comments in perspective, let me
give you a brief description of my jurisdiction. Marquette
County is located in Michigan's upper peninsula on the shores
of Lake Superior. It is a rural area. We have a population,
according to the last census, of approximately 70,000 people.
The county encompasses 1,800 square miles, so it is a little
larger than the State of Rhode Island. We do not experience a
crime rate which is comparable with large urban areas, but
juvenile crime is still a major concern.
Last year, four middle school students brought a hand gun
to school with the stated purpose of stealing a teacher's car
and driving to Canada and committing further armed robberies
along the way. Fortunately, the teacher, when confronted by the
student with a gun who demanded his car keys, disarmed him, and
no one was injured.
Last year, we had 12 students who were expelled for
bringing weapons to school campuses. Just since the tragedy in
Littleton, CO, we have experienced instances of threats made by
school students which specifically refer to that tragedy and
promise similar violence.
I can also report that my discussions with prosecutors
across the country indicate that copy cat behavior is common,
if not epidemic. Last weekend, four students, ages 12, 13, and
14, were arrested in Port Huron, a community approximately 60
miles from Detroit. The arrest thwarted a plan to bring weapons
to a school assembly and then open fire with the avowed purpose
of creating more harm, more death than Littleton, CO. We are
all aware, of course, of the tragedy in Atlanta last night.
School violence is not simply, however, the recent tragedies
that we have seen; it has been going on--as I think several of
the panel members have indicated--for some time.
Immediately after the incident in Columbine, our community,
law enforcement, school officials, and representatives of our
local media met to examine the situation. Unfortunately, our
conclusion is that ``It can't happen here,'' is not a realistic
appraisal. We are attempting to put together a program designed
to involve schoolchildren in monitoring their own behavior and
that of their peers. We hope to provide the children with a
sense of ownership and control in their school environment and
enlist their aid in the prevention of anti-social behavior in
their schools.
It is inevitable that society look for answers in the wake
of these tragedies. There is enough blame to go around--guns,
music, video games, movies, parents, schools, the Internet, and
according to one article in the Wall Street Journal, the courts
are responsible. It strikes me that there has been an obvious
omission. The perpetrators of these horrible crimes are
responsible. Society should, and indeed must, express a sense
of moral outrage at the individuals who committed these acts.
While it is necessary to search for the causes, we must not
excuse the behavior.
``I am depraved on account of I am deprived,'' goes that
song from West Side Story. If we expect our children to become
morally grounded, it is necessary that we demand accountability
for immoral and anti-social behavior. While we search for
answers, we must condemn in the strongest ways possible the
behavior, and demand individual accountability and
responsibility. It is important that we not overlook the fact
that these types of violent crimes warrant strong and swift
response by our criminal justice system.
The NDAA recognizes and supports the long-standing
tradition in our country of the States adopting and managing
their own criminal laws and juvenile justice systems. We concur
entirely with the attorney general from South Carolina. Perhaps
the most important thing that the Federal Government can do in
addressing juvenile violent crime is to provide adequate
funding for programs aimed at crime prevention.
The NDAA believes very strongly that funding proven crime
prevention initiatives is necessary. Programs proven to keep
kids from becoming criminals in the first place are some of the
most powerful weapons in law enforcement's arsenal against
crime. Such programs include those aimed at providing early
child care, preventing child abuse and neglect, and ensuring
that the quality of child care in afterschool activities is
available for America's youth.
The importance of those programs and their role in reducing
criminal behavior is supported by scientific research. We must
do everything we can in society to promote the positive assets
of our youth. There are far more good kids in this country who
are positive role models in their communities than there are
delinquents. We must mobilize these youth to promote positive
assets and use these children as resources to help us identify
problem kids in the schools and communities.
There are no simple solutions to this problem. Traditional
law enforcement efforts must continue with new tools to deal
with today's violent juvenile criminals and to effectively deal
with the non-violent offenders before it is too late. Violent
juvenile criminals must be prosecuted and dealt with severely
by our criminal justice system. We must send a clear message
that violence will not be tolerated. However, the long-term
solution requires that we step back and look at the underlying
causes of juvenile crime, and mobilize everyone in this country
to get involved and work together to address these issues.
Thank you for permitting me to appear and to express the
views of the National District Attorneys Association.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.044
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I would like to recognize now Police Chief Greenberg from
Charleston, SC. Welcome, sir. You are recognized.
Mr. Greenberg. Thank you. I want to thank the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources--
Mr. Mica. Chief Greenberg, you are going to have to pull
one of those up real close. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Greenberg. Thank you. And I want to thank the chairman
for inviting me to be present here today.
I hope, this morning, to offer a suggestion or two that
will help to address the serious and growing problem of youth
violence in our country. We are all familiar with the problems
that have occurred recently in Jonesboro, AR, Pearl, MS,
Paducah, KT, Springfield, OR, Littleton, CO, and now in
Georgia. These situations were of such a massive nature and had
such a devastating effect on whole communities that almost
everyone is aware of them. During the past decade, however,
significant violence has been felt in even more communities
around our country. There have been thousands of instances
where young people, especially young black men, have been
killed or seriously injured by other young men or teenagers
during altercations of one kind or another involving firearms.
While these deadly altercations have, for the most part,
been on a one-to-one basis--perpetrator and victim--the decade
long and cumulative effect of these incidents has had an even
greater impact on the everyday lives of our citizens. In many
cases, there have been victims who were not involved, and
unintended victims but who have, nonetheless, been killed or
seriously injured during these encounters. Many of the
incidents have taken place in our urban core areas whereas
others, as in the case of the recent school shootings, have
occurred in suburban and rural areas.
A number of approaches designed to address these problems
have been proposed. Most of the approaches have focused on
increasing penalties for use or possession of firearms by young
people. Other approaches have targeted those who sell firearms
to underage persons or those who leave firearms in places where
they are unreasonably accessible to unauthorized persons.
There has been some degree of success achieved through
these means. We have shared in that success in Charleston
where, as a result of cooperation between school officials, law
enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and the business community,
we have avoided much of the violence that other communities
have suffered.
It has become clear in our community that in order to
curtail school violence involving firearms, it is necessary to
discourage people from bringing firearms onto school property.
In other words, in order to get the guns out of the schools, it
is essential to get the people with the guns out of the
schools.
The Charleston County school district has adopted a zero
tolerance policy against guns in the school environment. The
school administration actively supports allied law enforcement
efforts to rid schools of guns and the people who possess them.
The district immediately suspends student violators and
recommends them for expulsion. In addition, in cooperation with
the local Crime Stoppers Program, an anti-illegal gun
initiative dubbed ``Gun Stoppers'' operates to provide
immediate rewards to those persons who anonymously report the
presence of firearms and the people who possess them. Gun
Stoppers provides, in many cases, immediate $100 rewards to
persons who report illegal firearms. The money for this program
comes from three local civic-minded businessman interested in
keeping firearms out of the hands of young people.
Most firearms on school grounds, and indeed other locations
where it is unlawful to possess firearms, are introduced by
young people who believe that the possession of a firearm on
their person provides them with a high level of social prestige
that they can enjoy amongst their fellow students. While these
students may sometimes claim that firearms are necessary for
their safety, the actual reason a firearm is carried to school
is to obtain the peer social prestige of being tough and
fearsome. In order to appear tough and fearsome, they believe
it necessary to show off their firearm as often as possible.
The more often the firearm is displayed, the more prestige
accrues to the person possessing the gun.
The Gun Stoppers Program offers a $100 reward in order to
reduce the propensity to show off the firearm due to the fear
of having someone report the gun possession to the school
officials or to the police. This reporting is confidential and
in most cases the reward is immediate, often the same day that
the illegal gun is located. Thus, the situation is changed to
the extent that the more the gun is displayed, the more likely
someone will report the presence of the gun thereby seeking a
reward. Consequently, showing off the firearm, even to close
friends, is likely to lead the illegal firearm being seized and
its possessor arrested. In short, the successful strategy has
been to take the illegal gun possession, which had been deemed
to have been desirable, and transforming it into something that
is highly risky and undesirable. If it is too risky to display
a gun, there is little reason to have it.
The results of the Gun Stoppers Program in Charleston and
the surrounding five counties where it operates is that over 49
guns have been confiscated and 50 arrests have been made for
illegal gun possession, primarily in schools. All of these guns
were taken into custody before they were fired. It is important
to note that the Gun Stoppers Program is not an anti-gun
program; it is an anti-illegal gun program.
While the vast majority of guns have been removed from the
school grounds and property, guns have also been removed from
playgrounds, street corners, bars and taverns. Not all persons
who have been arrested have been prosecuted. A 9-millimeter,
fully loaded handgun was reported in the possession of a 6-year
old while he was riding on a school bus. The 6-year old was not
prosecuted, but we were still able to remove a gun off the
school bus. Removing guns from school buses is a good thing to
happen, whether anyone goes to jail or not.
As a law enforcement officer, I have often wondered why
some school authorities have been so adamant about trying to
maintain in school juveniles guilty of possessing a gun in the
school environment. I recognize that it is our society's desire
to provide an education to everyone. However, there must be
some recognition that not everyone can, in the final analysis,
be educated if that person creates an environment that markedly
diminishes the security of the entire school. Possessing a
firearm in schools and playgrounds must be viewed as
representing the very front rank of danger to larger
communities. Those possessing such firearms should be denied
the opportunity to victimize or threaten law-abiding society.
It has become clear in recent years that American society
has changed with regard to both its glorification and
toleration of violence. Movies and visual images have become
more and more violent. Actual incidents of violence have also
become increasingly violent. Attacking the instruments of this
violence--that is firearms, bombs, and knives--is not the way
to go toward reducing the problems of violence that face us.
Indeed, it is doubtful that any implementation of external
control measures can succeed in removing or rescuing us from
the danger that faces us. It is my belief that our current
problems must, in the end, be overwhelmed using internal social
controls that were once implemented by a host of societal
influences, including the family, churches and synagogues,
neighborhoods, youth organizations, and voluntary restraint by
entertainment and literary sources in our society.
I believe that we can discourage increasing violence and
disrespect for human life and each other in precisely the same
way that we have acted to encourage it. We must again seek to
restrain ourselves and shun the tendency to become more and
more sensational in portraying actual and creative violence in
our society. We did not come to our present situation all at
once. We lowered ourselves to it bit by bit over time. In a
similar way, we can reverse ourselves and move our society
toward a more wholesome stance that can again give us a society
where positive and valued individual and community
relationships can be fostered. Increased enforcement can help
us start this process by halting our ``anything goes'' approach
to happiness and responsibility.
We should not be surprised that we have come upon the
natural consequences of our lack of restraint. Both action and
inaction have consequences. Guns are not new to American
society; they have been long with us. But guns do, however,
exhibit some change. They are more powerful and have greater
capacity for destruction. However, they still require a human
being to activate them. What has really changed is American
society. We no longer interact with one another nor respect
each other in the ways we once did. It is in this area that I
believe we need to rededicate ourselves and our communities.
Many schools in our country have regular full-time police
officers assigned for security purposes and to serve as
resource officers. One such police officer was assigned to
Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and was present when the
killing spree there began. This officer reportedly exchanged
shots with the suspects in that incident. I believe that it
could be beneficial for some schools to have such an officer
present, not only to provide security but also to interact with
the students in a host of positive ways. Few schools or law
enforcement agencies can afford to bear the cost of assigning
officers to such duties. The Federal Government could assist
schools by helping to provide funds for officers for school
security and safety.
In our jurisdiction in Charleston, there has been a
heightened need for security in area schools primarily as a
result of the news of the Littleton, CO shootings and bombings.
Several students claiming to be preparing to bomb or shoot up
their schools have been arrested and charged with making
terrorist threats. The presence of these school security and
resource officers has been of considerable value in helping to
ensure parents, school officials and students a safe
educational environment. The need for this kind of safety
assurance will undoubtedly continue long past the media
interest in this headline story.
Mr. Mica. Chief, if you could begin to summarize--we are a
little bit over--I would appreciate it.
Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir. If I could have 40 seconds?
Mr. Mica. Oh, go ahead, just begin to summarize, if you
could.
Mr. Greenberg. Thank you. The school security officers can
also be assigned to perform protective roles in area parks and
playgrounds during the summer when school is out, thereby
permitting the community to extend its protection beyond just
the school itself and reach other areas where children tend to
gather and play.
One of the many negative influences affecting the
educational environment is the diminishing role and influence
that teachers and principals exert in today's schools. While
teachers and principals are expected to exercise increasing
amounts of responsibility over the educational environment,
they are permitted less and less authority to act in reasonable
and responsible ways.
Commentators have enumerated the many so-called warning
signs that were exhibited by the suspects in the Columbine
shooting. However, had any school official acted to interfere
or intervene with respect to those warning signs, they most
certainly would have been subjected to allegations of bias,
insensitivity, and even overreacting in reference to them. The
roles of school officials have been so diluted that they dare
not even refer to their students in any way other than by using
the most laudatory terminology. The value of a student's self-
esteem is so highly regarded that even the most remotely
delivered statement suggesting a need for any improvement or
reflection by a student is almost universally discouraged.
Almost no teacher or administrative discretion and deference
remain or is appreciated. We can't have it both ways. We cannot
hold them responsible while at the same time denying them the
authority to act.
I want to thank the committee for its indulgence and
attention. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.052
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, and I am going to
add Dr. Lawrence Sherman, Chair of the Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland,
to this panel, and I will swear you in. I know you have a
scheduling conflict.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The answer is in the affirmative, and you are
recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SHERMAN, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity today to urge the Committee on
Government Reform to reform three aspects of Federal
legislation with respect to school violence.
First, is to put crime prevention money where the crime is
and not just distribute it on the basis of population. Second,
is to move the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program away from
programs that don't work and to invest in programs that do,
specifically policing in high crime hot spot areas where most
children are at risk of being murdered and seriously injured by
gun violence. Third, to launch a crash effort to determine
whether large schools are causing youth violence all over the
country by testing the expensive but promising solution of
shrinking schools of 2,000 and 3,000 students down to 500,
which may have been associated with Columbine and some of the
other killings.
Now, in relation to the first point, Mr. Cummings has
already suggested to you that the vast majority of children who
are murdered are killed in inner city, concentrated poverty
areas where there is very little attention to the thousands of
deaths that occur in those places each year. That is also where
the school violence in this country, as reported by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, is concentrated.
If we look at how Federal aid gets allocated per homicide,
what we find is that low homicide jurisdictions, like the State
of Vermont, are getting about $1 million in Federal aid per
homicide, whereas high homicide districts, such as Mr.
Cummings' in Baltimore, are getting about $5,000 per homicide,
and I think it is difficult to justify spending 20 times more
per homicide for citizens in one part of the country than in
another part of the country.
It is supposed to be dealing with a problem. The problem in
the case of violence against kids is that they are 44 times
more likely to be murdered per minute outside of school than
they are in school. So, that if we really wanted to make our
children safe from being murdered, we might want to move them
all inside the schools rather than be focused on the schools as
the site of the murders. Even though some rare events do happen
and attract a lot more attention, it is not the substantive
focus of the problem.
The problem is, in the inner city poverty areas where are
guns are combined with hopelessness and where we have
astronomically high homicide rates in general, those can be
dealt with under my second proposal, which is to take the $550
million of Safe and Drug Free Schools money and to redirect it
away from bad decisionmaking by the 15,000 local education
authorities in this country that have wasted that money--$6
billion of it--since 1986 on programs like magicians, concerts,
and lectures on how Dillon Thomas killed himself by drinking
too much at $500 a lecture. The waste in that program is all
the more regrettable because if that money had been spent for
additional police patrols in high crime hot spot areas where
demonstrated projects to get guns off the street have reduced
gun injury and homicide, if that money could be directed in
that way, I think that the Federal taxpayer would be getting a
lot more prevention of injury to children than we have gotten
so far for that $6 billion to date.
But, third, to relate it to the recent tragedy in
Columbine, I think it is also possible to take part of the Safe
and Drug Free Schools money and to invest it in a way that only
the Federal Government can invest it. The $550 million is a
drop in the bucket compared to total Federal, State, and local
funding for education in this country, which is in the range of
$300 billion a year. What we don't know in that spending is
what price we are paying for the alleged efficiency of having
these very large high schools where kids are anonymous, where
cliques rule the school, much like the cliques rule the prison,
where the principal of the Columbine High School had never even
heard of the Trench Coat Mafia prior to the shootings even
though it had been in the yearbook the year before this
happened, which I think reflects the fact that he is dealing
with paperwork and administration and all of the red tape that
is involved in managing such a very large complex.
The research shows that a coherent school where the
teachers know the students and where the students feel a sense
of identity are places that have much lower levels of violence.
We don't know whether size causes those lower levels of
violence, but it is a reasonable hypothesis; all of the
evidence is consistent with it. If we were to take a school
like Columbine and break it up into four or five small schools,
I think that we would find reduced levels of alienation, of
anger, and ultimately of violence. That might be the policy
that the Federal Government can help the local education
authorities in this country achieve.
I think, in summary, the fact is, we are spending enormous
amounts of money trying to prevent youth violence, and we are
dissipating it in small amounts, and the majority of the school
districts are getting less than $10,000 a year. You can't do
anything meaningful with that money except what I call symbolic
sport, which is to say that we are spending money on the goal,
but we are not even doing anything that is showing evidence of
affecting the goal. It is rather like building a dam in
somebody's district by getting the contract, talking about it,
but then the dam never gets built, and I am afraid that is the
way most of the Federal money spent for this purpose now is
being allocated. If it was redirected to policing or to
critical research policy questions, like school size, I think
we would be getting a lot more bang for the buck.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.057
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I think we have had an opportunity to
hear from all of these four witnesses.
I just have one or two quick questions. Federalization of
some of the crimes that are attendant to school violence, what
is your position on that, Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. Condon. I would be very much against that. I do think
when you look at the proper role of the State versus the
Federal Government, to Federalize, where would you start,
really, and where would it end? In my own mind, in my home
State, with all due respect to the moneys that are spent on
Federal courts, I can just see these school thugs going through
these great halls of marble and mahogany and the system is not
really handling them. I do think if you can give us some
resources in the State system, I really feel like--I would like
to hear his view--I think that is the way to go.
Mr. Mica. I think, Dr. Sherman--I don't want to take any of
the words out of context--but we are saying that the dollars
that we have, try to expend them for enforcement and prevention
and programs where they are needed where you have the highest
incidents, and that is not being done now. Is that correct?
Mr. Sherman. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. OK, and do you agree with that?
Mr. Condon. Yes, yes. He is talking about what I had
learned in terms of so many Federal dollars being spent. As I
understand what he is saying in terms of--we are not talking
about sending the FBI into these school district--he is talking
about block granting it and getting police officers on the
streets, school resource officers, and things of that nature;
excellent idea.
Mr. Mica. What do you think, Chief?
Mr. Greenberg. Yes, I certainly would agree with that. As
an operating chief of police today after Littleton, CO, the
thing that people want is to feel assuredly safe in their own
schools. In this country, that has generally been the case, but
even though we have had no incidents in Charleston like this,
people read the newspapers and see what is going on, and people
simply don't feel safe in their school environments anymore. We
have to react to that by making it possible for them to feel
safe, and we do that by adding people who are trained to make
them safe, to see to their safety in that particular
environment.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Finally, Mr. Walker, how do you feel
about the Federalization of these acts or crimes?
Mr. Walker. With all due respect to the Federal Government,
which has some excellent assistant attorney generals and U.S.
attorneys, the Federal system is simply not designed to handle
youth crimes. The last time that I checked, there was something
like 200 secure beds available federally for juveniles. The
States have handled it. I think the attorney general from South
Carolina is correct. I think that is the appropriate place
legally. I also think it is the appropriate place practically.
I do not believe that should this Congress pass Federal
legislation dealing with school violence, that it will make a
lot of difference. It will be symbolic, but I do not believe
that it will be used effectively. I think the States are much
more effective in dealing with this kind of problem.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now to Mrs.
Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much.
The Department of Education spokesman earlier stated that
in 90 percent of the schools, there are no incidents of serious
youth crimes leaving, therefore, the conclusion that in 10
percent of the schools they do have incidents of serious crime.
Dr. Sherman points out that most of the crime affecting
youth in our society is in the inner cities. My question is,
the formula and the distribution of Federal funds under the
Safe Schools Act is done on the basis of distribution by
population. What is your opinion, then, following Dr. Sherman's
comments, that that funding that is now available be
concentrated on the 10 percent of the schools that have
evidenced serious youth crime and concentrate the dollars that
we are allocating--some $500 million--to just those areas and
leave out the other 90 percent? Or is there any merit in the
idea that 90 percent of our schools have avoided the serious
problems because they have had some help, some support from the
Federal Government in the Safe Schools Act?
Would any of the three law enforcement people like to
comment on that? I know this is what Dr. Sherman said, but I
would like to have your comments.
Mr. Walker. I am not so sure that Dr. Sherman is not
correct. I think for the Safe--if we are dealing with Safe
School money and the primary concern is money to our schools,
it makes sense, I think, to put meaningful money where the
problems exist most. I would, however, quickly add that it is
my position, personally, as a prosecutor of 25 years, and the
position of the National District Attorneys Association, that
there is a not only a role for the Federal Government but I
think a critical one in dealing with prevention, and prevention
doesn't mean giving money to a high school to prevent violence.
Prevention means dealing with young children--people who are
age zero to 2, zero to 6.
There are some proven programs that currently exist. The
University of Colorado Center for Violence Prevention has
published an entire series that I would urge this panel to
access. There are programs that have--for example, the Early
Childhood Nurse Visitation in Elmyra, NY. It is a 15-year
longitudinal study. We put home nurses in at-risk families. We
reduced the number of delinquency referrals 15 years later for
those children by 50 percent.
So, while I think that if you are dealing specifically with
school violence money, it, to me, only makes sense to place it
where that violence is occurring, but I think you need to step
back. If you are going to deal with the problem not as a band-
aid but for a long-term solution, I think the way you deal with
it is to prosecute it now, because we must, and try to prevent
it in the future.
Mr. Condon. One observation I would make, too, is I would
look behind that definition of what they consider serious
school crime, because I have a hard time, based upon my
experience, believing that only 10 percent of the schools have
serious crimes, not the other 90 percent. I am assuming, within
that definition, they exclude assaulting teachers; they exclude
drug trafficking; they exclude bringing weapons to school, and
I think you would have to include those.
Mrs. Mink. Chief, do you have any comments?
Mr. Greenberg. Yes, I believe that there are really two
things. It seems that we have a short-term solution--when I say
short term, I am talking about the next 5 or 6 years, probably
no more than 10 years--and then the long-term solution. A long-
term solution, in my judgment, has to do with the schools,
themselves, and the kind authority and independence that
schools, teachers, and administrators are given to run schools.
They had that authority once in our country, and it just
virtually disappeared. It has been taken away from them bit by
bit through a variety of different means.
With respect to the police, we can have some immediate
impact upon safety in schools until other kinds of things our
society needs to do will finally be able to have an effect,
including greater authority and independence for school
officials.
At the same time, we have to change our society as to the
kind of violence, the kind of external stimuli the students and
all of us receive almost every day, if not constantly all the
time. These things are going to have to be addressed, as well.
We can't separate what we see and what we hear from what people
eventually are going to do.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Barr, you are recognized.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for pulling
together this panel and to commend the four panelists. It has
been very refreshing.
I had been somewhat rude, though, reading their statements
as they have been talking, but their statements are
magnificent, because they reflect common sense, real life
experiences, they are to the point, and they are not
bureaucratese. So, I haven't been rude not listening to you
all--I have been--but I really have been reading your written
presentations, and I really do appreciate them. There is a lot
of good information in here.
I appreciate a couple of things. For example, Mr. Condon,
you said both in your oral testimony as well as in your written
statement that, ``No serious offense in a school should go
unpunished.'' I must say parenthetically that that thought--not
regarding schools but certain other locations--crossed my mind
during the impeachment proceedings, unfortunately, but results
don't reflect that crimes in certain places should go
unpunished.
But you said that--the notion that you are talking about
here I think reflects the fact that people generally, and I
suspect school kids also, they do pay attention to what goes on
in the world around them. They do notice if people don't get
prosecuted for crimes; that sends a certain message to them, I
suspect. And that is why I think you all are saying something
very important, that whether it is role models that we look at
for our children or whether or not we, as adults, are
consistent in enforcing the laws. These things do have an
impact on the thought process that goes through our children.
For example, when you talked, Mr. Condon, about banning all
plea bargaining for serious school crimes, apparently you are
serious about it.
I was very distressed, both as a former U.S. attorney as
well as a parent and as a legislator, to see, for example, that
this current administration, the current Attorney General,
specifically changed the policy of the prior Attorney General,
Mr. Thornberg, who said gun crimes are not to be plea bargained
down. That was his specific directive to U.S. attorneys
reflecting his view and the view of the prior administration
that serious gun offenses should not go unpunished and that
prosecution, punishment, and prison are the three P's of a
policy. Then when Attorney General Reno came in, there was a
specific directive to U.S. attorneys to take the shackles off.
It said, basically, go ahead and start plea bargaining these
cases down.
We also see, I think, something important for people who
are concerned about prosecuting school crime, in particular,
and the lack of interest by the Federal Government--and I
understand what you are saying and agree with you also that the
Federal Government prosecution of violent crimes should not be
the tail wagging the dog. The point, though, that I am making
here and I think that you are also, is that if we do have
Federal gun laws and Federal laws with regard to bringing
firearms onto school property and we don't prosecute them, then
that sends a certain message.
For example, in 1996, there were only four Federal
prosecutions of the Federal law prohibiting possession or
discharge of a firearm in a school zone. That shot up to five
prosecutions in 1997 and made a quantum leap to eight in 1998.
And yet, that is completely ignored by the President when he
challenges this and talks about thousands of cases of this.
If you could just comment briefly, maybe the rest of the
panel if you have a chance, on the need and the importance of
consistency in prosecution and the message that inconsistent
leniency, for example, in Federal prosecution sends to our kids
and our school administrators.
Mr. Condon. I certainly agree with your comments. I am sure
you are aware of the work of the U.S. attorney in Richmond, VA
with Project Exile--
Mr. Barr. An excellent program. We are told that it is
being--tried to be deep-sixed by the attorney general.
Mr. Condon. It does work. And, again, I am not against, and
I don't think anyone here is against prevention strategies and
all the things that we need to be talking about, but at the end
of the day if someone commits a serious crime, there has to be
accountability. If there is not, word spreads that you can get
away with it; it is not so bad, and you lose all the deterrent
value that is there. And kids know--in talking to school
children in our State, that is one of the keys that we find in
talking to them, that those that, frankly, break the rules or
commit the crimes, there needs to be a very serious sanction
imposed.
Mr. Barr. I appreciate that.
Mr. Walker, I would like to commend you not only for your
prosecutorial work but for your work with the National District
Attorneys Association, and a former colleague of mine from my
home county, Todd County, Tom Sherrin, served I think with
great distinction, as you do, as head of that organization.
Mr. Walker. I know Tom very well. Mr. Barr, I would like to
indicate that I think that the--clearly, the message has to be
consistent; that if there is a crime, there needs to be
accountability and responsibility. If we don't do that, I think
we lose the entire purpose of the criminal justice system.
However, I wonder--I know that the numbers of Federal gun
prosecutions are very, very low. I have had several incidents
in Marquette where guns have been present in schools. My office
has dealt with those, because in each case those have been
juveniles, and, frankly, the Federal system simply does not
have the ability to--
Mr. Barr. Excuse me, Mr. Walker. I have been very, very
nicely admonished by the chairman that we have votes on the
floor, and I know that we have one other member that might have
a quick question. I appreciate very much what you are saying. I
am sorry we don't have the time to go into it as well as Chief
Greenberg and Dr. Sherman, I enjoyed your comments. I think
they are very, very appropriate, and if you all have any
additional information, I would welcome it both personally and
I know the chairman would also, to assist us in our work.
Mr. Mica. I would like to thank you. I appreciate your
willingness to yield.
Mr. Tierney, you are recognized.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Barr,
and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
Mr. Condon, let me ask you, it seems to me from looking at
your testimony, that you are not particularly pleased with the
Federal Government money that comes together with any
direction. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Condon. Well, maybe you can educate me. I have dealt
with Federal grants and received Federal grants, and it seems
to me there are so many strings and paperwork attached that I
think, ``Gosh, do I want to do this?'' I understand you have a
block granting process.
Mr. Tierney. No, no, I hear what you are saying, I just
wanted to make that clear. I am looking and the information
tells me that South Carolina has run a surplus in its State
budget this year? And run a State surplus in the last couple
years? Is that right? I mean, you are there in South Carolina;
I am not.
Mr. Condon. I think South Carolina, like most States, is
running surpluses now.
Mr. Tierney. So, why don't they spend their money on a
particular need and just keep the Federal Government out of it
altogether?
Mr. Condon. Well, with all due respect to the Congressman,
it is our money, too, that you have got.
Mr. Tierney. Well, it is, but I am saying if you think that
the local folks could do a better job with it--that is surplus
money--then you people won't have to pay as much in Federal
taxes.
Mr. Condon. Well, I would be in favor of tax cuts, but, as
far I can tell, it never happens up here, and since you are
going to spend it--aren't you going to spend it?
Mr. Tierney. Well, I suspect that if there are needs, then
we are going to spend it, but you have got to tell me you can
take care of this particular need with your own money you have
got sitting around down there.
Mr. Condon. Well, I think you all have got money sitting
around, with all due respect, and I--
Mr. Tierney. Let us just stay with the money that is
sitting around in South Carolina. You are going to have a
surplus. Why not apply that to an area where you think that the
Federal strings are too restrictive?
Mr. Condon. Well, we are, in fact, arguing for that, and it
is falling upon some deaf ears.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I hope you win.
Mr. Condon. But if you don't spend the money--
Mr. Tierney. Let me ask another question.
Mr. Condon. If you don't spend it, please reduce our taxes,
but if you do, what I am saying is send it to us--
Mr. Tierney. Well, I can tell you this: we will spend it
where we think it is going to do some good.
Mr. Condon. Oh, I know you will.
Mr. Tierney. But it is interesting to know that if you have
money sitting around, I would like to hope that you might argue
that people would apply it someplace where you are having a
problem taking the Federal grants.
Mr. Condon. But, tell me, with the block grants--
Mr. Tierney. I am going to keep asking the questions,
because I have limited time, and we do have to vote.
Are any of you gentleman advocating that guns in schools
are a good thing?
Mr. Walker. No, sir.
Mr. Greenberg. Absolutely not.
Mr. Tierney. Why is that, if I can ask the Chief?
Mr. Greenberg. Well, there is no legitimate function for
guns in the education environment--in secondary schools or
other schools. A place where alcohol is a chief item for sale,
or a school or someplace like that, then guns should not be in
the hands of anybody. You might have an ROTC Program where
people have rifles that have been deactivated for ceremonial-
type purposes and flag presentations and that type of thing,
but other than simply the shape of some of those types of
weapons there is no reason why anybody should have a gun. No
student, no teacher, principal, or anybody else should have a
firearm in any kind of school environment.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Walker, do you have a comment on that,
what the danger of having guns in schools is?
Mr. Walker. Well, obviously, guns are dangerous
instruments. We don't have them in our schools; we don't bring
them into our courtrooms; I doubt if you allow them in here.
Mr. Tierney. But we do allow them in our homes, I guess, is
that it?
Mr. Walker. We do.
Mr. Tierney. I don't have any other questions.
Mr. Condon. There is one exception, of course, with the
school resource officers. Columbine wished they had a heavier
gun--the officer that was there.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
We are going to recess until 2 o'clock. We have three
votes, which will take a series of time. That will give folks
an opportunity to refresh, get a bite to eat, and we will
reconvene at 2 o'clock.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call the Committee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources back to order.
I appreciate your patience. The votes lasted a little bit
longer than we expected and we hope to have some members join
us, but we do want to continue with our third panel.
Our third panel today consists of school administrators,
teachers and a representative of a school counseling
association. So, we would like to welcome those panelists.
Those panelists are, first of all, Ms. Jan Gallagher,
president elect of the American School Counselors Association;
Mr. Bill Hall, superintendent of the Volusia County Public
Schools in Florida; Dr. Gary M. Fields, superintendent of the
Zion-Benton Township High School in Illinois, and then Mr.
Clarence Cain, teacher with Crisis, a Resource Program in Maury
Elementary School in Alexandria, VA, and I think you have two
assistants with you. Would you introduce those individuals,
please, for the subcommittee?
Mr. Cain. Yes, sir. On my immediate left, this is Anthony
Snead and then Jeffrey Schurott. They are officers of the BRAG
Corps at George Mason Elementary.
Mr. Mica. And are they going to testify, too?
Mr. Cain. They are prepared to do so.
Mr. Mica. OK, well, we are going to have to swear them in
and the whole panel in. As you have seen, this is an
investigation and oversight subcommittee of Congress, and we
do--to the young men, we do administer an oath, and you have to
tell the truth before this panel of Congress and affirm it in
public here.
But I would like to welcome all of our panelists, and when
we do testify, we will try to limit our time to 5 minutes, and
you can--as I informed the other panels--submit additional
lengthy testimony or background information for the record.
If you would please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. All of our witnesses answered in the affirmative,
and again I would like to welcome each of you and first
recognize Ms. Jan Gallagher, president elect of the American
School Counselor Association. Welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF JAN GALLAGHER, PRESIDENT ELECT, AMERICAN SCHOOL
COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION; BILL HALL, SUPERINTENDENT, VOLUSIA
COUNTY SCHOOLS, FLORIDA; GARY M. FIELDS, SUPERINTENDENT, ZION-
BENTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL, ILLINOIS; CLARENCE CAIN, TEACHER,
CRISIS RESOURCE, MAURY ELEMENTARY, ALEXANDRIA, VA; ANTHONY
SNEAD, OFFICER, BRAG CORPS, GEORGE MASON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; AND
JEFFREY SCHUROTT, OFFICER, BRAG CORPS, GEORGE MASON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Ms. Gallagher. Good morning. I am Jan Gallagher, president
elect of the American School Counselor Association, and I ask
that my testimony be placed in the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Ms. Gallagher. First, let me say that all students have a
fundamental and immutable right to attend school without the
fear or threat of violence, weapons, or gangs.
My opening statement is the official position of our
association, which represents the 90,000 professional school
counselors across the Nation. I firmly believe that we must
make our schools safe. I have 35 years of experience in an
urban, low socio-economic, minority school district in San
Antonio, TX in which we had to deal with violence, weapons, and
gangs. I know that there are ways to prevent or lessen violence
in our schools.
Example--I was trained in 1993 by the Department of Justice
in gang preventions and interventions, and, as a result of that
training, we put into place an early identification procedure
for parents and teachers to help recognize the warning signs of
troubled youth.
Five years ago, we established in our school district, a
mandatory 16-hour family counseling program for students who
were suspended or expelled from school. This program was for
them and their families, and over 700 families, to date, have
been served. As a result of this program, we have had no repeat
offenders. District drop out rates have been reduced; incidents
of violence have been severely curbed; and I have written a
crisis manual that has been used as a model in other school
districts in Texas. I guess you could say that I know violence
up close and personal; and I know that there are ways to combat
it.
Safe schools are essential to an efficient and effective
learning environment and necessary for our quality schools. If
there is a threat to safety--when there is a threat to this
safety due to the rapid increase of violence, weapons in
schools, and gangs in our schools--then we need to provide a
safe school environment recognized by parents, students, staff,
administrators and other school personnel, legislators, and the
community-at-large.
Reactions to increased violence that you have seen in the
past few weeks have been strong. The cry is loud and clear--the
situations must be prevented and schools must be the safe,
peaceful environments they were intended to be. I can think of
no better trained or skilled group to assist and to be part of
this prevention program in violence than school counselors.
School counselors have the same Master's level degree program
for training as mental health counselors in community agencies
as well as having specialized courses on human development. We
know and we believe that early identification and intervention
for troubled youth is essential.
We also know that there are things that can be done in the
classroom. For example, ASCA, the American School Counselor
Association, has partnered with State Farm Insurance and the
National Association for Elementary School Principals to
produce ``Creative Differences.'' This is a program that helps
young students to understand and manage emotions, develop basic
social skills and emotional tools for appropriated responses,
and to learn and practice productive and peaceful strategies
for dealing with conflict. It allows them to build a community
within their classroom, and through the generosity of State
Farm, this is free to any elementary school. Elementary school
counselors team with classroom teachers to help all young
people deal with anger and frustration appropriately. Some
students will be identified as needing more help in controlling
their anger; and by working with parents, this can be done in
small group counseling sessions or in individual counseling.
Professional school counselors have the knowledge and the
skills to implement this program.
Of course, it would be a great world--it would be
wonderful--if all the children developed these skills in
elementary school. However, we all know that the lessons of
life are repeated at each developmental stage, and as children
enter adolescence, they turn to their peers for acceptance and
support. An efficient strategy often used by middle counselors
at the middle school level is the training of peer mediators.
This is a proven, effective program to help diffuse potentially
violent situations. Peer mediators are trained to recognize
situations which need to be referred to counselors. High
schools often continue peer mediation programs that began at
the middle school level, but they add programs, such as peer
assistance leadership. All of these, as Mr. Cummings spoke
about, are programs that need to be highlighted and to be
recognized as successful intervention strategies.
Today, we are here to question and examine the problem of
violence in our schools. We are here to seek solutions, and the
solutions aren't a quick fix, but are solid developmental
strategies that should have a lasting effect. Realistically,
there will be students who get into trouble and who need
additional help. Professional school counselors working as team
members with students, teachers, parents, administrators, other
support personnel, and school communities are the people who
can do this. They are in-school staff members who have the
skills and training to assist in prevention and intervention;
and they do this through developmental comprehensive counseling
programs, which are designed to meet the needs of all students
so that they can peacefully and successfully meet the
challenges in our society.
The problem is this: the national ratio of school
counselors to students is 1 counselor to 513 students, and that
is lucky in some places. This is more than twice the
recommended ratio of 1 to 250. There are many elementary
schools that have no counselors. Some elementary counselors
serve as many as five schools and thousands of students.
Secondary counselors are burdened often with administrative
tasks, such as scheduling and achievement test administration.
We need more school counselors, and we need to ensure that they
are providing direct services to students and not being used in
other ways.
Where will these counselors come from? Well, many of them
are right now in your classrooms teaching. They were cut from
school budgets as counselors, and some are there because there
were no counseling positions. Some are there because there is
no economic advantage to becoming a counselor. Certified school
counselors who have not been practicing will need staff
development to upgrade their skills. To meet the national
demand, we will have to provide training. There will need to be
incentives to lure college graduates into counselor preparation
programs, particularly minorities. We need to look for model
programs that are successful, and we need to replicate those,
and we have to start now, because we can't wait for another
Paducah, Jonesboro, Springfield, Littleton, or Atlanta. The
next tragedy may be in your hometown.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.063
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Bill Hall who is the superintendent of
schools in Volusia County, FL. I would like to, if I can,
Superintendent Hall, go ahead and play the tape from Volusia
County. I think we have a tape that we wanted to play.
[Videotape was played as follows:]
Every day, parents rely on school buses to take their
children to and from school, but what should a safe ride be? It
is now a violent fighting ground for many kids. Of course, the
most important issue facing our school systems is a quality
education.
But the challenge now seems to extend beyond the classroom
and onto our roads and highways. Sterling Scott joins us now
with a special report. Sterling.
Tonight, we are going to show you a new side of life at
school, a side that many of us have never seen before. For the
past 2 months, News Center 6 has been investigating violence on
school buses. It is a dangerous situation that not only
endangers the students but everyone on the roads and the
passengers, as well.
These yellow buses have been safely taking kids to and from
school for years, but for some students, the journey has become
trips of terror. Class was over for the day, but one student
still had another lesson to teach.
Shane's story: ``He grabbed me by my throat and slammed me
into a seat right next to him, and then he grabbed me out of
the seat and threw me onto the floor and just starting thumping
on me and throwing my head against the floor.''
Shane says the bus driver didn't even try to stop the
beating. ``I don't know why. She just pulled over to the side
and didn't say anything.''
Shane's family believes the attack didn't have to happen.
The boy who beat Shane was suspended earlier in the day for a
previous bus incident and had threatened Shane, but Silverson
School officials sent the fifth grader home on the same bus.
Shane suffered permanent brain damage. Now, his father is suing
the school board for negligence.
``You know, when I was a kid, I got picked on in school
too, and I had the little scuffles and whatever, but what has
happened here is total brutality.''
This is a typical example of a Volusia County school bus.
You can see mounted on the ceiling a camera which records all
of the activity which takes place inside, and down below, a
locked metal box contains a recorder which turns on
automatically when the school bus is cranked.
As police and EMS arrived, the bus system recorded yet
another driver's pleas for help as fights broke out on her bus.
Former bus drivers and educators in central Florida say bus
violence is growing as fast as our population. We investigated
further and found out that what happened to Shane was not an
isolated incident.
Kimberly and her brother say they were repeatedly attacked
on the bus. They say the driver ignored the violence, and they
watched as she turned the bus camera off. ``I was getting on
the bus. He came into the seat in front of me and started
pushing me.''
``So, the bus driver didn't do anything to try to stop
everything that was going on?''
``No, she said she did, but she didn't.''
Kimberly's mother pleaded for help with school officials,
but the attacks continued leaving her with one option. ``I took
my kids off the school bus 2 months out of the last school year
and just had to, basically, carpool them back and forth just to
protect them.''
Now, Kimberly is out of the public system and is being
home-schooled.
``I should be able to send my kids to school, and they
should be able to come home without being afraid of just simply
riding a school bus.''
School board officials agree. ``We do not want to have that
type of behavior on our buses.'' That is Volusia County
School's deputy superintendent, Tim Hewitt.
This is a situation that not only concerned the students
and passengers on the bus but everyone that shares the road as
well, and while most bus drivers work to maintain control are
dangerous situations unavoidable? We will have more at 11. Live
in Volusia County, Sterling Scott, News Center 6.
[End of videotape.]
Mr. Mica. That is a quite remarkable piece I hadn't seen
before, but I would like to again introduce the school
superintendent from one of the counties that I represent, Bill
Hall. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Mica. It is an honor and a
privilege to be here to address this subcommittee.
First, let me address the tape that the audience and you
have just seen. We are not proud of those incidents, obviously,
and we try everything that we can to avoid them. For example,
all of our school buses--and there are 300 plus school buses--
have video cameras on them. Next year, we plan to add bus
assistants to every single bus.
In this particular situation, there is more to the story
than what has been told. However, we are under a lawsuit, I
have to be careful what I say, so I am not going to say much
more than this: that incident could have been avoided if a
different decision had been made somewhere along the line not
to let that student ride that bus. That was a judgment call on
the part of school officials. It is one that I have made before
as a former high school principal. When you think you have
things worked out. They are worked out with counselors
involved, others involved, but it turned out to be a nasty
situation, and it is one that we are not proud of.
Having said that, let me talk about violence in our
schools. I have a written statement that I would like to be
entered into the record and also my verbal comments.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Much has been said and
written in light of the tragic events of past weeks. I will
therefore keep my comments brief and share with you only what I
consider to be the essential elements for school safety being
employed by the Volusia County School District, in the State of
Florida.
This fall, the Volusia County School District will open
with approximately 60,000 students in 67 schools with over
8,000 employees. Although I feel that our schools are among the
safest places to be on a day-to-day basis, no school, public or
private, in America has been left untouched by the recent
tragedy in Colorado. We have seen the effects on our students,
teachers, parents, and community. This event, coupled with
other sudden acts of violence across our country, remind us
that no community can be complacent in its efforts to make
schools safer.
Schools should be a safe haven free of violence and
aggression for students and teachers. Schools have an
obligation to teach and assist in developing responsible
adults. To do so, students and teachers must be provided a
climate for learning, one free of the fear of bullets and
bombs. I propose to you this can only be accomplished with
considerable effort and support from parents and our
communities. Our approach must be multi-faceted, focusing on
enhanced security and discipline. Without increasing our
ability to identify and support troubled and disconnected
youth, ignores our ability as adults to influence our children
and to make a change in their behavior. This is not to say that
there is no need for increased discipline and security. I am
sure that the school districts across the Nation are
reassessing their preparedness for violent acts as we are in
Volusia County.
The Volusia County School District is currently involved in
a district-wide safety and security certification process in
order to ensure that each of the schools maintain a high level
of security. In this process, schools are required to meet a
set of standards divided into five categories covering student
and staff protection and emergency situations. These standards
were developed by the district's safety committee in concert
with the Volusia County Sheriff's Department.
Compliance with certification is a three-step process.
Schools must have a written procedure which adequately
addresses the security standards. The appropriate staff must
know the procedures, and the school must be observed being in
compliance with those procedures. The process establishes a
strong foundation on which individual schools can build a safe
and secure environment. Certification of compliance with the
safety standards begins this fall for all Volusia County
schools, and, as a matter of fact, has already begun.
In developing security plans, it becomes obvious that
schools require a close working relationship with law
enforcement agencies. To further build on those relationships,
our district staff participates in a statewide security
organization. They also maintain weekly meetings with
supervisor personnel for the School Resource Officer Program--
and, by the way, we have school resource officers in every
middle and every high school in this country; that is 21 SROs
in our school system. In these meetings, personnel assess the
risk individual students may pose as well as systemic issues.
Regarding school safety, there are issues with which
Congress can assist local school districts. Districts need
greater flexibility regarding the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, or commonly known as IDEA. Currently, we have
two separate systems of discipline for those who would disrupt
and threaten a safe and orderly school environment. Students
receiving special education services pose no less a threat than
any other student when they demonstrate dangerous or disruptive
behaviors. Where a non-special education student can be
expelled for serious misconduct, consequences for special
education students are greatly restricted, even when weapons
are involved.
Although, technically, a special education student can be
expelled, districts cannot cease special education and related
services as defined by the student's Individual Education Plan.
The cost and method of the individual delivery of such services
prohibit many districts from removing special education
students who have committed serious threats to school safety.
And I am aware that Congress is dealing with this issue as
I speak, and there will be a vote on it at sometime in the
future, and I do not want to place special education in a
different category or say that it is something less than
normal. I taught in special education for 2 years at the
beginning of my career, and I have a special place in my heart
for those students. However, we cannot have two separate
discipline systems, and that is what has currently happened in
every public school district across the Nation.
Safe schools must also have and use a full array of
appropriate support services for students with special learning
and emotional needs. These should be available in all schools
and must be supplemented with services from other agencies,
including mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, and
local law enforcement. I cannot stress enough, the community
and the family must be partners in creating and maintaining
safe schools.
Predicting a violent act is extremely difficult due to
complex human variables. However, research has shown us that
interventions are most effective when made early on and applied
in a consistent manner. A number of professionals and
publications have identified early warning signs for troubled
youth. Recognizing these signs in our students is not a
difficult task. However, most schools are not equipped to
provide complex interventions. These interventions are
particularly important when parents or guardians appear
unconcerned with a child's behavior or risk indicators.
Therefore, communities must come together to form coalitions to
attack the problem of school violence.
In Volusia County, we are inviting community agencies and
professionals, community leaders, and other interested citizens
to meet with us to readdress and enhance our violence
prevention plan. In our violence prevention plan, we continue
to reflect the needs of teachers, students, families, and the
community. The plan will continue to outline how our schools'
faculty will recognize the behavioral and emotional signs that
indicate a student is in trouble and what steps will be taken
to assist the student. Our goal is to have improved access to a
team of specialists trained in evaluating serious behavioral
and academic concerns available to all schools. A tracking
mechanism must be in place to monitor the student's progress
and to assure availability and followup for all identified
interventions. Classroom teachers will have the ability to
consult with team members when they have a concern about a
particular student.
Equally important, students must play an active role in the
school's violence prevention program. We must break the code of
silence which too often exists in our schools. Students should
feel a sense of responsibility to inform someone if they become
aware of another student who may carry out a violent act. They
should not feel as if they are telling on someone but rather as
if they have the responsibility to save others from injury or
harm. Volusia County has recently expanded its confidential
telephone reporting system in conjunction with the Sheriff's
Department and the community. Our students must be encouraged
to seek assistance from parents or other trusted adults if they
are experiencing intense feelings of anger, fear, anxiety, or
depression. Appropriate behavior and respect for others must be
emphasized at all times by all staff members.
In closing, safe schools are places where there is strong
leadership, a caring faculty, student and parent participation,
and community involvement. With the absence of any one of these
elements, we increase the odds for school violence. Keeping our
children safe is a community-wide effort. Our common goal must
be to create and preserve an environment where students truly
feel part of our schools and of the greater community.
Additional resources and not realigned resources must be made
available to achieve our goals. We must try to keep students
engaged and to reconnect with
those who feel isolated and distressed. This responsibility
must be assumed by all of us. Solutions to school violence
cannot solely rest with our schools. It is a societal problem.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.067
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I am pleased now to recognize Dr. Gary M. Fields,
superintendent of Zion-Benton Township High School in Illinois.
Welcome.
Dr. Fields. Thank you. I also have submitted a
comprehensive paper.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record.
Dr. Fields. My comments will be different from that paper.
I would like to tell you a story about a high school of
2,100 students north of Chicago that was troubled; 5 years ago,
we began a journey; 5 years ago, that journey was directed
toward the basic mission of our school being safe, drug free
with a discipline environment conducive to learning. That was
our foundation for our academic improvement plan.
On April 21, I received telephone calls from three school
board members. All three of them said, ``Thank you.'' All three
of them said, ``I didn't agree we needed a full-time school
resource officer. I didn't agree that we needed to bring drug-
sniffing dogs into our high school. I didn't agree we needed a
full-time safety coordinator, but, now, seeing what is
happening in the rest of the country, thank you, because the
plan that we have put in place in our high school has really
made a difference.''
I am proud to say that we have not, in our high school of
2,100 students, made any significant changes since April 20,
and the reason is, we recognized the issues that we had to
address 5 years ago. I am speaking to you as a superintendent
or a high school principal with 30 years of experience in
Wisconsin, Washington State, and Illinois. Our high school is
very diverse. We have a number of kids who come from a very
urban environment; others who come from suburban environments,
but we are very, very different. And I am also speaking to you
probably as a little different type of superintendent, because
my office is right outside of the cafeteria in our high school,
and in order for me to get out of my office, I have to walk
through students all day long. The principal and I both have
our offices in the same building with our 2,100 kids.
Thirty years ago, as a young high school principal in
Wisconsin, I began to learn that just about every serious issue
with high school students involved one common denominator--
drugs. And, as I speak, what we know is that one out of every
three high school students in this country is compromised by
some use of a drug; one out of every three. The drug is either
causing the problem, it is aggravating the problem, or it is
interfering with the solution.
And I would say to you also that in 30 years as a principal
or a superintendent, I have never prayed more; every night and
every morning and as I speak right now that something won't
happen in my high school. In fact, if nothing else happened as
a result of Columbine, it has brought prayer into the public
schools. My faculty prays every single day.
During the last 4 years, I have sat through 55 student
expulsion hearings with our board of education; 45 for
marijuana offenses. We have a true zero toleration policy, but
we do not put students on the street. We do force
accountability. Students are expelled, but they are allowed to
come back under an Expulsion Abeyance Contract with only a
portion of the expulsion being served. If it does involve
drugs--most often marijuana--they must then be drug tested at
parental expense at least twice a month with the results being
released to the principal. I can probably tell you that we are
graduating from high school young people who are drug free as a
result of this policy, and it has made a difference in their
lives.
But there is no one reason for this very difficult, complex
situation. I personally believe marijuana is a key piece of the
puzzle, if one takes a look at all the research and all the
experience. But what we are all about is developing humane
schools that are safe and drug free.
And let me talk just briefly about the funding. Our 2,100
students, this year, are supported by $12 per student of Safe
and Drug Free Schools money, and next year we have been
informed that they will be supported by $8 per student of Safe
and Drug Free Schools money. That is the grant that we have
written right now, and we use all of that money to support our
full-time school resource officer. And, so anything else that
we are doing is a diversion of local taxpayer funds, and, yes,
I am forced and we are forced to write some competitive grants
to get some limited dollars, but the amount of time that it
takes to write those grants is very, very substantial.
Well, anyway, during the last 5 years, here is what has
happened in our school. We have had 50 percent less student
suspensions, 40 percent less fights, 56 percent less agitations
to fight, 23 percent less tobacco violations, 36 percent less
alcohol and drug violations, 64 percent less afterschool
detentions, and 45 percent less in-school detentions. And this
is because of the plan that we put in place 5 years ago.
Why have we changed? The No. 1 reason is school board
policy. We have a very enlightened board. We have a
superintendent and a principal who absolutely will not
compromise our commitment to being safe and drug free. Second
of all, our school improvement plan, the goal of which is
academic improvement, begins with us being safe and drug free.
And, as you know, one of our eight national goals is that
schools would be safe and drug free with a disciplined
environment conducive to learning. I would suggest to you that
is the umbrella goal for all of the others; and, in fact, the
evidence indicates it is the goal we are least succeeding at in
this country. We put that umbrella over our school improvement
plan.
I have heard today that we have to reduce student anonymity
or school size. Absolutely, this is true. However, I am not
suggesting every school in the country needs to do this. And,
by the way, ours is a very comfortable high school. I look
forward to coming to school every single day. I will take
anyone through our building at any time, but every student in
our high school for 2 years and every adult and every visitor
wears an ID like this. We have not had a student in the last 2
years run from an adult in our building because of the ID
policy. When you get on the bus in the school morning, you
can't get on without your ID. The bus driver knows the students
from day one. Substitute teachers know the students, and so the
I.D. policy has really made a difference of eliminating
anonymity.
Third, we have a very active student assistance program
modeled after employee assistance programs. We have had 500
students in the last 4 years participate in one of our student
support groups, including anger management. Every one of our
drug groups has anger management involved, because they are
inseparable.
Fifth, our staff. We have a full-time school resource
officer and full-time safety coordinator and have for 5 years.
Also, we have had extensive training for every one of our
faculty members, for example, on gangs, and we put kids on gang
prevention contracts. If they display any signs or symbols,
their parents are brought in, and parents and kids sign a
contract. Yes, we have kids in gangs, but the evidence during
the school day is non-existent.
Sixth, we have strong parent and community partnerships. We
have coalitions. We are into solutions, not blame. We have 50
members of our communities serving on the Coalition for Healthy
Communities, of which I am the president. And also we have
1,100 of our parents join our parent network and have their
names published in our parent network directory with a
commitment to communicate knowing where their kids are, what
they are doing, and who they are with. These partnerships are
enormous.
And, I guess, No. 7 or 8--whatever that order is--it
obviously involves leadership, and we don't need any funds for
leadership. What we need is enlightened school administrators
and school board members. We need training programs to convince
those in leadership positions that there is no compromise. We
will be safe and drug free; we will keep this message in front
of our kids, in front our parents, in front of our communities.
We will speak that issue every single time.
Finally, we are diverting local resources; there is no
question about that. That is a concern, but I would leave you
with a statement that we need to build comprehensive systems,
because when we put good people in bad systems, the system
always wins.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fields follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.074
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Clarence Cain, a
teacher with the Crisis Resource Program of Maury Elementary
School in Alexandria, VA. You are recognized, sir, and you have
a couple of witnesses with you.
Mr. Cain. Thank you, sir. I am privileged to be here. I am
honored to be here.
My name is Clarence Cain, and I am the crisis resource--one
of the crisis resource teachers in Alexandria, VA.
I would like to start with a statement about what am I,
because that greatly influences whether or not I am effective
as a crisis resource teacher. Although public education is what
I do, it is not what I am. I am a Christian. I belong to Jesus
Christ in attitude and lifestyle. I aim to pattern my steps
after His. I do what I do as I do because I am joined to Him,
and I seek to give my time, talent, and treasure for one
reason: Christ gave His life on behalf of mine.
And then I would like to state briefly strategies I employ
on a daily basis. I pray for each child by name that I am
dealing with, and this is done in my home. And then when I come
to school, I maintain a calm demeanor and patience regardless
of the incidents that I face. On a weekly basis, I employ the
following crisis intervention strategies: small group
isolation, behavioral journals, parent conferences, incentive
plans, BRAG Corps--and I have two representatives here of the
BRAG Corps--prosocial training, student contracts, home visits,
lost privileges, non-violent restraints, final consequences,
also rewards.
I am a Christian who is armed with compassion. I was
inspired to be a teacher. It was not my plan. I had wanted to
be a doctor, but my faith helped me to recognize the problem,
and so I decided to give my time to children within the public
schools. My greatest impact, however, is not made in the public
schools; it is made after school and on the weekends where I am
able to practice my faith as a Christian freely. I have no
power of my own. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God
to purge unrighteousness from the heart of any person or
people. This is my conviction.
And then I want to share a story about a group of kids at
the Fishing School in Northeast Washington that is off the A
Street corridor. I had a group of children that were involved
with me in Bible study. Tom Lewis is a retired police officer.
He is the executive director. He saw me working out in the West
Virginia wilderness with full love of children. My cabin was
honored as the best cabin that week. So, he asked me to come
and lead his program in Northeast Washingotn, DC. I told him
the same thing, I had no power to change human behavior; that
the only way I would accept the job is if he allowed me to
involve his children in Bible study. He agreed. I set the Bible
in front of these kids 5 days a week, Monday through Friday. At
first, they left, but then they came back. One particular
Saturday morning, some of them had come in and wrecked the
place during a meeting with a potential donor. I asked the
question: If Jesus had been there, would they have wrecked the
place? I remember clearly never chastising. I didn't ask them
to do anything. I returned upstairs, and after the meeting was
finished, I came down and the place was spotless. A number of
the kids within the same group a week later confessed Christ as
their own personal savior. This story, and I have countless
stories like this one, is really a prelude to the other reason
why I am here and that is to share in brief detail what I
believe the role of the Church is in terms of stemming the
problem of violence or any other form of unrighteousness that
is in our country.
I am a member of the Crossroads Baptist Church. To me, it
is one of the greatest churches in America today. It has
reproduced itself 11 times, and its ministries and programs are
comprehensive. I will just name a few: Bible preaching, music,
teens, prisons, military, death, children's church, child
development center just to name a few.
It is my personal view that America has come to a place
where children of all backgrounds are now at risk. Our country
is eroding from within; violence and moral corruption are now
threatening to bring this glorious empire to ruins. Unbelief
and unrighteousness is effectively doing to America what the
cold war could not. America's diseased and dying. We are
experiencing a national crisis. To get well, I believe that
America needs a large dose of churches like Crossroads Baptist.
The American people, as any people, need to experience Bible
salvation.
Religion and personal faith in Jesus Christ are not one in
the same, and, with all due respect, religion crucified Christ.
We do not need more religion. As I follow the news, few can
argue with me when I say that some of the most violent nations
in the world are religious. Real change begins within the
heart. The Book of Proverbs says, ``Out of the heart are the
issues of life.''
Today, American television is the mirror of our unrighteous
indulgences as a society. Sin is still a reproach today. A
white gown, fancy suit, college diploma, or fat bank account is
no match for an unregenerate heart. Covetousness and evil
desire threatens the very soul of this Nation, its people.
Under Heaven, there is only one element I know of that
personally cleanses the heart of man--the blood of Jesus.
We, the people of the United States of America, desperately
need the blood of Jesus applied to each of our individual
accounts. If that happens, our homes and our schools will
change for the better. I am a living witness--early Americans
knew it too. Remember the Bible schools of old? I believe a
quality King James version education is still the greatest
heritage we could give our children.
As a Nation, America stands to be blessed, as well. The
Bible says, ``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.''
That is the view that I believe--a prominent view that I
believe the Church can play. I think that it has to be taken
seriously what the Church and its influence can be on a family.
Most of the problems that I experience in school have most to
do with faith, have most to do with lack of values, has most to
do with poor family structure, and there is only one person I
know of who can influence that for the better, and that is my
Savior, Jesus Christ.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cain follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.078
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. Did these young men
want to comment?
Mr. Cain. They are prepared to respond to any direct
questions you might have, and then they want to do a
demonstration, as well.
Mr. Mica. We will ask some questions as we proceed here.
Mr. Cain. OK.
Mr. Mica. We do want to keep the panel moving, and we are
running behind schedule. I appreciate everyone's testimony
today.
We have heard a number of recommendations here today, and I
think that Superintendent Hall commented on the different
standards that we have in schools with the IDEA Program,
special education students. You described two systems of
discipline make it difficult to operate. I would imagine you
are a strong advocate of some congressional change to these
requirements. Is that correct?
Mr. Hall. Yes, I am.
Mr. Mica. And, specifically, how would we deal with this
and still serve the needs of our special education students?
Mr. Hall. Well, Chairman Mica, as I said, disruptive
behavior is disruptive behavior. Currently, the law allows me
to expel a student or suspend a student, a special ed student,
for up to 45 days if they carry a weapon to school. I think the
new legislation would allow me to expel that student for much
longer than that. If you and I were regular students and we
carried a weapon to school, we would be suspended in the State
of Florida for up to 1 full school year after the incident.
That is not happening with special ed students.
Now, I don't want to dwell on special ed students, because
they make up only about 10 percent of our student population,
but the amount of problems that we have, particularly with
emotionally handicapped students and severely emotionally
handicapped students, puts us into a double-tiered discipline
system.
Mr. Mica. Well, you said they only account for about 10
percent of our students, but what percentage of the problems
are you seeing in the school system that they account for?
Mr. Hall. Approximately 40 percent.
Mr. Mica. About 40 percent. So you think you need a little
bit more discretion and flexibility as far as imposing
punishment and restrictions on them?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. We have another superintendent, Mr.--I am sorry,
Dr. Fields, what is your opinion on this?
Dr. Fields. I think we need more local autonomy. I was a
director of special education for 2 years, and so I also have
some background in that. And my recommendation would be that
local school boards are charged with the responsibility of
doing what is best for children, and when we are dealing with
youngsters with severe behavioral manifestations, special
education students, that local boards should have the autonomy
to determine what is best for their own community.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I think you also commented about some
problems with funding limits and the hoops that you go through
to apply for funds. You think we could administer Federal
funding of these programs in some more efficient manner, and
what would you recommend?
Dr. Fields. Well, No. 1, there need to be more. The second
part of the problem is how it comes to us from the States, and
I know every State is different; the requirements are
different. But the fact of the matter is, as I said, $12 per
students this year for Safe and Drug Free Schools money in our
particular case. We don't spend any money on magic programs,
and the kinds of statements that I heard this morning in terms
of some of these kinds of things, I don't know anyone near us
that spends money on those kinds of things.
The fact of the matter is, we need to have programs to
intervene with students who have drug problems--and I mentioned
the marijuana issue. It is so significant. If one really looks
at marijuana and sat through 45 school board hearings, as I
have, and sees the behavioral manifestations of those students,
the dollars that we need, we shouldn't be forced, necessarily,
to compete for, and if there are going to be dollars, they
should be more entitlement dollars coming to us, and, again,
there needs to be flexibility with those dollars.
But the grants and writing for those grants--and I looked
at the booklet over here and the June 1 deadline, we simply
don't have grant writers. Big districts can afford to hire
grant writers to write those programs. We have got 2,100 high
school kids, and if I don't write the grant, no one does. So,
it is a difficult issue.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we have our two youngest
witnesses, Jeffrey and Anthony. Can you quickly demonstrate for
the subcommittee how your BRAG Program disciplines students?
They have been waiting 5 hours to do this. [Laughter.]
We should give them both a medal.
[Demonstration.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you, gentleman, for showing us
what you do in your program.
Maybe, briefly, Mr. Cain, you could just tell us the
purpose of that exercise?
Mr. Cain. The drill teams or the BRAG Corps is an acronym
for Behavior, Respect, Attitude, and Grades. It is basically an
afterschool club that works in conjunction with the classroom
to help modify student behaviors if necessary. It actually
originated in the District, in Washington, DC. It used to be--
it is called in DC, the Gentleman's Club, and it is basically a
club for black boys who cause problems in schools, and there is
about 15 of them in DC today, and, from what I understand,
where they exist, discipline problems are reduced by 90
percent. I started my career in DC and came across a gentleman
who founded the program. His name is Leslie Newsome, retired as
of today.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now to Mr. Barr,
the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
demonstration, Mr. Cain, as well as the explanation of the
program. I also appreciate your references to God and Jesus
Christ, and I appreciate the fact that you are not ashamed to
say that in your personal life and in your professional life
and obviously practice it, as well.
One of the things that hangs on the wall of our office in
the building right next door is the Ten Commandments. There is
no ode to wiccan. There is no statement of secular humanism or
other of the movements that seem to be taking hold in our
society, even on U.S. military bases. Now, the practice of
witchcraft, wicca, is being allowed as a practice of a
legitimate religion, under the guise of a legitimate religion,
and officially sanctioned by our military. I also read that the
movement called secular humanism, which also is an anti-God
movement, is putting on a new face to make itself more
presentable to young people on campuses and high schools. And
these sorts of things simply illustrate the depth of the
problem that we face.
I have never had anybody that has come into our office and
felt intimidated because the Ten Commandments are there. We
don't require anybody to pay homage to them. We certainly hope
that all human beings adhere to them; they obviously don't. But
it is not an intimidating document, and I am, of course, very
distressed, as probably a lot of people are, perhaps, including
some others on this panel, that for the past 38 years we have
consciously sought to remove any vestige of religion from our
public schools, and I think that was a very serious mistake,
but there isn't much that we can do about it these days.
Just in Georgia, recently, students were denied at a
graduation ceremony from even referencing God. It wasn't
anything the school would have sanctioned. It was simply the
students wanted to do that, and they were denied that
opportunity. I sometimes think that if we had the Ten
Commandments on more walls and more schools and public
buildings, it might cause people to think a little bit more
about what those things mean.
So, I appreciate the fact that at least you stepped forward
and are not ashamed to say that, and you don't require other
people to adhere to it, but I think by example it has a great
deal of meaning to others, so I appreciate that very much.
I also appreciate--I think both Mr. Hall and Dr. Fields, in
your presentation, you talked about the consistency of the way
we treat students with the overriding goal being the protection
of students against acts of violence in our schools. And, it
seems to me that if we approach the problem of school violence
from the standpoint that the primary responsibility of our
schools is to, aside from teaching our children, to protect our
students and teach them in an environment that is free from
violence or the threat of violence against the students, that
that leads us to a number of conclusions, one of which is that
if students are found to cause acts of violence or to bring
weapons on school property, the school administrators ought to
have the power to remove those students and not be able to
remove only those, for example, that don't claim that bringing
that weapon on school is a manifestation of a disability or
something.
And that gets us into the IDEA Program. I have legislation
pending that, in so far as the IDEA Program, can and has been
used as a shield behind which to prevent local school
administrators from treating a student who claims an IDEA
disability the same as another student when they bring weapons
into the schools. It would level the playing field.
Do you think that this, Mr. Hall--would this be an
appropriate step? It doesn't say anything about teaching
students with disabilities. It simply says that there is an
overarching concern here where you have students that bring
weapons into the schools, that they ought to be treated the
same. Whether they claim this was a manifestation of their
disability or they don't, it poses the same threat to other
students.
Mr. Hall. I think that is an appropriate step; yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. Dr. Fields, would you feel the same way?
Dr. Fields. Yes, absolutely. I used to use the term
``common sense,'' and I have learned that there is no such
thing as common sense. The common sense answer is, if a student
is dangerous to others, that student cannot be there.
Mr. Barr. Would it be appropriate to ask our two young
witnesses a question, Mr. Cain?
Mr. Cain. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. And you can certainly put it in other words.
I would like to know--we talked before with the earlier
panel about children paying attention to what happens in our
society. Sometimes, I think we operate as if only we know what
is going on, the adults. But I think students do pay attention,
and if they see people being treated differently, people not
being punished, whether it is a high political official,
somebody at school, a movie star or sports star, children
notice that. I would be interested in what your two witnesses,
the two young men that are with you, whether they do pay
attention to that sort of thing and whether it impacts them?
Mr. Cain. These are two of my most articulate members. They
are small and in third grade, but these are the sergeants of
the BRAG Corps, so they are prepared to speak for themselves,
if you will ask the question directly.
Mr. Barr. OK, if you two young men would tell me, if you
see somebody who has done wrong, who did drugs, for example, or
committed an act of violence and they are not punished, do you
think that is wrong? Do you think everybody who does wrong
ought to be punished the same?
Mr. Shurott. Yes, I think that they should all be punished
the same because they all did that.
Mr. Barr. Do you agree, sir, the other young gentleman?
Mr. Snead. Yes, I do.
Mr. Barr. Do you all get good grades?
Mr. Shurott. Yes.
Mr. Snead. Yes.
Mr. Barr. Is that important also, to get good grades?
Mr. Shurott. Yes.
Mr. Snead. Yes.
Mr. Barr. Good. Well, I appreciate then--I know I probably
can speak for the chairman too--we appreciate you all being
here very much, and I appreciate all of the witnesses. All of
these are important--what you all have been talking about are
very, very important pieces of an overall solution.
Mr. Cain. Sir, if I may, these are honor students. They
weren't specific. They are honor students.
Mr. Barr. Well, I am glad you let us know that. Obviously,
they don't go around wearing that on their sleeve, and I
appreciate you telling us that. It makes them even more
impressive.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much for your testimony and
participation, each and every one. We do try to build a record
here, and we have a responsibility of oversight and
investigation of the various Federal programs and how they are
working, and we take your comments very seriously. So, if we
have no further questions of this panel, we will dismiss at
this time and thank you again for being with us.
Mr. Cain. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I would like to call our final panel, and we have
two witnesses on that panel now. First, we have Mr. Kevin
Dwyer, president elect of the National Association of School
Psychologists, and then we have Mr. James Baker, executive
director of the Institute for Legislative Action of the
National Rifle Association.
If we could have our two witnesses please come up and join
us, and, staff, if you could make certain that we have their
proper identification.
Gentleman, as I mentioned before, this is an investigation
and oversight subcommittee. I apologize for the late hour. We
did have almost an hour of votes in between. So, we are running
behind, but I do thank you for being patient.
If you wouldn't mind, could you please stand and be sworn
in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Again, I want to thank you, and if you have
lengthy statements or documentation, we would be glad to put
that in the record. I recognize, first, Mr. Kevin Dwyer,
president elect of the National Association of School
Psychologists.
STATEMENTS OF KEVIN DWYER, PRESIDENT ELECT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS; AND JAMES BAKER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dwyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful that
you are having these hearings and looking for information that
is sound and based on research.
My name is Kevin Dwyer. I am a nationally certified school
psychologist. I am president elect of the National Association
of School Psychologists, representing the 21,000 members who
serve in 15,000 school districts, in 85,000 public schools and
15,000 private schools across the Nation. We also serve in
overseas and Defense Department schools, as well. We also
provide services to children in the private schools,
particularly children who have disabilities.
School psychologists are highly trained mental health
behavioral and academic experts in both emotional and
developmental learning.
I was a school psychologist for 31 years working in
schools. I retired in 1993. I worked with about 10,000
youngsters. I am also the parent of seven children and I have
eight grandchildren, and so I have a big investment in
education and the future of education, as well.
The Federal role in helping communities to make schools
safer and drug free and more conducive to learning should
include technical support and resources for local schools to
ensure that all children are healthy, ready to learn, and able
to achieve their academic, physical and psycho-social potential
as citizens in a democratic society. One of the ways to do this
is through some of the programs that have already been
discussed here today, and that is full service schools.
Full service schools, like Jesse Keen Elementary School in
Lakeland, FL, are examples of how Federal funds have been
successful in really helping schools locally. Federal funds are
provided to schools through title I and also through some
additional funds. In that school, it is demonstrated, with
teacher and staff training, using theory-based, research-based
practices, that children could be taught not only to read and
write and problem solve but also to respect each other and
respect their teachers.
Children are taught to think before they act; basically, to
stop and think--which, by the way, is very hard to do in
today's society since we teach kids through our media to be
impulsive. Teaching children to stop and think before they act;
to solve problems, and these children are held accountable for
their actions. They are taught to make choices, and they are
held accountable for their actions when they make bad choices.
The program has significantly reduced fighting,
suspensions, costly grade retention, and the program has also
reduced by almost 90 percent the number of students referred to
special education, again, reducing costs.
The Federal role was carried out through legislation that
supports prevention of behavioral problems through school-wide
programs, and I think this is one of the things that we have
heard in testimony a couple of times this morning and from Dr.
Sherman. Programs that are successful are school-wide programs.
Programs that are not successful are small programs that are
attached to schools.
These coordinated programs are the most cost-effective when
combined with interventions that focus on those children who
need intensive help to address their serious emotional
problems, as was talked about this morning by Dr. Chevez. And,
by the way, the reality of the situation is that most
emotionally disabled kids who need emotional and psychological
help are not getting it. It isn't just that 60 percent aren't
getting it; most of these kids aren't getting it, and they are
not getting it intensively enough to make the difference.
I am also glad that this committee is asking: How do we
know that programs work? Is there research data or significant
field testing that proves the results are sustained over time?
Are the programs family friendly, and are they culturally
sound? Feel good programs with anecdotal data do not reduce
violence or classroom disruptions, and this is something that
really disturbs me. We continue to support programs that may
make people feel good. They may look good even, but they don't
necessarily have any results that show a dramatic change.
Teachers and families, by the way, lose hope when programs
fail. The longer a poorly treated problem persists, the more
difficult it is to treat. It is like using a low dose of an
antibiotic or the wrong antibiotic to fight a serious
infection. The child's disease becomes more resistant even to a
good treatment.
The Federal role should be to ensure that local school
communities are given the guidance--and this is important in
terms of the discussion we have had so far in this committee--
to recognize what is an effective program and what is not. Too
many schools are reacting to the current rash of school
shootings by buying a slick curriculum or a consultant or
hardware that they have been told will make their school safe.
Too much of this commercial material is unproven and
ineffective. Metal detectors, school uniforms may be good, but
they are totally unproven. We have no research data that shows
that they work in reducing school violence.
Another thing I want to talk about is Medicaid. Medicaid,
right now, is an available funding source that could provide
local school systems finances to reduce the burden on local
taxpayers by equalizing the funding of school-based services to
children of poverty who could benefit from those services. When
services are provided early in their natural setting in the
school, they are shown to be much more effective. The Social
Security Administration does not see ``the medical necessity''
and frequently invalidates the credentials of schools service
providers. That is something that Congress could deal with and
I think deal with effectively. I heard you talk about parity,
which I think is another issue related to funding services.
The GAO Study in 1995, which was a report to Congress,
reported what effective programs must look like. They must be
comprehensive; they must start early; they must have strong
management; they must use consistent disciplinary codes; they
must provide teacher training, parent involvement, and
interagency collaboration. This is the kind of program that
project Achieve that Jesse Kean Elementary School I mentioned
in Florida has.
Last, I would like Congress to think about providing ways
to curb the exposure to overstimulating media that pushes many
of our children to thoughts of violence and destruction. I
believe also that we have a national responsibility that is
seriously neglected and that is, the access of firearms in
millions of our homes. Children, particularly those with
impulsive or emotional problems, who have access to firearms,
are a clear danger to themselves and others.
The United States leads the world in homicides and suicides
of teenagers. Homicide and suicide are the major causes of
death among adolescents in the United States, and firearms are
the major weapon for those homicides and suicides. You have a
98 percent chance of completing a suicide with a firearm and an
8 percent change of completion when taking pills.
I think that we need to make certain that we don't allow
access. I am not saying we do away with guns; I am saying we
don't allow access of firearms to children. We have to do
something about that. Access to firearms in the home is a
primary difference between our country and the other comparable
countries in the world. It is a difficult issue; it is not an
easy issue, but it is one that we can't continue to ignore. And
I am not saying that is the only thing we have
to do. The thing that we really have to do is institute these
comprehensive programs both in our school and our community. I
totally agree with the responsibility concepts that have been
discussed here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dwyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.113
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Dwyer and probably purposely
timed, although he has had to wait a long time to be on this
panel, our last witness, Mr. James Baker, who is executive
director for the Institute of Legislative Action for the
National Rifle Association. You are welcome, recognized, and
thank you again for your patience.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. On behalf of our nearly 3 million members and the
approximately 80 million law-abiding gun owners in this Nation,
we appreciate the opportunity to testify here today.
The NRA joins the Nation in expressing our shock, grief and
sympathy at the tragedy that transpired in Littleton, but we do
not presume to cast ourselves as the most qualified experts in
the root causes of juvenile violence. The committee has heard
from several panels today representing a far broader realm of
expertise in this particular area.
And for that reason, my testimony will be very brief, and
it is a brevity that reflects what we believe is the absence of
a nexus between second amendment issues and the tragedy that
transpired Colorado and in other schools across the country.
For our 128 years of existence, the NRA has been unwavering
in our consistent condemnation of the misuse of firearms. We
have already supported legislation that prohibits and severely
punishes the criminal misuse of firearms. That commitment is
reflected in one sense by the shear number of laws that were
already broken by the perpetrators of the terrible attack in
Littleton, CO. By our estimation, in Littleton, 22 separate
State and Federal firearms laws and explosive laws were
violated, and I have included a copy of those statutes with my
testimony and would like to make those copies part of the
record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, they will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Baker. One of those statutes is the Federal Gun Free
School Zones Act, first passed in 1992 and revised in 1996,
without objection from the National Rifle Association. As
recently as last week, we very publicly reiterated our
commitment to a clear policy of zero tolerance for violations
of that act. Yet the very same Department of Justice that is
regularly enlisted by the White House to lobby for restrictions
on lawful firearms, users, has, in our opinion, been derelict
in enforcing that law. The administration admits that over
6,000 juveniles were expelled from school during the 1996-1997
school year, alone, for violating the clear prohibitions of
this act. And yet over those past 3 years, the Department of
Justice has prosecuted only four violators in 1996, five in
1997, and eight in 1998.
Evidence of dereliction is present in the prosecution
record of nearly every other Federal firearms prohibition, as
well. The administration championed the Youth Handgun Safety
Act, which banned the juvenile possession of handguns, but the
Department of Justice has prosecuted only 20 violations of this
act in the past 3 years. In recent days, the Justice Department
has attempted to blunt the sting of this revelation by saying
that such prosecutions are better handled at the State and
local level. Well, if that is truly the case, Mr. Chairman,
then why is the administration pushing for more Federal laws
they clearly have no intention of enforcing?
The American people understand that laws without teeth
cannot restrain lawless behavior. We will never know how many
lives could have been saved over the years if the laws that are
currently on the books had simply been enforced. We do know
that further posturing on behalf of passing new restrictions is
meaningless unless it is matched by a commitment to
enforcement.
We urge the committee and the House to refrain from a
purely political response to the tragedies, such as Littleton,
and we are encouraged that this committee has taken the time to
engage in the deliberative process of this hearing. The reflex
to cast about for a party to blame in the aftermath of any
tragedy is understandable, but we believe we must not lose site
of the fundamental precept of American jurisprudence, which is,
that individuals are responsible for their own actions.
We stand ready to work with the House throughout this
legislative process, and, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.120
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony and
for your enduring patience this afternoon.
I was interested to hear Mr. Dwyer say that one of his
concerns is the access to firearms, particularly among
behaviorally or emotionally disturbed children. We already have
some laws that deal with this, and we heard the representative
from NRA say that those laws aren't being enforced; 6,000
students expelled and only a handful that they have gone after.
Is there something missing in the law, Mr. Dwyer, and, Mr.
Baker, the same question, or is it a question of enforcement?
Mr. Dwyer. The things that I am talking about--most of the
youngsters, by the way, that I am thinking of who have used
weapons, particularly those who use them on themselves, that is
done in the home, and those are weapons that they just have
available to them. I believe that in most of those situations
if those firearms weren't available to them at that time, they
would still be alive. I have worked with--I have had three
youngsters--one murdered another youngster; one murdered
another youngster and then hung himself in jail, and another
one shot himself with his father's pistol; bought a bullet for
it, because his father didn't have any ammunition in the home.
But the reality is that we need to take responsibility. We need
to work together to take responsibility; to figure out ways to
make sure that families, if they do have weapons in their
homes, that they have ways of preventing the youngsters from
having access to those weapons.
The other--and I say this to parents all the time--if you
have an emotionally disturbed child, a depressed child or a
child with severe attention deficit disorder with impulsivity,
you should take the guns out of your house for the period of
time that they are growing up, particularly as they are moving
through adolescence. It is too dangerous. It is just pure and
simply too dangerous.
We need to think a little bit about danger. We lock our
cars, because we don't want people to take them. We think about
if there are children around, we don't do things that are going
to cause them harm. We have laws about lead paint. We have all
these kinds of rules and regulations. We have got to do
something about this one, because, frankly, we lead the world,
accounting for 78 percent of the firearms deaths of children
and youth out of 26 countries. OK, 78 percent of firearms
deaths are in the United States even though we only have 38
percent of the children among those 26 countries. I mean, this
is something that we have to look at, and we have to work on
this together, bipartisanly.
I think this is something that we just need to come up with
some good ideas, some effective ideas that will prevent these
deaths from happening. I tell their parents to get the guns out
of the house if they have troubled children. Put them in a
safety deposit box until things get better, and I do that as a
professional, but I think that is one person. We need to have
some way to publicly communicate this to our Whole Nation.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Baker, did you want to respond?
Mr. Baker. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that there is
any way that we can legislate responsibility, but I certainly
agree with Mr. Dwyer to the extent that we need to, through
education and training, provide for secure storage of firearms.
We have been an advocate of that since we were formed. From the
standpoint, with the right to own a firearm, comes the
responsibility to safely use it, to safely store it. Certainly
in the context of the home where there are juveniles, they
ought to be safely stored. We spend millions of dollars a year
as do the firearms industry in just those types of education
and safety training programs around the country, and I couldn't
agree with Mr. Dwyer more that the question of safety in the
home is one of education, and there is really no way to
legislate that.
Mr. Mica. Well, finally, my question about access. Are
there additional measures that Congress can take relating to
access or are the laws sufficient in keeping firearms away from
young people and those at risk?
Mr. Baker. Well, just a couple of a factual matters. There
were as many firearms in 1950 per capita as there are now, and
yet we didn't seem to have the same problems in the 1950's with
the misuse of firearms that we seem to be experiencing today.
So, there are clearly factors other than there being firearms.
There were firearms then and the same numbers per capita as
there are now. So, there are other factors at play, and I must
admit that the National Rifle Association and myself,
personally, are not experts, but you have had a number of very
qualified and articulate spokesmen for various programs and
plans. I don't think that the number of firearms out there is
the answer to the violence or is even a component answer to the
violence. It goes far beyond that.
Mr. Dwyer. The violence--excuse me--may I?
Mr. Mica. Mr. Dwyer.
Mr. Dwyer. The increase in adolescent and youth violence in
homicide and suicide, both, has been dramatic in the last 20
years; a dramatic increase--186 percent increase in homicides;
and a 300 percent increase in suicide in kids under the age of
14. It is not that there are more weapons out there; it is what
people are perceiving as their use. It is what we are teaching
our kids through a lot of different media and through a lot of
other different things that firearms solve problems. It is the
interaction effect. I mean, if you want to research this--I
don't want to be too technical--but it is the interaction
effect of all these things together that make--and no offense--
that make guns more dangerous today than they were in 1950.
That is the issue--they are more dangerous today than they were
in 1950 when they were in your homes. That is all I can say. I
mean, that is the truth; that is the reality.
The other thing that I think--we want to use proven
practices that work and in schools, we know exactly what works.
I would like to make sure that my extended testimony is in the
record, because in there we talk about those programs, and they
relate to legislation that you and Mr. Barr and others would
like to support. I think we have--you know, we have ESEA coming
up, and we have a lot of other legislative proposals coming up.
If people are going to do things--if we are going to fund
things on a local level and give the responsibility to the
local people to have those funds, that is fine, but let us make
sure that we take our responsibility--you and I take our
responsibility to make sure that they don't waste that money.
That is what Dr. Sherman was saying before and what I am most
worried about. I don't want that money to be wasted. I see the
failures; I see the pain; I see people die, and I don't want to
see that happen anymore with my kids or anyone's kids.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I will yield now to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and at the expense of
praising you too much and giving you a swelled head, I would
like to thank you for the entire panels that we have had today,
including this last one, and I appreciate both the chairman's
patience as well as the patience of our witnesses. But I have
appreciated very much the opportunity to listen to the panels
today and to have the opportunity to read at least most of the
written testimony.
One thing that I know, Mr. Baker, you are very, very well
aware of, because the NRA addresses the issue of consistency of
prosecutions of crimes involving firearms, and I know that you
are probably even more aware than I am since this is one of the
key issues that your job forces you to focus on. The
inconsistency and lack of--actually, it isn't inconsistency in
this regard; it is that the administration is consistently not
prosecuting these cases. But the message that that sends to
people, and I appreciate your trying to focus attention on
these sorts of these things.
So, as a former prosecutor, I know how important not just
the substantive tools that a prosecutor has available to him or
her but the message that consistent prosecution sends to the
public and developing respect for law across the board. So, I
appreciate your work in this area.
Mr. Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Barr. What I would like to do, just one question, Mr.
Baker. If you could, just very briefly explain the nature of
some of the educational and law enforcement programs that the
NRA is involved in, because I know that doesn't get a lot of
the attention that some of the other work that you all do. But
I think, particularly in light of the fact that this hearing is
about children, it might be important, if you could just take a
minute or so.
Mr. Baker. Sure, and I would be happy to supply a more
extensive account of that for the committee, for the record. As
it says in my title, I am the lobbyist for the association. But
we have over 400 employees in the building, most of whom are
dedicated to the safety and training aspects of firearms
ownership, and that run programs from the grade school level on
up to adults. And, as I said in one of the chairman's
questions, firearm ownership is a right as well as a
responsibility, and the responsibility part of firearm
ownership deals with safe handling, safe storage, and safe use
of firearms. We have a gun avoidance program for school age
children that speaks specifically to, if they see a gun, stop;
don't touch; tell an adult. And it is entirely and completely a
gun avoidance program, and we have those sorts of programs that
are relevant for every age group, as I said, up through adults.
And, as you mentioned briefly, we train and have trained
for years law enforcement around the country in safe and
efficient use of firearms, and while we get a lot of press for
the lobbying we do and what we talk about relative to
prosecutions and what you and I have talked about here, what we
have done for most of our history is education and training,
and it is what we continue to emphasize from the standpoint of
where our resources are put. The majority of our resources goes
to our general operations divisions that deal with education
training across the country.
But I can certainly expand on that with a written
submission.
Mr. Barr. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.122
Mr. Barr. Do we have a vote, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Barr. So, I have time for just one more question. To
Mr. Dwyer, I very much appreciate your testimony and your
expertise in this area.
It seems to me that as a non-expert in this area as you
are, just looking at it more as a layperson, there are
basically two problems that we have. One is to try and identify
kids that are out there now that are problems or that may snap
and become a very serious problem, and then the other focus
ought to be what do we do in the future to avoid those--prevent
those kids from developing that way?
Given that we probably will never have the resources to do
everything to address this problem what would you say are the
most important things that we can be doing right now to try and
identify those children that might be--if anything, to identify
children that might be problems before they--and I don't know
whether the correct word is ``snap'' or what--like the kids in
Littleton did before that happens again?
Mr. Dwyer. We need, Mr. Barr--and I think this is a
critical issue--we need to find those kids, but we also need to
treat those kids. In other words, once we find them, we have
got to do something to make sure that they don't carry out--
they don't become more violent or more aggressive.
But the thing that we need--and I know this is probably
unrealistic--but in every school, we need a person with my
credentials who teachers and parents can come to, and they can
say--and I am a school psychologist--they can say, ``I am
worried about what is happening. I see these changes in this
boy's behavior, this girl's behavior. I am concerned about
that.'' And then I can----
Mr. Barr. Excuse me, while you are talking about that, are
there Federal laws that pose restrictions right now on your
ability to do that or the ability of parents to come in and
speak freely and frankly with you?
Mr. Dwyer. No. The reality of the situation is that there
just aren't enough persons--there aren't enough school
psychologists, school counselors, those kinds of persons in
schools in the United States. I mean, we have 1 school
psychologist for every 2,300 kids. That is like a teacher
having 50 or more in a class. Very few high schools have a
full-time school psychologist.
Mr. Barr. Is there sort of--and I know it would vary--but
what sort of costs are we talking about in a school to do that?
Mr. Dwyer. The salary for a school psychologist is the same
as the salary for a teacher. So, it is like hiring another
teacher except that we have an advanced degree, so if you pay
extra for 60 credits above a Bachelor's degree, that is what
you would be paying a school psychologist. They don't get any
more--I didn't make any more money than anybody else when I
worked in the schools.
Mr. Barr. And I don't want you to go on the record here
about your personal situation, but is there sort of an average
that we are talking about, because, certainly, in terms of
appropriations and money, that would be a concern?
Mr. Dwyer. Yes, that is a very good point, and we are--
actually, literally, 2 nights ago, I was made aware that there
is a research project right now going on to get the average--
what is the average salary, but the average salary in Georgia
is very different from the average salary in Scarsdale, NY.
Mr. Barr. It is probably lower in Georgia.
Mr. Dwyer. Yes, it is, much.
Mr. Barr. If you could get that to us, I would really like
to look at that.
Mr. Dwyer. We will try to get some information to you on
that, but that may not be ready until August.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.123
Mr. Dwyer. But we need teams of people, like you, as a
parent, that I, as a teacher, if I were a teacher, could go to
and say, ``I am worried about what I see.''
And then an other thing that we need that is really
critical--and it was mentioned by Dr. Sherman in his testimony
but not in his presentation--was that we need to teach kids
problem solving skills, to teach kids the skills, to teach
respect and responsibility. I know it is a parental
responsibility, but we need to do it in our schools too. If the
parents aren't doing it, we have got to do it. Thank you.
Mr. Barr. And I think that ties in, I think, Mr. Baker,
with what you are saying also--respect, discipline.
Mr. Baker. Absolutely.
Mr. Barr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Baker.
Mr. Mica. Well, I would like to thank both of our
panelists. It was the last panel, but, nonetheless, it will be
part of the record that we are trying to build in order to
review this whole question of school violence.
We do appreciate your testimony. We will leave the record
open for 2 weeks, and, without any other further business to
come before this subcommittee at this time, this meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3843.131
-